|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 22, 2009 15:08:57 GMT -5
 California high court to rule on gay marriage banFri May 22, 2009 SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's supreme court announced on Friday that it will rule next week on whether to uphold a ban on same-sex marriages that critics say violates civil rights in the most populous U.S. state. The ruling in the so-called Prop 8 case will be issued on Tuesday, the court said on its website. The supreme court justices in a ruling last spring declared same-sex marriage legal. The passage of the constitutional amendment, however, has placed the case back on the court agenda. Some of the justices who supported same-sex unions last year expressed reservations during oral arguments this year about the legal justifications for overturning a voter-approved amendment of the state constitution.www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54L5EH20090522I should hope so. You woulda thought "the people have spoken." It's hard to imagine that a majority vote for something as basic as heterosexual only marriage would find conflict with the state or federal constitutions. I'm all for anyone doing whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt others, and I know good folks in homosexual unions. But I'm not ready to have them sanctioned by the state. Which brings up the basic problem here, as I see it. The state should not be sanctioning ANY union, hetero or homo. It is none of the state's business who cohabitates. |
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 22, 2009 18:30:43 GMT -5
Seems like they can't read a 2 letter word like N-O.....only a 3 letter word spelling Y-E-S.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 22, 2009 21:08:04 GMT -5
This seems to be simply more elitism from those "in the know, who know what's best for us." I don't believe that ANY majority vote should rule, there are constitutions we live by after all. But absent a constitutional issue, including those manufactured for the occasion, people should get what they want from the government they elect and pay for.
|
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on May 26, 2009 15:58:43 GMT -5
Welp the Court Held up the Vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on May 26, 2009 16:54:03 GMT -5
Dave, I agree with you in that the government, state or federal, should NOT be sanctioning any kind of marriage. However, I disagree for other reasons in addition to my libertarian philosophy.
Marriage is a religious sacrament. The First Amendment is unambiguous when it states that Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion. By passing a law that either allows gay marriage, or defines marriage as a union between man and woman, the government is establishing a religion. Of course, this is questionable where, as here, the law is an amendment to the state constitution. I say that the First Amendment is not subservient to the majority-passed state constitutional amendment.
That said, I think civil unions between same sex couples should be allowed and they should be allowed to take advantage of all the rights, privileges, perks, and other consequences that married couples enjoy.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 26, 2009 17:20:41 GMT -5
I say that the First Amendment is not subservient to the majority-passed state constitutional amendment. I agree. but don't see this as a free speech issue. My right to say anything does not guarantee a right to DO anything, nor does it guarantee my right to special treatment by the government (for either heterosexuals or homosexuals.) That said, I think civil unions between same sex couples should be allowed and they should be allowed to take advantage of all the rights, privileges, perks, and other consequences that married couples enjoy. On one hand, since I argue that NEITHER style couple should have any special rights or privileges (over single folks, for examle,) I suppose that supports a "fair is fair" position and I should therefore favor equal treatment of both styles of marriage. On the other hand. historically the American nation has seen heterosexual marriage as so beneficial to our society's goals of peace and tranquility, that special treatment has been afforded heterosexual couples who marry. While individual homosexual marriages might certainly facilitate that goal as well, the number of potential homosexual marriages in the United States is so small as an institution (but a little larger than special marriages between plumbers) as to not matter much in the social progress of the country. So, the way I see the philosophy developing is synchronous with its historical development. It began with the government not involved at all, and when the government decided heterosexual marriage was good for the nation (whatever the reasoning) it became sanctioned and was given privileges. Homosexual marriage needs to show it can give a decided advantage to society before it can qualify for similar special treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 26, 2009 17:43:07 GMT -5
I should add that while the idea of marriage being "good for the goals of society," is commonly attributed to how we arrived at government sanctioning of matrimony, a feminist friend told me many years ago that marriage was instead aimed at subjecting women to men, as were common traditions in the 19th and early 20th centuries when, for example, women lost their jobs when married (making them totally dependent on the husband), and "spinsters" were looked down upon and could find work only as domestics and teachers of children. But that's another discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on May 26, 2009 18:05:58 GMT -5
I agree. but don't see this as a free speech issue. My right to say anything does not guarantee a right to DO anything, nor does it guarantee my right to special treatment by the government (for either heterosexuals or homosexuals.) This is not a free speech issue. Remember what the First says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . . I'm arguing that it is an issue of establishing a religion AND prohibiting the free exercise thereof, no matter which way the courts or the legislatures decide. On one hand, since I argue that NEITHER style couple should have any special rights or privileges (over single folks, for examle,) I suppose that supports a "fair is fair" position and I should therefore favor equal treatment of both styles of marriage.
