Actually, the ruling is consistent with democratic leftist philosophy.
ie. A mayor shouldn't be able to dictate state policy, and the marriage license is from the state, not the city.
I'm now waiting to see how the court addresses the constituionality of the "marriage is between a man and a woman" issue. I'm expecting it to be unconsitutional, and thus the whole state will be performing gay marriages within two years.
Gay Marriage [was: Ok!]
-
sPinko-Mania
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 305
- Joined: 23 Nov 2002 22:23
- Location: Palmy Army HQ
-
MegaFighter_X
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: 27 Apr 2003 16:52
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Found this very interesting:
WASHINGTON — The Republican Party's largest gay and lesbian organization is withholding its endorsement of President Bush over the right to marry.
The Log Cabin Republicans voted last night to hold back their endorsement because of the president's staunch support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The group is calling Bush "disloyal" to its members who supported him four years ago.
The group is also denouncing John Kerry for what it calls his changing stance on gay and lesbian issues.
Kerry says he's against a constitutional ban on gay marriages. He also says he supports civil unions.
WASHINGTON — The Republican Party's largest gay and lesbian organization is withholding its endorsement of President Bush over the right to marry.
The Log Cabin Republicans voted last night to hold back their endorsement because of the president's staunch support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The group is calling Bush "disloyal" to its members who supported him four years ago.
The group is also denouncing John Kerry for what it calls his changing stance on gay and lesbian issues.
Kerry says he's against a constitutional ban on gay marriages. He also says he supports civil unions.
Go out and shred already.
~Damon Mathews
~Damon Mathews
-
MegaFighter_X
- Post Master General
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: 27 Apr 2003 16:52
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
kind of like how push calles the one guy who lost limbs in vietnam "unpatriotic" because he sided with kerry.FlexThis wrote:Found this very interesting:
WASHINGTON — The Republican Party's largest gay and lesbian organization is withholding its endorsement of President Bush over the right to marry.
The Log Cabin Republicans voted last night to hold back their endorsement because of the president's staunch support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The group is calling Bush "disloyal" to its members who supported him four years ago.
The group is also denouncing John Kerry for what it calls his changing stance on gay and lesbian issues.
Kerry says he's against a constitutional ban on gay marriages. He also says he supports civil unions.
Civil unions, fine. Marrages, fine. If there is a church that wants to accept those marrages, fine. Otherwise, let the civil unions be only a legal marrage, not religious...
John D
-
canadian girl
- Shredalicious
- Posts: 101
- Joined: 11 Jan 2004 05:38
- Location: Ontario Canada
WARNING: To all those not interested, this is very LONG
This post ended up practically being an essay, so if you don't feel like reading a loooong post, I just thought I should warn you. Although this is a topic that is EXTREMELY important to me, so if I may humbly say, I think that if you feel like reading it, I might make a good point. 
PART ONE:
It was said: "I view marriage as that of a Man and a Woman in a union for the procreation of the species. PERIOD."
If it is simply for procreation, then why would the LAWS and bible put such a heavy emphasis on monogamy? if a man could have sex with all the women in the world without being obligated to remain with his wife, people would be bred a lot quicker than if a man stayed only with one woman. The view I find interesting is that it is "natural" for a man and woman to be together because the sexual organs are made for one another in order to spread the human race, and thus homosexuality is "unnatural". but then one must wonder: what about pheramones and attraction, and desire, and all of the things that bring people together to
procreate and spread the human race? those aspects are more emotionally based and are a fact of the phenomenon of love. So truely, LOVE is what brings people together, and keeps them together. Therefore, it seems that LOVE is more important than PROCREATION, and that LOVE and happiness and contentment is the point and goal of coupling with another human being.
Unless you are homophobic (and you seem to try to convince us that you're not when you say: "If however, the term marriage were redefined to include all unions, then I would be happy.") extending the term marriage to be inclusive of gay couples should not demoralize the word itself, and yet you say: "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, to change it would devalue the years of historical, moral, and cultural significants of the word."
Also, by saying your first statement, you contradict yourself because previously your argument was with the loss of historical (and moral.....) value, which would most definetly occur, were the word to be redefined.
In response to the post that homosexuality is disrespectful to sexuality: Is it really disrespectful to follow your heart? and isn't more disrespectful to someone to force them not to? If it is disrespectful to follow one's heart, (and we must be conscious of even our most basic impulses) then what do we have to live for? and who will we become as individuals when we must struggle to conceal such a fundemental part of our being. How is it fair that one person should be allowed to openly marry the love of their life, when another person is forced to deny their feelings, no matter how equal their love for that person is, simply because they are not able to procreate?
PART TWO:
Are people so bound by the LAWS and RULES and formalities of the nation, (and of what you believe to be of the natural guidelines for the whole world) that you are unable to view things with a purely open mind, and thus deviate from the rules a bit? It sounds to me that most of your argument has consisted of points driven home by laws and rules and definitions and logic. But if you look at the issue while trying to disregard the LOGIC, and think about the things that REALLY rule the human race, you might find that your argument has less validity than you thought, and that the real logic lies somewhere in the middle, or somewhere else entirely.
The human race (since however long it has been in existance) has been ultimately ruled and governed by primal emotions, desires, love. LOVE, people!! Love is what makes people grow, and feel and live fully and feel happy. Why in the world would the ultimate meaning of life be to feel pain and suffering and unhappiness? Everyone wants happiness and contentment.
And the people (as well as every single other organism on this earth) are governed by that: desiring contentment and happiness. The reason that humans are monogamous is not simply because of PROCREATION (and the annoying logical view) but they stay together because they are the only animals in the world capable of deep communication. Because humans can actually communicate, and enjoying spending time with your mate and LOVING them is the reason that many humans strive to choose life-long partners, thus Love again predominates the reasoning behind coupling up, not simply spreading the human race.
Now, governmental laws are infinetly important and have age-old historical significance, and I am not at all holding an anarchistic view that laws should be disregarded, but on that note, I also do not support simply believing what someone ELSE has told you about how the world around you should be run, or exist. I am aware that if I had not grown up being told that being gay was okay, I might not think so, and so I can see why there are people in this thread who have bluntly said that they're view was that being homosexual was wrong. It is clear that they would have said something like that because of the atmosphere they have grown up in, or the church they have been a part of.
But if all can agree in the fundementals of not harming others, and in human rights, and in minimizing pain, suffering and unhappiness, then it seems to me that taking that view would be more logical than blindly and ignorantly following what someone else has said is the LAW or RULE, because of tradition or formality. I think it makes sense to assume that loving and being happy is a simple and harmless logic to follow, more so than some other approaches, and having said that I'm sure my next point is obvious. If the harmless logic of being happy and loving and of supporting human rights is a good one: then being homosexual, and being in love and being happy and leading a life that doesn't harm anyone
(no more than a heterosexual lifestyle has harmed), then the only difficulty that would be faced is seeing past the rules, regulations, definitions, and the NEWNESS of it all; and seeing the love, happiness and GOOD things that come from all unions (be they called marriage or not).
PART THREE:
And let me just add to the end of this long essay, if Maraxus is serious with those pictures, he is the most disgustingly ignorant person in this thread, as well as the most rude and closed-minded.
PART ONE:
It was said: "I view marriage as that of a Man and a Woman in a union for the procreation of the species. PERIOD."
If it is simply for procreation, then why would the LAWS and bible put such a heavy emphasis on monogamy? if a man could have sex with all the women in the world without being obligated to remain with his wife, people would be bred a lot quicker than if a man stayed only with one woman. The view I find interesting is that it is "natural" for a man and woman to be together because the sexual organs are made for one another in order to spread the human race, and thus homosexuality is "unnatural". but then one must wonder: what about pheramones and attraction, and desire, and all of the things that bring people together to
procreate and spread the human race? those aspects are more emotionally based and are a fact of the phenomenon of love. So truely, LOVE is what brings people together, and keeps them together. Therefore, it seems that LOVE is more important than PROCREATION, and that LOVE and happiness and contentment is the point and goal of coupling with another human being.
Unless you are homophobic (and you seem to try to convince us that you're not when you say: "If however, the term marriage were redefined to include all unions, then I would be happy.") extending the term marriage to be inclusive of gay couples should not demoralize the word itself, and yet you say: "Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, to change it would devalue the years of historical, moral, and cultural significants of the word."
Also, by saying your first statement, you contradict yourself because previously your argument was with the loss of historical (and moral.....) value, which would most definetly occur, were the word to be redefined.
In response to the post that homosexuality is disrespectful to sexuality: Is it really disrespectful to follow your heart? and isn't more disrespectful to someone to force them not to? If it is disrespectful to follow one's heart, (and we must be conscious of even our most basic impulses) then what do we have to live for? and who will we become as individuals when we must struggle to conceal such a fundemental part of our being. How is it fair that one person should be allowed to openly marry the love of their life, when another person is forced to deny their feelings, no matter how equal their love for that person is, simply because they are not able to procreate?
