|
Author
|
Topic: prop 8 (update)
|
sic70stang
CAFords OG
Member # 4347
|
posted
 
 
Well an openly gay judge overturned it. (UPDATE!) Gay marriage on hold
http://www.ktvu.com/news/24652210/detail.html
[ August 16, 2010, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: sic70stang ]
--------------------
The anti-crew
1987 rolling safety violation.
Posts: 6943 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
SLOWBACK 67
¯
Member # 6348
|
posted
It's funny how we the people of Ca voted on it, the people spoke..... ( prop 8 was passed )
Does this mean that we have no control on what laws are passed or not passed? Or just the ones that liberal and gay judges want to change?
When this ends up at the SC and we keep apointing"partisan" judges to vote with their hearts or political party instead of what our constituion states we are going to loose all of what our country was founded on.
[ August 04, 2010, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Slowback67 ]
--------------------
Originally posted by turbo50:
I have no intenions of keeping anyones parts or taking anyones money.
Posts: 8582 | From: Vallejo | Registered: Dec 2005
| :
|
|
sic70stang
CAFords OG
Member # 4347
|
posted
i honestly have just sat here and thought of what to write, but this sadly is california. i cannot say i didnt expect this.
--------------------
The anti-crew
1987 rolling safety violation.
Posts: 6943 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
fstryde3
¯
Member # 8436
|
posted
You know the whole gay not gay marriage not marriage whatever but wtf was the point of having it on the ballot people vote then it gets appealed over and over until they find a judge to overturn it why the hell vote then?
Posts: 2950 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2008
| :
|
|
SLOWBACK 67
¯
Member # 6348
|
posted
IMHO it shows a lack of professionalism when any judge pull's out the "unconstitutional card" because he personally didn't agree with the outcome of how Californians voted.
--------------------
Originally posted by turbo50:
I have no intenions of keeping anyones parts or taking anyones money.
Posts: 8582 | From: Vallejo | Registered: Dec 2005
| :
|
|
TubeSteakJohnson
¯
Member # 8967
|
posted
When they,(gay lobby) had Prop.8 slapped out of their hands by the california superior court, they just shopped their case around to a fellow judge who, "wink wink", would judge the case on it's own merits. Oh, and the judge who was hearing the case just happened to be Gay, but don't let that fool you, that wouldn't have anything to do on how he would rule. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 583 | Registered: Feb 2009
| :
|
|
306Coupe
¯
Member # 4988
|
posted
it was overturn based on gay's consitutional rights. The south was agaist the civil rights nd the courts had to turn down many laws that were written against the rights and liberties of AA. I personally could care less, just keep it away from me and my children.
--------------------
1987 Coupe- Not stock
Posts: 2039 | From: Rocklin | Registered: Oct 2004
| :
|
|
N8
¯
Member # 6048
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 306Coupe:
...just keep it away from me and my children.
It being over-turned will allow it to become part of school curriculum. That is the only part I take issue with. Other than that I can careless.
Posts: 11638 | Registered: Sep 2005
| :
|
|
SLOWBACK 67
¯
Member # 6348
|
posted
^ I didn't like when the school teacher took her kids on a field trip to see her get married at the courthouse. I think for religious reasons it should be talked about with the students family and not pushed on public school kids.
--------------------
Originally posted by turbo50:
I have no intenions of keeping anyones parts or taking anyones money.
Posts: 8582 | From: Vallejo | Registered: Dec 2005
| :
|
|
sic70stang
CAFords OG
Member # 4347
|
posted
where do u draw the line? do we allow people that think its okay to marry 4 people now get married to be fair. or what about some idiot that wants to marry his dog, i know thats extreme but whos to say it wont happen. marriage needs to be defined and the voters tried to do that.
--------------------
The anti-crew
1987 rolling safety violation.
Posts: 6943 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
5.t0es
¯
Member # 5864
|
posted
306 and nate, i agree with both of you. as long as it doesent affect my kids. im okay with it. but please dont make it part of the learnings in a public school.
Posts: 2990 | From: eb | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
sic70stang
CAFords OG
Member # 4347
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 5.0-srt-4:
306 and nate, i agree with both of you. as long as it doesent affect my kids. im okay with it. but please dont make it part of the learnings in a public school.
good luck with that
--------------------
The anti-crew
1987 rolling safety violation.
Posts: 6943 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
306Coupe
¯
Member # 4988
|
posted
What I found on teaching gay marriage to kids, which I believe to be accurate
"Under the California Education Code, public schools are under “local control” when it comes to many curriculum choices. One of the locally-decided curriculum choices is whether to teach sex education (Cal. Ed. Code 51933). If the local school district decides to teach sex education, then and only then, the “instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships” (Cal Ed. Code 51933(a)(7)).
Also, if a local district does decide to teach sex ed, a “parent or guardian of a pupil has the right to excuse their child from all or part of comprehensive sexual health education” (Cal Ed. code 51938).
Bottom line: Schools are only required to talk about marriage if they decide to teach sex ed. Could same-sex marriage come up in the context of sexual education? Yes, but schools are required to tell parents that they’re teaching sex ed and need to disclose exactly what they’re teaching. (Cal Ed. code 51938). If same-sex marriage is part of that curriculum, parents have the right to exclude their child from those classes.
There is one other section of the Education Code that mentions marriage. It’s an obscure part of the code called the Comprehensive Health Education Act of 1977 (“CHEA”) (Cal Ed. Code 51800 et seq), It’s initial purpose was to teach kids about drug abuse (Cal. Ed. Code 15801) This code gives a long list of topics that are supposed to be covered in the CHEA, one of the topics is “Family health and child development, including the legal and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.”
"
[ August 05, 2010, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: 306Coupe ]
--------------------
1987 Coupe- Not stock
Posts: 2039 | From: Rocklin | Registered: Oct 2004
| :
|
|
Yaterstang
¯
Member # 7659
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by sic70stang:
quote:
Originally posted by 5.0-srt-4:
306 and nate, i agree with both of you. as long as it doesent affect my kids. im okay with it. but please dont make it part of the learnings in a public school.
good luck with that
Its gay that we're even having the discussion, it all goes away once its law and nobody pays attention to it. This dont effect me in any way, and i dont necessarily think these people have a choice theyre just born with it just like retards are born with whatever retardism is. Most people who oppose this are usually a bunch of fags themselves like all them politicians who vote against it and then get caught at faces, lol. I dont have a reason to hate when people are just being the way they are.
Posts: 2968 | From: Natomas | Registered: May 2007
| :
|
|
SHOalex
¯
Member # 7720
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yaterstang:
quote:
Originally posted by sic70stang:
quote:
Originally posted by 5.0-srt-4:
306 and nate, i agree with both of you. as long as it doesent affect my kids. im okay with it. but please dont make it part of the learnings in a public school.
good luck with that
Its gay that we're even having the discussion, it all goes away once its law and nobody pays attention to it. This dont effect me in any way, and i dont necessarily think these people have a choice theyre just born with it just like retards are born with whatever retardism is. Most people who oppose this are usually a bunch of fags themselves like all them politicians who vote against it and then get caught at faces, lol. I dont have a reason to hate when people are just being the way they are.
This is probably one of the more intelligent things I've ever seen you type. LMFAO at retardism
--------------------
BAM! POW! Right in the kisser.
Posts: 1448 | From: Oakland | Registered: Jun 2007
| :
|
|
Yaterstang
¯
Member # 7659
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by sic70stang:
where do u draw the line? do we allow people that think its okay to marry 4 people now get married to be fair. or what about some idiot that wants to marry his dog, i know thats extreme but whos to say it wont happen. marriage needs to be defined and the voters tried to do that.
LOL, so what if someone wants to marry their dog that just means more human pussy for the rest of us. You either F dogs or people, thats it there's no in between. once you F a dog thats a firm decision, your outta the human pussy game for good!
[ August 05, 2010, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Yaterstang ]
Posts: 2968 | From: Natomas | Registered: May 2007
| :
|
|
sic70stang
CAFords OG
Member # 4347
|
posted
Does this ruling mean I need to watch my use of the words, FAG or queer or faggots.
--------------------
The anti-crew
1987 rolling safety violation.
Posts: 6943 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
SLOWBACK 67
¯
Member # 6348
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by sic70stang:
where do u draw the line? do we allow people that think its okay to marry 4 people now get married to be fair. or what about some idiot that wants to marry his dog, i know thats extreme but whos to say it wont happen. marriage needs to be defined and the voters tried to do that.
You do bring up a very good point. There needed to be a define meaning of married. ( because people have less common sence and need thing's put into law. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) What about paligamy? (how ever it's spelled ) what about the age required to be married???? Wouldn't be unfair now to say age OR number of partners SHOULD be a factor? This could open the door for an aquital's for people caught having more then one husband, wife and even underage.
People of the same sex can already get domestic parterships and recieve all the tax and health benifits. So why do gay and lesbian right's leaders keep pushing for more? Does it REALLY matter to them? Or are they just trying to attack religious beliefs of our country?
--------------------
Originally posted by turbo50:
I have no intenions of keeping anyones parts or taking anyones money.
Posts: 8582 | From: Vallejo | Registered: Dec 2005
| :
|
|
JohnB
Tech Moderator
Member # 969
|
posted
It's hilarious that people put this much effort into the same-sex marriage issue...yet don't hold politicians accountable for their inability to effectively balance a budget.
--------------------
1965 Shelby Cobra
1993 Cobra
2012 F150 Raptor
2020 GT500
Posts: 6523 | From: Orlando FL/Redding CA | Registered: Mar 2002
| :
|
|
sic70stang
CAFords OG
Member # 4347
|
posted
No john voters have spoken twice and both times it was over turned. So it don't matter what the people of California want its a matter of what openly gay liberal judges tell us what it is we want
--------------------
The anti-crew
1987 rolling safety violation.
Posts: 6943 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| :
|
|
SLOWBACK 67
¯
Member # 6348
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by JohnB:
It's hilarious that people put this much effort into the same-sex marriage issue...yet don't hold politicians accountable for their inability to effectively balance a budget.
That's because there are so many people that feel they should be taken care of and given all kinds of stuff for free. But feel ya...... I would love to see a day where everyone stood up to government over spending and lack of a real budget.
--------------------
Originally posted by turbo50:
I have no intenions of keeping anyones parts or taking anyones money.
Posts: 8582 | From: Vallejo | Registered: Dec 2005
| :
|
|
uncle bill
¯
Member # 3953
|
posted
ive always said "i dont care what your sexual prefrence is as long as it not children and dont cost me any money" this gay marriage shit and the continuation of this gay marriage shit is and well continue to cost us money both in the courts and health care system. dont force what you believe are your rights on me. god made adam and eve, not adam and steve.
[ August 05, 2010, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: uncle bill ]
Posts: 415 | From: antioch | Registered: Dec 2003
| :
|
|
wilit
Mustang Messiah
Member # 3367
|
posted
Here's my 2 centavos on the deal...
Whether you agree with allowing same-sex marriage or not is really irrelevant. What you should be upset about is the fact that government has its hand in a religious institution. Marriage is a religious ideal, not governmental. This is basically the government telling you who you can and cannot marry. This is no different than saying an interacial couple can't be married. Shoot, some states still have laws saying you can't have consentual butt-sex with your wife. It's a felony.
--------------------
"If a man hasn't found something worth dying for, he isn't fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 4793 | From: 37.78514° North 122.40100° West | Registered: Oct 2003
| :
|
|
306Coupe
¯
Member # 4988
|
posted
lol government spending... wasn't the topic but let's go there. Did we have a surplus when Clinton left office? Yes did we have a MAJOR defecit when Bush Jr left officer, yes. It's not about welfare. Wasn't the republicans last week trying to put in tax breaks for those millionaires, aka the top 5%?There is a HUGE difference between upper and lower class. And the middle class has almost entirely disappeared.
--------------------
1987 Coupe- Not stock
Posts: 2039 | From: Rocklin | Registered: Oct 2004
| :
|
|
fstryde3
¯
Member # 8436
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 306Coupe:
lol government spending... wasn't the topic but let's go there. Did we have a surplus when Clinton left office? Yes did we have a MAJOR defecit when Bush Jr left officer, yes. It's not about welfare. Wasn't the republicans last week trying to put in tax breaks for those millionaires, aka the top 5%?There is a HUGE difference between upper and lower class. And the middle class has almost entirely disappeared.
You make a valid point sir but government spending has been out of control since there was government. Long before Bush or Clinton or Obama those guys don't care about us. Hell did you see the new Supreme Court justice today how does a fat liberal rich jew broad who went to Harvard represent any of us? The rich get richer my friends!
[ August 05, 2010, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: fstryde3 ]
Posts: 2950 | From: Sacramento | Registered: Jun 2008
| :
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
