"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Let us not forget another case of plain democratic abuse. On 12 June 1967, in the case of Loving Versus Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States. This was done by a court decision, based on the constitution, and not by any popular vote. Our courts exist, in large part, to protect the rights of the individual and to prevent the rights of the minority from being taken away by the majority.
(3) I may not personally agree with the "religious beliefs" or personal opinions of someone else but I am not going to get the Constitution amended to prevent them from practicing their personal beliefs because I would not want someone to do the same to me. Our freedoms stop where someone else's begin. Do not infringe on someone else's freedoms unless you are willing to have someone infringe on your freedoms.
(2) If those issues had been put up for a vote, at that time, African Americans would still be living under the repression of the Jim Crow Laws. There is separation of church and state for a reason and there is a reason that the civil rights of a minority should never be put to a vote. Fear and ignorance are very powerful forces when humans are confronted with something that they do not understand.
(1) Using this logic, we should have the civil rights of all minority groups up for a vote. I am very glad that we had "activist judges" when the Jim Crow laws were overruled by Brown V. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965!
A judge overturning a law is not necessarily an activist judge. He/she/they could just be following the higher law: the constitution. There's nothing activistic about that, just following the rules. Majority rule is not always correct or right.
Regardless of what the original constitution was, we as the Californian people that live under the rules of the constitution have the right to change it. We ARE the ones living by it after all. And what was necessary was a majority vote from the people which it got.
@andruandspanky The will of the majority is not always correct/right. That's why in a true democracy the principle of equality is upheld, no matter what the public opinion is.
@andruandspanky Let me clarify: I am talking about facts. A majority thinking the world is flat, does not make the world flat. Same for homosexual marriage; a majority voting it's unnatural and/or traditional does not make it so.
@thomaseshuis No. Whether the world is flat or not is NOT determined the same way whether homosexual marriages are unnatural is. Not at all. And what does any of that have to do with our right to determine what laws we want to go by?
@andruandspanky Actually it is determined the same way. Through scientific study. The mere fact that homosexual animals and humans exist proofs that homosexuality is part of nature. Unless you are referring to natural as in the majoritive norm. I will consent that homosexuality is not the dominant sexuality in society, but that does not mean it is wrong or of less value than heterosexuality. Unless you admit your a blatant bigot, equality for all is a basic right, continued ....
@thomaseshuis If just the fact (I will call it) that we humans want something or act something means it's a part of human "nature" then there are thousands of laws against human nature. We people, though, have the understanding to suppress ourselves or compromise for a number of reasons, like it's undesired by our peers for example. Just because something is a part of human nature doesn't mean it must be allowed or tolerated. I believe it's our house, we should decide the rules. Pro-gay or not
@andruandspanky We do not act on certain natural instincts because they are harmful to fellow human beings. Homosexuality is in no way harmful to the homos themselves nor to society. We do not make laws that interfere with people's personal lives, when those acts do not affect people outside the personal sphere.
@thomaseshuis Harm aside, already churches have decided to close or stop marrying couples in other states that permit gay marriage because they then had to be fair and offer the same services to those they believe should not be allowed to get married, whether those communities were actively against gay marriage or respectively keeping to themselves letting gays do what they want elsewhere. I don't believe these people should have to compromise their age-old ways. Also, ...
@thomaseshuis the acceptance of gay marriage will have the side effect of a more accepted, in-our-faces gay community. As someone bothered by homosexuality, I will pursue my happiness by trying to make a less gay environment for myself and my social circle (just as gays can pursue what THEY want, of course). This is a different harm, not bodily. They threaten my environment, comfort, etc., if you could understand that. I have to go to work. Please reply if you wish. I'll get back to you later.
@andruandspanky Churches are in no way forced to perform same-sex marriages, that's a lie. They are only forced to do so if they want to receive state funding, which is just as homosexuals pay taxes as well and therefore should also be allowed to marry in buildings or grounds funded by the state. How is an open homosexual community harmful to you? Heterosexuals are just as likely to engage in public displays of affection. Please explain how they 'threaten' you, I await your response.
@thomaseshuis I didn't say what I intended to clearly though I didn't say they were forced, I said they decided to. Thus forfeiting a tax exemption, not funding by any gays. Even still, I, someone with no kid, doesn't get the option to not pay tax charges that go towards schools. And you're missing my point. If heterosexuals display open acts of affection, I wouldn't really care (unless extreme). I'm fine with heterosexuals. I'm straight. ...
@andruandspanky You do not get the option to not pay taxes for schools, because schools are vital in the education of the new generation, who in time will take over 'running' and 'feeding' the economy, so that you can go and retire in peace. You are a bit paranoid, if gay marriage is allowed it will not lead to massive sightings of gay men kissing each other. They are only 10% of the population after all. The Pride is a one time a year event.
@thomaseshuis I am not fine with homosexuality. The allowance of homosexual marriages will assist the acceptance of homosexual behavior. I don't want gay everywhere I go. All this aside, we've gone really off to the side from my original argument. What I was initially commenting on was the dismissal of the majority's vote. Yes, resulting in no gay marriages which I do happen to support but that's on the side line of my original comment. I was just opposing dismissing popular vote.
@thomaseshuis Well, "icky" is mostly what I feel about not just homosexual marriage but all homosexuality. I guess I am just an old soul. I believe straight is normal and the way it should be, obviously. Homosexuality just doesn't seem right.
@andruandspanky That's no reason to forbid it, that's forcing your personal tastes on a whole group of people, without facts or logic to back up your opinion. I'm not saying your not allowed to find homosexuality unpleasant, just that you cannot use your opinion to limit the rights of people.
@thomaseshuis Well, if you don't like something, if you don't want people doing something in the future, then that seems like a fine reason to forbid it. It's unpleasant to me, it's "icky." That IS the fact. It doesn't need evidence to back it up. And of course - everyone that votes is acting on nothing but their opinions.
@andruandspanky Of course people vote in accord with their own values. I for example value equality. And restricting marriage is discrimination in law. I don't get why you get so affected by a few people walking hand in hand or giving each other a kiss. What do you care if two people genuinely love each other and want to spent the rest of their lives together? They won't demand that you gay-marry or go to gay clubs or anything. I'm against smoking yet I would never forbid people from buying sigs
@thomaseshuis It's not just "people" that bother me when they hold hands or kiss, it's a man and another man. Or a woman and another woman. Just saying people in general tones it down. And of course I won't have to gay-marry nor go to gay clubs but gays will go to straight clubs and everywhere else I go. Not saying they don't already but allowing gay-marriage will enhance it all. And just a side note, if it were up to me, I'd forbid smoking.
@andruandspanky I did not mean to devalue your viewpoint. How will gay-marriage enhance those things? On smoking I would forbid it in all public places because it is physically harmful to people who choose not to smoke. In the privacy of their own home, however they don't harm anyone and therefore should be free to smoke. Can you explain to me why you dislike seeing public displays of affection between homosexuals and not between heterosexuals?
@thomaseshuis I did not get that from you. No worries. Ok ... 1st, hugging, walking and holding hands, pecks here and there. No biggie. Making out and such, yeah, that's too much for me, even if the people are straight. Homosexual activity, though, is just gross to me. Even when it's clear a guy is gay and he's not even doing anything gay it bugs. And 2nd, because of the wide interest in this case, the allowance or victory of gay-marriage will just send this wave of gay-pride.
@andruandspanky I can understand you find some things gross, so do I, but as long as people don't force me to look at it or it harms me directly I do not see why it should be forbidden. It might be that after the passing of same-sex marriage there will be a short period of gay pride. But do you honestly believe that homosexuals will parade the street all year long untill the end of time. It will only be a temporary thing. Questions is: why deny people their espousal rights, that;s the issue.
@thomaseshuis You're not seeing the big picture. I don't wanna walk around for the rest of my life avoiding looking at something, cautious of what may be around me. Nor do I want to look at something I don't want to see. Nor do I want to compromise. Who would? It would be best to get rid of it. It's the logical solution to the problem. Of course though I cannot remove homosexuality but I'll do what I can. And they already do parade around.
