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

Seems there are only a few logical deductions to make here, at least in America. Marriage was started under religious pretenses a long, long time ago. It remained that way in America until the government stepped in, in the 1800's. That could be construed as an affront to the 1st Amendment, and thus marriage licenses and such are actually unconstitutional.If they were to go this route, then any minister who claims to represent God could marry whomever they want and nobody could speak a word against it.The second route is to simply defer the decision to a state to decide for themselves, since the Constitution is silent about marriage.

I don't think it was intended to be a scorched earth policy. It seems reasonable given the 1st Amendment. Whether it is reasonable or not, you also make a very good point. We can't undo the century of marriage being under government control at this point. Since that doesn't seem like a legitimate option, I think it should then either go down to a vote by the citizens in each state.Let the people decide what they want. That is, after all, how democracies work. We seem to be forgetting that ever-so-slowly.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

A Constitutional Republic is an example of democracy. There are several forms of democracy, and a CR is just one example. Very true indeed, in my humblest opinion. But then again a woman can't self-determine to marry a tree and remain within the context of what a marriage is. Well, she can make that determination, but it means nothing legally, but it may have some sentimental significance to the woman marrying the tree. The problem is that definitions often have very narrow interpretations for reasons of clarity. As of now, and as of always, marriage been defined as being between a man and a woman.There is even further distinction, as just being a man and a woman by nature does not alone make two people married. It seems that you would first have to overturn DOMA and then redefine definitions.I'm sure stranger things have happened. Societal shifts are clearly taking place, and with time homosexuals will likely be allowed to legally marry. I think I see a bigger irony. If a person who doesn't agree with your view is a bigot on those pretenses, then what does that make you?

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

Legally a state reserves the right to enact and enforce its own laws, so long as it is in compliance with federal law. It is also the right of citizens to move to other states that they feel cater their beliefs and demographics better than their home state.Listening to your constituents as a Senator, Governor, or Representative is always prudent. So if the majority of Californians, Floridians, New Yorkers, etc want gay marriage, then it would be in the best interest of those in positions of authority to give the People in the majority what they want, again, so long as it is in compliance with the Constitution which cannot legally be usurped.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

There is nothing in the Constitution that protects or prohibits marriage, as it is silent on the issue. Perhaps it could be construed as one of those "self-evident truths", so sensible that it needn't be even mentioned, but that would be a difficult argument to make in court. But that is why we have SCOTUS in the first place, as a failsafe.So it seems that one would first have to find a reasonable way to irrevocably show that marriage is a basic right in the first place. Then they would have to redefine what a marriage is. And then homosexuals would have the right to be legally married. The other approach is that it should be delegated to the states to decide for themselves, which, to me, seems like it best summarizes the spirit of the Constitution. We can't simply overturn something because some people don't like it. If the majority wanted murder to be legal all of a sudden, SCOTUS wouldn't simply overturn it because the majority wanted them to. And that is only because it is something already strictly prohibited. So a popular vote would not change that. It is different with the institution of marriage, since there is no basis for defending it or prohibiting it in the first place.Besides, there are a lot of things that I don't personally like, but it may be legal as per SCOTUS. I simply have to deal with it, and fight it through legislature. The idea behind SCOTUS is to interpret what was already written so that the spirit behind the Constitution can be extricated from manipulative interpretations. If there is a reasonable basis to legalize homosexual marriage, as per the Constitution, then a majority vote is meaningless. If there is no basis, then a popular vote would be the next equitable thing.What I am saying is that in the event SCOTUS decides that this is not a Constitutional question, they may end up delegating authority to the states to decide for themselves. And that should come down to a vote since We the People means something. Not at all, you just seem to have misinterpreted me. I trust that my clarification will suffice. If not, I will try and explain it again.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

The United States is a democracy overall. That it is a Constitutional Republic is simply a description of one form of democracy. Its like saying that while all Floridians are Americans, not all Americans are Floridians. A Constitutional Republic could represent Florida, and democracy could represent America, if you will oblige the analogy."A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, but not all democracies are constitutional republics. For example, though the head of state is not elected in a monarchy, it may still be a liberal democracy if there is a parliament with elected representatives that govern according to constitutional law protecting individual rights (called a constitutional democratic monarchy). Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." - SourceIndeed, I doubt there is a legitimate democracy because of the infallibility of man in the same way that there has never been a legitimate communist nation by virtue of the fallibility and corruptablity of man. There is a reason why the United States is a Constitutional Republic, as explained below:Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state ” it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." - I understand what you are saying, and in many ways we actually agree. However, what you are describing is indeed still a democracy, albeit a form with checks and balances. A direct democracy is not feasible in the sense that how could 300 million Americans all voice their opinion to the president of the United States? There are physical limitations preventing just that, and so, in the infinite wisdom of the Framers, they decided to establish Representatives who would "represent" their constituents. A woman and a seventeen year old could. But there are problems there as well. Signing a contract does not become the arbitration to do as one pleases, especially if it operates outside of the law. Myself and a third party may have a contractual agreement. I offer him services as a hitman in exchange for money. That obviously isn't legal because I am operating outside of the law in order to do it. Why couldn't reasonably be said that age is also extraneous? I mean, who is to say as long as there is no Grand Arbiter? It simply comes down to the opinion of one against another, does it not? And so there is a crux where they vie for the majority opinion -- hence, a democratic vote, which is what should be done here in my opinion.If two men want to have a legally binding contract for reasons of property and of sentimental reasons of signifying their devotion to one another, I certainly not opposed to it. But saying that a persons sex is totally irrelevant is not the case. Otherwise, why not simply have basketball instead of male and female basketball? Why not simply have a unisex bathroom instead of male and female restrooms? Obviously there is much validity to consigning some things to gender. The fact that there are people who say they are homosexual or heterosexual is evidence that gender means very much. Pretending that it is of no consequence doesn't seem to be the answerI wonder why, if marriage has been pre-defined for millennia, the need to have it be a marriage when it is evident that it is not?Marriage Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comWouldn't a civil union be a win/win situation for all?

quote:

---

If a person who doesn't agree with your view is a bigot on those pretenses*, then what does that make you?

