Wow! What a thread... almost too much to comment on.
Boiled down to the basics, I see two arguments being presented against recognizing committed homosexual relationships and calling it a "marriage." Of course, both rest on the preface that Gawd doesn't like it. Why is it that one moment the cry is "Jesus paid the price" and the next is "God won't bless you!"
* Don't encourage them!
* If we ignore them, they'll go away.
Gays have been around for centuries. They've married and pretended to be straight. They've raised families. They aren't going away.
I would think that supporting committed relationships would be better for everyone. Who really cares if you or I like what goes on behind their closed doors?
And for the record, it does matter how many gays a person knows or has known. Think of it as a larger sample. If you only knew one homosexual and that person was a jerk - well you're not gonna think well of homosexuals in general. Then again, think about how a homosexual might feel meeting a closed-minded fundamentalist Christian who prays for AIDS to infect the gay community and kill them off. (I actually was told to pray this way back in the early '80s! - I didn't obey that command. <_< )
People are people. They all make a mixture of bad and good choices. I'd take two responsible homosexuals raising children over some multimillionaire hetero couple who choose society over family.
I'm responsible for myself and raising my children. I try to teach them to be tolerant of different life choices. Tolerance doesn't mean that they have to embrace it. After that I'm too tired to try to think about what other people are doing. It's none of my business and out of my control.
The English language has changed amazingly over the years. Go read some Chaucer if you don't believe me.
English has the largest vocabulary of any language ever. We have incorporated words into English from
Latin, Gallic, French, Spanish, and from the Vikings, to name a few.
English is a highly fluid, flexible, and dynamic language. Ask any linguist or any English Lit major, for that matter.
And amazingly, we English speakers still manage to communicate.
All of which has nothing to do with randomly changing word meanings based on someone's idea that they want their sexual lifestyle included in a words meaning. Its pretty simple a car is a car , a bicycle is a bicycle, a van is a van all are vehicles each however has perimeters that define what they are. Just because i want my bicycle to be a car doesn't mean it qualifies or that it should. Marriage has a perimeter that defines it for centuries, male and female, man and woman. man and man or woman and woman has a different perimeter and as such has a different name to describe it.
wow, bfh, look who's having the tantrum... :blink:
(especially in your 1st 2 posts to me)
i guess you didn't like some things i said, eh?
(as noted by your 4 different posts regarding my 1 post)
perhaps you missed my first post on this topic (post#28) wherein i elaborated on the reasons why God was not gonna bless this legal decision...
it's because God has already given his opinion on homosexual behavior... and i gave a few places you could find said opinion...
i could list them again if you like, but folks don't usually like to read His opinion on this matter...
(perhaps you want to go back and check out post #28 for a reference point)
my thinking on this is that God is NOT gonna bless something that He doesn't like...
or bless a state (ca) on the basis of its passage of legislation in favor of something that He is against...
And I'm sure your current attitude toward gays and lesbians doesn't color your experience at all.
i don't have an "attitude" toward gays... i know you find that hard to believe... but quite frankly, what you believe does not concern me... i treat everybody with the same dignity and respect (and friendliness)... but that doesn't mean i like their behavior... nor does it mean i am gonna remain silent about God's opinion... even if you do throw a tantrum while claiming that my God is like you in that respect...
it seems as if homosexuality is not against nature as so many would like to believe
God says that homosexual behavior is against nature... (see post #28 or romans 1:26)...
now who do you think i'm gonna trust and believe: you and your opinions (and wikipedia) or God and His opinion?
I can't help but wonder why those who are so passionately opposed to homosexual marriages, because they believe it is against Gawd's laws, don't appear to be equally passionately against adultery, divorce, the pornography industry, etc. etc.
I think what they should do,is if a govenment official, such as a Justice of the peace, oversees the ceremony, be it a heterosexual or homosexual couple, then call it what it in fact is---a civil union...If a church refuses to marry a couple because one is divorced, or they are the same sex or the groom drinks too much, that should be the church's privelege...When the couples' leave the courthouse, they can call themselves whatever they wish---wed, betrothed, married or civilly unionized---and the churches can fight among themselves instead of with the gov't as to whether they want to recognize the couples or not...
