Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

1,366 Excellent

About SeekingUnderstanding

  • Rank
    And with all thy getting get understanding

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Kaysville, UT

Recent Profile Visitors

2,033 profile views
  1. Stormriders post came directly from my first post, which apparently you missed. No goalpost moving. I made no comment on your intelligence, only your lack of knowledge which was proven by the fact of your goal post comment and some of your comments below. CFR Yes you incorrectly assumed I was talking about the US constitution. You stated the marriages in 2008 were invaidated (false). You stated same sex couples didn’t have the right to marry in California until 2013. Also false. I am talking about constitutional rights in general. In my first post I was talking about Prop 8, a California constitutional amendment. Why would you think I was talking about the US constitution? Yet wasn’t ruled on until the last decade? Correct. Valid licenses were issued in 2008 after the state Supreme Court established the right to marry. None of these were revoked. You’re not thinking of Gavin Newsom’s 2004 marriages are you? You know when he flouted state law and married 4000 couples? Then these marriages were declared null and void? https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/THE-BATTLE-OVER-SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE-One-Year-Later-2731442.php Yes, but unless I am missing something, a state can guarantee a civil right not prohibited by the US constitution. Are you sure you know the timeline.? You might want to brush up. Prop 8 was passed in direct response to the constitutional challenge brought by the above referenced illegal marriages performed in San Francisco in 2004. The California Supreme Court ruled that prop 22 violated the states constitution. Specifically the state Supreme Court ruled that access to marriage was constitutionally protected under the California constitution. There has never been a law in California to allow SSM. Also how can Prop 8 not alter the constitution when it is a constitutional amendment? CFR. There were no marriage laws introduced. CFR. Prop 22 (which banned gay marriage) was found unconstitutional (State constitution!) in 2008. This is the language inserted by prop 8 to remove the constitutionally protected right of same sex couples to marry. Gotta tell you it really seems like you aren’t familiar with the details here.
  2. I began this thread with a simple observation. I observed that it was ironic that an organization at the center of the effort to remove a constitutionally protected civil right to marry in California, was now advocating for fairness and balance. In the post your replied to I stated: This is an indisputable fact. In a 4-3 decision in 2008, the California Supreme court ruled that same-sex couples' access to marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution. From June until Prop 8 took effect, gays in California married under this constitutionally protected right. Their marriages post Prop 8 were still valid. These are all material indisputable facts. Despite this you stated: "Actually California did not get the right until 2013 (they could not before this time) [False, they married for several months in 2008]. Furthermore, it wasn't a Constitutionally protected right until 2015 [I was never talking about the US constitution; All marriages taking place in California were protected under the California constitution]." Given that you were wrong with both of you statements, I mistakenly assumed you had no idea what you were talking about This is true for many things. Do we have the constitutional right to privacy? Do we have the constitutional individual right to bear arms? Is there a constitutional right to marriage under the US constitution (hint: you say that there has been since 2015). This is incorrect. Not a single marriage was invalidated. (Are you sure you know what you are talking about?) What are you talking about? In 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld the validity of prop 8 (6-1 margin iirc). In 2010, a federal judge ruled that prop 8 violated the US constitution. This issue was largely settled in 2013 by the Supreme Court on a technicality (lack of standing) What are you talking about? Prop 8 was invalidated. California has no SSM law. The Supreme Court of California ruled the constitution protected access to marriage as a fundamental right. Only if you ignore the California Constitution. Does it not count as a constitution? This is true, but irrelevant Exactly! This is what prop 8 did. It altered the California Constitution to remove the right to marry for same sex couples. Clearly.
  3. Same-sex marriage is legal in the U.S. state of California, and first became so on June 16, 2008, when the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as the result of the Supreme Court of California ruling in In re Marriage Cases, which found that barring same-sex couples from marriage violated the state's Constitution. From wiki. Are you saying that this incorrect?
  4. Simply question (should be easy for you) and it can be answered with a super easy yes or no. In the months leading up until the moment when prop 8 passed in November of 2008, did gays and lesbians living in California have a constitutionally protected right to marry?
  5. You have no idea what you are talking about. In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the right to marry was protected by the California state constitution (a constitutionally protected right). In November 2008, voters passed Proposition 8, which was a constitutional amendment, removing gay's and lesbian's civil right to marry in California. Thus, Stormrider was incorrect and so are you.
  6. Even if I grant you that (which I don’t) what does this non-sequitur have to do with anything? Specifically that the church was front and center in the effort to pass prop 8 (removing a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians) and thus the irony of the church now proclaiming it seeks "fairness for all" and balance. Are you saying, even though the church encouraged its members to donate substantially in both time and money to remove a civil right, there is no irony in the church now waving the flag of “fairness” and “balance”?
  7. I wonder how many pages the typical thread takes around here to devolve to the topic of homosexuality. Is this thread ahead or behind the curve?
  8. What a straw man. As someone who looks down on others that “ignore facts and restructure history to make sure you score points” you sure seem to do a lot of that.
  9. So you were misrepresenting just a little because of the short time? Okay. If it it makes you feel good have at it!
  10. Is there a similar risk with the the plan of happiness, or the scripture that men are to have joy? There is wisdom in what you say, and I’m not sure what the answer is especially given the inherent unfairness and disparity in life. I don’t think anyone should feel trapped in a situation that is truly miserable. I also believe that some of life’s greatest fulfillment can come from doing really hard things. Seeking fleeting pleasure in the moment is a poor substitute for the lasting joy and fulfillment that comes from dedicating your life to something or someone you believe in. Even if it means many truly difficult moments along the way.
  11. I think everything marriage entails can fit in that statement. A large part of the fulfillment and happiness I have in my marriage comes from taking care of my spouse, and raising my children. Is it different for you? If you think the statement excludes kids, then the church is truly clueless when it comes to “worldly” philosophy.
  12. What does this non-sequitur have to do with anything? Specifically that the church was front and center in the effort to pass prop 8 (removing a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians) and thus the irony of the church now proclaiming it seeks "fairness for all" and balance.
  13. So much for: “Men are that they might have joy” and “the plan of happiness” Worldly indeed
  14. Looks like you stepped in the cow manure too. You realize before prop 8, gays had the constitutionally protected right to marry in California, right? Who is revising history to fit their beliefs again? Pot meet kettle.
  15. What a load of cow manure. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to remove gay’s right to marry. As for Obama’s position? He was against prop 8. https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-opposes-proposed-ban-on-gay-marriage-3278328.php And yes it is extremely ironic the church is now advocating “fairness for all.”
  • Create New...