California Supreme Court affirms Prop 8 - The Orange Mane

BroncoBuff · 05-26-2009, 10:07 AM

Too bad for gays ...

SonOfLe-loLang · 05-26-2009, 10:10 AM

yeah, pretty absurd. Still a lot of prejudice and hate in this country, though it is getting better i suppose. Hopefully more dominos will fall soon

Dagmar · 05-26-2009, 10:15 AM

Quote:

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

Sure.

Jesterhole · 05-26-2009, 10:18 AM

Odd for this to happen in California, yet a state like Iowa allows it.

How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.

mr007 · 05-26-2009, 10:19 AM

Honestly, this is more of a problem with Prop 8 in general and how the Federal Gov. observes benefits to partners.

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

I can see both sides of the marriage argument, but I think this is more about rights than anything else. A gay couple should be able to enjoy the exact same benefits that a straight couple should. Marriage should not be the binding agreement that the Government observes for benefits granted to couples.

Civil unions should be the binding between 2 individuals that the Government recognizes for all benefits and marriage should be a sub-category that falls underneath. This would pretty much solve these problems without causing the closed minded overly-religious to lose their minds..

Rock Chalk · 05-26-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Too bad for gays ...

No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?

mr007 · 05-26-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?

Umm, civil unions do not hold the same rights as marriage when it comes to benefits, sorry man. This was actually the driving force for Prop 8.

Garcia Bronco · 05-26-2009, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty Shackleford

Sure.

You can always head back to where you came from Scotsmen.

Garcia Bronco · 05-26-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesterhole

How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.

What basic right would that be?

Garcia Bronco · 05-26-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr007

Civil unions should be the binding between 2 individuals that the Government recognizes for all benefits and marriage should be a sub-category that falls underneath. This would pretty much solve these problems without causing the closed minded overly-religious to lose their minds..

I agree. Or we could do even another thing. Remove any and all references, benefits, and any other involvement by the Federal Governemnt to marriage or unions. They shouldn't be in this "business" at all except to enforce the contract or disolve the contract.

Smiling Assassin27 · 05-26-2009, 10:39 AM

How many churches do we see burned in the aftermath of this tantrum? Hell hath no fury...

TailgateNut · 05-26-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock Chalk

No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?

Marriage is NOT A RELIGIOUS UNION. It's a legal union, !

cutthemdown · 05-26-2009, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

What basic right would that be?

Pursuit of happiness I guess.

Tombstone RJ · 05-26-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Too bad for gays ...

Well, the people did vote for it... the people of an extremely diverse state. A state where there are millions of minorities (Blacks overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage).

But that's ok right? So what if millions of people from all different backgrounds voted against gay marriage. They must all be wrong, right?

watermock · 05-26-2009, 10:52 AM

Tombstone RJ · 05-26-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jesterhole

Odd for this to happen in California, yet a state like Iowa allows it.

How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.

I say let the state's decide! If some states want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it. If some state's don't want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it.

But let the states decide!!

CBF1 · 05-26-2009, 10:54 AM

Let everyone get married.... why shouldn't they be just as happy as the rest of us that have/had been married

The state can use the money from marriage and the divorce that follows in over 50% of the marriages that happen.

rugbythug · 05-26-2009, 10:54 AM

Why does the whole world need to change for the Minority? Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and needs to be updated for what reason? Because a vocal few want it so? And what are these fabulous tax rates Married People are raking in?

Spider · 05-26-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rugbythug

Why does the whole world need to change for the Minority? Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and needs to be updated for what reason? Because a vocal few want it so? And what are these fabulous tax rates Married People are raking in?

why did we change from having more then 1 wife ? why did we change from arranged Marriages ?

SonOfLe-loLang · 05-26-2009, 10:59 AM

I cant believe that anyone would be so bigoted to stand in the way of gay marriage. The idea that this threatens the sanctity of anything is complete and utter bull****. We should always promote a society of togetherness, not exclusion and alienation. Humans are pretty disgusting sometimes.

dbfan21 · 05-26-2009, 11:02 AM

Dagmar · 05-26-2009, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

You can always head back to where you came from Scotsmen.

Americans are so clever.

Scotsmen? Am I more than one person?

Cosmo · 05-26-2009, 11:07 AM

Most people, as well as most of you it seems, misunderstand the desire to disallow gay marriage.

If I have a bachelors degree which took me X amount of work, money and time and you arbitrarily change the requirements to such an amount that my bachelors degree no longer has the same value or meaning I would protest against those wanting to create the change.

The same applies to marriage, it isn't about not letting gays obtain rights or benefits. By changing the definition of marriage rather than creating a different type of union for gays, you are making my marriage different....as I want my bachelors degree to retain its original value, so do I want my marriage to be (whether that be spiritual or not).