PART TWO:
Are people so bound by the LAWS and RULES and formalities of the nation, (and of what you believe to be of the natural guidelines for the whole world) that you are unable to view things with a purely open mind, and thus deviate from the rules a bit? It sounds to me that most of your argument has consisted of points driven home by laws and rules and definitions and logic. But if you look at the issue while trying to disregard the LOGIC, and think about the things that REALLY rule the human race, you might find that your argument has less validity than you thought, and that the real logic lies somewhere in the middle, or somewhere else entirely.
The human race (since however long it has been in existance) has been ultimately ruled and governed by primal emotions, desires, love. LOVE, people!! Love is what makes people grow, and feel and live fully and feel happy. Why in the world would the ultimate meaning of life be to feel pain and suffering and unhappiness? Everyone wants happiness and contentment.
And the people (as well as every single other organism on this earth) are governed by that: desiring contentment and happiness. The reason that humans are monogamous is not simply because of PROCREATION (and the annoying logical view) but they stay together because they are the only animals in the world capable of deep communication. Because humans can actually communicate, and enjoying spending time with your mate and LOVING them is the reason that many humans strive to choose life-long partners, thus Love again predominates the reasoning behind coupling up, not simply spreading the human race.
Now, governmental laws are infinetly important and have age-old historical significance, and I am not at all holding an anarchistic view that laws should be disregarded, but on that note, I also do not support simply believing what someone ELSE has told you about how the world around you should be run, or exist. I am aware that if I had not grown up being told that being gay was okay, I might not think so, and so I can see why there are people in this thread who have bluntly said that they're view was that being homosexual was wrong. It is clear that they would have said something like that because of the atmosphere they have grown up in, or the church they have been a part of.
But if all can agree in the fundementals of not harming others, and in human rights, and in minimizing pain, suffering and unhappiness, then it seems to me that taking that view would be more logical than blindly and ignorantly following what someone else has said is the LAW or RULE, because of tradition or formality. I think it makes sense to assume that loving and being happy is a simple and harmless logic to follow, more so than some other approaches, and having said that I'm sure my next point is obvious. If the harmless logic of being happy and loving and of supporting human rights is a good one: then being homosexual, and being in love and being happy and leading a life that doesn't harm anyone
(no more than a heterosexual lifestyle has harmed), then the only difficulty that would be faced is seeing past the rules, regulations, definitions, and the NEWNESS of it all; and seeing the love, happiness and GOOD things that come from all unions (be they called marriage or not).
PART THREE:
And let me just add to the end of this long essay, if Maraxus is serious with those pictures, he is the most disgustingly ignorant person in this thread, as well as the most rude and closed-minded.
-
crazydwarf
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: 10 Jun 2004 18:27
- Location: Bay Area, CA
true that ^^^^And let me just add to the end of this long essay, if Maraxus is serious with those pictures, he is the most disgustingly ignorant person in this thread, as well as the most rude and closed-minded.
i think that love dosent look the same for every one, i have sevral lesbian friends, and many gay friends... to me there are 3 types of homosexuals. The rude ignorant type that hit on you and make gross comments to every thing an make every thing about sex and being gay, the type that are open about being gay but very kool and u wouldnt normal be abule to tell bc they just are a normal friend an dont give you the feeling like your gonna be raped if you spend a night with them, and the type that are very closed about there sexuality and keep it locked in side. I have no problem with gays as long as there not hiting on me and understand that im not a homosexual.
but as for gay marriage i think that it should be ok, like i said love isnt seen the same for every one... i have a friend who him and his boy friend have been together for 12 years, they want to get married, they are the resion i opened my eyes an relized that love isnt the same for every one.
i do find it incredabule descusting and i let them know that, i pick on them with a friendly kinda remarks but it dosent bother them at all they just call me a " breader " if it was all up to me i would be at there weding
i wonder what one will have a dress 
zachatree wrote:I have no problem with gays as long as there not hiting on me and understand that im not a homosexual.
I don't have a problem with anyone based on their sexuality. I do have a problem with anyone, guy or girl, who's hitting on me and just not getting it that I don't recipricate those feelings. Sometimes guys hitting on me is worse, because usually guys are more forceful and are worse than girls at being able to tell when the other person isn't interested. (That was a pretty bad generalization, I guess. Sorry guys, maybe you are different. I'm just speaking from personal experience.)
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Emily Kulczyk
Emily Kulczyk