I can't help but wonder why those who are so passionately opposed to homosexual marriages, because they believe it is against Gawd's laws, don't appear to be equally passionately against adultery, divorce, the pornography industry, etc. etc
well, i can't speak for everyone else, but as for myself, i am definitely "as passionately against" adultery, divorce, the porn industry, etc. etc...
if there is a thread about those issues, i will speak up against them as well...
you don't think that if someone posted a thread that said 'God bless adultery' or 'God bless the porn industry' that i wouldn't speak up about that?
in fact, i'm sure there would be even more outrage than anything posted on this thread...
Apparently, this god puts adultery and homosexuality on the same level of sin
and the point is?...
i never said that homosexuality is worse than adultery...
what makes people think that because i speak out about homosexuality that somehow means i condone adultery (or any other sin)
if a govenment official, such as a Justice of the peace, oversees the ceremony, be it a heterosexual or homosexual couple, then call it what it in fact is---a civil union...
I think the court decision actually said they have to call them both the same ... not that they have to call homosexual unions "marriage" ...
All of which has nothing to do with randomly changing word meanings based on someone's idea that they want their sexual lifestyle included in a words meaning. Its pretty simple a car is a car , a bicycle is a bicycle, a van is a van all are vehicles each however has perimeters that define what they are. Just because i want my bicycle to be a car doesn't mean it qualifies or that it should. Marriage has a perimeter that defines it for centuries, male and female, man and woman. man and man or woman and woman has a different perimeter and as such has a different name to describe it.
Marriage can represent man and woman, civil union can represent man and man or woman and woman. animal union can represent animal and human It explains what each is while passing no judgment on each.
We did this for blacks too. Mulatto for for a half white- half black person. There were other names that escape me now, for half black- half mexican, half black- half indian, etc. They didn't pass judgement, but gave a more accurate description of a person's race, as if it was any of our business or should have made any difference. What they did do was made it more clear on how to discriminate against each group.
Civil union as marriage doesn't do much in terms of communication, other than tells everyone, discriminator and non-discriminator, that this person is homosexual. Maybe we could have different rings too. Maybe on a different finger, so we could just know by looking at them. What about husband and wife? We need new words for that too. We MUST know who is the "giver" in the gay male relationship and who is the "taker"... not to pass judgement, just so we really know who is the "husband" and who is the "wife." It is just for clarification.
Communication? Is there really going to be any confusion over Bob coming over to you and introducing his new husband Jim? "Wait a second when you said you were getting 'married' to Jim, I thought that was your pet name for your future wife 'Jimbolina.' You said 'married." Not that there's anything wrong with that."
A perversion of the language? We're talking about adding an additional "man" and/or "woman" to the definition. That's perverting the language? Oh, oh wait, you probably meant they are perverts and thus they are perverting the language, perhaps even your own marriage by etymological association.
Alright Rhino! So you finally admit that children raised by gay couples suffer no harm.
Ha ... no, I got you to admit they don't need to be called marriage ... I don't think I ever said kids would be harmed just because their parents were same sex ... I did say there is not much history on the situation.
But really, kids of Harvard grads is not very representative ...
In nature, it is certainly not instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their kids.
(bfh then used the following list to support the idea that it was NOT instinctive for the actual parent to care more about their own kids)
There are far more species than just rats that have a regular practice of infanticide , following are just a few examples (this is not by any means an exhaustive list):
langur monkeys
rats
ground squirrels
lemmings
hamsters
mice
voles
muskrats
gerbils
prairie dogs
marmots
African hunting dogs
Lions
Monarch and Queen Butterflies
Bottle-nose dolphins
Baboons
Gulls
Crows
Wattled jacanas
Kangaroos
Some species not only practice infanticide, but filial cannibalism as well. In other words, they eat their young.
Some examples are: blank voles, house finches, wolf spiders, many fish species, chimpanzees, cat, elephants,
baboons, lions, bottle-nose dolphins, hamsters, leopards, and langur monkeys.
well, i was kinda interested about what you wrote... and so i wanted to check it out for myself...
and what i found was that you didn't quite give us the whole story here...
in fact, i would like to add some information that seems to NEGATE your original statement about it not being instinctive for the actual parent to care more...
Rats: An unrelated adult male rat may kill young to bring the mother back into oestrus sooner, so he can sire a litter of his own.
