LA Voters get to decide on gay marriage ban

Ummmmm....

Test-tube & surrogate parenting aside....

 

Could the reason that the Democrats wanted the issue put on a seperate ballot be because they know that lots of people who would vote no to gay marriage - wouldn't care enough to get to the polls a seperate time and vote no? Long question I know... It just seems like they are hoping the people who are "positively" passionate about the subject, gays & free rights activists, will outnumber "negatively" passionate people, like the KKK, if they use a seperate ballot rather than including it on the november ballot.

 

I think you're right on with that assumption. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

 

Clearly to you, but not to me. If I'm ever blessed enough to enter into a Holy Covenant betwixt myself and my future wife and the Holy Trinity, I am damned well going to be righteously indignant if for an instant someone else feels that this union applies not only to people such as myself and my wife, but to a man and another man. The chain is only as strong as its weakest link, as the old adage goes, and with the advent of "gay marriage" in my-and what you are terribly afraid to admit is a huge majority of Americans-book, it weakens my chain. It lessens the sanctity of my marriage. By saying that others have "separate but equal" rights under the law. The law recognizes, but so does the Church. If they want to refer to it as civil unions, life partnerships, etc., that's fine, but I want marriage to remain between myself and my wife, and I as someone who supports marriage as not only a legal, but spiritual recognition of faith and love, certainly believe that this is an issue that will indeed "protect" my marriage. You may not believe as I do, and therein lies the crux of the matter, but your beliefs are wrong in my and a majority of Americans in this country's opinion. It's quite open and shut.

If that is the case, then why am I not allowed to do 80 miles per hour on the interstate here as residents of New Mexico are in their home state?

Why am I not allowed to drill offshore for oil in California as I am in Louisiana?

Why are 18-20 year olds not allowed admittance into establishments that serve alcohol in other states, yet are allowed to in this state?

You're attempting to use broad strokes here, but the tighter you grip all the sand in your fingers, the more slips through the cracks...A state has the right to restrict the activities and behavior of its citizenry in the interest of the state and said community, as do local municipalities on a smaller level, and just because in a county in Texas you're not allowed to undress as a man in front of a picture of your wife (I did not make that up; there is a county in Texas with an ordinance of just that nature), that does not mean you can't strip down to your birthday suit in front of the old wedding photos of your wife cutting the cake in Louisiana

There are all kinds of laws all across this great nation that stand in direct opposition to each other from one state to the next. Arizona finds it legal in the eyes of their law enforcement and justice system to be found with up to six ounces of marijuana on your person or belongings, as long as it cannot be proven that you had intent to distribute said six ounces.

US Constitution Amendment XIV Section1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

This last section is basically put in there for filler by you, I guess...I mean...What does it tell you? Without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the qual protection of the laws...

Well, LSUGrad...If we pass a law here in Louisiana with respect to marriage, and then the people vote on that measure to become part and parcel of the Constitution of this great state, then both due process and equal protection will have been given and applied, respectively.

The majority of this state that will vote will vote, and the result of that majority will be binding. Those who disagree will immediately rebuke the majority rule and use legal recourse to do so.

In this nation, the majority rules. When a duly elected body of representatives of the public passes a measure to put before the public for a vote amongst the citizenry, and said public then votes in favor of the measure, how can you argue?

Did members of the IRS who were in charge of sending out checks for the Bush Tax Cut just decide to withhold them because they disagreed with the tax cut?

Did generals withhold their expertise in the planning of the Afghanistan and Iraqi operations because they disagreed with policy?

Of course not, because the PUBLIC (Via its duly represented leaders in the three branches of government) had already made its decision.

In our case, the fact remains that the majority will have spoken, and even in the face of the ridiculous enabler the American legal system has become towards niche groups and outer envelope alternative lifestyle individuals who seek shelter and protection for their admittedly non-conforming and deviant (I dare you to try to tell me that their acts don't deviate from the norms of society) choices, the public will have spoken loud and clear.

The hi-jacking of the legal system may keep them from being out-flanked, but believe you me, the delusions of grandeur amongst those that feel as if they should be treated with equal protection under the law by inferring they too, as homosexual couples, should be conferred the rights and status afforded those in a marriage recognized by a state and a nation of laws will quickly be brought back down to earth with a resounding thud.

I also find it telling that martin never responded truthfully and frankly when M.O.M asked why it would be put on a ballot in September, instead of November...

 

Care to tell me about how it's okay for Melissa Etheridge and her "partner" who aren't even together anymore are going to explain to their children where they came from?

"Well, little (Insert Etheridge's child's name here), you see, I was a carpet muncher in my younger days, as well as a rock-star wannabe, and I decided that not only would I be a gap-lapper, not only would I dine out at the Y every night, but I'd tell everyone about it, and use my national pulpit to express my love for it and for those that are like-minded.

"You see ______, I was so proud of my lesbian...hmm...My lesbian-ism, so to speak, that I decided to have a child...That's where I first began to think of you, ______. I knew that without a man and a penis and sperm and intercourse heterosexually, by conventional means, I could never procreate in the hopes of breeding offspring.

"So, that's where your daddy came in. Even though I prefer tuna melt when it comes to intamacy, I knew I had to have a dose of baby batter from a 'somewhat willing' individual who didn't care that their own child and offspring from their loins would be brought up in an admittedly unstable world full of mixed messages, societal rebukes, ostracism, and confusion.

"My dyke woman and I thought long and hard about who would be willing to consent to such a gnarly union, and that's when it came to us who would be the perfect person to show such a negligent and reckless disregard for human life as well as traditional family constructs, while at the same time willingly do our bidding.

"Someone who was once amazingly talented, but let a drug induced stupor lead him to the federal penitentiary and a stint in prison!

"Of course you know I'm talking about your daddy, David Crosby, _____!

"So, I got his wife to buy into it. The pitch was easy. He hadn't sniffed anything other than E! True Hollywood Story and Behind the Music in years, and the offer of the limelight and the "Cover of the Rolling Stone" to once again give him not quite 15 minutes would be too much too resist.

"So, a few milliliters of his spunk later & 9 months later, and there you were! My Birkenstock wearing and loving partner and myself figured we'd raise you as the perfect lesbian couple in the ideal lesbian home, till we broke up.

"Now, I'm raising you with her as my ex girlfriend, your daddy, the uber-musically talented come ex con come in a vial for me, and myself, a worn out, re-tread lesbo with no talent, a label that won't put the $$ behind my albums and only you to cling onto as a bit of that fading glow of the spotlight...

"That's where you came from...

Still think they can't harm society? That poor child...That poor child...

 

Care to point out any stats on the adjustment and adaption ease of children raised in single gender two parent households?

There isn't enough data to attempt a sampling or study, but amongst homosexuals, the incidence of suicide is much higher-as well as the propensity to involve oneself in high risk activities such as drug use and unprotected unmongamous sexual relationship activities. Reports of depression are greater amongst homosexuals, as are reports of manic depression and other mental afflictions-than in the normal population.

Not condoning dual gender two parent families or single parent households with heterosexual parents, but I guess I'm getting at the point of, "Why the hell would you give these people a chance to bring a child through life when the vast majority of them can't bring themselves through life unscathed?"

I still agree with someone on this forum long ago who said that the psychiatric community sold out on the subject of homosexuality long ago, and gave up treating it as a disorder or problem, and all of the sudden gave it credence as a "lifestyle choice"...

 

If you are worried about two gay men getting married effecting your marriage and what it means to you maybe you need to reevaluate your situation.

since you obviously have no concept of the difference between a law, and a right/privlidge. It's not your right to do any of these things. No where in the Constitution does it say that you can speed, drill offshore, of drink at 18. It does say that EVERY citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think you're the one who's gripping. Your precious Christian marriage is about to be de sanctified by homosexuals and you just can't stand it can you?? I mean if you allow this then kids might think it's ok. Who knows what will happen next maybe your kid will end up gay..... :shock: :shock:

Part of that due process is the Supreme Courts right to look at the law and declare it unConstitutional. There is no doubt in my mind that this law will pass. I just can't wait for the supreme court crush it and send all the christians reeling.

EVERY Law in this nation dealing with personal liberties and constitutional issues can be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Like I've said over and over, the bill will pass because people don't like gays, but the supreme court will over turn it because it's the right thing to do.

 

So we approve/legalize gay marriage.

Don't we start a slippery slope to legalizing polygamy, polyandry, and whatever lifestyle choice we deem is allowed us in our never-ending
"pursuit of happiness"????

Do you REALLY think that it will stop there????????

As long as there is a % of people who think that something is their legal right, then are we as a country/voters going to approve it, provided that their demographic is suitably politically correct and/or "underprivileged"?

 

Are you going to make laws that say only "fill in a specific group" US citizens can't practice polygamy, polyandry, and whatever lifestyle?

I have a problem with any law that singles out a specific group of legal citizens and says that they can't participate in an activity that other citizens can.