Prop 8 Struck Down
GoonSquad
Veteran
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
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.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
When the will of the people is in violation of the Constitution, what prevails? The whole point of rule of law is that no person, and no group of people (not even a majority) is above the law.
What provision of the constitution has the court violated? It is entirely within the jurisdiction of the court to exercise judicial review of any decision of the electorate or the legislature and determine whether that decision is consistent with the constitution.
Given that no divorced Roman Catholic has successfull sued for the right to be remarried by the Church, your argument is alarmist, and of no probative value.
Law is a dynamic thing. A couple of centuries ago a woman was a chattel of her husband. Does that me that all women must be chattels of their husband's today? Of course not. If the law is constrained from any innovation, then black children would still be in separate schools in Alabama, today.
I disagree. Because morality is a personal thing, there can never be one standard of morality, and hence there cannot be one standard of law. But the law must be consistent for all citizens within a jurisdiction. I may think that it is morally correct to withhold that portion of my taxes that supports my Government's military intervention in Afghanistan, but that moral view has no weight at law. On the other hand, I think that same-sex marriage is perfectly moral when celebrated between two consenting adults. So whose moral view is superior.
The simple answer is, of course, that the superiority of moral views is irrelevant, because the law is amoral. The law exists to provide a framework for civilized behaviour. There are certainly offences that are malum in se but that is not the jurisprudential basis for their criminalization.
That's irrelevant. It's not the question that was put, and it was not the subject of the litigation.
Is a muslim in secular business free to refuse to hire a woman because of his religious views? If your religious views do not permit you to do business the way that the law requires you do to business, you are free to refrain from doing business. If you hire people, you obey the law. If you give your employees employment benefits, you obey the law. Religious views are a not a free pass outside of their proper sphere.
More accurately, the voters of California decided to say f*** you to the Constitution of the United States, and the Court has told them that they are not free to do so.
Again with the alarmism. The issue here is monogamous, same sex marriage. If someone brings an action to legitimate one of these other issues, then the Court will deal with it at that time.
Definitions at law do change. The definition of man and woman has already been changed in the last 60 years because of new insights into sexual dimorphism in humans, and the availability of sex reassignment surgery. The definition of a child has changed. When parents divorce and remarry, the relationship of the child to its step-parents is not one that was conceived in the legal definition of a child even 100 years ago (let alone thousands).
The law must speak in the present tense.
_________________
--James
cyberscan
Veteran
Joined: 16 Apr 2008
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,296
Location: Near Panama, City Florida
When the will of the people is in violation of the Constitution, what prevails? The whole point of rule of law is that no person, and no group of people (not even a majority) is above the law.
What provision of the constitution has the court violated? It is entirely within the jurisdiction of the court to exercise judicial review of any decision of the electorate or the legislature and determine whether that decision is consistent with the constitution.
Given that no divorced Roman Catholic has successfull sued for the right to be remarried by the Church, your argument is alarmist, and of no probative value.
Law is a dynamic thing. A couple of centuries ago a woman was a chattel of her husband. Does that me that all women must be chattels of their husband's today? Of course not. If the law is constrained from any innovation, then black children would still be in separate schools in Alabama, today.
I disagree. Because morality is a personal thing, there can never be one standard of morality, and hence there cannot be one standard of law. But the law must be consistent for all citizens within a jurisdiction. I may think that it is morally correct to withhold that portion of my taxes that supports my Government's military intervention in Afghanistan, but that moral view has no weight at law. On the other hand, I think that same-sex marriage is perfectly moral when celebrated between two consenting adults. So whose moral view is superior.
The simple answer is, of course, that the superiority of moral views is irrelevant, because the law is amoral. The law exists to provide a framework for civilized behaviour. There are certainly offences that are malum in se but that is not the jurisprudential basis for their criminalization.
That's irrelevant. It's not the question that was put, and it was not the subject of the litigation.
Is a muslim in secular business free to refuse to hire a woman because of his religious views? If your religious views do not permit you to do business the way that the law requires you do to business, you are free to refrain from doing business. If you hire people, you obey the law. If you give your employees employment benefits, you obey the law. Religious views are a not a free pass outside of their proper sphere.
More accurately, the voters of California decided to say f*** you to the Constitution of the United States, and the Court has told them that they are not free to do so.
Again with the alarmism. The issue here is monogamous, same sex marriage. If someone brings an action to legitimate one of these other issues, then the Court will deal with it at that time.
Definitions at law do change. The definition of man and woman has already been changed in the last 60 years because of new insights into sexual dimorphism in humans, and the availability of sex reassignment surgery. The definition of a child has changed. When parents divorce and remarry, the relationship of the child to its step-parents is not one that was conceived in the legal definition of a child even 100 years ago (let alone thousands).
The law must speak in the present tense.
They are free to discriminate against autistic people. Businesses are free to NOT hire someone because they are autistic. However, the constitution prohibits GOVERNMENT from refusing to hire women. Speaking even with today's interpretation of the constitution, there is SPECIFIC protections put in place for women as well different races.
There is no specific protections within the constitution dealing with how people decide to conduct their sex lives.
What provision of the constitution has the court violated? It is entirely within the jurisdiction of the court to exercise judicial review of any decision of the electorate or the legislature and determine whether that decision is consistent with the constitution. There is no legal basis whatsoever for this judge to decide to redefine marriage. Marriage falls under state jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the people. In this case BOTH decided to keep the same definition of marriage that has has been for thousands of years. The fourteenth amendment makes no mention of one's sexual preference if you are going to try the equal protection card. Gays have always have had the right to marry just as any heterosexual.
Again with the alarmism. The issue here is monogamous, same sex marriage. If someone brings an action to legitimate one of these other issues, then the Court will deal with it at that time.
Yes, and the court will allow all of these too even against vote of the people. Government's role is to protect society, but increasingly, many have taken it upon themselves to destroy society.
You wonder why the divorce rate is so high? At work here is the use of government to destroy the very basis of free society. Once this is done, then NONE of us will be able to enjoy rights, including gays. If one can change the very meaning of things at the whim of some judge, group of legislators, voters, or other bureaucrats, then we have little hope of retaining freedom. Don't like autistic people? Change the meaning of human to a definition that includes something that autistic people are not known to be capable of doing. Autistic people lose the exercise of human 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."
Anyways...
Hooray for Prop 8 being struck down!
_________________
"Power is the reason that we all are fighting for, control your body, your soul and heart. Yes- some of us who surrender are like lambs to the slaughter; get the power & try harder to reach the next stage."
-SMT III