|
|
|
|
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 10:06:44 PM | It’s pretty safe to say that morality was created by religion. The USA was founded by Christians and the morality that was used to write the laws and the Constitution of the United States is Christian. Because these Christians were persecuted for their religion, they created a country where the government was not to “establish” any particular religion as the one and only religion. The founding fathers also placed in the Constitution that the government was banned from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The Christian10 commandments and many other Christian teachings are Jewish in origin as you probably know.
The first instance that the government passed laws to restrict a religion here in the USA was against the Mormons. We did it by outlawing polygamy. Why? Well, because it was immoral in the eyes of Christians. Did that “prohibit the free exercise” of the Mormon religion? Yes, it did.
Marriage is between a man and a woman in Christian morality. Any church that claims to be Christian that holds a marriage other then that is only using the Christian name and sure not following the actual religion. The Constitution purposefully left the door open to other religions as well as those that choose no religion as their religion.
After the landmark Supreme Court decision that interpreted the 1st amendment to mean that government must eliminate all involvement with religion there really became a void as far as what moral code do we now follow? Government is not a person so it need not have a religion but it still requires a moral code. Where exactly does the moral code of a person that is not religious at all come from and what are their rules? Well, in the USA, we have a fairly new religion called secular humanism. Perhaps the words “belief system” would be more accurate than the word religion. However, it plays the same part in the moral decision making as in any main stream religion so it really is a religion, just one void of God.
Followers of Human Secularism love to use science and physiology as justification for their moral views. Gays are biologically wired that way so it must be okay is widely used. The tests seem skewed to reach a desired objective but that thought is for another thread. It seems fair to say that pedophiles are also hard wired the way they are too. Since you are not using any morality that I know, it seems fair to ask why your moral code allows for the one and not for the other. For those of us that believe that being gay is a chosen lifestyle and not one hard wired, then other sexual choices like sex with anything other than between a man and a woman is also fair game. Immediate family incest and polygamy and various other moral rules are directly from Christian/Judaism law so the same arguments that are used to justify this questionable normal activity could just as easily justify those.
The fact is that marriage by its own definition is between a man and a woman. Gays were given total and equal rights with the concept of civil unions. So, this was never anything about rights or protections. One poster on here said that all you have to do is re-write all the dictionaries with a new definition. That’s about as high up on my list of things as book burning. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 10:12:43 PM | Warmthnpassion, without sounding to pro or to con.....I give all A++++ for an excellent explanation of just what is happening as I have been speaking on and being found fault for as I am seeing what shall be as it is not yet.
Thanks again!!!  | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 10:16:51 PM |
The great thing about our culture is that we all free to think for ourselves and to make our own judgments. It's definitely a good thing that we're free to think for ourselves and to make our own judgments...but I think the great thing about our culture is that some people actually make use of the freedom and do think for themselves - and do so before they pass judgment.
I personally think that gays should not be entitled to any additional rights based on their sexual preference. As far as I can tell, they don't seek additional rights, merely equal rights, currently being denied them.
All they are really after is benefits and compensations. Actually, all they seek is an end to being discriminated against.
Really when you break it down the whole basis of the argument for gay rights is based on sexual preference alone. That's your perspective. When I break it down, I see people of colour, the elderly, women and other minority or marginalised members of society. The argument for gay rights is one for equal rights.
Why should that be considered criteria for determining eligibility for rights additional or otherwise? The same reason a person's race, gender or age does not arbitrarily preclude them from enjoying the same protections you do - is the reason that discrimination based on a person's sexual preference will one day also be a thing of the past.
Sorry I think gays should be allowed to marry but not be entitled to any of the benefits given to a heterosexual couple. You're halfway there...congratulations.
They should most definitely not be allowed to adopt children until we have determined what the cause of homosexuality is... Why not? Are you suggesting that parental sexual preference might be the cause of homosexuality? LOL.
--------
A shout out to all the GLBTs enjoying watching us breeders duke it out here...
| |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 10:31:28 PM | The heterosexual community has done such a great job of making their marriages work. Such an example of what God wants us to do, right?
Well, I just don't think it matters a flying fig. One of my former friends throw a fit about this. Claimed he wasn't prejudice but believed the bible and it was a man and a woman only. I found this very interesting when I added the information that this bible quoting person had been married 8 times. But maybe not so many divorces. Yes, he always married someone of the opposite sex.
Hey, that made it okay, right? In his book it was fine. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 11:30:37 PM | It’s pretty safe to say that morality was created by religion.
I don't know about that. They do tend to go together, but I don't think that one is necessary for the other. There have certainly been immoral acts done in the name of religion, and heretical acts done in the name of morality. Martin Luther's 12 Theses is one example of the latter.
The USA was founded by Christians and the morality that was used to write the laws and the Constitution of the United States is Christian.
This isn't entirely accurate. The Constitution is not based on the Bible, but on Social Contract theory put forward by Locke, among others. It is based on the philosophical thinking of the day, which was influenced more by Rationalism than by theology.
Because these Christians were persecuted for their religion, they created a country where the government was not to “establish” any particular religion as the one and only religion. The founding fathers also placed in the Constitution that the government was banned from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. The Christian10 commandments and many other Christian teachings are Jewish in origin as you probably know.
No argument here.
The first instance that the government passed laws to restrict a religion here in the USA was against the Mormons. We did it by outlawing polygamy. Why? Well, because it was immoral in the eyes of Christians. Did that “prohibit the free exercise” of the Mormon religion? Yes, it did.
It certainly did.
Where exactly does the moral code of a person that is not religious at all come from and what are their rules?
It comes from social contract theory--the idea that we are each free and rational actors who have inalienable rights, and that we are free to engage in any activities that please us so long as they do not interfere with the rights, or damage the property, of others.
Well, in the USA, we have a fairly new religion called secular humanism. Perhaps the words “belief system” would be more accurate than the word religion. However, it plays the same part in the moral decision making as in any main stream religion so it really is a religion, just one void of God.
Well ... no. Secular humanism is a belief system, but the part it plays is not the same as the part played by religion because it does not purport to claim any ultimate authority. It says, you have inherent dignity and worth as a human being. Do what affirms your dignity and worth, and that of those around you. Avoid doing what degrades you or others. If you feel that loving someone of the same gender as you would be degrading, don't do it. If you feel that loving someone of the opposite gender would be degrading or in conflict with your sense of yourself, don't do it.
Followers of Human Secularism love to use science and physiology as justification for their moral views. Gays are biologically wired that way so it must be okay is widely used.
Not quite. A secular humanist would say that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexual participation per se, whether by choice or predilection. There is only something wrong if it is done without the informed consent of those involved, if it damages any of the participants, or the property of nonparticipants.
The tests seem skewed to reach a desired objective but that thought is for another thread. It seems fair to say that pedophiles are also hard wired the way they are too.
