Page 2 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Twolf
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 8 Sep 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 481
Location: Space.

05 Aug 2010, 3:34 pm

Zara wrote:
Fundamental rights should not be decided by popular vote.
The Bill of Rights was not decided by popular vote for example.

Something like Prop 8 should have never came up for popular vote in the first place.


+1



cyberscan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida

05 Aug 2010, 4:12 pm

Zara wrote:
Fundamental rights should not be decided by popular vote.
The Bill of Rights was not decided by popular vote for example.

Something like Prop 8 should have never came up for popular vote in the first place.


Redefining marriage is not a fundamental right. This is what was up for vote, not a denial of fundamental rights.


_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."


JSchoolboy
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 10 Nov 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 93
Location: Southern California, USA

05 Aug 2010, 5:15 pm

cyberscan wrote:
Zara wrote:
Fundamental rights should not be decided by popular vote.
The Bill of Rights was not decided by popular vote for example.

Something like Prop 8 should have never came up for popular vote in the first place.


Redefining marriage is not a fundamental right. This is what was up for vote, not a denial of fundamental rights.


Whatever the "purpose" of Prop 8, the effect was to deny gay people the right to be married in California. That is the right that people are referring to, and that is what the court decided was unconstitutional.

JSB



cyberscan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida

05 Aug 2010, 5:34 pm

JSchoolboy wrote:
cyberscan wrote:
Zara wrote:
Fundamental rights should not be decided by popular vote.
The Bill of Rights was not decided by popular vote for example.

Something like Prop 8 should have never came up for popular vote in the first place.


Redefining marriage is not a fundamental right. This is what was up for vote, not a denial of fundamental rights.


Whatever the "purpose" of Prop 8, the effect was to deny gay people the right to be married in California. That is the right that people are referring to, and that is what the court decided was unconstitutional.

JSB


Gay people have the right to get married just the same as heterosexual people. They have always had that right. They just choose not to exercise that right. What the judge did in this case is to redefine marriage in spite of the legitimate vote of over 7 million people. Marriage is between men and women. This is the way it has been for thousands of years. If the law forbade people from living with one another, then I would see where the judge would have a point, but that is not what prop 8 did.


_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

05 Aug 2010, 5:49 pm

cyberscan,

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Suggesting that gay people have the same right to be married as heterosexual people is an utter falsehood. Since consummation is a necessary component of marriage at common law (and in canon law, for that matter), the right of a gay person to marry is constrained by that person's willingness to consummate the marriage, and the willingness of a person of the opposite sex to be married to a person who has no interest in consummating the marriage.

As for cohabitation, it is well established in law that "separate but equal" does not meet the requirements of equal protection. You can't set up a water fountain for "coloureds" next to one for "whites only" and you can't set up "registered partnerships" for gay citizens next to marriage for "heteros only."

Your argument fails in both canon law and common law, and more to the point, it fails in common sense.

The church is free to refuse to marry couples it chooses not to allow to marry. I don't see any court suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is obliged to marry divorced members, and I don't foresee any court suggesting that a religious institution would be obliged to marry a same sex couple.

But civil authorities are quite another matter, and outside the reach of doctrine.


_________________
--James


cyberscan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida

05 Aug 2010, 5:57 pm

visagrunt wrote:
cyberscan,

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Suggesting that gay people have the same right to be married as heterosexual people is an utter falsehood. Since consummation is a necessary component of marriage at common law (and in canon law, for that matter), the right of a gay person to marry is constrained by that person's willingness to consummate the marriage, and the willingness of a person of the opposite sex to be married to a person who has no interest in consummating the marriage.

As for cohabitation, it is well established in law that "separate but equal" does not meet the requirements of equal protection. You can't set up a water fountain for "coloureds" next to one for "whites only" and you can't set up "registered partnerships" for gay citizens next to marriage for "heteros only."

Your argument fails in both canon law and common law, and more to the point, it fails in common sense.

The church is free to refuse to marry couples it chooses not to allow to marry. I don't see any court suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is obliged to marry divorced members, and I don't foresee any court suggesting that a religious institution would be obliged to marry a same sex couple.

