FanIQ

  • join now
  • login
  • Login






Skip to Next Poll »
8
Prop 8
 Prop 8 just finished up the closing arguments before the California Supreme Court.  Prop 8 was passed in November 2008, making it unconstitutional in the state of California for gays and lesbians to marry. (Quick side note/question, when did Iowa, which is totally cool with gay marriage, become more progressive than California? Time to get your stuff together California.) So, do you believe gay marriage is constitutional?
| Closed on 07/17/10 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Politics | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
26 Fans 
77%a. Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.
23%b. No, gay marriage is not constitutional.

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#1 | 1072 days ago

(Edited by richard_cranium)

First off, I don't agree with gay marriage, h*ll I don't agree with straight marriage. So why not, gay people have just as much to be miserable as straight people. I will leave my politics out of your church, so please leave your church out of my politics. Come up with another argument other than "The Bible says it is a sin."

Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
  
101 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 1072 days ago

(Edited by richard_cranium)

First off, I don't agree with gay marriage, h*ll I don't agree with straight marriage. So why not, gay people have just as much to be miserable as straight people. I will leave my politics out of your church, so please leave your church out of my politics. Come up with another argument other than "The Bible says it is a sin."

Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#2 | 1072 days ago

I don't think that should be allowerd what so fu%^in ever.
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#3 | 1072 days ago

I'm ashamed of my state.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#4 | 1072 days ago

I don't think it is, and the people of California voted against it as well.  If the court overturns the decision, then they should ban voting as well. It was thru a consent of the people, a majority of greater than 50 percent, and the measure was defeated. 
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#5 | 1072 days ago

A majority vote doesn't mean it's Constitutional.  That's what the courts are FOR.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#6 | 1072 days ago

Cardsfan5 wrote:
I don't think that should be allowerd what so fu%^in ever.
while i respect your view , i do not agree with it.....how is it unconstitutional?
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#7 | 1072 days ago
Mr_Rogers (+)

Marriage, gay or otherwise is the DEVIL!
#8 | 1072 days ago
ssusiej46 (+)

I am proud of my State Calif  for the frist time in a long time
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#9 | 1072 days ago

Yes, it is constitutional. Discrimination is unconstitutional. Denying a person the right to marry based on sexual preference is discrimination, plain and simple.  Therefore, Not allowing gay people to marry is unconstitutional. (I believe this is the transitive property).

Sidenote: Though this is purely a political issue (and it shouldnt be). Most people's answers will more than likely be based on religious views and personal preference.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#10 | 1072 days ago

(Edited by icfeet)
Mr_Rogers wrote:
Marriage, gay or otherwise is the DEVIL!
so is FOOLSBALL...and Vicky Valencourt....I saw her boobies and I LIKED them....and alligators are ornery because they have so many teeth and no toothbrush!
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#11 | 1072 days ago

Is there NOTHING that doesn't have a PRO or CON to it in These United States...The problem is that we have way to many rights and freedoms to say or do what we want...don't freak...just think about this:

Look...I have FOUGHT for these rights and freedoms for 24 years in our Air Force, and my biggest issue is there are WAY too many idiots, a88holes and tards (I borrowed that!) that make these issues LARGER THAN LIFE...why the hell is the "Moral Majority" always the last word?  What the F*** is the government gonna do?  There are as many Gumps in there than in a mental Institution.  California??  They said it was okay 2 years ago, and now it's not? 
I know what will swing this vote to the Yea or Nay - see if a RICH-AZZ GAY philantropist decides to contribute to a campaign, and I BET a position will swap faster than spit between...well you know what I mean. 

Folks ought to start worrying about themselves and their OWN lifestyles, and stop worrying about them two dudes holding hands across the street or those women kissing in their window in the house they own.  MIND YOUR OWN BIZNESS
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#12 | 1072 days ago

I wish I could articulate how I felt without rambling.  So I am just checking the box.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#13 | 1072 days ago

All i have to say on this is I don't agree with, approve of, or believe in gay marriage.

#14 | 1072 days ago

Seems like A LOT is said when just a sentence is typed.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#15 | 1072 days ago

(Edited by Onegoodredhead2)
hmmm why was my comment removed?.  it broke no coc rules..it was bleeped out..... abso F***ing loutely..... ...they are tax paying citizens who are covered by the same laws as any of us...our consitution doesnt say.....allmen and women..except gays..it says all people....  it is BS my original comment was removed and th eone that said the same thing except opposing it was not......more political BS?
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#16 | 1072 days ago

I think the important question to all of those against gay marriage is, "What effect would it have on you, personally, if gays were allowed to marry?".  That's the bottom line, for me.
If you had a gay couple as neighbors, you might not even know if they're married or just living together.  But if they did step their happy little asses down to city hall (or their church, if they belong to one that does not disapprove of them being gay) and get married, what effect would this realistically have on you?  How would this change YOUR life in any way?  Other than allowing you to step up onto your religious/moral soapbox and spout on about how the Bible disapproves.  The Bible also disapproves of judging others, and thereby, you saying that you "disapprove" of anyone's lifestyle makes you a big ol' sinner.  Guess I'll see y'all in hell, then.   
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#17 | 1072 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I think the important question to all of those against gay marriage is, "What effect would it have on you, personally, if gays were allowed to marry?".  That's the bottom line, for me.
If you had a gay couple as neighbors, you might not even know if they're married or just living together.  But if they did step their happy little asses down to city hall (or their church, if they belong to one that does not disapprove of them being gay) and get married, what effect would this realistically have on you?  How would this change YOUR life in any way?  Other than allowing you to step up onto your religious/moral soapbox and spout on about how the Bible disapproves.  The Bible also disapproves of judging others, and thereby, you saying that you "disapprove" of anyone's lifestyle makes you a big ol' sinner.  Guess I'll see y'all in hell, then.   
Janet  google my cousin Josh Gamson..he has several excellent books on sociology view on many subjects including this one.....he ws the assistant hed of sociology at Yale for over a decade and transfered to USF,and is a professor of sociology there currently....i think you would like him and his work very much!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#18 | 1072 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I think the important question to all of those against gay marriage is, "What effect would it have on you, personally, if gays were allowed to marry?".  That's the bottom line, for me.
If you had a gay couple as neighbors, you might not even know if they're married or just living together.  But if they did step their happy little asses down to city hall (or their church, if they belong to one that does not disapprove of them being gay) and get married, what effect would this realistically have on you?  How would this change YOUR life in any way?  Other than allowing you to step up onto your religious/moral soapbox and spout on about how the Bible disapproves.  The Bible also disapproves of judging others, and thereby, you saying that you "disapprove" of anyone's lifestyle makes you a big ol' sinner.  Guess I'll see y'all in hell, then.   
I'm up the corner, mixing dranks, J...Join me!!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#19 | 1072 days ago

DeeRigga wrote:
I'm up the corner, mixing dranks, J...Join me!!
Damn, and I thought bartender was my job............

Oh well, there will likely be so many of us there, we'll need at least two!