Let's go back to the fundamental concept: rights. A child does not have the capacity to withhold consent, and so cannot give informed consent. That's why pederasty is immoral to a secular humanist--or anyone else who believes in the concept of human rights.
Since you are not using any morality that I know, it seems fair to ask why your moral code allows for the one and not for the other.
This seems to be the assumption that underlies your argument, and it is simply untrue.
There is a moral code among secular humanists, and it is based on the sanctity of the human person and the inalienable rights that attend to personhood. When you hold that a person is, by virtue of being, inherently worthy of the same respect and consideration as you, you find that all sorts of moral standards of behavior come into play.
When you decide that people who are different than you no longer qualify for your consideration, all sorts of immoral behaviors emerge. That includes the choice to persecute those who do not appear to hold the same religious views as you. Being "Christian" is not equivalent to being moral. Just ask the victims of the Salem Witch Trials right here in America, or the Conversos who were tortured and run out of Spain despite their affiliation with Christianity under duress during the Spanish Inquisition.
For those of us that believe that being gay is a chosen lifestyle and not one hard wired, then other sexual choices like sex with anything other than between a man and a woman is also fair game. Immediate family incest and polygamy and various other moral rules are directly from Christian/Judaism law so the same arguments that are used to justify this questionable normal activity could just as easily justify those.
This is simply false. When you base your moral values on the concept of human rights, no activity that violates the rights of others is acceptable. It's a very clear rule.
If 18 people want to shack up together, they all agree to it, and they aren't hurting anyone else, the correct moral stance with respect to their lifestyle is: it's none of my business and God love 'em.
The fact is that marriage by its own definition is between a man and a woman.
And now that definition is being reconsidered in the light of the concept of human rights and equal protection. If it's a valid definition, it will hold up under close scrutiny. If it can't be reconciled with the concept of human rights, which concept would you prefer to give up or modify?
Gays were given total and equal rights with the concept of civil unions.
Actually, gays were not given those rights. What they've been given, after having to endure unending abuse, is some measure toward equal protection of the rights they ALREADY HAD. When you are born human, you get the rights, even if you later turn out to be gay.
So, this was never anything about rights or protections.
What else could it _possibly_ be about? I mean really?
One poster on here said that all you have to do is re-write all the dictionaries with a new definition. That’s about as high up on my list of things as book burning.
The nice thing about living in a free country is that you can wed yourself to any ideology you like. So long as you don't violate the rights of others by trying to dictate a code of conduct that the might not freely consent to following, knock yourself out!
But as soon as you start trying to tell another person what they can or cannot do, that becomes a matter of public policy. And when it comes to public policy, considerations of human rights and equal protection under the law trump anyone's ideology.
It's really that simple. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 12:46:22 AM | Ace of space, I cannot stop jumping up and down and yelling by Joe he has it...someone who understands it.
It is all about the rights of all human beings.....
Thank you for putting pen to paper so to speak in our modern world and making is so clear.
I know it won't stop the merry go round against Gay rights but it is nice to know someone gets it.
Equality for all. Regardless of race/religion/sexual preference.
(and no that does not include those who cannot consent for themselves.) | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 1:08:32 AM | I beg to differ, Ice. Wikipedia is not a refereed journal but there are protocols for it to be peer reviewed. Over time, articles are edited and improved. So, while you can't cite it in a research paper, the information tends to be pretty good. You still need to double check it for sure.
You beg to differ yet acknowlege that when writing any college or university paper you canot cite wikipedia as a reference guide..
But you can't wave off the entire argument if the logic is plausible, even if you don't trust the source of the data.
I don't wave off the entire argument, I am trying to see how he can parallel same sex marriage/unions with beastiality and pedofiles.
I don't think that any court in the land would say the constitution would see those things as being constitutional b/c a group feels it is their right under the constitution. First off b/c neither children nor animals can consent.
I think MM is right about the way precedents work, and we will soon see polyamorous groups in court. All they have to do is argue that 2 isn't all that much different than 3.
I agree precendents do set the groundwork to open the doors to others, but then again are we not an enlightened species at the top of the food chain???
If the APA is no longer branding bestial acts as inherently disordered then issues of distress or harm to self, others, or property (e.g., the animals), would still allow for treatment or prosecution of such acts, and to disallow the extension of spousal rights to animals.
Could you imagine what PETA would do if that was ever allowed to happen....
The issues in marriage that give the state a compelling interest are child support, abandonment of a dependent spouse, and inheritance. If a woman with 3 husbands dies, who gets the stuff?
Why are their Mormon sects that practise polygamy in the US and Canada who apply for welfare for their plural wifes???????
Personally if they want plural wifes so be it, does that mean I can also have plural husbands. Just think of how many paycheques that would bring in...and I would never get bored b/c I could have a different husband with different attributes that I value and love.
The argument has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous and way off the topic.
As equal rights same sex marriages should be allowed period and the US is far behind
in accepting and acknowlaging this. This has been legal in Canada now since 2005. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 1:14:22 AM | Q. How does Canada now define marriage?
A. The new national policy approved by the Canadian Cabinet on June 17, 2003, views marriage as a way to publicly recognize a committed relationship between two adults.
Q. Will churches be required to perform same-sex weddings throughout the world?
A. No. The laws apply to civil weddings only.
Q. Aren't same-sex marriages and registered partnerships the same?
A. No. Although registered partnerships give same-sex couples most of the benefits and protections of civil marriage, the couples are not legally married.
Q. What countries currently allow same-sex registered partnerships / civil unions or provide some form of spousal rights for gay couples?
A.
* Denmark, 1989.
* Norway, 1996.
* Sweden, 1996.
* Iceland, 1996.
* France, 1999.
* Vermont, USA, 2000.
* Germany, 2001.
* Finland, 2002.
* Luxembourg, 2004.
* New Zealand, 2004.
* Connecticut, USA, 2005.
* Britain, 2005.
* New Jersey, USA, 2006.
* New Hampshire, USA, 2008.
* Oregon, USA, 2008.
* Maine, USA.
* California, USA.
* Washington, USA.
* Hawaii, USA.
The rights available to same-sex couples vary from country to country. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 1:18:22 AM |
It’s pretty safe to say that morality was created by religion.
Safe? Perhaps if you are preaching to the choir. But not amongst behaviorists or students of history and prehistory. And not to burst your bubble but it is most certainly not the case that Christian and Jewish morality was the first on the block; as a point of fact, much of their legal codes, including the Ten Commandments, are just expansions on much older codes of law from the Near East some of which are copied word for word from older law systems in Sumeria, Egypt and the surrounding area.
Morality is not from on high but is a natural outgrowth of enlightened self interest and basic evolutionary behaviour and is easily observed in its raw beginnings in animals caring for their young and pack behaviour.
Marriage is between a man and a woman in Christian morality.
Nope. It's not. Christians do not own the patent for marriage. Marriage has had a variety of definitions throughout history and it all depends who you ask. It existed well before they or the Jews or Christians were a going concern. And what of it? It's not up to any religious group to make determinations to a secular state what or how they mandate pair bonding ceremonies. What you do in the privacy of your own church or temple is protected by law and you have a right to do it as you please so long as it doesn't violate any one else's right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You do NOT - ABSOLUTELY NOT - have any right to mandate to anyone what goes on outside those doors. Period. You can vote in blocks if you like...that is your right and we can vote against any motions in our own blocks. And people have every right to ridicule you for voting on the basis of homophobic bigotry . We promise not to come to your church and do it, because that would be illegal.
It seems fair to say that pedophiles are also hard wired the way they are too.
Colossal bit of faulty reasoning...but deliberate prevarication on your part...see above under not interfering with your neighbours ability to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness...pedophilia would definately interfere with that and would be a no-no. Homosexuality is concensual.
So, this was never anything about rights or protections. One poster on here said that all you have to do is re-write all the dictionaries with a new definition. That’s about as high up on my list of things as book burning.
Well not "all the dictionaries"  ....and the same as book burning? Hyperbolize much? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 7:26:55 AM | Even though Christians and religion in general finds homosexuality immoral, the California situation is not an argument over the rights of people to participate in homosexual acts or even for them to have relationships recognized by the state as equal to marriage. The major debate is about the courts redefinition of the word marriage away from its original and long standing meaning. In doing that, it alters the meaning of the word in every document written prior to the change. It also opens the door for further re-definition of social morays and other words that already have long standing exact meanings.
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I’m not sure how anyone that has studied US History could come off not knowing how fundamental the Bible was in creating the USA and all of its operational documentation. Was the Bible the only source? No, it was not but it was the primary source in regard to morality. The philosophical thinking of that day was largely Christian.
Let's go back to the fundamental concept: rights. A child does not have the capacity to withhold consent, and so cannot give informed consent. That's why pederasty is immoral to a secular humanist--or anyone else who believes in the concept of human rights.
That’s really not a problem for Human Secularism in that all they have to do is redefine the age that a human is considered a child in the same way that the courts often treat minors as adults when they feel it’s warranted.
If 18 people want to shack up together, they all agree to it, and they aren't hurting anyone else, the correct moral stance with respect to their lifestyle is: it's none of my business and God love 'em.
Exactly, the Human Secularist moral view will open the door to allow polygamy and various other now considered immoral aspects of life. That was exactly what the OP was saying and he was attacked for his views as if this decision occurred in a vacuum.
But as soon as you start trying to tell another person what they can or cannot do, that becomes a matter of public policy. And when it comes to public policy, considerations of human rights and equal protection under the law trump anyone's ideology.
It's really that simple.
That line of thought only holds for the human secularists when it comes to things that they agree with in their doctrine of political correctness. They are the first to brand those they disagree with as prejudice, bigots, and white racists and dismiss the rights of those people to live as they choose. Christianity is generally on the top of the “free to attack” list. Black racism is generally found to be acceptable though. It's really that simple.
We promise not to come to your church and do it, because that would be illegal.
You mean like the Mormon community in Texas that was overrun by an army in armored vehicles and with automatic weapons with government agents confiscating all of the children and with all of this based on a search warrant issued because of a bogus phone call from a 33 year old Black woman who claimed that she was a 16 year old white girl married to an abusive 50 year old? The age of consent was also changed from 14 to 17 as a direct response to these Mormons moving into the neighborhood. Respectfully, I do not believe you. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 7:38:55 AM | I think this issue goes deeper than the issue of gay marriage, and I believe we ought to consider its wider ramifications.
Any judge can potentially overrule the existing law, and let a serial killer or even a paedophile go free, because the judge thinks he is innocent, even if it is fundamentally clear that the accused is both guilty and liable to punishment under the law. This highlights some important issues: that a judge can overrule the existing law, that judges' rulings are rarely overturned, and that our legal system can take contradictory positions. It can even establish laws and precedents that can be irrational and unjust.
So before we consider the wider ramifications of this case, let's consider the history of US Law. US Law is based on English Law, because the US grew out of the 13 Colonies, which were originally held by the English, and so was bound by English Law. English Law was based on Common Law, which was based on Judges and Precedent. When we consider the history of English Law, it's quite odd. English saw started out from 2 directions: the King and the Church. Originally, English kings used to make decisions of law, and used to preside over court cases himself. Later on, the king would appoint judges to act as his agents. We are all reminded of the infamous Star Chamber, presided over by kings and judges, which ruled capriciously and often passed unfair judgements, some leading to torture. The King rarely passed laws over every small detail, so it was up to a judge to make his own mind up as to what should be the law. Often these judges were friends of the king, so they were ruling both in favour of the king's personal desires and feelings, and the personal beliefs of the judge himself. Often, a judge might know little of existing law, and even less than the accused. Such judgements were upheld, because the judge acted in place of the king, and monarchic rule held that whatever the king ruled must be established as law. This became known as the Divine Right of Kings, later on the Divine Right of Judges appointed by the king, and the Rule of Precedent, that whatever a king ruled must be upheld, and the same was true of any judge, as his agent. The Church would hold its own Chancery Courts, and judge according to the rule of Equity. But as the king ruled England, this was often used as a form of appeal to the Church, when the king and his judges ruled unfairly, and it was upheld according to how much the Church could influence the king. So it was the minority source of law, but became the source of the Court of Appeal. This method of legal rule was both irrational and unfair. It was established because what the monarch said went, and because the English monarchs had not set up any other system.
However, in our modern day, monarchism has been replaced by government. Further, it is no longer necessary to pretend that the government always gets it right. Governments can pass a bill one year, and repeal or reform it later on, or add later amendments, because it is clear over time that the bill was irrational or unfair. So upon reading this thread, it only made sense to me, to question if our legal system needs to be re-examined, to see if it fits in with our modern system of law.
Certainly, I can see great benefits in having a judge, as an administrator over a court case, to ensure that court procedure is carried out correctly, to ensure that court cases do not become a farce, and to ensure that law is carried correctly. However, I have to ask if it is still necessary for a judge to determine interpretation of the law, when we now have a legislature, as a significant reason for having judges in the first place was that the only legislator was the king, and his time was very taken up with affairs of state. I therefore have to question the need for a judge as an interpreter of the law.
If the judge is counted as a legislator, then surely would it not make more sense if he was required to interpret the law according to the existing rules of the legislature. If a judge can overturn any law that is not part of the Constitution, then surely any single legislator ought to be allowed to overturn any law that is not part of the Constitution either. By the same principle, if a judge's decision cannot be overruled by the Rule of Precedent, then the same would be true of any legislator, making this judge's rule illegal and immoral, because he is appointing himself higher than the law of the land. If we abolish the Rule of Precedent, then there is no need to uphold any previous decision of law, and laws about the right of abortion, such as Roe vs Wade, can be challenged daily in any court in the land. But there is a great need to abolish Precedent, as it may become clear that a judge was not fair in his decision, and yet Precedent still dictates that we uphold those decisions and every case based on them.
It strikes me that we need to establish if any court case is upholding existing clearly laid-down law, that is clear in that case, or if any court case is upholding an unclear law, or if that law might need amendment, or if that law needs to be overruled. In each case, the law needs to be considered as if the same issue was presented to the legislature, so that due process of government might be upheld, so that no one man might be able to decide capriciously or irrationally in law or even in any court case. Further, it only makes sense that if any law was passed that shows that any court cases were unjust, or would now be decided differently, then those court cases must be overturned. If it is clear that the judge was unfair in his decision, then he/she should be held accountable, and required to provide compensation, no differently than a doctor must provide compensation in the case of malpractice.
In this case, it is reasonable to suggest that if marriage is part of the Constitution, that it represents the formal legal recognition of any long-standing partnership. So it makes sense to me that if US Law recognises single-sex relationships as legal and allowed, then single-sex marriage cannot be banned under the Constitution. However, US Law recognises polygamous relationships as legal and allowed, so polygamous marriage cannot be banned under the Constitution either. Further, US Law does not recognise relationships where one or more partners are under the age of consent as legal and allowed, and classes that relationship as rape, even when the underage partner consents, and claims consent to this day. So it only makes sense that all marriages must be banned under the Constitution, where one or more partners are under the age of consent. Also, AFAIK, bestiality, called Zoophilia, is legal in some 20 states in the US, including Washington State. So it would only make sense that you can marry your pet in Washington. Then you have a problem if you are required to recognise an illegal marriage in Georgia that was performed in another state, where it was legal.
But if we then do not accept all that, that it is not OK for a 17-year-old girl to get married to her 18-year-old sweetheart, and they must be separated until they are 18, and that it is OK for a woman to marry her pet, then we must similarly accept that marriage does not have to be a legal recognition of any relationship allowed by law, and that what is legal sex does not have anything to do with what is legal marriage. If that is so, then same-sex relationships can be banned, even if homosexuality is both legal and protected under the law, and so this judge was overstepping his jurisdiction by far, to pass this law.
Part of the problem is that judges don't have to consider all that. They don't have to explain how their laws will cause consequences when compared to other decisions. But those laws will cause those consequences anyway. So judges are allowed to make merry hell with the law, which is how these sort of cases become problematic in the first place.
Part of the problem is also that the law itself doesn't state how it is affected by other law. So a judge might decide that marriage must conform with laws on sex, in homosexuality, but not in bestiality, because he is pro-gay, but is personally disgusted by bestiality. But the law is not our whim. Neither do we have the right to bring our personal feelings of disgust into it. If the law requires that a man who has raped and killed 1000 women must be put to death, and our only complaint is that we are squeamish about murder, we must uphold that law regardless, and must be stoic in the face of our convictions.
Another aspect of the law is that legislated law can be questioned and overruled by precedent easily, by any judge, and any judge can be called to do so, by calling the case to court, which almost anyone can. By arranging to call a case in a certain district at a certain time, one can arrange that one will be tried by a judge who will be favourable to your plea, and by choosing a lawyer who is very capable of presenting a legal case that would be most favourably considered as fair and just by such a judge, one can determine the results of that court case, and thus, anyone can change the law to his will, given enough money, and the advice of an expert in arranging legal affairs to determine the right judge, the right jurors, and the right lawyer, to set the law in your favour.
So the law, as it stands, allows the law itself to be rewritten according to the rich, whenever they wish it.
If our legal system is to become just and fair, then it must be made clear to all of the legal ramifications of any judgement of any court, both now and in the future, to the case under consideration, to all future cases that might cite this case as precedent, to all later bills that might enact this precedent or any later form of it into law, and to any policies that might uphold this precedent or any future interpretations of it. Further, any such legal effects made in a court case must be held as pending ratification by the legislature, so that the legislature might have opportunity to decide whether or not the decision was fair rational, and whether the judge was acting as an officer of the law, or was ruling in favour of his personal beliefs, feelings and interests.
I am simply advocating that we separate upholding the law, from deciding what the law is, and that we treat deciding what the law is in court no differently than how we treat deciding what the law is in the any other part of the law, that is, by the legislature. Leave the upholding of the law to the courts, and the law to the legislature. Where the two collide, the legislature must do its bit, and come into the court-room, and decide on the law. If not, then we are making judges unofficial appointees to the legislature, to interpret the law as they see fit, with almost complete autonomy. That gives judges absolute power. With absolute power, comes absolute corruption.
We in the UK already regard much of law and the legal system as corrupt and unfair, and have a common saying: "The law is an a**".
Our system is already antiquated and unfair. Don't let yours be an antiquated, corrupt and unfair a** too. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 112 | |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 7:56:03 AM | QUOTE: From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
I’m not sure how anyone that has studied US History could come off not knowing how fundamental the Bible was in creating the USA and all of its operational documentation. Was the Bible the only source? No, it was not but it was the primary source in regard to morality. The philosophical thinking of that day was largely Christian.
^^ The overall foundation of much of Western philosophical thinking for about a millenium and a half , or more, has been basically rooted in (or having to do with in some way) Christian beliefs, yes, granted. But I have always read that the founding fathers of this country were something of radicals for their time (clearly they were revolutionaries as we know). I don't think that all of them were what we may think of today as mainstream orthodox (Protestant) Christians.
I believe at least some of them were more like Deists, really, and as we know there were a lot of Freemasons amongst them (which requires only belief in some sort of "higher power"; the architect of the universe type of thing). I've always looked at it as, had those men wanted to set up anything where Christianity (and Protestant Christianity at that) were known to be *the* religion of the land , had they wanted to establish a truly "Christian nation", they simply would have. After all , following their successful revolution, what was stopping them?
Hell, Jefferson owned a rare Arabic Qu'ran (probably not that common , or not something a typical devout Anglo-Protestant of that time period would have even been interested in owning and/or researching much); clearly he was a bit of a freer thinker than some may give him credit for. (Of course, his DNA was found to be of a type that's usually only rarely found in northern Europeans and is much more common in the Middle East and North Africa , so maybe that had something to do with it in his case  Google Jefferson DNA and/or Sally Hemings controversy for more on that... ).
But seriously though I just don't think those founders were as mainstream or conservative of religious thinkers as some people (oftentimes modern-day Christians with their own modern-day agendas) might like to think. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 9:08:54 AM | Ok, I’m going to work backwards here, starting with:
Scorpiomover
I have read your entire post. You took a turn toward the illogical a bit early. It seems you forgot to consider how our government functions and what the functions of the three branches of government are, legislative, executive and judicial. Each branch having their own powers, each setting checks and balances over the others. In this country the legislative (congress) creates the laws, however, it is the judicial branch that interprets those laws.
