[mercyteapot]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...a+gay+marriage

[earle58]

good.
i'm glad.
it's been a long time coming.

leslie

[ingelein]

Some folks aren't though, conservative are crying out against the Supreme Court as taking away the voice of the people.I personally agree with the Supreme Court of California, it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.My argument is this, we have separation of church and state, why should the gay population not have the same right to marry, except for the fact that some argue that it is "biblically" prohibited?

[indigo girl]

Why should anybody care about who is marrying who?
It's nobody else's business but the folks getting hitched.
Leave them alone, for heaven's sake.

Dang busybodies! Find something else to do with yourselves!

I get so tired of all this nonsense...

[lvnandmomx3]

Are we not the country of freedom.... It is thier lives.....They should be free to marry whom ever they want. Who is any one else to judge them or say it is not right.

[mercyteapot]

Yes, being here in CA, I am hearing the outcry of "they took away our decision. Our vote doesn't count!" Well, if what you voted for turns out to be unconstitutional, yes, that's true, your vote won't count.

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by mercyteapot

Yes, being here in CA, I am hearing the outcry of "they took away our decision. Our vote doesn't count!" Well, if what you voted for turns out to be unconstitutional, yes, that's true, your vote won't count.

Exactly, the slave owners argued they were given the right per the Bible to own slaves,the majority of the southern land owners wanted to keep it legal, they even seceded from the union. It took a war and many dead Americans to prove that it was unconstitutional to own another human being.

We gave the Supreme Court the ability to overturn laws that are unconstitutional.
6 of the 7 California Justices were appointed by a Republican governor, so one couldn't argue that the justices were liberal .

[earle58]

Originally Posted by ingelein

My argument is this, we have separation of church and state, why should the gay population not have the same right to marry, except for the fact that some argue that it is "biblically" prohibited?

the bible applies to only a part of the population.
the constitution applies to everybody.
one's constitutional rights trump biblical rights at all times.
no contest.

leslie

[ingelein]

Originally Posted by earle58

the bible applies to only a part of the population.
the constitution applies to everybody.
one's constitutional rights trump biblical rights at all times.
no contest.

leslie

I agree.Not so say the Conservative Christian Right, one of which is Huckabee,a possible running mate to McCain.

Ellen DeGeneres announced her upcoming marriage today.
http://www.people.com/people/article...200745,00.html

I was curious as to how Libertarians viewed gay marriage, Bob Barr , the Libertarian Pres. candidate says its up to the states to decide.No opinion as to whether it is "right or wrong" as opposed the Republican's family values agenda.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/sha...californi.html

[Roy Fokker]

Originally Posted by ingelein

it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriage.

Where in the Constitution is "marriage" addressed?

Originally Posted by ingelein

they even seceded from the union. It took a war and many dead Americans to prove that it was unconstitutional to own another human being.

Lincoln didn't fight that War to free the slaves.... abolition didn't become "The Cause" until much, much later (remind you of a certain, more recent war?). I'll stop here lest this thread derail further.

Originally Posted by ingelein

I was curious as to how Libertarians viewed gay marriage, Bob Barr , the Libertarian Pres. candidate says its up to the states to decide.No opinion as to whether it is "right or wrong"

I used to be a 'card carrying member' of the LP but quit a while ago - I don't agree nor support their current leadership nor the direction the Party is taking.

That being said, as a libertarian; this issue is a no brainer. Libertarians don't see people as "homosexuals" or "Protestants" or "Blacks" or "caucasians" but rather as "individual human beings", with equal, individual rights.

Marriage is a contract between consenting adults - and should be honored as such. Monogamy, Polygamy, Polyandry - be they homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual - all would enjoy equal protection under a libertarian system ... as long as all parties involved are there by mutual consent. Government has no business regulating private life.

Don't want a bisexual, polygamous marriage?
Don't get/have one.

Want to live the rest of your life with just your spouse?
Knock yourself out.

Et cetera.

I don't think the "State" should regulate marriage - it has no business and certainly no authority to decide who should and who shouldn't pair up. Remember, a government big and powerful enough to give you anything you want is also big and powerful enough to take it all away. What is the guarantee that 20 years in the future a more conservative panel of judges overturns this ruling and declares all homosexual unions null and void?

The State should not play arbiter here. Period. I made an earlier post regarding a similar issue here.

Now as regards Bob Barr, he is saying it's a "State Issue" because marriage is addressed no where in the Constitution and thus from the IXth and Xth Amendments, this issue should be dealt with at the local/State level - rather than the Federal level. In this regard I am in agreement with Mr. Barr (as much as I think it wrong that the State should become involved at all in private matters). I think it a better approach than a unwieldy "one size fits all" federal approach.

Incidentally, I do not support Mr. Barr's campaign.

Originally Posted by Tracylvn

Are we not the country of freedom.... It is thier lives.....They should be free to marry whom ever they want. Who is any one else to judge them or say it is not right.

I agree.
Wholeheartedly.

The true essence of liberty is in the equal protection granted not just to those values and actions we find palatable but to the ones we find abhorrent.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

yours in liberty,