Marriage in California

[Stereodude]

There is a serious problem with your argument. More recent amendments alter what is in force. Thus, if there is a conflict between the 10th and 14th amendments, the 14th is the one that is binding. This is the meaning of an "amendment"; it is a change to what was. And as for whether or not the 14th amendment gives the right to marriage or not, it states "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If straight people have a right to marriage, then it is arguable that denying this right to gay people is a violation of "equal protection." But I will leave it to the lawyers to argue whether or not that is a correct interpretation. My point is simply this: Any amendment after the 10th, if it conflicts with the 10th in any way, then the later amendment is the one that has legal force. Earlier amendments can be reduced to nothing in such a manner (as, for example, the 18th amendment, which is now totally irrelevant to the law), or they can be only partly curtailed, depending upon whatever is stated in a newer amendment.

Well, then we should use the 14th Amendment to eliminate the age requirements for holding federal public office since younger people are being discriminated against and aren't getting equal protection under the law. People who aren't natural born US citizens are being discriminated against because they can't be president. They're not getting equal protection under the law and clearly the 14th Amendment being newer should trump the older Constitution.

 

[JerryLove]

Sorry, but in order to take the position the judge did you must assume that marriage by it's traditional definition deprives a select group of people equality under the law. Further, if you follow that logic you must also conclude that marriage is also discriminatory to anyone who wants to marry regardless of who, what or how many someone of it they want to marry. They're not getting equal protection under the law.

Now you've changed arguments.

Before you were arguing a lack of sovereignty. That's a non-starter. I'll assume we both agree that it is indeed within the power of the court to overturn California law for violation of the constitution?

Moving on then:
You start with a pretty reasonable assertion: that "separate but equal" marriages are not a violation of equality under the law. That's certainly something that could be argued. Sadly: you then move into a slippery-slope argument, as though the consequences of that fact will somehow change the truth of it.

Yes. I have difficulty finding a legal reason to deny any persons in the US, legally able to consent, the ability to enter into a legal marriage. Very large marriages could be rather convoluted... but then so are corporations.

Well, then we should use the 14th Amendment to eliminate the age requirements for holding federal public office since younger people are being discriminated against and aren't getting equal protection under the law. People who aren't natural born US citizens are being discriminated against because they can't be president. They're not getting equal protection under the law and clearly the 14th Amendment being newer should trump the older Constitution.

I agree that we should: but I also notice you've moved to job requirements and joined those to the discussion as though they are entirely like civil contracts. Clearly they are not... or do you propose quotas on minority marriages (hey, this slippery-slope fallacy is fun )

 

[highfigh]

The election of any major political position around the world is historic. They go down in the history books as significant events.

That was my point. Beating it into peoples' heads just makes them think it means more than it does. Yes, it was historic because he's half Black and IMO, it gave a lot of people hope that they never had before but that alone shouldn't have been the reason he was elected. For many, I think it was, because many people registered and voted for the first time in that election and it's not because they had just turned 18. I think it was definitely a turning point in our country. Considering the fact that Blacks couldn't eat, use a drinking fountain, stay in a motel/hotel or be served in many places because of "Whites only" policies less than 50 years ago, his being elected President would be very surprising to those who were in favor of the old ways.

I think this country is schizophrenic- less than 2 years ago, a man who's half Black was elected President and now, I see people saying that America has more work to do WRT racism than ever. The polls showed that he received a lot of votes from Whites, too.

The last part of your post was just TMI.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Why do you people make this leap that allowing same sex marriages will lead to people marring sheep?

...

I don't understand that either. Must be a distraction as it cannot be a reality. Why would anyone want to marry a sheep? What it is that you can get from that sheep after marriage that you cannot get before it? A prenup? Divorce? Property division? Spousal support?

When one has no argument, silly suppositions can be put forth and many will jump on it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It illustrates the fact that people get into something without fully appreciating the seriousness of the commitment. ...!

Serious commitment doesn't need marriage, it works on that commitment. Marriage is for legal reasons today, many other reasons in history, not necessarily for love or kids as the latter can be had without. It is a mind game.

 

[mtrycrafts]

It also "worked back then" for some of the same reasons that it currently works in some other cultures: cultural pressure to remain married.

When you can't get a divorce without the religious authority approving it, and when society will shun you, and you cannot earn a living on your own, and when the police simply return you to your husband if you escape... you tend to remain married.

Oh, like forced bondage?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I've actually heard from numerous folks that the opposite is true. I'd strongly disagree with this assessment. Pre-marital relations takes away one of the incentives in a marriage.

What is that incentive? Again, it is a made up construct by people in power and authority.

 

[mtrycrafts]

....
Uh... There's just one problem, the people of California voted in an overwhelming majority to amend their constitution to define marriage a certain way, and an activist in a black robe who disagreed with the 7 million people who voted for the amendment decided to stop it. So, the size or popularity of the special interest group was irrelevant. ....

