Prop 8 unconstitutional

There is no separate, but equal justice. Gay couples must be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. Plain and simple.

johnnyquest wrote:

There is no separate, but equal justice. Gay couples must be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. Plain and simple.

There is no such thing as 'plain and simple' justice either.

dubob wrote:

johnnyquest wrote:

There is no separate, but equal justice. Gay couples must be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. Plain and simple.

There is no such thing as 'plain and simple' justice either.

Should the SCOTUS rule 9-0 or 8-1 in support of the Court of Appeals in the Prop. 8 case, I'd consider the ruling plain and simple.

No skin off my nose if same sex couples marry. It doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on my marriage.

I will make a prediction, though. Once the SC rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional the next push will be to force churches to perform marriages for LGBTs. It'll be an epic fight that will end with churches losing their tax exempt status unless they give in and perform those marriages.

fatbass wrote:

No skin off my nose if same sex couples marry. It doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on my marriage.

I will make a prediction, though. Once the SC rules that Prop 8 is unconstitutional the next push will be to force churches to perform marriages for LGBTs. It'll be an epic fight that will end with churches losing their tax exempt status unless they give in and perform those marriages.

That, in my opinion, would be a welcome development. Our churches have gotten away with politicking for far too long.

While I doubt that churches are going to be forced into anything anytime soon, I'd love to see them lose their tax exempt status. Especially the for-profit organizations that turn hate-filled evangelical preachers into millionaires by preying on their flock's fears of gays, woemen's rights, minorities, and those evil liberals.

ScottyP wrote:

While I doubt that churches are going to be forced into anything anytime soon, I'd love to see them lose their tax exempt status. Especially the for-profit organizations that turn hate-filled evangelical preachers into millionaires by preying on their flock's fears of gays, woemen's rights, minorities, and those evil liberals.

WTH? First, it is all but a done deal that churches will be FORCED to either perform gay marriages or lose their tax exempt status. That is why the LDS church has gotten involved. Funny how 'libs' claim to be for the 1st Amendment, as long as it is them getting the perks, otherwise it doesn't apply. But, on the other hand, the 'conservs' claim to want smaller government, yet they support the government saying what adults can marry other adults. BOTH stances are nonsensical.
Second, the government has/is far more bigoted toward gays/women/minorities and yes even 'those evil liberals', than churches. Why should a church, lets say the LDS faith, be required to pay the government so much as one red cent? This is a serious question.
The government has no right to decide whether marriage is a 'right', as the government does NOT give rights, it can only protect God-given rights or take them away. Marriage is not a government action, it is a religious action, and thus 'those evil liberals' shouldn't be demanding the government's involvement in the matter.

Gay marriage is now legal in 7 states. Can you present any evidence that LDS bishops in those states are being forced to perform marriages of gay couples?

Not yet, but as you know, or at least should know, things take time to reach full fruition. MA has it in their writing the last I checked that ALL churches would be REQUIRED to perform gay marriages.

My question to you, since you seem to reside on the 'left', politically: Why do you want church and state to be mixed? I thought most on the 'left' were all for separation of church and state.

I clearly don't want mixing of church and state so don't get all straw-man on me. I also don't buy into the slippery-slope arguments the right seems so fond of making. I asked a simple question-- show me evidence that the 7 states that currently allow gay marriage are forcing churches to perform them. You were unable to do so. Evidence would be more than you just saying it is going to happen in the furure BTW.

You also stated that the government does not give rights, it either recognizes god-given rights or takes rights away. This is a fun semantic game we can play all day. Did the government give slaves their freedom or did they recognize that they should have been free all along? Did they give women the right to vote, or did they realize that they were wrong to deny them that fundamental right in the first place? The practice of 2 people pairing up in a monagamous relationship goes back much farther than our history as a nation and our nation has always recognized the right of a marriage partnership. The only reason to deny this to same-sex couples comes from religious belief, therefor it is unconstitutional to deny marriage on these grounds.

ScottyP wrote:

I clearly don't want mixing of church and state so don't get all straw-man on me. I also don't buy into the slippery-slope arguments the right seems so fond of making. I asked a simple question-- show me evidence that the 7 states that currently allow gay marriage are forcing churches to perform them. You were unable to do so. Evidence would be more than you just saying it is going to happen in the furure BTW.

You also stated that the government does not give rights, it either recognizes god-given rights or takes rights away. This is a fun semantic game we can play all day. Did the government give slaves their freedom or did they recognize that they should have been free all along? Did they give women the right to vote, or did they realize that they were wrong to deny them that fundamental right in the first place? The practice of 2 people pairing up in a monagamous relationship goes back much farther than our history as a nation and our nation has always recognized the right of a marriage partnership. The only reason to deny this to same-sex couples comes from religious belief, therefor it is unconstitutional to deny marriage on these grounds.

