USA Today - California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Burgold]

Normally, I'd expect you to be arguing the other side... that the government shouldn't be legislating morality. I think your equivocating a bit. By creating a scenario where there would be no legal single sex marriages it is making it illegal to get married. Would there be penalties or jailtime if someone got "illegally" married... I'd hope not, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

[Larry]

Normally, I'd expect you to be arguing the other side... that the government shouldn't be legislating morality.

It's OT, but often when the gay marriage debate comes up, there's a thought that occurs to me.

Back when I was in High School, I was taught that the reason the First Amendment was worded the way it was, was to prevent America from doing something that England had done:

One of the Henry's (Eighth?) wanted to divorce one of his wives, and marry someone else. The church at the time permitted divorce, but people who had divorced could not re-marry.

Henry founded the Church of England. Literally forming his own church, so that his church would allow divorced people to re-marry.

The Founders didn't want that kind of thing happening here.

In short, I think it could well be argued that The reason we have a First Amendment is because the Framers specifically intended to prohibit the government from deciding who could and could not get married.

Back to the :saber:

[deejaydana]

I don't take issue with gays being able to marry in the least. What I do think is an insulting move by the Supreme Court is to defy the will of the majority. Why do we vote if it can just be reversed? (I feel the same way with how California passed the maryjane law only to see the Feds stomp upon it when they see fit). I'm of the opinion that gay marriage will ultimately be legal in all states but still, I have issue with one man/one person being able to over-ride the consent of the people.

[twa]

No, that would be actually attempting to implement the position that people like to claim they have, to hide their true motives.

They're standing next to a "whites only" drinking fountain, claiming "I don't have a problem with blacks using the drinking fountain, but the very definition of drinking fountain (which I just now cherry picked to fit my agenda) says that drinking fountains are intended for people who don't have big lips. And I'm simply defending the definition (which I just made up) of "non big-lippedness" from being changed to suit a minority group. (oh, BTW, I don't have any problem with white people with big lips using the fountain.)"

Throwing the bigot and race card is easier than dealing with facts ain't it?

Changing the restriction/definition of marriage (and the right of states to determine it)in such a manner is a great change...as great a change as would be CHANGING it to deny marriage to the infertile or sterile.

I'll await the courts view on whether it is within their jurisdiction to define marriage.

[Burgold]

I don't take issue with gays being able to marry in the least. What I do think is an insulting move by the Supreme Court is to defy the will of the majority. Why do we vote if it can just be reversed? (I feel the same way with how California passed the maryjane law only to see the Feds stomp upon it when they see fit). I'm of the opinion that gay marriage will ultimately be legal in all states but still, I have issue with one man/one person being able to over-ride the consent of the people.

Take it up with the Founding Fathers. That's the check on the legislative process that they decided was needed. It's a very useful thing. Mob rule... or more kindly majority rule, while often wise and benign, can also be dangerous and vindictive.

[twa]

Normally, I'd expect you to be arguing the other side... that the government shouldn't be legislating morality. I think your equivocating a bit. By creating a scenario where there would be no legal single sex marriages it is making it illegal to get married. Would there be penalties or jailtime if someone got "illegally" married... I'd hope not, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

SSM is done now w/o being illegal, there is also freedom to form relationships.

The marriage bs is simply over the status and legal standing.

I FIRMLY believe in government legislating morality....it is a basic function of govt that society needs to function....micro managing it is another issue.

Most laws are based with some moral factor at heart.

[Burgold]

It's neither here or there, but I appreciate the honesty. There's a frustrating side of hypocrisy from many conservatives who proclaim from the highest mountain that they are for small limited government and that morality should be left to the preachers and parents.

The egalitarian in me believes that SSM (I keep think of Sweet Sassy Molassy when I read or write that) should be a non issue. The empathetic part of me rejects the notion that people who are in love can be denied their final moments together or hospital visitation just because of an oddity of the law.

[Smoot Point Really]

Well, here's the one time where you only kind of dodged my question, as opposed to simply pretending that it didn't exist, entirely:

But please, feel free to clarify your position. I've only been asking for it for about two days, now.

