Prop 8

[richalisoviejo]

Flawed argument. Nice try though.

That's your problem. You don't understand that facts matter in a debate. For instance, you may harbor a belief that the earth is flat. It's a silly belief, but you maintain it despite all the facts that are provided to prove that the earth is round. No one can change your "opinion" with the facts because you desire to remain in the dark ages. Most of the arguments you gave against gay marriage are built on appeals to "ideal" conditions that simply don't exist. The list goes on. As is often the case with such a charged topic as this, ideology trumps observation every time.

Again, if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.

As I’ve stated as well as others Marriage is not a religious institution. Marriage is a CIVIL institution that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with CIVIL law. Because the state government (and not religious institutions) controls entry, any barriers must be (at a minimum) rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The state has no legitimate interest whatsoever in preventing homosexual couples from entering a marriage. It makes no difference that you, in your prejudice desire the reserve the "grammar" for yourself.

Now try reading the thread again from the beginning and give me an example why two gay people should not be allowed the same rights as two straight people.

 

[chadk]

Rich, when and where did I say anything about "the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis"? You keep setting up straw men to knock down. But that one sided type of discussion is getting tiring.

Recap - I never mentioned bestiality. I never mentioned non-consenting adult relationships. I never said marriage is a religious institution. I never said marriage is only intended for reproduction.

So let's focus like a laser on what I really said



So back to the "marriage is a civil institution dependent on civil law". What do you think people did for marriage before the US gov got involved? What do you think people do for marriage who live in other countries where they don't have civil law dependencies? Marriage transcends government. In the current context, we do have civil law dependencies since our gov't has decided to get involved in the business of marriage for various reasons.

Again, legally, 'marriage' needs to be defined (or re-defined possibly). Clearly this is what Prop 8 was focused on as was DOMA in part. If marriage is legally defined as man+woman, as it has been understood historically, then there is no discrimination. Now if the legal definition of marriage is expanded then we would have no choice but to allow this new form of marriage in any form consenting adults choose. If the current definition is "one man plus one woman" and we change it to "one adult plus one adult", why just 'one'. We can't have that limit either. In fact, we would be compelled to remove the 'one' from the statement altogether: "consenting adults of any gender, relationship, and quantity in a legal contract".

 

[richalisoviejo]

You still didn’t comprehend One single legal meaning of the thread.

The states that allow same-sex marriage will begin to set the stage for others to follow. It's a long, slow path but one that I think will ultimately result in change. The states that passed Constitutional amendments in Nov 2004 (and Texas more recently) banning same-sex marriage will hopefully find themselves isolated. With time and social pressure they might be forced to rethink their narrow and archaic views. Individual attitudes amass to create a social ethic, and yours amounts to a heinous regard for your fellow human beings.

Pissing in the wind is gernerally regarded as futile.

 

[chadk]

Obama and the majorirty of the US with those narrow and arachiac views and henious regard for their fellow human beings have been put on notice.

 

[chadk]

One more note on this....

If for example, I lived in Saudi Arabia (just making this up) where the gov't only recognized those married according to Islamic law and only those couples had certain rights... That would not stop me from getting married. I really don't care that the Muslims would not recognize my marriage. I would go to my church pastor (probably have to be in secret in Saudi Arabia) and get married. I would know in my heart and soul that my marriage is recognized by my church, my God, my family, and those I care about. If the gov't doesn't approve, I don't care. I'm not Muslim and I don't expect them to change for me.

OK, that probably riled you up. But hold on. Here is my proposal for here in the US where we allow freedom of religion...

I think the gov't should recognize civil unions. That is all they should recognize. Legal unions between any consenting adults. If they want to have 2 types of unions with equal protections - one called 'marriage' that is one man + one woman, and a second that is 'civil union' (or pick a new name) that is any other combo, then that is fine. Equal protection. Either way is fine by me and I think most Americans would go for it.

Any couple can go to their own church or a judge or vegas or whatever and get a contract signed that says they have a valid civil union. The marriage ceramony part is optional and up to the couple. I'd get married in my church. Another couple may choose to have a justice of the peace do a service on the beach. Who cares. The gov't stays out of defining 'marriage' and everyone has equal protection AND freedom of religion (which includes the lack of religion...).

Why won't that work?

Here in WA, we are close to that. We just passed the 'everything but gay marriage bill'. Giving all the rights via civil union to gay couples basically.

 

[Candy]

How nice of WA, but I'm afraid that is still considered discrimination. And I think you might want to go back to page three and reconsider what you said about consenting adults. Did you actually refer to incest as consenting? And are you trying to insult homosexuals by comparing them to incest because that's the way I took that one.