@thomaseshuis The issue I originally wanted to talk about was the dismissal of majority vote. And again, it's not "people" who are having their espousal rights taken away, it's refusing to give espousal rights to men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women. I gave you a number of reasons why I don't want this. But, to say them again: 1. Homosexuality is nasty. 2. Allowing gay-marriage now means the dismissal of what most people want.
@andruandspanky First of all I would like to thank you for having a polite and patient discussion with me, it's quite refreshing to some of the other debates I've had on you tube. I understand what your original argument was, I was just trying to explain to you that it might not be as simple or as practical as you think. I accept that you do not like homosexuality, but just try to see it from the other side. What if a law gets passed that forbids you from doing something you love ......
@thomaseshuis only because other people think it is 'wrong' even though it does not directly affect them. I understand your position, I hope you understand mine. I hope you have a long and happy life.
@thomaseshuis I have thought of what it would be like to be in a gay's shoes. And it must suck, no question about it. But at the same time I live in my shoes. And in this instance only one of us could be happy with this outcome and why not me? And also, given that the state allows and the fed is not doing anything to prevent two gay people from choosing to be in a life-long committed relationship with each other, I don't feel too guilty.
@andruandspanky The point is that homosexuals who are not allowed to marry don't get espousal rights, like visiting rights. There's no reason they should not get those rights, whatever your opinion on homosexuality is, unless your not for equality before the law.
@andruandspanky Google: Why Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Rights Issue, to see that homosexual unions do not get the same legal rights as married couples.
@thomaseshuis 'All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.'
@thomaseshuis 'Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.' The three articles of the declaration of human rights of the UN that deal directly with this issue. You can disagree with them, but then you are discriminating. Because same-sex marriage is only about same sex couples getting the same legal rights as straight
@thomaseshuis Why are you referring to the Declaration of Human Rights of the UN? Where you from? Anyway, it seems to say that everyone will abide by the law equally. That's all I'm getting from it. But I'm sure gay men and straight men both equally have the right to marry a woman.
@andruandspanky I refer to them because they are values i uphold, and correct me if I am wrong but officially the U.S. does as well. Marriage is the legal contract that guarantees certain rights to couples. Marriage is not just between a man and a woman. When two people of the same sex get a civil union they do not get the same rights as married people do. No equality therefore.
@thomaseshuis That's not true at all. The state extends virtually all the same rights to gays in a civil union as they do in marriages. The only actual difference is the title of "married."
@thomaseshuis I think when a people get together and decide they want things run a certain way, get the right amount of names on a petition, and get the majority vote, they should get it. This was all done civilly and lawfully. And you can call it equality or democracy, whatever, these 4 judges are dismissing millions of people to maintain a system the people don't want to go by.
@andruandspanky They dismiss the democratic vote, because it is in conflict with the constitution (not to mention the human right of equality). Popular vote is not always the right thing. Hitler almost got voted into office, slavery was condoned by the majority. These are just some extreme examples. But they are to show that the constitution exists to prevent the majority to limit the rights of minorities.
@thomaseshuis Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see this comment until just now. And, of course, I have to disagree. The Federal constitution does not recognize gay-marriages and, specifically, our own constitution has been modified time and time again to do the same. To say banning gay-marriage is against the constitution by now has no merit. And what do you mean by "the human right of equality?"
@andruandspanky As far as I know, (correct me if I'm wrong), articles have never been removed from the constitution. By the human right of equality: 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.' Going post the other two separate due to word limit. You are free be against equality, but that's what it is when you restrict legal marriage to specific orientations.
Whoever made this video does not understand the role of judges in a common law society.
Also, it is inaccurate to say that they "ignored" the will of the majority. The will of the majority is exactly what they evaluated, and found to be inconsistent with the state constitution at the time.
you could use the same argument if a majority of the population decided that Jews should be rounded up and killed and then "four men in black" decided to overturn that decision because it was "unconstitutional"
If 61% of voters exercised their constitutional right and voted to segregate schools, those damn judges don't have the right to protect the minority! The people have spoken. They want to protect the segregation of schools! 4 million people! They can't be overturned by 4 judges. What's a judge anyway? What's the judicial branch? The minority has no say! That's democracy. The majority gets its way. If they vote to segregate, it's the people's will! Who needs judges to protect the majority?
Acording to the Biblawl, marriage is between one man, and his sister, and her rapist, kitchen condiment, a gal who's kidnapped and raped, a few more women, an adulterer, a pack of raped whores, 700 hundred wives, 300 concubines, and the help, and the son who has murdered his brother. But it is not between one man and another man (or woman and another woman), because, well, that would be immoral.
Constitutional rights my ass. Are most right-wing americans that stupid ? One cannot in the U.S. voite on the rights of a minoraty. If we were to vote against black or Christian rights, they would all shout "No! We have our constitutional rights!". Typical elitist, heterosexist snobs, the whole lot of 'em.
Just as any other sexist, racist or discriminatory law would have been overturned, so was prop 8.
Perhaps some people are just "proud to be an American" right up to the point where they realise that means they don't get to discriminate against groups of people they arbitrarily don't like.
The judges did their job. If every single person in California voted in favor of a law saying the police didn't need a warrant to search your house if you're Mexican, the courts would (hopefully) overturn it. The purpose of the court system is to interpret and apply the law. My father (who went to law school), my political science teacher, and the attorney general of Massachusetts all agree with me.
Marriage used to be the legal unison of a WHITE man and a WHITE woman. Why press on against a new definition when you've already shown you can change the definition and agree with it under the argument that 'the traditional meaning of marriage is different'?
@monty287 we don't have the same morality, quit imposing your views on MY life because the consequences only affect me. If you hate gay marriage don't get gay married. Simple.
One of the reasons the judicial system is in place is to overturn laws passed by the many that infringe on the rights of the few. So yes, it is completely reasonable that 4 judges overturned the anti-gay marriage legislation approved by millions. It's what they're here to do.
@asjlucid@SexedUpAtheist You missed the point. What this shows is that judges can over-step their bounds. Basically by saying that the constitution is "unconstitutional" and by saying, "it doesn't matter what you said in the polls." It will only be a matter of time before something that you voted for and agreed with will be overturned like that. It's not their place to step on the people's toes. The lawmakers in Sacramento, yes, but not the voters.
The rights of gay and lesbian citizens should never have been put to the majority vote, and it is good that a judge should recognize this fundamental truth and strike down any legislation that attempts to deprive a minority of the same rights, liberties and protection under the law as every other citizen.
The voters should never have been given the opportunity to make that decision. Period. It was a mistake, and one that was rectified. Deal with it.
@SexedUpAtheist The problem is, I don't think you truly understand the role of a judge. What that judge said was that the CONSTITUTION was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Anyone with a basic understanding of law can say that this doesn't make sense!
This is the main issue here. It's just being covered up by the fact of whether "marriage" is a right. People are missing the main point. Our liberties are being slowly taken away by people in black robes. People whose opinions should disappear with the robes on.
Either you're ignorant of the truth, or you're being intellectually dishonest.
The judge said that Proposition 8, which was an amendment to the California Constitution, is unconstitutional in regards to the United States Constitution. So, no, he isn't saying that the United States Constitution is unconstitutional, nor is he even saying that the California Constitution in its entirety is unconstitutional: just the amendment, which he overruled.
@SexedUpAtheist The US Constitution gave the right of the states to govern how they wish. He was not a US Supreme Court Justice. He was a California Supreme Court Justice. There's a difference. It's his job to keep in line with the California Constitution. Let the US Justices worry about the country's.
No, it did not. The state cannot create a law that violates the U.S. Constitution. The judge recognized this, and acted accordingly.
You're just butthurt (no pun intended) because gays and lesbians now have the same rights and privileges that everyone else has in regards to the institution of marriage.