Yes courts do use president and yes that president often becomes part of the ‘interpretation’ of previous laws, but they are also addendums, or supplemental additions to laws. There is one branch in the judicial system, The Federal Supreme Court, that has one purpose only. That purpose is to review cases where claims have been voiced about the Constitutionality of previous laws as well as precadent set in lower courts. Perhaps you’re essay would have been more purposeful if you had considered HOW these cases get to the Supreme Court in the first place. Therein, lies the conundrum to the same-sex marriage issue.
You see, the Supreme Court CHOOSES which cases it wants to review. Obviously it does not want to review this case, most likely due to the volatile religious nature not to mention there is the question of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act).
In 1996 President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This was done as a direct result of Christian conflict over the rights that GLBT were demanding; the right to benefit from all the laws woven into the fabric of the Constitution, into our federal code, under the word marriage. At that time the states were beginning to yield to visible discrimination of the GLBT community. Since so many laws pertaining to family and personal rights are tied to the act of marriage and since the Federal Government refused to raise the issue of same sex marriage to the highest level; the United States Constitution, the states are forced into taking action to legalize same-sex marriage.
Article V section 1 of the Constitution says that, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State."” This means that the decisions made through a states’ judicial proceedings as well as acts, recorded in accordance with state law, should all be recognized by every other state. DOMA was a quick response to the possibility that states would legalize same-sex marriage. If that happened every state would be forced to recognise the legality of the civil union. It seems that DOMA was meant to override the Full Faith and Credit Clause, specifically and, only, with regards to same-sex marriage. In other words, if a state legalized same-sex marriage, other states could ignore the marriage and all legalities stemming the act.
I think it obvious that the Constitutionality of this act are of questionable origin and blatantly call attention to its biased perspective. By 2000 it was clear this issue was still on the burner and presidential candidate Bush waved the issue into the realm of state law. By 2004 the same sex marriage line was being pushed by many more states and it became part of the platform that candidate Bush would adopt. From this platform he assured the Christian factions that same sex marriage would not prevail and traditional marriage (religiously speaking) would rule the law. President Bush continues to back DOMA without addressing the country-wide discrimination that exists at the Federal level for the GLBT community. In 2006 President Bush being urged on by the Christian coalition backed the legislation that would ban same sex marriage under federal law.
While Federal law fails to protect all citizens equally, Constitutional law is being remanded into the mouths of the people, via referendum, instead of residing in the U.S. Supreme Court where it belongs. The Court seems woefully avoidant of taking on the issue of Constitutionality of DOMA or of a word that includes over a thousand tangible laws, the benefits of which GLBT are excluded from.
Today and everyday, since 1996, there are constant updates, changes and more legal issues being divulged with regards to same sex marriage. Tens of millions of dollars are spend in legal action each year. Since the states can not effectively proceed against federal law and DOMA says that marriage can only be between one woman and one man, many states have also adopted similar wording for their own constitutions, aligning their Constitutions with the outright discriminatory wording of DOMA, that has never, yet, been considered by the Supreme Court of the land.
So you see, marriage was never defined in the Constitution, it is not defined even now, not until the Federal Supreme Court makes that determination.
FINALLY for those who think that Civil Unions at the state level is enough, consider that in the Federal Code (federal law) it has been proven by a government agency that over 1045 laws linked to the contract of marriage are denied to citizens because they cannot marry. GLBT are not asking for SPECIAL priveleges or considerations, they are simply fighting a system of injustices.
Furthermore, as long as we are looking at WHAT EFFECTS such a change in the word marriage could make, let us consider the following. What is family? What makes up a family in terms of government legal contractual agreements? Who is a head of household? Who is entitled to death benefits, to medical decision making, to military benefits, Social Security, inheritance.
Should a 25 year old homosexual be allowed to adopt their underage siblings if they are orphaned? What about special needs children, even family members? Are homosexuals barred from their own family, simply because the law discriminates – BECAUSE IT DOES.
Those who see only evil and depraved things from a law that would serve to equate millions of citizens under our laws, have an immoral agenda. They can not see beyond the limited scope of the comfort they hide behind, the comfort of the "priviledged" who have the benefit of all that law has to offer.
One last comment, for those who believe (fallaciously) that this country included the Christian morals in its laws, then I would ask, why is divorce allowed? Why is premarital sex not punshed? Why is any one sin considered any greater than any other in this country? Your logic will not help you in these questions. Because the truth is that Marriage was a convenient and readily available way to determine what a family is, what the family order is, who is the head, who inherits. THAT MY FRIENDS, is the one and only reason the word, the tradition was even considered in our legal system at all.
It's time for a change, its time to make the Federal Supreme Court preform its one and only function; to clairfy the Constitution in this matter. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 9:12:18 AM | The last post was quite long and I didn't was this message to get lost in the lenght.
you see, marriage was never defined in the Constitution, it is not defined even now, not until the Federal Supreme Court makes that determination.
FINALLY for those who think that Civil Unions at the state level is enough, consider that in the Federal Code (federal law) it has been proven by a government agency that over 1045 laws linked to the contract of marriage are denied to citizens because they cannot marry. GLBT are not asking for SPECIAL priveleges or considerations, they are simply fighting a system of injustices.
Furthermore, as long as we are looking at WHAT EFFECTS such a change in the word marriage could make, let us consider the following. What is family? What makes up a family in terms of government legal contractual agreements? Who is a head of household? Who is entitled to death benefits, to medical decision making, to military benefits, Social Security, inheritance.
Should a 25 year old homosexual be allowed to adopt their underage siblings if they are orphaned? What about special needs children, even family members? Are homosexuals barred from their own family, simply because the law discriminates – BECAUSE IT DOES.
Those who see only evil and depraved things from a law that would serve to equate millions of citizens under our laws, have an immoral agenda. They can not see beyond the limited scope of the comfort they hide behind, the comfort of the "priviledged" who have the benefit of all that law has to offer.
One last comment, for those who believe (fallaciously) that this country included the Christian morals in its laws, then I would ask, why is divorce allowed? Why is premarital sex not punshed? Why is any one sin considered any greater than any other in this country? Your logic will not help you in these questions. Because the truth is that Marriage was a convenient and readily available way to determine what a family is, what the family order is, who is the head, who inherits. THAT MY FRIENDS, is the one and only reason the word, the tradition was even considered in our legal system at all.
It's time for a change, its time to make the Federal Supreme Court preform its one and only function; to clairfy the Constitution in this matter. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 9:24:05 AM | | And if they conclude that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Is that the end of it? I think not..what you are really trying to say is that the Federal Supreme Court should see things as you see them... | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 10:04:11 AM |
It's time for a change, its time to make the Federal Supreme Court preform its one and only function; to clairfy the Constitution in this matter.
The US Constitution does not give the Courts any authority to create law. That right is reserved for the Congress with the approval of the President or congressional override of the President. The courts only have the right to interpret the law and strike down anything that is found to be unconstitutional. The US Constitution does not have authority over marriage laws because that exclusive right was given to the States so that is probably why the Federal courts have kept their hands off of it.
One last comment, for those who believe (fallaciously) that this country included the Christian morals in its laws, then I would ask, why is divorce allowed? Why is premarital sex not punshed? Why is any one sin considered any greater than any other in this country?
1) Divorce is allowed according to the Bible.
2) Premarital sex is punished but at a higher level than the federal government.
3) How God sees sin is quite different than how man sees sin. You are correct that God sees all sin as equally wrong. It may be hard to believe but even Christians see saying “damn it” as less wrong than murdering someone.
In the words of our second President, John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the governance of any other." For those of you that are not familiar with US history, that religion is Christianity. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 10:05:24 AM | RE msg 118 by emotionalheat:
you see, marriage was never defined in the Constitution, it is not defined even now, not until the Federal Supreme Court makes that determination.
FINALLY for those who think that Civil Unions at the state level is enough, consider that in the Federal Code (federal law) it has been proven by a government agency that over 1045 laws linked to the contract of marriage are denied to citizens because they cannot marry. GLBT are not asking for SPECIAL priveleges or considerations, they are simply fighting a system of injustices.
Furthermore, as long as we are looking at WHAT EFFECTS such a change in the word marriage could make, let us consider the following. What is family? What makes up a family in terms of government legal contractual agreements? Who is a head of household? Who is entitled to death benefits, to medical decision making, to military benefits, Social Security, inheritance. That is quite a big problem with the legal system.
Just look at DNR. I would imagine that if anyone is likely to NOT know what a person's wishes are, it would be a person's family and partner, and if anyone WOULD know, it would be his/her friends. If you want to not be recussitated, you'd tell your friend. But you wouldn't want to tell your family and friends, because they'd be upset by it. So DNR shouldn't really be put on the family, or the spouse.
When it comes to child support, that isn't always decided by the spousal status either, as many people are now required to pay child support for the children of former common-law lovers, who they were never married to
Also, you might not want anything to do with your current spouse, who you've left, and who you've avoided getting divorced from, because he's a violent person who you want nothing to do with, and want him to have no way to get hold of you.
ALL of these issues should be clarified, and none of them have to have anything to do with marriage. So why not just make a legal definition of a partner, that has nothing to do with marriage, in the first place, and why not make it very clear what is the law applying to partners? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 11:17:31 AM | Icey said....
"I don't wave off the entire argument, I am trying to see how he can parallel same sex marriage/unions with beastiality and pedofiles."
I wasn't originally including what pedophiles felt were their right in this issue but I did respond to some posts about it.
First as it has been shown...in the USA there is no definition of what marriage is, who it contains or what you can be married to whether it be to a human...a minor...an animal...a thing...etc. There is no definition.
Now please listen, this is not hard to understand. GLBT want there to be a definition of what marriage is. If they are able to get the states to get together (or one at a time) to ratify what is marriage so all states can go by an agreed upon law of marriage and what it encompassess, they will also have to define what is not held as marriage while defining what marriage is. That is going to be a tough day to deal with because those for polygamy and bigamy are going to want to be included in that definition.
As mentioned before...(I just googled it) there are 23 states in the USA that have seen no reason to put up laws against zoophilia while the other 27 states have seen fit to make laws against it with various penalities. People wanting to be married to their pet (regardless if sex is involved or not involved) is not a new issue. If it was legalized tomarrow millions would be doing it because of the close relationship they have with their pets.
So my point being again is that marriage now, in our time era has evolved into an issue of what or who exactly can a human be married to??? The GLBT is opening this door so fairly soon we shall be seeing what shall be defined as "legal" regarding a human and marriage and what will not be considered legal. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 3:47:09 PM | Let's go back to the fundamental concept: rights. A child does not have the capacity to withhold consent, and so cannot give informed consent. That's why pederasty is immoral to a secular humanist--or anyone else who believes in the concept of human rights.
That’s really not a problem for Human Secularism in that all they have to do is redefine the age that a human is considered a child in the same way that the courts often treat minors as adults when they feel it’s warranted.
Well, truth be told, it _is_ a problem for me. I think that the exceptions in the law for treating minors as adults were put in place to appease conservatives who want criminals to be punished and not rehabilitated. Also, I think you'll find that it is seldom secular humanists who advocate for the lowering of the age of consent for marriage. Quite the opposite, in fact. Most secular humanists I know would prefer it if young people waited longer to get married and have kids.
If 18 people want to shack up together, they all agree to it, and they aren't hurting anyone else, the correct moral stance with respect to their lifestyle is: it's none of my business and God love 'em.
Exactly, the Human Secularist moral view will open the door to allow polygamy and various other now considered immoral aspects of life. That was exactly what the OP was saying and he was attacked for his views as if this decision occurred in a vacuum.
Well, part of the reason I posted was to say that I think that the OP's probably right about that. Again, if the criteria of morality is something that someone claiming to speak for God several millenia back was purported to have said after 3 or 4 politically tainted translations, you might regard things differently than someone who thinks that freedom of association is a God-given right.
But as soon as you start trying to tell another person what they can or cannot do, that becomes a matter of public policy. And when it comes to public policy, considerations of human rights and equal protection under the law trump anyone's ideology.
It's really that simple.
That line of thought only holds for the human secularists when it comes to things that they agree with in their doctrine of political correctness. They are the first to brand those they disagree with as prejudice, bigots, and white racists and dismiss the rights of those people to live as they choose. Christianity is generally on the top of the “free to attack” list. Black racism is generally found to be acceptable though. It's really that simple.
When somone disagrees with me, I try to look for the basis of their disagreement. If their disagreement is based on a better understanding of the rights people have and how certain actions would impinge on their rights, I stand corrected. If their argument has some other basis, I try to reduce it back to human rights and the obligation to respect the rights of others. If their argument can't be reconciled in that way, or if it leads to conclusions that clearly violate the principles of human rights and equal treatment under the law, then I can only conclude that their beliefs are more important to them than my rights are. So then I start looking for reasons why that might be so.
Black racism is ugly, nasty and evil. It is only marginally less tolerable than the institutionalized racism that was directed at Blacks for centuries because it takes a while for people to get over what was done to them and their ancestors. So I choose to tolerate it for a while and try to engage constructively with people who are burdened with that particular form of bigotry. They came by it honestly as victims or the descendents of victims.
White racism is a different matter. It is all about perpetuating a system that was rooted in injustice. The very core of White racism is the evil institution of slavery and a mindset that systematically denied the truth by holding Blacks to be inferior beings when clearly they are not. Since the motivation behind White racism is not paranoia or bitterness, but instead a determination to undermine the God-given rights of others who happen to look different, my suspicion about people who engage in it is that they are either actively evil or passively co-opted into supporting evil. Sorry, we all have a moral obligation to confrong evil wherever it appears, and if you've been passively duped into a racist mindset, you should be grateful to have people call you on it so that you can grow the hell up.
