Who in the H - E - Double Hockey Sticks do those pompous @$$ judges think they are anyway, eh??
The majority of Californian's decided by a POPULAR vote that they didn't want same sex mariage legalized and now it is being forced on them anyway. 4 *judges* decide what 63 percent of the Californian's DON'T WANT, is gonna happen anyway based on their say-so.
Values in America have gone to Hell in a hand basket. Good Lord -- even the wording in their ruling described (real) marriage as *opposite sex couples* instead of man and woman --- as it should be.
Raise the gallows, and hang em high.
Get out the tar and feathers and ride them out of town on a rail.
Give a firing squad bullets, and the judges blindfolds.
Send them all to sea, and make them walk the plank.
It's a sad day when this sort of $h!t is allowed to happen
Where's Nirvana?? I'm needing a big dose of it right about now.
Yes,I agree it's about time,heres some flowers for my rainbow warriors.
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me
and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth,
that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth.
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The *gays* have even taken a sign of HOPE, and denigrated it.
Entitlement is everthing (these days), I guess.
Ya can't even say gay without someone taking it in a sexual context.
I DO NOT like what they stand for, and are trying to do.
Whether or not they chose that lifestyle, were born with it, or whatever ----
DON'T FORCE THAT CRAP DOWN OTHER'S THROATS.
Plain and simple --- California folks said NO, and now 4 jerks in judicial robes sitting behind a bench in a court of law tell them they have to think otherwise. Regardless how you feel on this subject -- the people have spoken and their feelings are being brushed aside like so many gnats at a picnic in the park.
Flame me all you want for stating my feelings. I'm a big guy with thick skin. I can take it.
A majority of white Southerners didn't want Black people to be able to vote; the court system shoved that right down their throats, thank God. School Segregation was only ended by the courts. "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains were only ended by the courts, against the will of much of the Caucasian population of the South. Our service academies (West Point, Anapolis) didn't allow women; again, the court system drug our country out of the dark ages. My point is that when the majority is wrong, the court is fulfilling its responsibility when it steps in for marginalized people.
It takes a conversation to make these things happen, so it is good for all points of view to be brought to the table. But it's not a rectangular table, with certain "better" folks at the head, and certain "lesser" folks down the sides, or at baby tables in the next room. It has to be a round table.
Really? I was under the impression that California had a constitution as its law which I can only assume was written by men.Correct me if Im wrong maybe I missed the finger of God part descending to Sacramento sometime in years past, although Im pretty sure that would have made the news, or that the law of the land was someones own interpretation of their favorite section of scripture.
If the US and states have laws regarding equality and legal protection for all citizens, then its only right that these laws should be upheld, else change to a theocratic system-like some middle eastern countries who govern based on their interpretation of religious laws.
Thankfully--at least to me--we, most of the time, dont do things like that here, but have a legal standard of ideals and moral codes that are supposedly to be fair to all americans (not just the ones in my group).
Its not that long since the ban against interracial marriages was challenged, and the traditional (but nonlegal) laws against it changed, or as NIKA pointed out women couldnt vote, or you could own another human being.
All equal means all equal,
Its been the foundation of this country from the beginning..Is it really that hard to understand that this is a very important precept in what fundamentally makes us a 'good country'?
The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.
“The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” he continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.
In a second rationale from the interracial case, the court struck down the laws banning same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds, also adopting a new standard of review in the process.
When courts weigh whether distinctions among people or groups violate the right to equal protection they generally require just a rational basis for the distinction, a relatively easy standard to meet. But when the discrimination is based on race, sex or religion, the courts generally require a more substantial justification.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the majority ruled on Thursday, also requires that sort of more rigorous justification. The court acknowledged that it was the first state high court to adopt the standard, strict scrutiny, in sexual orientation cases."
BTW....Six of the seven justices on the court were appointed by Republicans.
As I understand it, the CA Supreme court rulled on the basis of one thing ONLY! - Did the statute violate the CA STATE Constitution. It is not a matter of them over-ruling the 'will of the people', but whether the 'will of the people' violated the Constitution. IT IS THEIR JOB, under the law, to make that decision.
Critically, the Court emphasized at the outset that its ruling had nothing to do with the political views of the judges with regard to gay marriage, but rather, was based solely on its legal analysis of past precedent interpreting the relevant provisions of the state Constitution (emphasis in original):
[O]ur task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership, but instead only to determine whether the difference in official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution.
There is much more of an explanation in the link above, including this:
(2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges "overriding" the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their "marriage" laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed "it is up to the state Supreme Court" to decide the issue.
CONSTITUTIONAL law ALWAYS supercedes STATUATORY law. This is always a major problem with citizen initiated referendums.... they often violate contitutional law. and in fact become a crude form of 'judicial activism' initiated by citizens, and OFTEN are found to violate the legal and mandatory precedence of constitutional law, which is the very essence of the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Those who scream about activist judges, generally have a very POOR understanding of the legal system when they go off on their emotional tirades.
In my opinion, if people want to limit marriage WITHIN A CHURCH DOCTRINE to 'a man and a woman', FINE! However it is not the legal constitutional right of the government to do so. Why not have ALL marriages be allowed by the government (or none) and let those who choose to make their commitment before their God do so within their church without legal sanction. In Germany, as I understand it, the ONLY marriages that have legal binding are those sanctioned by the government. If a couple wishes to further make their vow before their God, that is welcome, but has no standing in law. The church wedding has no legal standing.
BTW....Six of the seven justices on the court were appointed by Republicans.
Imagine THAT! Integrity from judges. Many yell that they want STRICT interpretation of their beloved Constitutions by the judges, but when they get it, they hate the idea. Congratulations to the 4 who stood by their vow to make thier rulings be based on legal merit. A pox on the 4 who did not. (I ma just kidding, of course those 3 felt they too were ruling on the legal merit. sometimes legal minds DO disagree on what that is.
Oh, referring to my "German law" comments above:
In FranceSwitzerland and Germany only a civil marriage is legal. The priest will require a certificate of marriage proving that the civil marriage was celebrated before he will perform a religious marriage.
There is also big difference to "marry" in a city office vs. "register for marriage" in a city office. In one case it is a civil marriage and in the other case is the registration for a marriage to be performed in a different venue and accepted in a local venue. In other countries like in Italy you can marry in a civil office or register for marriage in a civil office and then marry in the Church.
In France, Switzerland and Germany you don't have that option. You MUST marry at city hall BEFORE you marry in the Church.
If you do not register/notify the intent of marriage in the Church before the wedding then you have only a religious wedding without legal implications. However, the Church discourages such a procedure except in a few cases.
Those who scream about activist judges, generally have a very POOR understanding of the legal system when they go off on their emotional tirades.
This is not a hot button issue for me, but I think the problem with activist judges is that they break precedents, when it fits their cause. It is NOT an emotional tirade ...
Of course those tirades happen on all sides all the time ... but that is not the issue with activist judges.
As a non constitutional matter ... I don't see the point in giving tax breaks to couples ... except I thought the idea was to make it easier for families to raise children. Other than that, I'm not sure what the point is ... or why people even need a legal contract to be united ... so much. Children need protection I guess, spouses not as much ... maybe ...
I agree with Rhino that children need protection, and I'm willing to bet that any wife who's helped her husband rise up the corporate ladder, only to find herself replaced by a trophy wife, believes that spouses need protection, as well.
I also know both Rhino and George, and think that they'd get along really well, and have a great time discussing this over a brewski. Let's all use this as a great excuse to get together for beer and brats!!
I guess I just don't understand the vitriol and emotion that this topic seems to generate.
Geeze, there are already LOTS of gay people living together and doing all that evil, unapproved-by-God, perverted, sexual stuff.
And, if truth be known, there likely has been since we started walking upright (or since the Garden of Eden, if you prefer).
What possible difference could it make to the good, upright, God-fearing, straight portion of society if these folks want to enter into a legally binding contract with each other? We've had wonderful, reactionary things like the "Defence of Marriage Act" and various and sundry demonstrations and tirades from the pulpit, but to what end? Is prohibiting gay people from marrying REALLY going to make my marriage any better? (not likely) Or yours? Just what is it we're protecting by such prohibitions?
If gays really WANT to get married, hell, why not? Then they'll be able to experience the wonderful blessings of divorce someday, as well. Gee, won't that be special?
There are also different ways of looking at the constitutions .. so considering three judges were in dissent, it would seem it is not perfectly clear cut. If it needs to be clarified, people should elect representatives that will clarify the constitution. I think that would work ...
It is usually interesting to read the decision and the dissent ... I'm too lazy on this one ... right now ...
Well, OK .... here is another view ... that the judges were acting on their own ... they did not break precedent, they set it ... by themselves. It seems people decided one thing ... judges decided to make a category to put this in that makes it "illegal" ... but it is based on their opinion.
Next follows the typically slippery (and ipse dixit) "analysis" under equal protection.
It's all a game of categorization
-- if a law restricts a right
the court categorizes
as "fundamental"
and imposes this restriction on the basis a "suspect" (i.e., "badwrong") classification
, the court imposes a compelling/necessary test on the law, that the law must serve a
compelling
state interest and must be
necessary
to serve that state interest. Now, that may seem like a test that can be passed under the right circumstances, but actually, it's not. No law ever survives that test, ever.
Once the court has, by declaration citing the authority only of itself, categorized the classification as "suspect" and the restricted "right" as "fundamental," it's all over.
Any court just has to claim those magic words apply and it's all over. No deference whatsoever is owed to the legislature (or, in this case, the actual people of the state writing the law through the initiative process).
The moment the court decides, on its own authority, to categorize (suddenly) the right as fundamental and the restriction of it as suspect, they rewrite the law however their consciences may impel them.
This passage is question-begging:
Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have
the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state
— that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.
This is of course pure rubbish, as
"the state" did not in fact "reject" treating homosexuals differently as regards marriage law, but actually encoded this distinction into the law
of itself. Had "the state" wished to "reject" this distinction, it would have passed a different law specifically "rejecting" the distinction.
The court is speaking here, it seems, as a king, "l'etat, c'est moi" (the state, it is I, I believe it goes).
Which is why God gave man laws -- to protect people. Live outside His laws, you're asking for trouble.
George
Really? I was under the impression that California had a constitution as its law which I can only assume was written by men.Correct me if Im wrong maybe I missed the finger of God part descending to Sacramento sometime in years past, although Im pretty sure that would have made the news, or that the law of the land was someones own interpretation of their favorite section of scripture.
I never said that man's laws were God-given.
I said that God gave man laws. Those, of course, ARE the ones in the Scriptures.
I said that God gave man laws. Those, of course, ARE the ones in the Scriptures.
Well fortunately (or unfortunately-depending on your view) we dont live in a theocracy.
Iran was close for awhile--Al Qaeda is trying---our system evolved out of the era of divine kingdoms-- somehow that stuff never quite works in a practical way--no matter how many times it is tried---but because you still have the freedom to choose, no one is forcing you to go against your own personal interpretation of scripture for your own life.
If you are given that freedom to live as you choose, which I assume you think is a good deal, why do yo feel compelled to restrict the same freedom of choice to others?
Well stated IMNSHO. The argument of popular vote is mute about constitutional law vs statutory law. BTW Adolph Hitler was elected by an overwhelming popular vote. While I reserve the right to disagree with certain judicial decisions I have the utmost respect for the judges who sit daily and have to make those decisions.
Further I don't see why this is such a big deal. Whether gay marriage is legal or not is not going to change one whit about gay partners living together - whether "god" approves or not.
Well fortunately (or unfortunately-depending on your view) we dont live in a theocracy.
Iran was close for awhile--Al Qaeda is trying---our system evolved out of the era of divine kingdoms-- somehow that stuff never quite works in a practical way--no matter how many times it is tried---but because you still have the freedom to choose, no one is forcing you to go against your own personal interpretation of scripture for your own life.
If you are given that freedom to live as you choose, which I assume you think is a good deal, why do yo feel compelled to restrict the same freedom of choice to others?
If you are given that freedom to live as you choose, which I assume you think is a good deal, why do yo feel compelled to restrict the same freedom of choice to others?
Homosexuals have the freedom to live as the choose, but homosexual marriage is different that heterosexual marriage .. is it not? It is NOT equal.