I don't really care about the piece of paper that says someone is married - to me that makes no difference.  I could ramble on and on about what I learned about homosexuality in university, and in life, but I won't.  Suffice to say that if two people love each other, no matter their sexual orientation, race, culture or religion, they deserve a right to be happy, and if that includes marriage, I'm all for it.
#20 | 1072 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I think the important question to all of those against gay marriage is, "What effect would it have on you, personally, if gays were allowed to marry?".  That's the bottom line, for me.
If you had a gay couple as neighbors, you might not even know if they're married or just living together.  But if they did step their happy little asses down to city hall (or their church, if they belong to one that does not disapprove of them being gay) and get married, what effect would this realistically have on you?  How would this change YOUR life in any way?  Other than allowing you to step up onto your religious/moral soapbox and spout on about how the Bible disapproves.  The Bible also disapproves of judging others, and thereby, you saying that you "disapprove" of anyone's lifestyle makes you a big ol' sinner.  Guess I'll see y'all in hell, then.   
Thank you.   I'll be the one holding the door open.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#21 | 1072 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
Thank you.   I'll be the one holding the door open.
 
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#22 | 1072 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
 
DAMN! hell is starting to look like the place to be!  (dee, is starting to rub off on me...there was no reason to yell there but I felt the need to do so. LOL)
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#23 | 1072 days ago

Why not?   So, two people in a "civil union" is okay to make medical decisions (that could potentially effect their financial status)
but not be able to claim insurance benefits?     Just pick one side of the fence, cuz waffling gets us NOWHERE!!!

Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#24 | 1072 days ago

So, if I'm understanding you ... homosexuals should have the right to have civil unions (no marriage), and should be granted the right to make medical decisions for their partners, but should have no other rights that every heterosexual couple is granted by law in this country?  
And this is not discrimination (thereby, unconstitutional) how?
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#25 | 1072 days ago

Damn, and I thought bartender was my job............
Oh well, there will likely be so many of us there, we'll need at least two!

We can dance and serve...like Kid 'n Play...
Do the KickStep...make a Screaming Orgasm!!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#26 | 1072 days ago

I just want some freakin Oreos and a glass a milk!!!!

Ya dig!
#27 | 1072 days ago

DeeRigga wrote:
Damn, and I thought bartender was my job............
Oh well, there will likely be so many of us there, we'll need at least two!

We can dance and serve...like Kid 'n Play...
Do the KickStep...make a Screaming Orgasm!!
#28 | 1072 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
I just want some freakin Oreos and a glass a milk!!!!

Ya dig!
Double Stuffed? Maybe crumbled into some ....I don't know.....ice cream?
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#29 | 1072 days ago

Honestly, who cares? If two people want to get married, Man/Women, Man/Man, Woman/Woman, that's between those two. It's nobody elses business what they do. They are not hurting anyone, just leave them alone. As far as benefits go, well, let them have it....at least I know that I will not be eventually paying for their welfare for the 7 kids they will have that they cannot afford. I'll tell you that I have known some gay people, and they usually have their s*** together more so than straight couples.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#30 | 1072 days ago

RichyMcWiggleSr wrote:
I just want some freakin Oreos and a glass a milk!!!!

Ya dig!
Yeah i dig.  I want some too.
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#31 | 1072 days ago
vindog (+)

Anybody who thinks is is Un -Constitutional for two people (ANY two people) to marry really needs to read the f^&king Constitution again!  It's discrimination- PLAIN AND F^&KING SIMPLE to not allow same sex partners to marry. Put down the freaking Bible and read the damn Constitution people!   Oh and BTW- Cancun is freaking AWESOME!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#32 | 1072 days ago

Onegoodredhead2 wrote:
hmmm why was my comment removed?.  it broke no coc rules..it was bleeped out..... abso F***ing loutely..... ...they are tax paying citizens who are covered by the same laws as any of us...our consitution doesnt say.....allmen and women..except gays..it says all people....  it is BS my original comment was removed and th eone that said the same thing except opposing it was not......more political BS?
You go GIRL !!!
#33 | 1072 days ago
ssusiej46 (+)

Please tell me why i would want to put down my BIBLE  down ,to me it would be like putting my GOD down,
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#34 | 1072 days ago
vindog (+)

ssusiej46 wrote:
Please tell me why i would want to put down my BIBLE  down ,to me it would be like putting my GOD down,
Your Bible has NOTHING to do with MY U.S. Constitution at all!  You are free to have any faith in anything you want in this Country- but your FAITH doesn't have the RIGHT to dictate any rules or laws to others either. The U.S. Constitution DOES NOT define marriage as between a man and woman- and nor should it either! EVERYONE has the simple basic rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS and in no way should your Bible be able infringe on those rights!  Hence the term "put down the Bible and READ the Constitution"!  Also there is this "other" thing in the Constitution called the 1st Admendment which PROTECTS ALL Americans from being RULED by religion.... I LOVE the Constitution- don't you?
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#35 | 1072 days ago
ssusiej46 (+)

Yes i do, but i have the right to feel as i do ,i believe that same couple have the right to all but not marriage, and i have a gay niece that i love very much and she been with the same woman for 10 years but i am sorry like i told her i do not condone same sex marriage and you can believe the way you want .
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#36 | 1072 days ago
vindog (+)

ssusiej46 wrote:
Yes i do, but i have the right to feel as i do ,i believe that same couple have the right to all but not marriage, and i have a gay niece that i love very much and she been with the same woman for 10 years but i am sorry like i told her i do not condone same sex marriage and you can believe the way you want .
Whether YOU condone it or not is not the question here. Personally, I don't support the "gay lifestyle" either- BUT I do support the U.S. Constitution. So YOUR "beliefs" are your beliefs but the Constitution isn't ruled by YOUR beliefs either- nor is it ruled by mine. I don't believe in God or the Devil and I believe that the Bible is just an adult Fairy tale but the U. S. Constitution makes it so that YOU can believe in the Bible and practice whatever religion you want- should I be able to STOP YOU from practicing your Religion? The SAME situation holds true for same sex marriage- the U.S. Constitution protects those people to do whatever they want as well. Could you show me anywhere in the Constitution that says that same sex marriage is Unconstitutional? Since you BELIEVE it is by your answer- I would assume that you THINK it is Unconstitutional- so simply I ask you to prove it to me.

As I said, YOU have the Rights and freedoms to believe and practice any faith or religion that YOU so desire and that is PROTECTED by the same exact Constitution that PROTECTS the rights of marriage by anyone as well. Simply because you don't believe that "gays" should be allowed to marry is your own opinion- but it is in NO WAY Unconstitutional at all.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#37 | 1072 days ago

Believing the way you want is not the issue.  Projecting your beliefs onto others is.  When you say that gay marriage is unconstitutional (which it isn't), you are discriminating against your fellow U. S. citizens.  That is unconstitutional!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#38 | 1072 days ago

First off - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution

The US Constitution does not even mention the word Marriage, so it is neither constitutional or unconstitutional.  The definition of marriage, as found in websters dictionary is: 

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The whole thing is a catch 22 ... if you do not allow same sex marriage, then it's called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others -- if you allow same sex marriage - it is also called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others.

Either way -- no court or government official is allowed to force a decision one way or the other -- it comes down to people voting for or against it.

#39 | 1072 days ago

SickPuppy wrote:
First off - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution

The US Constitution does not even mention the word Marriage, so it is neither constitutional or unconstitutional.  The definition of marriage, as found in websters dictionary is: 

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The whole thing is a catch 22 ... if you do not allow same sex marriage, then it's called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others -- if you allow same sex marriage - it is also called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others.

