1. Welcome to TRD Forums! A community for Toyota, Lexus, and Scion Enthusiasts. To enjoy all the benefits of the site, we invite you to signup.

News Gay Marriage.

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by corollarider19, May 17, 2008.

  1. Offline

    94corolla-chafita uhh im a dude..

    Message Count:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    brownsville, tx
    one of my ex's was bi. and at a bar she would point out as described above! and its nice when they have friends that are bi and get drunk with you.. but i think this should be discussed in the mature thread... lol
  2. Offline

    GSE21tuner Formerly rollatuner110. Representing AZLexus.club

    Message Count:
    10,948
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    568
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Vehicles:
    07 Lexus IS350, 04 Lexus IS300
    Many out there are hypocritical indeed. They criticize one group for some wrongdoing, do something just as bad, and then hide and point fingers.
  3. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD

    Im referring to the manner in which this was reversed.....the reversal of the ban is technically illegal.
  4. Offline

    Ares Active Member

    Message Count:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Houston TX
    Explain please. I am into government and all that goodies :D
  5. Offline

    GSE21tuner Formerly rollatuner110. Representing AZLexus.club

    Message Count:
    10,948
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    568
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Vehicles:
    07 Lexus IS350, 04 Lexus IS300
    Oh ok. Thanks for clearing that up. :)
  6. Offline

    its_ikon FIRST widebody

    Message Count:
    1,716
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    498
    Location:
    Henderson, NV
    that would be left for the mature section, but i was just trying to get the point across that rollatuner110 brought up.
  7. Offline

    Ares Active Member

    Message Count:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Houston TX
    New thread in the mature section with pics or BAN!!! LoL jk...
  8. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD

    Ill have to find the article about it...I didnt fully understand it.
  9. Offline

    corollarider19 New Member

    Message Count:
    3,050
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My stance on gay marriage is this. I could care less who you are who you like what you like. I think if you are in love and want to get married go for it. I know the bible says its between and man and woman but is the bible an accurate account of what went on?
  10. Offline

    GSE21tuner Formerly rollatuner110. Representing AZLexus.club

    Message Count:
    10,948
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    568
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    Vehicles:
    07 Lexus IS350, 04 Lexus IS300
    Homosexual relationships aren't a recent occurrence. It's been documented in ancient Greece and Rome from off the top of my head. There were quite a few more. It wasn't an issue back then, why should it be an issue now? It's just the conservative mentality of today's society. It's the majority imposing rules that seem right to them on the rest of us.
  11. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD

    Alright...from what I understand:

    The ban was the result of a civil initiative, which passed with a 61% majority. This was entirely in line with the Constitution.

    However, since it was a civil initiative, no one branch of government can overturn the law per the California constitution. Which is exactly what the court did in this case.

    In my opinion, sexual discrimination cannot, in principle, be legalized. So the ban, in and of itself, is illegal. The court is just striking down what is in essence and illegal law. Because illegal laws are illegal and therefore are not subject to the constitutional process.

    Or, lets go the other way....

    To put forward an irritatingly convoluted argument just for the shit of it, let's point out that discrimination requires Person A to not be allowed to do something Person B is allowed to do. Then let's observe that the law doesn't say that gays can't marry, only that the concept of marriage is a connect of two people of opposite genders. Gay people have the exact same rights that straight people do (i.e. they can marry a person of the opposite gender if they so choose.) Now, I'm not saying that this is right, and I do realize that this argument skirts around morality altogether, but because of this I would submit that in a purely and narrowly and slavishly LEGAL sense the Court could not allow gay marriage on Constitutional grounds (rights are guaranteed to individuals, not couples, under any ethical code I'm aware of.)
  12. Offline

    falnfenix Well-Known Member

    Message Count:
    5,988
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    428
    agreed. i believe they found it to be unconstitutional, correct?
  13. Offline

    e_andree E

    Moderator
    Message Count:
    8,246
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    578
    Location:
    MD


    No, they simply redefined "marriage"....thus stepping all over the public, who voted for Proposition 22 in 2000, thus violating the seperation of powers.

    Its going to be turned over

Share This Page