Prop. 8 backers urge U.S. Supreme Cou...

Prop. 8 backers urge U.S. Supreme Court to rule on California's gay marriage ban

There are 237 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Sep 5, 2012, titled Prop. 8 backers urge U.S. Supreme Court to rule on California's gay marriage ban. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

Proposition 8 backers on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to jump into the gay marriage fray and restore California's voter-approved ban on same-sex nuptials.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

Jonathon Coultas

Hillsboro, OR

#201 Sep 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Pssst, they LOST their court case, so obviously they WEREN'T denied their constitutional rights.......
They lost because a crazy liberal judge ignored the Constitutional Right of Religions to worship according to their morals without being subjected to persecution from the government, but it seems that some people here are just too arrogant and stupid to see that. I'm talking about the Constitution!

That law, while fine in most cases, cannot be used against churches who are just practicing their beliefs in a place where they congregate and worship. That Gazebo and park is owned by the church and they do congregate and meet there to worship, giving it the same Constitutional protections as the chapel itself. Local laws cannot supersede the United States Constitution.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#202 Sep 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
given you are less than 5% of the population and FAR FAR less marry...
go ahead...
and I guess we HAVE to put polygamy on that same ballot right?
Go ahead.....somehow this issue will be put to resat because if people are voting on the right to marry for ALL AMERICANS not just Gay and Lesbian......I'm betting that it will be a victory:-)

See, you keep thinking about our percentage of the population and are forgetting about our family and friends, plus other supporters!!!!
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#203 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
They lost because a crazy liberal judge ignored the Constitutional Right of Religions to worship according to their morals without being subjected to persecution from the government, but it seems that some people here are just too arrogant and stupid to see that. I'm talking about the Constitution!
That law, while fine in most cases, cannot be used against churches who are just practicing their beliefs in a place where they congregate and worship. That Gazebo and park is owned by the church and they do congregate and meet there to worship, giving it the same Constitutional protections as the chapel itself. Local laws cannot supersede the United States Constitution.
Who's stopping that church from worshipping? NOBODY IS. We're talking about RENTING OUT A PAVILLION. Got it? If you wish to pick and choose who you rent to, then you DON'T TAKE A TAX EXEMPTION. You keep it private, church property.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#204 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
If I had my way, marriage would have nothing to do with the state. It started as a religious practice with the Jewish and was picked up by the Christians and Muslims, so the government doesn't need to have their hands in it. If you are not one of those religions, you wouldn't be able to get 'married' but could get government-sponsored 'civil unions'. I believe that government involving itself in marriages has degraded just how valuable and special it's supposed to be. If I saw a law that made all marriages that were not performed by an actual priest/clergyman into civil unions I'd vote yes on that, I'd like marriage to get back to it's religious roots.
Well, it still wouldn't affect my marriage because we were married by an ordained Minister:-)

Marriage as we know it today has been changing and evolving over the last 500 years and was a much better institution BEFORE Religion got it's paws on it!!!

I have no issues with Civil Unions......AS LONG AS THEY APPLY TO BOTH SAME-SEX COUPLES AND OPPOSITE-SEX COUPLES!!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#205 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
They lost because a crazy liberal judge ignored the Constitutional Right of Religions to worship according to their morals without being subjected to persecution from the government, but it seems that some people here are just too arrogant and stupid to see that. I'm talking about the Constitution!
That law, while fine in most cases, cannot be used against churches who are just practicing their beliefs in a place where they congregate and worship. That Gazebo and park is owned by the church and they do congregate and meet there to worship, giving it the same Constitutional protections as the chapel itself. Local laws cannot supersede the United States Constitution.
Psst, the courts disagree with you, and THEY decide what is constitutional, NOT YOU.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#206 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
They lost because a crazy liberal judge ignored the Constitutional Right of Religions to worship according to their morals without being subjected to persecution from the government, but it seems that some people here are just too arrogant and stupid to see that. I'm talking about the Constitution!
That law, while fine in most cases, cannot be used against churches who are just practicing their beliefs in a place where they congregate and worship. That Gazebo and park is owned by the church and they do congregate and meet there to worship, giving it the same Constitutional protections as the chapel itself. Local laws cannot supersede the United States Constitution.
"...giving it the same Constitutional protections as the chapel itself."

I wonder why the Judge didn't see it that way? Probably because your statement isn't true. "Since the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association regularly offered the pavilion to the broader public, it was bound by the state Law Against Discrimination from barring civil unions, division director J. Frank Vespa-Papaleo ruled. Because its action was voluntary, he added, use of the discrimination statute does not impair the association's "free exercise of religion."
Jonathon Coultas

Hillsboro, OR

#207 Sep 13, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's stopping that church from worshipping? NOBODY IS. We're talking about RENTING OUT A PAVILLION. Got it? If you wish to pick and choose who you rent to, then you DON'T TAKE A TAX EXEMPTION. You keep it private, church property.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, federal, state, and local laws interfering with religious exercise would have to be supported by a compelling state interest and be as little restrictive of religious freedom as possible.

----

This means that no local government can restrict a churches free exercise of religion without a damned good reason, and the practice, whatever it is, would have to be pretty damned extreme, like ritual murder or something. Local government damn sure has no authority to tell a church how to use it's places of worship.
Jonathon Coultas

Hillsboro, OR

#208 Sep 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Psst, the courts disagree with you, and THEY decide what is constitutional, NOT YOU.
Liberal judges are dicks lately, undermining the Constitution left and right, and religion, particularly Christianity, is a common target. As I stated though, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 reaffirms the constitutional rights of religions to practice their faith without being bullied by corrupt government bureaucrats.

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#209 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberal judges are dicks lately, undermining the Constitution left and right, and religion, particularly Christianity, is a common target. As I stated though, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 reaffirms the constitutional rights of religions to practice their faith without being bullied by corrupt government bureaucrats.
I agree.
Jonathon Coultas

Hillsboro, OR

#210 Sep 13, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
I hate how some morons seem to only like the Constitution when they can interpret it in ways that the writers of the constitution never intended that suits their interests, but they hate it when people like me point out the reality of the Constitution as it was and is supposed to be. I like how they were all talking big and I shut them all up, lol, idiots.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#211 Sep 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, the hose part I could catch...but what about being the opposite of green thumb?
is it just really stupid and thats why I am not seeing it?
Not to stereotype, but the lesbians I know are mostly very good with plants...
It's an old bitchy joke between queens and dykes. Another is "She kills cactus" (extremely hard to do except through over-watering and over-fertilizing) I think you can see the "over-controlling" dig in that one.

As with the trashtalk on these boards, actual concrete fact is not required.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#212 Sep 13, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
and you use the exact argument hat was tossed out of the scotus as if its gold...
you guys use your ignorance like a sword!
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
In short, the exceptions you note ALWAYS exist in any group of people, this does not negate the rule...
like how some straights are LGBT (transgenders) doesn't mean LGBT is not about gay issues.
It doesn't "negate the rule" solely, only and exclusively because someone refuses to see that it does.

It's called intransigence.

If "absract symmetry" is not required, and the reason for this is human variability, then that variability becomes a point in our favor.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#213 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberal judges are dicks lately, undermining the Constitution left and right, and religion, particularly Christianity, is a common target. As I stated though, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 reaffirms the constitutional rights of religions to practice their faith without being bullied by corrupt government bureaucrats.
I guess the courts didn't get your memo. You should send it to them again......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#214 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate how some morons seem to only like the Constitution when they can interpret it in ways that the writers of the constitution never intended that suits their interests, but they hate it when people like me point out the reality of the Constitution as it was and is supposed to be. I like how they were all talking big and I shut them all up, lol, idiots.
Pssst, your side LOST the case.
Jonathon Coultas

