Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 106 of 759 (573341)
08-10-2010 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Taz
08-10-2010 7:19 PM


I understand what you mean. However, the profession you mentioned is very heavily regulated.
And?
Not only that, if you're a public attorney you have to counsel when called upon.
And the same should apply to state employees whose business it is to perform marriages, issue licenses, or whatever.
In regard to the business of marriage, remember that we're talking about secular marriage.
But so far as I know, there is nothing compelling a Roman Catholic priest (for example) to perform any secular marriages at all, whether for Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve. He is allowed to say that marriage is a religious sacrament of his church and that's that.
But refusing to serve for no reason other than "I don't like them niggers" or "I don't like them fags" is clearly not fashionable.
I have no problem with religion becoming unfashionable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Taz, posted 08-10-2010 7:19 PM Taz has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 107 of 759 (573376)
08-11-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by onifre
08-10-2010 5:42 PM


onifre writes:
That seems to be the only area where the church has (and rightfully so) jurisdiction. Like when my kids marry their dolls, and I tell them, "Don't marry the black and the white one together," but they do it anyway. My kids, in that ceremony, have the authority.
But not state sanctioned marriages, where state law supercedes. Sorry, but their invisible friend doesn't have any say so in those cases.
Yes, I agree. I know I've said this before, but in my country the only people who get to legally marry other people are civil servants, priests only get to marry them religiously but are not allowed to do so unless the couple first gets married by law. In fact, that's a felony.
Call you queer and ask you to marry him? Lol
I know I'm sexy as hell, but that would be pushing it.
I know I shouldn't have assumed the boss was a male but it wouldn't have been as funny with a female boss.
Indeed, men are funnier than women.
When I was younger this would have been great. But now that I'm older, I'd hate to be in bars with annoying 18 year old douche bags, and it would certainly be worse if they were 16.
I think the drinking age should be 30 for men, 21 for women.
Hmm, if you put it that way... Bring it down to 28, and you've got yourself a deal!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 5:42 PM onifre has not replied

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 108 of 759 (573420)
08-11-2010 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by onifre
08-10-2010 5:03 PM


Because the pastor went to the state and asked for a license to marry, which means, they should now adhere to the laws of the state.
Oni, only this isn't true. States don't license people to perform marriages, it automatically recognises certain people to perform them. Here in Florida, notorary publics, clerk of courts, judges and any certified religious leader (ie pastor, rabbi, etc) can perform marriages. There is no license to perform marriages.
Now all civil servants should not discriminate, but if a church doesn't want to marry someone for religious reasons, however bigoted, then that's their right. It's one of the reasons I'm not a religious person is that most religions seem to be more about hating other groups of people than truely helping all people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 08-10-2010 5:03 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 11:25 AM kjsimons has not replied
 Message 115 by onifre, posted 08-11-2010 1:42 PM kjsimons has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 759 (573423)
08-11-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by kjsimons
08-11-2010 10:32 AM


Now all civil servants should not discriminate, but if a church doesn't want to marry someone for religious reasons, however bigoted, then that's their right. It's one of the reasons I'm not a religious person is that most religions seem to be more about hating other groups of people than truely helping all people.
That pretty much summarizes my understanding of it as well.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by kjsimons, posted 08-11-2010 10:32 AM kjsimons has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 110 of 759 (573425)
08-11-2010 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2010 3:26 PM


Only protests, though? There are plenty of religious politicians, judges, people in positions of sway, etc. who are fighting this as well through various legal means. Said individuals also have the financial support of churches.
If it were only through protests, it wouldn't be an issue because democracy would reign supreme.....at least one would certainly hope.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2010 3:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 11:47 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 1:01 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 111 of 759 (573427)
08-11-2010 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by hooah212002
08-11-2010 11:36 AM


hooah212002 writes:
There are plenty of religious politicians, judges, people in positions of sway, etc. who are fighting this as well through various legal means.
And there are plenty of religious politicians, judges, people in positions of sway, etc. who are supporting the decision as well through various legal means.
For example, the just recently elected Reverend Canon of the Los Angeles Diocese of the Episcopal Church, The Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, is an openly gay woman who has been in a committed relationship with her partner for over thirty years. She has a very vested interest in seeing Prop 8 overturned.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 11:36 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 759 (573454)
08-11-2010 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by hooah212002
08-11-2010 11:36 AM


Only protests, though? There are plenty of religious politicians, judges, people in positions of sway, etc. who are fighting this as well through various legal means. Said individuals also have the financial support of churches.
Lobbying and supporting people financially who agree with your ideologies are not illegal, neither is protesting.
And as Jar has stated, it goes both ways. Not everyone who is religious is against gay marriage. It seems you're willing to overlook all the protesting, lobbying, and financial support for things that you personally favor.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 11:36 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 1:30 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 114 by Taz, posted 08-11-2010 1:35 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 113 of 759 (573460)
08-11-2010 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2010 1:01 PM


Lobbying and supporting people financially who agree with your ideologies are not illegal, neither is protesting.
Who said anything about the legality of it?
And as Jar has stated, it goes both ways.
I never said it did not.
It seems you're willing to overlook all the protesting, lobbying, and financial support for things that you personally favor.
I've made no statements about what I favor, now have I? So how would you know?
from Message 96
quote:
They don't get to dictate the affairs of secular society, and we shouldn't dictate their affairs.
  —Hyro
hooah212002 writes:
But they are the only group who is actively opposing homosexual marriage. They are trying to dictate secular affairs.
That was my initial point. Nothing more, nothing less. There really is no reverse situation since there is no proposition to deny anyone religious freedoms (unless you include the christian opposition to the Mosque at ground zero....which of course would do nothing to my point).

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 2:07 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


(1)
Message 114 of 759 (573463)
08-11-2010 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2010 1:01 PM


Hyro writes:
And as Jar has stated, it goes both ways. Not everyone who is religious is against gay marriage. It seems you're willing to overlook all the protesting, lobbying, and financial support for things that you personally favor.
I keep seeing this line of thought come up from time to time. And my response is so what? So far, everytime this issue is brought up in a referandum, the populous have always voted against allowing same sex marriage. Stop trying to make it sound like the majority of religious people are tolerant. I know that's not what you're saying, but that's what you're implying.
Even jar's favorite denomination the episcopal church is about to explode into a bloody civil war over this issue. And it looks like the opposition has the support of the majority within the church.
You can't tell me mainstream christianity is tolerant on this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 1:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 115 of 759 (573464)
08-11-2010 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by kjsimons
08-11-2010 10:32 AM


Oni, only this isn't true. States don't license people to perform marriages
It may not be true for all states but, some states do require it.
See here:
quote:
Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.
Some states have laws that permit other persons to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages -- the grant of authority is valid for one day -- and thus officiate at the wedding of family or friends on that one day.
In those states where even the clergy must be licensed, the state law should superceds their beliefs.
...but if a church doesn't want to marry someone for religious reasons, however bigoted, then that's their right.
We're not talking about marriage ceremonies, we're talking about signing a marriage certificate. If a gay couple approaches a clergy who has been given, by the state, a license to sign their marriage certificate, and they ask him/her to sign their marriage license, then they should have to sign it. Note, they'r not asking them to perform a marriage ceremony for, just sign my paper, as the state has allowed them to do.
Their beliefs/bigotry/prejudices should NOT play a factor in that.
However, I agree that they should not be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for a gay couple if they don't want to. But sign the paper when asked to? Yes, I believe they should have to.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by kjsimons, posted 08-11-2010 10:32 AM kjsimons has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 759 (573471)
08-11-2010 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by hooah212002
08-11-2010 1:30 PM


Who said anything about the legality of it?
What else were you alluding to, if not the legality of it?
I've made no statements about what I favor, now have I? So how would you know?
[quote] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't get to dictate the affairs of secular society, and we shouldn't dictate their affairs.[/qs] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
hooah212002 writes:
But they are the only group who is actively opposing homosexual marriage. They are trying to dictate secular affairs.
Let's look at it in context. The poster I responded to wanted to know:
quote:
Why should they get a free ticket to discriminate when we don't allow other businesses to discriminate?
The question is one of legality. You challenged that point, and I responded that protesting is not illegal.
There really is no reverse situation since there is no proposition to deny anyone religious freedoms (unless you include the christian opposition to the Mosque at ground zero....which of course would do nothing to my point).
Forcing pastors to do things against their religion under their own sanctuary would be violating their civil rights. So, my point still stands, not that it matters since pastors since the law recognizes that pastors do not have to perform marriages that go against their religion.
Apparently some people think 2 wrongs equal a right.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 1:30 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by hooah212002, posted 08-11-2010 2:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 117 of 759 (573474)
08-11-2010 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2010 2:07 PM


What else were you alluding to, if not the legality of it?
I meant that I never said any of the actions I mentioned were illegal. I never said that contributing funds or protesting or anything we've discussed is illegal. YOU said all they do is protest. I said they do more than just protest. That is ALL I was getting at. Now you've went and made a big hullaballoo about it all.
The question is one of legality.
Who was I responding to: you? or the person you were responding to? Did I say protesting was illegal? Or did I simply say that they did more than protest? Stop making something more out of what I am saying.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 2:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 118 of 759 (573749)
08-12-2010 4:06 PM


Stay of decision
Judge Walker has refused to stay the effect of his ruling during appeal, but will maintain the temporary stay currently in effect until August 18 to give proponents of the ban an opportunity to apply for a stay from the Court of Appeals. Story here.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 119 of 759 (573856)
08-12-2010 9:43 PM


Appeal or not?
I have now seen a copy of the Order that Judge Walker issued denying Proponents' request for a stay of his ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. In that Order, one of the reasons Judge Walker cites for refusing to continue the stay is that Proponents have failed to show that they have the right to appeal the ruling.
One of the key requirements to any federal lawsuit is called "standing." Basically, that means that a person must show that the action they are objecting to harms them in some way. Before Proponents can appeal, they have to establish that they have standing to appeal. (At this point in time, I am assuming that the State will not appeal. Because the Governator and the Attorney General both realigned at trial to side with the Plaintiffs, this seems a safe assumption.) Judge Walker concluded that it's unlikely that Proponents will be able to establish standing. If they in fact cannot, and I think that Judge Walker is correct, they will not be able to appeal, and Judge Walker's Order will not be overturned.
This means that Proposition 8 will be dead, gay marriage will be allowed in California, but there will be no federal precedent binding on any other jurisdictions.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by hooah212002, posted 08-12-2010 10:15 PM subbie has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 120 of 759 (573864)
08-12-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by subbie
08-12-2010 9:43 PM


Re: Appeal or not?
I just read that marriages will be allowed at 5pm, Aug 18th.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by subbie, posted 08-12-2010 9:43 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by subbie, posted 08-12-2010 10:17 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024