The concept of family is part of our culture ... raising children ... blah blah ... so we have (mostly Christian) people forming a constitution ... and laws. The family unit that bears and raises children is a foundational aspect of our country.
A "gay union" is different from that.
The state (of CA) specifically distinguished the same sex couples from heterosexual marriages. But the (activist?) judges determined purely on their own, that this should be in the category of "equal protection". ipse dixit, "it's this way because I say it is"... that is the rule the judges used, not precedent or the constitution or the voters.
The court actually seemed to try to cover for themselves by saying the state "emphatically rejected" the "distinct designation" ... but that was false ... the state emphatically MADE the distinction. The court emphatically rejected the state and came up with their own decision ... ispe dixit ... (the state, it is I) ... and they rejected the vote of the people.
It is NOT based on the constitution ... it is purely a judgment of the judges, out of the blue ... even though the state and the people (64%) believe otherwise. So it does seem an activist judgment to me ...
Just ask yourself ... is there a distinction between the family unit you were raised in, or the one you raised ... and the average homosexual union? Are there any qualities of the traditional family unit that might be beneficial to the child ... over the average gay unit?
of course there is ... but five of these eight California judges determined for the whole state that they (soley them, not the constitution or state or previous judgment) would determine that the two were EQUAL.
the state .. It is them ... (not you or your elected officials)
anyway ... that seems fairly clear to me ... at this point .... but I don't know the ramifications of nixing the distinction. AFAIK, they had the same rights, just a different designation. I think married heterosexual couples raising a traditional family is a solid foundational thing ... and could be distinguished fairly ...
Families raising their kids seems "American" and good ... I'm not sure why the is such a desire from the left to "denigrate" it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
cheranne
Yes,I agree it's about time,heres some flowers for my rainbow warriors.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Totally agree!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I hate to be a troll, but
THEY'RE WRONG.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Who in the H - E - Double Hockey Sticks do those pompous @$$ judges think they are anyway, eh??
The majority of Californian's decided by a POPULAR vote that they didn't want same sex mariage legalized and now it is being forced on them anyway. 4 *judges* decide what 63 percent of the Californian's DON'T WANT, is gonna happen anyway based on their say-so.
Values in America have gone to Hell in a hand basket. Good Lord -- even the wording in their ruling described (real) marriage as *opposite sex couples* instead of man and woman --- as it should be.
Raise the gallows, and hang em high.
Get out the tar and feathers and ride them out of town on a rail.
Give a firing squad bullets, and the judges blindfolds.
Send them all to sea, and make them walk the plank.
It's a sad day when this sort of $h!t is allowed to happen
Where's Nirvana?? I'm needing a big dose of it right about now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I missed the news reports on this one.
Since this is an issue that effects a LOT of things legally,
including where tax dollars go,
this is an issue that affects everyone in that state.
Was this placed on the ballot as a referendum and voted on by the people as a whole?
Or was this something one or more judges decided by themselves?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
WordWolf -- I answered that above.
And --- For those who don't know, I have a lesbian sister (*married* twice to different women),
and a lesbian niece. Regardless of that --- I stand by my comments.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Gen 9:11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
Gen 9:12 And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:
Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me
and the earth.
Gen 9:14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth,
that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
Gen 9:15 And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
Gen 9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that [is] upon the earth.
Gen 9:17 And God said unto Noah, This [is] the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that [is] upon the earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The *gays* have even taken a sign of HOPE, and denigrated it.
Entitlement is everthing (these days), I guess.
Ya can't even say gay without someone taking it in a sexual context.
I DO NOT like what they stand for, and are trying to do.
Whether or not they chose that lifestyle, were born with it, or whatever ----
DON'T FORCE THAT CRAP DOWN OTHER'S THROATS.
Plain and simple --- California folks said NO, and now 4 jerks in judicial robes sitting behind a bench in a court of law tell them they have to think otherwise. Regardless how you feel on this subject -- the people have spoken and their feelings are being brushed aside like so many gnats at a picnic in the park.
