U.S. Judge Overturns Proposition 8

Fat Freddy wrote:

detuned wrote:

Marriage is something that should be allowed to be experienced by anyone dumb enough to fall for it, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

Obviously detuned subscribes to Gene Simmons' philosophy that "marriage is an institution, why would you want to be institutionalized?"

Gene Simmons and detuned have a valid point.

Great news, IMO. Everyone in the world should just chill out. Gays do no harm to anyone, why take away there rights?

When it comes down to it there is only two reasons that people are against homosexuals. Firstly, because they are differant and people want everyone to think and behave just like them. And secondly, because it says it's wrong in a 2000 year old book of fairytales.

Anyone who gets upset about this kind of stuff should really get a life and learn to mind their own buissiness.

Your post is kind of like the picture next to it.

Then you are in luck Approval Guy nobody on this board is upset about Proposition 8 either for or against it. we have more important things to think and talk about.

Noooooooooo, we are all AGAINST homosexuals, don't you see? It's teh vast right wing Judeo-Christian conspiracyishy to shoot all the ga-hey people into the sun, just like it says in the Bible, which contains nothing that ever happened, because that's what drives America and is why 70% of people here are full-on into practices and philosophies that have nothing to do with anything Christian. They just want you to believe they aren't all conspiring against the heathens. Argh!

manny wrote:

Then you are in luck Approval Guy nobody on this board is upset about Proposition 8 either for or against it. we have more important things to think and talk about.

I didn't mean it like that. I was refering to anyone on this board.
You're right, there are more important things to talk about.

Approval Guy wrote:

manny wrote:

Then you are in luck Approval Guy nobody on this board is upset about Proposition 8 either for or against it. we have more important things to think and talk about.

I didn't mean it like that. I was refering to anyone on this board.
You're right, there are more important things to talk about.

I know that, it is all good.

Smindas wrote:

SpectreFate wrote:

What if I was in love with my sister and wanted to marry her? Why can't we get married? People may have no problem with that, but that kind of extreme scenario warrants a skunk eye from me.

Because the implication of a marriage is to eventually have children via procreation. And procreating with your sister or anyone who shares as much genetic data in common is exceptionally risky. In a homosexual marriage, you don't have that option.

I really don't see the issue in same-sex relationships being referred to as a 'marriage'. It's an equal relationship to a heterosexuality and if it's carrying all the same benefits as a 'marriage', what's the big deal? As someone already said, definitions constantly change, I don't see why "marriage" wouldn't be one of them. I don't see it as an "attack" on the family unit, just its modern adaptation.

Also Freddy, you are a legend.

You just hit the nail on the head sir. But enough discussing, who's up for a big heterosexual group hug?

We either have to be the mellowist board in the universe or the most mature, anytime we bring up some sort of controversial issue nobody gets angry or starts ranting. It is very refreshing.

Indeed. If only the rest of the world would be like the HoM board huh?

Fat Freddy wrote:

"I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. I'd like to buy the world a Coke and keep it company...."

"have a coke and a smile and STFU Bill" - Eddie Murphy

Dude, you're totally harshing my mellow.

I don't do hugs. I do explosions.

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

Troublezone wrote:

That's not democracy.

Nope, that's America!

SpectreFate wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

That's not democracy.

Nope, that's America!

Yep, unfortunately...

Troublezone wrote:

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

therein lies the problem with activist judges.

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

therein lies the problem with activist judges.

In my opinion, I think this should have never been on the ballot to begin with. And, it didn't really matter what the people voted for or what the judge decided, both sides were going appeal until they get their way anyway. Big waste of time.

Joe wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

therein lies the problem with activist judges.

In my opinion, I think this should have never been on the ballot to begin with. And, it didn't really matter what the people voted for or what the judge decided, both sides were going appeal until they get their way anyway. Big waste of time.

well for better or worse, Californa allows its voters to amend its constitution. Prop 8 amended California's Constitution so the judges decision that it violated the US Constitution is deeply flawed. Both supporters and opponents had the chance to vote on the amendment in a fair and equitable manner.

Marriage is a state-led law and the Federal government does not hold supremacy. The judge let his political view influence the decision which is both legislating from the bench and poor decision-making.

exact33 wrote:

Joe wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

therein lies the problem with activist judges.

In my opinion, I think this should have never been on the ballot to begin with. And, it didn't really matter what the people voted for or what the judge decided, both sides were going appeal until they get their way anyway. Big waste of time.

well for better or worse, Californa allows its voters to amend its constitution. Prop 8 amended California's Constitution so the judges decision that it violated the US Constitution is deeply flawed. Both supporters and opponents had the chance to vote on the amendment in a fair and equitable manner.

Marriage is a state-led law and the Federal government does not hold supremacy. The judge let his political view influence the decision which is both legislating from the bench and poor decision-making.

exact-ly

Why is it that certain laws always fall in the hands of activist judges? It would be nice if a judge that understands and upholds the law would be able to decide the matter.

Money talks... and a lot of liberal leaders have wealthy supporters.

Troublezone wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Joe wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

therein lies the problem with activist judges.

In my opinion, I think this should have never been on the ballot to begin with. And, it didn't really matter what the people voted for or what the judge decided, both sides were going appeal until they get their way anyway. Big waste of time.

well for better or worse, Californa allows its voters to amend its constitution. Prop 8 amended California's Constitution so the judges decision that it violated the US Constitution is deeply flawed. Both supporters and opponents had the chance to vote on the amendment in a fair and equitable manner.

Marriage is a state-led law and the Federal government does not hold supremacy. The judge let his political view influence the decision which is both legislating from the bench and poor decision-making.

exact-ly

Why is it that certain laws always fall in the hands of activist judges? It would be nice if a judge that understands and upholds the law would be able to decide the matter.

Money talks... and a lot of liberal leaders have wealthy supporters.

ultimately it boils down to money and power. Failing that, they just call people racist to trash their reputation and pit race/class against one another.

Troublezone wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Joe wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

therein lies the problem with activist judges.

In my opinion, I think this should have never been on the ballot to begin with. And, it didn't really matter what the people voted for or what the judge decided, both sides were going appeal until they get their way anyway. Big waste of time.

well for better or worse, Californa allows its voters to amend its constitution. Prop 8 amended California's Constitution so the judges decision that it violated the US Constitution is deeply flawed. Both supporters and opponents had the chance to vote on the amendment in a fair and equitable manner.

Marriage is a state-led law and the Federal government does not hold supremacy. The judge let his political view influence the decision which is both legislating from the bench and poor decision-making.

exact-ly

Why is it that certain laws always fall in the hands of activist judges? It would be nice if a judge that understands and upholds the law would be able to decide the matter.

Money talks... and a lot of liberal leaders have wealthy supporters.

That goes both ways also though. Republicans are the exact same way, its just different now because the paradigm has shifted to the left wing of the political bird with democrats holding congress in the recent years.

Stender wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Joe wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

therein lies the problem with activist judges.

In my opinion, I think this should have never been on the ballot to begin with. And, it didn't really matter what the people voted for or what the judge decided, both sides were going appeal until they get their way anyway. Big waste of time.

well for better or worse, Californa allows its voters to amend its constitution. Prop 8 amended California's Constitution so the judges decision that it violated the US Constitution is deeply flawed. Both supporters and opponents had the chance to vote on the amendment in a fair and equitable manner.

Marriage is a state-led law and the Federal government does not hold supremacy. The judge let his political view influence the decision which is both legislating from the bench and poor decision-making.

exact-ly

Why is it that certain laws always fall in the hands of activist judges? It would be nice if a judge that understands and upholds the law would be able to decide the matter.

Money talks... and a lot of liberal leaders have wealthy supporters.

That goes both ways also though. Republicans are the exact same way, its just different now because the paradigm has shifted to the left wing of the political bird with democrats holding congress in the recent years.

but the liberals perpetuate the stereotype that conservatives are the party of the rich and are thus beholden.

exact33 wrote:

Joe wrote:

exact33 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

What's the use of voting??

A "judge" can overturn the winning vote whenever they disagree with it...

The corrupt judges don't even acknowledge the will of the people or majority vote.

That's not democracy.

therein lies the problem with activist judges.

In my opinion, I think this should have never been on the ballot to begin with. And, it didn't really matter what the people voted for or what the judge decided, both sides were going appeal until they get their way anyway. Big waste of time.

well for better or worse, Californa allows its voters to amend its constitution. Prop 8 amended California's Constitution so the judges decision that it violated the US Constitution is deeply flawed. Both supporters and opponents had the chance to vote on the amendment in a fair and equitable manner.

Marriage is a state-led law and the Federal government does not hold supremacy. The judge let his political view influence the decision which is both legislating from the bench and poor decision-making.

Oh, believe me, I'm not disagreeing with you in anyway. I'm just bothered, because as a California resident and registered voter I was brought into this, and I knew this was going to happen no matter what the decision was. And, the biggest problem I have with us being able to vote on this amendment is whether or not it was really fair. I mean as long as you are a registered voter in California you could have voted on this. That means someone who just doesn't like ga-heys could have voted yes for the amendment, and someone who is anti-religious could have voted no just as a means to stick it to religion. Yeah, maybe they both cancel each other out, like I said I'm just venting!