Squirrels: When Belding's ground squirrels fail to attend their territories, unrelated females or one-year-old males may arrive and kill pups.
African hunting dogs: a documentary about hunting dogs, where a dominant female tried to kill all the pups of another female.
Dolphins: http://www.polperro.com.au/s15.html states that adult bottle-nosed dolphins kill the young of their own species because competing adult males may be killing the offspring of their rivals so that the dead dolphin's mother will be receptive to mating.
Langurs and other primates: The males of several primate species, including the common langur, practice infanticide. Bands of male langurs will attack a mixed troop, driving off the males and killing the offspring before mating with the females.
Snakes: http://www.umass.edu/nrec/snake_pit/pages/myth.html and http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:I-RF4kq...t.okstate.edu... mention stories that females swallow their young when threatened and regurgitate or spit them out later, when danger has passed. These stories may have originated when people saw a recently dead viviparous or ovoviviparous female give “birth” to her young. Alternatively, the myth may result from the fact that some snakes eat young snakes of their own or other species, though not usually their own brood.
Amphibians: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...632890#continue states that spadefoot toad tadpoles hatch in puddles and need to grow quickly, before the puddles dry up. Some tadpoles eat their siblings Please note that male Darwin's frogs look after their young in their mouths; they are not eating them.
so evidently it is NOT the ACTUAL PARENT who is killing its own offspring in most cases...
from these examples in nature, it appears that most killing of young animals is the work of UNRELATED members of the same species, who in fact do it toprotect their OWN OFFSPRING...
so this reference to nature shows the opposite of what you intended...
it does appear that it is instinctive for the actual parentto care more about the kids!
Wow! What a thread... almost too much to comment on.
Boiled down to the basics, I see two arguments being presented against recognizing committed homosexual relationships and calling it a "marriage." Of course, both rest on the preface that Gawd doesn't like it.
You left out mine-
that the methodology used bypasses "the will of the people."
Supposedly, we live in a democratic republic.
That is, we democratically elect officials to act, supposedly according to our wishes,
to represent us and make decisions.
In matters of national law, issues are brought to national referendums, and voted on democratically
by the people. In other cases, issues are voted on by our representatives in Congress.
The highest law of the land is the US Constitution.
Someone earlier claimed that rights to vote for women, blacks, and so on were matters
where this system was ALSO bypassed, that judges "legislated from the bench" and that's
how everyone got the right to vote.
Perhaps my knowledge of history is flawed, but no judicial decision of the JUDICIAL branch
of government can form a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, which is strictly the purview
of the LEGISLATIVE branch.
The 15th Amendment said race, color, and previous condition of servitude could not be used
to prevent a citizen from voting. (That meant all male US citizens could vote.
The 14th Amendment made it clear who was a citizen.)
The 19th Amendment granted female US citizens the right to vote.
=====
If the citizens of California voted and said "we want to legally require all citizens
to wear cucumbers up our noses and spam on our heads", and passed it with a
2/3 majority, I say "the people have spoken! They shall wear spam and cucumbers!"
I DISapprove of the JUDICIAL branch stealing the powers of the LEGISLATIVE branch.
(For that matter, I DISapprove of the Executive branch doing it, but that's off-topic.)
In a landmark ruling (.pdf) certain to spark far-reaching political and legal consequences, the California Supreme Court today ruled, by a 4-3 vote, that it is unconstitutional to exclude same-sex couples from the legal institution of "marriage," even if such couples are granted the right to enter into "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions" which provide most, or even all, of the same rights as "marriage." The Court is comprised of six out of seven Republican-appointed judges. The ruling had nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution, but instead was based on the California State Constitution's guarantee of the "right to marry" and its guarantee of "equal protection" under the law.
If memory serves correctly, the Supreme Court rules on whether or not a law is Constitutional. That is the balance that the Judicial branch provides. SO - should the people pass a law by any majority that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has the right and duty to overturn it.
That is a separate issue from any religious belief or prejudice.
Shucks --- I just got back to this thread here, and I've gotta say I'm disappointed in some of the responses given. This is being compared to racial equality??? Give me a F***** break. B as in B, and S as in S. That's just so much Bullsh!t.
