Gay Pride

• CenterBHSFan

  

  FairwoodKing;457854 wrote:Are you referring to the California decision by the voters or the California decision by the judge? I hope the judge's decision is not overturned. The voters were wrong. In a democracy, it the the obligation of the majority to protect the minority.

  In that case, the health insurance legislation wouldn't have passed....
• believer

  

  CenterBHSFan;457894 wrote:In that case, the health insurance legislation wouldn't have passed....

  I have to admit I LOL'd at that one!
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Heretic;455842 wrote:To be real, I'd prefer that issues like parentage were concerned more with the ability of two people to raise a child remotely properly, as opposed to the sexuality of those parents. People ramble on constantly about what's bringing down our society...the only legit answer is the huge number of uneducated government-assisted idiots who pop out kids with regularity. It drains the economy to support the trash (much like it does to prosecute people for nothing "offenses" like weed).
  
  It sounds draconian and shit, but not allowing unfit couples to have kids would do more to benefit our economy than a lot of the ideas actual politicians come up with. Give them to couples unable to have kids, couples with the wealth and desire to take in more kids and alternate-sexuality couples with the ability and desire to actually raise them or abort them...whatever works. And when you've personally known people who've based part of their decision concerning popping out a kid on their knowledge that their government check will be larger if they do, you start wondering if the world would be better if there were fewer natural-born statistics out there.

  
  How dare you insult future members of the Democrat Party that way.
• FairwoodKing

  You have to admit that we queers don't add to the world's overpopulation. We do not "pop out babies" to increase our welfare checks. When we have children, it's when they are really wanted.
  
  BTW, the word "queer" is no longer a slur. Many younger gays and lesbians regularly refer to themselves as queer. In fact the acronym LGBT is now LGBTQ. It is hard for someone my age to accept this, but I have to go along with the times.
• IggyPride00

  

  A Federal Judge in California just declared Don't ask, Don't tell unconstitutional.
  

  RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A federal judge in Southern California has declared the U.S. military's ban on openly gay service members unconstitutional.
  
  U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips on Thursday granted a request for an injunction halting the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays in the military.
  
  Phillips says the policy doesn't help military readiness and instead has a "direct and deleterious effect" on the armed services.
  
  The lawsuit was the biggest legal test of the law in recent years and came amid promises by President Barack Obama that he will work to repeal the policy.
  
  Government lawyers argued Phillips lacked the authority to issue a nationwide injunction and the issue should be decided by Congress.
  
  The injunction was sought by the Log Cabin Republicans, a 19,000-member group that includes current and former military members.

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ca_gays_in_military
• BGFalcons82

  

  IggyPride00;477882 wrote:A Federal Judge in California just declared Don't ask, Don't tell unconstitutional.

  
  So what does a judge have to do with military rules?
  Is affirmative action in the pipeline?
  How about OSHA regulations...you know...don't blow up shit without proper PPE, notices, and what-not?
  Maybe this "judge" should look at Title 9 requirements and have women serve on the front lines?
  What does a "judge" have to do with the military to begin with?
  Should all active military personnel register their AK-47's or be subject to a judge's order?
  Where does this judicial activism end?
• tk421

  

  Just more judges making policy from the bench.
• IggyPride00

  

  Just more judges making policy from the bench.

  
  There has been an awful lot of that this year from the Supreme Court on down. The judiciary is growing a little too big for its britches of late.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;455921 wrote:All this talk about people's "rights" led me to my posts. The argument during the ObamaKare debate was that the socialists call health care a "right", when in reality, you'll be fined or jailed if you don't exercise this "right". Impossible for it to be a right under this law, but I digress.
  
  I understand the 14th Amendment argument from the judge and I understand the state of Cali voters exercising their state's rights as granted by the original Bill of Rights. In the end, I don't think I'm against gay marriage constitutionally speaking. However, the homosexual community has no "right" to acquire children. I draw the line there. To be clear, I'm not against them raising adopted/donated children, but they have no constitutional "right" to demand it. That's all.

  So then you'd be okay with a law saying that gay people cannot adopt or have surrogate children? Or am I reading into your post incorrectly which I may be. Gay people adopting or having surrogate children (obviously if they meet the requirements for adoption or have a willing sperm donor/women to carry the baby) should not be left up to the whim of the voters.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Pants,
  
  "Gay people adopting or having surrogate children (obviously if they meet the requirements for adoption or have a willing sperm donor/women to carry the baby) should not be left up to the whim of the voters. "
  
  Not really having anything to do with gay rights, but I don't think that every part of our society should be left up to the whip of judges, either.
  
