A Riot in the Making?

[RoyalOrleans]

If Prop 8 is overturned, we may have riots burst out across the United States! It will start in California and then spread East!

 

We may well see roving bands of fags redecorating the homes of random citizens.

 

California Attorney General Jerry Brown urges court to overturn Proposition 8

[snafu]

A lot of bitch slapping going on I'm sure.

 

This whole thing is gay.. Woops did I just say that? My bad.

[hugo]

I actually agree with the sentiment here. The fact a constitution can be amended to deny certain groups rights is a bit scary.

[wez]

I actually agree with the sentiment here. The fact a constitution can be amended to deny certain groups rights is a bit scary.

 

Yeah.. I agree too.. think I saw it was overturned as unconstitutional today..

 

Seems to me the only people that'll have a problem are the churches who tie marriage and "God" at the hip and think it'll diminish them in some way... boo hoo...

[ImWithStupid]

I actually agree with the sentiment here. The fact a constitution can be amended to deny certain groups rights is a bit scary.

 

But isn't that the point of the 10th Amendment and the initial sentiment of the Founding Fathers. There is nothing in the US Constitution about marriage or the right to it. All other laws are to be determined by the states.

[wez]

But isn't that the point of the 10th Amendment and the initial sentiment of the Founding Fathers. There is nothing in the US Constitution about marriage or the right to it. All other laws are to be determined by the states.

 

But the individual liberties the constitution provides, is suppose to anyways, takes precendence over any state law that would limit them to a single person, let alone a group of people, gay or otherwise.. If not, we'd still have white only signs all over the bible belt. They aint too keen on colored folk down yaaawnder in the promised land. They enjoy a good Saturday evening black church fire and burning cross weinie roast...

[hugo]

But isn't that the point of the 10th Amendment and the initial sentiment of the Founding Fathers. There is nothing in the US Constitution about marriage or the right to it. All other laws are to be determined by the states.

 

Yes, it is a state power, though the 14th limits it. You can't have slaves any more and you can't deny people equal protection under the law, unless they are asian and white but that is a whole nuther debate. The courts have already overthrown state laws forbidding interracial marriages.

[RoyalOrleans]

But the individual liberties the constitution provides, is suppose to anyways, takes precendence over any state law that would limit them to a single person, let alone a group of people, gay or otherwise.. If not, we'd still have white only signs all over the bible belt. They aint too keen on colored folk down yaaawnder in the promised land. They enjoy a good Saturday evening black church fire and burning cross weinie roast...

 

Ohh... this from a guy who lives in a state with one black. Prince? Yeah... the jury is still out on his authenticity.

 

Kirby Puckett is dead, dontcha know. So yah, dontcha know, Prince is the closest thing, for sure. Yah.

 

I heard more jokes from my ex father in law than I did from my own father.

[wez]

Ohh... this from a guy who lives in a state with one black. Prince? Yeah... the jury is still out on his authenticity.

 

Kirby Puckett is dead, dontcha know. So yah, dontcha know, Prince is the closest thing, for sure. Yah.

 

I heard more jokes from my ex father in law than I did from my own father.

 

Last I knew Prince was gonna tear his house on Lake Minnetonka down and move to Canada or something.. Seriously.. hahahaha

 

He was gonna rip it down to protest his property taxes and f ck the state..

[RoyalOrleans]

Marriage is between two loving individuals.

 

Bottom line.

 

No matter race, gender, culture, or creed. If one is willing to live with the other and children are given everything they need to grow, so be it!

[ImWithStupid]

Yes, it is a state power, though the 14th limits it. You can't have slaves any more and you can't deny people equal protection under the law, unless they are asian and white but that is a whole nuther debate. The courts have already overthrown state laws forbidding interracial marriages.

 

I guess we should rule all the laws against polygamy unconstitutional then as it keeps certain religious groups from marrying multiple people.

 

And you're right about the 14th Amendment being another debate all together as to it's being Constitutional in the way it was passed.

[ImWithStupid]

I guess we should rule all the laws against polygamy unconstitutional then as it keeps certain religious groups from marrying multiple people.

 

And you're right about the 14th Amendment being another debate all together as to it's being Constitutional in the way it was passed.

 

I agree let's let anyone marry anyone, because you can't keep any group from doing what is their right under freedom of religion...

 

Texas report: Kids in sect suffered neglect, abuse

 

By MICHELLE ROBERTS, Associated Press Writer – Tue Dec 23, 5:06 pm ET

 

SAN ANTONIO – A dozen girls were sexually abused at a polygamist group's ranch targeted in a high-profile raid last spring, and parents neglected more than 250 other children living there by doing nothing to protect them from becoming future victims, Texas child welfare officials said in a report released Tuesday.

