Gay marriage opponents seek to reverse new law

Judged:

1

1

1

Think wrote:

Great arguments here on why gay "marriage" should not be legalized. Nothing on why it should.

Judged:

1

1

1

Think wrote:

Great arguments here on why gay "marriage" should not be legalized. Nothing on why it should.

Judged:

1

1

1

eric wrote:

When did vote on the right to marry someone of a different race?

eric wrote:

When did we vote for desegregation of schools?

Judged:

2

2

2

Don wrote:

<quoted text>
Equality before the law is a natural right enshrined in the constitution.

Judged:

2

2

1

Randall Stone wrote:

Oops....
There is NOW the basic right to marry someone of your same sex in California. These laws voted by the people have been adjusted to be in line with the constitution. Through time some bigoted laws have been adjusted to be in line with the constitution and not prejediced. And many of these originally discriminatory laws were based on religious faith. They were horrific in their time and it is only now that we are embarassed by them. And even in those earlier times, the religious claimed that it would cause a terrible decline in society and (some even) claimed would bring armaggedon. Their claims were something out of the Unabombers perspective.
Remember the interracial marriage restrictions? People "back then" (it wasn't that long ago) claimed that the bible defined marriage as to only exist between those of the same ethnic groups. To alter those laws *restricting* marriage to the same ethnic groups was claimed to be the downfall of society and that we should "get right with God" or face the consequences. The EXACT SAME ARGUMENT is being made here and I will be just as embarassed in the years to come as I am now about interracial marriage. It is sad to see those that claim to be seeking clean souls and righteous lifestyles fight against the basic RIGHTS that are CURRENTLY law in California. But make no mistake about it - the tide has changed and this heavy discrimination is over.

Judged:

1

1

1

tough shlt wrote:

<quoted text>Race and homosexuality have nothing to do with each other. You can't choose your race (except Michael Jackson...and he has the money to do it). The other is a choice.

Judged:

1

1

1

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
What "equality before the law" means is "equal protection of the laws".
And it is "enshrined" in California law, as it is in American law generally, that "equal protection of the laws" does NOT mean that "everybody must be treated equally"; rather, it means that CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED IN ALL PERTINENT RESPECTS are entitled to have the laws applied equally to them -- as is illustrated in this quote by Justice Werdegar from the 2/7/08 California Supreme Court criminal case of People v. Brasure comparing the classes of capital and noncapital defendants:
"Because capital and noncapital defendants are not similarly situated in the pertinent respects, equal protection principles do not mandate that capital sentencing and sentence-review procedures parallel those used in noncapital sentencing.(citations)"
--------
With respect to the pertinent marriage purpose of supporting sexual relationships that are uniquely capable of producing offspring, same-sex relationships are NOT similarly situated with opposite-sex relationships and thus are NOT entitled to the same treatment for equal protection purposes.

Judged:

1

1

1

Quest wrote:

<quoted text>
And this is bad, why?
If laws are designed soley to harm others, hurt couples, threaten the elderly, and make families with children less secure, they should be fought.
I could care less if someone "accepts" my marriage or not, other than in the civil and legal sense. As long as my wife and kids have the same security and protections that straight couples have, I'm content.

Judged:

1

1

1

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
So my question to you is this: when did we as a country amend the US Constitution in order to clarify that, yes indeed, the COMMON UNDERSTANDING that the spouses of the marital relationship of a MAN and a WOMAN joined together as husband and wife NO LONGER APPLIES, so that now the marital relationship is enlarged to include a MAN and a MAN, or a WOMAN and a WOMAN, in addition to a MAN and a WOMAN?

Judged:

1

1

1

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
With respect to the pertinent marriage purpose of supporting sexual relationships that are uniquely capable of producing offspring, same-sex relationships are NOT similarly situated with opposite-sex relationships and thus are NOT entitled to the same treatment for equal protection purposes.

Judged:

1

1

1

Don wrote:

<quoted text>
Equality before the law is a natural right enshrined in the constitution.

Judged:

1

1

1

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Sexual preferences are DEVELOPMENTAL; since nobody is born having sex, thinking about sex, or even knowing what sex is, it's safe to conclude that nobody is born with a sexual preference.

Will wrote:

And merely having a genetic predisposition, which may be the case with those who may have been born with "homosexual tendencies", is no guarantee that the necessary epigenetic and other environmental factors will kick in to cause homosexuality to be expressed in an individual -- in that sense, having a homosexual genetic predisposition is no different than having a genetic predisposition for breast cancer, diabetes or alcoholism.

Will wrote:

So, if NON-genetic environmental factors are NECESSARY to actually trigger the genetic expression of homosexuality, then the CHOICES one makes in exposing oneself to those non-genetic trigger environments is even MORE important than any genetic predisposing factors that one may have been born with but which will never develop into homosexuality in the ABSENCE of those triggers.

Judged:

1

1

1

Will wrote:

<quoted text>
What "equality before the law" means is "equal protection of the laws".
And it is "enshrined" in California law, as it is in American law generally, that "equal protection of the laws" does NOT mean that "everybody must be treated equally"; rather, it means that CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED IN ALL PERTINENT RESPECTS are entitled to have the laws applied equally to them -- as is illustrated in this quote by Justice Werdegar from the 2/7/08 California Supreme Court criminal case of People v. Brasure comparing the classes of capital and noncapital defendants:
"Because capital and noncapital defendants are not similarly situated in the pertinent respects, equal protection principles do not mandate that capital sentencing and sentence-review procedures parallel those used in noncapital sentencing.(citations)"
--------
With respect to the pertinent marriage purpose of supporting sexual relationships that are uniquely capable of producing offspring, same-sex relationships are NOT similarly situated with opposite-sex relationships and thus are NOT entitled to the same treatment for equal protection purposes.

El Paso Citizen wrote:

fa gs should live in hell

Dani California wrote:

I thought all marriages took place with some kind of holy figure?
I thought otherwise it wasn't a legal bonding!

El Paso Citizen wrote:

fa gs should live in hell

Judged:

1

1

1

Inquisitarian wrote:

<quoted text>
Then by your reasoning, I hold it to be true that infertile couples are not similarly situated with other opposite-sex relationships, and thus are NOT entitled to the same treatment for equal protection purposes vis-a-vis legal marriage.
The point being that supporting sexual relationships capable of producing offspring isn't the overarching, pertinent marriage purpose that you're portraying it to be.