Federal judge to issue Proposition 8 decision Wednesday

Aug 3, 2010 Full story: blogs.sacbee.com 1,974

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker will issue a decision Wednesday on the constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, according to a court announcement today.

Full Story
Not a Founding Father

Claremont, CA

#48 Aug 4, 2010
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>
Well your 'vote' infringed on my right to marry the guy I love. The constitution has never been used to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS, only to expand rights for minorities that have been wrongly treated as second class citizens. I'm guessing your religious, bc all of you guys seem to be. I'm not asking to get married in a church by a child molesting priest or anything, that is the farthest thing on my mind. I just want to exchange vows and have my love for my partner recognized by the state and federal governments. Did you know that there are over 1,100 rights that I am not allowed bc marriage is only for heterosexuals. How would you feel if that happened for you? Probably pretty pissed I'd guess. So before you 'pass judgment', try to put yourself in the shoes of a minority who doesn't have all the rights, privileges and protections afforded to the majority by the US Constitution.
I'm hoping that this judge and all the judges will remember the words of the the Declartion of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Because being married to my partner for the rest of my life will be my pursuit of happiness.
The constitution is actually a limit on government. It's a restrictive document. Governments do not grant rights. Rights come from God, not man or government. Please don't pervert the pursuit of happiness to mean that one can do anything they want. Yes, we are all created equal, but then a path is chosen. Choices have consequences.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#49 Aug 4, 2010
doris wrote:
Let's accept God's definition of marriage--He will be the Judge in the end!
When and where did God define marriage?

“Fly low and avoid the penguins”

Since: Dec 09

Pasadena

#50 Aug 4, 2010
Not a Founding Father wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad this country is not a democracy but a representative republic. If it were a democracy, it would be straight majority rule.
Let's see, we have laws against burglary. But, aren't we infringing upon the rights of the burglar? It's a public safety and welfare issue. Also the burglars don't have a very large lobby group.
Interesting point. The burgler infringes upon the rights of others. Prop 8 infringes on the rights of others.

Gay marriage would have no effect on any straight marriage, but the x-tians think they have the right to deny that right based on their religious choice. In esscence, the x-tians are stealing from other americans.

“Fly low and avoid the penguins”

Since: Dec 09

Pasadena

#51 Aug 4, 2010
Not a Founding Father wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution is actually a limit on government. It's a restrictive document. Governments do not grant rights. Rights come from God, not man or government. Please don't pervert the pursuit of happiness to mean that one can do anything they want. Yes, we are all created equal, but then a path is chosen. Choices have consequences.
By nature, all laws are restrictive. In the case of equal rights issues, the laws restrict the governments ability to restrict the rights of others.
Not a Founding Father

Claremont, CA

#52 Aug 4, 2010
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
When and where did God define marriage?
Here's one, the purpose is to provide godly offspring:

Malachi 2:14-16 (New International Version)
14 You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.[a] So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself [b] with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
Not a Founding Father

Claremont, CA

#53 Aug 4, 2010
WPArtist wrote:
<quoted text>
By nature, all laws are restrictive. In the case of equal rights issues, the laws restrict the governments ability to restrict the rights of others.
Unfortunatelty, this is about special rights not equal rights.

Why "marriage"? Why not "civil union"?

“WOOH!!”

Since: May 08

Vallejo, CA

#54 Aug 4, 2010
So let's talk about the Christian Church's historical stand on gay marriage...

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/gay...

“Fly low and avoid the penguins”

Since: Dec 09

Pasadena

#55 Aug 4, 2010
Not a Founding Father wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one, the purpose is to provide godly offspring:
So, we then shall deny marriage to couples unless they are fertile. Shall we require that they produce issue within a year? How many children are appropriate for "godly offspring"? Is one sufficient?

“Fly low and avoid the penguins”

Since: Dec 09

Pasadena

#56 Aug 4, 2010
Not a Founding Father wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunatelty, this is about special rights not equal rights.
Why "marriage"? Why not "civil union"?
True: So why do the straights get the special rights?
Rediculous

Pleasanton, CA

#57 Aug 4, 2010
Not a Founding Father wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's one, the purpose is to provide godly offspring:
Malachi 2:14-16 (New International Version)
14 You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.[a] So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself [b] with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty.
So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.
SNAP!
Warren T

United States

#58 Aug 4, 2010
Not a Founding Father wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad this country is not a democracy but a representative republic. If it were a democracy, it would be straight majority rule.
Let's see, we have laws against burglary. But, aren't we infringing upon the rights of the burglar? It's a public safety and welfare issue. Also the burglars don't have a very large lobby group.
You are right about the progressive view that laws are to be enforced only on groups they feel are not politicially correct. The madness began in California but is festering in the other valueless "blue states" around the Nation. So sad for our children. So sad for us all.
Not a Founding Father

Claremont, CA

#59 Aug 4, 2010
WPArtist wrote:
<quoted text>
True: So why do the straights get the special rights?
Tradition and history of human civilization.

If the issue is truly equal rights, what's in a name?
Not a Founding Father

Claremont, CA

#60 Aug 4, 2010
WPArtist wrote:
<quoted text>
So, we then shall deny marriage to couples unless they are fertile. Shall we require that they produce issue within a year? How many children are appropriate for "godly offspring"? Is one sufficient?
No, just that the purpose of "marriage" was to produce godly offspring, not that it was mandatory. But, the non-straight couple, does not have the ability to do this without the assistance of a third party.

“Fly low and avoid the penguins”

Since: Dec 09

Pasadena

#61 Aug 4, 2010
Not a Founding Father wrote:
<quoted text>
Tradition and history of human civilization.
If the issue is truly equal rights, what's in a name?
Traditions and civilizations change. Are you catholic? Why not? At one point all europeons were catholic.

And what is in a name? Good point. If the name means nothing, why are you reserving it for the exclusive use of heterosexuals? Any other groups to whom you'd like to restrict that word? Any other words over which you would like exclusive domain?
hello

Encinitas, CA

#62 Aug 4, 2010
Equality is key wrote:
<quoted text>
BRAVO! Very well put! Now, if there were less stupid people in the world and more smart guys like you we would have a better country. EVERYONE should be able to find happiness legally. No god, priest or religious group can deny that.
Wow...stupid I dont know you looked pretty stupid posting this! I think we would have a better country if people were not such against religion and relized that the constitution was founded on that. If you don't like it consider moving to another country!
Skiros 14

San Francisco, CA

#63 Aug 4, 2010
Chris wrote:
<quoted text>
Well your 'vote' infringed on my right to marry the guy I love. The constitution has never been used to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS, only to expand rights for minorities that have been wrongly treated as second class citizens. I'm guessing your religious, bc all of you guys seem to be. I'm not asking to get married in a church by a child molesting priest or anything, that is the farthest thing on my mind. I just want to exchange vows and have my love for my partner recognized by the state and federal governments. Did you know that there are over 1,100 rights that I am not allowed bc marriage is only for heterosexuals. How would you feel if that happened for you? Probably pretty **** I'd guess. So before you 'pass judgment', try to put yourself in the shoes of a minority who doesn't have all the rights, privileges and protections afforded to the majority by the US Constitution.
I'm hoping that this judge and all the judges will remember the words of the the Declartion of Independence
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Because being married to my partner for the rest of my life will be my pursuit of happiness.
- I really don't care if you marry. You should have all the rights of married people just don't call it marriage. Because marriage is defined between a man and woman. Call it gayrage or something else. Its like a trademark issue for me. Hetros own the trademark on the definition of marriage.

“Fly low and avoid the penguins”

Since: Dec 09

Pasadena

#64 Aug 4, 2010
Not a Founding Father wrote:
<quoted text>
No, just that the purpose of "marriage" was to produce godly offspring, not that it was mandatory. But, the non-straight couple, does not have the ability to do this without the assistance of a third party.
So then your arguement/definition means nothing, because even you say it's not a mandatory requirement.
Not a Founding Father

Claremont, CA

#65 Aug 4, 2010
WPArtist wrote:
<quoted text>
Traditions and civilizations change. Are you catholic? Why not? At one point all europeons were catholic.
And what is in a name? Good point. If the name means nothing, why are you reserving it for the exclusive use of heterosexuals? Any other groups to whom you'd like to restrict that word? Any other words over which you would like exclusive domain?
No, just asking why "marriage", the union of a man and woman. If the rights were equal but the name was different, would that be an issue? Would "same-sex marriage" be acceptable?
hvlres

Fort Dodge, IA

#66 Aug 4, 2010
Carlton Banks wrote:
Such bs...one of the greatest things about this country is we can vote on an issue. Now we have all these laws and propositions that are voted on, win, then get overturned in court. There are a lot of laws that not everyone agrees with, but the people have voted, and that should be the end of the story.
You still believe that people who vote are in control, wrong.
Not a Founding Father

Claremont, CA

#67 Aug 4, 2010
WPArtist wrote:
<quoted text>
So then your arguement/definition means nothing, because even you say it's not a mandatory requirement.
Not really, you may have missed the part about the same-sex couple not being able to conceive a child without assistance of a third party.

Also, I'm not really arguing, just posing questions and providing another point of view. Actually, I could defend both sides of this issue. It's the discourse that's of interest.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 19 min Manbrahmos 19,232
law offices of sean erenstoft, you lost in cour... (May '09) 1 hr unknown 42
CA Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr basic 200,980
APNewsBreak: 'Easy Rider' bike going to auction 2 hr kjghvkhg 8
CA CA Proposition 23 - Global Warming (Oct '10) 5 hr surfboards 7,957
Suri Cruise's dog is missing in Los Angeles 16 hr fancy 3
CA Jury reaches verdict in Oakland BART shooting t... (Jul '10) 21 hr theos 2,276
•••

Beverly Hills News Video

•••
Beverly Hills Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Beverly Hills Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Beverly Hills News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Beverly Hills
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••