You called me a liar and a bigot, then ask me to clarify... Isn't that so like you?!?!?

The fact that I inform you that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman because that is the only way that biologically children are conceived is lost on you.... There are other words acceptable for use to define contractual relationships that are more "inclusive" than marriage. Those words aren't sacraments of the Church and don't have well established religious meanings. It's an assault on the English language and you would have to be stupid to argue otherwise.

I have clarified enough... Congrats to Grandma... She married at 70... Hopefully to a man, and in a religious ceremony. I'm sure you can provide anecdotes where people claim to have married their pet or "christened" something other than a child... That doesn't change the meaning of the word.

[twa]

It's neither here or there, but I appreciate the honesty. There's a frustrating side of hypocrisy from many conservatives who proclaim from the highest mountain that they are for small limited government and that morality should be left to the preachers and parents.

The egalitarian in me believes that SSM (I keep think of Sweet Sassy Molassy when I read or write that) should be a non issue. The empathetic part of me rejects the notion that people who are in love can be denied their final moments together or hospital visitation just because of an oddity of the law.

How can there be law or govt w/o morals?

Certainly govt should be limited in scope and reach to allow freedom.

Both for the religious and to protect the rest of us from them:evilg:

Your final moments issue can easily be dealt with,and in fact HAS been addressed specifically with a Presidential directive...surprised you didn't know that.

[Burgold]

To be honest, I only superficially follow this issue. Makes it easier to debate

[Smoot Point Really]

I do need to add that we live in a society where the mystical is always replaced by the mundane: where anyone can be a priest or "priestess" and holy things are continually thrown to the dogs... It's not surprising people don't care as much about this as they should.

[Larry]

Throwing the bigot and race card is easier than dealing with facts ain't it?

Changing the restriction/definition of marriage (and the right of states to determine it)in such a manner is a great change...as great a change as would be CHANGING it to deny marriage to the infertile or sterile.

Or as great a change as outlawing slavery or segregation.

And perfectly justified. For exactly the same reason.

[sacase]

Couple things I find funny about this.

1) Judge who used to own stock in oil company makes presides over case and certain posters get up in arms because of the "conflict of interest". Open gay judge rules on gay marriage case and people don't bat an eye.

2) I think people are too caught up in the whole tradition of marriage. I think the government has a vested interst in stable families that are raising childeren, which is why there is government interest in marriage as well as the tax incentives to go with it.

I personally don't agree that there should be gay marriage. I don't think that we should be accomidating every lifestyle choice out there. I would argue the polygamists have more of a right to marriage than homosexuals do, but I also don't agree with polygamy either.

[Larry]

You called me a liar and a bigot, then ask me to clarify... Isn't that so like you?!?!?

The fact that I inform you that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman because that is the only way that biologically children are conceived is lost on you.... There are other words acceptable for use to define contractual relationships that are more "inclusive" than marriage. Those words aren't sacraments of the Church and don't have well established religious meanings. It's an assault on the English language and you would have to be stupid to argue otherwise.

I have clarified enough... Congrats to Grandma... She married at 70... Hopefully to a man, and in a religious ceremony. I'm sure you can provide anecdotes where people claim to have married their pet or "christened" something other than a child... That doesn't change the meaning of the word.

I called you a liar and a bigot.

Proved it, by pointing out your own position.

Had you claim that wasn't your position.

Proved it again, by quoting you.

And you reply to me by removing any reference to what you've actually said.

And had you announce, yet again, your Royal Decree that the "definition" that you've made up out of thin air, and which you, yourself, do not want to advocate, is some kind of sacred commandment which cannot be violated. (By gays. Everybody else, fine with you.)

[twa]

Or as great a change as outlawing slavery or segregation.

And perfectly justified. For exactly the same reason.

You do a disservice to any that suffered under slavery amigo.

With segregation there is a tangential comparison,though a weak one.

Gays enjoy the same freedoms as any,including that of sexual relations and freedom of association.