Either way -- no court or government official is allowed to force a decision one way or the other -- it comes down to people voting for or against it.

But NOT allowing same-sex marriage really isn't discrimination or projecting any beliefs onto others.  There would be no legal leg to stand on there.  Not allowing everyone the same rights and privileges under the law is discrimination, not the other way around.  The two (same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage) are not mutually exclusive.  Everyone should be given the same rights, including the right to marry and share all of the legal benefits of such.  As for projecting beliefs ... beliefs should have NO place in this debate from either side.  It's a legal issue, not a moral or religious one (at least it shouldn't be).
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#40 | 1072 days ago
Drummer99 (Alex) profile photo

Its not my cup of tea, but, If a state passes it as law, I have no say so. I'll personally leave it up to God to judge.
#41 | 1072 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
Drummer99 wrote:
Its not my cup of tea, but, If a state passes it as law, I have no say so. I'll personally leave it up to God to judge.
Chuck Cooper "the state has a fundamental interest in the fruitful union between a man and a woman that simply does not pertain to same-sex relations"
#42 | 1072 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
Chuck Cooper "the state has a fundamental interest in the fruitful union between a man and a woman that simply does not pertain to same-sex relations"
Please do elaborate.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#43 | 1072 days ago

(Edited by kobe_lova)
coyotedances wrote:
Chuck Cooper "the state has a fundamental interest in the fruitful union between a man and a woman that simply does not pertain to same-sex relations"
what fundamental interest would that be?

edit: the fact that you edited your statement to show that it was not your thought implies that you would rather not own that statement. And being that your response to this question still does not tell what those interests are, I see why.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#44 | 1072 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
kobe_lova wrote:
what fundamental interest would that be?

edit: the fact that you edited your statement to show that it was not your thought implies that you would rather not own that statement. And being that your response to this question still does not tell what those interests are, I see why.
Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper, "argued that several court rulings in other states have recognized that instituting same-sex "marriage" essentially changes the definition of marriage as understood in common law, and that California has always understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. He also argued that marriage was a public institution of key import to the stability of a society, rather than a matter of private choice."
#45 | 1072 days ago

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker is himself openly homosexual.
#46 | 1072 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper, "argued that several court rulings in other states have recognized that instituting same-sex "marriage" essentially changes the definition of marriage as understood in common law, and that California has always understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. He also argued that marriage was a public institution of key import to the stability of a society, rather than a matter of private choice."
...so you're saying because some guy said so?
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#47 | 1072 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
...so you're saying because some guy said so?
no I'm saying I agree with him
#48 | 1072 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
...so you're saying because some guy said so?
that's exactly what i thought, and it still doesnt really explain the fundamental interest explicitly....or maybe i missed it.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#49 | 1072 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

A couple of thoughts:

1. "Democracy is tyranny by the masses" --Thomas Jefferson  It is the reason why the judiciary was established; so that no laws could be made by lawmakers that infringed upon the rights of the 'lowest' individual, and no law could be voted in by a referrendum which infringes upon the rights of the minority.

2. I laugh when people use religion to say that a person / people don't have the right to do something because of their beliefs--yet when their beliefs are put into question they're 'all over' their rights to believe such.

3. Marriage versus Civil Union: actually these two title mean the same thing.  They entitle people to the same recognition, same legal rights and benefits for insurance, taxation, etc.  Considering marriage has long been associated with straight relationships, let it remain so.  Being able to attain equality under the law, but quibbling over a word/phrase is stupid.  So, for those who want to recognize marriage as a Christian establishment, let it be so.  Let each church establish the guidelines for who they will unite in marriage, and those from non-religious institutions can be recognized Civil Unions.  The end result is the same.

4. The American Constitution is a living document that evolves with that of society; it's the reason why Article 5 sets perameters for change.  Without such change, just take a look back at history and think about how backwards American society would be today without such social evolution.  Society is still screwed up because people are still judging other, not based upon the rights entitled to all, but by personal beliefs and prejudice.
#50 | 1072 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
no I'm saying I agree with him
Still not seeing the fundamental interest that the state has in keeping marriage ONLY between a man and a woman.  
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#51 | 1071 days ago

AND IN OTHER NEWS, QMZ FIELD AGENT REPORTING:

LAKERS WIN BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#52 | 1071 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
A couple of thoughts:

1. "Democracy is tyranny by the masses" --Thomas Jefferson  It is the reason why the judiciary was established; so that no laws could be made by lawmakers that infringed upon the rights of the 'lowest' individual, and no law could be voted in by a referrendum which infringes upon the rights of the minority.

2. I laugh when people use religion to say that a person / people don't have the right to do something because of their beliefs--yet when their beliefs are put into question they're 'all over' their rights to believe such.

3. Marriage versus Civil Union: actually these two title mean the same thing.  They entitle people to the same recognition, same legal rights and benefits for insurance, taxation, etc.  Considering marriage has long been associated with straight relationships, let it remain so.  Being able to attain equality under the law, but quibbling over a word/phrase is stupid.  So, for those who want to recognize marriage as a Christian establishment, let it be so.  Let each church establish the guidelines for who they will unite in marriage, and those from non-religious institutions can be recognized Civil Unions.  The end result is the same.

4. The American Constitution is a living document that evolves with that of society; it's the reason why Article 5 sets perameters for change.  Without such change, just take a look back at history and think about how backwards American society would be today without such social evolution.  Society is still screwed up because people are still judging other, not based upon the rights entitled to all, but by personal beliefs and prejudice.
The only issue I have with what you've said, my friend, is that you are mistaken on #3.  Civil unions and marriages do NOT currently afford the same rights to homosexual couples as they do to heterosexual couples.  In fact, there are hundreds of rights that are not granted by civil unions.  This is part of the reason why there is such a big fight going on for gay marriage.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#53 | 1071 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

Agreed, in present tense, but if civil unions became "constitutional" as with the battle from proposition 8, they would be.  Good point.  I guess I was presenting my point with the understanding that both should have equal legal representation and constitutional protections.
#54 | 1071 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
Agreed, in present tense, but if civil unions became "constitutional" as with the battle from proposition 8, they would be.  Good point.  I guess I was presenting my point with the understanding that both should have equal legal representation and constitutional protections.
Agreed ... and most of my gay friends don't really care if it's called marriage or not.  They just want the rights that they deserve.  However, for those who DO care and want it to be called marriage, I get their side of it, too.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#55 | 1071 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper, "argued that several court rulings in other states have recognized that instituting same-sex "marriage" essentially changes the definition of marriage as understood in common law, and that California has always understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. He also argued that marriage was a public institution of key import to the stability of a society, rather than a matter of private choice."
he argued..the key word is argued...i want more than arguments sake. i want facts and laws of the land of the usa.....no where does it say that we may discriminate any one..period,,when we lose objectivity  we lose sight of what tthe laws represent.....it is like saying you are x age..so you may not work because you are old...or you may not vote because you are gay...there has to be the same rights for all of us if we are gonna preach law...we may have different points of view on moral nd personal levels,,but this is a legal issue and the constitution affords ALL Americans the same rights.....period!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#56 | 1071 days ago

vindog wrote:
Anybody who thinks is is Un -Constitutional for two people (ANY two people) to marry really needs to read the f^&king Constitution again!  It's discrimination- PLAIN AND F^&KING SIMPLE to not allow same sex partners to marry. Put down the freaking Bible and read the damn Constitution people!   Oh and BTW- Cancun is freaking AWESOME!
Glad you and the wife are having an awsome time..just remember we all get to join you in the bedroom caus emarraige is a public enitity  not a private one!  hope you have one hugs A$$ bedroom!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#57 | 1071 days ago

SickPuppy wrote:
First off - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution

The US Constitution does not even mention the word Marriage, so it is neither constitutional or unconstitutional.  The definition of marriage, as found in websters dictionary is: 

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The whole thing is a catch 22 ... if you do not allow same sex marriage, then it's called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others -- if you allow same sex marriage - it is also called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others.

