Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wow, 10 pages from where I left off last night....and all the conservative religious fundies have done is proven how stpuifyingly ignorant and bigoted they are. And on top of which have completely ingnored the legitmate questions posed to them and the facts presented.
Allow me to sum up:
Marriage is first a government contract. To be married in the United States [and every other legal jursidiction] is a matter for the state to decide. It is not a religious institution at all. That thing at the church is a blessing by the church. But that alone does not make you legally married. And with that many Christian churches perform gay marriage ceremonies. The relgious name for marriage ought to be changed to just "blessing" or an equivalent. That actual marriage is concluded when the certificate is completed and the STATE recognizes you as a couple. There can't be any arguing with that, it is a fact. It is the law and has been the customary way of marriage since time in memorium.
Since marriage [the legal recogntion] is a right granted to all citizens anyway, to deny to any group of citizens based on sexual orientation, is blatant discrimination. The 14th amendment is clear as day here, "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." Therefore the state cannot deny any person their rights and due process, even if there is a law stating the contrary. Basically, rights of the individual are not allowed to be voted upon, even if the majority votes upon it. This concept is from Plato's Republic, which he calls the "tyranny of the majority" and yes, is the foundation of our Republic. We are a republic with democratic elements, but we're not a pure Athenian democracy, certain things are not to be voted upon, first and foremost rights of the individual.
To argue with any of this shows just how bigoted you are, and it would save this discussion a lot of grief if you just would write "I hate the gay" because that's exactly what you're thinking anyway. The legal argument is clear cut and conscise. Hell even the religious argument is falling apart, since many Christian chruches [mainline ones too] perform gay blessing ceremonies [and marriages in those blessed state that recognize them]. Your argument usually ends with sancitity of marriage...then the natural response to that is to pull out that 52% divorce rate in the modern United States. How might you explain that? That's because like marriage divorce is a matter of state, hence the lawyers and contract at the end of it. But if something that is divinely inspired and blessed ends half the time....it's not so eternal, is it?
Its not tyranny pal its the voice of the people. Just like when you vote for someone running for office just because your candidate loses you don't take it to court and get him pronounced the winner because some tyrant in a robe says so. We all lose some and we all win some.
How many people voted yes on prop 8. About 7 million.
The population of California is approximately 36,457,549.
That's about 19% percent of the total population of the
state. I hardly call that the voice of the people, but a
vote of a select group (mostly religious) that was infiltrated with monies from outside CA to run a hate campaign.
While it may be fine to vote on whether you want a
particular type of person to be in your private club, you
have no right to ask any court to disallow public rights to a select group, simply because you or your group do not approve of them. The fact that Prop 8 was able to get on a ballot in the first place - still perplexes me. But then, the law gives you the freedom to do so. What the law doesn't allow you to do is discriminate.
There was a time when women weren't allowed to vote, get a pension, get unemployment, be in the military, get a loan from a bank, were considered property, etc... Get the picture. But still today, the religious right attacks feminism as godless.
So, as you can see, as a woman, the phrase "we all loose some and we all win some" has particular meaning to me.
I have a better phrase for you. The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they do grind
The reason government is in marriage is to provide a secure and committed environment for the rearing of children. Different tax exemptions depending on the amount of children, etc. back up this point. The government has felt that it had a role in accommodating and encouraging this arrangement. Marriage is not a fundamental right, no where in the constitution does it call for marriage as a fundamental right, the discretion has been left up to the states to determine their own marriage laws. It is truly a shame that homosexuals and Latinos continue to try to abuse amendments and legislation to advance their agenda that were put into place in order to prevent discrimination against African-Americans.
I joined less than a week ago.I can't help they decided this today when I have only been here that long and I haven't posted much. I don't spend all day on here unlike others.
Based just on what I've seen in this thread, I'd say you spend much more time on C-D than I do!
Not really. Producing children is not a legal requirement of marriage. Otheriwise elderly couples, infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children, people with children who remarry but don't "produce more children" in the new marriage etc would not be allowed to get married.
and do you think its fair that a unmarried couple will have to pay 70, but a married couple would have to only pay 35
you talk about 1000 bennies....well that's 1000 UNFAIR privileges DENIED to the single person
marriage is a denial of bennies to the single person....therefore a denial of civil rights to the single person...marriage is unconstitutional, because it causes a separation, and doesnot allow ALL PERSONS these bennies
marriages should be abolished
It's very hard to describe without disgracing other relationships, but marriage has a social stigma to it. That stigma is one of commitment. While it is true that many people get divorced, it is NOT as easy as merely "breaking up." There is a level of commitment that is recognized by the government when you sign a marriage contract.
Let's say my husband and I were still boyfriend-girlfriend and we decided it was not going to work out. We split our stuff (with or without court help) and we're done with it. Cut, Dry, End of Story.
However, because we are married, this situation can not happen. If we did not have a child, we would need to be separated for 6 months before even seeing a judge. Since we do, we would have to be separated for 12 months. During this period of separation, we would still be married, and therefore not permitted by law to date any other person. Adultery is still a misdemeanor. Only after a period of separation could we see a judge and get the marriage ended. I have a friend who went through a divorce with no kids and it took her 18 months from separation to finalization.
You just don't get that with a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.
But that is NOT what this case is about. This case was to ensure that consenting couples should be allowed to make the plunge into the hell that is marriage. This case was to ensure that if you and your girlfriend or boyfriend decide to make the commitment that marriage is supposed to be, then you should have the right to.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prop 8 federal judge is GAY