[Burgold]

I liken the SSM angst to the taboos against mixed marriages, both racial and religious. It's undoubtedly a form of discrimination based on everything from moral, religious teachings to social constructs to the ick factor. I don't think SSM (sorry Sweet Sassy) reaches the level of wrongness of segregation (though one could make an argument when it comes to rights of the ill, or wills, or whatever) and it's certainly nowhere near the level of wrongness that was the institution of slavery.

[twa]

I liken the SSM angst to the taboos against mixed marriages, both racial and religious. It's undoubtedly a form of discrimination based on everything from moral, religious teachings to social constructs to the ick factor. I don't think SSM (sorry Sweet Sassy) reaches the level of wrongness of segregation (though one could make an argument when it comes to rights of the ill, or wills, or whatever) and it's certainly nowhere near the level of wrongness that was the institution of slavery.

aren't most of the restrictions on marriage based on those same bolded factors?

We discriminate against someone anytime we set limits or requirements.....Should we remove them all in the interests of equality?

Wills ?...ya can will whatever ya want to whoever ya want....you ain't even trying

[Burgold]

aren't most of the restrictions on marriage based on those same bolded factors?

We discriminate against someone anytime we set limits or requirements.....Should we remove them all in the interests of equality?

Wills ?...ya can will whatever ya want to whoever ya want....you ain't even trying

So, you're saying I get to decide! What a wonderful world it would be!!!

[Hubbs]

So, you're saying I get to decide! What a wonderful world it would be!!!

Next you'll be telling me that womenfolk should be able to vote.

[Smoot Point Really]

I called you a liar and a bigot.

Prove the charge, which you haven't. You keep saying it, but it doesn't make it so. Not on this issue... maybe on others. Nothing I've said here is bigotry, except perhaps against people abusing the English language.

I will ignore your version of how the last few days went... People can read the last few pages for themselves, but your imagination really has gone wild here.

And had you announce, yet again, your Royal Decree that the "definition" that you've made up out of thin air, and which you, yourself, do not want to advocate, is some kind of sacred commandment which cannot be violated. (By gays. Everybody else, fine with you.)

I would say you can go back and read what I said, but I'm not sure you can handle it without making up your own version of what actually happened.

You think I've pulled out of thin air the definition that the definition of marriage implies that it is between a man and a woman? That marriage is for (among other things) the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation? Another reason to get married (according to the Bible) is to avoid sin, so if people can't keep their hands off each other it's better for them to get married. However, in some traditions (Orthodox and possibly Catholic) a second marriage is considered adultery and the wedding ceremony is VERY different from the first ceremony with confessions/penance involved.

Only someone who is totally ignorant of the sacrament of marriage would take the stance you have taken. It's not a big deal, really.

Technically, I'm only saying that the Government shouldn't be marrying anyone... I don't care if they create some other word to define a contractual arrangement between people. I've stated this multiple times... this thread and others. I started in this thread saying I agreed with most of what you had said, but I disagreed on one point and somehow we got into this debate.

[twa]

Next you'll be telling me that womenfolk should be able to vote.

The beginning of the end....though it does increase my power when I tell the old lady who to vote for

[Larry]

The beginning of the end....though it does increase my power when I tell the old lady who to vote for

OT:

You're reminding me of one of my favorite episodes of All In The Family.

Gloria and Meathead have announced that they're going to vote for McGovern. Archie doesn't want them voting for that liberal pinko commie.

Archie tries to talk them into not voting, since their votes will simply cancel, anyway. But they insist that it's their patriotic duty. They're going to vote, and will not be talked out of it.

Archie decides that the only thing to do is for him and Edith to go down and vote, to cancel out the votes of their liberal pinko kids.

Edith doesn't want to. Pleads that the election isn't going to be that close, anyway. It won't matter. Archie insists.

They go to the polling place, and there's a problem. Archie hasn't voted in 20 years, and he's been dropped from the rolls. Archie pitches a fit, but is denies.

