(03-11-2009 06:34 PM)subflea Wrote:  Being gay is not a choice.

Marriage is a choice. Plenty of heterosexuals just live together. Gays are free to do the same.

Americans are unhappy with any "in your face" lifestyles. Our children deserve to be shielded from the non norm choices.

(03-12-2009 10:38 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Our children deserve to be shielded from the non norm choices.

A few months ago a grade school teacher in San Fran took her class on a field trip to see a gay marriage. We want our kids shielded yet the left continues to indoctrinate our innocent kids with their values whether we like it or not.

(03-12-2009 11:05 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 10:38 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Our children deserve to be shielded from the non norm choices.

A few months ago a grade school teacher in San Fran took her class on a field trip to see a gay marriage. We want our kids shielded yet the left continues to indoctrinate our innocent kids with their values whether we like it or not.

And I hate them with a PASSION for what they advocate.
The one party indoctrination continues into college. The weak never get a chance to have an independent thought.

(03-12-2009 08:16 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 06:34 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 05:29 PM)Tripster Wrote:  I was always taught that Majority and Minority Status was Constitutionally kept for Races of Human Beings and not Life Styles.

If all is OK on who or "What" you can Marry, then if I want to be a Bank Robber or a Drug Lord, that is a Life Style that should be Constitutionally upheld at all cost just the Exact Same As Being Gay is Upheld.

Being a bank robber or a drug lord is a choice someone makes. Being gay is not a choice.

What about being an alcoholic? Should drunk driving be protected under the ADA?

WHile not a perfect analogy, you'll find it's much closer to this issue than citing race.

Just show me in the Constitution or Federalist Papers where old George and Thom and Ben set out an outline for the Gay Life Style and I will drop away from my opinions.

And "All Men Are Created Equal and the Pursuit of Happiness" stuff isn't what you want to use as the 'Standard'.

If we aren't "Protecting Race Minorities", since King Georgie not allowing us to Abolish Slavery, was a Prime Listed Reason for our Breaking Away from Britain, and we are in fact Constitutionally Upholding Life Style Choices as Being a Race of People, then we surely do not care for Life at any end of the spectrum.

Gays are already Protected Under their Races Constitutional Protections and are 'Already' White, Black, Asian, Middle Eastern, and on and on - - what are we going to do - - have a Minority Minority or a Majority Minority set of groups - - it is absolutely crazy at is golden best.

I worked in a field for over 20 years where I got to go toe-to-toe with Life Style Folks that thought everything from Sadistic Murder to Tortuous Rapes were fine as long "as it made you feel good".

Ever heard of 'Dead Man Walking' .... I knew both Robert Willie and Joe Vaccaro, where Robert Willie was the largest make up for Sean Penn's character in that movie. I can tell you some hair pullers on "Life Style Choices" people have made and the carnage and collateral damage they have left in the wakes of these "Life Styles".

10 to 20 Years ago Sodomy was a Felony in most all 50 States, and today, go find me a State Wide Regulated Statute where Consensual Sodomy is considered to be a Crime At All - - in my State, Sodomy, even between a Husband and Wife, was considered a Felony and that law lasted for years and years.

When we Dilute Entire Races of "Real Minority Human Beings", who share a Tangible Bloodline and who need Constitutional Protections and we Force them onto the same Plate as a Life Style, what on Earth have we done to all those who got hosed, dog bit, and freggin Hanged during the Civil Rights Movement ???

I would love to see what Martin Luther King would have to say on this one.

.

a better question: Why is this just now, at this moment in history, occuring to people as something thats a good idea? Whats the next step down this path?

This was all predicted 27 years ago(really before, but here is a speech based on a book to point to):




"...the natural change from a Christian worldview to a humanistic worldview...."

Having homosexual relations is a choice, just like having heterosexual relations is a choice. As a married heterosexual male, if were to have an affair (I'm not by the way) it would be a CHOICE that I made. This is just more of the no accountability crap for people's actions that we have been hearing in this country for years.

If you choose to eat McDonalds for every meal, then expect to get fat.
If you choose to have affairs on your spouse, then expect a divorce.
If you choose to have relationships with the people of the same sex, then expect not to be able to get married.
If you choose to have sex with children, then expect to go to jail.
If you choose to smoke, then expect an early death.
If you choose to not pay your taxes, then expect to be on Obama's cabinet.

Get it? Everything we do is a choice, to say otherwise is choosing to be stupid.

(03-11-2009 08:53 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 04:00 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  If a state wanted to define marriage as only between 2 whites or 2 blacks, would the federal government be OK with that? Do the people of a state have an inalienable right to make that amendment to their constitution?

Be it right or wrong, if the people of a state vote to change the constitution, then it's done. How can a judge (except in California) say the new constitution is unconstitutional?

By referring to federal law, which the US Supreme Court has a habit of doing.

(03-11-2009 09:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Here is my problem... Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, a California marriage is valid in courts of other states of the US.

But what happens if the state doesn't recognize the gay marriage? Do we set up an Equal Protection challenge when we deny the right to a divorce, or a survivorship claim?

You can blame the District Attorney in Houston Texas for all of this mess... because if he had just dismissed the charges of "deviate sexual intercourse" at the Trial Court level, then Lawrence v. Texas would not have ever made it up to the US Supreme Court.

It was that opinion that opened this can of worms in the first place.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the stupid law in that case was the actual culprit? The DA had an open and shut case, which is difficult in that there had to be a contrived set of circumstances to get to that point - the subjects clearly had to arrange for the police to come and to catch them in the act. I'm sure the police wouldn't have wanted any part of this any more than the DA did. What are the ethics in deciding not to prosecute a crime when you are absolutely certain that you would get a conviction?

(03-12-2009 12:35 PM)Tripster Wrote:  Just show me in the Constitution or Federalist Papers where old George and Thom and Ben set out an outline for the Gay Life Style and I will drop away from my opinions.

And "All Men Are Created Equal and the Pursuit of Happiness" stuff isn't what you want to use as the 'Standard'.
...

10 to 20 Years ago Sodomy was a Felony in most all 50 States, and today, go find me a State Wide Regulated Statute where Consensual Sodomy is considered to be a Crime At All - - in my State, Sodomy, even between a Husband and Wife, was considered a Felony and that law lasted for years and years.

I think you miss the point that the Sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional by the Lawrence case that originated in Houston (there's that curious usage of the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment). Note that conviction of that crime required a witness, IIRC, and the witness in this case was a police officer, IIRC. Texas law applied only to homosexuals, but the case wound up overturning a ruling on Georgia law that applied to heterosexual sodomy as well. After reading the wiki page, it doesn't appear that this was a contrived situation as I stated earlier, but at this point I just wish I had never clicked on this thread.

(03-12-2009 02:27 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 12:35 PM)Tripster Wrote:  Just show me in the Constitution or Federalist Papers where old George and Thom and Ben set out an outline for the Gay Life Style and I will drop away from my opinions.

And "All Men Are Created Equal and the Pursuit of Happiness" stuff isn't what you want to use as the 'Standard'.
...

10 to 20 Years ago Sodomy was a Felony in most all 50 States, and today, go find me a State Wide Regulated Statute where Consensual Sodomy is considered to be a Crime At All - - in my State, Sodomy, even between a Husband and Wife, was considered a Felony and that law lasted for years and years.

I think you miss the point that the Sodomy laws were declared unconstitutional by the Lawrence case that originated in Houston (there's that curious usage of the "due process" clause of the 14th amendment). Note that conviction of that crime required a witness, IIRC, and the witness in this case was a police officer, IIRC. Texas law applied only to homosexuals, but the case wound up overturning a ruling on Georgia law that applied to heterosexual sodomy as well. After reading the wiki page, it doesn't appear that this was a contrived situation as I stated earlier, but at this point I just wish I had never clicked on this thread.

homophobic?

(03-12-2009 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 09:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Here is my problem... Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, a California marriage is valid in courts of other states of the US.

But what happens if the state doesn't recognize the gay marriage? Do we set up an Equal Protection challenge when we deny the right to a divorce, or a survivorship claim?

You can blame the District Attorney in Houston Texas for all of this mess... because if he had just dismissed the charges of "deviate sexual intercourse" at the Trial Court level, then Lawrence v. Texas would not have ever made it up to the US Supreme Court.

It was that opinion that opened this can of worms in the first place.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the stupid law in that case was the actual culprit? The DA had an open and shut case, which is difficult in that there had to be a contrived set of circumstances to get to that point - the subjects clearly had to arrange for the police to come and to catch them in the act. I'm sure the police wouldn't have wanted any part of this any more than the DA did. What are the ethics in deciding not to prosecute a crime when you are absolutely certain that you would get a conviction?

It actually happens with some frequency. And not just because somebody bought off the prosecutor, as is often alleged. The DA has discretion not to prosecute even slam-dunk cases. Often he doesn't go forward if he thinks the case hangs on a shaky statute that could be overturned on appeal.

That was clearly the fact situation here, but the DA still went forward. A decision he probably regrets.

(03-11-2009 09:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 08:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And if all this isn't bad enough, 2 San Diego college students are trying to get a ballot measure which will eliminate the term marriage and describe all unions as..well......unions. So the gays don't want to be in civil unions but they'll accept it if that's the only game in town. The term marriage is so dear to them that they want to eliminate it completely. Now that's gay.

Here is my problem... Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, a California marriage is valid in courts of other states of the US.

My understanding of full faith and credit is that it probably would not be interpreted to require State A to recognize an action by State B, if the action would not have been legal in State A. I believe there are some cases that stand for this proposition, but can't cite them as I sit here.

(03-12-2009 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 09:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Here is my problem... Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, a California marriage is valid in courts of other states of the US.

But what happens if the state doesn't recognize the gay marriage? Do we set up an Equal Protection challenge when we deny the right to a divorce, or a survivorship claim?

You can blame the District Attorney in Houston Texas for all of this mess... because if he had just dismissed the charges of "deviate sexual intercourse" at the Trial Court level, then Lawrence v. Texas would not have ever made it up to the US Supreme Court.