Either way -- no court or government official is allowed to force a decision one way or the other -- it comes down to people voting for or against it.

our high courts are exactly for these issues..its not about a vote of the people..its about wheather the constitution is being upheld.....the question this poll asked wa sif you support the constitution for all or dont support it.....(yes its constitutional no it isnt)..eithr we all have to obide by the constitution, or none of us do...we cant have it both ways....
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#58 | 1071 days ago

NorseHeathen wrote:
A couple of thoughts:

1. "Democracy is tyranny by the masses" --Thomas Jefferson  It is the reason why the judiciary was established; so that no laws could be made by lawmakers that infringed upon the rights of the 'lowest' individual, and no law could be voted in by a referrendum which infringes upon the rights of the minority.

2. I laugh when people use religion to say that a person / people don't have the right to do something because of their beliefs--yet when their beliefs are put into question they're 'all over' their rights to believe such.

3. Marriage versus Civil Union: actually these two title mean the same thing.  They entitle people to the same recognition, same legal rights and benefits for insurance, taxation, etc.  Considering marriage has long been associated with straight relationships, let it remain so.  Being able to attain equality under the law, but quibbling over a word/phrase is stupid.  So, for those who want to recognize marriage as a Christian establishment, let it be so.  Let each church establish the guidelines for who they will unite in marriage, and those from non-religious institutions can be recognized Civil Unions.  The end result is the same.

4. The American Constitution is a living document that evolves with that of society; it's the reason why Article 5 sets perameters for change.  Without such change, just take a look back at history and think about how backwards American society would be today without such social evolution.  Society is still screwed up because people are still judging other, not based upon the rights entitled to all, but by personal beliefs and prejudice.
yes that is why we have the seperation of church and state......people are bringing their moral/personal/religious  beliefs in to the constitution,and that is why we have high courts... well said sir norse
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#59 | 1071 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
First off - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution

The US Constitution does not even mention the word Marriage, so it is neither constitutional or unconstitutional.  The definition of marriage, as found in websters dictionary is: 

MAR''RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The whole thing is a catch 22 ... if you do not allow same sex marriage, then it's called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others -- if you allow same sex marriage - it is also called discrimination and projecting your beliefs on others.

Either way -- no court or government official is allowed to force a decision one way or the other -- it comes down to people voting for or against it.

I gave you a respect because my words "Life ,Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" ARE in the Declaration of Independence and NOT the Constitution BUT the reference IS the same. Other than that,  the text of your statement is (IMHO) just bogus. A) Who really cares what a dictionary defines marriage as- I can find NUMEROUS dictionaries that also include same sex couples as being "married"! You picked ONE of thousands of definitions- great job- you found ONE that YOU liked!     B)  It does NOT come down to what "people VOTE for" as it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to VOTE to take a persons rights away to begin with- PERIOD!     My example:   What if California (hypothetically) took a vote to make reading that Bible AGAINST the law? And lets just say that it passed by voters and the VOTERS decided that it should be a law? Would THAT be UNCONSTITUTIONAL? I mean after all, that's what the VOTERS want right? Do you get my point?          And C)   How is actually allowing gay marriage infringing on ANYBODIES rights? NOT allowing gay marriage is discrimination obviously but allowing it is NOT discrimination at all- I think you are very confused on what discrimination actually is.......Discrimination is taking away an individuals RIGHTS;  NOT taking away their beliefs- please understand the difference in the two.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#60 | 1071 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
I guess what I'm saying with my whole argument comes down to this one simple statement: Either you stand for the same FREEDOMS for EVERY American or you don't!  Personally I stand for FREEDOMS of EVERY American- whether or not I agree with their beliefs or lifestyles- quite obviously YOU are entitled to your prejudices......
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#61 | 1071 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
But NOT allowing same-sex marriage really isn't discrimination or projecting any beliefs onto others.  There would be no legal leg to stand on there.  Not allowing everyone the same rights and privileges under the law is discrimination, not the other way around.  The two (same-sex marriage and opposite-sex marriage) are not mutually exclusive.  Everyone should be given the same rights, including the right to marry and share all of the legal benefits of such.  As for projecting beliefs ... beliefs should have NO place in this debate from either side.  It's a legal issue, not a moral or religious one (at least it shouldn't be).
Janet -- I left the dictionary definition in the post for a couple of reasons -- one was to see who I could pi$$ off (but I don't feel like reading the posts to see who) and the other was to use it as an example.  When Puritans, Pilgrims and everyone else who first settled here, brought with them very strict religious rules and beliefs - which have been passed down through generations -- and you can see those beliefs in the dictionary.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong -- I'm just pointing out what the majority of people in this society believe -- again, I'm not judging right or wrong.  My thoughts are that it will take several generations for the dictionary definition to change.
Personally - when everyone was "coming out of the closet" - I hated it and my response was "show me a gay animal and I'll believe that this is natural with humans".  Since then, I have fathered 3 kids (that I admit to) and with each one I wondered IF any of them were to be homosexual - would my feelings change towards them ... would I hate them, would I disown them -- is it something that I would do wrong in raising them or is it just something that happens?  I realized that I would not feel any different about them - I wouldn't understand "why" they are homosexual - and I probably wouldn't care .... their health, well being and happiness comes first.  But I still don't want a Federal Law or Court Order telling me what I should believe and accept....there has to be another way.  I don't have a solution - just questions .. but I strongly object to the Federal Government telling me I have to accept - it has nothing to do with the current administration -- it's all administrations .. those jacka$$es  don't have a clue of what's going on.
#62 | 1071 days ago
vindog (+)

SickPuppy wrote:
Janet -- I left the dictionary definition in the post for a couple of reasons -- one was to see who I could pi$$ off (but I don't feel like reading the posts to see who) and the other was to use it as an example.  When Puritans, Pilgrims and everyone else who first settled here, brought with them very strict religious rules and beliefs - which have been passed down through generations -- and you can see those beliefs in the dictionary.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong -- I'm just pointing out what the majority of people in this society believe -- again, I'm not judging right or wrong.  My thoughts are that it will take several generations for the dictionary definition to change.
Personally - when everyone was "coming out of the closet" - I hated it and my response was "show me a gay animal and I'll believe that this is natural with humans".  Since then, I have fathered 3 kids (that I admit to) and with each one I wondered IF any of them were to be homosexual - would my feelings change towards them ... would I hate them, would I disown them -- is it something that I would do wrong in raising them or is it just something that happens?  I realized that I would not feel any different about them - I wouldn't understand "why" they are homosexual - and I probably wouldn't care .... their health, well being and happiness comes first.  But I still don't want a Federal Law or Court Order telling me what I should believe and accept....there has to be another way.  I don't have a solution - just questions .. but I strongly object to the Federal Government telling me I have to accept - it has nothing to do with the current administration -- it's all administrations .. those jacka$$es  don't have a clue of what's going on.
That was actually a good way to put it- but what you are missing is that the "VOTE on Prop 8"  TOOK AWAY marriage rights for same sex couples- it didn't give them those rights.... These people already HAD the right to marry and people voted ( with a hell of a lot of "Church Money" behind them) to take those rights away.  It is the Federal Courts job to give those rights back as it is Unconstitutional to take away the rights of "specific target groups" of people.    That is the actual issue here- the Federal Government wouldn't be telling you what you have to accept- they would be giving the RIGHTS back to the ones that were stripped of them- plain and simple.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#63 | 1071 days ago