Hillsboro, OR

#215 Sep 13, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the courts didn't get your memo. You should send it to them again......
You don't have to be a stupid dick. That liberal bastard judge ignored that church's rights which were protected by the constitution. I with they had took it to a higher court and got that stupid-assed judge reprimanded, but that costs money and a lot of judges are hesitant to reverse the decision of lower courts, so it might have went all the way to the supreme court of the United States, and there was no way of knowing how much it would cost.It was 100% an unconstitutional ruling, though.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#216 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate how some morons seem to only like the Constitution when they can interpret it in ways that the writers of the constitution never intended that suits their interests, but they hate it when people like me point out the reality of the Constitution as it was and is supposed to be. I like how they were all talking big and I shut them all up, lol, idiots.
Do you imagine that the Amendments to the Constitution came about through orderly and unanimous actions?

Original Intent is a Lutheran Protestant obsession being carried over to a secular legal document. Stop it.
Jonathon Coultas

Hillsboro, OR

#217 Sep 13, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you imagine that the Amendments to the Constitution came about through orderly and unanimous actions?
Original Intent is a Lutheran Protestant obsession being carried over to a secular legal document. Stop it.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, federal, state, and local laws interfering with religious exercise would have to be supported by a compelling state interest and be as little restrictive of religious freedom as possible.

----

This means that no local government can restrict a churches free exercise of religion without a damned good reason, and the practice, whatever it is, would have to be pretty damned extreme, like ritual murder or something. Local government damn sure has no authority to tell a church how to use it's places of worship.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#218 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, federal, state, and local laws interfering with religious exercise would have to be supported by a compelling state interest and be as little restrictive of religious freedom as possible.
----
This means that no local government can restrict a churches free exercise of religion without a damned good reason, and the practice, whatever it is, would have to be pretty damned extreme, like ritual murder or something. Local government damn sure has no authority to tell a church how to use it's places of worship.
I agree that there should be absolutely "no law respecting an establishment of religion" of any kind ... including Tax Exemptions.
Jonathon Coultas

Hillsboro, OR

#219 Sep 13, 2012
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that there should be absolutely "no law respecting an establishment of religion" of any kind ... including Tax Exemptions.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, federal, state, and local laws interfering with religious exercise would have to be supported by a compelling state interest and be as little restrictive of religious freedom as possible.

----

This means that no local government can restrict a churches free exercise of religion without a damned good reason, and the practice, whatever it is, would have to be pretty damned extreme, like ritual murder or something. Local government damn sure has no authority to tell a church how to use it's places of worship.

In is unconstitutional for federal, state, and local laws (INCLUDING TAX LAWS DUMBSHIT!) to interfere with religious exercise.

The constitution protects churches from being taxed, not some discretionary tax exemption.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#220 Sep 13, 2012
Jonathon Coultas wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have to be a stupid dick. That liberal bastard judge ignored that church's rights which were protected by the constitution. I with they had took it to a higher court and got that stupid-assed judge reprimanded, but that costs money and a lot of judges are hesitant to reverse the decision of lower courts, so it might have went all the way to the supreme court of the United States, and there was no way of knowing how much it would cost.It was 100% an unconstitutional ruling, though.
Sorry, but if a Church decides to raise money from a public venue.....THEY DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISOBEY ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS........now, if they want to do what the Boy Scouts do, then they will have the right to discriminate......but a group CAN'T have it both ways........so, they got in trouble and made a choice!!!!

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 1st appeals court to weigh Trump's decision to ... May 20 Impeach the Creep 33
News Man back in immigration custody after claim of ... (Aug '17) May 17 Red Cloud 9
News 1st appeals court to weigh Trump's decision to ... May 15 Bama Yankee 1
News Another federal judge rules against Trump move ... Apr 30 Wildchild 103
News Judge agrees to delay Stormy Daniels' lawsuit a... Apr 30 Used to be a Demo... 22
News Court: Women can't be paid less than men based ... Apr '18 guyol 11
News Fight over Trump sanctuary order heads to appea... Apr '18 Critical Eye 10