CA Gay Marriage...VOIDED!

[Larry Gude]

Ken...

...how's it hangin' and do I read your correctly, Defense of marriage Acts in general and Maryland in particular probably do not pass Constitutional muster?

 

[Ken King]

Re: Ken...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...how's it hangin' and do I read your correctly, Defense of marriage Acts in general and Maryland in particular probably do not pass Constitutional muster?

Well, it's dangling a little right of center but nothing to worry about.

I would say that the Defense of Marriage Act is definitely in disagreement with the Constitution and certain amendments. As to Maryland's law stating that marriage is solely between a man and a woman I would say that, while it could be classified as discriminatory, it appears to be within the legal rights maintained by the state. I say this because marriages have historically been regulated by the states. Each state establishes its own criteria as to what a marriage is, but they are compelled by the Constitution to recognize and accept those established beyond their boundaries and control. For instance, Maryland does not allow for the establishment of a marriage by common-law, but they recognize and honor the common-law marriages established in other states when those parties establish a residence in Maryland.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

...then you only have to be careful every other step, yes?


On to other matters:

Each state establishes its own criteria as to what a marriage is, but they are compelled by the Constitution to recognize and accept those established beyond their boundaries and control.

So initially married in California means married in Maryland while visiting or even moving here, yes?

For instance, Maryland does not allow for the establishment of a marriage by common-law, but they recognize and honor the common-law marriages established in other states when those parties establish a residence in Maryland.

Seems yes is the answer.

Won't the pro argument extend to interstate commerce and thus demand Federal action to toss Maryland and other states Def of Marriage acts as Constitutional or wil the fact that maryland recognizes other states marriage rules get them off the hook?

But then, equal protection for those IN the state seeking the same rights as those in another state?

This is gonna turn into an abortion like Roe v. Wade, isn't it?

 

[Ken King]

Re: Well...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...This is gonna turn into an abortion like Roe v. Wade, isn't it?

That is the way it is looking.

There is a Florida same-sex couple that got married in Mass this past July and Florida does not recognize the marriage so they have brought suit. A big problem is that the Mass law says that they can't just come to Mass and get hitched and head back to there home state, which is what they have done so this case will probably get tossed.

With the California decision to void all these same sex marriages it seems that now those that have been voided might be able to challenge the laws of California and declare discrimination and equal rights issues. I guess the game is just getting started on this, it will be interesting where it ends up at.

 

[Aimhigh2000]

Howdy Ya'll

Ok, lets look at it this way then, maybe this angle could help:

The religious part of getting married is "the union of holy matrimony." In front of the church and family.

It still isn't legal until you get the "marriage license" from the state.

So, not being a religious person, I have no intention of getting joined in holy matrimony. I should be allowed to get joined in marriage at the courthouse if I want.

If we keep the religion out of the mix, then, we can allow consenting adults to get a "marriage license" and those that want to include the religious ceremony to be "joined in holy matrimony."

Just a sermon ~ not a thought

 

[Hessian]

Long answers are necessary..

It seems that we can tweak constitutional amendments and get tangled in state laws and have county jurisdictions snub state laws etc...

Oddly enough, these same issues & tactics were attempted before and after the Civil War over the personhood/citizenship of slaves. Taney did NOT create precident...he interpretted standing law....Later, the law was changed.

Now...on to human behavior: We are not a people who strive to be moral...or become more moral. We are a nation that loves to flirt with evil. we have addictions to tobacco, alcohol, sexual abuse,...we watch movies that try to out-shock the previous movie. We cheat on spouses-all the time knowing we shouldn't. We hide money from our government, speed, and steal from our businesses.
With this delicately balanced moral cesspool, we deem ourselves wise, progressive, open, tolerant, to open up a new Pandora's box without much thought to the chaos that will eventually follow.
Nations that have a strong moral fiber thrive...they have courage, they defend the downtrodden & innocent.
Its when Rome, Greece, Persia became distracted with huge debt, corruption, drugs and homosexuality that the collapse became imminent. Meanwhile, they boasted how great they were and exalted their lawyers instead of their soldiers & teachers.

Stop wringing your freaking hands over this legally tangled issue and recognize...we are in free-fall, we are paralyzed by our sins (oh...did I offend someone there? sorry) and things WILL NOT GET BETTER until we recognized how far we have drifted from truth.

Go ahead, get married, get your civil union, mate with a goat,--you mirror the worst of all collapsed societies.

 

[Penn]

Re: Long answers are necessary..

Originally posted by Hessian
It seems that we can tweak constitutional amendments and get tangled in state laws and have county jurisdictions snub state laws etc...

Oddly enough, these same issues & tactics were attempted before and after the Civil War over the personhood/citizenship of slaves. Taney did NOT create precident...he interpretted standing law....Later, the law was changed.

Now...on to human behavior: We are not a people who strive to be moral...or become more moral. We are a nation that loves to flirt with evil. we have addictions to tobacco, alcohol, sexual abuse,...we watch movies that try to out-shock the previous movie. We cheat on spouses-all the time knowing we shouldn't. We hide money from our government, speed, and steal from our businesses.
With this delicately balanced moral cesspool, we deem ourselves wise, progressive, open, tolerant, to open up a new Pandora's box without much thought to the chaos that will eventually follow.
Nations that have a strong moral fiber thrive...they have courage, they defend the downtrodden & innocent.
Its when Rome, Greece, Persia became distracted with huge debt, corruption, drugs and homosexuality that the collapse became imminent. Meanwhile, they boasted how great they were and exalted their lawyers instead of their soldiers & teachers.

Stop wringing your freaking hands over this legally tangled issue and recognize...we are in free-fall, we are paralyzed by our sins (oh...did I offend someone there? sorry) and things WILL NOT GET BETTER until we recognized how far we have drifted from truth.

Go ahead, get married, get your civil union, mate with a goat,--you mirror the worst of all collapsed societies.

I have to admit I've been standing to the side of this thread, but Hessian has made some very valid points in this post.

We have, in America, become a more multi-culturally, technologically advanced society, perhaps outstripping the advances of any other modern nation today.

But are we any more advanced in the moral sense?

Sorry, Larry, Ken, Tonio, BuddyLee and maybe even vrai - but I have to question that conclusion.

 

[Ken King]

Re: Re: Long answers are necessary..

Originally posted by penncam
But are we any more advanced in the moral sense?

Sorry, Larry, Ken, Tonio, BuddyLee and maybe even vrai - but I have to question that conclusion.

I would say that you are as morally advanced as the anti-abolitionists were. We were supposedly in a "free-fall" when slavery ended too, weren't we?

It seems our form of government can make adjustments as we seek "a more perfect Union".

 

[Larry Gude]

Thougths and comments...

Hess...

Taney did NOT create precident...he interpretted standing law....Later, the law was changed.

Educate me, please. I don't recall which part of the Constitution was changed to therefore agree that we are all created equal.

Thank you

 

[Tonio]

Re: Re: Long answers are necessary..

Originally posted by penncam
Sorry, Larry, Ken, Tonio, BuddyLee and maybe even vrai - but I have to question that conclusion.

Why do you and Hessian describe homosexuality as a vice and a temptation, or at least equate it to vices like drugs? That's scary. What in the world would tempt a straight man to have gay sex? Me, I can't even stomach the thought of anal sex with a woman.

Who made you the arbiter of what is moral and immoral? None of us has the right to determine that--not me, not Vrai, not Ken, not Larry, and certainly not you and Hessian.

If one of my daughters was a lesbian and some pustule told her that she deserved to go to Hell, I would force-feed him his own testicles.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: Re: Long answers are necessary..

Originally posted by Tonio
Why do you and Hessian describe homosexuality as a vice and a temptation, or at least equate it to vices like drugs? That's scary. What in the world would tempt a straight man to have gay sex? Me, I can't even stomach the thought of anal sex with a woman.

Who made you the arbiter of what is moral and immoral? None of us has the right to determine that--not me, not Vrai, not Ken, not Larry, and certainly not you and Hessian.

If one of my daughters was a lesbian and some pustule told her that she deserved to go to Hell, I would force-feed him his own testicles.

Pardon me for not selecting the paragraphs I agreed with, but these are the ones:

"Now...on to human behavior: We are not a people who strive to be moral...or become more moral. We are a nation that loves to flirt with evil. We have addictions to tobacco, alcohol, sexual abuse,...we watch movies that try to out-shock the previous movie.
We cheat on spouses-all the time knowing we shouldn't. We hide money from our government, speed, and steal from our businesses."

"With this delicately balanced moral cesspool, we deem ourselves wise, progressive, open, tolerant, to open up a new Pandora's box without much thought to the chaos that will eventually follow."

I did not specifically join in on the homosexual aspect of it on purpose; even though he refers to it.

I only focused on these thoughts, and felt he made some valid points.

As far as assuming the role of arbiter, who in the world told YOU that Hessian, or I, or anyone one else for that matter, didn't have the civil right to an opinion?

Just as an example, Hessian mentions movies that try to outshock the previous one: Have you ever seen the movie "Jackass"?
How about the thousands of teens who've been messed up physically trying to emulate their screen idols?

What about the follow-on movies that try to copy it, trying to cash ($$$) in on the craze before the interest wears off?

Oh yeah, that is morally superior. Sure, we've come a long way, haven't we?

 

[Hessian]

Larry...the "all created equal" was of course in the Declaration of Independence.-Even now, debate stirs regarding what Jefferson meant by that phrase.

Our constitution guarranteed the right to property...and eventually the convention debate erupted over the 3/5ths compromise and also the 20 year extension of "no-slavery debate"...the constitution thus left the "peculiar institution" alone. Slaves did not have citizenship status...thus their only protection under law was that of property. This is what Taney ruled in his two hour speech. Naturally, this was altered by the 13th,14th, and 15th amendment.

I DO NOT know how the 14th has been twisted out of its shape into such things as the right to privacy etc...but it has.
(No law school here..just years of teaching civics & constitution)

Regarding our other posters..Tonio has no measure of man or his vices beyond himself...there is no God...There is no natural rights of man that Jefferson ascribed to "Our creator.." thus there is only mob tyranny-without morals-that is the natural outcome of his world.

The same rant that says "you don't have the right to judge" says that we are subject to our own convienently created laws...just void them whenever the moral compass sinks lower.
(The OT prophets faced the same bitterness when they tried to get Israel to stop butchering children to Baal, temple prostitution, and worship of idols---"shut up...you do not have the right to tell us to stop...you can't judge us!"--God DID judge them-and when they cried out for mercy: He ignored them.)

Regarding Ken King's statement regarding the "Free-Fall" post slavery: that was held to by a minority of white southerners...thousands left, others clung to the lost cause for generations---It was not the belief of the majority of the nation.
what about the Freeman's schools? The KKK act of 1872? What about the Freedman's Bureau-all designed to help the less fortunate, rebuilding with HOPE after the war. All promoted by Republican leaders. Howard University?...these were NOT created by people who believed in Free Fall NOR by people who believed in "do your own thing, let me do mine."

yes Penncam...when you get abused for trying to hold the line--you know it is something worth clinging to. Matt 5.

Sorry...I don't pass the soundbite test.

 

[Tonio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Long answers are necessary..

Originally posted by penncam
As far as assuming the role of arbiter, who in the world told YOU that Hessian, or I, or anyone one else for that matter, didn't have the civil right to an opinion?

I never meant to imply that. Anyone has the right to believe that anyone else will be punished in the afterlife.

My problem is when people who hold that belief go around telling others they're going to Hell. At the very least, it's rude. At most, it's hateful and cruel.

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Hessian
Regarding our other posters..Tonio has no measure of man or his vices beyond himself...there is no God...There is no natural rights of man that Jefferson ascribed to "Our creator.." thus there is only mob tyranny-without morals-that is the natural outcome of his world.

Will you knock it off already? I do believe in God. Despite what the Old Testament says, my image of God is not that of a hateful or vengeful being. I see that as clearly incompatible with Him being loving.

And dammit, I do believe in right versus wrong. Every day I teach my little girls that it's wrong to hurt others physically or emotionally. If I do my job as a father right, they'll have empathy for other people and will be responsible adults. I don't believe that homosexuality is immoral, any more than I believe that eating meat on Friday is immoral. I believe God cares more about how we treat each other.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Hessian
Regarding Ken King's statement regarding the "Free-Fall" post slavery: that was held to by a minority of white southerners...thousands left, others clung to the lost cause for generations---

You are the one claiming we are in a free-fall and doomed as the ancient civilizations were. All I did was equate it to another period in our relatively brief history where the same was being said by many and we survived that. I see our nation surviving if same-sex marriages are allowed in some of the states. I see the Defense of Marriage Act being repealed as being unconstitutional.

 

[Penn]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Long answers are necessary..

Originally posted by Tonio
I never meant to imply that. Anyone has the right to believe that anyone else will be punished in the afterlife.

My problem is when people who hold that belief go around telling others they're going to Hell. At the very least, it's rude. At most, it's hateful and cruel.

Alright, then no offense taken, it was simply the way it came across.

Personally, I was not refering to punishment in the afterlife; I was just agreeing with Hessian that we as American citizens seem to think we hold the moral high ground on the world stage.

I don't buy that; in fact we be very well be heading down the road that ancient Rome found itself following, all in the name of progress, and, finding ways to accomodate immoral activity.

I've said it before, the feeling in society seems to be: If you don't like a law or statute, find a way around it. Either circumvent it with liberal lawyers, or judges, or shoot, just ignore those laws,
like they did in California or New York.

 

[Hessian]

"my image of God ..."

That is the root of the problem isn't it?
Reject the images of God when he destroys, punishes, drives out,
Reject the idea that a Holy God has more important things on his mind than how we "feel."
Sure, teach the girls that there is right, there is wrong...and there is an enormous gray zone where you do what you "feel."

God in Heaven is not impressed.

 

[Hessian]

Ken...the machinery still works...

for a while.

We have our amazing checks and balances (unless activist judges keep pushing their own version of legislation)

We have our electoral college (untill a huge block of voters who don't understand why it is there dump it)

We have our "Free Press" (which is 90% liberal & skews everything)

We have our freedom of religion (until the Govt does not like the anti-abortion or Anti gay stand..then they remove tax exempt status and issue politically correct issues to be avoided)

We have our guns (except in some states it is getting difficult and the probing ATF agents in all 50)

We have our Supreme court (appointed after numerous anal exams and senators deal-making)..laws only take 2 + years to overturn.-FDR knew this and used it with the WPA, & AAA+

Ken...you know there was a "Balance of Power" in Rome until it wobbled into dictactorship under Julius. We are wobbling...still believing that the machinery is working fine. It isn't.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by Hessian
"my image of God ..."

That is the root of the problem isn't it?
Reject the images of God when he destroys, punishes, drives out,
Reject the idea that a Holy God has more important things on his mind than how we "feel."
Sure, teach the girls that there is right, there is wrong...and there is an enormous gray zone where you do what you "feel."

God in Heaven is not impressed.

That's what it comes down to: How do we "feel" about certain issues, isn't it?

Let's go way back there, to the Garden of Eden. The Lord God gave Adam and Eve simple instructions - guidance - for living in that place. They were to maintain the Garden to the best of their abilities, etc., etc., were given commandments to obey, and were assured of life in a paradise. There was really only one no-no He imposed on them: Do not eat the fruit of The Tree of Knowledge.

Along comes Satan and tempts Eve while Adam was out exploring his land that God had given him.

She weighed the musings of Satan, that God would not mind if she ate of that fruit, that it would make her more closer to Him, and etc.

She did what she "felt" was right; she took her own path and not God's path. Original Sin, I think it's called.

That, maybe, is where we go wrong, in giving in to, or following our "feelings", again, our own paths.

 

[Hessian]

No truer words spoken Penn.

America needs two crucial things:
Recognition that there is truth (beyond our own rules)
Civics lessons on our Founding Fathers & the constitution.

The impact would be startling.