Okay, for starters, if YOU are wanting the government to make gay marriages, or ANY marriages legal, then you ARE endorsing mixing church and state! Marriage is a religious action, thus the government should have no say in what consenting adults do religiously. So, you are indeed not so clear on your stance. I for one do NOT want the government preventing or endorsing marriages of ANY kind, so don't bring up the lameass 'straw-man' slippery slope with me!
Next, either you are intentionally ignoring all semblance of reason, or your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I can't think of any action that didn't GRADUALLY morph into something far bigger than it was sold to be. Look at the wording and the WRITTEN desired outcomes of those pushing the mixture of church and state...aka 'liberals'....! Then get back to me.

Do you, or do you not believe in the Constitution? This matters, because as you mentioned, we could very well be arguing semantics. The government, nor any human has/had a God given right to own another human, that is called tyranny. Are you suggesting the government actually bestows rights on the citizens? If so, what is stopping the same government from taking those rights away?

Marriage may be a religious sacrament for some, but it is a legal definition for all. Everyone legally married had to get a certificate from the government, but they were not required to go to a church. A judge, ship captain, etc can perform a marriage, so enough already with your bullshit assertion that religion has a monopoly on marriage. If some activists want to force churches to perform gay marriages then that is on them, but they are not representative of the overall movement for marriage equality. I receive regular emails from the Human Rights Campaign and have read plenty of articles and opinions on this issue and none of them are saying that an unwilling church should be compelled perform gay marriages. I suspect that people like you who are disgusted by homosexuals but don't want to come right out and say it are using this red herring of religious freedom to hide your bigotry behind.

ScottyP wrote:

Marriage may be a religious sacrament for some, but it is a legal definition for all. Everyone legally married had to get a certificate from the government, but they were not required to go to a church. A judge, ship captain, etc can perform a marriage, so enough already with your bullshit assertion that religion has a monopoly on marriage. If some activists want to force churches to perform gay marriages then that is on them, but they are not representative of the overall movement for marriage equality. I receive regular emails from the Human Rights Campaign and have read plenty of articles and opinions on this issue and none of them are saying that an unwilling church should be compelled perform gay marriages. I suspect that people like you who are disgusted by homosexuals but don't want to come right out and say it are using this red herring of religious freedom to hide your bigotry behind.

You are a self-righteous bigot, and yet you accuse me of being a bigot! First, it is a FACT that marriage IS a religious ceremony! How anyone can deny that and expect to be taken serious is inane. Yes, "a judge ship captain, etc can perform a marriage", but that is because of the government stepping into the religious realm! Marriage has been around longer than government, that is FACT. Deny it if you wish, but it is what it is, FACT. In many parts of Europe, where "marriage equality" is the law, it is illegal for churches to even condemn homosexual acts, or face criminal charges for "hate crimes". Please tell me that isn't also a FACT.

Now, as to 'some activists'; that is how things get done, a little at a time by 'some activists', and that is across all political views/sides. All we have to do in this case is look at what has happened in the past, and actually learn from it. If you were sincere in your quest for "marriage equality" you would be calling for the government to get OUT of the marriage issue altogether, then there would be NO restrictions on marriage between consenting adults. As long as the government is involved in a RELIGIOUS ceremony, there WILL be inequality. There should be no legal issues in regards to marriage. Protection of property should be handled through other means, no perks should be given/denied based on ones marital status.

As for my supposed hate, it is YOU that has repeatedly shown...at a minimum....disdain for religious people. I don't hate anyone, not even those who have made personal attacks on me. Yes, I do NOT approve of homosexual acts, but I am a strong opinion that what one does behind closed doors with other consenting adults is none of my concern.....until THEY force it on me, demanding I endorse it or condone it, or say it the same as what my wife and I do, then I take a stand. I have two friends that are as gay as the day is long, and they are regular visitors in my home, and my kids love and adore them, so don't you dare accuse me of being a bigot!

Okay Pro, let's talk about facts. It is a fact that government IS involved in marriage, no matter how much you don't want them to be. You can talk all day about what should be, but you can not deny that in our current society the government takes a role in marriage. That is a clear fact. Marriage bestowes partner benefits that are not matched by anything else with a similar scope. My Nevada marriage certificate (yes, we went to Vegas ) is recognized by every state. The government is not going to abandon their interest in marriage anytime soon, so you saying they should is a moot point and does not further your argument.

I did not directly call you a bigot and will even go as far as to say that inferring it was a little (just a bit) ill considered. I once held a similar opinion as you. I had gay friends, but did not think gay marriage was appropriate or necessary. I have since changed my stance (flip flopped as it were) on this issue as well as many others over the last several years. When I came to realize that I did not believe in any kind of higher being or religious dogma, it re-shaped many views I once held.

I would just ask you a few questions:

If you don't worry about what adults do with each other in private, why do you care if they get married? Is your marriage anyone elses business?

