Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

80's music should be illegal...

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

Hey look you CAN say fuck...and asshole too!

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

So what if the definition is chaned to include 2 men or 2 women? Would that help in making it ok for them to marry?

The problem here, as always, is that the Christian Fundamentalists have their own definitions for words.Like in the evolution debate where they are only capable of using their definitions for words like "theory", "evidence", "fact", "transitional" etc, here we see the exact same problem.The Fundamentalists have their definition of "marriage" - One man, One Woman and Jesus.That's it.They refuse to acknowledge the fact that the US Government does not recognize church weddings are sufficient for marriage.Marriages are CONTRACTS. You sign a piece of paper, then you are married. The church, the priest, the rings, the flowers - all just for show.Any two mentally capable adults are allowed to enter into any other kind of contract - but because the fundamentalists don't want to use everyone else's definition, then apparently "homosexual" adults are forbidden from entering into this particular kind of contract.The solution, really, is simple:
Remove all marriage - entirely.The state ONLY issues "Civil Union" contracts. ALL paperwork, ALL laws, ALL insurance claims, ALL medical rules, etc, ALL get changed to reflect "civil union".Then, if you are a fundamentalist and get married by the "Church of the Bigotted Sheppard" you can claim that you are "married".However, be aware, that ANYONE else can ALSO get "married" by ANY other figure they deem a reasonable authority.No one is attempting to pass any laws to "force" any private religious institution into doing anything.However, you're private religious institution likewise has no sway over anyone else's.

Good plan. What would you bet that within a month everyone would be calling the civil unions "marriages" followed by "Oh damn! Civil union."

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

As has been pointed out many times, this is an impractical and impossible goal. Most people will not support such a change. By setting up an impractical and impossible goal like this, in the end nothing gets done and we're back to square one.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Except that, if this solution is presented to the fundamentalists and they discard it, then it is fair game to say, "Alright, if you don't want a workable solution, we'll just allow gay marriage."Treat them like 3 year olds, they act like them anyway.

Actually, I said that the definition is defined by how the word was used. Where have I said that I don't want them to have the same rights?Also, everyone does have the right to get married. Marriage already had a definition before gays wanted in on it. They want something that doesn't fit within the definition. So we either need to change the definition or provide a new word.

quote:

---

Intolerance:
1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc
Intolerance Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

---

Unwillingness to respect contrary opinion, hmmmm.You've been drinking too much Kool-Aid. Face it, you're an intolerant bigot. Marriage already had a definition before the issue came up so it wasn't defined in order to deny marriage to gays.

But why does it matter what they call themselves? The only thing that really matters is that the government gets out of the business of marriage. Some people on this thread call themselves educated, and they still use the word "bigot" to describe people who disagree with them. That proves to me that you can be educated and still be ignorant.”HM

A classic example of circular reasoning. DOMA doesn't stop anyone marrying so long as we use DOMA's definition of marriage... the one that was introduced with... DOMA!The whole raison d'tre of DOMA was to exclude homosexuals from marriage and if marriage was not defined in pre-DOMA law as being solely between men and women, then it must have been between any two people. Thus DOMA removed an extant right to marriage from gays and lesbians. For God's sake CS, the example you respond to there was about the situation pre-DOMA. I was trying to shed light upon the reasons why DOMA was introduced in the first place. It's no use falling back on DOMA's definition of marriage before the damn thing existed. Try to keep up.States that refused to recognise gay marriages fro other states would have fallen foul of FFC before DOMA was introduced.That is why it was introduced. Blah, blah, blah...It has already been patiently explained to you that this line of reasoning is flawed. Try;"That marriage is defined as being between two people of the same race doesn’t discriminate against anyone in particular, it just constrains what can be considered a marriage."I think you see where I'm coming from. This particular variety of nonsense was shot down forty years ago. Do you not believe in the constitution? If it were demonstrated to your satisfaction that bans/failures to recognise gay marriage were unconstitutional, would you still insist that states be allowed to violate the constitution? What?Where did I call you names CS?What name did I call you, and in which message? Let's have it.Find me that quote or retract that accusation, because I have not called you any names. I told you not to get your knickers in a twist. I told you that your argument was bad. I told you that you were talking rot, but I did not call you any names.You, on the other hand, called me a bigot almost as soon as we started this exchange.If you think you are being called names, my advice is to either;
a) take it like a goddamn man
or
b) complain to an admin about my breach of forum rules.Don't just whine about it. That's pathetic and extremely hypocritical.

---

Mutate and Survive

It's worse than that. I've lost my appetite for Hershey bars. Now I have to make my somemores with peanut butter.”HM

Not if I want to keep out of trouble with him and the law. He's big s.o.b., and he claims the law is on his side. Well, damn it, I suppose it is. Bigoted bastard! I'd like to send a 2x4 up his Hershey Highway.”HM

No, marriage was implicitly defined as between a man and woman before DOMA. The lack of an explicit definition was the reason for DOMA. It explicitly defined marriage to match the implicit definition.The reason was not to exclude homosexuals from marriage. DOMA’s definition is what the definition was before it existed. Your premise that marriage was not considered to be between a man and a woman before DOMA is false. No, DOMA was introduced to provide an explicit definition due to the ambiguity cause by an implicit definition. What was shot down was a different variety. The RIA explicitly forbid marriages between whites and blacks. DOMA does not explicitly forbid marriage between gays so it doesn’t violate the FFCC. I think that explicit bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional but failures to recognize them are not.
If the SCOTUS deems DOMA unconstitutional, then I won’t support it (DOMA) anymore. Well if you’re going to be pedantic about it, I didn’t actually say that you did call me names.

You mean to say that they are not as free to choose as I am? Not true! They have EXACTLY the same options available to them as I have to me. What they want is special treatment under the law, special exemptions for self-chosen aberrations that the majority of Americans deem inconsistent with the spirit of the law as it was written. It's not much different from people who want to raise dogs for BBQ purposes. The law says they can't. Now, what kind of bigoted law is that? Why should anyone care if I want to put chopped puppy livers in my salad?”HM

People typically respond to this by saying that you have the right to marry the one that you love while gays don't.But in the eyes of the law, a marriage is simply a social contract and it doesn't have anything to do with love. So, you don't really have the RIGHT to marry the one you love in the first place.