Racial equality has NOTHING to do with this issue. And while I am at it --- I don't care if it is a round table, triangular table, square table, or lopsiided table that folks sit at to discuss this crap with so many *good-feely" emotions, that they actually forget to check reality, and engage in *fluff* conversation instead.
Where did y'all NOT read what I stated???
4 JUDGES decided that their opinion counted over the populace.
And Hap --- You made a couple of good points, but the rest falls flat.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if 100% of the people vote for something if it's unConstitutional. If a majority of voters vote in a law violating freedom of speech, that law will be overturned by the Supreme Court. That is how the system of checks and balances works.
The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.3
It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution. We are aware, of course, that very strongly held differences of opinion exist on the matter of policy, with those persons who
support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage
maintaining that it is unfair to same-sex couples and potentially detrimental to the
fiscal interests of the state and its economic institutions to reserve the designation
of marriage solely for opposite-sex couples, and others asserting that it is vitally
important to preserve the long-standing and traditional definition of marriage as a
union between a man and a woman, even as the state extends comparable rights
and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples. Whatever our views as
individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as
judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question
to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative
I think WordWolf is correct (not quite positive) , that the legislature can change the constitution with a two thirds majority. I'm not clear which issues exactly belong to the state and which can be overturned by the US constitution (which can also be changed) .... but the gay marriage issue seems to belong to the states, so CA gay marriages may not be recognized by other states.
I'm not clear if hetero marriages would also become unrecognized ... That was an issue with giving illegals driver's licenses, that it would make all driver licenses from that state questionable ... so they were going to make licenses with a distinguishing mark for illegals.
Doojable says free speech could not be taken away ... that would be rather extreme, but I think perhaps a two thirds majority could change even that? Of course there are judgments all the time on exactly what constitutes free speech ... like determining what "hate speech" is ... and so we have the thought police, and effectively, a loss of free speech.
It looks like there will be something else on the ballot in the fall, and they act like that may well make the difference, but I forget the details. I don't know if a two thirds majority on a ballot initiative could change the constitution, I would think not.
On this decision, it was only 4-3, so sometimes something just needs to be rewritten a little, but in this case, it seems there is not much more at issue than the actual title of "marriage".
The decision is almost 200 pages ... which I have not read, but I read a lot of back and forth commentary. The comparison to race is not saying this is exactly the same, but more comparing to how that was changed. They basically put the burden on showing that there was good reason to make the distinction. That is basically impossible, legally.
The judges supposedly did not act exactly on their own, though there was nothing clear to go on and they admit marriage always had been man and woman, so it is a change. But they said the legislature had previously acted to show homosexuals should be treated equally and not distinguished. One guy gave a couple examples of their point ...
Some say that is not the case and that the legislature actually HAD mad the distinction, so that the judges were actually going AGAINST what the legislature had determined. That is the argument I presented earlier here.
A lot is made about who appointed most of these judges ... but that doesn't mean they are conservative judges or that they made the right decision. It was only 4-3 and it was a change from the previous standard of man and woman and it went against the vote and against at least one piece of law from the legislature.
I don't know the answer to your question. I think there may have been something in the CA Constitution since 2000 - but I'm not sure if that is what you're referring to.
I'm not an expert. I was merely going what I remembered from HS Gov't class regarding checks and balances.
Then again, this is the CA Consititution and not the US. I went to the CA Supreme Court site and looked up the ruling - which just happened to be offered at the top of the page.
If I'm wrong - well then correct me. I don't take offense to being told I'm wrong.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
rhino
They did fine ... without their parents being designated as a married couple. So there is no harm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
WhiteDove:
The English language has changed amazingly over the years. Go read some Chaucer if you don't believe me.
English has the largest vocabulary of any language ever. We have incorporated words into English from
Latin, Gallic, French, Spanish, and from the Vikings, to name a few.
English is a highly fluid, flexible, and dynamic language. Ask any linguist or any English Lit major, for that matter.
And amazingly, we English speakers still manage to communicate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
jen-o:
It's not an either/or - it's an and. A regular practice of infanticide does not connote the extinction of a species.
I don't believe I used the word ALL. For instance, if a cat has a litter of 5 kittens and kills 2 of them, there are still 3 left.
And, yes, I have witnessed this with my very own eyes.
Well, it seems as if homosexuality is not against nature as so many would like to believe:
Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species.
Researchers have observed monogamy, promiscuity, sex between species,
sexual arousal from objects or places, sex apparently via duress or coercion,
copulation with dead animals, homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual sexual behaviour,
and situational sexual behaviour and a range of other practices among animals other than humans.
Related studies have noted diversity in sexed bodies and gendered behaviour, such as intersex and transgender animals.
The study of animal sexuality (and primate sexuality especially) is a rapidly developing field.
It used to be believed that only humans and a handful of species performed sexual acts other
than for procreation, and that animals' sexuality was instinctive and a simple response to
the "right" stimulation (sight, scent). Current understanding is that many species that
were formerly believed monogamous have now been proven to be promiscuous or opportunistic
in nature; a wide range of species appear both to masturbate and to use objects as tools to help them do so;
in many species animals try to give and get sexual stimulation with others where procreation is not the aim;
and homosexual behavior has now been observed among 1,500 species and in 500 of those it is well documented.
From Wikepedia - "Animal Sexual Behavior"
Of course, why would we want to bother with science?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Wow, I'm on a roll. Two, count em, TWO comments in as many days on something I posted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Wow! What a thread... almost too much to comment on.
Boiled down to the basics, I see two arguments being presented against recognizing committed homosexual relationships and calling it a "marriage." Of course, both rest on the preface that Gawd doesn't like it. Why is it that one moment the cry is "Jesus paid the price" and the next is "God won't bless you!"
* Don't encourage them!
* If we ignore them, they'll go away.
Gays have been around for centuries. They've married and pretended to be straight. They've raised families. They aren't going away.
I would think that supporting committed relationships would be better for everyone. Who really cares if you or I like what goes on behind their closed doors?
And for the record, it does matter how many gays a person knows or has known. Think of it as a larger sample. If you only knew one homosexual and that person was a jerk - well you're not gonna think well of homosexuals in general. Then again, think about how a homosexual might feel meeting a closed-minded fundamentalist Christian who prays for AIDS to infect the gay community and kill them off. (I actually was told to pray this way back in the early '80s! - I didn't obey that command. <_< )
People are people. They all make a mixture of bad and good choices. I'd take two responsible homosexuals raising children over some multimillionaire hetero couple who choose society over family.
I'm responsible for myself and raising my children. I try to teach them to be tolerant of different life choices. Tolerance doesn't mean that they have to embrace it. After that I'm too tired to try to think about what other people are doing. It's none of my business and out of my control.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
All of which has nothing to do with randomly changing word meanings based on someone's idea that they want their sexual lifestyle included in a words meaning. Its pretty simple a car is a car , a bicycle is a bicycle, a van is a van all are vehicles each however has perimeters that define what they are. Just because i want my bicycle to be a car doesn't mean it qualifies or that it should. Marriage has a perimeter that defines it for centuries, male and female, man and woman. man and man or woman and woman has a different perimeter and as such has a different name to describe it.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
wow, bfh, look who's having the tantrum... :blink:
(especially in your 1st 2 posts to me)
i guess you didn't like some things i said, eh?
(as noted by your 4 different posts regarding my 1 post)
perhaps you missed my first post on this topic (post#28) wherein i elaborated on the reasons why God was not gonna bless this legal decision...
it's because God has already given his opinion on homosexual behavior... and i gave a few places you could find said opinion...
i could list them again if you like, but folks don't usually like to read His opinion on this matter...
(perhaps you want to go back and check out post #28 for a reference point)
my thinking on this is that God is NOT gonna bless something that He doesn't like...
or bless a state (ca) on the basis of its passage of legislation in favor of something that He is against...
i don't have an "attitude" toward gays... i know you find that hard to believe... but quite frankly, what you believe does not concern me... i treat everybody with the same dignity and respect (and friendliness)... but that doesn't mean i like their behavior... nor does it mean i am gonna remain silent about God's opinion... even if you do throw a tantrum while claiming that my God is like you in that respect... God says that homosexual behavior is against nature... (see post #28 or romans 1:26)...now who do you think i'm gonna trust and believe: you and your opinions (and wikipedia) or God and His opinion?
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I can't help but wonder why those who are so passionately opposed to homosexual marriages, because they believe it is against Gawd's laws, don't appear to be equally passionately against adultery, divorce, the pornography industry, etc. etc.
