Ramblings of A Twisted Mind
America has problems, but America is NOT THE PROBLEM!~
The Terminator will veto gay marriage bill.
Finally Arnold flexes his muscles.
Published on September 8, 2005 By Moderateman In US Domestic
Reported today, the governer of California, is listening to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE and will veto the bill allowing gay marriage .

California will not become the first state to be forced to recognize gay marriage from other states or countries either.

Good for you arnold, the will of the people must rule.

At no time should 4% of the people MAKE the other 96% accept anything.

Over six million voted to ban gay marriage five years ago, proposition 22 was overturned by one liberal activist judge, legislating from the bench.

One judge slapped 6 million voters right in the face by calling prop. 22 Unconstitutional.
Popular Articles in this Category
The Politicizing of Government Institutions
Popular Articles from Moderateman
Why Most Liberals are Doomed to go to Hell
A drive by..
This is How gays behave
Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
16
bakerstreet
on Sep 08, 2005
"the bill is unconstitutional because it actually does discriminate against a particular segment of society. Per the constitution, all people are guaranteed equal access under the law."


The point you are failing to see is that according to the law same-sex unions AREN'T marriage, so denying same-sex unions isn't denying marriage. I can't marry someone of the same sex any more than a gay person can. Gay people can marry people of the opposite sex all they want.

YOU percieve a same-sex union to be the SAME as marriage, but obviously, your values aren't universal. This is more of your "I'm right and my subjective values should be shoved down everyone's throat." You seem to believe that we should have the right to self-govern only when we agree with you. Is that really self-governing?

Don't pretend for a second to appreciate freedom or Democracy. Given the power you wouldn't allow people to make up their own minds, you'd be a little fascist like all your ilk.
17
Truth
on Sep 08, 2005
Fuck those gay bastards anyway!
18
Dr Guy
on Sep 08, 2005

the bill is unconstitutional because it actually does discriminate against a particular segment of society. Per the constitution, all people are guaranteed equal access under the law. This bill denies such equity, and worse yet, based on some religious values, which also takes it to the realm of separation of church and state.

No, it is not.  Any homosexual can marry - a member of the opposite sex just like any one else.

19
dabe
on Sep 08, 2005
No, it is not. Any homosexual can marry - a member of the opposite sex just like any one else


That is so ridiculous. Do you ever listen to yourself.
20
Moderateman
on Sep 08, 2005
14 by dabe
Thursday, September 08, 2005


the bill is unconstitutional because it actually does discriminate against a particular segment of society. Per the constitution, all people are guaranteed equal access under the law. This bill denies such equity, and worse yet, based on some religious values, which also takes it to the realm of separation of church and state.


dabe yer stretching kid.
21
Moderateman
on Sep 08, 2005
16 by Zoomba
Thursday, September 08, 2005


You realize I support gay marraiges, but I'm under no delusion that we're talking about a constitutional right here.


I do not support gay marriage, and for sure there is no constitutionality here.
22
Moderateman
on Sep 08, 2005
#18 by Truth (Anonymous user)
Thursday, September 08, 2005


Fuck those gay bastards anyway!


no fuck you!!! asshole!!
23
Moderateman
on Sep 08, 2005
#17 by BakerStreet
Thursday, September 08, 2005


Don't pretend for a second to appreciate freedom or Democracy. Given the power you wouldn't allow people to make up their own minds, you'd be a little fascist like all your ilk.


oooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! bombs away... the left cares not about legalities, they just want there way no matter who they shit on.
24
joeKnowledge
on Sep 08, 2005
I don't understand... if I am gay then I can't marry?

Somehow I do not have the right to marry (well, unless I want to marry someone of the opposite sex)?

I guess I shouldn;t call it marriage, I should call it unions.

Is it ok for unoins to be made?



I know there are people here I respect allot in their writings, but the argument that this is not a constiutional issue is not true. Human right goes by age ,sex, and sexual preference (as wel as others). Your basically saying that the state has a right to ignore a union bewteen same sex couples.


I just don't think that will last for much longer. I agree that A'nold should veto because that is not what the people voted for, but the issue will not go away.


Eventually the state will not call it marriage, it will call them unoins and take away any religist value from it (I don't like it, but I don't see it ending any other way).

Agree? Disagree?
25
Moderateman
on Sep 08, 2005
civil unions yes. full rights yes,

marraige , no.
26
bakerstreet
on Sep 08, 2005
"That is so ridiculous. Do you ever listen to yourself."


It's only ridiculous if you believe that two people of the same sex can be "married". That's not some universal objective truth no matter how much you paint it to be so.

If I went to get a drivers license and insisted on riding a bicycle for the test, they would refuse. Discrimination? Nope. If a polygamist tried to get the other 5 wives listed as his dependants on his taxes, would that be dicrimination?