Just wanted to stop in and proudly proclaim that Prop 8 was overturned by a Supreme Court judge, and the appeals is destined to fail miserably. Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen: soon we will see same-sex marriage in California!
No, that judge's decision was spot-on: the rights of the minority (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) should never be subjected to the vote of the majority. Ever.
You people are pathetic. You know those people who thought it was okay to have separate water fountains for blacks and whites? You are those people today.
Jefferson declares the independence of civil rights from religion;
"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
The excuses to restrict marriage, a civil right, to male and female gives a 'special right' to that group. Hypocrisy in the name of 'god'. How typical of the blind arrogance of religious fascism, even crowning itself in a mask of 'love'.
I don't care if it was 4.3 TRILLION who said yes to Prop 8, denying any fellow Americans any civil rights for any reason is wrong and a direct violation of the Constitution.
Homophobia is a FEAR of faggots. I don't fear faggots, I hate them; that's different. I've kicked in the faces of enough of them to clearly establish that I have no fear of them. While I've mellowed in the last 25 years or so, and no longer feel they deserve their faces kicked in (unless they come-on to a straight man) I still find them disgusting. Not religiously based! I see them as a threat to all kids, as gay men are 27 times more likely to molest a child than a straight male. PERIOD!
{Laughing} are you for real? Or are you just playing? If you're playing, it work, you made homophobia and the hate of gays look really bad and even stupid. Good job bro.
Just cause you hate someone doesnt give you the right to take their rights away, and if gay ppl dont mess with you why you messing with them, good thing you havent met me cause i would fuck you up if u tried to something on me. Till this day ive never molested a kid, but ive known of straight guys getting in trouble for watching kid porn
First of all I'd easily kill your faggot ass. Secondly I did not mention taking anyones rights away. Learn to read fuckface! PS - Is your mom still a number one cock gobbler... I have a chore for the ugly bitch.
@56Stiffy The world would be a better place if we put monkeys like you to death.
The "research" you quote comes from religious sources, which are known to lie about anything that defends their fundamentalism. The only reason why you hate gays that remains is because you were indoctrinated from child birth that there is an invisible man living in the sky who knows magic spells and hates gays. Anyone who lacks the intellect to see through such an absurd nonsense can only be considered a monkey.
@56Stiffy This might surprise you, but I am actually not gay! That's right, you religious fanatics are hated by everyone, not just the gays. But enough chat, there is only so much retardedness from imbeciles like you I can take. Have fun with living your meaningless life as a slave to a non-existing invisible sky friend, retarded monkey.
@Wushuki But FuckWad, my objection to faggots being on this planet is not based in theological or biblical argument. I am not even a believer in all that hocus pocus horse shit that the church sells. What the fuck gave you THAT idea? I think the Christian faith is filled with hustlers and self righteous thieves. And c'mon, who in hell could love a jew? I just hate faggots, it's THAT simple! Y'know, I'm starting to like U and the way you think........ Blow me faggot! And my little dog too!
@56Stiffy Aha! Say no more, it is clear to me now. You have repressed gay feelings and feel so ashamed of them that you start bashing gays. That probably is also the reason why you are constantly asking guys to blow you. Admittedly, in retrospect it was kind of a giveaway as you hardly make an effort to try to hide it all. As difficult as it might be for you to be a closet gay, I would like to ask you to keep your sexual urges away from your dog though. It is not his fault.
@56Stiffy Yes, run away like the little spineless coward that you are. Try not to count the amount of childish insults in your own posts as it might reveal your hypocrisy and make the crushing defeat you are suffering even more unbearable. If anything, your cowardice exposes your femininity and thus closet gayness even more clearly then was already the case. Have fun with your dog, it is the only love you will ever know and he doesn't even love you back.
@Wushuki@Wushuki He? My dog is a girl! Fags like U don't see the difference between girls & boys, do U? That's why it's in your pathetic future to find your name on that big AIDS quilt with the other dead worthless freaks who sucked an AIDS flavored dick & rode the pink chariot to fag heaven. Can't wait to see U get YOUR pink square on the quilt. LOL. Well. Poo-Pusher, if I talk to U longer I may catch something, so I'll be ignoring your future scratchings. Toodle-Loo, pole smoker!
@56Stiffy Only two posts ago you said your dog was male, perhaps it has had a sex change operation since then? It is animal abuse to perform the things you want in your life on your dog. Anyway, run back to your closet and make yet another effort to cry your problems away. Leave the world to run to the real men, not to the sexually frustrated animal rapists. But send me a postcard before you kill yourself, then maybe someone will come to your funeral, you sorry loser.
This is ridiculous, have you heard of the concept 'tyranny of a majority'??? If the majority always got it's way, minorities would suffer immensely. If the majority of americans voted to kill all children under the age of 5, would you criticize judges for stepping in? The majority of americans want a free car, is it a political injustice that the government doesn't provide them for us? NO.
Women would have had to wait at least an extra 30-40 YEARS for the right to vote if an "ACTIVIST congress" hadn't passed the 19th amendment in 1920. How moronic would it have been for the male population to have overridden justice?
No where in the CA state constitution or the US Constitution is same-sex marriage allowed for. Per the principle of stare decisis, case law has always been in favor of marriage as 1 man: 1 woman & prop. 22 favored that. Now marriage isn't a right or is there a right to marry a person who refuses? It's a privilege.
The judges should have followed the principle of stare decisis and respected the rule of law & the democratic process.
Don't you see how dumb that sounds? They are born this way you say, but don't realize it? That's like saying a black person won't realize he's black until later on.
@idaman12345 i was born hating cheese pizza but now i love it, its not that i realized eventually i like it, its that eventually i decided i like it.....so late gays are because they decided....
The only time the Constitution of California said marriage was between a man and a woman was AFTER prop 8 passed. But, prop 8 was enacted illegally. The rights of a minority should never be put up to vote.
@Arteia Passed illegally? The measure gathered the necessary signatures to be placed on the ballot and it was voted on and passed. Homosexuals are not a suspect class according the federal jurisprudence, so they are not afforded that level of scrutiny like race is.
hmmm....if 61 percent decided to kill heterosexual christians wouldn't everyone suddenly wish there were 4 judges that would stand up and say no because it's wrong?
They did not "ignore" the people's vote--they, as experienced judges and experts of the state's constitution, found that the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is what a judge's job is, and that's why we have the courts in this country. A popular vote should never be able to strip away the rights of a minority.
You aren't really equating slavery with Gay marriage are you? No wonder they came out so big against you. Just calm down and get some perspective, my mind isn't made up. Give me your arguement for gay marriage. Convince me.
There are no logical reasons to be against gay marriage. I used african-american rights as an example here because they also dealt with a civil rights issue. In 1967, 72% opposed interracial marriage - this was the year when the US Supreme Court legalized it. Civil rights issues shouldn't be voted on because the majority will vote against it.
Well sure there is a reason to be against it. Why should gays receive special treatment? They have the same rights I do. They can marry someone of the opposite sex same as I. I can't marry someone of the same sex, so we have the same rights. Tell me why a civil union isn't enough? Where are your civil rights being trampeled upon? Only one area I can think of, and that is don't ask don't tell, now THAT is taking something from you.
That's such a moronic argument. That's like saying interracial marriage was justifably banned when it was because everyone had the right to marry their own race, ignoring ones own nature and relationships.
Once again, stop equating black civil rights issues with this one. It is not remotely the same. First thing that will need to happen is someone is going to have to definitively define what a marriage is to us today EXACTLY, is it a contract? Union before God? For procreation? EVERYONE is going to have their opinion on that, and I do mean everyone, but until that is decided, there is going to be no movement.
It's not a "union before God." Otherwise, atheists would not be allowed to get married. But theyare. It's also not for "purposes of procreation." Otherwise, infertile couples would not be allowed to get married. But they are. Plus, have you ever been to a wedding where pro-creation was a part of the marriage vows? I haven't. It's always about love, honor and committment between the two people. So even most weddings don't support your viewpoint.
I was asking the question. What is the definition of marriage? What is its' definition as it means to society today? Weddings are not a marriage. So weddings don't support any view point.I do not even have a view point yet.Until someone makes up their mind exactly what marriage is I will reserve my view point.
So far all people have are vague ideas about what marriage is to them.I have some ideas about resolving the issue.That would be fair,but neither Gay nor Most Religious people would like it.
LOL read Dwades comment, he's just perpetuating the stereotype that all anti gay rights people are morons and use circumlocution to hide the fact that they just don't know what the FUCK they're talking about. Prop 8 is silly, adults should be able to marry whoever they choose.
And there is the crux. What is marriage? Who says adults should be allowed to marry whomever they choose? So far for people who usually try to pass themselves off as intelligent, only reasons given are like yours, "because, because we want to!" "we are adults" as if that is a reason to do anything you want. What are you going to do to convince those of us who this isn't a religious matter but a secular, scientific one? Answer. You will do nothing but yell. And you are losing that battle.
How is discriminating against somebody secular or scientific? I don't understand your reasoning-the exact gene hasn't been detected yet, but it is genetically influenced (maybe determined, more research is needed)-many genes might be factors. And, funny, I don't think I'm losing any "battle" considering this is youtube. And you keep pulling a red herring, I'm not asking to do anything I want, bigot, I'm saying that gay people should marry if they want. What do you have against gay people?
Genetically influenced eh? Is it a flaw in the genetics? That wouldn't be good reason for marriage. And I have to have something against homosexuals to be against gay marriage? Know what I think I am against, mostly? It is a bunch of numbnuts like you demanding something, then when you do not get it, then the people who you feel denied you are all morons. Ever just try asking for something? I find that most people respond better to that. Then the ol "we are here we're queer get used to it" BS.
it's not a religious matter because it's a state law! it's the government, not religion.
State issued marriages are NOT sacred. If your church marries you and you consider that to be sacred then fine. that's a completely separate issue. However saying that state marriages are sacred is making the government god. I know a lot of people think obama is the messiah but that's going a bit far isn't it?
Err who's arguing that the minority should get to control the majority?
On this specific issue, it has zero effect whatsoever on the majority, there was never any 'controlling.'
And if you want to get technical, ALL of the founding fathers of the U.S. argued vehemently against what you advocate - "direct democracy" - where majority rules in ALL cases. What you people advocate is dangerous.
Oh and the founding fathers also supported people rebelling against their Govt. if they went against will of the people. I never like bringing up our long dead founders, you know, because they are dead and all and really can't help us out now. They also allowed a lot of other bad stuff to continue under their watch. Kind of a big band of hypocrites, like any modern day politician.
The news about town is about your mother! I'm not in the UK dumbfuck. So your daddy got arrested for child molestation huh? Your own or is he still picking on 5 year olds? And that's setting the record straight.
61% of the voters could vote that they want to take away voting rights from women but that does not mean it is constitutional. Thats what are judicial system is here for (checks and balances). Although we can pass propositions the judicial system always has checks and balances, to ensure BS like this does not fly.
YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE ON OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! Until we vote on hetero marriage you shouldn't get to vote on gay marriage. The rights of the minority should never be decided by the majority.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homos trying to force their nasty life style on the world. But it not gonna work, you gays wont turn the world into Sodom and Gomorrah .
ok sumiIsraelraphael. and then when you pervs want to marry little kids we should let 5 year olds vote? gays = child molesters, same bag! you want to get married? move to mars dumbfuck!
Homosexuality is merely one of the many perversions and fetishes that sexually confused people go in for.
It's usually a manifestation of 'heterophobia' (aversion/ambivalence /ineptitude toward the opposite sex) to some extent, and is temporary for anyone who continues to develope socially toward maturity and health. People usually get over neurotic problems.
Thank you for your highly educated opinion. I'm sure you have science degrees to back everything you are saying. I'm sure your not just an uneducated bumpkin espousing nonsense. Please please share more!
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson
RCSVirginia 1 week ago
Let us not forget another case of plain democratic abuse. On 12 June 1967, in the case of Loving Versus Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the laws banning interracial marriage in the United States. This was done by a court decision, based on the constitution, and not by any popular vote. Our courts exist, in large part, to protect the rights of the individual and to prevent the rights of the minority from being taken away by the majority.
RCSVirginia 1 week ago
(3) I may not personally agree with the "religious beliefs" or personal opinions of someone else but I am not going to get the Constitution amended to prevent them from practicing their personal beliefs because I would not want someone to do the same to me. Our freedoms stop where someone else's begin. Do not infringe on someone else's freedoms unless you are willing to have someone infringe on your freedoms.
jasonthugs 5 months ago 2
(2) If those issues had been put up for a vote, at that time, African Americans would still be living under the repression of the Jim Crow Laws. There is separation of church and state for a reason and there is a reason that the civil rights of a minority should never be put to a vote. Fear and ignorance are very powerful forces when humans are confronted with something that they do not understand.
jasonthugs 5 months ago
(1) Using this logic, we should have the civil rights of all minority groups up for a vote. I am very glad that we had "activist judges" when the Jim Crow laws were overruled by Brown V. Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965!
jasonthugs 5 months ago
When did we start voting on peoples rights? Oh yeah! 2000 -__-
TheAnnoyingThing1915 6 months ago
The majority isn't always right. If we only believed what the majority though, we might still have slavery.
Benjabob2012 7 months ago 12
A judge overturning a law is not necessarily an activist judge. He/she/they could just be following the higher law: the constitution. There's nothing activistic about that, just following the rules. Majority rule is not always correct or right.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
Regardless of what the original constitution was, we as the Californian people that live under the rules of the constitution have the right to change it. We ARE the ones living by it after all. And what was necessary was a majority vote from the people which it got.
andruandspanky 8 months ago
@andruandspanky The will of the majority is not always correct/right. That's why in a true democracy the principle of equality is upheld, no matter what the public opinion is.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis By who's standard is something found correct or right?
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky Let me clarify: I am talking about facts. A majority thinking the world is flat, does not make the world flat. Same for homosexual marriage; a majority voting it's unnatural and/or traditional does not make it so.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis No. Whether the world is flat or not is NOT determined the same way whether homosexual marriages are unnatural is. Not at all. And what does any of that have to do with our right to determine what laws we want to go by?
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky Actually it is determined the same way. Through scientific study. The mere fact that homosexual animals and humans exist proofs that homosexuality is part of nature. Unless you are referring to natural as in the majoritive norm. I will consent that homosexuality is not the dominant sexuality in society, but that does not mean it is wrong or of less value than heterosexuality. Unless you admit your a blatant bigot, equality for all is a basic right, continued ....
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
Comment removed
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@andruandspanky and therefore not up for popular vote.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis If just the fact (I will call it) that we humans want something or act something means it's a part of human "nature" then there are thousands of laws against human nature. We people, though, have the understanding to suppress ourselves or compromise for a number of reasons, like it's undesired by our peers for example. Just because something is a part of human nature doesn't mean it must be allowed or tolerated. I believe it's our house, we should decide the rules. Pro-gay or not
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky We do not act on certain natural instincts because they are harmful to fellow human beings. Homosexuality is in no way harmful to the homos themselves nor to society. We do not make laws that interfere with people's personal lives, when those acts do not affect people outside the personal sphere.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis Harm aside, already churches have decided to close or stop marrying couples in other states that permit gay marriage because they then had to be fair and offer the same services to those they believe should not be allowed to get married, whether those communities were actively against gay marriage or respectively keeping to themselves letting gays do what they want elsewhere. I don't believe these people should have to compromise their age-old ways. Also, ...
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis the acceptance of gay marriage will have the side effect of a more accepted, in-our-faces gay community. As someone bothered by homosexuality, I will pursue my happiness by trying to make a less gay environment for myself and my social circle (just as gays can pursue what THEY want, of course). This is a different harm, not bodily. They threaten my environment, comfort, etc., if you could understand that. I have to go to work. Please reply if you wish. I'll get back to you later.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky Churches are in no way forced to perform same-sex marriages, that's a lie. They are only forced to do so if they want to receive state funding, which is just as homosexuals pay taxes as well and therefore should also be allowed to marry in buildings or grounds funded by the state. How is an open homosexual community harmful to you? Heterosexuals are just as likely to engage in public displays of affection. Please explain how they 'threaten' you, I await your response.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis I didn't say what I intended to clearly though I didn't say they were forced, I said they decided to. Thus forfeiting a tax exemption, not funding by any gays. Even still, I, someone with no kid, doesn't get the option to not pay tax charges that go towards schools. And you're missing my point. If heterosexuals display open acts of affection, I wouldn't really care (unless extreme). I'm fine with heterosexuals. I'm straight. ...
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky You do not get the option to not pay taxes for schools, because schools are vital in the education of the new generation, who in time will take over 'running' and 'feeding' the economy, so that you can go and retire in peace. You are a bit paranoid, if gay marriage is allowed it will not lead to massive sightings of gay men kissing each other. They are only 10% of the population after all. The Pride is a one time a year event.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis I am not fine with homosexuality. The allowance of homosexual marriages will assist the acceptance of homosexual behavior. I don't want gay everywhere I go. All this aside, we've gone really off to the side from my original argument. What I was initially commenting on was the dismissal of the majority's vote. Yes, resulting in no gay marriages which I do happen to support but that's on the side line of my original comment. I was just opposing dismissing popular vote.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky Can you explain to me why homosexual marriage offends you other than that you find it icky?
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis Well, "icky" is mostly what I feel about not just homosexual marriage but all homosexuality. I guess I am just an old soul. I believe straight is normal and the way it should be, obviously. Homosexuality just doesn't seem right.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky That's no reason to forbid it, that's forcing your personal tastes on a whole group of people, without facts or logic to back up your opinion. I'm not saying your not allowed to find homosexuality unpleasant, just that you cannot use your opinion to limit the rights of people.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis Well, if you don't like something, if you don't want people doing something in the future, then that seems like a fine reason to forbid it. It's unpleasant to me, it's "icky." That IS the fact. It doesn't need evidence to back it up. And of course - everyone that votes is acting on nothing but their opinions.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky Of course people vote in accord with their own values. I for example value equality. And restricting marriage is discrimination in law. I don't get why you get so affected by a few people walking hand in hand or giving each other a kiss. What do you care if two people genuinely love each other and want to spent the rest of their lives together? They won't demand that you gay-marry or go to gay clubs or anything. I'm against smoking yet I would never forbid people from buying sigs
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis It's not just "people" that bother me when they hold hands or kiss, it's a man and another man. Or a woman and another woman. Just saying people in general tones it down. And of course I won't have to gay-marry nor go to gay clubs but gays will go to straight clubs and everywhere else I go. Not saying they don't already but allowing gay-marriage will enhance it all. And just a side note, if it were up to me, I'd forbid smoking.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky I did not mean to devalue your viewpoint. How will gay-marriage enhance those things? On smoking I would forbid it in all public places because it is physically harmful to people who choose not to smoke. In the privacy of their own home, however they don't harm anyone and therefore should be free to smoke. Can you explain to me why you dislike seeing public displays of affection between homosexuals and not between heterosexuals?
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis I did not get that from you. No worries. Ok ... 1st, hugging, walking and holding hands, pecks here and there. No biggie. Making out and such, yeah, that's too much for me, even if the people are straight. Homosexual activity, though, is just gross to me. Even when it's clear a guy is gay and he's not even doing anything gay it bugs. And 2nd, because of the wide interest in this case, the allowance or victory of gay-marriage will just send this wave of gay-pride.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky I can understand you find some things gross, so do I, but as long as people don't force me to look at it or it harms me directly I do not see why it should be forbidden. It might be that after the passing of same-sex marriage there will be a short period of gay pride. But do you honestly believe that homosexuals will parade the street all year long untill the end of time. It will only be a temporary thing. Questions is: why deny people their espousal rights, that;s the issue.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis You're not seeing the big picture. I don't wanna walk around for the rest of my life avoiding looking at something, cautious of what may be around me. Nor do I want to look at something I don't want to see. Nor do I want to compromise. Who would? It would be best to get rid of it. It's the logical solution to the problem. Of course though I cannot remove homosexuality but I'll do what I can. And they already do parade around.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis The issue I originally wanted to talk about was the dismissal of majority vote. And again, it's not "people" who are having their espousal rights taken away, it's refusing to give espousal rights to men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women. I gave you a number of reasons why I don't want this. But, to say them again: 1. Homosexuality is nasty. 2. Allowing gay-marriage now means the dismissal of what most people want.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky First of all I would like to thank you for having a polite and patient discussion with me, it's quite refreshing to some of the other debates I've had on you tube. I understand what your original argument was, I was just trying to explain to you that it might not be as simple or as practical as you think. I accept that you do not like homosexuality, but just try to see it from the other side. What if a law gets passed that forbids you from doing something you love ......
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis only because other people think it is 'wrong' even though it does not directly affect them. I understand your position, I hope you understand mine. I hope you have a long and happy life.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis I have thought of what it would be like to be in a gay's shoes. And it must suck, no question about it. But at the same time I live in my shoes. And in this instance only one of us could be happy with this outcome and why not me? And also, given that the state allows and the fed is not doing anything to prevent two gay people from choosing to be in a life-long committed relationship with each other, I don't feel too guilty.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky The point is that homosexuals who are not allowed to marry don't get espousal rights, like visiting rights. There's no reason they should not get those rights, whatever your opinion on homosexuality is, unless your not for equality before the law.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@andruandspanky Google: Why Same Sex Marriage is a Civil Rights Issue, to see that homosexual unions do not get the same legal rights as married couples.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@andruandspanky Just to clarify by 'some people' I was implicitly referring to homosexual people, I am sorry I did not make that clear enough.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis 'All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.'
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis 'Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.' The three articles of the declaration of human rights of the UN that deal directly with this issue. You can disagree with them, but then you are discriminating. Because same-sex marriage is only about same sex couples getting the same legal rights as straight
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis Why are you referring to the Declaration of Human Rights of the UN? Where you from? Anyway, it seems to say that everyone will abide by the law equally. That's all I'm getting from it. But I'm sure gay men and straight men both equally have the right to marry a woman.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky I refer to them because they are values i uphold, and correct me if I am wrong but officially the U.S. does as well. Marriage is the legal contract that guarantees certain rights to couples. Marriage is not just between a man and a woman. When two people of the same sex get a civil union they do not get the same rights as married people do. No equality therefore.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis That's not true at all. The state extends virtually all the same rights to gays in a civil union as they do in marriages. The only actual difference is the title of "married."
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis Heh, no no. I know what you mean, but to say "people" instead of 2 guys or 2 girls seems to ignore the problem.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis I think when a people get together and decide they want things run a certain way, get the right amount of names on a petition, and get the majority vote, they should get it. This was all done civilly and lawfully. And you can call it equality or democracy, whatever, these 4 judges are dismissing millions of people to maintain a system the people don't want to go by.
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky They dismiss the democratic vote, because it is in conflict with the constitution (not to mention the human right of equality). Popular vote is not always the right thing. Hitler almost got voted into office, slavery was condoned by the majority. These are just some extreme examples. But they are to show that the constitution exists to prevent the majority to limit the rights of minorities.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
@thomaseshuis Sorry for the late reply, I didn't see this comment until just now. And, of course, I have to disagree. The Federal constitution does not recognize gay-marriages and, specifically, our own constitution has been modified time and time again to do the same. To say banning gay-marriage is against the constitution by now has no merit. And what do you mean by "the human right of equality?"
andruandspanky 7 months ago
@andruandspanky As far as I know, (correct me if I'm wrong), articles have never been removed from the constitution. By the human right of equality: 'All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.' Going post the other two separate due to word limit. You are free be against equality, but that's what it is when you restrict legal marriage to specific orientations.
thomaseshuis 7 months ago
Whoever made this video does not understand the role of judges in a common law society.