These dear friends of yours that are gay, do they know your opinion on gay marriage? How can you look them in the eye and tell them they don't deserve the same recognized marital status as you?

If I recall, you are LDS. You do not believe in the tenents of the Catholic faith, yet I assume you recognize that a catholic Bishop has the same title as a mormon Bishop. One type of Bishop you believe in and follow, the other you don't. Yet you recognize that they are both called bishops and serve similar functions. Why can't you look at marriage in a similar light? A gay marriage is a marriage. One you may not recognize or accept in your personal held belief, but a marriage by name and recognition none the less that serves a similar function to yours. I know this is not a very good analogy, but I hope you can see the point I am trying to get across.


I did some reading about the idea that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages and one thing I found is some chatter that if a church normally makes their facilities available to the public for weddings, then they would not be able to discriminate against gay couples. This sounds reasonable to me for the following reasons: If they are allowing the public to rent their building for a wedding and making a profit, why should they be able to discriminate? Are they currently allowed to discriminate against a different faith couple or interracial couple that wants to rent their building? It basically becomes a landlord agreement where anti-discrimination laws would apply. Now if they are not making their building available to the public for weddings, they have nothing to worry about. I am pretty sure the LDS Church does not make their chapels available to the general public for weddings. It is for members, and at the discretion of the bishop. They will not be forced to perform gay marriages as long as they are not trying to turn a buck by advertising their facilities for public use.

ScottyP wrote:

Okay Pro, let's talk about facts. It is a fact that government IS involved in marriage, no matter how much you don't want them to be. You can talk all day about what should be, but you can not deny that in our current society the government takes a role in marriage. That is a clear fact. Marriage bestowes partner benefits that are not matched by anything else with a similar scope. My Nevada marriage certificate (yes, we went to Vegas ) is recognized by every state. The government is not going to abandon their interest in marriage anytime soon, so you saying they should is a moot point and does not further your argument.

Using your logic, YOU shouldn't be asking for the government to......CHANGE.....its stance on marriage, and yet YOU are asking for just that....CHANGE. You want 'marriage equality', I want the government to be restrained to the specific roles/realms spelled out in the Constitution. Who is the 'radical'?

ScottyP wrote:

I did not directly call you a bigot and will even go as far as to say that inferring it was a little (just a bit) ill considered. I once held a similar opinion as you. I had gay friends, but did not think gay marriage was appropriate or necessary. I have since changed my stance (flip flopped as it were) on this issue as well as many others over the last several years. When I came to realize that I did not believe in any kind of higher being or religious dogma, it re-shaped many views I once held.

I accept your little apology. My faith is firm, and it doesn't waver, so the odds of me denying God are pretty slim........

ScottyP wrote:

If you don't worry about what adults do with each other in private, why do you care if they get married? Is your marriage anyone elses business?

Because when the government does it I pay for it! When the government is allowed to delve into the religious realm, it DOES affect me, because that gives it a green light to dictate other religious issues...such as birth control and abortion. A slippery slope, no, more like a 300' cliff.

ScottyP wrote:

These dear friends of yours that are gay, do they know your opinion on gay marriage? How can you look them in the eye and tell them they don't deserve the same recognized marital status as you?

They do inded know of my views on gay marriage. Or to be more accurate, they know of my views on the proper roles of the government. It isn't as twisted as you imply, and it certainly is NOT about who "deserves" what from the government, because we all "deserve" only ONE thing from the government....PROTECTION from those who wish to take away inalienable rights!

ScottyP wrote:

If I recall, you are LDS. You do not believe in the tenents of the Catholic faith, yet I assume you recognize that a catholic Bishop has the same title as a mormon Bishop. One type of Bishop you believe in and follow, the other you don't. Yet you recognize that they are both called bishops and serve similar functions. Why can't you look at marriage in a similar light? A gay marriage is a marriage. One you may not recognize or accept in your personal held belief, but a marriage by name and recognition none the less that serves a similar function to yours. I know this is not a very good analogy, but I hope you can see the point I am trying to get across.

What a Catholic bishop does within the confines of his parish does not affect me as a Mormon, I am not FORCED to fund his policies. But, when the government sets RELIGIOUS policies, it FORCES me to fund its policies.

ScottyP wrote:

I did some reading about the idea that churches would be forced to perform gay marriages and one thing I found is some chatter that if a church normally makes their facilities available to the public for weddings, then they would not be able to discriminate against gay couples. This sounds reasonable to me for the following reasons: If they are allowing the public to rent their building for a wedding and making a profit, why should they be able to discriminate? Are they currently allowed to discriminate against a different faith couple or interracial couple that wants to rent their building? It basically becomes a landlord agreement where anti-discrimination laws would apply. Now if they are not making their building available to the public for weddings, they have nothing to worry about. I am pretty sure the LDS Church does not make their chapels available to the general public for weddings. It is for members, and at the discretion of the bishop. They will not be forced to perform gay marriages as long as they are not trying to turn a buck by advertising their facilities for public use.

