What is it to me? Let's see...what about God ordaining marriage as a specific thing? Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing gay "marriage" and Prop 8 with racial bans in the past. In CA, the will of the people in Prop 22 was overturned with no real legal basis. So Prop 8 is the voice of the people saying to those judges - We said "no" to gay marriage before, and we MEAN it.
31 comments
The people have no right to do that. It's none of our business.
Jeff is right, it's like saying you can't practice a certain religion just because you don't like it.
OK, I'll leave past racial bans out of it.
Do you have a proposition to ban muslim marriages, or one to ban atheist marriages? Surely these are just as "immoral" as gay marriages.
"In CA, the will of the people in Prop 22 was overturned with no real legal basis. "
The legal basis is that it was un-Constitutional .
Let's see...what about God ordaining marriage as a specific thing?
The concept of marriage existed long before the concept of your "god".
Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing gay "marriage" and Prop 8 with racial bans in the past.
It's not a faulty analogy, it's bigotry plain and simple.
In CA, the will of the people in Prop 22 was overturned with no real legal basis.
It violated both the spirit and the letter of the state constitution.
So Prop 8 is the voice of the people saying to those judges
You should have had the constitution ammended then.
We said "no" to gay marriage before, and we MEAN it.
Or what? Are you going to start lynching judges who strike down your unconstitutional laws?
Apparently the degree at which the people mean it has lessened a bit.
God did not ordain marriage. The church was against marriage in the early years and only adapted it once women had all their rights stripped.
Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing gay "marriage" and Prop 8 with racial bans in the past. In CA, the will of the people in Prop 22 was overturned with no real legal basis. So Prop 8 is the voice of the people saying to those judges - We said "no" to gay marriage before, and we MEAN it.
Never mind that some states amended their constitutions, in accordance with your holy will of the majority, to forbid interracial marriage. Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing something with ... well, actually, itself.
"What is it to me? Let's see...what about God ordaining marriage ...."
Hey, everybody, CRoadwarrior thinks he's God!
what about God ordaining marriage as a specific thing?
Prove that your god is real, and then you might be on to something.
Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing gay "marriage" and Prop 8 with racial bans in the past.
How is it faulty? Blacks got a lot of hate, but atleast they got to marry each other. Gays don't even get that.
How would you like it if the people voted to take away your marriage?
Chances are it will end up in court again, and be overturned again. You're in a peeing contest that you can't win.
And where, in the Bible, does God define marriage?
"These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority...
We are all lessened when any one of us is denied a fundamental right...
Our rights must be eternal, not subject to political whim."
- Paul Martin, February 2005
Just a hypothetial question (I do think prop 8 was stupid): if the people in California really believed that, could they amend the Constitution in a way that couldn't be overturned by the courts?
@Professor M: Exactly. The theory is that the "important" rights (according to these people) would never even come to a vote because nearly everybody wants them. They miss the point completely.
Really? And here I was, thinking that the 52% Yes vote meant:
"We're not sure, so we'll allow ourselves to be convinced by an advertisement campaign built upon, and centred around, lies, half-truths and deception, with the net result that at the same time as we are voting to remove the last vestige of racial discrimination in politics, we'll find another kind of hatred of the Other. Because we're so small-minded that we're not happy unless we're rubbing our OBVIOUS moral superiority into the faces fo those who disagree with us, by amending the California Constitution (for the first time in history) to deny people rights."
/Rant.
We said "no" to gay marriage before, and we MEAN it.
...because we're intolerant assholes, that's why!
"Let's see...what about God ordaining marriage as a specific thing?"
Nah. What about this country not being based on an ancient religious book?
"Let's not get into the faulty analogy of comparing gay "marriage" and Prop 8 with racial bans in the past."
Both were caused by fundies like yourself though.
"In CA, the will of the people in Prop 22 was overturned with no real legal basis. So Prop 8 is the voice of the people saying to those judges - We said "no" to gay marriage before, and we MEAN it."
Oh yeah. A 2% margin sure sounds like they MEAN it!
But "you" (the majority) want to pass laws that only affect "them" (the minority), when the matter concerns only them and not you. That's "the tyranny of the majority", and it's one of the hallmarks of our nation that we fight against that. Rights are not subject to the veto of anyone else.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.