You mean a 52% vote is overwhelming? What is it today? Maybe they should put it up for another election; perhaps it would only be 49% today.

Why is that judge an activist? You didn't like his ruling makes him an activist? Did you read any of the evidence and reasoning for his decision? People just cannot create unconstitutional ballots no matter if it is 90% of them in favor.
Majority of people are wrong many times and overruled.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
In this case, the 5th and 14th amendments can only be seen to apply to "people" or "citizens", neither of which sheep / TV's fit into.

I want to change the constitution then. I want to give them rights and equality.

...
No. The problem here is not a "will of the people" issue. The only arguable point is the interpretation of the constitution of the US.

Exactly.
If not for the constitution, we might still be in the dark ages.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Because an activist in a robe decided the feds had some say. Hopefully they the SCOTUS will uphold the Constitution and let the states exercise their rights.

Yes, but that exercise still cannot go against the US constitution. And, it will not. May want to check what Scallia had to say when the Georgia law was overturned many years ago about sodomy laws.

 

[JerryLove]

Oh, like forced bondage?

I can make a girl do anything she wants.

 

[mtrycrafts]

He means Eye-talians.

My geography is poor. Where are they on the map?

 

[Chu Gai]

My geography is poor. Where are they on the map?

Brooklyn. Also in the Little Italy part of Manhattan.

 

[GirgleMirt]

People should note that they are referring to civil marriage here, and not holy matrimony. So that said, I don't see why gays shouldn't have the right to be married by the state and enjoy the same legal conditions as heterosexual couples.

Religious marriage, in all honesty, is a joke anyhow. Some people say gays make a mockery of marriage. They're absolutely right, but what they don't mention is that heteros have been making a mockery of marriage for the longest time too. People get married in church and divorced all the time. The sacred vows in front of god and all that ****, bullshit, the christians utters the vows like it's nothing and break them on a whim, they have no real intent of honoring the vows, they get married multiple times, they make a mockery of marriage anyhow.

The problem at the root here, again, is religion. It all spawns from the homophobic church. Who cares if gays and lesbians get married. Seriously, WHO CARES?! Those who care are the religious idiots who view marriage as sacred. That's pretty much it. Ironically, it's exactly the same morons who made a mockery of marriage themselves.

Also note also that gays and lesbians aren't the only group christians discriminate against. The church won't marry two people of different religions for example. Or even a christian with a non-christian (atheist) I believe. So really, who gives a **** about what the church/pope has to say, they can go f*** themselves, all those medieval beliefs have no place in civilized society anyhow.

Church hating gays and lesbians... Homophobia... lmao. How ridiculous can you get? Still, religion soldiers on...

Question for those who oppose it, why do you oppose it? Why do you even care? I'm hetero, and I don't care in the least... Why should you care if two gays/lesbians get married?

Hell, take even me, I hate the church and religion, but was ironically asked to be best man for a christian marriage. Guess what, I did not qualify because although I was baptized, I did not do my first communion, lmao! Can't say I was upset in the least, but still, they managed to find a church which would allow such a religious bastard as myself to serve as best man... sigh... To state the obvious: Religion is ridiculous. People shouldn't let it affect or influence their lives/thoughts/actions/etc. We'd be much better off without it.

 

[Gizmologist]

Funny thing

Jesus did not say a single word about homosexuality (word was coined in 1898).

Ever wonder about the priests who rail against it yet have a penchant for little boys and love to wear faaaaaaaabulous flowing robes with lacey pinafores and pretty hats and jewelry while spritzing everyone with "holy" tap water and swishing about with decanters of just lucious incense?

Just saying.......

 

[Alex2507]

GirgleMirt,

Look at what went on in communist countries where religion was practically illegal. You were way better off being gay in the bible belt here than anywhere over there. So religion doesn't make people behave like idiots and ignoring that shows you have an axe to grind. The constant attacks on religious people from you are what's bullshit. Constantly insulting, provoking and attacking roughly 95% of the population in this country makes you like super troll. We've been through this before but it's good to see you're not letting up.

BTW, I don't care if Rick and Doug tie the knot or not.

 

[GirgleMirt]

Look at what went on in communist countries where religion was practically illegal.

What does past communism countries have to do with this discussion? The answer is nothing... Your strawman falls flat on its face... Absence of religion does not equate homophobia or homosexual persecution in the least. Quite the contrary if you look at how the church treats homosexuals... (muslims, christians, etc...). The christian church publicly opposes same sex marriage, can't get more obvious than that...

You were way better off being gay in the bible belt here than anywhere over there.

Maybe, still reprehensible that the church is homophobic, discriminates vs homosexuals, persecutes them, etc...

Fact is, most religions are homophobic. Is this acceptable today? Does this belong in our modern society?

Homosexuality: What Does God Say About It?

The first reference to homosexuality in Scripture is in the infamous account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. The wickedness of the men of that city is obvious and is of such a severe nature that it brought divine destruction upon the entire city. Both Peter and Jude make reference to it and describe the sin of homosexuality as " ungodly, lawless, unnatural and extreme immorality" (see 2 Peter 2:6, 8; Jude 7).

In Leviticus 18:22 and 24 homosexuality is described as an "abomination" and "defiling." It is reprehensible and unclean.

In Leviticus 20:13 it is again described as an "abomination" but here as one worthy of the death penalty!

Deuteronomy 23:17 forbade the presence of a "sodomite" in the land of Israel.

An incident similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah is seen again in Judges 19. Again the sin of homosexuality is described as "wickedness."

In 1 Kings 14, 15, and 22 the removal of male prostitutes from the land of Israel is viewed as a sign of much-needed spiritual reformation.

The prohibition in Deuteronomy 22:5 of women wearing men's clothing appears to be a specific condemnation of transvestism.

In Romans 1:18-32 the apostle Paul condemns the practice in the severest terms. Homosexuality is "unclean," "impure," "dishonoring to the body," "vile," "degrading / disgraceful," "contrary to nature," "unseemly/ obscene," "improper activity of a depraved mind," "unrighteous," "wicked," etc. Of particular importance to the apostle in this passage is the fact that homosexuality is "unnatural"--contrary to nature. In other words, nature itself teaches that the practice is wrong; we all know it intuitively. Homosexuality is, then, a particularly rebellious sin.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 the apostle Paul speaks of homosexuals as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" who "shall not inherit the kingdom of God." The terms he uses here seem to be specific references to both active and the passive participants in a homosexual relationship. Such people are "unrighteous," he says, and if they remain in that practice they will be condemned.

From all this we can draw at least the following three conclusions:

1) Homosexuality is contrary to Scripture. There is no way to speak of any kind of acceptable or "Christian" homosexuality. There is never any allowance for it. It is never anything but sinful.

2) Homosexuality is contrary to nature. It is a particularly rebellious sin, a violation even of one's own conscience.

3) Homosexuality is worthy of severe judgment. The Mosaic law prescribed the death penalty for this sin. The apostle Paul specified that such people have excluded themselves from the salvation that is in Christ Jesus and are headed toward condemnation.

Is this acceptable? Seriously? Sounds quite like hate speech to me... Oooh, but it's religion... You must respect it! Can't say anything against religion...

The constant attacks on religious people from you are what's bullshit. Constantly insulting, provoking and attacking roughly 95% of the population in this country makes you like super troll. We've been through this before but it's good to see you're not letting up.

BTW, I don't care if Rick and Doug tie the knot or not.

You'll have to be more precise here. What statement do you refer to? That heteros have been making a mockery of marriage? That they're the same morons who get divorced, remarry, and then claim that gays make a mockery of marriage? That the bigots who oppose gay marriage do so on religious grounds? Which do you have issue with, and why?

If you're getting fed up that people point to the church for such issues as bigotry vs homosexuals, use of condoms being unholy, abortion shouldn't be legal, etc. then maybe you should try to reform the church instead of whining against those who raise the issues...

You know, if the church stopped prodding their sheep into persecuting homosexuals, religion wouldn't have entered the discussion. But hey, it directly opposes gay marriage. Not just in its churches, it also wants to decide what the state can/can't do, and what gays and lesbians can and can't do. Ridiculous. Of course I have an axe to grind, any sane man should, and should oppose religious bigotry and medieval values which affect the lives of millions of people... Shame on you in defending this laudable organization...

 

[Alex2507]

What does past communism countries have to do with this discussion?

You brought religion into it and I showed that an absence of religion didn't help.

You'll have to be more precise here.

Not really. The cut and paste trick from the advanced trolling class you graduated is mighty impressive though. Still bucking for reds as ever. I could help if you like.

 

[3db]

GirgleMirt,

Look at what went on in communist countries where religion was practically illegal. You were way better off being gay in the bible belt here than anywhere over there. So religion doesn't make people behave like idiots and ignoring that shows you have an axe to grind. The constant attacks on religious people from you are what's bullshit. Constantly insulting, provoking and attacking roughly 95% of the population in this country makes you like super troll. We've been through this before but it's good to see you're not letting up.

BTW, I don't care if Rick and Doug tie the knot or not.

I agree with ya whole heartedly with you on this. Its not relegion itself but how the people interpret it.

Girgle.
You sound as bad as the church was during the crusades preaching intolerance of things different. Stop reading headlines and dig into the news a little deeper.

Oh and one more thing, stop quoting the Bible becuase you don't know what you are talking about. Believe it or not, the Bible was written in laymen terms so everryone at that time could understand the message. Translate that a few times like it has, cobined with the evolution of the langugaes and the meaning gets lost/changes. Quoting scripture is the exact same thing as taking a quote from a newspaper. It loses meaning and context.

 

[gmichael]

I don't care if Rick and Doug tie the knot or not.

I didn't even know they were dating. Good for them. Now they won't have to live in sin anymore.
I think.