Actually, it is a common practice for local LDS Bishops to perform marriages for non-members and members alike. Therefore, what you advocate WOULD indeed force them to perform gay marriages. As for being 'allowed' to discriminate; show me where in the Constitution I don't have the God given right to do so? You/I discriminate EVERY day, you just want to tell me what discrimination's are 'allowed' and which one's aren't. To put it another way, you are against me forcing my morals on you, but you are fine with forcing your morals on me.....

Devil's advocate here...

Alright, Mr Devil's Advocate, tell me where in the Constitution marriage is under the jurisdiction of the government, let alone the federal government?

Pro, do you have a state issued marriage license? You may not agree with the rules, but you are playing the game. You could always have a 'celestial marriage' that is not recognized by the government like Mr Warren Jeffs adherents.

ScottyP wrote:

Pro, do you have a state issued marriage license? You may not agree with the rules, but you are playing the game. You could always have a 'celestial marriage' that is not recognized by the government like Mr Warren Jeffs adherents.

I get you, giving me extreme and nonsensical choices........brilliant! FYI, I couldn't get married in an LDS temple with also getting married civilly. If I had the option, I would do it in a heartbeat! How about you, since you detest religion, why not for a civil union instead of a religioous action such as marriage?

Well now, I guess I didn't realize that religion had a monopoly on the institution of marriage. Not until you enlightened me anyway. Or maybe because civil union does not equal marriage. Not by definition or perception. Maybe I am just such a sucker for tradition that I didn't want to get on bended knee, gaze into my wife's lovely eyes, and ask 'Will you join me in a civil union'?

By the way, I looked up the definition of marriage. In three different dictionaries (four if you count wikipidea) it is defined as a legal union or a social relationship recognized by law. Marriage has been an institution in some form or fashion in many cultures for much of recorded history. For you to state as fact that your judeo-christian definition of marriage is the only valid one shows the type of religious arrogance that I despise. As I have stated before, I don't hate religious belief in and of itself, but when religious ideals are pushed on others or used to shape public policy that is where I (and the bill of rights, and the SCOTUS) draw the line.

ScottyP wrote:

By the way, I looked up the definition of marriage. In three different dictionaries (four if you count wikipidea) it is defined as a legal union or a social relationship recognized by law. Marriage has been an institution in some form or fashion in many cultures for much of recorded history. For you to state as fact that your judeo-christian definition of marriage is the only valid one shows the type of religious arrogance that I despise. As I have stated before, I don't hate religious belief in and of itself, but when religious ideals are pushed on others or used to shape public policy that is where I (and the bill of rights, and the SCOTUS) draw the line.

Okay, Einstein, tell me where the act of marriage FIRST started? Just because most societies have adopted the practice, doesn't change where it started, why it was started, and by whom it was started.

Here is the kicker, it is YOU that is trying to FORCE your 'values'/beliefs on me. I want the government to stick to what it is supposed to focus on, and marriage is NOT one of them. I don't want the government endorsing ANY marriage. How does that equate to me pushing my religious ideals on others? I say, if you want to marry any/all consenting adults who will put up with you, go for it. just don't have the government give you an endorsement, nor any perks for doing so.

FWIW. the Bill of Rights NEVER makes mention of any preventive measures to keep religious ideals from shaping public policy. In fact, I contend it does the exact opposite. If you disagree, feel free to show me ONE example in the Constitution/Bill of Rights where religious ideals are to be kept out of forming public policies.

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise therof'

This has been interpreted to mean that the government will not establish a religion, and that civic matters are seperate from religious matters. You are free to excercise your religion but your religion does not trump the basic rights of others to life, liberty, and property.

The job of the supreme court is to interpret the intent of the constitution, hence they have interpreted that the first ammendment creates a 'wall of seperation' between church and state. If you disagree with this interpretation, do you also disagree with their interpretation that a 'well regulated militia' having the right to bear arms applies to the individual? Or that the right to bear arms can be suspended or denied to felons or the mentally ill? The constitution and bill of rights are the law of the land, but must be constatly interpreted and clarified every time competing interests are brought to the forefront. If the constitution is not open to interpretation, why did it provide for a supreme court, or 'final arbiter'?

Seems to me like there is a misunderstanding of what you guys think each other stands on. Let me see if I even understand.

ScottyP wants anyone who wants to get married to be able to get married.

Pro wants the same but also wants the freedom for those who do not want to perform certain marriages to not be "punished" for making that choice.

So is this an argument of who has the authority tell whom to do what?

Did the court have authority to strike down a statewide propositional vote?

Is marriage today what it was say 100 years ago?