This isn't one person being allowed to use a water fountain while others aren't. This is someone applying for a license when their circumstances don't meet the criterea. You want to change the criterea, fine, do so. Don't for a moment try to justify it by saying the government can't do it, though.

What dabe and others don't understand is this blanket imposition of subjective values cuts both ways. If the Supreme Court ended up totally conservative and started imposing THEIR values, dabe would be up in arms. The only way to deal with this democratically is to change people's minds.

"Human right goes by age ,sex, and sexual preference (as wel as others)."


Two major problems with that. First, sexual preference isn't a gimme. If it were the NAMBLA folks could scream that their human rights were being infringed upon. After all, they have their predispositions, too, at least they call them that.

Second, marriage licenses aren't a basic human right. If you want to pin down laws that prevent homosexuals from living together, from forming lifetime bonds, etc., then you show them to me. I'll oppose them.

When you try and say the government can't regulate marriage when everyoen accepts that they can, though, then I am going to differ. If the government isn't allowed to decide who can and can't be married, then the government sanctioning of marriages is meaningless. There's no other reason for them to issue licenses other than lending the union validity.

I don't think government needs to be involved at all. I hate the idea of "marriage" being a government power. Expanding that overuse of power to even more unions isn't going to make it better, and it is going to lend validity to a lot of people that very, very few would like to see validated.
27
Moderateman
on Sep 08, 2005
What dabe and others don't understand is this blanket imposition of subjective values cuts both ways. If the Supreme Court ended up totally conservative and started imposing THEIR values, dabe would be up in arms. The only way to deal with this democratically is to change people's minds.


exactly baker.. that's why states vote on gay marriage. yea or nay.
28
drmiler
on Sep 08, 2005

I AM O'NALD!!! I WILL TERMINATE THIS BILL!


I actually think the bill is correct. Goverment should not say who you can be married to. Goverment and marriage should only go as far as reconizing that you want to be with this person ie this person being any sex.


You don't get it at all do you? It's NOT the government saying it! It's the PEOPLE of the state saying it!
29
drmiler
on Sep 08, 2005
know there are people here I respect allot in their writings, but the argument that this is not a constitutional issue is not true. Human right goes by age ,sex, and sexual preference (as well as others). Your basically saying that the state has a right to ignore a union between same sex couples.


Hey JK..."before" you run off at the mouth about constitutionality of banning a marriage between gay people. "SHOW" me where in the constitution that it says ANYTHING about marriage? State given rights are NOT guaranteed by the constitution. Only federal ones are.
30
dabe
on Sep 08, 2005
It's only ridiculous if you believe that two people of the same sex can be "married".


The difference is no one is imposing anything on you, if you don't believe that gays should marry. If you don't believe it, then don't marry a man. Simple

If I went to get a drivers license and insisted on riding a bicycle for the test, they would refuse. Discrimination? Nope.


Specious, ridiculous comparison

If a polygamist tried to get the other 5 wives listed as his dependants on his taxes, would that be dicrimination?


Not familiar with that law. But, if all wives are consentual, I see no problem with it. However, and I may be wrong, sometimes polygamist arrangements are made without consent. That would be tantamount to kidnapping. But, I've seen 20/20 or some other news magazine show where the wives discussed their happy relationship. I'm not sure what is so terrible about that. I really don't know, but it's irrelevant in any discussion of gay marriage. Each issue is different.

Two major problems with that. First, sexual preference isn't a gimme. If it were the NAMBLA folks could scream that their human rights were being infringed upon. After all, they have their predispositions, too, at least they call them that.


And, this is ridiculous because pedophilia is illegal. It is not about two consenting adults.
I don't think government needs to be involved at all. I hate the idea of "marriage" being a government power


I agree. Marriage is a religious union. Getting a license to marry is a state function. If the problem with gays getting a license to marry, sans the religious input, then the state should have no say in gender differences, as that is just a vestige of religious doctrine. I reject that religious doctrine completely. It does not belong in state law.

You don't get it at all do you? It's NOT the government saying it! It's the PEOPLE of the state saying it!


No, you don't get it. No one is infringing on your right of heterosexuality. NO ONE. And, just because the majority of people voted against it does not make it right. It's a bunch of lowlife homophobes who find some bizarre sanctimonious crappola in objecting to it, something I guess you understand very well.
3 Pages1 2 3 
Meta
Views
» 5277
Comments
» 44
Category
» US Domestic
Comment
Recent Article Comments
Modding Ara: History Untold
LightStar Design Windowblind...
DeskScapes 11: The Dream Mak...
Which A.I. Software Are You ...
ChatGPT 4o vs. o1 vs. o1 Pro...
What's the Last Book You Rea...
A day in the Life of Odditie...
Let's start a New Jammin Thr...
Let's see your political mem...
Safe and free software downl...
Sponsored Links
Terms of Service Privacy Policy About Us Contact Us Stardock.com
© 2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.
JoeUser v1.0.0.0