So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have.

On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?

rugbythug · 05-26-2009, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spider

why did we change from having more then 1 wife ? why did we change from arranged Marriages ?

Less men were Dying. If some y based Disease Killed 80% of men you would see multiple wives with in 5 years. It would be a Bio Priority.

Arranged Marriages have gone the way side because the youth are free to decide for themselves.

Spider · 05-26-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Most people, as well as most of you it seems, misunderstand the desire to disallow gay marriage.

If I have a bachelors degree which took me X amount of work, money and time and you arbitrarily change the requirements to such an amount that my bachelors degree no longer has the same value or meaning I would protest against those wanting to create the change.

The same applies to marriage, it isn't about not letting gays obtain rights or benefits. By changing the definition of marriage rather than creating a different type of union for gays, you are making my marriage different....as I want my bachelors degree to retain its original value, so do I want my marriage to be (whether that be spiritual or not).

So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have.

On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?

Bull****

05-26-2009, 10:07 AM	#1
BroncoBuff *************** Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 25,470 Adopt-a-Bronco: QUANTERUS SMITH	California Supreme Court affirms Prop 8 Too bad for gays ...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-26-2009, 10:10 AM	#2
SonOfLe-loLang Young Buck Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 13,409 Adopt-a-Bronco: Thunder (RIP)	yeah, pretty absurd. Still a lot of prejudice and hate in this country, though it is getting better i suppose. Hopefully more dominos will fall soon

05-26-2009, 10:18 AM	#4
Jesterhole Ring of Famer Ridin' the McFailboat... Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,041	Odd for this to happen in California, yet a state like Iowa allows it. How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.

05-26-2009, 10:19 AM	#5
mr007 I'm not your buddy, guy Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: San Diego Posts: 1,079 Adopt-a-Bronco: Eddie Royal	Honestly, this is more of a problem with Prop 8 in general and how the Federal Gov. observes benefits to partners. What ever happened to separation of church and state? I can see both sides of the marriage argument, but I think this is more about rights than anything else. A gay couple should be able to enjoy the exact same benefits that a straight couple should. Marriage should not be the binding agreement that the Government observes for benefits granted to couples. Civil unions should be the binding between 2 individuals that the Government recognizes for all benefits and marriage should be a sub-category that falls underneath. This would pretty much solve these problems without causing the closed minded overly-religious to lose their minds..

05-26-2009, 10:39 AM	#11
Smiling Assassin27 STOP! KIPER TIME! Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: In a van down by the river Posts: 11,104 Adopt-a-Bronco: Von Miller	How many churches do we see burned in the aftermath of this tantrum? Hell hath no fury...

05-26-2009, 10:52 AM	#15
watermock "Hoodie Jr" "Hug me!" Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hot Springs, Ouachitah Posts: 77,090

05-26-2009, 10:54 AM	#17
CBF1 Ring of Famer No avatar is the new avatar Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: SoCal Posts: 14,943 Adopt-a-Bronco: Jack Del rio	Let everyone get married.... why shouldn't they be just as happy as the rest of us that have/had been married The state can use the money from marriage and the divorce that follows in over 50% of the marriages that happen.

05-26-2009, 10:54 AM	#18
rugbythug Church Eyes. Salty Dog Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,822 Adopt-a-Bronco: Mr. Miller	Why does the whole world need to change for the Minority? Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and needs to be updated for what reason? Because a vocal few want it so? And what are these fabulous tax rates Married People are raking in?

05-26-2009, 10:59 AM	#20
SonOfLe-loLang Young Buck Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 13,409 Adopt-a-Bronco: Thunder (RIP)	I cant believe that anyone would be so bigoted to stand in the way of gay marriage. The idea that this threatens the sanctity of anything is complete and utter bull****. We should always promote a society of togetherness, not exclusion and alienation. Humans are pretty disgusting sometimes.

05-26-2009, 11:02 AM	#21
dbfan21 Broncos Fan in Florida Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Florida Posts: 2,182 Adopt-a-Bronco: Pat Bowlen	.

05-26-2009, 11:07 AM	#23
Cosmo Perennial Pro-bowler Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Greeley Colorado!!! Posts: 959	Most people, as well as most of you it seems, misunderstand the desire to disallow gay marriage. If I have a bachelors degree which took me X amount of work, money and time and you arbitrarily change the requirements to such an amount that my bachelors degree no longer has the same value or meaning I would protest against those wanting to create the change. The same applies to marriage, it isn't about not letting gays obtain rights or benefits. By changing the definition of marriage rather than creating a different type of union for gays, you are making my marriage different....as I want my bachelors degree to retain its original value, so do I want my marriage to be (whether that be spiritual or not). So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have. On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?