Court: California gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

[franklin]

This thread is chuck full of disappointing statists who don't care one bit for freedom. It's all about equality these days, personal liberties be damned.



In what free world is anyone required to obtain permission from the state to marry? The Mormon position is the only pro-gay position on the table at this point and that's because it is the only pro-freedom position as well.

The state has no business being in the marriage business. None.

Noone should be required to obtain a marriage license before wedding their true love. Nobody. Not gay, not straight, not anyone.

Mormons fully support and promote civil contracts that are nothing more than a binding legal contract that protects each spouse/partner. Anything else is the antithesis to freedom.


Mormons = pro-gay rights. Anyone not in line with the Mormon position is a commie and a hater. Hacks.

 

[TroutBum]

Interesting, actually.

 

[franklin]

Interesting, actually.

Two years puumping the same line and it finally gets noticed!!!


Can I get a Gameface or a DuckRogers hoorah up in hurr?

 

[TroutBum]

Two years puumping the same line and it finally gets noticed!!!


Can I get a Gameface or a DuckRogers hoorah up in hurr?

Catratcho's butt crack?

 

[franklin]

Catratcho's butt crack?

Cute, butt I don't gett itt.

 

[GVC]

This thread is chuck full of disappointing statists who don't care one bit for freedom. It's all about equality these days, personal liberties be damned.



In what free world is anyone required to obtain permission from the state to marry? The Mormon position is the only pro-gay position on the table at this point and that's because it is the only pro-freedom position as well.

The state has no business being in the marriage business. None.

Noone should be required to obtain a marriage license before wedding their true love. Nobody. Not gay, not straight, not anyone.

Mormons fully support and promote civil contracts that are nothing more than a binding legal contract that protects each spouse/partner. Anything else is the antithesis to freedom.


Mormons = pro-gay rights. Anyone not in line with the Mormon position is a commie and a hater. Hacks.

Link?

 

[JazzHand]

what a bunch of kooks

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You can believe what you want but the MAJOR difference is that the Mormon (anti-gay) message is to take rights away from other people.

The gay/lesbian message is to have equal protection under the constitution to live their lives the way they choose. Unfortunately, this gets lost in the hate towards gays/lesbians because for some reason anti-gay people think they have been anointed to tell others how to live.

You do not have to like gays/lesbians just like I can dislike Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, the problem occurs when you try to tell others how to live my life (I am heterosexual). It would be just as wrong if a group took away your right to worship the way you want. The KEY is you have the right to pursue your happiness as long as it does not infringe on my rights. Unfortunately, people love to trumpet freedom as long as it benefits them.

You have it backwards. The Mormon stance is to preserve and protect not only the sanctity of marriage, but the definition of marriage. The aim is not in tearing down someone else. Do you see the difference? I don't think you do.

Who said anything about me disliking gays/lesbians besides you? I made a stance on an issue and have said nothing about my personal feelings towards a group of people, or individuals. Good to know you on the other hand are not standing for an issue but are standing against groups of people. That's the way I read what you said.

You talk about if someone took away my right to worship. Yes, that would be an issue. One of the problems with that argument is that there is already a legal right to worship as I see fit. Homosexual marriage has never been recognized as marriage before, so it could never be taken away. Different scenario.

The LDS church did attempt to worship as they saw fit in regards to polygamy. The law did not change, and the definition of marriage was never changed to include multiple wives. Through time the church made a change to obey the laws of the land in that regard. This is a similar yet different issue. Personally I have absolutely no desire for multiple wives, but are you going to get behind a change in the laws to allow this as well? Just curious.

One other thought, and I will go extreme on this but hopefully we can see the similarities. If some group of people wanted to be able to marry siblings, parents, children, grandparents should we allow them to do so and recognize it legally? Should they not have the right to pursue their happiness as long as it does not infringe on my rights? Should we, in the name of freedom abolish all laws so we can do whatever we want...... of course in the name of freedom. Where is the line? Why does it have to be your line and not my line? Why am I a terrible person in your eyes? Is it because my line is in a different spot than yours?

 

[Gameface]

One other thought, and I will go extreme on this but hopefully we can see the similarities. If some group of people wanted to be able to marry siblings, parents, children, grandparents should we allow them to do so and recognize it legally? Should they not have the right to pursue their happiness as long as it does not infringe on my rights? Should we, in the name of freedom abolish all laws so we can do whatever we want...... of course in the name of freedom. Where is the line? Why does it have to be your line and not my line? Why am I a terrible person in your eyes? Is it because my line is in a different spot than yours?

As long as all parties consent and are legally able to consent I say it is up to them to form whatever relationships they choose.

 

[Archie Moses]

As long as all parties consent and are legally able to consent I say it is up to them to form whatever relationships they choose.

I can't disagree more. Siblings shouldn't marry for the fact that it's not fair to their children in so many ways, mostly because of retardation.

 

[Scat]

I can't disagree more. Siblings shouldn't marry for the fact that it's not fair to their children in so many ways, mostly because of retardation.

It's OK. Obama is telling the insurance companies that they will provide free contraception and abortion inducing pills. There will be no children.

 

[Gameface]

I can't disagree more. Siblings shouldn't marry for the fact that it's not fair to their children in so many ways, mostly because of retardation.

I agree completely that siblings shouldn't marry and certainly shouldn't have children together. I just don't want a law prohibiting it. I'm a libertarian extremist, don't forget.