California Court Affirms Right To Gay Marriage

by BenV 280 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Indo_Dude

  The slippery slope argument is always used by those seeking to push their fear based agenda. It really is pathetic, and quite illogical. When they raised the speed limit in America from 55 to 65 (or 70) how many believed the 'slippery slope' argument then? That if we raised the speed limit to 65 the slippery slope meant we would soon be enacting 95 mph speed limits. Or the 'slippery slope' debaters when it comes to assault rifles. When govt seeks to outlaw AK-47s (machine guns) the 'slippery slope' hunters start decrying that what's next a 30/6? How many people really hunt (other than for hunting other humans) using an AK-47? They have nothing in common. It's a fear tactic, and frankly any time someone needs to make an appeal to your emotions, has already lost the argument.

  Just a few days ago Mildred Loving died. She was the one responsible for getting the Supreme Court of the United States to strike down anti-mixed race marriage prohibitions. Yes, only 40 years ago getting married to someone of an opposite race meant you ran afoul of the law, and were not welcome in many states. Google Mildred Loving, and read her story. Then tell me that white and black people or mixed races shouldn't marry. Gay marriage is exactly, absolutely, 100%, identicaly to this ruling back in 1967. In 20 years time modern America will look back at this time frame and wonder what kind of uneducated, neanderthal, idiots, used to run the place.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Well the next time someone comes up with a legal plan to counter the Watchtower Society, and it involves legal means, the first person to mention the slippery slope argument I will kindly redirect them toward you.
• 

  Indo_Dude

  JG wrote: " Well the next time someone comes up with a legal plan to counter the Watchtower Society, and it involves legal means, the first person to mention the slippery slope argument I will kindly redirect them toward you."

  Huh? What does that mean?
• 

  Junction-Guy

  That means that there have been several plans on here to try to bring the Watchtower Society to justice, many of these involve legal means that could wiggle their way through constitutional loopholes, and usually as predicted several people will come along with the slippery slope argument.
• 

  Indo_Dude

  Dude, you really are too bitter at such a young age. I'm not sure what to say to you at this point, as it seems no matter what anyone says, you have your agenda, and you are going to move full speed ahead with it, and anyone in your way will just be a victim of your 'paybacks' on the gay community for what one person said/did to you. I honestly am so sorry for your loss, and frustration. May your life be filled with joy and happiness and let the Shinigami leave you in peace.

  Seriously, if you haven't sat down with professional help, I would hope, and encourage you do to so. Your friend, Indo. :(
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Dude, my whole point was that no matter what topic you talk about, there will always be a slippery slope argument. How do you know what is best for me?
• 

  Junction-Guy

  by the way, it wasn't just "one" person, if it were that simple, this discussion wouldn't even be where it is today.
• 

  BizzyBee

  I just don't understand the entire government involvement in marriage in the first place.

  When a marriage is being dissolved and/or children and property are involved, the government steps in to adjudicate and protect. You don't want that service? You don't want children protected when moms and dads get divorced? This new ruling can potentially clog the court system even further. Morally, I couldn't care less.

  Please don't bother to tell me, "Why shouldn't gays have the same right to clog the courts as heterosexuals?" I get it.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  What is really interesting is that the vote has a chance to win, supposedly the mexican vote in California will be a major influence in that election. It makes you wonder if there are enough gays in California to counter the mexican vote?
• 

  Justitia Themis

  The state supreme court based it's decision on "civil rights" and the equal treatment to all people -- not in defining marriage. Regarding domestic partnerships vs. marriage -- it's the old smoke-and-mirrors of "separate but equal."

  Re: the legislature. Two gay marriage bills passed the state assembly and senate during different sessions -- both of them were vetoed by the Republican governor.

  From where do you suppose a citizen derives his or her "civil rights?" From the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In lay terms, what the Court said is that marriage is a constitutional civil right, an opinion with which I, and many others, vigorously disagree. Marriage is not in the Constitution.

  Just because the concept of "separate but equal" proved untrue in Brown v. Board of Education does not mean that the concept is proscribed in every circumstance. Those separate black schools were not equal; they were grossly underfunded. However, laws protecting domestic partnerships provide equal protection. If you feel California law provides a benefit to married persons that is denied to domestic partnerships, I am open to seeing your documentation.

  California law as it stands right now protects domestic partnerships and its children in the same manner as marriage. A governor, and his or her veto power, is part of our checks and balances. IF this is something Californians truly want, they can rally the numbers to overcome the veto. If not, then that means it is a Californian minority who desire the legislation, not a majority.