Also, it is inaccurate to say that they "ignored" the will of the majority. The will of the majority is exactly what they evaluated, and found to be inconsistent with the state constitution at the time.
YourLovelyMan 8 months ago
you could use the same argument if a majority of the population decided that Jews should be rounded up and killed and then "four men in black" decided to overturn that decision because it was "unconstitutional"
Richy15251 8 months ago
If 61% of voters exercised their constitutional right and voted to segregate schools, those damn judges don't have the right to protect the minority! The people have spoken. They want to protect the segregation of schools! 4 million people! They can't be overturned by 4 judges. What's a judge anyway? What's the judicial branch? The minority has no say! That's democracy. The majority gets its way. If they vote to segregate, it's the people's will! Who needs judges to protect the majority?
LightoftheWest7 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Acording to the Biblawl, marriage is between one man, and his sister, and her rapist, kitchen condiment, a gal who's kidnapped and raped, a few more women, an adulterer, a pack of raped whores, 700 hundred wives, 300 concubines, and the help, and the son who has murdered his brother. But it is not between one man and another man (or woman and another woman), because, well, that would be immoral.
TheThordir 10 months ago
Constitutional rights my ass. Are most right-wing americans that stupid ? One cannot in the U.S. voite on the rights of a minoraty. If we were to vote against black or Christian rights, they would all shout "No! We have our constitutional rights!". Typical elitist, heterosexist snobs, the whole lot of 'em.
TheThordir 10 months ago
Minority rights should never be voted on by the majority!!!!!
LilyLuka 11 months ago 10
the judges did the right thing
jerrydoubleu 1 year ago 2
Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
Just as any other sexist, racist or discriminatory law would have been overturned, so was prop 8.
Perhaps some people are just "proud to be an American" right up to the point where they realise that means they don't get to discriminate against groups of people they arbitrarily don't like.
j0hnjp 1 year ago
The judges did their job. If every single person in California voted in favor of a law saying the police didn't need a warrant to search your house if you're Mexican, the courts would (hopefully) overturn it. The purpose of the court system is to interpret and apply the law. My father (who went to law school), my political science teacher, and the attorney general of Massachusetts all agree with me.
Shintanai 1 year ago
Date a single lady Datemedear.info
budrajae 1 year ago
You all don't know what equal protection of the law means. It DOES NOT mean that everyone has to be treated equally.
freakylocz14 1 year ago
Marriage used to be the legal unison of a WHITE man and a WHITE woman. Why press on against a new definition when you've already shown you can change the definition and agree with it under the argument that 'the traditional meaning of marriage is different'?
envyvictor 1 year ago
@envyvictor
It always bugs me that more people don't bring up the little fact more often.
TheGunslingr 1 year ago
patriarchy maintained ( hatred of women )
proposition hate
tankluster 1 year ago
it's not a democratic issue, it's a minority issue. If it were up to the majority everyone would be Christian.
WarriorOfWriters 1 year ago
@WarriorOfWriters It's neither. It's an issue of MORALITY.
monty287 1 year ago
@monty287 we don't have the same morality, quit imposing your views on MY life because the consequences only affect me. If you hate gay marriage don't get gay married. Simple.
WarriorOfWriters 1 year ago
One of the reasons the judicial system is in place is to overturn laws passed by the many that infringe on the rights of the few. So yes, it is completely reasonable that 4 judges overturned the anti-gay marriage legislation approved by millions. It's what they're here to do.
asjlucid 1 year ago
@asjlucid @SexedUpAtheist You missed the point. What this shows is that judges can over-step their bounds. Basically by saying that the constitution is "unconstitutional" and by saying, "it doesn't matter what you said in the polls." It will only be a matter of time before something that you voted for and agreed with will be overturned like that. It's not their place to step on the people's toes. The lawmakers in Sacramento, yes, but not the voters.
monty287 1 year ago
@monty287
I didn't miss the point at all.
The rights of gay and lesbian citizens should never have been put to the majority vote, and it is good that a judge should recognize this fundamental truth and strike down any legislation that attempts to deprive a minority of the same rights, liberties and protection under the law as every other citizen.
The voters should never have been given the opportunity to make that decision. Period. It was a mistake, and one that was rectified. Deal with it.
SexedUpAtheist 1 year ago
@SexedUpAtheist The problem is, I don't think you truly understand the role of a judge. What that judge said was that the CONSTITUTION was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Anyone with a basic understanding of law can say that this doesn't make sense!
This is the main issue here. It's just being covered up by the fact of whether "marriage" is a right. People are missing the main point. Our liberties are being slowly taken away by people in black robes. People whose opinions should disappear with the robes on.
monty287 1 year ago
@monty287
Either you're ignorant of the truth, or you're being intellectually dishonest.
The judge said that Proposition 8, which was an amendment to the California Constitution, is unconstitutional in regards to the United States Constitution. So, no, he isn't saying that the United States Constitution is unconstitutional, nor is he even saying that the California Constitution in its entirety is unconstitutional: just the amendment, which he overruled.
Hopefully, this clears it up for you.
SexedUpAtheist 1 year ago
@SexedUpAtheist The US Constitution gave the right of the states to govern how they wish. He was not a US Supreme Court Justice. He was a California Supreme Court Justice. There's a difference. It's his job to keep in line with the California Constitution. Let the US Justices worry about the country's.
monty287 1 year ago
@monty287
No, it did not. The state cannot create a law that violates the U.S. Constitution. The judge recognized this, and acted accordingly.
You're just butthurt (no pun intended) because gays and lesbians now have the same rights and privileges that everyone else has in regards to the institution of marriage.
SexedUpAtheist 1 year ago
Prop 8 is overturned!!
Suck it up you religious fanatics. Common sense prevails.
toddles9 1 year ago
Just wanted to stop in and proudly proclaim that Prop 8 was overturned by a Supreme Court judge, and the appeals is destined to fail miserably. Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen: soon we will see same-sex marriage in California!
SexedUpAtheist 1 year ago
@SexedUpAtheist That judge's decision should scare you regardless of whether or not you agree with the decision.
monty287 1 year ago
@monty287
No, that judge's decision was spot-on: the rights of the minority (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) should never be subjected to the vote of the majority. Ever.
SexedUpAtheist 1 year ago
Dictatorship of the majority.
bjcdrama 1 year ago
4 Judges with beautiful hearts!
How sad that the 4 million people who voted against gay marriage don't know anything about compassion and respect for their fellow man.
SOBEKsRAINBOW 1 year ago
You people are pathetic. You know those people who thought it was okay to have separate water fountains for blacks and whites? You are those people today.
bookwormsrcool 1 year ago
Jefferson declares the independence of civil rights from religion;
"Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
The excuses to restrict marriage, a civil right, to male and female gives a 'special right' to that group. Hypocrisy in the name of 'god'. How typical of the blind arrogance of religious fascism, even crowning itself in a mask of 'love'.
eVVVVV 1 year ago
I don't care if it was 4.3 TRILLION who said yes to Prop 8, denying any fellow Americans any civil rights for any reason is wrong and a direct violation of the Constitution.
TristateTripper 1 year ago 2
so obviously those 4,300,000 pople get to chose what the others do thats really class ..marriage is not something people should chose for you >>
RomanticFlowerx 1 year ago 2
let's rewind to the 60s. maybe we should have let the population vote on black rights.
JECSProductions 2 years ago 2
Homophobia is a FEAR of faggots. I don't fear faggots, I hate them; that's different. I've kicked in the faces of enough of them to clearly establish that I have no fear of them. While I've mellowed in the last 25 years or so, and no longer feel they deserve their faces kicked in (unless they come-on to a straight man) I still find them disgusting. Not religiously based! I see them as a threat to all kids, as gay men are 27 times more likely to molest a child than a straight male. PERIOD!
56Stiffy 2 years ago
{Laughing} are you for real? Or are you just playing? If you're playing, it work, you made homophobia and the hate of gays look really bad and even stupid. Good job bro.
whyuahater3 2 years ago 10
Just cause you hate someone doesnt give you the right to take their rights away, and if gay ppl dont mess with you why you messing with them, good thing you havent met me cause i would fuck you up if u tried to something on me. Till this day ive never molested a kid, but ive known of straight guys getting in trouble for watching kid porn
iateran 2 years ago
First of all I'd easily kill your faggot ass. Secondly I did not mention taking anyones rights away. Learn to read fuckface! PS - Is your mom still a number one cock gobbler... I have a chore for the ugly bitch.
56Stiffy 2 years ago
@56Stiffy i would like to see you kill me
iateran 2 years ago
@56Stiffy The world would be a better place if we put monkeys like you to death.
The "research" you quote comes from religious sources, which are known to lie about anything that defends their fundamentalism. The only reason why you hate gays that remains is because you were indoctrinated from child birth that there is an invisible man living in the sky who knows magic spells and hates gays. Anyone who lacks the intellect to see through such an absurd nonsense can only be considered a monkey.
Wushuki 1 year ago
@Wushuki Well, LUCKY ME! since I've heard that your mom loves to suck off monkeys, I guess its my lucky day, huh? Have a nice day aids boy.
56Stiffy 1 year ago
@56Stiffy This might surprise you, but I am actually not gay! That's right, you religious fanatics are hated by everyone, not just the gays. But enough chat, there is only so much retardedness from imbeciles like you I can take. Have fun with living your meaningless life as a slave to a non-existing invisible sky friend, retarded monkey.
Wushuki 1 year ago
@Wushuki But FuckWad, my objection to faggots being on this planet is not based in theological or biblical argument. I am not even a believer in all that hocus pocus horse shit that the church sells. What the fuck gave you THAT idea? I think the Christian faith is filled with hustlers and self righteous thieves. And c'mon, who in hell could love a jew? I just hate faggots, it's THAT simple! Y'know, I'm starting to like U and the way you think........ Blow me faggot! And my little dog too!
56Stiffy 1 year ago
@56Stiffy Aha! Say no more, it is clear to me now. You have repressed gay feelings and feel so ashamed of them that you start bashing gays. That probably is also the reason why you are constantly asking guys to blow you. Admittedly, in retrospect it was kind of a giveaway as you hardly make an effort to try to hide it all. As difficult as it might be for you to be a closet gay, I would like to ask you to keep your sexual urges away from your dog though. It is not his fault.
Wushuki 1 year ago
@Wushuki At least some of the people who hate me post imaginative rebuttals. Your juvenile rant deserves no comment.
56Stiffy 1 year ago
@56Stiffy Yes, run away like the little spineless coward that you are. Try not to count the amount of childish insults in your own posts as it might reveal your hypocrisy and make the crushing defeat you are suffering even more unbearable. If anything, your cowardice exposes your femininity and thus closet gayness even more clearly then was already the case. Have fun with your dog, it is the only love you will ever know and he doesn't even love you back.
Wushuki 1 year ago
@Wushuki @Wushuki He? My dog is a girl! Fags like U don't see the difference between girls & boys, do U? That's why it's in your pathetic future to find your name on that big AIDS quilt with the other dead worthless freaks who sucked an AIDS flavored dick & rode the pink chariot to fag heaven. Can't wait to see U get YOUR pink square on the quilt. LOL. Well. Poo-Pusher, if I talk to U longer I may catch something, so I'll be ignoring your future scratchings. Toodle-Loo, pole smoker!
56Stiffy 1 year ago
@56Stiffy Only two posts ago you said your dog was male, perhaps it has had a sex change operation since then? It is animal abuse to perform the things you want in your life on your dog. Anyway, run back to your closet and make yet another effort to cry your problems away. Leave the world to run to the real men, not to the sexually frustrated animal rapists. But send me a postcard before you kill yourself, then maybe someone will come to your funeral, you sorry loser.
Wushuki 1 year ago
@56Stiffy "like U don't see the difference between girls & boys, do U?"
This is crazy even for a yes-on-8 lunatic. I don't think anyone is making that argument ...
bEEarCUB 1 year ago
@56Stiffy "I just hate faggots, it's THAT simple!"
Someone needs a nap. The relentless Klan rallies are making you delusional.
bEEarCUB 1 year ago
You probably get a "stiffy" watching gay porn and cum on your dad. Get over yourself.
Triforcefield 1 year ago
spoken like a true cowardly fag
56Stiffy 1 year ago
@56Stiffy fear or hatred of gays and lesbians
try again though
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 No fear, but hatred.... YES!
56Stiffy 1 year ago
@56Stiffy so technically you are a homophobe
idaman12345 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@idaman12345 So technically you are a cocksucking faggot?
56Stiffy 1 year ago
This is ridiculous, have you heard of the concept 'tyranny of a majority'??? If the majority always got it's way, minorities would suffer immensely. If the majority of americans voted to kill all children under the age of 5, would you criticize judges for stepping in? The majority of americans want a free car, is it a political injustice that the government doesn't provide them for us? NO.
ifellinlovewithadead 2 years ago
Women would have had to wait at least an extra 30-40 YEARS for the right to vote if an "ACTIVIST congress" hadn't passed the 19th amendment in 1920. How moronic would it have been for the male population to have overridden justice?
Moronic then, meet moronic now.
InXanadu2 2 years ago
Just because something is popular doesn't make it right, do I even need to remind you of slavery?
GrayFox15 2 years ago
those 4 judges deserve to die like every other fag
metalxorxdie 2 years ago
no people who want to deny rights to other people deserve to die, not "fags"
idaman12345 2 years ago
no one deserves to die
idaman12345 2 years ago
yes on gay marrige no on 8
musicismylife219 2 years ago
No where in the CA state constitution or the US Constitution is same-sex marriage allowed for. Per the principle of stare decisis, case law has always been in favor of marriage as 1 man: 1 woman & prop. 22 favored that. Now marriage isn't a right or is there a right to marry a person who refuses? It's a privilege.
The judges should have followed the principle of stare decisis and respected the rule of law & the democratic process.
Aegius 2 years ago
prop 8 and 22 contradict the original constitution
where it says everyone is created equally
idaman12345 2 years ago 20
@idaman12345
But then you'd have to argue that gays are created that way...
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin wheres the argument?
its true they are born that way
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
No they are not. What they are doing are actions. Why are some of them in the middle of marriages all of a sudden gay?
Are they also born with it?
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin just because it takes them years to realize it doesnt mean they werent born that way
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
Don't you see how dumb that sounds? They are born this way you say, but don't realize it? That's like saying a black person won't realize he's black until later on.
ahhaahaha
Reqrezentin 1 year ago
@Reqrezentin i totally agree.........and fags are made after birth idaman12345.
censoredstar 1 year ago
@censoredstar no they arent
gays are born that way
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345 i was born hating cheese pizza but now i love it, its not that i realized eventually i like it, its that eventually i decided i like it.....so late gays are because they decided....
censoredstar 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Where are the studies that show this? Can they be replicated?
monty287 1 year ago
@idaman12345 Everyone is created equal. Doesn't mean the choices are. Try again.
monty287 1 year ago
@idaman12345 If you were educated, you would know that's not in the Constitution. but rather in the Declaration of Independence.
freakylocz14 1 year ago
@freakylocz14
Constitution of Cali.
lifescomicrelief 1 year ago
@lifescomicrelief The Constitution of Cali says that marriage is only between a man and a woman.
freakylocz14 1 year ago
@freakylocz14
oops, sorry thought you were talking about something else.
lifescomicrelief 1 year ago
@freakylocz14
The only time the Constitution of California said marriage was between a man and a woman was AFTER prop 8 passed. But, prop 8 was enacted illegally. The rights of a minority should never be put up to vote.
Arteia 1 year ago
@Arteia Passed illegally? The measure gathered the necessary signatures to be placed on the ballot and it was voted on and passed. Homosexuals are not a suspect class according the federal jurisprudence, so they are not afforded that level of scrutiny like race is.
freakylocz14 1 year ago
hmmm....if 61 percent decided to kill heterosexual christians wouldn't everyone suddenly wish there were 4 judges that would stand up and say no because it's wrong?
loveitkahlo 2 years ago
They did not "ignore" the people's vote--they, as experienced judges and experts of the state's constitution, found that the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is what a judge's job is, and that's why we have the courts in this country. A popular vote should never be able to strip away the rights of a minority.
moviemania8797 2 years ago
Ha ha....61% in 2000 dropped to 52% in 2008. Let's see how many vote for it next time.
buddy51 2 years ago 2
haha so true
verrueckt91 2 years ago
Just because the majority of American believes gay marriage is wrong, does not mean it is so.
stargateproductions 2 years ago
yes on 8, they gonna do a revote and this time its going to be even higher for people saying no for gay marriage
arthurkirakosyan7 2 years ago
wrong. the polls say otherwise.
Kaileo1 2 years ago
Yes on 8
WatchTherefore 2 years ago
intolorent bigot. DC has the right way, why should the MAJORITY get to control the MINORITY.
dmllify 2 years ago
And why should the minority get to control the majority?
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago 2
tell that to the slaves and african americans! civil rights issues shouldn't be publicly voted on.
lunchboxboy 2 years ago 2
You aren't really equating slavery with Gay marriage are you? No wonder they came out so big against you. Just calm down and get some perspective, my mind isn't made up. Give me your arguement for gay marriage. Convince me.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
There are no logical reasons to be against gay marriage. I used african-american rights as an example here because they also dealt with a civil rights issue. In 1967, 72% opposed interracial marriage - this was the year when the US Supreme Court legalized it. Civil rights issues shouldn't be voted on because the majority will vote against it.
lunchboxboy 2 years ago 2
Well sure there is a reason to be against it. Why should gays receive special treatment? They have the same rights I do. They can marry someone of the opposite sex same as I. I can't marry someone of the same sex, so we have the same rights. Tell me why a civil union isn't enough? Where are your civil rights being trampeled upon? Only one area I can think of, and that is don't ask don't tell, now THAT is taking something from you.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
That's such a moronic argument. That's like saying interracial marriage was justifably banned when it was because everyone had the right to marry their own race, ignoring ones own nature and relationships.
If that's equality to you, go live in Iran.
LDSMovieReviews 2 years ago
Once again, stop equating black civil rights issues with this one. It is not remotely the same. First thing that will need to happen is someone is going to have to definitively define what a marriage is to us today EXACTLY, is it a contract? Union before God? For procreation? EVERYONE is going to have their opinion on that, and I do mean everyone, but until that is decided, there is going to be no movement.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
It's not a "union before God." Otherwise, atheists would not be allowed to get married. But theyare. It's also not for "purposes of procreation." Otherwise, infertile couples would not be allowed to get married. But they are. Plus, have you ever been to a wedding where pro-creation was a part of the marriage vows? I haven't. It's always about love, honor and committment between the two people. So even most weddings don't support your viewpoint.
buddy51 2 years ago
I was asking the question. What is the definition of marriage? What is its' definition as it means to society today? Weddings are not a marriage. So weddings don't support any view point.I do not even have a view point yet.Until someone makes up their mind exactly what marriage is I will reserve my view point.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
So far all people have are vague ideas about what marriage is to them.I have some ideas about resolving the issue.That would be fair,but neither Gay nor Most Religious people would like it.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
LOL read Dwades comment, he's just perpetuating the stereotype that all anti gay rights people are morons and use circumlocution to hide the fact that they just don't know what the FUCK they're talking about. Prop 8 is silly, adults should be able to marry whoever they choose.
SaveYoshi 2 years ago
And there is the crux. What is marriage? Who says adults should be allowed to marry whomever they choose? So far for people who usually try to pass themselves off as intelligent, only reasons given are like yours, "because, because we want to!" "we are adults" as if that is a reason to do anything you want. What are you going to do to convince those of us who this isn't a religious matter but a secular, scientific one? Answer. You will do nothing but yell. And you are losing that battle.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
How is discriminating against somebody secular or scientific? I don't understand your reasoning-the exact gene hasn't been detected yet, but it is genetically influenced (maybe determined, more research is needed)-many genes might be factors. And, funny, I don't think I'm losing any "battle" considering this is youtube. And you keep pulling a red herring, I'm not asking to do anything I want, bigot, I'm saying that gay people should marry if they want. What do you have against gay people?
SaveYoshi 2 years ago
Genetically influenced eh? Is it a flaw in the genetics? That wouldn't be good reason for marriage. And I have to have something against homosexuals to be against gay marriage? Know what I think I am against, mostly? It is a bunch of numbnuts like you demanding something, then when you do not get it, then the people who you feel denied you are all morons. Ever just try asking for something? I find that most people respond better to that. Then the ol "we are here we're queer get used to it" BS.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
it's not a religious matter because it's a state law! it's the government, not religion.
State issued marriages are NOT sacred. If your church marries you and you consider that to be sacred then fine. that's a completely separate issue. However saying that state marriages are sacred is making the government god. I know a lot of people think obama is the messiah but that's going a bit far isn't it?
JustThink00 2 years ago
Err who's arguing that the minority should get to control the majority?
On this specific issue, it has zero effect whatsoever on the majority, there was never any 'controlling.'
And if you want to get technical, ALL of the founding fathers of the U.S. argued vehemently against what you advocate - "direct democracy" - where majority rules in ALL cases. What you people advocate is dangerous.
LDSMovieReviews 2 years ago
Oh and the founding fathers also supported people rebelling against their Govt. if they went against will of the people. I never like bringing up our long dead founders, you know, because they are dead and all and really can't help us out now. They also allowed a lot of other bad stuff to continue under their watch. Kind of a big band of hypocrites, like any modern day politician.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
fuck faggs nigga
make a prop to have them shipped away lol pinche hotos
raiderboi101 2 years ago
why should natrual born citizens in the us be shipped away
idaman12345 2 years ago
The news about town is about your mother! I'm not in the UK dumbfuck. So your daddy got arrested for child molestation huh? Your own or is he still picking on 5 year olds? And that's setting the record straight.
mc1pc2nk3 2 years ago
60% of americans dont believe in evolution
the majoroty of americans also want Athiests to be declred non-citizens
BrightRaven0 2 years ago
61% of the voters could vote that they want to take away voting rights from women but that does not mean it is constitutional. Thats what are judicial system is here for (checks and balances). Although we can pass propositions the judicial system always has checks and balances, to ensure BS like this does not fly.
dupper156 2 years ago
YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE ON OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS! Until we vote on hetero marriage you shouldn't get to vote on gay marriage. The rights of the minority should never be decided by the majority.
SumireIsrafel 2 years ago 2
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homos trying to force their nasty life style on the world. But it not gonna work, you gays wont turn the world into Sodom and Gomorrah .
TheSniperOath 2 years ago
but its ok for you to push your lifestyle onto others?
idaman12345 2 years ago
ok sumiIsraelraphael. and then when you pervs want to marry little kids we should let 5 year olds vote? gays = child molesters, same bag! you want to get married? move to mars dumbfuck!
mc1pc2nk3 2 years ago
why are you homophobs putting child molestors with gays when most of the child molesting was done by straight people
idaman12345 2 years ago
Homosexuality is merely one of the many perversions and fetishes that sexually confused people go in for.
It's usually a manifestation of 'heterophobia' (aversion/ambivalence /ineptitude toward the opposite sex) to some extent, and is temporary for anyone who continues to develope socially toward maturity and health. People usually get over neurotic problems.
sonever1 2 years ago
Thank you for your highly educated opinion. I'm sure you have science degrees to back everything you are saying. I'm sure your not just an uneducated bumpkin espousing nonsense. Please please share more!
PrepeiNaSasPw 2 years ago 2