| Author |
Topic:
[GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:09pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
Yet another example of judges overstepping their role and legislating from the bench and undermining the rule of law.
Thomas Jefferson posted:
"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account."
If the process would be followed as prescribed, it would be legitimate and backed up by the rule of law. It's yet another trashing of the respect for the process, circumventing it and shredding it, to suit a particular social agenda. If the law can't get passed via the proper means, then their methodology is just to go judge shopping and undermine the rule of law and invent a new 'right' that does not exist.
Such issues are plainly to be decided by the people and the representatives of the people, not by oligarchical jurists.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
dp4m
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:09pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
ellybeanjay posted:
dp, I still don't understand why you're unwilling to change the definition of marriage because of its religious roots, when there are religions that have already done so.
ETA: I totally don't mean that in a bitchy way, I'm just trying to understand.
Mostly due to the combination of the 10th and 16th Amendments in conjunction with Sections 1 and 2 af Article 4 of the US Constitution. MArriage is defined a certain way because it is. There are certain states in the Union where this simply is unlikely to ever change.
Since that is the case, were a GLBT person to LIVE in one of those states, under the "full faith and credit" sections in Article 4, their state wouldn't have to recognize it even if they were to get "married" in another state and move back home because their state doesn't acknowledge it on morality grounds (again, please bear in mind these are obviously not my views, as should have been clear long ago). This then places the US government in a tricky position due to the 10th and 16th Amendments in particular since the 10th gives the government specific powers if the Constitution says it does and the 16th *specifically* gives the government the right to levy income tax.
One of the portions of the tax code, which has been ratified by the legislature and the executive AND defended by the judiciary, is to provide tax breaks to two people filing as married -- however, in the situation above, if marriage were allowed in some states and not others there is a nationwide disenfranchisement and we really DO get "separate but unequal, which is illegal under US law. Which, unfortunately, leaves the government in the position of then having to DEFINE MARRIAGE THEMSELVES and overrule the states. This is why things like the Defense of Marriage Act ends up making sense to people. Because we all know there's a larger chance of the latter happening than eliminating tax breaks for being married.
So, there's a reason I've always included the tax code in my previousposts. 
Back to my original point: if the government eliminates any reference to any benefits to anyone who is "married" then all of this is irrelevant. Everyone can go off and do what they like, with the government then acknowledging a generic, neutral state of "family unit" which gets the same benefits as being married currently but without definition and then religions don't have to acknowledge anything and states can allow either marriage, unions, what have you and everything is the same. Equality for all.
-----signature-----
"Looks like you're about to get pwned" - Eric Cartman
"Awarding experience points for cleverly and creatively generating an enjoyable experience. How warped is that?" - Darths & Droids
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:11pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
- Date Edited:
5/15 10:12pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
KnightWriter
|
Dennis, read:
As usual, the lazy critics are uninformed. The California court has not over-ruled the legislature: in fact, the legislature has voted for full marriage equality twice already. And the court has not "created" a right to marriage for gay couples. It has argued that if the state has conceded that domestic partners should have, under state law, all the benefits and responsibilities of married couples, the designation of a separate and distinct category must be suspect, under strict scrutiny, to the inference that the designation is based on a desire to deny gay couples equal dignity and recognition. This is the same point I've made in the past; isn't constructing a separate and distinct category an example of pure animus? You have conceded the substance, but cannot concede the name. Since no heterosexual couple's rights would be affected in any way, what exactly is the rationale for maintaining the distinction? Except bias?
One other political note: the Republican governor of the state, Arnold, has already come out against the ballot initiative designed to reverse this ruling. And the initiative will not be able to affect the thousands of marriage licenses that will be granted before then. So the legislature, the governor and the court have all now supported equality. So back to the people ... for one last chance to keep the stigma in place.
Andrew Sullivan, via his Daily Dish blog.
Yet another example of judges overstepping their role and legislating from the bench and undermining the rule of law.
Don't you get tired of listening to the same stuff in your echo chamber, Dennis? Reading your posts these days is like reading a regurgitation of all the right wing talking points on a given day.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women."--Sarah Palin
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:11pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
Andalite-Bandit posted:
Marriage isn't just about God though, millions of people get married in civil ceremonies that have no mention of religion whatsoever. They are still called marriages. The religion argument and anything about God is completely irrelevant.
But marriage originated with religion.
Why is it so difficult to simply have all civil unions and then religious people can go get the sacrament of matrimony, etc?
Unless, of course, you simply want to cause religious people strife.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthLassic007
Registered:
Nov '02
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:11pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
I don't think we should bring religion or God into this. Can't we just base it on precedent and tradition? Whatever happened to judicial restraint?
-----signature-----
Veni, Vidi, Vici. - Julius Caesar
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
lexu
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:12pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
|
The slippery slope argument is ridiculous in the case of gay marriage. Gay people are not farm animals. Polygamy has nothing to do with equality under the law. Think it through, people. That's what brains are for.
-----signature-----
just when you found it, it's gone
just when you feel it, you don't
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
jp-30
Registered:
Dec '00
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:12pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
Darth_Guy posted:
We already knew that New Zealand is a godless place.
Yeah, pretty much.
wiki; According to the 2006 census, Christianity is the predominant religion in New Zealand, held by 55.6% of the population, a decrease from 60.6% at the 2001 census. Another 34.7% indicated that they had no religion, up from 29.6% in 2001, and 5% affiliated with other religions.
Also, many of the 55.6% who identify themselves as Christian are non practising, and only put that as they were raised Christian.
-----signature-----
`1234567890-=
qwertyuiop[]
asdfghjkl;'\
\zxcvbnm,./
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
FamousAmos
Title:
Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '03
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:12pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
- Date Edited:
5/15 10:14pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
FamousAmos
|
DarthButt posted:
Because!  Marriage means something to those who hold it to who it was intended for... God. Marriage is defined as recognizing the commitment between a man and a woman before God. To redefine it is to say that it is to be redifined indefinitely, to suit the current social climate. So, IMO, don't change what is a marriage. Take the same advantages and do civil unions, or whatever you want to call it. Just don't call it marriage.
If that is the case, and we're redefining marriage, I'm going ot take my sheep, declare my love for my sheep, and stand in front of the State Capitol and demand that my sheep and I are married!!! !!! !!11
Okay I'm being silly, but essentially we're talking about redefining marriage. So why do people have issues with polygamists/Mormans then? They do the same thing right? They practice marriage differently than most people do too.
Or, how about we keep marriage as it is defined and allow exceptions to the the tax code/wills, rights, etc - and leave marriage and it's definition alone?
You're missing a very important point though - in a strictly legal sense, marriage has nothing to do with God, religion, love, weddings, churches, etc. It's combining the property of two people in the eyes of the law. Marriage in a legal sense(the only one a government should be considering due to the separation of church and state, although that's just my opinion) is about property, and therefore the gender of the people getting married should be irrelevant. As far as religion goes, that's open to interpretation for each individual. Whether a specific church wants to recognize gay marriages(or perform them) is up to that church, as it should be. Beyond that, gay marriage should be between the people getting married, their families, and God.
Edit:
Lord_Vivec posted:
Why is it so difficult to simply have all civil unions and then religious people can go get the sacrament of matrimony, etc?
Because the rights afforded to a married couple under the law are different than those of people that only have a civil union.
-----signature-----
FamousAmos0307 (11:11:19 PM): tie tie tie tie tie
mangojellytoast (11:11:43 PM): (-o-) (-o-) (-o-) (-o-) (-o-)
"I am fundamentally opposed to eyes" - FamousAmos
We could sound real smart if we made alot of stuff up
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
harpuah
Registered:
Mar '05
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:12pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
- Date Edited:
5/15 10:13pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
harpuah
|
dp4m posted:
However, I want the US legal system and tax code to abolish the term and to use a more neutral "recognized status" term to apply to any state-sanctioned / federally-sanctioned family unit, which I want to include same-sex unions.
Domestic Partner FTW.
-----signature-----
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Andalite-Bandit
Registered:
Apr '05
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:13pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
Lord_Vivec posted:
Andalite-Bandit posted:
Marriage isn't just about God though, millions of people get married in civil ceremonies that have no mention of religion whatsoever. They are still called marriages. The religion argument and anything about God is completely irrelevant.
But marriage originated with religion.
Why is it so difficult to simply have all civil unions and then religious people can go get the sacrament of matrimony, etc?
Unless, of course, you simply want to cause religious people strife.
So everyone who is married without religion involved are in fact in a civil union? Sorry, too ridiculous.
And weren't you on the other side of the argument a few hours ago???? You confound me sometimes Vivster.
-----signature-----
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Lord_Vivec
Registered:
Apr '06
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:14pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
- Date Edited:
5/15 10:15pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Lord_Vivec
|
DarthLassic007 posted:
I don't think we should bring religion or God into this. Can't we just base it on precedent and tradition? Whatever happened to judicial restraint?
Because tradition is stupid. Tradition is NOT a logical way to make decisions.
Here's how it should be (according to me)
Everyone (man-woman, man-man, woman-woman) should be able to get a civil union under the law with all its benefits.
If said couple wants to get a marriage, a religious term, said people can go and have a religious ceremony.
Andalite, this post should best explain my position on the subject.
-----signature-----
EUS Vice Chancellor
Do you enjoy pajamas?
Obama/Biden '08
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Zahn Kenobi
Registered:
Aug '99
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:14pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
KnightWriter posted:
It's "Mormon", Butt. Also, who are you to dictate what marriage is and isn't?
You know, while I object to homosexuality on religious grounds, it's of course none of my business and I'm not going to reject all of my friends who are homosexual. I also don't really care if they want to get married. This is my worry however.
I am worried that eventually religious authorities or religious organizations will get sued by homosexuals when they refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for them, and that this will result in a loss of tax-exempt status and other financial loss for the organizations and individuals.
I want that to be prevented. That's really the only thing I care about.
Basically, I don't want to dictate to someone else what marriage isn't with respect to the government. However, I don't want the government dictating to me what marriage is.
-----signature-----
War Monger/Caribou Barbie '08  o sanctissima deipara, salva nos!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthButt
Title: Manager
• Classic Trilogy
Registered:
Jun '03
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:15pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
Andalite-Bandit posted:
Marriage isn't just about God though, millions of people get married in civil ceremonies that have no mention of religion whatsoever. They are still called marriages. The religion argument and anything about God is completely irrelevant.
Exactly. The word's introduction to legality has squewed the true definition of it, and now we are are dealing with a redefined meaning.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_Guy
Registered:
Aug '02
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:15pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
|
lexu posted:
The slippery slope argument is ridiculous in the case of gay marriage. Gay people are not farm animals. Polygamy has nothing to do with equality under the law. Think it through, people. That's what brains are for.
But-- but-- EEEWWW TWO GUYS HAVING SEX!
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
harpuah
Registered:
Mar '05
|
Date Posted:
5/15 10:15pm
Subject:
RE: [GOOOOOOOOO CALI] California lifts gay marriage ban
- Date Edited:
5/15 10:16pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
harpuah
|
lol.... I blindly quoted a dp4m post... knowing without reading the thread that it more than likely turned into a religious discussion... lol.
PS... if it didn't yay for the jcc, but I think it did.
-----signature-----
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