Flame me all you want for stating my feelings. I'm a big guy with thick skin. I can take it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
Geez don't hav a cow!!! Lighten up dude,people are people..and God is Love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Which is why God gave man laws -- to protect people. Live outside His laws, you're asking for trouble.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notinKansasanymore
A majority of white Southerners didn't want Black people to be able to vote; the court system shoved that right down their throats, thank God. School Segregation was only ended by the courts. "White" and "Colored" drinking fountains were only ended by the courts, against the will of much of the Caucasian population of the South. Our service academies (West Point, Anapolis) didn't allow women; again, the court system drug our country out of the dark ages. My point is that when the majority is wrong, the court is fulfilling its responsibility when it steps in for marginalized people.
It takes a conversation to make these things happen, so it is good for all points of view to be brought to the table. But it's not a rectangular table, with certain "better" folks at the head, and certain "lesser" folks down the sides, or at baby tables in the next room. It has to be a round table.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
If the US and states have laws regarding equality and legal protection for all citizens, then its only right that these laws should be upheld, else change to a theocratic system-like some middle eastern countries who govern based on their interpretation of religious laws.
Thankfully--at least to me--we, most of the time, dont do things like that here, but have a legal standard of ideals and moral codes that are supposedly to be fair to all americans (not just the ones in my group).
Its not that long since the ban against interracial marriages was challenged, and the traditional (but nonlegal) laws against it changed, or as NIKA pointed out women couldnt vote, or you could own another human being.
All equal means all equal,
Its been the foundation of this country from the beginning..Is it really that hard to understand that this is a very important precept in what fundamentally makes us a 'good country'?
LINK
BTW....Six of the seven justices on the court were appointed by Republicans.
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
As I understand it, the CA Supreme court rulled on the basis of one thing ONLY! - Did the statute violate the CA STATE Constitution. It is not a matter of them over-ruling the 'will of the people', but whether the 'will of the people' violated the Constitution. IT IS THEIR JOB, under the law, to make that decision.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200.../15/california/
There is much more of an explanation in the link above, including this:
CONSTITUTIONAL law ALWAYS supercedes STATUATORY law. This is always a major problem with citizen initiated referendums.... they often violate contitutional law. and in fact become a crude form of 'judicial activism' initiated by citizens, and OFTEN are found to violate the legal and mandatory precedence of constitutional law, which is the very essence of the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Those who scream about activist judges, generally have a very POOR understanding of the legal system when they go off on their emotional tirades.
In my opinion, if people want to limit marriage WITHIN A CHURCH DOCTRINE to 'a man and a woman', FINE! However it is not the legal constitutional right of the government to do so. Why not have ALL marriages be allowed by the government (or none) and let those who choose to make their commitment before their God do so within their church without legal sanction. In Germany, as I understand it, the ONLY marriages that have legal binding are those sanctioned by the government. If a couple wishes to further make their vow before their God, that is welcome, but has no standing in law. The church wedding has no legal standing.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Imagine THAT! Integrity from judges. Many yell that they want STRICT interpretation of their beloved Constitutions by the judges, but when they get it, they hate the idea. Congratulations to the 4 who stood by their vow to make thier rulings be based on legal merit. A pox on the 4 who did not.
(I ma just kidding, of course those 3 felt they too were ruling on the legal merit. sometimes legal minds DO disagree on what that is.
Oh, referring to my "German law" comments above:
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This is not a hot button issue for me, but I think the problem with activist judges is that they break precedents, when it fits their cause. It is NOT an emotional tirade ...
Of course those tirades happen on all sides all the time ... but that is not the issue with activist judges.
As a non constitutional matter ... I don't see the point in giving tax breaks to couples ... except I thought the idea was to make it easier for families to raise children. Other than that, I'm not sure what the point is ... or why people even need a legal contract to be united ... so much. Children need protection I guess, spouses not as much ... maybe ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
notinKansasanymore
I agree with Rhino that children need protection, and I'm willing to bet that any wife who's helped her husband rise up the corporate ladder, only to find herself replaced by a trophy wife, believes that spouses need protection, as well.
I also know both Rhino and George, and think that they'd get along really well, and have a great time discussing this over a brewski. Let's all use this as a great excuse to get together for beer and brats!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I guess I just don't understand the vitriol and emotion that this topic seems to generate.