On the other hand. historically the American nation has seen heterosexual marriage as so beneficial to our society's goals of peace and tranquility, that special treatment has been afforded heterosexual couples who marry. While individual homosexual marriages might certainly facilitate that goal as well, the number of potential homosexual marriages in the United States is so small as an institution (but a little larger than special marriages between plumbers) as to not matter much in the social progress of the country. I would also add that part of the opposition to gay marriage is that the purpose of gay marriage is to procreate. However, what about the heterosexual marriages where they actively choose to have no children? Or the marriage where they cannot have children? How are those goals promoted in those types of marital relationships? As for peace and tranquility goals, what about heterosexual relationships plagued with domestic violence? Or the several divorces that occur? Or the ones where one spouse murders the other spouse for their estate, or to avoid a nasty divorce breakup. So, the way I see the philosophy developing is synchronous with its historical development. It began with the government not involved at all, and when the government decided heterosexual marriage was good for the nation (whatever the reasoning) it became sanctioned and was given privileges. Homosexual marriage needs to show it can give a decided advantage to society before it can qualify for similar special treatment. Good point. Perhaps, it is getting there? By showing that they can be as stable as heterosexual marriages? And they can do well raising adopted children? Not saying that it has occurred, just curious as to whether we have reached that point in society. Hahahahaha. And yes, that other post is an entirely different discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by jon hynes on May 26, 2009 20:51:31 GMT -5
There is now a lawsuit in Massachusetts against the Catholic Church. It seeks to have the church forfeit its tax exempt status because it will not perform marriages for same-sex couples. The State Supreme Court has previously ruled that same sex couples have the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples. So, if you belong to a church that is against same-sex marriages, your church could find itself in the same position as that Catholic Church, should it lose the case in Massachusetts. Even though there are plenty of other churches and JOPs that would be happy to marry them, it will be necessary for them to set a presidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on May 26, 2009 23:08:06 GMT -5
Swimmy,
I'm not following the establishment argument. I don't know of any law in this country which requires a marraige within the confines of a particular religion (which would constitute establishment). I don't even know of a law which requires a marraige to be religious rather than civil.
I guess I don't see how civil recognition of a ceremony performed by almost all religions establishes a state religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 27, 2009 2:18:28 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't like the "establishment of religion" argument , either. For one thing, "I'm arguing that it is an issue of establishing a religion AND prohibiting the free exercise thereof," seems logically inconsistent to me, although it may not to a strict logician. For example, I don't think you can smoke a substance that gets you high and sober at the same time.  And CB's point is a good one. Earlier, you (Swimmy) said, "Marriage is a religious sacrament. " No, it isn't, not when viewed by the law. It is a sacrament only to the religion. To the law, it is a social contract. In fact, the law is careful to treat marriage as non-religious by recognizing any church-performed marriage, regardless of religion, and further the law views marriage as non-sacramental by stipulating that a license must be obtained from the state (ordinarily) in order for the marriage to be valid. It does not do the same for Confession. (Think about THAT possibility for a few moments! Hahahahaha!) |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 27, 2009 2:24:44 GMT -5
There is now a lawsuit in Massachusetts against the Catholic Church. It seeks to have the church forfeit its tax exempt status because it will not perform marriages for same-sex couples. The State Supreme Court has previously ruled that same sex couples have the same rights to marriage as heterosexual couples. So, if you belong to a church that is against same-sex marriages, your church could find itself in the same position as that Catholic Church, should it lose the case in Massachusetts. Even though there are plenty of other churches and JOPs that would be happy to marry them, it will be necessary for them to set a presidence. There is simply no way to interpret this case as anything but a vendetta against religion. It uses one or another populist topic of the day to sack tradition and what used to be called morals. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on May 27, 2009 6:14:47 GMT -5
1. I wish you guys commented on this before I went to bed and had the most bizarre dream that has taken over the forefront of my thoughts because now I can't remember where I was giong with it and it made a lot more sense to me then.
2. My understanding is that many gay couples want to have their ceremonies in churches and are trying to force the churches to perform the religious component of marriage on gay couples. At least in Catholicism, the Bible defines marriage as a union between a man and woman. So to have a court order a church to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples would be the state establishing a part of religion and proscribing the church from the free practice thereof.
3. Very good point raised by clarencebunsen, and when viewed from that light, I sound like I look: a babbling idiot, which I happen to do most of the time when in front of beautiful women.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on May 27, 2009 8:30:09 GMT -5
It's get easier being in front of beautiful women as you get older. First, they appear less so as you age (though not by much), and secondly you can't see them as well. I wish we could all just live peaceably together and not care about what each other is doing in bed. And this isn't an argument for or against that, it's an argument about whether one is treated for better or worse, in sickness and in health, by an artificial institution known as "the gumminmint." The nation must have something better to discuss, in my humble. |
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on May 27, 2009 10:40:30 GMT -5
Before I'm misinterpreted, I want to go on the record as being pro civil unions recognized by the state and allowing those civil unions the same legal consequences as married couples receive.
I agree, Dave, the nation must have something better to discuss, unfortunately, by keeping us distracted with these types of matters, we are blind to the more important discussions.
|
|
