Calif. Supreme Court upholds Prop 8.

[BlueShoe]

This morning the California Supreme Court upheld the passage of Proposition 8,that declared marriage as between a man and woman.This measure passed in California by a 52% margin.The court declared it constitutional and did not overturn it.To complicate matters,the Court did not invalidate the roughly 18000 gay marriages that were performed before the November election.Not unexpectedly,neither side is happy with the outcome.The strong prop 8 supporters wanted to see all the prior gay marriages declared null and void.The militant gay groups are going bonkers and threatening and posturing,and screeching about discrimination and their rights being trampled.This mess is not over yet,and California will face more ballot initiatives and lawsuits.As if california did not already have enough things to worry about.

[jballscalls]

it's just a matter of time til gay marriage will be permitted in many states imho

[46zilzal]

IT continues to beg the question: What business does it concern OTHER THAN THE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED?

This discrimination is no different than saying left handed or albino or cerebral palsy people cannot marry.

[boxcar]

IT continues to beg the question: What business does it concern OTHER THAN THE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED?

This discrimination is no different than saying left handed or albino or cerebral palsy people cannot marry.

It does not beg the question. It is the concern of society because immoral laws or any official government endorsement or sanctioning of immoral activities will ultimately prove to be a nation's undoing. It's only Immoralists, like yourself, who would think such an important issue would beg the question. To Immoralists, the only [real] virtue under the sun is tolerance; therefore, the only sin (and an unpardonable one at that!) is moral/spiritual discernment or judgment. You see: Even Moral Relativists or Immoralists believe in absolutes!

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

i guess it depends what you consider immoral. i guess i've never viewed someone loving someone else as immoral, but apparently if both people involved have vaginas or penis' then their love is immoral.

[Lefty]

zilly, and all other interested parties: please take it up with Pres Obama. He does not believe in gay mariage either.
It's about time that the CA courts bowed to the will of the pipples.

[Dave Schwartz]

i guess it depends what you consider immoral. i guess i've never viewed someone loving someone else as immoral, but apparently if both people involved have vaginas or penis' then their love is immoral.

JB,

How do you feel about marriage between a consenting adult and a German shephard?

Should that be allowed?


Dave

[jballscalls]

zilly, and all other interested parties: please take it up with Pres Obama. He does not believe in gay mariage either.
It's about time that the CA courts bowed to the will of the pipples.

It's no news that Obama is against marriage and for civil unions. another reason not to like him in my book.

And i completely agree with you on the last statement. It's very important that the courts uphold what the democracy wants and let the people decide.

[jballscalls]

JB,

How do you feel about marriage between a consenting adult and a German shephard?

Should that be allowed?


Dave

I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand?? we're talking about two people, not a dog and a person. the dog doesn't have the ability to consend anyways, i dont think he can say I do LOL

[Lefty]

The problem is, once you define marriage as something different than between a man and a woman, all options are opened up. Then they polygamists will want to legally marry and etc. I told my wife when polygamy became legal, then I'd get a couple of young women in the house to "help" her out. I was brutally overruled and threatened with ghastly bodily harm. :lol:

[JustRalph]

I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand?? we're talking about two people, not a dog and a person. the dog doesn't have the ability to consend anyways, i dont think he can say I do LOL

Any Dog that can do this, can get married in my book

CQzUsTFqtW0

What the court actually ruled on was "can the electorate change the state constitution at the ballot box" Easy question.......that is why it was 6-1

[boxcar]

I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand?? we're talking about two people, not a dog and a person. the dog doesn't have the ability to consend anyways, i dont think he can say I do LOL

Then by your own reasoning, you must be diametrically opposed to abortions-on-demand , since the child in the womb doesn't have the ability to consent to his or her own death. The unborn cannot say, "I DON'T"! So, tell us: You are pro-life, right?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

There seems to be an unwritten assumption vis a vis the man-dog marriages, and I'm just throwing this out for discussion -- but what if the dog is "the man". :confused:

I've had a dog try to consent on my leg before...he tried to consent with everyone.

It felt wrong to me...

[boxcar]

There seems to be an unwritten assumption vis a vis the man-dog marriages, and I'm just throwing this out for discussion -- but what if the dog is "the man". :confused:

Let me help you out: If "the man" is a dog also, then I suppose such acts would be okay since at least one of the dogs consented.

Boxcar
P.S. It's dangerous to rely merely on feelings when it comes to such important issues. :rolleyes:

[jballscalls]

Then by your own reasoning, you must be diametrically opposed to abortions-on-demand , since the child in the womb doesn't have the ability to consent to his or her own death. The unborn cannot say, "I DON'T"! So, tell us: You are pro-life, right?

Boxcar

again, another example that has nothing to do with gay marriage. :bang:

and i'm pro-choice

[kenwoodallpromos]

IT continues to beg the question: What business does it concern OTHER THAN THE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED?

This discrimination is no different than saying left handed or albino or cerebral palsy people cannot marry.
No different? I thought liberals' opinion was that gays and lesbians have their sexual orientation from birth and romantically prefer who they prefer BECAUSE they are the same sex?
Now are you saying lefties prefer lefties, and albinos prefer albinos from birth or by nature? Please explain how that is the same as gays and lesbians. I am am a lefty and do not ask women which hand they want to do foreplay with on the first date. On the other hand (left hand?), maybe my luck would be evewn better if I did only hook up with lefties! ;)

[boxcar]

again, another example that has nothing to do with gay marriage. :bang:

and i'm pro-choice

Of course, it does. You just don't want to see the clear incongruity between your doggie can't consent remark and my parallel that countered with the unborn can't either.

Since you're pro-abortion (same thing as the more pleasant sounding euphemistic "pro-choice" label for those of you who graduated from Dumb Down U.) then to be consistent with your own beliefs you should be pro-bestiality.

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget to hug a pooch today, especially since you'll never get the pleasure of placating your conscience by hugging a murdered human fetus.

[cj's dad]

I don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand?? we're talking about two people, not a dog and a person. the dog doesn't have the ability to consend anyways, i dont think he can say I do LOL


What happens if five people want to get married and form a family, for example 3 women and two men. Seriously, by the standards which are being strived for regarding gay marriage who is to say that these 5 cannot be in love and be a plus for society. And all of them (unlike a dog) have the ability to say I do.

Where does it stop ??

[Marshall Bennett]

What happens if five people want to get married and form a family, for example 3 women and two men. Seriously, by the standards which are being strived for regarding gay marriage who is to say that these 5 cannot be in love and be a plus for society. And all of them (unlike a dog) have the ability to say I do.

Where does it stop ??
Why not . Since marriage is defined as a union between and man and a woman , and since that definition has been tossed out the window . The interpretation is now wide open for all . Three women , two men , dogs , cats , or whatever . There are few moral boundries anymore . We've become a cesspool nation , and liberals are in charge . Expect very little change .

[jballscalls]

Of course, it does. You just don't want to see the clear incongruity between your doggie can't consent remark and my parallel that countered with the unborn can't either.

Since you're pro-abortion (same thing as the more pleasant sounding euphemistic "pro-choice" label for those of you who graduated from Dumb Down U.) then to be consistent with your own beliefs you should be pro-bestiality.

Boxcar
P.S. Don't forget to hug a pooch today, especially since you'll never get the pleasure of placating your conscience by hugging a murdered human fetus.

i see the congruity, it is just two different things in my book. It's funny you say dumb down u, cause i'll put my university, my intelligence, and my success, past present and future as a person against yours or anyone on here anytime.

I simply have an opinion different than yours, you chose to make a personal attack, i won't sink to your level.

And don't worry, my conscience is fine, i would never get anyone pregnant with whom we didn't want to have a child, I would never date anyone who would have an abortion, and i've never voted for anyone for president, governor or senate that was pro abortion as you , so im doing just fine thank you.

[jballscalls]

that last line should say say "that was pro abortion as you SAY," noticed it after the edit time was up.

[delayjf]

IT continues to beg the question: What business does it concern OTHER THAN THE TWO PEOPLE INVOLVED?

This discrimination is no different than saying left handed or albino or cerebral palsy people cannot marry.

One could make the same simplistic argument in favor of water boarding. How does the water boarding of three terrorist personally affect you?

The issue is bigger than what two consenting people do in the privacy of their homes. There is no gay Gestapo that will break down their door and haul gays off to jail; Gays already have the right to engage in whatever behavior they want. And, in CA, they already have all the rights that straight couples do.

The broader legal question is – Who gets to decide what the moral standard in society will be, the majority or the minority?

Also, the gay agenda is much broader than what goes on in private. They are looking to introduce and push their gay agenda on the youth of CA by mandating classroom instruction promoting the gay lifestyle – STARTING IN GRADES K-12. I don’t recall the district, but that is in fact happening in northern CA. They are also threatening parents with action if they hold their children out of school. Now, isn’t that special.

[boxcar]

i see the congruity, it is just two different things in my book.

Wow! I'm nearly impressed. But now I can see why you think you're so intelligent (probably believing you're bona fide Mensa material, too :rolleyes: ). To your credit, you were able to recognize that your remark about unconsenting dogs and mine about unconsenting human fetuses are "two different things". But in the final analysis you get an "F", anyhow, because you fail to see the analogy -- the legitimate, logical parallel that connects these "two different things".

It's funny you say dumb down u, cause i'll put my university, my intelligence, and my success, past present and future as a person against yours or anyone on here anytime.

Tell me, genius: Can you handicap horse races and consistently make good money at it? I hope you think you can because you're just the kind of chest-pounding, self-aggrandizing, self-deceived braggart who would believe that about himself; and I'm just the kinda guy who would call your kind out once my software project is complete in the foreseeable future. That would really be interesting, wouldn't it? At least we'd find out who has deeper insights into the game, wouldn't we? I hope you're still around in a few months.

I simply have an opinion different than yours, you chose to make a personal attack, i won't sink to your level.

You have fallen far below my level, sir, on three counts: First, I did not attack you personally. Go back and re-read my post. This tells me immediately that you dont' read too swell. Secondly, your misinterpretation of my remarks, which was clearly aimed at "those of you", as in all qualified readers of the post (as opposed to you only or you personally) caused you to stumble and wallow in all your self-flattering remarks. It's best, sir, that you allow other people to recognize your talents, skills, intelligence, etc. rather than breaking or twisting your own arm with self-backslapping . Now, on to the third.

And don't worry, my conscience is fine, i would never get anyone pregnant with whom we didn't want to have a child, I would never date anyone who would have an abortion, and i've never voted for anyone for president, governor or senate that was pro abortion as you , so im doing just fine thank you.

Strike Three! For such a self-professed smarty pants one must wonder how you ever reached the conclusion that I'm a "pro abortion" kinda guy. I've been on this forum for a bunch of years and no one has ever accused me of this. But I bet you think that's only because you're smarter than everyone else who has ever posted here, right? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[jballscalls]

Strike Three! For such a self-professed smarty pants one must wonder how you ever reached the conclusion that I'm a "pro abortion" kinda guy. I've been on this forum for a bunch of years and no one has ever accused me of this. But I bet you think that's only because you're smarter than everyone else who has ever posted here, right? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

your right, i meant to write Pro life, my mistake

[46zilzal]

This gentlemen is IN THE BUSINESS, not a grandstander. That position affords him and others in this position a huge bit of edge to the "at arms length" fellows and gals.

by the way how is Merri Jo Terleski these days?

[jballscalls]

This gentlemen is IN THE BUSINESS, not a grandstander. That position affords him and others in this position a huge bit of edge to the "at arms length" fellows and gals.

by the way how is Merri Jo Terleski these days?

she seems to be well. she only rode a handful this year as she is partly retired, but when she did ride, she hit like 25 percent winners, including a stakes win.

[PaceAdvantage]

This gentlemen is IN THE BUSINESS, not a grandstander. That position affords him and others in this position a huge bit of edge to the "at arms length" fellows and gals.

by the way how is Merri Jo Terleski these days?This is off-topic...not the horse racing section. Nobody forces anyone to participate here...

[PaceAdvantage]

You have fallen far below my level, sir, on three counts: First, I did not attack you personally. Go back and re-read my post. This tells me immediately that you dont' read too swell. Secondly, your misinterpretation of my remarks, which was clearly aimed at "those of you", as in all qualified readers of the post (as opposed to you only or you personally) caused you to stumble and wallow in all your self-flattering remarks. It's best, sir, that you allow other people to recognize your talents, skills, intelligence, etc. rather than breaking or twisting your own arm with self-backslapping . Now, on to the third.You sound like Keith Olbermann with this rant, only with an opposite slant. All these "sirs" flying around...:lol:

[boxcar]

You sound like Keith Olbermann with this rant, only with an opposite slant. All these "sirs" flying around...:lol:

Geesh...only two of them. :rolleyes:

Boxcar