He demands that Edith go in without him, and at least cancel one of his commie kid's votes. Edith doesn't want to. There's a line, and one vote won't count, and all kinds of excuses. But Archie insists. Edith reluctantly goes in and votes.

Last scene of the episode. They're sitting in the living room, turning on the election results on the TV. Archie is still ticked that a good solid American like him can't even vote, but his commie hippie Polak son in law can. It really ticks him that he couldn't vote. Why, it's really burning him. He cannot describe how angry he's going to be if McGovern wins this thing by one vote.

Edith: "Or two."

[Veretax]

A constitutional amendment is not about criminalizing Gay marriage. It is about reserving the word 'marriage' for heterosexual unions. There is nothing prohibiting the petitioning of the government for 'civil unions' of their type to be recognized and perhaps given some benefits. What we take offense to, is them calling it marriage, it isn't plain and simple.

I was one of those people who thought we could keep this sort of thing at the state level and didn't need to push for a USC amendment to fix the problem once and for all. You can thank this judge for in essence clearing the way for the talk of this magnitude, which we all can agree will further divide our country.

Now, whether it pass or not? That's not an answer I can give, because we've seen stupider stuff pass through Congress in the last 18 months than an amendment like this. Like the healthcare bill that claimed it was being passed to cut costs, but will likely increase costs and shift the burden for them a bit as well. But we now will have to put up with a focus of discussion on THIS issue instead of on things that really have an active effect on us, such as economic policy, over spending, etc. I feel the same way about the abortion issue. It has become a campaign plank that is rarely actually touched by congress. I mean heck if Lindsay Graham can justify voting for Elena Kagan because of the "Golden Rule" after she lied about Partial Birth Abortion under Clinton (Gross generalization here I realize there is more to it.) Then why is abortion even an issue any more eh?

Look, I do not understand why homosexuals feel they need their relationships validated by a government or a church. I also do not understand why they feel they need to co-opt the idea of marriage as if there are any history of such in Western Culture. My only question is what next? Polygamy? LOL Should we legalize that now too? What I am concerned about is the coming list of civil rights cases as churches that see this as a Sinful lifestyle many will refuse to marry such couples. Some won't and on that list would probably include the United Methodists, and Presbyterian (USA).

(And no I'm not in favor of that either, but it seems to me that if gender is not a disqualifier on whom you can marry, why should we force them to be 1 to 1 unions? Get ready, cause if this hangs around I see a push for that, and God knows what else.)

But this is my point, thank the liberal judge for stamping on the people's right to vote in California for making this a national issue instead of an issue that could have been kept at the state's level. It now will be very hard to separate the two.

[Stugein]

I was disappointed when the people of California voted for the measure. I am more disappointed though, that a judge saw fit to take it upon himself to overturn something that the people voted for.

[Larry]

A constitutional amendment is not about criminalizing Gay marriage. It is about reserving the word 'marriage' for heterosexual unions. There is nothing prohibiting the petitioning of the government for 'civil unions' of their type to be recognized and perhaps given some benefits. What we take offense to, is them calling it marriage, it isn't plain and simple.

Pointing out that even your opening paragraph contradicts itself.

You claim that your position is to protect the word from being sullied by the presence of the gays.

And then you claim that you'd be willing to give them some other word, and maybe pick and chose to grant them some benefits (but not others).

You don't want to give them the word. You also don't want to give them some other word, and even pretend that the other word is equal.

I was one of those people who thought we could keep this sort of thing at the state level and didn't need to push for a USC amendment to fix the problem once and for all. You can thank this judge for in essence clearing the way for the talk of this magnitude, which we all can agree will further divide our country.

How dare this judge have the nerve to rule that the US Constitution applies to gays? It never has before.

It's all his fault that we're now proposing to amend the US Constitution for the specific purpose of preventing a minority group I don't like from being treated equally by their government.

Nope, there's nothing morally wrong with the people who are actually proposing that the US Constitution needs an unequal rights amendment. The evil here is the uppity folks who are attempting to claim that the current Constitution promises equal rights for everybody.