Aren't those things against God's laws too?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
I think what they should do,is if a govenment official, such as a Justice of the peace, oversees the ceremony, be it a heterosexual or homosexual couple, then call it what it in fact is---a civil union...If a church refuses to marry a couple because one is divorced, or they are the same sex or the groom drinks too much, that should be the church's privelege...When the couples' leave the courthouse, they can call themselves whatever they wish---wed, betrothed, married or civilly unionized---and the churches can fight among themselves instead of with the gov't as to whether they want to recognize the couples or not...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
if there is a thread about those issues, i will speak up against them as well...
you don't think that if someone posted a thread that said 'God bless adultery' or 'God bless the porn industry' that i wouldn't speak up about that?
in fact, i'm sure there would be even more outrage than anything posted on this thread...
and the point is?...i never said that homosexuality is worse than adultery...
what makes people think that because i speak out about homosexuality that somehow means i condone adultery (or any other sin)
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think the court decision actually said they have to call them both the same ... not that they have to call homosexual unions "marriage" ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Hmmmmm.
I had a dog once who [how shall I say this?] was quite fond of my leg.
Now I guess I have to wonder how that fits with all this other stuff.
(And just when I thought I was starting to understand it all.)
[:-[
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
HAHA love your (close to) one liners waysider
Edited by RumRunnerLink to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Alright Rhino! So you finally admit that children raised by gay couples suffer no harm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
We did this for blacks too. Mulatto for for a half white- half black person. There were other names that escape me now, for half black- half mexican, half black- half indian, etc. They didn't pass judgement, but gave a more accurate description of a person's race, as if it was any of our business or should have made any difference. What they did do was made it more clear on how to discriminate against each group.
Civil union as marriage doesn't do much in terms of communication, other than tells everyone, discriminator and non-discriminator, that this person is homosexual. Maybe we could have different rings too. Maybe on a different finger, so we could just know by looking at them. What about husband and wife? We need new words for that too. We MUST know who is the "giver" in the gay male relationship and who is the "taker"... not to pass judgement, just so we really know who is the "husband" and who is the "wife." It is just for clarification.
Communication? Is there really going to be any confusion over Bob coming over to you and introducing his new husband Jim? "Wait a second when you said you were getting 'married' to Jim, I thought that was your pet name for your future wife 'Jimbolina.' You said 'married." Not that there's anything wrong with that."
A perversion of the language? We're talking about adding an additional "man" and/or "woman" to the definition. That's perverting the language? Oh, oh wait, you probably meant they are perverts and thus they are perverting the language, perhaps even your own marriage by etymological association.
Honestly, this is ridiculous.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Ha ... no, I got you to admit they don't need to be called marriage ... I don't think I ever said kids would be harmed just because their parents were same sex ... I did say there is not much history on the situation.
But really, kids of Harvard grads is not very representative ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
bfh posted:
well, i was kinda interested about what you wrote... and so i wanted to check it out for myself...
and what i found was that you didn't quite give us the whole story here...
in fact, i would like to add some information that seems to NEGATE your original statement about it not being instinctive for the actual parent to care more...
so evidently it is NOT the ACTUAL PARENT who is killing its own offspring in most cases...
from these examples in nature, it appears that most killing of young animals is the work of UNRELATED members of the same species, who in fact do it toprotect their OWN OFFSPRING...
so this reference to nature shows the opposite of what you intended...
it does appear that it is instinctive for the actual parent to care more about the kids!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You left out mine-
that the methodology used bypasses "the will of the people."
Supposedly, we live in a democratic republic.
That is, we democratically elect officials to act, supposedly according to our wishes,
to represent us and make decisions.
In matters of national law, issues are brought to national referendums, and voted on democratically
by the people. In other cases, issues are voted on by our representatives in Congress.
The highest law of the land is the US Constitution.
Someone earlier claimed that rights to vote for women, blacks, and so on were matters
where this system was ALSO bypassed, that judges "legislated from the bench" and that's
how everyone got the right to vote.
Perhaps my knowledge of history is flawed, but no judicial decision of the JUDICIAL branch
of government can form a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, which is strictly the purview
of the LEGISLATIVE branch.
