geeogree : Exactly. Although to be fair, the U.S. is a democratic republic. We pick the leaders, and they "represent the people"... or so they claim .

But anyhow, however strongly I stand against homosexual marriage, Proposition 8 is the wrong way to go about it. All it would do is have people riled up about how we're discriminating against homosexuals and all that bologna again .

Not exactly, we're a constitutional republic. I don't see how Prop 8 discriminates. It just keeps gays from marrying. My take on it is that they aren't into having marriage because they love each other, they just want the tax incentives of married couples. I still stand on the government has no business redefining marriage as it has always been between one man and one woman, and the government should not have the power to decide on such moral issues. That's for the people to decide and they have already decided.

Hoochman : Prop 8 discriminates because gay people are people as well and they should have every right as straight people, period. The government has always decided on moral issues (sometimes i like that sometimes i don't). Also you will find a lot of gays want to get married because they love the other person and want to express it or be able to take care of them if they are in the hospital(for example if one of them ends up on life support, the other one would have no standing to know about his condition or make decisions to try and help). And just because the people decided to be discriminatory doesn't make it right and doesn't mean it should be upheld.

Hoochman : A Constitutional democratic Republic. Traditional republics like Rome had the Senate determined solely by class and family heritage.
Anyways... yeah, I disagree with homosexuality, and yeah, I believe real marriage is between only one man and one woman. However, seeing as marriage was never defined in the Constitution, your point is moot. There is no way they could lawfully, with the Constitution, and justly outlaw gay "marriage", based upon our country's founding. You don't like it, you can go live somewhere else.

bigNATE : I agree with you for the most part but not fully. Since the constitution does not define marriage than a judge who is supposed to rightfully interpret the constitution is basically acting outside of his jurisdiction as the constitution makes no mention of it. Meaning, since marriage isn't in the constitution he has no say in the matter as his job is to interpret the constitution, so basically, he should have left the issue alone or ruled in favor of prop 8. Since marriage isn't in the constitution, Prop 8 shouldn't have been struck down, and you can't really say its wrong. Well you can, but not from a constitutional stand point.

metal572 : Not wanting our godly morals to go down the drain is not discriminating against people. It actually means people care about each others well being.

Hoochman : YOUR morals may not be THEIR morals. you cant force,as you said, your "godly morals" on other." right there u brought religion into the thinking process and tht would not be right to force a religious belief on others.
" I agree with you for the most part but not fully. Since the constitution does not define marriage than a judge who is supposed to rightfully interpret the constitution is basically acting outside of his jurisdiction as the constitution makes no mention of it. Meaning, since marriage isn't in the constitution he has no say in the matter as his job is to interpret the constitution, so basically, he should have left the issue alone or ruled in favor of prop 8. Since marriage isn't in the constitution, Prop 8 shouldn't have been struck down, and you can't really say its wrong. Well you can, but not from a constitutional stand point." well you cant have it both ways. if prop 8 had passed that would be defining marriage even tho its not in the constitution so would u be upset about that as well?

metal572 : Exactly.
Hoochman : You don't seem to understand how this works here. Marriage is not defined in the Constitution. Prop 8 does, however, define marriage as only one man and one woman. While I agree that is how it should be defined, from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and from the job of that judge, Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. So he struck it down. That's his job, and while I disagree with what the results must be, I acknowledge that in this situation, it would be unfair to let it pass.

metal572 : There are lots of people who have Christianity as part of their thought process. Its a lot better than the thought process that "it might be good for you but not for me". That thought process easily destroys lives. And no one said anything about forcing Christianity on people. It needs to be taught and adopted as much as secularism is.

Laws are made by those in power so they decide what is right and what is wrong, even is most of the population disagree with it. It's their system they can run it how they please. They can't tell you who can love or hate thats up to you. If your gay and wanna be married, just fake it no point in going all legal unless your wanting "benefits from the government". You don't need rings and legal documents or material matter to tell you who you are and what you believe in that is just silly talk.

I don't NEED a ferrari to be cool see what I'm saying, its just sugar coated mirage is all it is. What counts is on the inside, not materials, money, legal documents or any of that bs.

Hoochman : From a constitutional standpoint? The supreme court has decided that marriage is a fundamental right. And in California they voted that a separate status be amended to its state constitution for certain citizens. That is discrimination, if you cant see that your blind. And the judge was doing his job by protecting the constitution, by not letting a minority group be abused by the system.

"We do not put the bill of rights to a vote"
That is from Ted Olson, a conservative lawyer who is against prop 8.

tonetone714 : You obviously don't know discrimination. The people just don't want morals to fall into the drain. That actually means they care about each others well being. The supreme court steps beyond its jurisdiction when it tries to decide laws that aren't in the constitution. Its not the supreme courts job to decide law. The constitution doesn't even say Marriage will not be denied everyone. Than prop 8 would be unconstitutional if it did say that. But for an issue that the constitution makes absolutely no stand on. Than you can't say that anything is or isn't constitutional unless you get an amendment passed on the subject.

Hoochman : just because its not directly talked about in the constitution doesn't mean that the supreme court has no place to rule on it. All citizens of the USA are entitled to the same rights/benignity regardless of race,gender,religion,or sexual orientation. And prop 8 went against that.

Hoochman : You don't get it. We're not saying we want homosexual marriages, we're saying that it's not Constitutional to deny them the right of marriage when the Constitution says nothing about the definition of marriage. Yes it's a sin, yes I hate it, but no, this is not the way to get rid of it. In order for Proposition 8 to be passed, the Constitution would have to define marriage. Since it doesn't, the proposition cannot be Constitutionally passed.

you cannot legislate morality. It doesn't work.

The -only- way to truly achieve a moral society (the way Christians likely view a moral society) is to preach the gospel. You won't change people by forcing them to live a lifestyle they haven't chosen for themselves. They will rebel against it. However, if you change the attitude of the person then they will change the way they live.

bigNATE : Hey relax, I understand exactly what you're saying. You hate homosexuality but don't think it is constitutional to deny marriage to homosexual couples, I get it. My thing is you can't say the constitution is against something if it takes no stand on the issue to begin with. But looking at it through the eyes of the founders, than unquestionably they would have been against it.

Hoochman : So you get half my point.
The other half is that while the Constitution never said "people have the right to marry anyone they want", it also never defined marriage. That's what Proposition 8 is trying to do... but that is trying to add something not in the Constitution. If it were made part of the Constitution, it would be OK to pass Proposition 8. But with our current standings, it can't be passed.

I personally see nothing morally or legally wrong with same-sex marriage.

*waits for a barrage of verbal assault*

bdfalc0n07 : Legally wrong I agree. Morally wrong... well, you know I'm a Christian, right? There's my stance. Don't worry. This thread ain't about whether same-sex marriage is right or not. I'm not gonna argue.

bigNATE : Fair enough. We are entitled to our own interpretations of what is morally wrong or right, and we'll obviously have to agree to disagree on this particular issue. While I do have faith and believe in God, I follow no religion and find nothing wrong with homosexuality at all. As a Christian, you believe it to be wrong, and that is just the way of the world. That's the main reason issues like Prop 8 are so heated and so split among Americans - they delve into our world of morality.

I think know that Prop 8 only passed in the first place because Californians were voting from a moral (not legal) standpoint. So I appreciate the fact that you are still opposed to this proposition even though you do not agree with the fundamental difference of the people it discriminates against.

Oh wow... I see I need to do a bit of a history lesson here.

Ok... first off. Marriage is not a religious institution, nor has it ever been. It was created for legal reasons, as I stated earlier. It is linked to the church because in ancient times the religion was a part of the state (example: the Roman emperors were also Pontifex Maximus, head of the State Religion). With the rise of Christianity in 313 CE following the Edict of Milan, the church became the new State Religion and the process of the church having hands in government continued.

With the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, we start seeing the idea of taking the two powers and keeping them apart. Which brings me to my next point: metal, the kings of Britain were protestant (Church of England) and had been since the late fifteenth century, so the Catholic Church had no say at all in their policy. However, there was widespred persecution of non-Anglicans and that is why it is included. Since, you know, the whole Puritan roots thing... that and the fact that many of our Founding Fathers were actually Deists, not Christians (point three). America has no State Religion. It is what makes us unique and awesome.

As for morals... morals are largely interpretive and personal. I would use the man stealing bread to feed his family analogy but...well... I don't think I have to.