This is topic prop 8 (update) in forum General Talk at Northern California Ford Owners  .


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://californiafords.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=043433
Posted by sic70stang (Member # 4347) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Slowback67 (Member # 6348) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by sic70stang (Member # 4347) on :
 
i honestly have just sat here and thought of what to write, but this sadly is california. i cannot say i didnt expect this.
 
Posted by fstryde3 (Member # 8436) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Slowback67 (Member # 6348) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ham'n Eggs (Member # 8967) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by 306Coupe (Member # 4988) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by N8 (Member # 6048) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Slowback67 (Member # 6348) on :
 
^ 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.
 
Posted by sic70stang (Member # 4347) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by 5.0-srt-4 (Member # 5864) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by sic70stang (Member # 4347) on :
 
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
 
Posted by 306Coupe (Member # 4988) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Yaterstang (Member # 7659) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SHOalex (Member # 7720) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Yaterstang (Member # 7659) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by sic70stang (Member # 4347) on :
 
Does this ruling mean I need to watch my use of the words, FAG or queer or faggots.
 
Posted by Slowback67 (Member # 6348) on :
 
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] ) 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?
 
Posted by JohnB (Member # 969) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by sic70stang (Member # 4347) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Slowback67 (Member # 6348) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by uncle bill (Member # 3953) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by wilit (Member # 3367) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by 306Coupe (Member # 4988) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fstryde3 (Member # 8436) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by blown95svt (Member # 8893) on :
 
i say let them get married! doesnt affect me at all! just my opinion! [patriot]
 
Posted by sic70stang (Member # 4347) on :
 
http://www.ktvu.com/news/24652210/detail.html
 
Posted by Chavez66 (Member # 9812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by blown95svt:
i say let them get married! doesnt affect me at all! just my opinion! [patriot]
†1 on that I don't give a fuck what they do it aint ma life fuckit. Also agree wit Yaterstang [Eek!] never thought there would be a day when his comment would actually be enlightning [Big Grin]
 




Fueled by Ford Mustang Owners
on CaliforniaFords.com