R
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ba
- Thread starter foodcritic
- Start date
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Funny thing is it started out as a religious ceremony
Actually, the first institutions of marriage were based on the idea of property rights and bloodlines - not so much for religious reasons as you would see them today; like not eating pork was related to health reasons and not really religious reasons - yet religion instituted it since it tended to be the law of the land. For instance, Hebrew law dictated that a brother must marry his brother's wife if his brother became deceased.
So - do you want to go back to the original ideas of marriage instead? Women are to be remarried to your family to maintain bloodlines and property rights? Marriage is about ownership and maintaining a family name? We can also make sure they are arranged like they were originally... that way we can make sure we are gaining proper property. How about some good dowrys, too?
It wasn't until the 800s that the Catholic Church even considered that love had to consented to by both parties to be binding; Courtisan love was a much later advent; and giving yourself to each other in equality an even later "invention".
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
It wasn't until the Council of Trent that marriage was determined by the Church to need witnesses and be performed by a priest. This was when marriage took on the life of being about preventing sin in the other and being religious, as you would interpret it today. (Council of Trent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
That same Council determined that if you didn't agree to the letter with the Church's interpretation of the Bible, you would be a heretic.
What's so amusing is that states pass anti-discrimination laws so that if you are a private business owner or in a similar position, you cannot refuse service or employment based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Then they try to refuse legal rights and discriminate against the very same people they've forbidden YOU to discriminate against!
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
What's so amusing is that states pass anti-discrimination laws so that if you are a private business owner or in a similar position, you cannot refuse service or employment based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. Then they try to refuse legal rights and discriminate against the very same people they've forbidden YOU to discriminate against!
I have no problem if a state wants to ban same sex marriage, same as if they want to legislate legalization, abortion, etc... I feel thats a states right and not the federal government - people can vote with their feet.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Seccession...
...or, more specifically the right to succeed had been argued for generations and is to this day. New York threatened it, even during the freaking war.
This is pure hindsight and requires that all the long built up frustrations and emotions could have been overcome, but, had the South succeeded, as they did, but did NOT attack numerous federal arsenals within the various Southern states, had they not attacked Sumter, had they merely inquired to DC, the federal government, as to the peaceful settling of all federal property within the succeeded states, there would have been no war. The entire premise of the fighting from the Northern states was that rebels had attacked the Union. From the Southern standpoint, pride would not allow them to do anything other than demand surrender of federal property within their states.
The thing is, absent the passions and anger, the perception that the North wanted to subjugate the South and the perception that the South was led by dark hearted rabble rousers the whole thing may never have come to a head. It's a great what if, but, history is filled with people wanting to fight for what they want and losing all when they could have had most everything they originally wanted, peacefully and over time had their pride not been so important to them.
...or, more specifically the right to succeed had been argued for generations and is to this day. New York threatened it, even during the freaking war.
This is pure hindsight and requires that all the long built up frustrations and emotions could have been overcome, but, had the South succeeded, as they did, but did NOT attack numerous federal arsenals within the various Southern states, had they not attacked Sumter, had they merely inquired to DC, the federal government, as to the peaceful settling of all federal property within the succeeded states, there would have been no war. The entire premise of the fighting from the Northern states was that rebels had attacked the Union. From the Southern standpoint, pride would not allow them to do anything other than demand surrender of federal property within their states.
The thing is, absent the passions and anger, the perception that the North wanted to subjugate the South and the perception that the South was led by dark hearted rabble rousers the whole thing may never have come to a head. It's a great what if, but, history is filled with people wanting to fight for what they want and losing all when they could have had most everything they originally wanted, peacefully and over time had their pride not been so important to them.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I have...
...a problem with it based on the right of free association. There is no reason the law can't say that marriage is limited to two adults and leave it at that. There are all kinds of practical limitations on sizes and shapes and scope of various entities, so there is sound basis for a legal limitation on number and age of partners.
Refusing the right of two adults of entering into a legal contract, marriage, is, to me, clearly unconstitutional and the argument against it is about the same as Dredd Scott; Only citizens can sue the government. Dredd is a slave, property, therefore not a citizen, therefore he can not sue.
As you state, marriage is a contract involving property and so forth. People are free to add any religious context to their own that they see fit and there is no legal basis for requiring anything of any faith in regards to marriage.
...a problem with it based on the right of free association. There is no reason the law can't say that marriage is limited to two adults and leave it at that. There are all kinds of practical limitations on sizes and shapes and scope of various entities, so there is sound basis for a legal limitation on number and age of partners.
Refusing the right of two adults of entering into a legal contract, marriage, is, to me, clearly unconstitutional and the argument against it is about the same as Dredd Scott; Only citizens can sue the government. Dredd is a slave, property, therefore not a citizen, therefore he can not sue.
As you state, marriage is a contract involving property and so forth. People are free to add any religious context to their own that they see fit and there is no legal basis for requiring anything of any faith in regards to marriage.
FromTexas
This Space for Rent
Then why is civil union not sufficient? We have seen the argument that civil unions or other full legal entitlements are not enough as being recognized on a marriage certificate.
Last edited:
ImnoMensa
New Member
Lets not say this is about Freedom, until we give Freedom to everyone.
Why should homosexuals be free to marry if Brothers and Sisters arent. Who is to say it is wrong for a man to have 4 wives or a woman 4 husbands. Isnt that up to the individuals involved? Its about Freedom after all.
If a man's daughter turns 21 and wishes to marry her father ,who is to say no? Isnt she a consenting adult? Fathers could marry their handicapped daughters and leave them their pensions when they die. There are a lot of ways to profit from this, as I am sure that is the primary reason gays wish to be married, for the financial benefits. This is certainly not about love, anyone can love without marriage. Many people love each other until they marry. Marriage has ruined some good relationships.
Who is to Be the arbiter of this freedom? What sexual deviencies are to be free and which arent?
A few homosexuals will of course marry and some of them might even give up their tendencies to be sexually promiscuous, I believe most will choose to remain single when the civil divorce cases start coming on board, when they start paying alimony.Child support.
Why should homosexuals be free to marry if Brothers and Sisters arent. Who is to say it is wrong for a man to have 4 wives or a woman 4 husbands. Isnt that up to the individuals involved? Its about Freedom after all.
If a man's daughter turns 21 and wishes to marry her father ,who is to say no? Isnt she a consenting adult? Fathers could marry their handicapped daughters and leave them their pensions when they die. There are a lot of ways to profit from this, as I am sure that is the primary reason gays wish to be married, for the financial benefits. This is certainly not about love, anyone can love without marriage. Many people love each other until they marry. Marriage has ruined some good relationships.
Who is to Be the arbiter of this freedom? What sexual deviencies are to be free and which arent?
A few homosexuals will of course marry and some of them might even give up their tendencies to be sexually promiscuous, I believe most will choose to remain single when the civil divorce cases start coming on board, when they start paying alimony.Child support.
Homosexuals are still people. Some will want to marry, some will not. Some will want children, some will not. Some will run out and leave their spouse and children high and dry, some will not. They are no more likely to choose to remain single after a divorce than a heterosexual couple is. And I'm surprised you would single out homosexuals for promiscuity - don't you read these forums?
And, PS, I have no problem with consenting adults marrying whoever they please, whether it's a relative or several spouses. I don't see how that affects me or my personal freedoms.
That's probably part of it, but my guess is they want to marry for the same reason anyone else wants to marry - it legitimizes the relationship in the eyes of society.
Why do a man and woman get married? Sure, love, but as you said, you can love without marriage. They get married because it's a social contract that binds these two people as a couple. It says "We go together and are a family."
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I think...
...it is. I'm not even sure where the demarcation line is between 'civil union' and marriage. It's all the same anyway. So, people like to fight over semantics. Civil union is fine by me as long as it carries all the rights and protections of 'marriage'.
...it is. I'm not even sure where the demarcation line is between 'civil union' and marriage. It's all the same anyway. So, people like to fight over semantics. Civil union is fine by me as long as it carries all the rights and protections of 'marriage'.
Dork
Highlander's MPD
Make up a new word. "Adam and Steve just got queeried." Then they moved into a new "gayborhood" and live next to Linda and Susan. They are now all living happily every after.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
They got...
...married. They live together, share money, home, property, everything. They are committed to one another and want legal recognition of that commitment and the legal rights that go with it.
Married. Good Lord, look at what hetero's have done to the concept of marriage for how long? It was called a 'marriage' when men essentially owned their wives and she had little or no rights. We didn't need a new freaking word when she became a full citizen, did we? I'll bet you a whole bunch of men groused over that one down at the bar;
"Call it what you will Goddamn it, but it sure ain't marriage like back in the good old days! You realize if she leaves me she gets some of my stuff??? What the hell is this world coming to? Now, I even have to get her to go along willingly when I want some poontang! It ain't right I tell yah, it ain't right...this is NOT what God had in mind!"
...married. They live together, share money, home, property, everything. They are committed to one another and want legal recognition of that commitment and the legal rights that go with it.
Married. Good Lord, look at what hetero's have done to the concept of marriage for how long? It was called a 'marriage' when men essentially owned their wives and she had little or no rights. We didn't need a new freaking word when she became a full citizen, did we? I'll bet you a whole bunch of men groused over that one down at the bar;
"Call it what you will Goddamn it, but it sure ain't marriage like back in the good old days! You realize if she leaves me she gets some of my stuff??? What the hell is this world coming to? Now, I even have to get her to go along willingly when I want some poontang! It ain't right I tell yah, it ain't right...this is NOT what God had in mind!"
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
You know Vrai, I give it about 6 more posts before we're called liberals.
AndyMarquisLIVE
New Member
Because it's still not allowed in a lot of states.
Problem is, the George Bush elements of the right wing are opposed to this as well.
This_person
Well-Known Member
It's sort of a state right, and sort of a federal issue. Clearly, the Constitution provides that the federal government has more restrictions than rights/authorities, and the people have the bulk of the rights, as they give them up to the individual states:Score 1 for States' Rights!
Amendment 9 - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment 10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
However, when one state says something's okay, the other states have to accept what that state says:Amendment 10 - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article 4
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
So, when CA says gays are "married" (i.e., to take as husband and wife, which would be hard to do without two sexes involved), all the other states also are saying that this couple is "married". So, 49 states' rights are denied by one state having its rights.Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Now, as stated above, many states require getting a new driver's license, or law license, etc., etc. I don't know of a state that requires a new marriage certificate/license when changing states. Perhaps this is because different states have slightly different driving laws, and very significant legal standards and practices, but for the first few centuries of the nation, "marriage" was a pretty clearly defined term with little or no variance (as stated above, Utah had to change it's polygamy stance to become a state). So, the federal question is whether other states will be required to accept as equally binding for tax returns, wills, divorce procedings, insurance purposes, etc., etc., etc., two husbands or two wives in the same manner as a husband and wife.
