The irony is that conservatives can't seem to get gay sex out of their heads so they want to stop gays from having it all together. Yet they fail to accept the simple fact that allowing two people to marry is the surest way of stopping them from having sex.

Hell, every married man knows that....












don't they?

Don't label anyone. People are people.

If you follow this line of thinking far enough, it comes down to being offended by homosexual sex, and you have the right to be offended. I don't care what other people do in private as long as they are mutually consenting adults. Personally, I think about fishing all the time and how I used to do it a lot more when I was younger!

C'mon people, nobody is gonna play the Enumclaw card with this one?

Well, I have to make one last post before I bid you all adieu, to go fishing for the next six days. This has been a pleasant diversion, tying knots in knickers for the past few days.

The argument that the majority cannot take away the rights of the minority completely misses the point in Proposition 8. Our rights come from the people, not the courts. The only body with the power to grant the right to same-sex marriage is the people, acting through the legislature or a ballot initiative.

Therefore, the "right" to gay marriage created by the California Supreme Court last a May was never a legitimate right. A right to something is not legitimate unless it is granted by the body that has the power to grant such rights.

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education did not end segregation, not even close. Congress did, through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

American history shows that a right is secure only when it has been ratified by the people, through legislative acts or constitutional amendments.

Whether gay marriage threatens traditional marriage is not a judgment that can be made by the courts. Gay marriage supporters may be right that gay marriage poses no threat to traditional marriage, and that gay couples should be allowed to adopt and be foster parents. Fine, make those arguments--but these kinds of arguments are properly addressed to the legislature, or the people in a statewide ballot initiative. It is the function of legislatures to make those kinds of value judgments, not the courts.

All states also ban polygamous marriages and incestuous marriages. Most of those kinds of marriages would also only involve consenting adults. But the state has the power to ban them because a majority of the people have judged those kinds of marriages to be immoral, or harmful to society.

Is gay marriage the moral equivalent of polygamy? That is essentially the issue being raised here. And when a majority of the people of a particular state, and a majority of the American people, have made a clear judgement on this issue, as they have, the courts should give deference to this decision.

Therefore, the only way Proposition 8 or similar initiatives can be legitimately overturned is through another ballot initiative granting the right to gay marriage. Have at it, folks.

I'll check in next Monday, just to see how many panties have been wadded and how many knickers knotted here. For now, it's off to fish! (I do have open seats on Thursday and Friday, if anyone cares to fish Idaho's Clearwater River for big B-runs.)

Alan-

First, knock 'em dead on your trip!

Second, forget the moral issue of Prop. 8 down here, legally it would amend the state constitution, which can only be done by the state legislature.

Third, the first amendment says the government will not establish a religion - gay marriage is a religious issue, therefore, it is protected by the first amendment. If you want a non-secular style of government, look to the hated middle-east to see what religious run governments can do for you. I hear that there are no homosexuals in Iran

Be sure to post pics from your trip, or else, I think...

Hankster-

As always, language is key to legal BS. The argument is that Prop 8 is a revision of the state constitution, not an amendment, and requires the legislature to act first.

Gay marriage is a religious issue - I haven't seen, heard or read about any agnostics or atheists protesting gay marriage, yet. The US constitution does not ban gay marriage and an omission is just as binding as the printed stuff (it also says nothing about marijuana or prostitution, for what it's worth). The issue is left to the states, as long as states' rights still exist, which brings us back to Prop. 8 and what it's legal status/definition turns out to be.

I'm not holding my breath or losing any sleep either way

Fixed it for ya!

Zzzzing.

C'mon! My profile states that I'm married.

I really appreciate a good zing though

Hankster!

I love playing devil's advocate. Prop 8 will also be contested under the equal rights act. You know what it's like here, it's only a matter of time before Prop 8 is rescinded on some legal procedure.

I'll go out on a limb again and say that gay marriage is probably less offensive than the public nudity issue that started this thread - it won't be in the face of people like the attention seeking extroverts. It will just be another feature and benefit of living in California!

Ya mean like this?: