Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 3:37 AM
18 online now:
Meddle, Tangle (2 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,983 Year: 9,019/19,786 Month: 1,441/2,119 Week: 201/576 Day: 4/98 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
30Next
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 361 of 448 (469793)
06-07-2008 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by Fosdick
06-07-2008 3:57 PM


specifics
Are you saying that special laws for gays don't affect me? Come on, Rrhain, we've already covered this. Are you reading this thread carefully

It would be more appropriate at this point to give the reference to the posts where you did cover this. That both shows that you have and hurries the conversation along. It also helps make the person you are disagreeing with look a tiny bit foolish too :).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Fosdick, posted 06-07-2008 3:57 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 362 of 448 (469794)
06-07-2008 4:21 PM


Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
This would be a good place to wrap this just in case we get into technical difficulties with the thread.

How about a few summaries of positions?

A good place for HM to list the infringements on his liberties too.


Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by Fosdick, posted 06-07-2008 7:59 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 370 by Fosdick, posted 06-08-2008 10:54 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 363 of 448 (469808)
06-07-2008 7:12 PM


Same-sex marriages
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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 9:12 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 364 of 448 (469817)
06-07-2008 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by AdminNosy
06-07-2008 4:21 PM


Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
As a wrap-up statement I’ll repeat the points I’ve been arguing on this thread:

• Gays should be granted civil unions but not marriages under the law.

• Marriage has always meant a civil union between a man and a woman.

• There is no compelling reason to change the meaning of “marriage.”

• If the word “marriage” for heterosexual unions must remain in the law then the word “garriage” should be added for homosexual unions.

• Otherwise, take the word "marriage" out of the law and let the churches decide who gets "married."

• And no one should be called a bigot for opposing “same-sex marriage,” so long as homosexuals are allowed to get civilly united under the law.

It’s been a queer thread.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by AdminNosy, posted 06-07-2008 4:21 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 9:16 PM Fosdick has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 365 of 448 (469823)
06-07-2008 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Hyroglyphx
06-07-2008 7:12 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
NJ writes:

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.


Taking the law out of marriage is an impossible goal to achieve. This route would also make a lot of people mad, which seems to be the reason why more and more bigots seems to claim to support this goal.

Here is the latest news on this matter. I've been pointing out this "scorch earth" policy for years regarding the stance some people have about removing marriage completely from the law. The only reason I can see people possibly supporting this scorch earth policy is because they don't want gay people to get married so they'd rather burn the whole institution down than let gay people get married.

Some California county clerks to refuse all marriage ceremonies to protest gay weddings

quote:
As same-sex couples prepare to wed later this month in California, at least one county clerk in the conservative Central Valley is preparing to sidestep the state high court's legalization of gay marriage by shutting down all marriage ceremonies.

Kern County's Ann Barnett and Merced County's Stephen Jones issued statements this week stating they will issue the new gender-neutral marriage licenses as required by law on June 17, but refused to preside over any of the ceremonies, citing space and staff constraints.

In Barnett's case, she plans to stop performing marriage ceremonies for all couples as of June 14.

Barnett's announcement came after the clerk received advice from county lawyers that she could not refuse to marry only couples of her choosing. Barnett's office was also advised by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian law firm backing a November ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in California by amending the state's constitution.

Merced County's Jones said Friday he would end all ceremonies too, but later retracted his statement after coming under pressure from county officials.


This reminds me of southern states closing down all public schools in protest of desegregation.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-07-2008 7:12 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-08-2008 12:30 PM Taz has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 366 of 448 (469825)
06-07-2008 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Fosdick
06-07-2008 7:59 PM


Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
Hoot writes:

It’s been a queer thread.


If my memory serves me right, you're the one that barged into my thread and used up the post number limit.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by Fosdick, posted 06-07-2008 7:59 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Fosdick, posted 06-08-2008 10:43 AM Taz has not yet responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 36 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 367 of 448 (469847)
06-08-2008 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by Fosdick
06-07-2008 3:57 PM


Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:
So then you'll go for "garriage"? Isn't that what you asked for?

There is no such contract. There can be only one contract as "separate but equal" is unconstitutional. It is silly to have to rewrite all the current laws to change the name.

As soon as you start saying you were "garried" three times, then we'll know you're sincere.

And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.

quote:
Are you saying that special laws for gays don't affect me?

Yes. Do you have evidence otherwise? I've been asking you for it for days now.

quote:
Come on, Rrhain, we've already covered this.

Really? Where?

quote:
Are you reading this thread carefully?

More carefully than you. It's why I know when a person mentions a case (Lawrence v. Texas), refers to one of the justices (Scalia), and provides a phrase in quotation format, then it's a quote from the case.

Summary statement:

There is no reason not to provide full equality in all areas, including marriage, to those who aren't straight. No exceptions.

Anything else is bigotry.


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by Fosdick, posted 06-07-2008 3:57 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Fosdick, posted 06-08-2008 10:42 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 368 of 448 (469890)
06-08-2008 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Rrhain
06-08-2008 12:40 AM


"Fairied" then?
Rrhain writes:

As soon as you start saying you were "garried" three times, then we'll know you're sincere.


But I'm not g-g-g-gay. Would you go for "fairied"?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Rrhain, posted 06-08-2008 12:40 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2008 12:13 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 369 of 448 (469891)
06-08-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 366 by Taz
06-07-2008 9:16 PM


Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
Taz writes:

If my memory serves me right, you're the one that barged into my thread and used up the post number limit.


Sorry.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 9:16 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3664 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 370 of 448 (469892)
06-08-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by AdminNosy
06-07-2008 4:21 PM


Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
AdminNosy writes:

A good place for HM to list the infringements on his liberties too.


"Gay marriage" is like a handicap parking stall, except handicapped people don't choose to be handicapped. By legalizing "gay marriage" I would feel disenfranchised from my constitutional rights because I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman. That's all I've got, Nosy—just my opinion and feelings on the matter. Who has anything more than that to bring to the table? It's all about opinions and feelings.

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by AdminNosy, posted 06-07-2008 4:21 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 8:26 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 377 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2008 12:22 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 371 of 448 (469900)
06-08-2008 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Taz
06-07-2008 9:12 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
I've been pointing out this "scorch earth" policy for years regarding the stance some people have about removing marriage completely from the law. The only reason I can see people possibly supporting this scorch earth policy is because they don't want gay people to get married so they'd rather burn the whole institution down than let gay people get married.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Taz, posted 06-07-2008 9:12 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by lyx2no, posted 06-08-2008 3:03 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 373 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 8:24 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 378 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2008 12:25 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2880 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 372 of 448 (469917)
06-08-2008 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Hyroglyphx
06-08-2008 12:30 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
Let the people decide what they want. That is, after all, how democracies work. We seem to be forgetting that ever-so-slowly.

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.


Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-08-2008 12:30 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by Fosdick, posted 06-09-2008 10:56 AM lyx2no has responded
 Message 382 by Fosdick, posted 06-09-2008 11:42 AM lyx2no has not yet responded
 Message 390 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 5:24 PM lyx2no has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 373 of 448 (469990)
06-08-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Hyroglyphx
06-08-2008 12:30 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
Nem writes:

Let the people decide what they want. That is, after all, how democracies work. We seem to be forgetting that ever-so-slowly.


You seem to be forgetting that we went down this route regarding interracial marriage. Heck, we went down this route with segregation. Are you going to try to convince me now that interracial marriage ban and segregation in the various states that chose them were right and moral?


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-08-2008 12:30 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 5:33 PM Taz has responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 374 of 448 (469991)
06-08-2008 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Fosdick
06-08-2008 10:54 AM


Re: Please wrap and ask for a new thread to continue
Hoot writes:

By legalizing "gay marriage" I would feel disenfranchised from my constitutional rights because I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman.


And I believe that christians should screw themselves in the rear end. Does this mean that I should go out and advocate a law banning christians from having vaginal sex? You decide.


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Fosdick, posted 06-08-2008 10:54 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1456 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 375 of 448 (469992)
06-08-2008 8:31 PM


Since this is my thread... here are some updates.
Calif. Battle Over Gay Marriage Raises Novel Legal Questions

quote:
LOS ANGELES -- Two things are certain in California's mounting legal showdown over same-sex marriage: Gay couples will wed this month, and, come November, voters will decide whether the state's constitution should exclude them from such unions.

If the vote is yes, the only certainty will be confusion.


quote:
The developments -- victories for both sides of the debate -- have engendered questions, most notably this: If California voters ban same-sex marriage in November, what happens to the thousands of couples expected to wed between the middle of this month and then?

It's a question no one can answer, say legal experts, who can only make predictions as California barrels down this untraveled legal path.

"If the November measure were to pass, we would be entering unprecedented territory," said David B. Cruz, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. "We have never seen a constitutional amendment like this in California that would take away rights that people had already exercised."


quote:
Experts say that if the measure passes, the state may choose to recognize the marriages, creating a pocket of married same-sex couples. "It just means that people who didn't take advantage of that window can't get married until or unless that amendment was repealed down the road," said Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis.

Hence the hurry with which couples are booking appointments with wedding vendors and county clerks. San Francisco city officials expect as many as 500 couples to marry per day, for days on end. In Los Angeles County, the clerk's phone is ringing off the hook.

Alternatively, under the amendment, the state may be compelled to recognize married same-sex couples as domestic partners or even forcibly divorce them.

Voiding such marriages would create a slew of other headaches for couples who purchased property, signed contracts or took out insurance policies together, said Bill Araiza, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "These are problems that I'm foreseeing in just 10 seconds, so you can imagine that a court really thinking about this would be loath to open up this can of worms to interpret this initiative as retroactive," Araiza said.


Edited by Taz, : fixed dbcodes


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
2627
...
30Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019