 

[Weloveourtortoise]

I only got half way through the thread and have to put my 2 cents in! Chad, I live in Massachusetts and the state is still rolling! Marriage started out as a way to show that a woman belonged to a Man in a time when it was common just to take what you wanted without thought or care to what the other person, usually what the female wanted. Which also coinsided with the dawning of religions, not necessarily our current mainstream religions, but more the earth religions that started when we were still in the cave. Marriage was formed to protect a Man's lineage. Our government and mainstream religions have taken the concept of marriage and defined it for their own purposes and uses. Our traditional views of "natural order" is acutually unnatural. Many species have same sex partnering that has nothing to do with reproduction but sexual atttaction-- just pick up any bio 101 book.
We as a society take the "morals" that are decided on by a select few at the top of all our organizations (government, civil liberites orgs, and religions) that chose for us what we shoudl believe as right. As our founding fathers created the USA, they wrote the constitution vague enough that we could interpret and change as society changed, but they had the one thought that they were creating a country with religious freedom. At that time it was religions that dominated how our society acted. Religious freedom and the right to practice one's own religion without persecution was the core of our new country. At the core of every religion are their beliefs in marriage. If our government is based on the separation of religion and state, then the "traditional" beliefs of marriage and the civil right to join into a marriage contract with our states should be separate also. So if a person wants to marry another person, no matter their race, religion, sex, or current marrital status should not matter at all. Another's personal preference should not hinder anothers.
If a person wants to join into plural marriage, it should not be a matter of the state to deny that also. However what tradition or personal beliefs dictate. Personally I feel the mormons had it wrong, for today's economy how can a man support mulitple wives? Hey, the woman should be allowed to have mutliple husbands to provide and maintain the household!!! But them we women have enough trouble dealing with one adult child nevermind more!!!
On a more serious note, I understand the ban on plural marriage was done to protect the young women who where being forced into marriage to a much older man and an abusive situation. However, marriage from the dawn of time until the past century always had the female at the disadvantage.
-Bonnie

 

[richalisoviejo]

As I stated in the History and Change thread; The dinosaurs are dieing off and the younger generation will prevail.

Lets not forget with respect to this country's deplorable treatment of women (in their role as de facto slaves as the property of their husbands) throughout our history, the Supreme Court noted the following when it invalidated a state imposed spousal notification law:

There was a time, not so long ago, when a different understanding of the family and of the Constitution prevailed. In Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873), three Members of this [505 U.S. 833, 897] Court reaffirmed the common law principle that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state; and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most States. Id., at 141 (Bradley, J., joined by Swayne and Field, JJ., concurring in judgment). Only one generation has passed since this Court observed that "woman is still regarded as the center of home and family life," with attendant "special responsibilities" that precluded full and independent legal status under the Constitution. Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57, 62 (1961). These views, of course, are no longer consistent with our understanding of the family, the individual, or the Constitution.

Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to our present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. Women do not lose their constitutionally protected liberty when they marry. [/b]The Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, married or unmarried, from the abuse of governmental power,[/b] even where that power is employed for the supposed benefit of a member of the individual's family. These considerations confirm our conclusion that 3209 is invalid.

Citation of authority:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html

 

[chadk]

Bonnie, interesting perspective, but I disagree with most of it.

Actually, there are asian cultures where there is one woman and many husbands. So that is possible. And plural marriages are easily fixed by simply having our age of consent laws. So to single out pluralistic marriages is a bias and not fair.

Our nation is not 'based' on the seperation of religion and state. It is a core principle, but not the 'base'. They had no problem with religion, only state run religion. And in a society where you had kings, queens, and dictators ruling countries, religious freedom was scarce.
So the main objective was to form a gov't that allowed freedom of choice. Supportive and tolerant of all types of religious backgrounds.

And 'sexual attraction' in most animals is generally simply a drive to reproduce. They don't always udnerstand or care if the other animal is the right target. Look at a dog and your pant leg for example...


"We as a society take the "morals" that are decided on by a select few at the top of all our organizations"

I disagree with this as well. I can move to Iran and still have my current morals.

"Our traditional views of "natural order" is acutually unnatural"

And this I disagree with. First off, you are coralating creatures of many types that each have a unique socail, mating, and reproductive process. Many do have life long opposite sex partners. But at the core of this arguement, I don't see us as just animals that are slaves to 'instincts'. We have minds and choices we can make. We don't have to do drugs and become addicts for example.

"Marriage started out ... but more the earth religions that started when we were still in the cave. "

I'm not sure where you got this info. Do you have a source?