The 15th Amendment said race, color, and previous condition of servitude could not be used
to prevent a citizen from voting. (That meant all male US citizens could vote.
The 14th Amendment made it clear who was a citizen.)
The 19th Amendment granted female US citizens the right to vote.
=====
If the citizens of California voted and said "we want to legally require all citizens
to wear cucumbers up our noses and spam on our heads", and passed it with a
2/3 majority, I say "the people have spoken! They shall wear spam and cucumbers!"
I DISapprove of the JUDICIAL branch stealing the powers of the LEGISLATIVE branch.
(For that matter, I DISapprove of the Executive branch doing it, but that's off-topic.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
From Hap's Link
If memory serves correctly, the Supreme Court rules on whether or not a law is Constitutional. That is the balance that the Judicial branch provides. SO - should the people pass a law by any majority that is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has the right and duty to overturn it.
That is a separate issue from any religious belief or prejudice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Shucks --- I just got back to this thread here, and I've gotta say I'm disappointed in some of the responses given. This is being compared to racial equality??? Give me a F***** break. B as in B, and S as in S. That's just so much Bullsh!t.
Racial equality has NOTHING to do with this issue. And while I am at it --- I don't care if it is a round table, triangular table, square table, or lopsiided table that folks sit at to discuss this crap with so many *good-feely" emotions, that they actually forget to check reality, and engage in *fluff* conversation instead.
Where did y'all NOT read what I stated???
4 JUDGES decided that their opinion counted over the populace.
And Hap --- You made a couple of good points, but the rest falls flat.
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if 100% of the people vote for something if it's unConstitutional. If a majority of voters vote in a law violating freedom of speech, that law will be overturned by the Supreme Court. That is how the system of checks and balances works.
Concerning CA, read the whole opinion Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
I'm sorry to hear you say that, Dooj.
How long has the constitution been in force??
(Since you are an *expert*, about it.)??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think WordWolf is correct (not quite positive) , that the legislature can change the constitution with a two thirds majority. I'm not clear which issues exactly belong to the state and which can be overturned by the US constitution (which can also be changed) .... but the gay marriage issue seems to belong to the states, so CA gay marriages may not be recognized by other states.
I'm not clear if hetero marriages would also become unrecognized ... That was an issue with giving illegals driver's licenses, that it would make all driver licenses from that state questionable ... so they were going to make licenses with a distinguishing mark for illegals.
Doojable says free speech could not be taken away ... that would be rather extreme, but I think perhaps a two thirds majority could change even that? Of course there are judgments all the time on exactly what constitutes free speech ... like determining what "hate speech" is ... and so we have the thought police, and effectively, a loss of free speech.
It looks like there will be something else on the ballot in the fall, and they act like that may well make the difference, but I forget the details. I don't know if a two thirds majority on a ballot initiative could change the constitution, I would think not.
On this decision, it was only 4-3, so sometimes something just needs to be rewritten a little, but in this case, it seems there is not much more at issue than the actual title of "marriage".
The decision is almost 200 pages ... which I have not read, but I read a lot of back and forth commentary. The comparison to race is not saying this is exactly the same, but more comparing to how that was changed. They basically put the burden on showing that there was good reason to make the distinction. That is basically impossible, legally.
The judges supposedly did not act exactly on their own, though there was nothing clear to go on and they admit marriage always had been man and woman, so it is a change. But they said the legislature had previously acted to show homosexuals should be treated equally and not distinguished. One guy gave a couple examples of their point ...
Some say that is not the case and that the legislature actually HAD mad the distinction, so that the judges were actually going AGAINST what the legislature had determined. That is the argument I presented earlier here.
A lot is made about who appointed most of these judges ... but that doesn't mean they are conservative judges or that they made the right decision. It was only 4-3 and it was a change from the previous standard of man and woman and it went against the vote and against at least one piece of law from the legislature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I don't know the answer to your question. I think there may have been something in the CA Constitution since 2000 - but I'm not sure if that is what you're referring to.
I'm not an expert. I was merely going what I remembered from HS Gov't class regarding checks and balances.
Then again, this is the CA Consititution and not the US. I went to the CA Supreme Court site and looked up the ruling - which just happened to be offered at the top of the page.
If I'm wrong - well then correct me. I don't take offense to being told I'm wrong.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.