It was that opinion that opened this can of worms in the first place.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the stupid law in that case was the actual culprit? The DA had an open and shut case, which is difficult in that there had to be a contrived set of circumstances to get to that point - the subjects clearly had to arrange for the police to come and to catch them in the act. I'm sure the police wouldn't have wanted any part of this any more than the DA did. What are the ethics in deciding not to prosecute a crime when you are absolutely certain that you would get a conviction?

Its funny. In 1986 the Supreme Court considered the issue and upheld the Texas Sodomy Law.

Prosecutors have broad discretion in when to press charges, dismiss charges, etc. From the circumstances that I recall, the cops were called to the place on a false report of some crime, and "caught" the two guys in the act.

Under the circumstances, the "crime" looked and was "fabricated" and the DA should have seen where it was headed. They were looking for an excuse to get it to an appellate court. I would be interested to see how many times that crime has been charged in Harris County. I bet less than 5.

(03-12-2009 12:50 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 08:53 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 04:00 PM)Zipfanatik Wrote:  If a state wanted to define marriage as only between 2 whites or 2 blacks, would the federal government be OK with that? Do the people of a state have an inalienable right to make that amendment to their constitution?

Be it right or wrong, if the people of a state vote to change the constitution, then it's done. How can a judge (except in California) say the new constitution is unconstitutional?

By referring to federal law, which the US Supreme Court has a habit of doing.

I thought the Supreme court referred to the Constitution and in doing so has over turned many federal laws.

In resolving conflicts of laws, federal statutes take precedence over state constitutions.

(03-12-2009 03:25 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  homophobic?

I'm more along the lines of don't ask, don't give graphic descriptions of you blowing another man in front of the police and some other dude that's hanging around the apartment. Leave that sort of thing to Southpark.

(03-12-2009 07:36 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 02:07 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 09:38 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Here is my problem... Under the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the Constitution, a California marriage is valid in courts of other states of the US.

But what happens if the state doesn't recognize the gay marriage? Do we set up an Equal Protection challenge when we deny the right to a divorce, or a survivorship claim?

You can blame the District Attorney in Houston Texas for all of this mess... because if he had just dismissed the charges of "deviate sexual intercourse" at the Trial Court level, then Lawrence v. Texas would not have ever made it up to the US Supreme Court.

It was that opinion that opened this can of worms in the first place.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that the stupid law in that case was the actual culprit? The DA had an open and shut case, which is difficult in that there had to be a contrived set of circumstances to get to that point - the subjects clearly had to arrange for the police to come and to catch them in the act. I'm sure the police wouldn't have wanted any part of this any more than the DA did. What are the ethics in deciding not to prosecute a crime when you are absolutely certain that you would get a conviction?

Its funny. In 1986 the Supreme Court considered the issue and upheld the Texas Sodomy Law.

Prosecutors have broad discretion in when to press charges, dismiss charges, etc. From the circumstances that I recall, the cops were called to the place on a false report of some crime, and "caught" the two guys in the act.

Under the circumstances, the "crime" looked and was "fabricated" and the DA should have seen where it was headed. They were looking for an excuse to get it to an appellate court. I would be interested to see how many times that crime has been charged in Harris County. I bet less than 5.

I presume the 1986 ruling wasBowers v Hardwick, a Georgia sodomy law that applied to heterosexuals as well. The irony is that this was overturned by the Lawrence case, which argued that Lawrence ran afoul of the constitution because it wasn't as broad as Bowers v Hardwick (which they also argued should be overturned).

wiki Wrote:Paul M. Smith delivered the oral argument on behalf of Lawrence on March 26, 2003; the decision was rendered on June 26. The questions before the court were the following:

1. Whether the petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law — which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples — violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws;
2. Whether the petitioners' criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in their home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick should be overruled.

.

Just to drop in some "Comic Relief" here ....

Is anyone else getting these names that are involved in these lawsuits ???

"Bowers v Hardwick" - - you can't make this stuff up can you ???



.

(03-12-2009 11:05 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-12-2009 10:38 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Our children deserve to be shielded from the non norm choices.

A few months ago a grade school teacher in San Fran took her class on a field trip to see a gay marriage. We want our kids shielded yet the left continues to indoctrinate our innocent kids with their values whether we like it or not.

Why do you say it like the entire left agrees with "indoctrinating" kids with stuff like that. If you haven't realized, a majority of the most liberal state in the union has voted to ban same sex marriages. Don't paint with such a broad brush or else you'll find yourself wrong.

(03-12-2009 10:38 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(03-11-2009 06:34 PM)subflea Wrote:  Being gay is not a choice.

Marriage is a choice. Plenty of heterosexuals just live together. Gays are free to do the same.

Americans are unhappy with any "in your face" lifestyles. Our children deserve to be shielded from the non norm choices.

And just WHO gets to decide what is "non norm"? Thanks...but...I'll decide for MY kids what they need to be shielded from. I suggest that if everyone minded their own damn business and stop trying to control the actions of others...we would all be just fine.

simplemindedness is not a virtue.