vindog wrote:
That was actually a good way to put it- but what you are missing is that the "VOTE on Prop 8"  TOOK AWAY marriage rights for same sex couples- it didn't give them those rights.... These people already HAD the right to marry and people voted ( with a hell of a lot of "Church Money" behind them) to take those rights away.  It is the Federal Courts job to give those rights back as it is Unconstitutional to take away the rights of "specific target groups" of people.    That is the actual issue here- the Federal Government wouldn't be telling you what you have to accept- they would be giving the RIGHTS back to the ones that were stripped of them- plain and simple.
One thing about Americans. You can't give them something and then take it away. Just not going to happen!
#64 | 1071 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
A majority vote doesn't mean it's Constitutional.  That's what the courts are FOR.
a majority vote means that it was decided by the majority, ever hear that old term majority rules? what was the purpose of the vote then?
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#65 | 1071 days ago

so to the people who voted against gay marriage, overturning it wouldnt be discrimination to them? that's the problem with this country now days, dont hurt anybodys feelings, they have rights, why do they always have rights and the other side doesnt? not everybody gets a trophy
No, gay marriage is not constitutional.  
#66 | 1071 days ago

ROTFLMAO
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#67 | 1071 days ago

NObama wrote:
a majority vote means that it was decided by the majority, ever hear that old term majority rules? what was the purpose of the vote then?
you cant vote on an issue that discriminates any race color or creed et el....to take away a constitutional right.they alreadyhad....THAT is the point.....shall we take away some of your rights and see how you feel?
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#68 | 1071 days ago

NObama wrote:
so to the people who voted against gay marriage, overturning it wouldnt be discrimination to them? that's the problem with this country now days, dont hurt anybodys feelings, they have rights, why do they always have rights and the other side doesnt? not everybody gets a trophy
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#69 | 1071 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

 What interests me is the question is, is gay marriage constitutional? And some people just state their opinion on the issue of gay marriage in general-- which has nothing to do with its constitutionality. Maybe I don't like that the creepy dude next door is gone to a gun show today, but that doesn't change the fact that he's got a constitutional right to own a gun. Maybe I don't like the WBC holding up "God Hates Fags" signs across the street from a local high school, but my opinion of their opinion doesn't change the fact that they have First Amendment rights to both peacefully assemble and speak freely.

Gay marriage is a) not unconstitutional, because the Constitution says nothing about marriage and b) outlawing it could be construed as discrimination, which would be unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment and ample civil rights legislation since then.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#70 | 1071 days ago

SickPuppy wrote:
Janet -- I left the dictionary definition in the post for a couple of reasons -- one was to see who I could pi$$ off (but I don't feel like reading the posts to see who) and the other was to use it as an example.  When Puritans, Pilgrims and everyone else who first settled here, brought with them very strict religious rules and beliefs - which have been passed down through generations -- and you can see those beliefs in the dictionary.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong -- I'm just pointing out what the majority of people in this society believe -- again, I'm not judging right or wrong.  My thoughts are that it will take several generations for the dictionary definition to change.
Personally - when everyone was "coming out of the closet" - I hated it and my response was "show me a gay animal and I'll believe that this is natural with humans".  Since then, I have fathered 3 kids (that I admit to) and with each one I wondered IF any of them were to be homosexual - would my feelings change towards them ... would I hate them, would I disown them -- is it something that I would do wrong in raising them or is it just something that happens?  I realized that I would not feel any different about them - I wouldn't understand "why" they are homosexual - and I probably wouldn't care .... their health, well being and happiness comes first.  But I still don't want a Federal Law or Court Order telling me what I should believe and accept....there has to be another way.  I don't have a solution - just questions .. but I strongly object to the Federal Government telling me I have to accept - it has nothing to do with the current administration -- it's all administrations .. those jacka$$es  don't have a clue of what's going on.
I understand what you're saying, but the beauty of this country (despite it sometimes causing uproars like this one) is that our Founding Fathers, despite their own personal moral/religious beliefs, created founding documents that would allow for change in our society and that specifically called for a separation of church (religion and/or moral beliefs and values) and state (what US citizens can legally do and what rights we have).  
Even though I do feel very strongly about this particular issue for various personal reasons, any issue that arises that has any religious or moral undertones sparks me to action, and gets my blood boiling.  If we were to use Christianity and the Bible as our point of reference for all of our laws, would kind of society would we live in?  Divorce would be illegal, sex outside of marriage (and even sex during marriage without the specific purpose of reproduction) would be illegal, birth control would be outlawed, our non-Christian citizens would be outcasts and perhaps jailed if we really ran our nation literally by Biblical rules.  For as much as I agree with you that our nation was built on many Christian (although most are NOT solely Christian) principles, according to the most important documents pertaining to our country's "law of the land", NO religion should interfere with the rules of running our nation.  
As for what you believe and choose to accept, that's up to you.  But, quite frankly, our government passes laws all the time, or just takes actions, that you may or may not agree with or want to accept.  I didn't agree with the war in Iraq (still don't), but as a US citizen, I had to accept it.  It happens all the time.  
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#71 | 1071 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but the beauty of this country (despite it sometimes causing uproars like this one) is that our Founding Fathers, despite their own personal moral/religious beliefs, created founding documents that would allow for change in our society and that specifically called for a separation of church (religion and/or moral beliefs and values) and state (what US citizens can legally do and what rights we have).  
Even though I do feel very strongly about this particular issue for various personal reasons, any issue that arises that has any religious or moral undertones sparks me to action, and gets my blood boiling.  If we were to use Christianity and the Bible as our point of reference for all of our laws, would kind of society would we live in?  Divorce would be illegal, sex outside of marriage (and even sex during marriage without the specific purpose of reproduction) would be illegal, birth control would be outlawed, our non-Christian citizens would be outcasts and perhaps jailed if we really ran our nation literally by Biblical rules.  For as much as I agree with you that our nation was built on many Christian (although most are NOT solely Christian) principles, according to the most important documents pertaining to our country's "law of the land", NO religion should interfere with the rules of running our nation.  
As for what you believe and choose to accept, that's up to you.  But, quite frankly, our government passes laws all the time, or just takes actions, that you may or may not agree with or want to accept.  I didn't agree with the war in Iraq (still don't), but as a US citizen, I had to accept it.  It happens all the time.  
I know what you mean about the gov't passing laws all the time -- and I do loath those who pass laws to further their career. Power, Money and Control --- that's all that most of them are interested in. You said that if we were to use Christianity and the Bible as our point of reference for all of our laws - what kind of society would we have --- that's why I went back to the Puritans, et al -- I'm not positive, but I think that you would find that the bible was used as the basis for all laws. I don't think that divorce was legal and sex outside of marriage was severely punished -- sometimes by death ... of course, that was reserved primarily for women. I'm not saying that it's right -- and that's why I pointed to the dictionary definition. Today's society are decedents of those very same people who landed here and those "values" have continually been passed down, it's not nearly as strong as 300-400 years ago but it does exist. My gut feeling is that there is more "fear" than anything else and until a lot more people get rid of that "fear", same sex relationships will be criticized and scrutinized - law or no law. That definition in the dictionary has to change. On the lighter side -- (to steal a line from Rodney King) --- CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG Keep your chin up kid -- sooner or later, things will work out. I still hate the government for passing stupid laws and now their trick around laws is increasing taxes on stuff they don't like -- ba$tard$ I feel better -- how about you?
#72 | 1071 days ago
vindog (+)

