Gay Marriage Debate - Indianapolis, IN

You mean like heteros contribute by having 800,000+ abortions a year, rampant STD's, etc? We do other things besides have sex. Have you ever accomplished anything in your sad little life?

Linda Bledsoe wrote:

<quoted text>
I would love to hear how you came up with this one. Do you mean a higher rate of AIDS and STDs, increased levels of drug and alcohol abuse, lower life expectancies, lower standards of living, decreased property values, and increases in overall crime? If so, I would agree that gays have contributed as much or more than any other group except for maybe blacks.

from Greensburg Topix Forum
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#51 18 min ago
Court: CA Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional

By LISA LEFF Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO February 7, 2012 (AP)

A federal appeals court on Tuesday declared California's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional but agreed to give sponsors of the bitterly contested, voter-approved law time to appeal the ruling before ordering the state to resume allowing gay couples to wed.

The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court judge correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents when he declared in 2010 that Proposition 8 — a response to an earlier state court decision that legalized gay marriage — was a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians.
HH Quote: What about the civil rights of the voters?
HH Quote: How can '2' overrule a vote by the majority? Does that sound [right] to you?

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," states the opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the court's most liberal judges.
HH Quote: human dignity...they lost that by choice
in my opinion by being gays and lesbians.
HH Quote: If 'queers' want to join in some kind of
permenant relationship that's fine with me, but don't call it marriage - that's between a man & a woman God and me both say so!

cpeter1313 wrote:

You mean like heteros contribute by having 800,000+ abortions a year, rampant STD's, etc? We do other things besides have sex. Have you ever accomplished anything in your sad little life?
<quoted text>

You didn't answer the question. If only you would have been aborted, the world would be a better place. Your parents must live with that failure every single day, which I am sure is a devastating burden to bear. They do deserve part of the blame though. Had they provided you just a little more attention, you may not have grown into the vile and hate-filled entity you now are.

Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:

HH Quote: What about the civil rights of the voters?
HH Quote: How can '2' overrule a vote by the majority? Does that sound [right] to you?

Voters have no authority to pass laws that are unconstitutional.

Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:

HH Quote: human dignity...they lost that by choice
in my opinion by being gays and lesbians.
HH Quote: If 'queers' want to join in some kind of
permenant relationship that's fine with me, but don't call it marriage - that's between a man & a woman God and me both say so!

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Your god does not exist. Society is under no obligation to abide by the rules of fictional characters.

I've slept with many men while knowingly having chlamydia. It's my way to get back at men in general. Out of all the millions of men out there, and the hundreds I've slept with..not a one will make a commitment to me.

oh God please no

i God please no
don't let that garbage (abomination) set foot on this indiana soil
pray saints pray
its time to pray

When all y'all is tired of men marrying men, then y'all can call on me.

Linda Bledsoe wrote:

I've slept with many men while knowingly having chlamydia. It's my way to get back at men in general. Out of all the millions of men out there, and the hundreds I've slept with..not a one will make a commitment to me.

Not a commitment nor a commercial.

Yeah, you go ahead and pray. It's a measure of your impotence in dealing with reality. While you are praying, we'll be using every legal means to make SSM a reality.

pearlofagirl wrote:

i God please no
don't let that garbage (abomination) set foot on this indiana soil
pray saints pray
its time to pray

The Ninth Circuit called me a homophobe.

Proving the wisdom of the court.

Brian_G wrote:

The Ninth Circuit called me a homophobe.

I do not have to explain my vote - I OPPOSE THE MARRIAGES.

Proving an activist court without law or precedent, acting for a mascot. Court rewritten marriage law is judicial bestiality.

So, you just have no clue how the judicial system works, I see.

Brian_G wrote:

Proving an activist court without law or precedent, acting for a mascot. Court rewritten marriage law is judicial bestiality.

The court should use law, not invective. Bad decision, no precedent and overreach against the people of California.

A sad day, when wisdom involves calling opponents, homophobes. That is how the courts work.

You obviously never read the prop 8 decision or the appeal. Just because a law is made (or voted in) doesn't mean it is constitutional. This is not a democracy; popular sentiment does not necessarily rule the day.

Brian_G wrote:

The court should use law, not invective. Bad decision, no precedent and overreach against the people of California.
A sad day, when wisdom involves calling opponents, homophobes. That is how the courts work.

Brian_G wrote:

The court should use law, not invective. Bad decision, no precedent and overreach against the people of California.
A sad day, when wisdom involves calling opponents, homophobes. That is how the courts work.

They are homophobes. Prop 8 supporters can't provide one rational basis for it. The sole purpose of Prop 8 is to stick it to gay people. That is not a legitimate government interest.

NOM Condemns Ninth Circuit Ruling Finding Prop 8 Unconstitutional, Imperiling the Marriage Laws of 43 states
Group will support efforts to take the issue to the US Supreme Court

Washington, DC—"As sweeping and wrong-headed as this decision is, it nonetheless was as predictable as the outcome of a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition game," said Brian Brown, NOM's president. "We have anticipated this outcome since the moment San Francisco Judge Vaughn Walker's first hearing in the case. Now we have the field cleared to take this issue to the US Supreme Court, where we have every confidence we will prevail."

San Francisco federal court judge Vaughn Walker ruled in 2010 that Proposition 8 violates the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. If allowed to stand, the ruling could invalidate the marriage laws of 43 states that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The case is widely expected to go to the US Supreme Court for resolution.

In their 2-1 split decision, the Ninth Circuit opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, held that:

The proponents of Proposition 8 have the legal standing to appeal the lower court's ruling, as suggested by an earlier ruling of the California Supreme Court;

Judge Vaughn Walker did not have a duty to disclose that he was in a long-term committed homosexual relationship throughout the time he was hearing and deciding the case;

Once "marriage" rights have been granted to same-sex couples by a court, as occurred with the California Supreme Court, they may not be taken away by a state initiative;

There is no rational basis to support the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and it is thus unconstitutional as violating the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

"Never before has a federal appeals court—or any federal court for that matter—found a right to gay marriage under the US Constitution," said constitutional scholar John Eastman, who is chairman of NOM. "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today's absurd ruling is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today's ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed. This issue is the Roe v Wade of the current generation, and I sincerely doubt the Court has the stomach for preempting the policy judgments of the states on such a contentious matter, knowing the lingering harm it caused by that ruling."

Eastman is the founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute and is a constitutional law professor and former Dean at Chapman University School of Law. A former US Supreme Court Clerk, Eastman has participated in over 60 cases before the US Supreme Court.

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nl...

You are confounding the burden of proof, husband/wife marriage has precedence. It's good to have the law on your side.

640 to 490........"WE" still hold the majority!