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

Seeing as this thread is about the California decision, perhaps you would care to show us where, in US law, it differentiates between couples who wish to marry and can have kids and those who wish to marry and can't. Are you fucking serious?! So if you live in Zimbabwe, you have the right to be beaten to a pulp for voting the wrong way. If you imagine that you have an intrinsic human right to free expression and freedom from persecution, you are mistaken.Is that the kind of set up you would approve of? If the Irish state banned all religious practise, you'd be fine with that would you?

---

Mutate and Survive

Couples who have no intention of producing children can get married.Sterile couples can get married.Convicted felons can get married.Wife- and child-beaters can get married.Child molesters can get married.Murderers can get married.No arguments regarding marriage that has anything whatsoever to do with children holds any water at all. Marriage has nothing to do with children. It never has. Being a "potentially child-bearing couple" has never been any sort of rational requirement for getting married in the Unites States, ever. There is no focus on children in current marriage law. Current and traditional marriage law has, in the US, always been nothing more than a contract granting certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities to those who enter into the contract. Some of those rights and responsibilities do involve children, but nowhere in the contract is there a requirement that the two signatories be capable of having children, or even want to have children.Your "child-focused" argument regarding the state's interest in marriage is bullshit.

subbie, your responded to my test question: this way: Although you are honest and sincere, you have revealed a prejudice against homosexuality. That is the prerequisite of bigotry. But I don't regard you as a bigot anymore than I regard myself as such. We're both realistic about homosexuality: it's an aberration of choice. And now they're making laws to accommodate that aberrattion as if they are ramping the curbs for crippled people. Same as you, mostly. And I support their right to choose. But I don't support any special rights to choose, like maybe a special right granted to the Hells Angeles to not to wear helmets if they don't want to.How about a special law for old people that protects their rights to suicide if that's what they choose to do? Don't you think that once you age past 70 you ought to be able to choose when you die, legally? Yes, I know you'll say it's OT, but it's not. We're talking here about making laws to protect aberrant choices.”HM

No, they missed the part about separating government from religion. The government should get out of the marriage business and focus on civil unions. Easy, as I have stated in Message 38: The First Amendement”"Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion..."”HM

The only problem with this (apart from the fact that it is only workable in your fantasy land) is that not all marriages are religious in nature. Plenty of marriages are simply social contract already. Recognising marriages hardly counts as establishment of religion, or the founding fathers might have mentioned it at the time of writing the constitution. Besides, a civil partnership is a marriage, just one that is described using a stupid, patronising and insulting name.Of course, if we accepted your interpretation of separation of church and state, every church marriage in the US would be ruled unconstitutional, not a situation that I would describe as an advance.For God's sake, wouldn't it be simpler to just let gays marry and stop interfering in other people's lives?

---

Mutate and Survive

Oh, Granny, let's do what subbie and I did, take a cruise across America and ask a simple question of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, our model married couple: "Does the legalization of "gay marriage" interfere in any way with your own marriage?" We'll keep score, go have a cocktail, and ask ourselves two questions: Whose opinion on this matter counts most: the vast majority or the slim minority? And what's the meaning of democracy?Come on, Granny, we can stay in Motel 8s.”HM

I notice that you didn't mention anything about separation of church and state in this post. Does that mean that you are withdrawing that line of argument, or are you merely unable to construct a post defending it? Since your hypothetical bigots would be unable to demonstrate any material instance where gay marriage interferes with their lives (beyond "Eww, that's icky") it hardly matters.Laws banning gay marriage are clearly unconstitutional in the US. Whining about it won't change this, whoever many people are doing the whining. If people feel that strongly about this, then they'll have to amend the constitution so that some citizens will have fewer rights than others. You could call it the "Second-Class Citizen" amendment. Of course, this will allow laws banning inter-racial marriages to be re-introduced, but you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, huh?

---

Mutate and Survive

That's fluff, Granny. It's matter of opinion, and you're so opinionated on the matter that you're playing the bigot card. Makes me wonder just who is the real bigot. Let's be real; it's only a matter of opinion. And when the U.S. Supreme Court is called upon to render its opinion, what do you suppose that will be?I knew a large-dog person once who hated small-dog people. And I knew a small-dog person who felt the same about large-dog people. And then I knew a person once who didn't like any kind of dog people. They all had one thing in common, though: they all called each other "bigots."”HM

quote:

---

Although you are honest and sincere, you have revealed a prejudice against homosexuality.

---

Either quote specifically and verbatim the language that you claim shows a prejudice against homosexuality or withdraw this claim.

quote:

---

We're both realistic about homosexuality: it's an aberration of choice.

---

I never said any such thing, and don't believe any such thing. However your labeling it as such certainly belies your repudiation of the label of "bigot."I said that I wouldn't want my son to have to suffer the pain that would be inflicted upon him by bigots. That's nothing anywhere close to a judgment that homosexuality is an aberration. What's more, I firmly believe that homosexuality is no more a choice than is heterosexuality. Could you decide all of a sudden that your passion is inflamed by taking a cruise up the Hershey Highway? Neither could I.It's not a choice, it's not an "aberration." It's at variance from the norm, but so are a lot of things.

quote:

---

How about a special law for old people that protects their rights to suicide if that's what they choose to do? Don't you think that once you age past 70 you ought to be able to choose when you die, legally? Yes, I know you'll say it's OT, but it's not. We're talking here about making laws to protect aberrant choices.

---

It is OT, but I'll tackle it anyway.I'd support a law that protects anyone's right to terminate their life, and for much the same reason that I support homosexual marriage. It's all about self-determination. It's about not allowing anyone who thinks they know what's "aberrant" to tell anyone else how they should live their life. I have no more right to tell someone they should keep living a life that they find intolerable than I do to tell someone who they should or shouldn't marry.I'd suggest that if you, or anyone else, want to take this line further, it be done in a different thread.

quote:

---

And I support their right to choose. But I don't support any special rights to choose,

---

Ah yes, the old "special right" dodge. It's the same right that you and I have, the right to marry the person they love.Well, my perusal of this thread shows me pretty much what I expected. You haven't said anything new or of substance, and you've pretty much ignored the points I've made. I think, unless you can actually come up with something new, that our interaction here is at an end. Feel free to get the last word in, if have that need.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

As has been pointed out, gay marriage can "produce" children.Your statement that male/female partnership is better than male/male or female/female for raising children, is quite suspect.Do you have information from scientific studies to back that statement up?

Gosh, subbie, I don't think that one helped your argument very much, but I liked its visual value. By imposing gay marriage under the law you would be imposing a special exemption to the traditional value of marriage. But it's a fig in fir tree. A tempest in a teapot. And until the government reverts to something other than a democracy, majority rules. And until the First Amendment is suspended, we have a separation of church and state.I've never said gays shouldn't be married. I'm only saying that the law doesn't need to be involved.”HM

You know, after considering iano's statement, it occurred to me that not only is it suspect, it misses the point of this debate.We're not arguing about whether mixed gender parents are better than homosexual couples. To the extent that this discussion relates to parenting, we're arguing about whether married homosexual parents are better than single ones.The American Academy of Pediatrics has provided its input on the question here. According to the AAP,

quote:

---

Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage. Same-gender couples are denied the right to civil marriage in every state except Massachusetts and the right to civil union except in Connecticut and Vermont. The federal government and other state governments do not recognize those civil marriages and civil unions.

​

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

---

So, unless the point of iano's question is to suggest that we should take kids away from homosexual couples, the question he needs to address if he really cares about kids is why he disagrees with the AAP.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If you don't like fluff, why do you consistently only reply to part of my messages, usually the least important or relevant part. This is not a debate, this is just you making flippant comments.Either say something of substance or don't bother replying.

Isn't it a very good thing that the US is not actually a true democracy? I sure think so. I mean, it's a Very Bad Thing to be any sort of minority, gay or otherwise, when all legal concerns are strictly a matter of how many people agree with you.I rather like the fact that we have a Constitution, a Judicial branch to make sure that we don't legislate anything that contradicts it, and the other checks and balances in our government that prevent the tyranny of the majority.Or did you really think that simple "majority rules" carried weight in America with no further consideration? Because if you did, you need to go reread the Constitution. In your world, a lynching is fine because the majority in the inbred redneck town agree with it.

Where is your proof that homosexuality is an "aberration of choice?"
The last thing I heard is that there is no proof either that homosexuality is either chance or choice.

---

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