---

You presuppose here that your view is in line with some sort of cosmic justice, which inexorably presupposes some sort of absolute standard, in which you are now appealing to me to follow innately. But in a relative universe, words like "bigot" are invariably meaningless since everything would come down to mere opinion. One man's bigot is another man's ally. Indeed you calling someone a bigot could very easily pass as bigotry itself.Now, please don't misunderstand me. If you want to refer to as people who disagree with homosexual marriage as bigots, do so till your heart's content. It's your Constitutional right. However, I couldn't help pointing out the irony of irony itself, especially after you got through with your diatribe on someone else's irony. So if I'm self-determined to open fire on a group of school children, I get to also butcher language itself, which is the very foundation of laws in the first place? Interesting. To play a game of semantics by assuming that words and their meanings are themselves meaningless is itself meaningless and irrational. Human beings reason through means of concepts and definitions. Consequently that is also how laws are formed.I think it could be reasonably said that changing the definition of the word changes what a marriage was supposed to be in the first place. Remember, the concept precedes the definition, not the other way around. Marriage was first a union conjoined with procreation, as a way to regulate, from a social perspective, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.I mean, otherwise you have to ask why human beings would choose to get married at all. I'm just jousting here. I was more challenging your rationale than I was the position itself. To add, I don't think you are being disingenuous at all. I believe your sincerity on the matter. And for what it's worth, in many ways I am sympathetic to the gay marriage plight. But to be honest, I am not totally sold out on it yet for the simple fact that allowing that which was disallowed opens you up to asking the very same question for something else that has always been viewed as morally taboo.There is something about that that I can't seem to deny, the emotive argument be damned.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

Predictably, you ended up emasculating your argument with your own qualifiers. The Defense of Marriage Act is one of those instances where the government regulates those contracts, and you thus invalidate your own justification which all the more strengthens my assertion.Again, I ask why you should allow homosexuality on the basis of want while denying others that right. You mention that marrying someone under age is not legal, and therefore it is the qualifier. But neither is gay marriage legal, and yet it doesn't prevent you from trying to find some reason to exonerate it from legality. They have much interest in the particulars, as age of consent, polygamy, incest, etc are all particular. Why then would this be any different, especially when marriage has been predefined as being between a man and a woman, specifically? What? Squares? Obviously it is or you wouldn't be here arguing against that which you claim isn't evident.

quote:

---

Wouldn't a civil union be a win/win situation for all?

---

Can I get a little more information on that?In the meantime I will tell you why I personally believe it to be a win/win situation. Homosexuality is not a crime, and therefore, two consenting adults should be allowed to make lawful decisions without the interference of government intrusion. However, marriage is not something that members of the same sex can engage inSince I find the argument for gays appreciable (that their sexual predilections shouldn't prohibit them from protection of the law) I see something very much like a marriage totally within reason. If homosexuals simply want the same rights as a marriage, the same devotions as a marriage, then civil unions would unanimously provide that for them.Yet, it does not jeopardize the sanctity of the institution of marriage which many people esteem highly as the very foundation of civilization, which is attendant upon procreation -- the very reason why marriages were instituted.Everybody wins this way. You really don't see that? Perhaps a closer introspection would lead you to the conclusion that it isn't absurd to contemplate, but absurd to defend against. I'm not making myself out to be a relative moralist. Rather I am demonstrating the futility in trying to defend a moral stance from a relative vantage point, an outlook almost unanimously held by pro-gay marriage advocates. It leads to circular logic. I'm just trying to get that point across without being slandered.There is a history here. A lot of people seemed to think that I was equivocating the act of homosexuality itself with forms of what is deemed as "sexual sin." What I was really trying to do was get people thinking about how they could justify this without jeopardizing something else while remaining in a relative moral outlook. I saw a thought of inconsistency, philosophically, and sought to expose the tenderness of that underbelly.A couple of people understood where I was coming from. Others were infuriated by me, convinced that I was the devil incarnate. So in any case, out of deference I am treading lightly here. I don't want to piss too many people off with my controversy, which seems to follow me like a dark gray rain cloud.Maybe I suffer from foot-in-mouth disease. Maybe I just don't care all that much about political correctness. I do care about genuinely hurting people's feelings though. I don't want that. I just want them to see where I'm coming from.Anyway, I seriously digress now... Sorry about the crazy tangent. If this too were a qualifier, then things like polygamy, prostitution and incest would not be illegal, so long as everyone is in agreement with the terms. And yet they all are illegal. Its kind of like this woman who requested to be murdered. Seriously. This actually happened. She requested it. Yet the man was jailed for obliging her wishes. I don't see anything minor about it. That is almost a complete departure of what the word means. Remember, words convey meanings and concepts. That's why when someone tells you to go fuck yourself, you aren't going to take that as a term of endearment. You don't need to be married to have a cosigner. All I am saying is there are consequences to any action we make, regardless of the ultimate decision. And I honestly don't know what is more right or more wrong. That is just my honest opinion on the matter. I just think it could be avoided if we just allowed for civil unions. Everybody wins in the long run. That's cause for celebration, no?

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo