The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Avatar of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier 5 years, 5 months ago

Two Cents has it exactly right about the effect.
I am troubled by the reasoning that only the Government “has standing”after the people voted for prop 8,but not the actual result of the decision.
I think it would have been a far more satisfying result if the case had been heard and decided on the merits rather than on a technicality.
The will cause this issue to fester like Roe vs Wade for years.
While ,as I said,I basically think the result is good the way it was done was not very clear on the reasoning and the losing side will forever blame California officials for abandoning the apparent mandate of the people at the polls by not defending the voters.
I think SSM is personal and the government has no business trying to decide these personal things.EVER!

         
Avatar of pete.johnson.92798072
pete.johnson.92798072 @pete-johnson-92798072 5 years, 5 months ago

I think that is some amazing news!!!! Not really going to say much more than this prop should have never been passed to start and EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL.

         
Avatar of nathalie
nathalie @nathaliedacosta 5 years, 5 months ago

about the dog thing, i know you were being sarcastic, but that should be clarified for others.

a dog is not able to legally consent to marriage. neither is a minor. so you cant say that legalizing same sex marriage has anything to do with getting closer to legalizing beastiality or whatever else, the two are completely unrelated.

same sex marriage is between two consenting adults — which makes them both legally in charge of their “assets”….and in charge of their own decisions.

         
Avatar of Julia Wotten
Julia Wotten @juliaw 5 years, 5 months ago

I agree with @nathaliedacosta about you dog comment @TwoCents. You cannot compare dogs to people. Although I do agree that you should be able to marry any consenting adult that you wish. A lot of people are saying that he Supreme Court’s final decision is positive, however they believe that the way they went about the decision is against the people. Can someone explain this to me? What is it about their decision that isn’t a great advance for liberty, freedom, and equal rights for gays and lesbians?

         
Avatar of mamajay
mamajay @mamajay 5 years, 5 months ago

I’m joining this stream partly b/c Two Cents writes rationally about most topics, and I hope for a real dialogue that will honestly and respectfully hear the heart behind my questions. They are sincere questions born out of the conflict of strong faith in Jesus and the culture.

I just read a post on Facebook about a Colorado baker (http://spectator.org/blog/2013/07/09/baker-faces-jail-time-for-refu) being faced with a year in prison for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple who just married. In a very short time thousands of years of traditional marriage are being wiped away. Suppressing one’s commitment to marriage between one man and one woman as foundational to building and sustaining society is a huge expectation. Changing one’s personal views should be done with very serious reflection and study.

Question 1) I am not in the wedding business but I know people who are. Is it truly a violation of the law not to serve someone? When establishments post “We have the right to refuse service to anyone” does that not include bakers?

Question 2) Those of you on this site who are not gay, and those of you who are, do you all believe that homosexuality is EQUAL to the African American cause? Do you really believe this is the same kind of “racism”? Why? How? Upon what evidence?

Help me with those 2 questions and if your answers are civil and thoughtful, I may feel free to ask you more.

         
Avatar of mamajay
mamajay @mamajay 5 years, 5 months ago

I also agree with Gary’s comment about the confusion Prop 8 has caused. The People of California voted with an overwhelming majority for traditional marriage and the 9th circuit court overturned the people’s vote. That makes absolutely no sense. I understand that sometimes such overturns are due to the sloppy wording of the legislation, but it in this case it seems all too clear that the judges just didn’t agree with the vote. That’s disturbing; perhaps decisions like that aid in discouraging voters to vote at all. Brings to mind the 19% of voters who participated in the election of the new Mayor of Los Angeles–19%! Why vote at all, she says facetiously.

         

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.