LMAO..... Actually I am arguing while my "BABE" is getting ready in the shower- I've got to do something with my spare time......
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#73 | 1071 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

NObama wrote:
a majority vote means that it was decided by the majority, ever hear that old term majority rules? what was the purpose of the vote then?
"Democracy is tyranny by the masses" --Thomas Jefferson
#74 | 1071 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

NObama wrote:
so to the people who voted against gay marriage, overturning it wouldnt be discrimination to them? that's the problem with this country now days, dont hurt anybodys feelings, they have rights, why do they always have rights and the other side doesnt? not everybody gets a trophy
Your reasoning is circular.  By your view, anyone that is for a law that is overturned is being discriminated against.  That doesn't hold any relevance.  It would be discrimination if heterosexual marriage was taken away, not to recognize another social groups right to exercise the same freedoms of choice as those who already exercise the same freedom in question.  Was freeing the slaves (without compensation for their 'investment') discrimination against those who were already free?

Pre-Amble to the Constitution of the United States of America
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
#75 | 1071 days ago

jasonwrites wrote:
 What interests me is the question is, is gay marriage constitutional? And some people just state their opinion on the issue of gay marriage in general-- which has nothing to do with its constitutionality. Maybe I don't like that the creepy dude next door is gone to a gun show today, but that doesn't change the fact that he's got a constitutional right to own a gun. Maybe I don't like the WBC holding up "God Hates Fags" signs across the street from a local high school, but my opinion of their opinion doesn't change the fact that they have First Amendment rights to both peacefully assemble and speak freely.

Gay marriage is a) not unconstitutional, because the Constitution says nothing about marriage and b) outlawing it could be construed as discrimination, which would be unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment and ample civil rights legislation since then.
how come when i mmake the same point im not nearly as eloquent as you? lol( nor do i get as many respects!)
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#76 | 1071 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but the beauty of this country (despite it sometimes causing uproars like this one) is that our Founding Fathers, despite their own personal moral/religious beliefs, created founding documents that would allow for change in our society and that specifically called for a separation of church (religion and/or moral beliefs and values) and state (what US citizens can legally do and what rights we have).  
Even though I do feel very strongly about this particular issue for various personal reasons, any issue that arises that has any religious or moral undertones sparks me to action, and gets my blood boiling.  If we were to use Christianity and the Bible as our point of reference for all of our laws, would kind of society would we live in?  Divorce would be illegal, sex outside of marriage (and even sex during marriage without the specific purpose of reproduction) would be illegal, birth control would be outlawed, our non-Christian citizens would be outcasts and perhaps jailed if we really ran our nation literally by Biblical rules.  For as much as I agree with you that our nation was built on many Christian (although most are NOT solely Christian) principles, according to the most important documents pertaining to our country's "law of the land", NO religion should interfere with the rules of running our nation.  
As for what you believe and choose to accept, that's up to you.  But, quite frankly, our government passes laws all the time, or just takes actions, that you may or may not agree with or want to accept.  I didn't agree with the war in Iraq (still don't), but as a US citizen, I had to accept it.  It happens all the time.  
imho, people let their personal feeling and beliefs answer questions, opposed to looking at things objectively...when we think at a personal belief level,,,we tend to take it personal,and that is here the misunderstandings and disagreements start....on line,especislly where word gets lost in translation, we must remember to look objectively at these threads...it very hard,because manytimes our personality doesnt come through, or we dont see other's personality,,i knowmy words many times are confusing(not just because i type like shitake,,but becaus epeople dont know me or see my exprerssions...   especially on touchy issues....sometime it is hard to kep our beliefs out of a legal issue....but our moral values have nothing to do with the legality of this thread....seperation of church and state..ths forfathers sure knew what they were doing!!!! lets wish them a happy father's day too
  good post janet and puppy!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#77 | 1070 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
Prop 8 attorney Chuck Cooper, "argued that several court rulings in other states have recognized that instituting same-sex "marriage" essentially changes the definition of marriage as understood in common law, and that California has always understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. He also argued that marriage was a public institution of key import to the stability of a society, rather than a matter of private choice."
marriage and its meaning has been expanded over time.....people use it to refer to business mergers, , business partners, food, and many other issues...as we know there has been many amendments to our constitution. when the discrimination laws were passed it ensured  that all americans live by the same set of rules ,period. that is what made the prop invalid,,because it infringed on a person's constitutional rights...you can not vote in a law to contradicts the rights of all americans because you may have a moral issue with it.weather calif has understood marriage to be soley between a man and a woman is trumped by the constitional right tht all people have the same rights and freedoms.... since gay marraige would not legally cause any legal diress to anyone,or threaten our health or well being the right must be upheld,thusthe hih courts involvement(constitional rights)..weather we agree or not isnt the issue...
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#78 | 1070 days ago

NObama wrote:
a majority vote means that it was decided by the majority, ever hear that old term majority rules? what was the purpose of the vote then?
it never should have made the ballot becauae it infringed on the rights of  people.... it ws a moral prop allowed to be put on the ballot by special interests  that support opposition to gays. they bought this prop,and who ever wrote the bill,,it happens all the time . 
  the point is you can not discriminate against any select group of people. period! thatis the law of our country,and we can not change it because morally w e dont agree
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#79 | 1070 days ago

Onegoodredhead2 wrote:
marriage and its meaning has been expanded over time.....people use it to refer to business mergers, , business partners, food, and many other issues...as we know there has been many amendments to our constitution. when the discrimination laws were passed it ensured  that all americans live by the same set of rules ,period. that is what made the prop invalid,,because it infringed on a person's constitutional rights...you can not vote in a law to contradicts the rights of all americans because you may have a moral issue with it.weather calif has understood marriage to be soley between a man and a woman is trumped by the constitional right tht all people have the same rights and freedoms.... since gay marraige would not legally cause any legal diress to anyone,or threaten our health or well being the right must be upheld,thusthe hih courts involvement(constitional rights)..weather we agree or not isnt the issue...
If "weather we agree or not isn't the issue" what is the purpose of this thread?
#80 | 1070 days ago

SickPuppy wrote:
Janet -- I left the dictionary definition in the post for a couple of reasons -- one was to see who I could pi$$ off (but I don't feel like reading the posts to see who) and the other was to use it as an example.  When Puritans, Pilgrims and everyone else who first settled here, brought with them very strict religious rules and beliefs - which have been passed down through generations -- and you can see those beliefs in the dictionary.  I'm not saying they are right or wrong -- I'm just pointing out what the majority of people in this society believe -- again, I'm not judging right or wrong.  My thoughts are that it will take several generations for the dictionary definition to change.
Personally - when everyone was "coming out of the closet" - I hated it and my response was "show me a gay animal and I'll believe that this is natural with humans".  Since then, I have fathered 3 kids (that I admit to) and with each one I wondered IF any of them were to be homosexual - would my feelings change towards them ... would I hate them, would I disown them -- is it something that I would do wrong in raising them or is it just something that happens?  I realized that I would not feel any different about them - I wouldn't understand "why" they are homosexual - and I probably wouldn't care .... their health, well being and happiness comes first.  But I still don't want a Federal Law or Court Order telling me what I should believe and accept....there has to be another way.  I don't have a solution - just questions .. but I strongly object to the Federal Government telling me I have to accept - it has nothing to do with the current administration -- it's all administrations .. those jacka$$es  don't have a clue of what's going on.
most animals are bi sexual..you see steers humping same sex all the time,,and dogs humping anything(including my damn leg!)...
 being the mother 0f 3 kids myself,and having a gay son,i question if i did something..i have had in depth chats with my son,and i have come to the conclusion that it is genetic .very much the same as a hermaphrodite,it was a genetic mishap....my son didnt conciously choose to be gay..in fat he fought and tried so hard to not be...he dated girls in high school,and denied it till it was killing him. during our chats over the years, i asked him when he knew,and he said he conciously knew when he was about 3. imagine the internal war he suffered all those years...trying to fit into asociety . it breaks my heart to know he struggled in private with this... when he told me he was 18,still a virgn and broken by the guilt. He was still my matthew,nothing about him changed because he was a gay man accepting who he was.....the only thing that changed was the chains he imposed on himself,and the life changing peace he finally had. tat is when he was finally able to grow,and excel in his life..It was the most gratifying thing a mother or father can witness,,to see you rchild find peace of mind and find themself and be true to him/herself....so liberting...sure he knew there would be other hurdles to ovecome,because he was now livingopenly as a gay man,& would face ridicule from others for that,but they are nothing compared to the pain and struggle  he faced his whole childhood and teenage years........Matt is the same man i raised...the only differenc eis his personal sexuality.. the confidence he has found by being true to himself is so inspirational,and tis mom could not be proude:) hope this helps all of you understand a gay person's struggles and hardship they endure...
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#81 | 1070 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
If "weather we agree or not isn't the issue" what is the purpose of this thread?
if it is legal or not legal
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#82 | 1070 days ago

NObama wrote:
so to the people who voted against gay marriage, overturning it wouldnt be discrimination to them? that's the problem with this country now days, dont hurt anybodys feelings, they have rights, why do they always have rights and the other side doesnt? not everybody gets a trophy
Simply put?  No, it's not discrimination to "them".

More in depth explanation involves the actual definition of "discrimination", which, in a nutshell, is unfair treatment of a person or group based on some prejudice.  Overturning a vote by the people is not unfair, for starters.  That happens all the time in our country in these exact situations (the Supreme Court's job is to decide, and often overturn, these hot-topic decisions based on NOT a majority vote, but the legality/Constitutionality of the issue).  The majority does NOT (and, consequently, should not) always rule in this country.  Our founding principles and laws rule above all else, especially our Constitutional rights, and those are to be determined by our courts, not by a vote by the people.
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#83 | 1070 days ago
huskerfan_ia (+)

Some one-liners:

-Gay people can have my marriage if they want it. 
-I support equal rights, let them suffer too!
-Iowa allows gay marriage for tourism purposes, why else would anyone want to come here?
-Can a gay man marry a gay woman?
-Iowa more progressive than California, now that's rich.  Suck it Becky, Iowa rules!
#84 | 1070 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

huskerfan_ia wrote:
Some one-liners:

-Gay people can have my marriage if they want it. 
-I support equal rights, let them suffer too!
-Iowa allows gay marriage for tourism purposes, why else would anyone want to come here?
-Can a gay man marry a gay woman?
-Iowa more progressive than California, now that's rich.  Suck it Becky, Iowa rules!
 I figure Iowans have stared at enough queer steers to become more accepting-- that, and they're looking for means to increase the state population. 
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#85 | 1070 days ago
huskerfan_ia (+)

jasonwrites wrote:
 I figure Iowans have stared at enough queer steers to become more accepting-- that, and they're looking for means to increase the state population. 
Steers are in Texas.  Get it straight. 

#86 | 1070 days ago

jasonwrites wrote:
 I figure Iowans have stared at enough queer steers to become more accepting-- that, and they're looking for means to increase the state population. 
"they're looking for means to increase the state population."   via gay marriage? Now that's funny!
 
#87 | 1070 days ago

Onegoodredhead2 wrote:
if it is legal or not legal
BS we already know discrimination is against the law.
#88 | 1070 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
BS we already know discrimination is against the law.
exactly...so we can not discriminate against this....as you said you cannot give american rights then try and take them away
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#89 | 1070 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
Onegoodredhead2 wrote:
marriage and its meaning has been expanded over time.....people use it to refer to business mergers, , business partners, food, and many other issues...as we know there has been many amendments to our constitution. when the discrimination laws were passed it ensured  that all americans live by the same set of rules ,period. that is what made the prop invalid,,because it infringed on a person's constitutional rights...you can not vote in a law to contradicts the rights of all americans because you may have a moral issue with it.weather calif has understood marriage to be soley between a man and a woman is trumped by the constitional right tht all people have the same rights and freedoms.... since gay marraige would not legally cause any legal diress to anyone,or threaten our health or well being the right must be upheld,thusthe hih courts involvement(constitional rights)..weather we agree or not isnt the issue...
The courts you say. The Roberts Court has systematically dismantled the legal protections that help ordinary people find justice when wronged by the economically powerful.

In Stoneridge, it stripped shareholders of their ability to get their money back from the firms that helped defraud them.

In Conkright, it gave employers more leeway to deny workers their pension benefits.

In Leegin, it made it harder for small business owners to stop price fixing under the Sherman Act.   Now, the burden is on them—small business owners—to show that price fixing will hurt competition.

In Iqbal, it made it harder for everybody to get their day in court.

In Exxon, it capped punitive damages resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill because, get this, having to own up to your mistakes creates "unpredictability" for corporations.  Which, by the way, means that BP’s liability may be capped because the Court doesn’t want to cause an unpredictable impact on its future profitability.

In Rapanos, it cut huge swaths of wetlands out of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands that had been covered for 30 years. By the way that covers Gulf Coast wetlands. 

In Citizens United, the Roberts Court overstepped its procedural bounds so that it could graciously provide corporations with First Amendment rights and, by the way, open the door to foreign entities deciding our elections. Not satisfied with giving corporations a leg up on individuals under the law, the Roberts Court is trying to prevent the American people from fighting back.

It was Robert Bork who first popularized the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted according to what we believe was the "original understanding" of its authors. To bad that doesn't apply to all issues! I know all about "our"  "high courts" poop.
#90 | 1070 days ago
vindog (+)

coyotedances wrote:
The courts you say. The Roberts Court has systematically dismantled the legal protections that help ordinary people find justice when wronged by the economically powerful.

