- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 16, 2008 at 6:43 pm #624651
KenParticipantFor clarification. The CA state Supreme court overturned the existing ban on STATE constitutional grounds.
Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution
(CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, ARTICLE 1, SEC. 7.)
Google it.
The state may ask the Same court to reconsider, but since this is not federal law, and does not have a specific application outside of the state of CA, the US supreme court has no reason to even comment on it let alone over rule it.
The CA Gov seems to have stated that he will not request a review (but enough flack might change his mind.
The fundies have put up the Petition #07-0068 the “California Marriage Protection Amendment”, to be voted on this fall, but 12 similar constitutional amendments have failed in CA.
I see the ghost of Senator “Man on Dog” Santorum showed up in this thread to spew the wingnut false equivalency argument..
Note to those wishing to marry their pets, WA state passed its first law prohibiting sex with animals in 2006. You have been warned :)
May 17, 2008 at 12:41 am #624652
JanSParticipantI don’t have any pets for various reasons :( but I was wondering…has HOuse even had a date with his yet? or did they just go straight(Sorry) to cohabiting….even more interesting…how is french kissing with a dog?
hey..I’m on good drugs, what can I say? That’s my excuse, and I’m stickin’ to it ;-)
May 17, 2008 at 3:49 am #624653
TheHouseMemberWow. I’m going to try to address you one by one:
RS261 – my comment does not mention marriage related to animals. Instead I stated that I should be allowed to claim them as dependents like children are allowed. How does this relate to gay marriage? This relates to marriage in that it allows the definition of marriage to be be subjective for the first time in our history. I am calling into question the definition of what a “child” is defined as, which is equivalent to calling into question what marriage is. You might think that my statement is a an exaggeration, but 25 years ago people would have said the same thing about two men getting married. That’s how it paves the way.
JevV – you’ve proven that you’re worthless to respond to. I can’t wait to meet you in person to honestly tell you what I think you are.
rs261 (2nd post) – As individuals gay men and women have the same exact rights as heterosexual men and women. The definition of marriage has been between a man and a women. What is being called into question is the definition of marriage. My example is calling into question the definition of a “child”. That definition must be clarified by the people or courts. In this case, the people voted against gay marriage and the 4 judges overturned the vote. That is a gross abuse of power by the judges.
The human rights violation is subjective based on your beliefs….like I stated above, gay men and women have the legal ability to marry. They just have to marry opposite sex partners. Human rights has nothing to do with my comment. My comment once again just shows that the definition of “child” could be called into question the same way “marriage” has.
Shibaguyz – My comment has nothing to do with being pro/against gay marriage. Once again, I was just demonstrating how simple it is to question our current definitions of certain things in our society. You actually were quite incorrect to assume that I oppose gay marriage, hate gay people and actually infer that I would want to kill gay people. NOT A VERY TOLERANT COMMENT from someone who is seeking tolerance.
For the record, I take a neutral stance on this issue because I believe that two consenting adults should have the right to do whatever they want to do, but I also have respect for the current definition of marriage and understand that the original intention of marriage was a lifetime union for sexual reproduction (yes, you could cite millions of hetero couples that do not reproduce).
Final Comment – I’ve stated this above…I carefully crated my original comment because changing the definition of “marriage” will have a greater impact on our society that many of you believe. I would guarantee you that there are millions more people in the United States that truly believe their little fluffy is a child to them that there are gay people. If the institution of marriage can be called into question by a small minority then so can other institutions.
I also would like to state that I did have to get a marriage certificate when I got married. I did not consider it symbolic, I couldn’t tell you where it is and I sure as hell don’t believe that I am married b/c of that sheet of paper. I’ve never had anyone ask me to reproduce the document in 6 years and probably never will. If you ask me, you’re fighting for another way for the state to squeeze $55 out of you.
May 17, 2008 at 4:46 am #624654
JanSParticipantnow I feel slighted…you didn’t respond to my comment…:(
May 17, 2008 at 5:22 am #624655
JanSParticipantok…serious question…where was the first marriage law passed..? I really don’t know…and my loopy drugged head doesn’t know where to look yet…
May 17, 2008 at 5:28 am #624656
AnonymousInactive*If you ask me, you’re fighting for another way for the state to squeeze $55 out of you.*
I’d rather give money to the state to support all those social programs I’m so fond of, than have hundreds of dollars go to lawyers for drawing up legal documents to replicate the *sheet of paper* you can’t even find.
May 17, 2008 at 5:38 am #624657
SAMemberHouse,
You wrote, “In this case, the people voted against gay marriage and the 4 judges overturned the vote. That is a gross abuse of power by the judges.”