Geeze, there are already LOTS of gay people living together and doing all that evil, unapproved-by-God, perverted, sexual stuff.
And, if truth be known, there likely has been since we started walking upright (or since the Garden of Eden, if you prefer).
What possible difference could it make to the good, upright, God-fearing, straight portion of society if these folks want to enter into a legally binding contract with each other? We've had wonderful, reactionary things like the "Defence of Marriage Act" and various and sundry demonstrations and tirades from the pulpit, but to what end? Is prohibiting gay people from marrying REALLY going to make my marriage any better? (not likely) Or yours? Just what is it we're protecting by such prohibitions?
If gays really WANT to get married, hell, why not? Then they'll be able to experience the wonderful blessings of divorce someday, as well. Gee, won't that be special?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
There are also different ways of looking at the constitutions .. so considering three judges were in dissent, it would seem it is not perfectly clear cut. If it needs to be clarified, people should elect representatives that will clarify the constitution. I think that would work ...
It is usually interesting to read the decision and the dissent ... I'm too lazy on this one ... right now ...
Well, OK .... here is another view ... that the judges were acting on their own ... they did not break precedent, they set it ... by themselves. It seems people decided one thing ... judges decided to make a category to put this in that makes it "illegal" ... but it is based on their opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
I never said that man's laws were God-given.
I said that God gave man laws. Those, of course, ARE the ones in the Scriptures.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Well fortunately (or unfortunately-depending on your view) we dont live in a theocracy.
Iran was close for awhile--Al Qaeda is trying---our system evolved out of the era of divine kingdoms-- somehow that stuff never quite works in a practical way--no matter how many times it is tried---but because you still have the freedom to choose, no one is forcing you to go against your own personal interpretation of scripture for your own life.
If you are given that freedom to live as you choose, which I assume you think is a good deal, why do yo feel compelled to restrict the same freedom of choice to others?
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
Well stated IMNSHO. The argument of popular vote is mute about constitutional law vs statutory law. BTW Adolph Hitler was elected by an overwhelming popular vote. While I reserve the right to disagree with certain judicial decisions I have the utmost respect for the judges who sit daily and have to make those decisions.
Further I don't see why this is such a big deal. Whether gay marriage is legal or not is not going to change one whit about gay partners living together - whether "god" approves or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Homosexuals have the freedom to live as the choose, but homosexual marriage is different that heterosexual marriage .. is it not? It is NOT equal.
The concept of family is part of our culture ... raising children ... blah blah ... so we have (mostly Christian) people forming a constitution ... and laws. The family unit that bears and raises children is a foundational aspect of our country.
A "gay union" is different from that.
The state (of CA) specifically distinguished the same sex couples from heterosexual marriages. But the (activist?) judges determined purely on their own, that this should be in the category of "equal protection". ipse dixit, "it's this way because I say it is"... that is the rule the judges used, not precedent or the constitution or the voters.
The court actually seemed to try to cover for themselves by saying the state "emphatically rejected" the "distinct designation" ... but that was false ... the state emphatically MADE the distinction. The court emphatically rejected the state and came up with their own decision ... ispe dixit ... (the state, it is I) ... and they rejected the vote of the people.
It is NOT based on the constitution ... it is purely a judgment of the judges, out of the blue ... even though the state and the people (64%) believe otherwise. So it does seem an activist judgment to me ...
Just ask yourself ... is there a distinction between the family unit you were raised in, or the one you raised ... and the average homosexual union? Are there any qualities of the traditional family unit that might be beneficial to the child ... over the average gay unit?
of course there is ... but five of these eight California judges determined for the whole state that they (soley them, not the constitution or state or previous judgment) would determine that the two were EQUAL.
the state .. It is them ... (not you or your elected officials)
anyway ... that seems fairly clear to me ... at this point .... but I don't know the ramifications of nixing the distinction. AFAIK, they had the same rights, just a different designation. I think married heterosexual couples raising a traditional family is a solid foundational thing ... and could be distinguished fairly ...
Families raising their kids seems "American" and good ... I'm not sure why the is such a desire from the left to "denigrate" it.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I'm probably wasting my time here, but here's a moment to perhaps lighten things up. As usual, there is adult language and content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
always good to hear Lewis!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.