  Where do the whims of voters and judges meet? Is there a happy medium where both sides are satisfied? Is there not going to be one side or the other that is pissed off or frustrated?
  
  I just don't believe for a minute, that legislation is going to solve or make any problems end for one group or another. Sometimes, in fact, it just divides a bad situation and makes it even worse. Again, not really talking about gay rights, but just generally.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;477998 wrote:So then you'd be okay with a law saying that gay people cannot adopt or have surrogate children? Or am I reading into your post incorrectly which I may be. Gay people adopting or having surrogate children (obviously if they meet the requirements for adoption or have a willing sperm donor/women to carry the baby) should not be left up to the whim of the voters.

  
  I'm saying it's legal for gays to raise surrogate children, provided they pass all of the rules, background checks, etc. that heterosexuals must pass in order to be adoptive parents. I'm also saying that it is not a right for them to have children. As an example, if a gay couple gets denied in an adoption proceeding, then they can't go to court to claim it is their right to raise children....because physically it is impossible without someone else providing the necessary ingredient to make it so.
• FairwoodKing

  Whether we gays like it or not (and we really don't like it), most current gay issues are going to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court within the next several years. I'm talking about gay marriage, gay adoption, and "Don't ask, don't tell." Considering what a bunch of wackos the U.S. justices are, I hate to see our future decided by them. I can only hope that one or two of the conservative justices die or retire before those decision are made so that Obama can put in some replacements that will feel more favorably toward us. I can only hope.
• believer

  

  FairwoodKing;480225 wrote:Whether we gays like it or not (and we really don't like it), most current gay issues are going to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court within the next several years. I'm talking about gay marriage, gay adoption, and "Don't ask, don't tell." Considering what a bunch of wackos the U.S. justices are, I hate to see our future decided by them. I can only hope that one or two of the conservative justices die or retire before those decision are made so that Obama can put in some replacements that will feel more favorably toward us. I can only hope.

  
  Yeah...it's always a good thing when ultra-leftist activist judges legislate from the bench.
• FairwoodKing

  believer;480277 wrote:Yeah...it's always a good thing when ultra-leftist activist judges legislate from the bench.

  
  My point is that one way or the other, the decisions will be made by judges legislating from the bench. I just hope they are leftist.
• believer

  

  You do understand that - in theory and by the Constitution of the United States - that the judicial branch is allegedly limited to interpreting and enforcing laws enacted by the legislative branch, right?
  
  In your world view, then, it would be better if we simply abolish the legislative branch (you know....the men and women we send to Congress to represent our interests and enact laws thereof) and simply allow leftist activist judges write and enact laws from the bench?
  
  Ya have to love the wacky left.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  FairwoodKing;480225 wrote:Whether we gays like it or not (and we really don't like it), most current gay issues are going to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court within the next several years. I'm talking about gay marriage, gay adoption, and "Don't ask, don't tell." Considering what a bunch of wackos the U.S. justices are, I hate to see our future decided by them. I can only hope that one or two of the conservative justices die or retire before those decision are made so that Obama can put in some replacements that will feel more favorably toward us. I can only hope.

  
  FK,
  
  Are you talking about the future of the gay community or Americans as a whole?
  That you don't want to see the future of the gay community determined by the SC, but you're okay with other groups's being determined by them?
  
  Please clarify just a little bit more. Thanks!
  ...............................................
  
  
  
  The way I see it, the only reason that government is [still] involved in the marriage business is the $$$ they get out of it. That's really the bottom line isn't it? And because of that, you'd think that government would wisen up and take $$$ from the gay community also.
  
  I don't buy into the thought that it's all about morality. That just doesn't make sense. One the one hand, government won't let the gay community get married; but on the other hand, there can be no religious books, or their effigies, (the instruments of morality) in government buildings.... See how that's twisted?
  And to me, that just shows how willful and petulant government can be, has been and IS.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;478283 wrote:I'm saying it's legal for gays to raise surrogate children, provided they pass all of the rules, background checks, etc. that heterosexuals must pass in order to be adoptive parents. I'm also saying that it is not a right for them to have children. As an example, if a gay couple gets denied in an adoption proceeding, then they can't go to court to claim it is their right to raise children....because physically it is impossible without someone else providing the necessary ingredient to make it so.

  Ok that's fair enough. When I say they have a right to have children through surrogates or adoption I mean they have the right to take the steps to do so. As in, if there is a willing donor/womb or if they get approved for adoption then they have the right to have a child. Obviously if they get denied in an adoption proceeding or cannot find a willing donor then they cannot have children.
• FairwoodKing

  CenterBHSFan;480866 wrote:FK,
  
  Are you talking about the future of the gay community or Americans as a whole?
  That you don't want to see the future of the gay community determined by the SC, but you're okay with other groups's being determined by them?
  
  Please clarify just a little bit more. Thanks!

  
  The U.S. Supreme Court is very partisan. You have the right wingers and the left wingers, and they usually vote as a bloc. There are as many right wing activist judges as there are left wing. When gay issues come before the court, I want the judges to vote on the merits of the case, not just on their own political bent. But since this is not going to happen, I would be happy if the majority of the judges were left wingers.
• jmog

  FairwoodKing;480225 wrote:Whether we gays like it or not (and we really don't like it), most current gay issues are going to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court within the next several years. I'm talking about gay marriage, gay adoption, and "Don't ask, don't tell." Considering what a bunch of wackos the U.S. justices are, I hate to see our future decided by them. I can only hope that one or two of the conservative justices die or retire before those decision are made so that Obama can put in some replacements that will feel more favorably toward us. I can only hope.

  
  lol, so conservative judges are "wackos" but liberal judges are just good hearted folks huh? I bet there aren't any liberal "wackos" are there?
• Con_Alma

  CenterBHSFan;480866 wrote:FK,
  
  The way I see it, the only reason that government is [still] involved in the marriage business is the $$$ they get out of it. That's really the bottom line isn't it? And because of that, you'd think that government would wisen up and take $$$ from the gay community also.
  
  I don't buy into the thought that it's all about morality. That just doesn't make sense. One the one hand, government won't let the gay community get married; but on the other hand, there can be no religious books, or their effigies, (the instruments of morality) in government buildings.... See how that's twisted?
  And to me, that just shows how willful and petulant government can be, has been and IS.

  I completely agree. The reason State sanctioned marriage continues is because of the money.
  
  The reason it should be discontinued is because of the money.
  
  There is absolutely no reason two people should have to have the governments permission in order to marry. If the heterosexual/homosexual community were to fight for that I would stand with them side by side to assist in the effort.
• FairwoodKing

  jmog;482301 wrote:lol, so conservative judges are "wackos" but liberal judges are just good hearted folks huh? I bet there aren't any liberal "wackos" are there?

  
  Liberal judges push my agenda. That's why they are good hearted. I know what side my bread is buttered.
• Con_Alma

  FairwoodKing;482358 wrote:Liberal judges push my agenda. That's why they are good hearted. I know what side my bread is buttered.

  
  Our agenda should be what's important. "Our" meaning all of ours as opposed to yours or mine.
  
  Simply looking for one's own bread to be buttered is selfish and lacks tolerance. I thought liberals sought out tolerance. I have again been proven wrong.
• jmog

  FairwoodKing;482358 wrote:Liberal judges push my agenda. That's why they are good hearted. I know what side my bread is buttered.

  
  See, that's the problem, the judiciary system is NOT supposed to be pushing ANY agenda.
  
  I do admit, at least you admit and know you are biased, most people would try to sugar coat their bias.
• FairwoodKing

  I don't know the difference between a judge that is activist and one who isn't. They judge the cases that come in front of them. Anyone who has ever attended law school knows that courts do create law through their interpretations.
  
  Getting back to the issue at hand, the judges who declared anti-gay laws to be unconstitutional did not bring the cases up themselves. Someone else brought these cases to court. The judges' job was to rule on them. It is likely that appeals will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Then those judges will have to rule. I'm just saying that I hope they rule in our favor.
• jmog

  The problem is that the judges are not supposed to "create law". They are supposed to judge if the law is constitutional or not, or what the interpretation of the law is. Thats it. Unfortunately judges nowadays tend to pay no attention to the Constitution and choose for themselves what the law SHOULD say, not what it actually does say.