http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/BREAKI...rop_8_6962.html

discuss.

owned.

man i don't even know. honestly i can't comprehend how this could go a court and they could rule this way. it's an embarrassment really.

Yeah it's unbelievable it went this far, and it should have been a unanimous decision

lololololol rage time

WOOT WOOT GO CALIFORNIA!!

i agree. i don't even know what to say really besides that i'm disappointed.

Nevar!!! they need to get a clue. Numbers is the biggest clue. Get the hint, leave the country if you don't like it

Don't be too disappointed. 7-0 would have been great, but I guess 6-1 ain't so bad. At least it was upheld in the end.

I'm disappointed and disgusted. Talk about legislating from the bench. This is like Plessy v. Ferguson.

Ummmmm... this wasn't legislated from the bench. Guess where it was legislated from. I'll give you a hint: another name for Prop 8 is California Ballot Measure 8.

Yep, you guessed it, this wasn't decided by judges; it was decided by the people of California. Of course, the gay agenda attempted to use activist judges to try to legislate from the bench by throwing a shitstorm to try to get it overturned.

In all seriousness, I'm not happy with proposition 8 because I don't want the government to be involved in marriage whatsoever. But between right to freedom of religion and the privilege of getting married, I think the former trumps the latter.

Be that as it may: 1) If one group is being unfairly discriminated against by anyone, then it's the responsibility of the government to protect that group and 2) Religion has nothing to do with marriage. One party having a penis and the other having a vagina has nothing to do with religion. Atheists can get married and religious gays can't?

Religion has nothing to do with marriage?


Orly?

You got something to back that up... I'm hoping this is going beyond the Egyptians

duh she has something to back it up, read what it says right after it

1) So then you agree with Proposition 8, as it protects religious people from unfair prosecution, right? After all, that's why prop 8 was made in the first place, wasn't it?

2) Maybe it didn't. But the problem is, gays think they can sue religious organizations for not allowing them to marry... and they're having success at it. The people of California decided that the free exercise of religion needed to be protected from activist homosexuals.

Like I said, I don't think the government should be able to tell anyone who can or can't marry. But I also believe the government should not be able to force me to recognize or participate in anyone's marriage. However, gays want to force religious groups to marry them, photographers to shoot their ceremonies, etc.

I'd like to see prop 8 repealed, but it shouldn't stop there.

uh... and? She's making it seem like marriage didn't come out of religion..

^ I'm not saying that marriage did or didn't come out of religion, but if it did, why can atheists marry and religious gays cannot?


But if marriage is a civil institution and marriage licenses are granted by the state, then how is it religious prosecution? Those against Prop 8 aren't suing the church, they're suing the state.

she said religion has nothing to do with it. what don't you get, those are her exact words. sure it came out of it, but that doesn't matter now. you don't have to be affiliated with a church or religious to get married. i'm an atheist and i would have no problem getting married to my girlfriend, because it has nothing to do with church.

Again.. Religion has EVERYTHING to do with marriage. Jesus Christ for once... study a religion.. ANY religion. If it had nothing to do with religion, then take off that wedding ring, it belongs to religion, not your marriage. BRB gonna smash my face into a 10 inch blade repeatedly.

Again, if religion has everything to do with marriage, why can atheists marry and religous gays cannot?

YOU'RE REJECTING REALITY. if it REALLY had EVERYTHING to do with it, then I, an atheist wouldn't be able to get married either. maybe in your world it has everything to do with it, but in the real world, religion and marriage are NOT that related anymore because non religious people can get married any day of the week.

BRB SMASHING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL


edit:

what carrie said

Right... technically, you can't get married in the Church. A conservative Church would have you fill out an application and more than likely if you admit you're an atheist, they would not wed you. Why? Because you don't even belong in the church to begin with lol...

What you atheists should call it is, "civil unity" or another term I forget that f****ts use since it's not a legitimate marriage ordained by the Church in the eyes of God.

i don't need to get married in a church. you don't need a church to get legally married to someone. as carrie already pointed out, churches don't marry people, the state does.

Churches do not marry people. States do. When you apply for a marriage license, you don't go to your nearest church, you go to a state agency, i.e. a city hall.

Right so this is really all about the term we're using... "Marriage" literally is a religious unity between man and woman.

What you non believers, including f****ts should call it, is something other than Marriage. The term Marriage simply has been brutally misunderstood and misused.




Ya on legal terms... then you're getting the ordinance from the State or from a Law... which pretty much voids, "marriage'. It is the Church or the Mosque or the Synagogue who makes that choice, not some petty law of the land lol...

yo i don't even disagree. i think the state should issue civil unions to everyone and religious people can go to their churches for "marriage". but the fact of the matter, the reality of it, is that it's not done that way at this time. so this is what it is and the state (not churches alone) is denying rights to people.

at this point in time, marriage is not just a religious term, and as we said the proof of that is that i can get married because im heterosexual, regardless of the fact i'm atheist.