I’d like to remind you that we live in a Republic where the rights of the individual and minorities are protected. You know… those inalienable rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
This is not a pure Democracy, and is certainly not a place where the majority always rules. It doesn’t matter if 60% of Californians wanted to ban gay marriage if the State Supreme Court says otherwise.
May 17, 2008 at 5:43 am #624658
AnonymousInactiveJanS, United States marriage laws (preceded by Early
American Colonies) are about half way down the page. On your way to that, be sure to read *Bible Passages on Marriage*. Fun facts for everyone.
May 17, 2008 at 7:10 am #624659
JanSParticipantthanks, JT….for that…and..for other things this week…you’re definitely on my good list :)
May 17, 2008 at 9:59 pm #624660
JenVMemberHouse:
a) you have met me in person
b) I doubt you have the stones to tell me anything to my face
c) you honestly think I care what you think of me?
ahahahahahha
good one.
May 18, 2008 at 5:10 am #624661
AnonymousInactiveHouse – Thank you for your post. I found it very insightful. You made a valid point.
JenV – House would have no problem telling you what he thought of you to your face, believe me. (I don’t mean that maliciously, it’s just a fact)
BTW – I, for some reason, had a problem with your statement that NOBODY should get married until gays are allowed to get married. I thought that was very presumptuous of you. I have several gay couple friends that wouldn’t even say that to me. YOU certainly can choose to not marry until gays can legally marry (like Charlize Theron (S?) has choosen to do), but don’t tell everyone else what to do!!!!
May 18, 2008 at 3:46 pm #624662
JenVMemberNR – you are obviously new to this whole internet forum idea. I was stating my opinion, not telling anyone what to do. tone down your hair trigger and calm down. presumptuous is the word that would apply here to you.
May 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm #624663
KenParticipantIn much of this country, and the world, you’re married the moment you sign the marriage license. The religious part of it is optional. As is the justice of the peace ceremony.
In WA, the mixture of church and state is complete in this area. Anyone claiming to be a religious “leader” can perform incantations that the state then deems satisfactory to turn the license into a legal document. There are no requirements as to the sanity or even the species of the officiating “leader”. So, in theory, Fido of the Church of Dog, or a representative (Dwarf, Pirate or Tree) of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) could perform your marriage ceremony and the state would have to consider it legal as long as the officiant and two witnesses also sign the license. (the legality of a paw print as well as the method of determining the “age” of majority of the pooch, Dwarf or Tree might present legal hurdles which have not yet been addressed by the legal system)
RCW 26.04.060
Marriage before unauthorized cleric — Effect.
A marriage solemnized before any person professing to be a minister or a priest of any religious denomination in this state or professing to be an authorized officer thereof, is not void, nor shall the validity thereof be in any way affected on account of any want of power or authority in such person, if such marriage be consummated with a belief on the part of the persons so married, or either of them, that they have been lawfully joined in marriage.
For those who would like a bit more legal clarity on both real and hypothetical questions regarding what constitutes a religion capable of officiating at a wedding, read this WA state Attorney General circa 1971, from the Universal Life Church:
http://www.ulcseminary.org/forum/uploads/WashOAG1971No117.pdf
And then sign up for your ordination papers.
http://www.themonastery.org/?destination=ordination
On the secular side, only a limited set of judges from a list can officiate at a marriage.
http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdc/WeddingJudges.pdf
http://www.kingcounty.gov/courts/SuperiorCourt/civil/weddings.aspx
It should be noted that if we are going to define tradition as the arbiter of marriage, we must define strict limits on what is tradition and what is history lest we then legalize as the fundies seem to want, concubines, polygamy, marriage within close family groups (the Tudors?)
as well as the illegality of divorce.
This is unlikely to happen since the current Republican nominee and most current republican office holders seem to be serial adulterers and trade in their wives for newer or richer models with more regularity than they trade in their cars.
Those who have had their marriage “ruined” by the legality of same sex marriages in MA or CA, please tell your story in this thread that we might all be forewarned.
I personally feel the decoupling of religion from the purely civil contract of marriage should be a legislative goal more important than the civil rights issue of gay marriage but most liberals are content to throw this bone to the fundy right to keep them quiet.
May 18, 2008 at 4:35 pm #624664
AnonymousInactiveHouse, it is my understanding that most marriage laws pertained to 2 persons, thus the reasons so many states have gone on to *CHANGE* the definition of 2 persons to include the wording “consisting of one man and one woman”. No mention of a desire to re-define persons to mean anything other than human.
Marriage equality is an attempt to define those 2 persons’ relation to each other. As in M/F, M/M, F/F. There is consistency in application because it still involves 2 adult humans.
Your analogy of what qualifies as a dependent/child is not consistent. You would NOT be seeking to re-define the relation of 2 persons to each other. You would be seeking to re-define what a person is. In this case, to mean any species you provide support for.
A consistent analogy would be, this opens the door to re-define the relation a *person* must have to me to qualify as a dependent. For example, changing residency requirements or the percentage of support I must be providing.
I do believe your choice to insert children/pets into this discussion was an attempt to fire people up. A continuation of the man/dog Rick Santorum argument. No, that’s not what you meant, but I think you knew people would go to that place and you enjoy the controversy.
You often post things which can be easily misconstrued to see what happens. Then explain what you really meant later and cry *I’m so misunderstood*. An odd choice of entertainment, in my opinion.
At any rate, my personal thoughts are that the state should be issuing civil contracts in all cases. A marriage certificate should be a part of a religious ceremony that incorporates the civil contract.
May 18, 2008 at 6:08 pm #624665
charlabobParticipantJT: “At any rate, my personal thoughts are that the state should be issuing civil contracts in all cases. A marriage certificate should be a part of a religious ceremony that incorporates the civil contract.”
I agree completely — and the benefits have to accrue to civil unions, not marriage. Which is where the fights will begin. ALREADY insurance companies and corporations in California are figuring out how to deny the benefits of “domestic partnerships” to anyone who *could* get married.
I never checked, but I assume child care deductions, etc. accrue to the child — so if you have one, you can deduct it whether or not you’re married. If that’s not true, my head may explode. So much to fix — so little time :-)
BTW, NR — I’ve officially decreed that subject matter discussions, like this one, don’t constitute political posts so we’re not violating our vow. In this case, sadly, none of the candidates has backed what I think is necessary and fair — so I’m not even tempted to stray.
May 18, 2008 at 7:09 pm #624666
AnonymousInactiveCharla – Yes, I would have to agree with that assessment.
JenV – I, too, was stating my opinion. Yes, I am new to the internet forum thing, but stating opinions, even those opinions in response to someone else’s ridiculous order, I believe is allowed.
May 19, 2008 at 2:09 am #624667
ShibaguyzMemberWell said JT and thank you for posting that.
May 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm #624668
rs261MemberFor the record a general take on the ruling says…
The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage this week in a decision that invalidates virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.
…
It has nothing to do with redifining marriage, it just says that sexual orientation of a person should not be the cause of discrimination. So, any legal redefinition that you thought occured has not.
Oh, and House, you never convinced me that my animals could be dependents…sorry, no honorary title for you…yet. Your carefully crafted comment really had nothing to do with the Cali Supreme court ruling, or human rights, perhaps you didnt see or read what it said but just reacted? Your statement about human rights violation being subjective is also false…as that was the basis for the ruling (granted 3 judges must have thought it wasnt a human rights violation, so there could be the subjectivity)
I also find it interesting that most of the comments really have nothing to do with the ruling, as they’re all about defining marriage as opposed to talking about discrimination based on sexual orientation, but I guess most people dont care about what is actually said, and more about what they want to be said. It was the people of california who wanted the definition of marriage to be changed, not the Cali supreme court justices.
May 20, 2008 at 5:18 am #624669
TheHouseMemberWrong, JT. It wasn’t meant to fire anyone up. It was meant to provoke thought. If you think the debate over dependents is radical, just read the link below. It’s already being tested by disabled people. Give it 15-20 years and it will be a topic of debate.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9A05EED61339F93BA15750C0A967948260
RS261, defining marriage is at the core of the debate so it is very relevant. If you believe that this is discriminatory based on sexual orientation, then I’d like to ask you a few questions:
1) Why is polygamy illegal? It is marriage between consenting adults, albeit more than two. Why should someone be discriminated against if they choose to have multiple spouses as long as they are consenting adults?
2) Why shouldn’t relatives be allowed to marry if over the age of 18? As long as they are consenting adults, why should we discriminate against them?
The above are examples of discrimination based on “sexual orientation”.
May 20, 2008 at 8:02 am #624670
TrickParticipantHouse,
I believe the way the Supreme court spelled it out (Texas vs Lawrence) is about “consent”.
So Rick Santorum immediately talked about Incest,Polygamy,Adultery as being accepted as long as there is consent.
It’s a good argument for the right, no doubt.
However, the Polygamists (who oppose same sex marriage) can’t necessarily argue too well that a 15 yr old girl is consensual with a 55 or 65 yr old man who HE chooses to be as his wife. Their argument is based on religious beliefs rather than two consenting adults.
May 20, 2008 at 12:42 pm #624671
KayleighMemberI think polygamy is illegal because some believe significant psychological harm comes from it. Marrying relatives is illegal I think because of the increased risk of creating children with significant genetic defects.
It would be interesting to read the science on polygamy itself; I couldn’t find anything that was divorced from the nutty religion and forced marriages. And how come it’s usually multiple wives and not multiple husbands?
I have days where I wonder why anybody would want one spouse, let alone several, though.
May 20, 2008 at 2:03 pm #624672
WesMemberI believe that Holland since legalizing same sex marriage, has also legalized polygamy there after and now a pedophile political group has just started up there to lower the age for consent to 12 instead of 16. Most of those in this group seem to be same sex orientated as well.
I think House brings up a good point which we should all be aware of and that is the possibility of a slippery slope of what defines marriage.
This is the only point I have brought up, so please do not read into this more than what I have stated.
May 20, 2008 at 2:58 pm #624673
AnonymousInactiveHouse, the article you link to has the author joking about wishing he could claim his pet as a dependent. I wish that too. So. The case being written about is whether a disabled person can claim their service dog as a medical *deduction*. Seems reasonable if we can deduct our eyeglasses under medical.
I fail to see the *slippery slope* between gay marriage equality and income tax deductions. Of course now that we’ve muddied the original issue with pets,dependents, children, deductions, and polygamy, Wes has to steer us toward pedophilia.
Why can’t someone just explain to me how two committed, consensual, adult, same sex partners affects their straight marriage. And please refrain from quoting leviticus. That is a belief system, not a legal argument.
May 20, 2008 at 3:39 pm #624674
rs261MemberSexual orientation doesnt have anything to do with polygamy.
Sexual orientation has to do with the gender of your same species you find attractive. You are either Homosexual, Hetrosexual, or Bisexual.
Incest also has nothing to do with sexual orientation, and I dont believe is against the law everywhere…its more of a taboo then illegal in most places. (Genetic disorders anyone?)
So again, it is completely about discrimination about sexual orientation, and not about redefining anything. Unless you are trying to redefine sexual orientation, but thats not what the court is saying.
As for your questions.
1) I dont know, it has nothing to do with discrimination based on sexual orientation. It does have to do with discrimination of religious beliefs, but most places have laws that handle that specifically. As was said the other day in texas, “religious freedom only goes as far as you are not breaking the law”.
2) See incest statement above. If 2 brothers or 2 sisters or a brother and sister want to get married, and it is not illegal in their state due to incest laws, go for it, just be prepared if they have offspring to pass along genetically undesirable traits at a greater rate.
So, again let me state…
SEXUAL ORIENTATION = one’s natural preference in sexual partners; predilection for homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.
Not number of partners…or age…but strictly the sex of the person you find attractive. And that is what the ruling was based on. Discrimination based on sexual orientation.
May 20, 2008 at 4:13 pm #624675
ShibaguyzMemberNow we’re bringing pedophiles in too?? Where have you people been?? Is this entire discussion on the conservative side going to come from every non-original, over-inflated, stereotypical, alarmist, bell-ringer fundie call to action speech EVER made in history?
Check your facts and stop throwing around the same old alarmist sound bites that are used by fundies to scare up money for their campaigns.
This is not about pets, children, people trying to marry their relatives or cults that want six wives and 50 children. This is about me being able to marry my partner (now of 13 years) and be afforded the same health care benefits (which most thinking companies and governments already afford us, thank you) and rights to legal status as any other married couple.
The big argument comes through about the “definition of marriage” and whether that is between a man and a woman or not. Do the original “laws” around marriage have that definition in them? If not, then I would say it is the screaming fundies who are trying to “redefine” marriage.
Honestly, I can file legal documents to secure all of the same legal rights as a hetero married couple and our church sanctioned our marriage way back when so this issue for us is really about not letting the fear mongers have another hold where they blame the lesbian and gay community for one more “downfall of society.”
Thanks to those of you who have kept this about the real issue here and REALLY… I believe if you think about it past all of the people who INSIST on brining in the “slippery slope” argument about dogs, cousins, communes and pedophiles, you will see it has absolutely nothing to do with any of that and all of that is just inflammatory speech meant to scare up the support of uneducated, confused people.
My last professor of religion summed it up nicely when he said it would be nice if there was a thinking man’s church out there. Because the longer you studied the teachings of the the political talk coming from some of the pulpits and governmental lecterns out there, the less you should be able to swallow most of it if you have half a brain.
Yeah, I’m being harsh… I’m just sick of putting up with it. I guess after so many years of dealing with this crap and seeing people killed and worse as a result of the folks who propagate these attitudes, I’m just getting a little pissed off about it.
Thanks for listening…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.