|
|
May 18, 2013
|
|
|
|
 Prop. 8 Likely to StandPosted on Mar 5, 2009
Bad news for anti-Proposition 8 activists: As of Thursday afternoon, it appeared that the California Supreme Court was hesitant to overturn the gay marriage ban. However, it might be the case that the court will allow existing marriages to remain legally valid.
Advertisement TAGS:
|
How the IRS’ Nonprofit Division Got So Dysfunctional
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By Trithoverlies, March 20, 2009 at 10:43 am Link to this comment
Dear Robert,
Report thisMarriage is a Religeous institution; but it is recognized by Government the Government does not marry a couple they give them the legal right to be Wed. But for it to be recognized as anything other than that it is not Marriage as described by God it is on the other hand a civil union which the State recognizes in leu of marriage. Long before their was government there was marriage recognized by GOD the state can say they give marriage licenses but the truth is they grant Civil Unions period. All weding Cerimonies not done in the church, Mosque, Synagogue, and or by the priest of Buhddist and Hindu faith, or with other religions is a Civil Union. This in Secular society holds the same rights as marriage. I did not say that you could only be a wedded couple through marriage, but the Civil Wedding is still a Civil Secular Event and as thus is in lue of a marriage so get it straight I do not dismiss Civil Union as less but as equal in the secular world. Marriage was and is ordained by God not man therefore Man and women in secular cerimonies are joined civilly, though the church does hold the right to recognize such union equally. It still comes back to Civil Ceromony, or Sacred Ceromony that is the differance one is ordained by God and the other is ordained by man.
Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
John R. Bloxson Jr.
By scott mallon, March 19, 2009 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
oh come on. proposition 8 needs to stand. voters did what they had to do. . . vote! they called for the vote. everyone had their chance to vote. if proposition 8 passed churches would be forced to marry gay couples or else they would be sued look it up idiots it is happening in mass. and conn.
Report thisBy dr. bob brogna, March 7, 2009 at 10:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
If Prop.8 is allowed to stand, it opens the door for any simple majority to take away the rights of any minority, for any reason. It will also signal the end of the justice systems function of defending and protecting the Constitution from being torn apart. These judges indicate that voting power trumps the governments functions of protection of all of it’s citizens and renders the justice system moot, since the popular vote will control everything, with no checks or balances. I can’t believe how careless they’ve become when dealing with fundamental, INALIENABLE rights . If not overthrown, prop.8 takes the inalienable out of inalienable.
Report thisBy Robert, March 7, 2009 at 10:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Trithoverlies,
I don’t understand how anyone in the 21st century can ask such a blantanly ingnorant question. Marriage is not a purely religious ceremony, it is a civil institution granted rights by the government. That the government allows churches to perform the ceremony and recognizes them as legal does not change that fact.
Nobody is saying that religions who oppose gay marriage have to perform them. Catholics and Mormons will never have to perform them. Therefore, nobody is infringing upon their rights.
But it’s time for you and all the other people who have a fairytale idea that all churches oppose gay marriage to wake up to reality. There are many churches who support gay marriage and would be eager to perform them. It is not the place of the Catholic and Mormons or any other religious institution or person who opposes gay marriage to infringe upon their religious freedom.
We will never give up this struggle, and we will prevail.
Report thisBy franko'hara, March 6, 2009 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
yeah, because “separate but equal” institutions fared so well for minorities prior to the civil rights movement…hell, lets just bring back the poll tax and grandfather clause while we’re at it…separate drinking fountains and public schools…and why only segregate people based on sexual preference? why don’t we just shut ourselves off into small communities based on race, and religion, and income
trithoverlies (sic) is like the catholic who watched the nazis drag away the communists, jews, and unionists.
i’m gay. fuck america.
Report thisBy Russian Paul, March 6, 2009 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment
Trithoverlies - You are confused. Marriage is not necessarily a religious ceremony, it is a legal union of two individuals sanctioned by the government. It can be done in a church, but it can also be done at city hall, with no religious overtures. What we have now is a double standard, a “seperate-but-equal” system that allows straight couples to marry, and gay couples to seek “civil unions.” No one is trying to force churches to do what they don’t believe in! If you really think that, then you have been lied to.
I agree with draco - straight and gay couples should BOTH have secular “civil unions.” If they choose to go to a church and have a religious ceremony, aka A MARRIAGE, then fine, that is left up to the church.
Since that might not be feasable, the only option we have is to fight in support of gay marriage. We, as in EVERYBODY who believes in equal rights. I hope that answers your question, Trithoverlies.
Report thisBy tropicgirl, March 6, 2009 at 11:02 am Link to this comment
This issue goes back to the seventies when the gay movement and the womens movement was strong and WE WERE ALL FIGHTING FOR AN EQUAL RIGHTS AMMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. This is what is really needed.
We were very close. And then came Reagan and the congress and house became the graft-taking monsters that they now are. ANd then came the crazed Evangelical movement. The rest is history.
The (new) anti-gay lobby successfully motivated the women’s movement, the new Evangelicals and tv preacher worshippers, and perhaps others like the blacks, to give up on the EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT.
Then the GLBTs gave up and became part of the “establishment”. And a lot of not-so-fortunate gays suffered since then.
Its a long way back but the GLBT movement has a real chance again. There are many friends this time willing to go to the finish line. We can bring this country to its needs. IT SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED THAT ONE GROUP CAN TAKE AWAY THE GOD GIVEN RIGHTS OF ANOTHER GROUP. Period. Whether its blacks, religious persons or gays. Thats worth going the distance on.
The question remains… Will the core step up? Will the famous ones in the GLBT community perform and lead protests? Its a long way back but that’s how far we must come.
Report thisBy draco_nite, March 6, 2009 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@Trithoverlies:
This is why I think that we should ban state-sanctioned “marriages” altogether. IMO, straight AND gay couples should have “civil unions” which provides all legal benefits and “marriage” would just be something that churches could issue which have no legal bearing at all. If you think that a “civil union” is degrading, then that’s exactly why gay couples want to get “married.” If you still think that they should just be happy with “civil unions,” then you’ve got a double standard going on.
-draco_nite
Report thisBy Trithoverlies, March 6, 2009 at 8:11 am Link to this comment
To the Homosexual activist,
Report thisWhy do you want religious cerimonies which have always been against your activities? You go so far as to mock these Religions because they refuse to recognize your sins as anything but sin, yet you want to marry the truth is that no one who goes to a justice of the peace or a Judge gets married since Marriage is a purely religeous ceromony. You are already in secular Civil Unions so you realy have no right tho infringe on the rights of Religeous groups since Congress shall make no laws concerning the practice of Religeon so also the Judges when they do legislate from the bench are also unconstitutional so Stick with your Civil Unions and stop trying to force those who see marriage as the religeous cerimony it is, and not a secular civil union of politics.
Trithoverlies/Truthoverlies.
John R. Bloxson Jr.
By Dale Joll, March 5, 2009 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I hope Rush destroy the GOP
Report this