Gay Marriage [was: Ok!]

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Aug 2004 11:23

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

OVERRULED!!!

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 12 Aug 2004 11:31

You know, I just don't understand how one can hate another so much that they would try to keep them from being happy. And to allow them a glimpse of happiness and then take it away just makes me extremely emotional. I feel so sad, hopeless, and angry... I can't even make a coherent post.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Aug 2004 11:57

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Aug 2004 12:16

Sad.

I want to write more, but I just keep getting stuck at sad.

sad. sad. sad. sad.

oh, and FUCKITY FUCK FUCK FUCK.

I guess the only hope left for justice is to lobby to void all mariages to divorced women, except those that remarried to the brother of her former husband, as explained in the book.

Viva la bible.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Aug 2004 12:19

While it is SAD that people's happiness has been affected. The law is just that, THE LAW. It will be better in the long run if those affected by this court ruling did something to change the law rather than simply side step it.

Imagine for a second that David Duke (former head of the KKK) had been elected mayor of your town. He decides to side step the law and declares that it is now ok to lynch African Americans. Not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Imagine that Arnold decideds that it is ok to carry fully automatic firearms in public, and that firing such weapons is also ok.

Imagine BUSH decides to side step congress and open a can of nuclear whoop ass on North Korea, France, Russia, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, claiming that the happiness of Isreal cannot exist as long as these countries are allowed to exist.

Imagine Adolf Hitler still in power decides to continue to torture and kill Jews for fun.

My point is simple. You cannot simply side step the law for any reason. That's why we have laws, police, judges, lawyers, prisons, etc...

The mayor of San Fransisco cannot decide on a whim that the law does not apply to him and go around issuing illegal marriage certificates.

You simply cannot have a working system, if the system is side stepped.

My suggestion to all those whose certificates have been voided, petition your representatives or vote for different ones, get your voice heard and put it to a vote. That's how it works.

I have said many times that if a law were past I would support it. No such law exists, so stop whining about it, get out there and change the damn law.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 12 Aug 2004 12:19

Tsiangkun wrote:I guess the only hope left for justice is to lobby to void all mariages to divorced women, except those that remarried to the brother of her former husband, as explained in the book.

I was thinking something along the same lines. How about we just take away marriage from EVERYONE?

That would make it more equal, and everyone could shut up about it.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Aug 2004 12:22

I was thinking something along the same lines. How about we just take away marriage from EVERYONE? That would make it more equal, and everyone could shut up about it.

By that logic, we'd have no new children under God. Only bastards running around.

And Cameron, the Bible is not a law of the constitution. You have the freedom to express your beliefs and have a religion, but the laws of your religion do not have to be upheld by any one.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 12 Aug 2004 12:25

FlexThis wrote:
I was thinking something along the same lines. How about we just take away marriage from EVERYONE? That would make it more equal, and everyone could shut up about it.
By that logic, we'd have no new children under God. Only bastards running around.

What's wrong with not having children under God? Not everyone shares the belief that a child born out of wedlock is a BASTARD. And, not trying to speak for Cameron but... I think he was trying to say that religion is a huge influence on the laws that are formed.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Aug 2004 12:31

FlexThis wrote: And Cameron, the Bible is not a law of the constitution. You have the freedom to express your beliefs and have a religion, but the laws of your religion do not have to be upheld by any one.

You know damn well this issue IS a bible issue, and the only reason it is illegal is because of the tight integration of the biblical views with the US law.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Aug 2004 12:37

Yeah I know he was, I just like giving him hell. He and I are friends with opposing views on everything. He's a democrat, I'm a republican. We still get along, just not politically.

And there is nothing wrong with Bastardized children, just making a sarcastic comment to go along with your sarcastic comment.

OK, I'm done, I've said all I can about this issue until the next round in court.

(BTW-And completely off topic: I watched a Movie last week called "De-lovely" with my wife . It was very eye opening indeed, and although I am not a Homosexual myself, the movie did a fabulous job of explaining that lifestyle through the eyes of a Homosexual Celebrity Musician. Basically the guy was married to a woman while leading a Homosexual lifestyle. His wife even helped him to secure boyfriends (labeled companions). Eventually she became fed up with his lifestyle, never condeming it, but rather jealous that his attention was so easily drawn to men, even though she wore the ring and played the role. It was a very good movie and I recommend it to anyone with Homophobic tendencies.)

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Aug 2004 12:40

You know damn well this issue IS a bible issue, and the only reason it is illegal is because of the tight integration of the biblical views with the US law.

Yeah I know it is - I was just giving you hell as mentioned above. Like I keep saying change the laws, or vote someone in that will change the laws for you. It is currently the only way about it.

It does suck drastically that Bush is a BIBLE guy, cause if you've lived in the BIBLE BELT (I'm from NC) you will know that religious folk don't like the Simpsons (come on the Simpsons), yet will hunt deer for sport.

Just something extra to think about.

bigdirtyfoot · Post by **bigdirtyfoot** » 12 Aug 2004 12:42

Yeah, being from NC I know exactly what Damon's talking about. A lot of people here choose ignorance over knowledge. And I'm not talking about religion or anything from this thread. I'm talking about their lifestyles. So sad, in a way.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 12 Aug 2004 12:46

Yep, that's why I now live in CA. To be Happy and unoppressed by the DRAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW of the south.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Aug 2004 12:47

I grew up in the northern bible belt too. It is odd how the path of least resistence is to remain ignorant and believe in someone elses point of view.

The simpsons. sad. sad. sad. sad. I understand the reference to simpson hatred.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Aug 2004 13:03

FlexThis wrote: vote for different ones

Do we even get a chance to elect new judges to the supreme court of CA ? I was under the impression that the court made this decision, and they hold positions beyond reach of the ballot box.
Perhaps I misunderstand how CA supremes get the job, but I thought the governor appointed them. Arnold hasn't appointed anyone to the court that I am aware of, so how exactly does voting him out of office help again ?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Aug 2004 13:49

FlexThis wrote:
Imagine for a second that David Duke (former head of the KKK) had been elected mayor of your town. He decides to side step the law and declares that it is now ok to lynch African Americans. Not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Imagine that Arnold decideds that it is ok to carry fully automatic firearms in public, and that firing such weapons is also ok.

Imagine BUSH decides to side step congress and open a can of nuclear whoop ass on North Korea, France, Russia, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, claiming that the happiness of Isreal cannot exist as long as these countries are allowed to exist.

Imagine Adolf Hitler still in power decides to continue to torture and kill Jews for fun.

My point is simple. You cannot simply side step the law for any reason. That's why we have laws, police, judges, lawyers, prisons, etc...

The mayor of San Fransisco cannot decide on a whim that the law does not apply to him and go around issuing illegal marriage certificates.

You simply cannot have a working system, if the system is side stepped.

My suggestion to all those whose certificates have been voided, petition your representatives or vote for different ones, get your voice heard and put it to a vote. That's how it works.

I have said many times that if a law were past I would support it. No such law exists, so stop whining about it, get out there and change the damn law.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 12 Aug 2004 15:21

Fuckity fuck fuck, I hate the lack of an edit button when you submit the form and meant to focus the window.

Anyways, Flex has a good point on this ruling. This ruling was about the MAYORS authorita to issue the licenses, and not about the constituionality of the "Man Women Marriage" thing voted on earlier. That is coming in a seperate trial. This was just the sups saying the mayor was out of line, with the law. The law wil be up for review shortly.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 12 Aug 2004 16:37

So to get slightly off topic - I'm not absolutly sure this is true but I read somewhere that the punishment for not not marrying your brothers wife if he dies is... a shoe!

Can someone confirm or deny this?

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 12 Aug 2004 17:11

Ricky didn`t make BAP this year.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 13 Aug 2004 07:32

Ricky didn`t make BAP this year.

- Thanks Ken that was great!

Hmmm. Cameron got me thinking [oh no! stand clear]. If Arnold is the governor and the legislature are mostly democrats (making CA a democratic state) and Arnold has NOT appointed any judges. Then shouldn't the current judges be democrats as well?

And thank you Cameron for understanding my view on the ruling. That is exactly the point I was attempting to make.