In Stoneridge, it stripped shareholders of their ability to get their money back from the firms that helped defraud them.

In Conkright, it gave employers more leeway to deny workers their pension benefits.

In Leegin, it made it harder for small business owners to stop price fixing under the Sherman Act.   Now, the burden is on them—small business owners—to show that price fixing will hurt competition.

In Iqbal, it made it harder for everybody to get their day in court.

In Exxon, it capped punitive damages resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill because, get this, having to own up to your mistakes creates "unpredictability" for corporations.  Which, by the way, means that BP’s liability may be capped because the Court doesn’t want to cause an unpredictable impact on its future profitability.

In Rapanos, it cut huge swaths of wetlands out of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands that had been covered for 30 years. By the way that covers Gulf Coast wetlands. 

In Citizens United, the Roberts Court overstepped its procedural bounds so that it could graciously provide corporations with First Amendment rights and, by the way, open the door to foreign entities deciding our elections. Not satisfied with giving corporations a leg up on individuals under the law, the Roberts Court is trying to prevent the American people from fighting back.

It was Robert Bork who first popularized the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted according to what we believe was the "original understanding" of its authors. To bad that doesn't apply to all issues! I know all about "our"  "high courts" poop.
...... AND who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?     Along with Justice Alito that gave Roberts the 5-4 advantage he needed????    Maybe-  it's just a guess- but I would venture to say that a Democrat President didn't appoint those two nut bags-  just a thought......
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#91 | 1070 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
jasonwrites wrote:
 What interests me is the question is, is gay marriage constitutional? And some people just state their opinion on the issue of gay marriage in general-- which has nothing to do with its constitutionality. Maybe I don't like that the creepy dude next door is gone to a gun show today, but that doesn't change the fact that he's got a constitutional right to own a gun. Maybe I don't like the WBC holding up "God Hates Fags" signs across the street from a local high school, but my opinion of their opinion doesn't change the fact that they have First Amendment rights to both peacefully assemble and speak freely.

Gay marriage is a) not unconstitutional, because the Constitution says nothing about marriage and b) outlawing it could be construed as discrimination, which would be unconstitutional, violating the Fourteenth Amendment and ample civil rights legislation since then.
Speaking only for myself, I am not an academic my opinion is all I have to offer in this thread. Is gay marriage constitutional? people are always saying we should look at the founders "original intent" regarding the law. Many were slave owners for Pete's sake what was their intent with "all men are created equal"? I suggest "they" were not thinking of gays or people of color, especially Native Americans.
#92 | 1070 days ago
jasonwrites (+)

coyotedances wrote:
"they're looking for means to increase the state population."   via gay marriage? Now that's funny!
 
I assume you think it's funny because gay spouses won't reproduce. But simply drawing new residents does indeed increase the population-- plus many view gay couples as having a reputation for caring more than most about the appearance and attractiveness of their homes and neighborhoods, which ultimately increases property values and draws even more people. Plus, they can adopt, you know (and gay women have further choices).
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#93 | 1070 days ago
huskerfan_ia (+)

jasonwrites wrote:
I assume you think it's funny because gay spouses won't reproduce. But simply drawing new residents does indeed increase the population-- plus many view gay couples as having a reputation for caring more than most about the appearance and attractiveness of their homes and neighborhoods, which ultimately increases property values and draws even more people. Plus, they can adopt, you know (and gay women have further choices).
Iowa could use a little makeover.
#94 | 1070 days ago

(Edited by coyotedances)
jasonwrites wrote:
I assume you think it's funny because gay spouses won't reproduce. But simply drawing new residents does indeed increase the population-- plus many view gay couples as having a reputation for caring more than most about the appearance and attractiveness of their homes and neighborhoods, which ultimately increases property values and draws even more people. Plus, they can adopt, you know (and gay women have further choices).
your assumption is incorrect. I was thinking about research that shows homosexual lifestyle leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.
ref:
Int. J. Epidemiol. 26:657-661.
Psychol. Rep. 83:847-66.
Psychol. Rep. 91:671-678
Federal Distortion Of Homosexual Footprint (Ignoring Early Gay Death?)
#95 | 1069 days ago
NorseHeathen (+)

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” --Thomas Jefferson
#96 | 1069 days ago

vindog wrote:
...... AND who appointed Chief Justice Roberts?     Along with Justice Alito that gave Roberts the 5-4 advantage he needed????    Maybe-  it's just a guess- but I would venture to say that a Democrat President didn't appoint those two nut bags-  just a thought......
you took the words right out of my mouth....that is exactly why we need a fair and balanced selection of people....it has been biased  for many years.....we are trying to get some of that balance back..and hopeflly people that vote fairly..not with their party lines and thinking
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#97 | 1069 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Agreed ... and most of my gay friends don't really care if it's called marriage or not.  They just want the rights that they deserve.  However, for those who DO care and want it to be called marriage, I get their side of it, too.
exactly ..they dont care what its called just gve them the same libertys and rights as any other person who is an american citizen
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#98 | 1069 days ago

jasonwrites wrote:
I assume you think it's funny because gay spouses won't reproduce. But simply drawing new residents does indeed increase the population-- plus many view gay couples as having a reputation for caring more than most about the appearance and attractiveness of their homes and neighborhoods, which ultimately increases property values and draws even more people. Plus, they can adopt, you know (and gay women have further choices).
or usea surrogate,so the child is truly from them..my cousin joshn and his spouse used each of their sperm with a serrogate so they each have their dna in their girls...
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#99 | 1069 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
Thank you.   I'll be the one holding the door open.
my god judges people on their hearts and actions  NOT their sexuality...
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#100 | 1069 days ago

coyotedances wrote:
your assumption is incorrect. I was thinking about research that shows homosexual lifestyle leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.
ref:
Int. J. Epidemiol. 26:657-661.
Psychol. Rep. 83:847-66.
Psychol. Rep. 91:671-678
Federal Distortion Of Homosexual Footprint (Ignoring Early Gay Death?)
psychological disorders?..hmmmm wonder if that could be because of all the hate toward them...not to mention how VERY hard it is for them to grow up thinking there is something wrong with them..and the guilt that eats them up......stress is the number one killer ofall people....
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  
#101 | 1069 days ago

Who cares if they allow gay people to marry or not? How in the hell does that affect my life? Let them get married, how does this hurt you? People need to stop thinking they have all the answers or the right to tell others what to do with their life!
Yes, gay marriage is constitutional.  

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Right to Free Speech - Did I Cross the Line .....
Asked by BikerBaby | Locker Room, Politics | 1 questions asked 09/17/12
9 opinions | 16 comments | Last by huskerdoug2009
Music Madness: Group 11(Lucille)
Asked by Nick__ | Locker Room, Movies | 4 questions asked Yesterday
48 opinions | 7 comments | Last by richard_cranium
Music Madness: Group 10B (R&B)
Asked by Nick__ | Locker Room, Music | 4 questions asked Yesterday
56 opinions | 2 comments | Last by richard_cranium
Music Madness: Group 10 (R&B)
Asked by Nick__ | Locker Room, Music | 4 questions asked Yesterday
52 opinions | 3 comments | Last by richard_cranium
Music Madness: Group 9B (YO!)
Asked by Nick__ | Locker Room, Music | 4 questions asked Yesterday
56 opinions | 2 comments | Last by richard_cranium