 

The Department of Family and Protective Services concluded there was evidence that 12 girls, ages 12 to 15, were "spiritually" married to adult men in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which runs the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Seven of them had one or more children, the report says.

Texas report: Kids in sect suffered neglect, abuse - Yahoo! News

[RoyalOrleans]

I agree let's let anyone marry anyone, because you can't keep any group from doing what is their right under freedom of religion...

 

Unfortunately, the Framers left "freedom of religion" rather ambiguous.

 

Hey... as long as they pay their marriage license fees and taxes, why should the Government pass judgment on who should marry who? Whatever the reason it might be to marry; religious, financial, or love; the State and Federal Government has no right to break the union of two consenting adults.

 

Judgment is left up to the Church and the general public, because they are so good at decreeing harsh ridicule, brag, and abuse.

[RoyalOrleans]

Last I knew Prince was gonna tear his house on Lake Minnetonka down and move to Canada or something.. Seriously.. hahahaha

 

He was gonna rip it down to protest his property taxes and f ck the state..

 

I can actually respect that in a weird sort of way. I hate property taxes! Where is the constitutionality of property taxes??? Yeah fukk 'em.

 

I pay two property taxes: on my home and on the lot my business sits on. The local blowhards and pompous asshats are raping the sh!t out of me.

[hugo]

As far as I am concerned the government does not even need to be involved in marriage. Let individuals make their own contracts; the same right homosexuals have today. Government only needs to be involved with family issues when children are involved.

[Chi]

Marriage is between two loving individuals.

 

Bottom line.

 

No matter race, gender, culture, or creed. If one is willing to live with the other and children are given everything they need to grow, so be it!

 

Yeah!

[Chi]

I also find it crappy that gays were given the right, so they went off and got married. Now the right is taken away and their marriages mean nothing now. Can they at least get their marriage fees refunded? I don't necessarily believe in gay marriage, but then again I don't wanna marry another chick.

[ImWithStupid]

He, he...

 

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'

 

December 17, 2008 | Issue 44•51

 

SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California's Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between "one man and one wolfman," instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner. "The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse," state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law. But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. "I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband," Millard said. "We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination." On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman' | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[hugo]

I think gays should be able to marry> Why should heterosexuals be the only ones who suffer?

[snafu]

By definition shouldn't the churches be made to marry gay couples then? The government would have to make them preform the ceremonies even though it's against their religion. Put preacher's in jail or it would be a against their new found constitutional rights.

 

I believe this is were church and state was supposed to be separate.

[ImWithStupid]

By definition shouldn't the churches be made to marry gay couples then? The government would have to make them preform the ceremonies even though it's against their religion. Put preacher's in jail or it would be a against their new found constitutional rights.

 

I believe this is were church and state was supposed to be separate.

 

A church is allowed to refuse to marry anyone, that they feel doesn't meet their criteria. Heterosexual, homosexual, because they live together before marriage, etc...

 

Government can't compel a church to marry anyone. A marriage in the courthouse is another issue.

[snafu]

A church is allowed to refuse to marry anyone, that they feel doesn't meet their criteria. Heterosexual, homosexual, because they live together before marriage, etc...

 

Government can't compel a church to marry anyone. A marriage in the courthouse is another issue.

 

Nope if they change the constitution it would be against the gay couples civil rights to a church wedding.

This would become a civil issue just like slavery and womens right to vote.

[ImWithStupid]

Nope if they change the constitution it would be against the gay couples civil rights to a church wedding.

This would become a civil issue just like slavery and womens right to vote.

 

There is no civil right to a church wedding. Back off the ganja.

[snafu]

There is no civil right to a church wedding. Back off the ganja.

 

 

 

I'm saying not yet but if we were to change state law or the constitution it would only be a matter of time for someone to bring a case the 8th circus court or what ever and pass it to law that a church would be required to perform this ceremony or they would violate there civil liberties.

[ImWithStupid]

 

 

I'm saying not yet but if we were to change state law or the constitution it would only be a matter of time for someone to bring a case the 8th circus court or what ever and pass it to law that a church would be required to perform this ceremony or they would violate there civil liberties.

 

That would never happen. Like I said, a church is not required to marry anyone. In fact the ability of the clergy to oversee legal marriages is given by the state. A marriage/legal union/civil union or whatever could be forced upon the government to grant, but I think even the ACLU would side with churches on their right to not marry someone based on the First Amendment. That would too closely infringe on government establishing what a religion can or has to do.