---

The good thing about the younger generation Rich - they will grow up

Many young folks start out as idealistic liberals, but grow and mature and have kids and family and end up being more conservative....

Winston Churchill's famous quote: "If by age 20 you're not a liberal, you have no heart. If by age 40 you're not a conservative, you have no head."

 

[richalisoviejo]

Our nation is not 'based' on the seperation of religion and state. It is a core principle, but not the 'base'.

Now that is not only funny it’s ludicrous.

This is not a Christian nation, ever heard of separation of Church & State. Google is your friend.

The United States Supreme Court ruled prayer in public schools unconstitutional in 1962. It’s called separation of church & state. Keep religion in the home and church and keep it out of my everything my tax dollars pay for.

 

[Weloveourtortoise]

Thank you Rich, :
(Today 11:26 AM)chadk Wrote:
Our nation is not 'based' on the seperation of religion and state. It is a core principle, but not the 'base'.
(Today 11:31) Richalisoviejo Wrote:
Now that is not only funny it’s ludicrous.

This is not a Christian nation, ever heard of separation of Church & State. Google is your friend.

---------------
Chad you missed my point about plural marriage. I believe if you want more than one spouse, go for it, I am not to say no. I was trying to be funny about the plural husbands, I love Matt but could not take on more than one of him. However when I have worked 60+ hours a week I was commonly heard saying "I need a wife" (to take care of the cleaning, cooking, and house work!-- oh and to keep Matt happy)
--------------
For the origins of group society look to any anthropogical books. They will cover how evolved from single/small tribes to larger group communities.
---------------
-Bonnie

 

[chadk]

Rich, glad you crack yourself up

Looking at your own words - you'll see it took amost 200 years before we decided that schools should not be in the business of leading kids in prayer. 200 years!! If our country was soooo solidly founded on a 'seperation of church and state' as the main driver and key principle, why did it take almost 200 years to address this issue and many ohter like it?

And I agree, kids can do that just fine praying at school on their own and with their own family and churches. I wouldn't want a Muslim leading my child in prayer, so it is understandable.

This nation has had a strong majority of Christians since the beginning. Core Christian principles since it's founding. That does not mean that the country promotes one religion over the other - it is just the facts.

Our nation is not 'based' on the seperation of religion and state. It is a core principle, but not the 'base'.

Now that is not only funny it’s ludicrous.

This is not a Christian nation, ever heard of separation of Church & State. Google is your friend.

The United States Supreme Court ruled prayer in public schools unconstitutional in 1962. It’s called separation of church & state. Keep religion in the home and church and keep it out of my everything my tax dollars pay for.

 

[Candy]

"Letter to the Editor"
LA TIMES



The gay-marriage knot

Re "Marriage and legal nonsense," Opinion, May 27

Tim Rutten hit it on the nose: The California Supreme Court's decision regarding marriage equality is nervous and contradictory.

As one of the 18,000 couples legally married before Proposition 8 took effect, we are grateful that our marriage is still recognized in California.

But we are deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling, which, in effect, says that half the voters can make the state Constitution as discriminatory as they want.

Since our August wedding, an amazing number of co-workers, friends, family members and friends of the family have expressed congratulations. No one congratulated us two years ago when we registered as domestic partners. Rutten is right: "Registered domestic partnership" is code for "back of the bus."

 

[richalisoviejo]

This nation has had a strong majority of Christians since the beginning. Core Christian principles since it's founding.

Another myth. Name our founding fathers and their religious beliefs.

And my earlier post wasn’t the first time I cracked my self up reading your argument in the thread.

We aren't talking about anarchy. we aren't talking about giving people new rights, we're expanding VERY old rights to a group of people who has had those rights denied to them.

You're this and that about rampant individualism is a red herring when talking about equality.

The majority does not have to have a good reason. This is like saying that the people of Salem had a very good reason to burn people they thought were witches, and since they were the majority then some sort of rational consesus must have been reached.

If the majority MUST have a good reason, what is it? What is this phantom threat gays pose?

 

[chadk]

"Letter to the Editor"
LA TIMES



The gay-marriage knot

Re "Marriage and legal nonsense," Opinion, May 27

Tim Rutten hit it on the nose: The California Supreme Court's decision regarding marriage equality is nervous and contradictory.

As one of the 18,000 couples legally married before Proposition 8 took effect, we are grateful that our marriage is still recognized in California.

But we are deeply disappointed in the Supreme Court's ruling, which, in effect, says that half the voters can make the state Constitution as discriminatory as they want.

Since our August wedding, an amazing number of co-workers, friends, family members and friends of the family have expressed congratulations. No one congratulated us two years ago when we registered as domestic partners. Rutten is right: "Registered domestic partnership" is code for "back of the bus."

If all I did was head down to a justice of the peace and have some paperwork filed with my spouse, I doubt I'd have a bunch of congratulations from my friends and family. Clearly I wasn't going for attention at that point. Now if I did that, PLUS had a public wedding ceramony with my friends and family invited, then that is another matter.

This is a red herring. You can have a wedding ceromony and not have the state involved. A gay person could get legally registered, then have the big wedding they always wanted.

Last year a good friend had us down for their wedding in Mexico. Did they care that their marriage was not recognized in Mexico (since they filed their paper work in California)? No. Weddings and paper work with the gov't are 2 different things.

---

How nice of WA, but I'm afraid that is still considered discrimination. And I think you might want to go back to page three and reconsider what you said about consenting adults. Did you actually refer to incest as consenting? And are you trying to insult homosexuals by comparing them to incest because that's the way I took that one.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. Can consenting adults choose to love and marry who whey want or not? If 2 brothers want to get married, why not? A fater who has been seperated from his grown son since the divorce and they meet after all those years, fall in love and want to get marriedj - why not? 2 guys who are also cousins - why not?

You can't go down the slippery slope of putting conditions on marriage. Who get's to pick those conditions?

 

[Candy]

Rich with all due respect, although some of the founding fathers were Dieteists and obviously wanted a separation of church and state the overwhelming majority of the nation's population were at least nominally of Christian faith. So, I think Chad has a point about the nation's history, however, I believe the argument is really not about the past. Throughout our history we have manipulated, tweeked, and reformed our Constitution and laws. This is what we need to focus on today; the continued process of living up to the guiding principles of our nation.

 

[chadk]

This nation has had a strong majority of Christians since the beginning. Core Christian principles since it's founding.

Another myth. Name our founding fathers and their religious beliefs.

Oh dear - really? You don't think that this nation had and still has a strong majority of Christians? Seriously? Can you point me to any source that would confirm that?

 

[richalisoviejo]

Oh dear - really? You don't think that this nation had and still has a strong majority of Christians? Seriously? Can you point me to any source that would confirm that?

Hamilton, for example, was an agnostic and deist.

Jefferson was generally regarded as an atheist by most New England clergy.

Adams began as a Congregationalist, though a staunch opponent of New Light evangelicalism, then ended up a Unitarian.

George Washington always believed that American victory in the War for Independence was, as he said, “a standing miracle,” guided by other worldly forces that he referred to as “providence” or “destiny.” He seldom used the word “God.” I regard him as a pantheist rather than a deist because he believed these other worldly forces, whatever we called them, had earthly presences. Like Hamilton, he regarded his attendance at Episcopal services as a social obligation

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution, not once.

You might call them Christians but when I’ve seen Paul and Jan crouch crying in TV Sunday morning begging for money, I don’t call that being a Christian, God will not have a new Cadillac with gold wheels waiting for her in heaven. What does she need a car for?

And all that crying on TV isn’t just for money, you’d be crying too if you sat most Saturday nights at Fashion Island drinking one Bombay Sapphire Martini after another, then have to be helped of the bar stools by their body guards. And this is from one of the largest Christian based organizations in the country.

 

[chadk]

Rick - you are heading down hill fast dude. Who here ever mentioned TV evanglists as great Christian role models? What was that tangent about?? They make me sick...

But you did not address the question again. Do you have a source for your statement that it is a myth that the US has always, from beginning to now, a majority Christian?

 

[Candy]

Congregationial, Unitarian, Episcopalian... all are christian-based denominations, which include as part of their doctrine a belief in Jesus Christ. Agnostics do not disavow the existence of God or for that matter Jesus. Diets believe in the existence of a higher being or power, but usually not in the dvinity of Jesus Christ. Calling Jefferson an atheist does not make him one, especially if it is his enemies doing the name-calling in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election. The founding fathers at the very least acknowledged in name and/or in public Christanity and supported christian values. They were leery of organized religion because of it's abuse of public power and privledge. Also, which founding fathers are we talking about, there are quite a few more than the four mentioned here, of which only two were at the Constitutional Convention and signed the document. The point is this is all rhetoric, just fun and games from the past, but what we do now? How will our leaders respond to our opinions and desires? How will they intrepret the Constitution in light of the make-up our current society (people and ideas)? And most importantly what will we do, as part of our civic duty and responsibility, to communicate those opinions and desires to those who will make or influence those decisions?