We promise not to come to your church and do it, because that would be illegal.
You mean like the Mormon community in Texas that was overrun by an army in armored vehicles and with automatic weapons with government agents confiscating all of the children and with all of this based on a search warrant issued because of a bogus phone call from a 33 year old Black woman who claimed that she was a 16 year old white girl married to an abusive 50 year old? The age of consent was also changed from 14 to 17 as a direct response to these Mormons moving into the neighborhood. Respectfully, I do not believe you.
And was it the secular humanists who were itching to break up that settlement? Or was it their Good Christian neighbors who couldn't abide anyone with different values living near them?
The only interest any secular humanist would take in that community was the allegation that underage girls were being forced into marriages with older men without their free and informed consent. If that's what was happening, then breaking it up was the right thing to do from a human rights standpoint. Adults have the freedom to associate--which means that as long as only adults were participating in the polygamous marriages and weren't committing welfare fraud to do it--the state had no business interfering.
But every adult, and by extension the state, has an obligation to protect children from exploitation. If they'd hoodwinked your 14-year-old daughter by using some sort of crazy religious brainwashing to get her to marry somebody who'd keep her as his fifth wife and virtual sex slave, you might not think too much of that.
So what is there not to believe? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 7:28:59 PM |
I’m not sure how anyone that has studied US History could come off not knowing how fundamental the Bible was in creating the USA and all of its operational documentation. Was the Bible the only source? No, it was not but it was the primary source in regard to morality. The philosophical thinking of that day was largely Christian.
Someone who has studied history would know that the philosophical thinking of that day, which was called the Age of Reason, was indeed not based on Biblical thinking at all but in open rejection of it. The primary source of morality was a gradual evolution of civil authority that had existed over millenia from Roman Law, European - including English Common Law and Napoleonic Code - and a host of others.
This attempt to revise history and somehow restate it as if the Founding Fathers directly consulted Scripture when formulating the laws and statutes of America is ignorant to say the least and revolting lies at the worst. These were educated men, well read men who had access to the Greek, Latin, French and German philosophers of the ages. While the majority of them claimed Christian church affiliation, this anachronistic attempt to set out to tie their beliefs and thought to modern Christian thought is both disingenuous and historically inaccurate. It usually goes further when words are placed in the mouths of those men who would not have supported modern Conservative Evangelistic approaches in the least and would have found them ignorant and superstitious compared to their own enlightened embrace of forward thinking and reason...and this in the 18th century!
That line of thought only holds for the human secularists when it comes to things that they agree with in their doctrine of political correctness. They are the first to brand those they disagree with as prejudice, bigots, and white racists and dismiss the rights of those people to live as they choose. Christianity is generally on the top of the “free to attack” list. Black racism is generally found to be acceptable though. It's really that simple.
Let's follow up the revisionism with a chain of faulty reasoning...black-white fallacy, red-herring, slippery-slope...outright prevarication...I'm starting to lose track with all the grade-A b.s. here. Pick one premise and prove it.
You mean like the Mormon community in Texas that was overrun by an army in armored vehicles and with automatic weapons with government agents confiscating all of the children and with all of this based on a search warrant issued because of a bogus phone call from a 33 year old Black woman who claimed that she was a 16 year old white girl married to an abusive 50 year old? The age of consent was also changed from 14 to 17 as a direct response to these Mormons moving into the neighborhood. Respectfully, I do not believe you.
Respectfully, this issue is not that cut and dried and there is a great deal more going on than you let on in your description including many allegations of relationships that are far less than concentual. Again, individual over collective rights come into play and your right to worship ends at your church door and another persons right to their own belief and freedom, as it should. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 8:02:49 PM | Warmth
The US Constitution does not give the Courts any authority to create law. That right is reserved for the Congress with the approval of the President or congressional override of the President. The courts only have the right to interpret the law and strike down anything that is found to be unconstitutional.
If my original message was unclear, I apologize, and I agree with one adjustment, “the courts” being boiled down to ONLY the U.S. Supreme Court. State Supreme courts only have jurisdiction to interpret State Constitutions, that is why, in California, the peoples vote was struck down, because it went against the Constitution of that state.
The US Constitution does not have authority over marriage laws because that exclusive right was given to the States so that is probably why the Federal courts have kept their hands off of it.
You are incorrect, there was NO definition of marriage in within the Constitution and the Supreme court set presidence and forever, took away the right of states to define marriage, in 1967 "Loving v Virginia". Several states TRIED to make laws prohibiting interracial marriage, Virginia was sued and the Supreme court disallowed the states privilege to set laws that would discriminate, in marriage, over the constitution. SO, until the enactment of DOMA which is believed to be an unconstitutional ACT Marriage includes in our Federal code the laws to which GLBT are trying to gain benefit of. Below is just a portion of those laws.
On January 31,1997 the United State General Accounting Office fulfilled a request by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives. Here is an excerpt of the 58 page document that was supplied. (Office, 1997)
To find laws that meet these criteria, we conducted searches for various words or
Word stems ("marr," "spouse," "widow," etc.), chosen to elicit marital status, in several electronic databases that contain the text of federal laws. From the collection of laws in the United States Code that we found through those searches, we eliminated
(1) laws that included one or more of our search terms but that were not relevant to your request2 and
(2) as agreed with your staff, any laws enacted after the Defense of Marriage Act. The result is a 1Public Law 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. 2For example, our search for the word stem "marr," designed to capture words such as "marriage" and "marry," also produced references to laws mentioning bone marrow transplants, the city of Marrakesh, and proper names containing the letters "marr." GAO/OGC-97-16 Defense of Marriage Act collection of 1049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor.
This collection of laws is as complete and representative as can be produced by a global electronic search of the kind we conducted, but such a search has several limitations. Most significantly, it cannot capture every individual law in the United States Code in which marital status figures. However, we believe that the probability is high that it has identified those programs in the Code in which marital status is a factor.
The letter goes on to provide an accounting of the laws that discriminate against the GLBT community. Keep in mind that the list is topic relevant, meaning, there are many relevant laws that link directly to these topics. Remember, also, these are laws whose benefit is determined through marital status. Marriage union contracts that GLBT are excluded from
• CATEGORY 1–SOCIAL SECURITY AND RELATED PROGRAMS, HOUSING, AND FOOD STAMPS
• CATEGORY 2–VETERANS' BENEFITS
• CATEGORY 3–TAXATION
• CATEGORY 4–FEDERAL CIVILIAN AND MILITARY SERVICE BENEFITS
• CATEGORY 5–EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND RELATED LAWS
• CATEGORY 6–IMMIGRATION, NATURALIZATION, AND ALIENS
• CATEGORY 8–TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
• CATEGORY 7–INDIANS
• CATEGORY 8–TRADE, COMMERCE, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
• CATEGORY 8–FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
• CATEGORY 10–CRIMES AND FAMILY VIOLENCE
• CATEGORY 11–LOANS, GUARANTEES, AND PAYMENTS IN AGRICULTURE
That’s just a very small fraction of law headings that, through exclusion of GLBT, have allowed the injustice of discrimination to prevail. In this country the majority of these laws are a direct extension of the word marriage and they ARE LAWS in the Federal Code.
It has been repeated many times over that the laws (the Constitution) of this country were based on Christian morals. I asked; if that is so, why is the sin of homosexuality (only mentioned 6 times in the entire Bible) any more serious than divorce or premarital sex and of course there is always that horror; marrying outside ones’ race (religion) I did embellish this but it holds the same value.
You responded:
1) Divorce is allowed according to the Bible.
2) Premarital sex is punished but at a higher level than the federal government.
3) How God sees sin is quite different than how man sees sin. You are correct that God sees all sin as equally wrong. It may be hard to believe but even Christians see saying “damn it” as less wrong than murdering someone.
I have no idea what you are trying to say, because you have not addressed the question. If these sins are all equal, then why is only Homosexuality punished by the law? (or the lack of protection and benefit of the law) that is the question, would you like to try again?
Scorpio
ALL of these issues should be clarified, and none of them have to have anything to do with marriage. So why not just make a legal definition of a partner, that has nothing to do with marriage, in the first place, and why not make it very clear what is the law applying to partners?
It has always been my opinion that the word marriage is the issue because it supports an age old “religious” tradition. But an attempt to add the words “CIVIL UNION” to all places in the Federal Code that recognize marriage, brought out the bigoted Christian Right Wing and DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) was the answer. This past session in the states review there were actually those legislators who commented that they feared that Homosexuals would want more than just a civil union, that they would also want all the “BENEFITS” of an actual marriage. These words from state legislators????
Montanan
GLBT want there to be a definition of what marriage is. If they are able to get the states to get together (or one at a time) to ratify what is marriage so all states can go by an agreed upon law of marriage and what it encompassess, they will also have to define what is not held as marriage
You’re a bit off base here. A recent research study showed that 75% of college students in two year colleges and 50% of students graduating from a 4 year college can not read a newspaper editorial and effectively summarize it. So regardless of your education I will not write an editorial, just short and sweet.
GLBT never wanted to change the definition of marriage. Marriage had never been defined, until 1996 and the DOMA ACT which has never been reviewed for Constitutionality by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was the DOMA ACT that defined marriage and in so doing created a Federally acceptable discriminatory action against a minority; the GLBT.
That action has been viewed by the States as appropriate and so they also believe that such discrimination has the blessing of the highest authority in this country. Therefore, many states have already included in their constitutions, the definition as written under DOMA. This is clearly NOT what our founders had in mind, when they expected every citizen to be embraced by the full protections and benefits of our laws.
Insolent
And if they conclude that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry? Is that the end of it? I think not..what you are really trying to say is that the Federal Supreme Court should see things as you see them...
If you’ve been paying attention you would see that it would be unconscionable for the Supreme Court to rule “out of favor” with the GLBT issues. To be honest, I would rather take the chances with the Supreme Court than with each state. The States take their cues from the Federal government. If the Federal Government can be so moved by the religious right, then the States don't want to push it either. Also, if the states reinforce the approval of discrimination, then you can be sure that the trickle down theory will soon see the same kind of discriminations that the Civil Rights Act was meant to STOP.
There is far more bigotry and prejudice at the state level than at the elitist level of the Judiciary Supreme Court. I'd be happy to take my chances. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 8:25:04 PM | We had a thread on the founding fathers and the documents we rule ourselves by. Except for a few, the rest believed in God/a Creator who gave them the foundation for what they believed was right and well as far as living life went and those beliefs gave them opinions of what was not right and what was not well. Most of those men's beliefs were extentions from the Christian Bible. Those men established the Constitution...etc., on the base of those beliefs they carried within themselves. Their morals were not Tibetian, Confuscism, Buddaism or based on the Koran or ancient India texts. The morals most of them carried stemmed from the Christian Bible. That is a fact. Do the research to find out. Now the founding fathers had no idea that one day the foundation of human existance would be challenged in that who had legal rights to it and who didn't. So they saw no reason for a definement of marriage. Marriage was what it always had been....a hetro union and the rights and privileges were for them, that couple, regardless of how many times a person re-married.
Now I stated most in this country are not against same sex unions. The following states this....
"National polls indicate a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. However, a poll released in August 2006 by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicates 54 percent approve of civil unions as an alternative to same-sex marriage."
That came from a site called stateline.org. This also......
"Following the festive scenes of gay and lesbian brides and grooms waiting in long lines to wed in the Bay State on May 17, 2004, 23 states fortified their state constitutions to withstand judicial edicts like the one in Massachusetts, joining four other states that already had constitutional prohibitions."
This also as I stated this was an issue of tradition and was not believed.....
"Even if the number of gay weddings in the United States is minimal so far, the uproar over same-sex marriage has been deafening. The issue has rocked every state capital and inflamed passions in Congress and presidential campaigns, as advocates of equal rights for gays and lesbians are pitted against religious and other socially conservative groups committed to protecting traditional marriage."
And ........
"While the Massachusetts ruling touched off the latest frenzy of action on gay marriage, a Hawaiian circuit court judge in 1996 was the first in the nation to side with a same-sex couple denied a marriage license. Rather than risk a state Supreme Court decision in favor of gay unions, Hawaiian voters in 1998 rewrote their state constitution to give lawmakers, not the courts, the right to define marriage, and lawmakers subsequently voted to prohibit gay nuptials."
Other states have been doing as Hawaii. People are not against gay unions. They just feel when it comes to the union of a male and female the legal definition of marriage should pertain to a hetro couple..........not a homosexual couple, not a polygamus coupling or a bigamy coupling. | |
|
| |
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/19/2008 11:07:27 PM | People are not against gay unions. They just feel when it comes to the union of a male and female the legal definition of marriage should pertain to a hetro couple..........not a homosexual couple, not a polygamus coupling or a bigamy coupling.
They can feel any way they want to, and they are free to act on those feelings. Unlike sexual orientation, one can make a rational choice about whom one marries.
As long as a case can be made that the privileges of marriage are equally available to all who want to commit to a life-long bond, it doesn't matter what anyone calls that sort of contract. Even if tradition holds that such privleges were only for certain people, tradition is not a strong enough argument to circumvent the R I G H T to equal treatment under the law. The privilges have to be equal, and equally available, or any differences have to be directly related to relevant differences in the circumstances of the parties. Otherwise, allowing some people but not others access to those privileges denies the equality test.
There was a tradition of slavery in the South. There was just one tiny little thing wrong with that tradition. Can you guess what it was? Should we continue to support unjust institutions like that just because a majority claims to like them? | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