But civil authorities are quite another matter, and outside the reach of doctrine.


Like I said before, gays always had the right to get married. Many refuse to do so. As far as the R.C.C. and other religious institutions being compelled to accept and "marry" gays, that will soon come, and the vote of the people be damned. What this judge has done is turn on its head thousands of years of precedent as well as the vote of the people. As far as the water fountain analogy is concerned, you are comparing apples to oranges. We effectively live in a Communist dictatorship rather than a constitutional republic. Our vote no longer counts.


_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."


Steffy
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 62
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

05 Aug 2010, 8:19 pm

I would like to point out that declaring Prop 8 as unconstitutional only leaves out the words expressing that under California law, prop 8 would make legal marriage only between a man and a woman. People claiming that children will be forced to learn that gay marriage is ok is bs. If a parent doesn't want their children learning that, then the school, under the law, can't force that child to learn that. Also, the churches aren't required to marry gay couples because the law also says that churches can't be forced to do something that is contrary to their beliefs.
People can still be against gay marriage if they want to, but I don't think that you should have a say in something that doesn't really affect you or the way you live. While churches frown upon gay marriage and homosexuality, they also recommend that everyone should be tolerant and respectful of everyone else. Treat others like you would like to be treated.


_________________
I am a person. People are awesome.


Shenandoah
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 4 Aug 2010
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 2

05 Aug 2010, 10:52 pm

I'm a Christian, and I support the judge's decision. I see no reason why two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry. As for the whole "marrying a goat" argument, when was the last time a goat gave consent to be married...? It's all about consent.
So a majority of Californians voted for Prop 8.. just because a (very slim) majority of Californians supported it doesn't make it right.. I'm sure a majority of South Carolinians would have voted in 1860 to allow slavery.. does that make it right? If a majority of a state voted to ban interracial marriages.. would you be opposed to a judge turning that over?



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,473
Location: Houston, Texas

05 Aug 2010, 11:43 pm

Shenandoah wrote:
I'm a Christian, and I support the judge's decision. I see no reason why two consenting adults should not be allowed to marry. As for the whole "marrying a goat" argument, when was the last time a goat gave consent to be married...? It's all about consent.
So a majority of Californians voted for Prop 8.. just because a (very slim) majority of Californians supported it doesn't make it right.. I'm sure a majority of South Carolinians would have voted in 1860 to allow slavery.. does that make it right? If a majority of a state voted to ban interracial marriages.. would you be opposed to a judge turning that over?


I agree with you 100%.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!

Now proficient in ChatGPT!


mnmaria20
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 17

06 Aug 2010, 12:34 am

this is a very nice and excellent web site.



mnmaria20
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 17

06 Aug 2010, 12:35 am

about to this languages which is one of the best web site and giving the confidence for reading.



mnmaria20
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 17

06 Aug 2010, 12:36 am

every one like to visit and read its all future.



mnmaria20
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 17

06 Aug 2010, 12:37 am

i was just reading and getting the information about religion.



Horus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302
Location: A rock in the milky way

06 Aug 2010, 12:53 am

visagrunt wrote:
cyberscan,

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Suggesting that gay people have the same right to be married as heterosexual people is an utter falsehood. Since consummation is a necessary component of marriage at common law (and in canon law, for that matter), the right of a gay person to marry is constrained by that person's willingness to consummate the marriage, and the willingness of a person of the opposite sex to be married to a person who has no interest in consummating the marriage.

As for cohabitation, it is well established in law that "separate but equal" does not meet the requirements of equal protection. You can't set up a water fountain for "coloureds" next to one for "whites only" and you can't set up "registered partnerships" for gay citizens next to marriage for "heteros only."

Your argument fails in both canon law and common law, and more to the point, it fails in common sense.

The church is free to refuse to marry couples it chooses not to allow to marry. I don't see any court suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is obliged to marry divorced members, and I don't foresee any court suggesting that a religious institution would be obliged to marry a same sex couple.

But civil authorities are quite another matter, and outside the reach of doctrine.



For some ungodly reason visagrunt, it would appear your argument here has roared over cyberscan's head like a Stuka
dive bomber.

:roll:



cyberscan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida

06 Aug 2010, 12:24 pm

Horus wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
cyberscan,

Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Suggesting that gay people have the same right to be married as heterosexual people is an utter falsehood. Since consummation is a necessary component of marriage at common law (and in canon law, for that matter), the right of a gay person to marry is constrained by that person's willingness to consummate the marriage, and the willingness of a person of the opposite sex to be married to a person who has no interest in consummating the marriage.

As for cohabitation, it is well established in law that "separate but equal" does not meet the requirements of equal protection. You can't set up a water fountain for "coloureds" next to one for "whites only" and you can't set up "registered partnerships" for gay citizens next to marriage for "heteros only."

Your argument fails in both canon law and common law, and more to the point, it fails in common sense.

The church is free to refuse to marry couples it chooses not to allow to marry. I don't see any court suggesting that the Roman Catholic church is obliged to marry divorced members, and I don't foresee any court suggesting that a religious institution would be obliged to marry a same sex couple.

But civil authorities are quite another matter, and outside the reach of doctrine.



For some ungodly reason visagrunt, it would appear your argument here has roared over cyberscan's head like a Stuka
dive bomber.

:roll:


I understand peoples' arguments here completely. You all who are for this judge' overriding of the peoples' will will find out that this is only a small step. If a judge can violate the constitution as well as override the will of the people, what makes you think that it won't be done when a gay couple complains about a church not performing a same sex "wedding." As cannon and common law is concerned, name one example of a gay couple getting "married" 40 years ago. Marriage requires a bride and a groom. Who is the bride, and who is the groom? What this judge did is redefine marriage itself. I just wonder who made him god.

All law in a free society is based upon morals. It is against the law to murder because it is immoral to do so. It is against the law to steal because it is immoral to do so. Most of the voters say that marriage is between a man and a woman. This too, is based upon a moral argument. Now, if gay couples wanted a civil union or partnership which had the same legal benefits as marriage, then the people may very well have voted in favor of it. Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. business owners will be forced to grant same sex couples the same insurance benefits as married couples despite their moral and religious objections to doing so. This infringes upon their religious freedoms. The voters of California decided that the several thousand year definition of marriage was the correct one and voted to make sure that that definition would be upheld. The vote was deemed constitutional by courts as well as election officials before it even made it to the ballot. One biased government official took it upon himself to override the entire vote and process and say f*** you to the people of California.

What is next? Incestuous marriage? Multiple partner marriages? Euthanasia? When Communists decide to take over a government, one of the biggest tasks involved in doing so is to overthrow the traditional nuclear family. The easiest way to do that is to redefine the basic building block of the nuclear family, and that is based upon marriage.

The next step may be the changing of the definition of man, woman, or child. If a judge can presume to change the definition of marriage, then he or she can change the definitions of any other concept in spite of the wishes of the people or the thousands of years of precedent. The people know what marriage is, they know what a man, woman, or child is, and they have even went as far as telling the state government and court what marriage is. Now, a single judge is dictating to the people that marriage is not what it is.


_________________
I am AUTISTIC - Always Unique, Totally Interesting, Straight Talking, Intelligently Conversational.
I am also the author of "Tech Tactics Money Saving Secrets" and "Tech Tactics Publishing and Production Secrets."


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

06 Aug 2010, 2:12 pm

The divorce rate in America is over 50%. The institution of marriage as it exists in America today is a farce.
I think all secular (read government sanctioned) marriage should be replaced by the civil union and open to any two consenting adults.

Since the fundies want to make a fuss about marriage as this super-sacred thing, I think we should give the babies their bottle.
I think marriage should be a sacred contract between a man and a woman and breakable only by death or by proof of some sort of truly heinous abuse.

Further, I think any man and woman engaged in a marriage must be compelled to live together until such time as the marriage is dissolved by the conditions stated above. Also, I think any violation of the sacred marriage contract, such as adultery, should be punishable by a lengthy prison sentence.

Do that and I bet you won’t see many fundies bitchin’… or getting married. :roll:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus