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

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.

So, if a gay couple got married in a Universalist church you'd be cool with that and call it a marriage?

---

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

This is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. The people get to indirectly control their government's actions. Not use the government to abuse other people who happen to have different wants and needs. A Gay person should be allowed self determination as much as a straight person. No one is required to like it. No one is required to call it normal. No one is required to call it marriage except government workers who are employees of the Gay person as much as they are employees of the straight persons. If they don't like it they can quit.Me, I'll call it marriage because I've got a life of my own and won't be paying attention to to the Gay people. I will be paying attention to the bigots because they are sure to be screwing with me at some point.AbE: Oh wow! I'm more worried about being screwed by a bigot than I am by a homosexual. How's that for irony.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

You might want to consider that straights, like atheists, have not formed a proper group while Gays, like Catholics have. If you you want to impugn my motives you'll have to go for something less transparent.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

No it's not. In a democracy elected representatives are still subordinate to the voters, while in a republic they are independent of the voter (until the next election) but subordinate to some form of charter. Our charter is the Constitution. There is a bit more to it but this is the bit important to this discussion.The American voter doesn't have the right to vote on everything. They can't vote to hang everyone named "Harry" for example. One could in a straight democracy. That is why no thinking person would ever want to live under a democracy.Now, when our founding fathers wrote up the Constitution the idea of people as autonomous agents was a fairly new one and not fully thought out. "People" was defined as "The folks we here would talk this over with at dinner." Women were obviously not people, nor were blacks ” yelling back and forth to the kitchens would be absurd. Non land owners hadn't made the grade in most quarters. But, against the tide, the definition has matured. (Many felt their own franchise would be diminished by the change in definition.)The form of the autonomy recognized in the Constitution was also immature. It was recognized as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in The Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights got to "life and liberty" with acuity but were pretty vague when it came to the "pursuit of happiness". The 9^th amendment may well be a concession to their feelings of incompleteness. You know . that feeling you get when you did most the chores on your list but seem to have forgotten one. Well, they didn't remember it at 3:00 am, and left it to us to sort out. I'm pretty sure myself that last chore was self-determination. A woman can't do it and remain within the context of what a contract is. A tree does not have the ability to form consent.But their are no distinguishable duties between the parties in a civil marriage contract. Is spouse "A" the male or female? Is spouse "B" the male or female? Without assignment of separate duties ascribed to the parties any definition based on the sex of the parties is extraneous. If a pick pocket ineptly steals my wallet, but I manage to snatch it out of his hand before he gets away does that make me a thief?My view is that self-determination takes precedent over the definition of a word. We the definitions of the United States, in order to form a more stable dictionary . just doesn't have the same ring to it.If a person doesn't understand the differences between forcing others to abide to their will and the others forcing that person to leave them be then I don't see that person's opinion deserving a whole lot of consideration.*I assume that your dangling modifier is meant to apply to my reasoning. Is this intended to be a slight or a statement of fact? I can be thick at times. Either way, what do you find to be disingenuous about my reasoning?Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

While both are fruit, you are mixing apples and oranges. Go for it, but it’s way OT. Americans have the right to form contracts with each other. The Government, as the GA, has an interest in regulating these contracts. These regulations include “Age of Consent” and “Clean Hands”. Your seventeen year old is covered by the first and your “hit” is covered by the second.The Government, recognizing that they had no interest in the particulars of the contractual duties of the parties involved in the marriage contract exacted no requirements. The sex of either party became irrelevant. You’re reinventing those roundy things. It certainly matters to me . but I’m not a civil marriage contract. It is not evident to me. No. This is almost to absurd to contemplate. So I won’t. But I will pull this bit out again: As you use the phrase “ . what a marriage was supposed to be in the first place.” I’m betting you’re not quite the relative moralist you’re making yourself out to be. Are you under the impression that I’d not notice the violation of the self-determination of the school children? Recognizing self-determination is my bag, man. It’s how I roll, dude. The point of Reductio ad absurdum is not to make your own arguments ridiculous. Idiom isn’t peculiar. How many people are confused when they see a television commercial in which the product is touted as marriage of sophistication to convenience. Do you think we should all run out and pass a law that say that “sophistication” and “convenience” must be of opposite genders if they are to be married? No one will be confused but a minor change to a legal definition. Quite frankly, give it any name you want: It will be called marriage well before the honeymoon is over. How about because if I’m a bank I’m more likely to give a loan when I’ve got two people on the hook for it?How about if I’m a ____________ I”m more likely to ____________when I’ve got two people on the hook for it?Fill in the blanks. That does suck, doesn’t it. I’m the worst prude I know. But my prudish prudence isn’t universal. One size does not fit all.

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.

Degree of interest ranges from “this would be handy” to “I fear for the Republic, Obi Wan.” When it comes to repressing self-determination we need to be a bit closer to the latter. This has be expressed down thread several times. The Gov recognizes that children only read the bit in a contract about seeing spot run, therefore, not getting the gist of what it was that they were signing. The number of noncompliance suits was just enormous. The solution was “Age of Consent (informed consent) Doctrine”. Under what doctrine do we prevent Gays from getting married? Gay folk enter into other contract types without interference, so there isn’t a more general precept to work from. Gov and time have both established that there is no interest in recognizing the genders of the parties to the marriage contract.Maybe you are right, the Republic might fall if we allow Gays to marry, but at this point the burden of proof has shifted to you. (If one copies and pastes from the peek one gets the format too.)Rrhain, bless him, has done it well a hundred times to no apparent end. The “Word to the Wise Doctrine” doesn't seem to be in effect this week. Do you also call the moves on both sides of the checker board? No one does not understand the fear of change. Aristophanes, exactly 6001 years ago today, complained about the vulgarity of youth regarding Hadrian’s pipers and had a wall built. They get over it. Nobody wins that way.One in not a bigot because they get the willies when they see two men kissing. The number of gay men and women who get the willies seeing me kiss a woman is only exceeded by the number of straight women who do. Why do I always get teary-eyed when kissing a beautiful girl? It’s the mace.One becomes a bigot when on begins to contemplate controlling that behavior.Allowing gay marriage requires no action from the objectors. A bit of tit-for-tangent: My moral outlook is based on the axioms that all men are equal, there are only individual rights, and that fair has nothing to do with feelings. (Again, there’s more, but I like to keep it snappy.) If you don’t think that last one doesn’t get me in trouble with the simpleton left (did I just ask for it or what?) you’re sorely deluded. I’m afraid I’d have to legalize prostitution and incest (among consenting adult). I just can’t see the actual harm. And my sister is, like, totally hot.Polygamy, on the other hand leads to an untenable situation in cases of divorce. It is not possible for a court to disentangle an emotionally charged situation ” property settlement is their standard , remember ” where part “A” wants to cleave only part “B”, but not part “C”. While part “B” wants to keep part “C”. And the guy on his rear . said, “Oh dear”. (Johnny Cash) But that one doesn’t take it as a good thing might very well indicate that words are flexible ” more so than we. Automatic cosigners are a lot more attractive. It is highly unlikely that there will be any fallout from gay marriage at all. But I could be wrong. Look what those pipers did to Scotland.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar

---

KindlyThere is a spider by the water pipe.