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

ZOMG1 That was my birthday

Exactly! But we have posters on this thread who say: "Fuck tradition!"This silly flap is over a single word, "marriage." And no one has yet come forward to explain why "marriage" should NOT be used exclusively to define a civil union between members of opposite sexes. Sorry, but that's just how is was intended by the lawmakers. Gays don't qualify for that "marriage," of course, and for a very obvious reason. But that shouldn't prevent them for having civil unions with each other to protect their legal rights and interests. Who wants to make them suffer that way?The gay crowd cannot explain why the word "marriage" needs to apply to them, especially when they already can, in certain states, get civilly united under the law. But, OH, NO, that ain't enough! For them to insist on changing the historical meaning of the word "marriage"”The Sacred Covenant”is a reverse form of bigotry.But then you have to ask: Why does the law need be involved with Sacred Covenants?”HM

I agree with your last statement entirely as I've stated before. We can delete the word marriage. And the law of unintended cicumstances will remove the word divorce from legal dictionaries resulting in courts having more time to concentrate on the threats to our lives and wellfares.

quote:

---

For them to insist on changing the historical meaning of the word "marriage"”The Sacred Covenant”is a reverse form of bigotry.

---

Just like the change of the historical meaning of pedophile from child lover to child molester.or of fossil from anything dug out of the ground to only relects of former living things.Word meanings are not "etched in stone," they change according to the times.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

The law isn't involved with sacred covenants. Go to a church and have your ceremony and don't bother to file the certificate. You'll find the "sacred covenant" doesn't mean squat to Uncle Sam.Uncles Sam is looking out for his own interests: not those of the couple or religion. Marriage is contract law, and the government has no compelling interest other than to standardize adjudication of property upon the desolation the contract; therein, dissolving a civil ceremony in exactly the same way as it does a religious ceremony. The "gay crowd" is not required to explain why the word "marriage" needs to apply to them. They can go to any of a dozen different U.S. Government recognized religious institutions and get their "sacred covenant" certified, i.e., married. In cases of the free exercise of religion the State is required to show the strongest of compelling interests as to why they should interfere. The State does not have one.There isn't an attorney worth his salt who'd dare argue that the State has a compelling interest in preserving the family in regard to marriage, the definition of the word "marriage", the reprinting of forms, or no business recognizing "sacred covenants" It'd be a rout compelled by snickers. ( A clue: our representatives can and will say anything that strikes their fancy when arguing to enact a law, but wouldn't dare offer the same argument to a court. Try finding the "Preserving the Family" argument in regard to marriage in case law.)Tradition, like the sabbath, is made for man.Edited by lyx2no, : I lost the second quote somehow.

---

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

As it should NOT, according the First Amendment. Wish I understood what you are saying here. When does the government ever "dissolve" a religious ceremony? And why should it? You seem to be making my case for me. Why not? They're the ones demanding it. They can? So then you agree with me that the State should have no legitimate role in the "marriage" business, that it should restrict its jurisdiction to civil contracts. I haven't presented a "Preserving the Family" argument. So was the horse. Should we defy tradition and call it a "cow"?”HM

Happy belated birthday! This must mean that you and the Larry Craig Bobblefoot have the same astrological sign.btw: I like your new avatar.”HM

I’m finding it difficult to believe you’re not being perverse. You seem to be taking umbrage that the government shouldn’t and isn’t involved simultaneously. And have you found anyone arguing in this thread that the government should take on a religious bent?News flash! The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. My statement was really quite clear. In the case of a divorce ” a dissolution of the contract called marriage ” the government treats civil and religious marriages in exactly the same way. The government dissolves religious ceremonies called marriages five days a week. That’s because the government treats civil and religious marriages in exactly the same way. That’s because the government has no compelling interest other than to standardize adjudication of property upon the desolation of the marriage. To whom else could you go to get a divorce in the U.S.?I agree that the State should not involve itself in religious affairs, but The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. I’m sorry, the “why not” is now in yellow. I figured that because the reason followed on the heels of the statement you’d be able catch it yourself.And yes, the Unitarian Universalists for one will marry gay couples. Uncle sam won’t recognize the ceremony, but the church will. Hey! Isn’t that the solution you called for? Private sector marriage. Then the gay couple can also get a civil union to complete the package: just in two steps instead of one. What a dumb ass idea that is.In case you haven’t noticed, The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. It is treated as contract law rather then as a sacred covenant. Also, the government dissolves religious ceremonies called marriages five days a week. That’s because the government treats civil and religious marriages in exactly the same way. That’s because the government has no compelling interest other than to standardize adjudication of property upon the desolation of the marriage. Hey cool! Deja ve. You made the same mistake earlier with the Constitution, this paragraph also doesn’t mention you. The horse was made for the benefit of the horse itself not for man, but if it will help liberate my fellow man ” even if he is a sissy ” I’ll call it a cow and eat it too.And one more thing, the United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. You now want to change the name of these civil ceremonies to “civil unions”. It’s the gay folks who want to keep the old definition.Edited by lyx2no, : Spelling

---

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

The right you have they do not is to be able to marry someone that you are sexually attracted to.

1. Did you happen to notice that I said "should" in my statement. It's my opionion that is shouldn't.2. Are you as redundant in real life? Most marriages”you know, the real ones between a man and woman”involve three stops: 1. The blood test, 2. the marriage license, 3. and the church. WHAT? The modern horse was a human creation by way of interbreeding. Humans deliberately manipulated horsy genes to fit their various needs and purposes. Thought you knew that. Ah...well...no, not exactly.”HM

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

And no one has yet come forward to explain why "marriage" should NOT be used exclusively to define a civil union between members of opposite sexes.

---

You clearly didn't read the opinion of the California Supreme Court.What part of "separate but equal" are you having trouble with? If you're going to separate contracts that provide equal rights and responsibilities, then you must call them the same thing because it is constitutionally required. By calling them different things, you invite differential treatment which is prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.Note, "marriage" used to mean "between people of the same race." That law in California was struck down for the exact same reasons as the current law restricting marriage as being "between people of opposite sex."Are you saying it was improper to "redefine" marriage to be regardless of the race of the participants?

quote:

---

The gay crowd cannot explain why the word "marriage" needs to apply to them, especially when they already can, in certain states, get civilly united under the law.

---

On the contrary. It is not up to gays to explain why they should have equal rights. It is up to those who wish to deny equality to explain why full citizenship does not apply to gays.What part of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply to gays?

quote:

---

For them to insist on changing the historical meaning of the word "marriage"”The Sacred Covenant”is a reverse form of bigotry.

---

Huh? Are you seriously saying that if a black person and a white person get "married," that somehow affects the marriage of two white people?That's what "marriage" used to mean. There were laws against race-mixing. The California Supreme Court struck them down.Were they wrong to do so? Does the fact that people of different races can get married affect yours?Then you need to explain why people of the same sex getting married affects you.Be specific. If the neighbors next door get married, what will happen to you?Will your income tax rates go up?
Will your children be taken away?
Will you be deported?
Will you lose your health insurance?
Will you be put in prison?Be specific.

quote:

---

Why does the law need be involved with Sacred Covenants?

---

Since when did "marriage" mean "sacred covenant" with respect to the law? I was under the impression that the separation of church and state was established law.Atheists can get married. Should they not be allowed to?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

lyx2no writes:

quote:

---

Then the gay couple can also get a civil union to complete the package

---

Except that a "civil union" is not the same as a "marriage." In not one state that has a "civil union," not even California, does the contract of "civil union" carry the same rights as that of "marriage."And no, I'm not talking about the federal rights of marriage for which there is no such thing as "civil union." I'm talking about the state rights. As the CSC's opinion pointed out, there are multiple rights that the California "civil union" contract does not provide that "marriage" does. Thus, they are not equivalent. Thus, equal protection necessarily applies. Thus, "marriage" must be made available to same-sex couples.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

You said it shouldn’t; I said it didn’t. Why are you confused? Dude, maybe I’m just typing to fast.Because citizens have the right of redress before the government there is a very good, self serving reason for the the government to standardize the civil aspects of marriages religious or no. Unless you also intend to strip the citizens of this country of the right to go before the government to resolve contract disputes then the government not at liberty to get out of the marriage business. Again, only the religious aspect of marriage is substantially outside the purview of government. No, I’m not usually so redundant. But how did you notice I said it several times while also not noticing I said it at all? (Did you miss the taunt: “daja vu”?)

1. Not many states require the blood test any longer. We can treat syphilis now so the government sort of lost its compelling interest to test for it.
   ​
2. The marriage license is the civil bit that I might have mentioned once or twice, but just in case I forgot: The United States Government has performed civil ceremonies called “marriages” for 230 years. (Yes, I know this is a different argument, but I wanted to stick it in your craw.)
   ​
3. You mean, like, that Unitarian Universalist church thing. Yeah, got that bit. You seemed to miss the bit about this solving your whole “government shouldn’t be involved “ problem. Additionally, as an atheist, I skipped the church. You've just called my kids "bastards". And just because you got it right on the oldest one don't thing I all up to forgiving you.

The real argument is that you list three requirements for a "real marriage". The first is trivial. The second you say is not the State's business. And the third is already available to gay couples. So where do you have an argument at all. Let me guess, you’re one of those people that hangs a pine tree air freshener on your rear view mirror and tells his friends he restored the vehicle in the drive way. Thought I didn’t know that, didn’t ya’? See, there you go again forgetting I’m a moo-ron. Can you expound upon that “not exactly” so I can be smart like you?P.S. And could you please figure out the proper spacing around punctuation so you’re not screwing up my spell checker.

---

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

I was speaking from the World where Hoot Mon has abolished civil marriages and replaced them entirely with civil unions. I agree with you in full that civil union is not the equal of civil marriage; and further, is a top to bottom dumb ass idea.

---

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

Marriage, in the eyes of the law, has nothing to do with sexual attraction or love. It is just a social contract. And it does have some restrictions. None of us have the RIGHT to marry someone we're attracted to. That doesn't have anything to do with it.