DescentBB

the ruling


article in support of ruling
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/0 ... 70739.html

article against ruling
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10080503.html

discuss

Some people are gender confused, I can be understanding to that and hope they get some help. But in this thread and as in others government should not be this involved in our lives. The only reason they are is because of big business refusing health coverage to un married or same sex couples. Regardless of my views on gays, if one works and the other does not, and they are willing to pay a premium to get the other covered - who cares, its being paid for.
Going beyond gender confusion, it may be two brothers or sisters or brother and sister living together and one losses there job. Why can't the one who is employed pick up the others health insurance cost and have coverage for both. You can't because big business wont allow it.

Great, now when can we start expanding marriage to allow me to marry a 5 year old child. Or maybe my cat. I'm pretty sure my cat loves me.

Xamindar wrote:Great, now when can we start expanding marriage to allow me to marry a 5 year old child. Or maybe my cat. I'm pretty sure my cat loves me.

consenting adults

Utah?????

The Constitution Does Not Permit Polygamy or Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/useditorial054.htm

interesting read. I'm not a lawyer so I cannot comment on the legal accuracy of the claim.

That San Francisco judge should have reflected on these key words:

“Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal.”

Society surely has a right to regulate marriage.

And “same-sex marriage” was not considered to be marriage.

Rather, homosexuality was viewed as criminal by the Founders and Framers.

Jefferson and the other Founders distinguished between liberty and license and surely did not conceive of the pursuit of happiness as an authorization for “gay marriage.”

Look at Jefferson’s writings on sodomy.

Such as Jefferson’s letter to Edmund Pendleton, written on August 26, 1776

null0010 wrote: consenting adults

My cat's an adult.
Why can't their be consenting children? In fact, why not remove all age limits? Just because you are older doesn't mean you are wiser.

Seriously though, I always wondered why the gays didn't just push for a new idea that would allow them all the same perks of being married. Call it "garried" or something. Seems like that would avoid all the upset over eroding the cultural and religious meaning of marriage.
Just invent something new. Then both "sides" can be happy. But I suppose some will never be happy until they can take existing things and warp them into what they want them to be, not caring how anyone else feels about it.

Xamindar wrote:

null0010 wrote: consenting adults

My cat's an adult.
Why can't their be consenting children? In fact, why not remove all age limits? Just because you are older doesn't mean you are wiser.

Seriously though, I always wondered why the gays didn't just push for a new idea that would allow them all the same perks of being married. Call it "garried" or something. Seems like that would avoid all the upset over eroding the cultural and religious meaning of marriage.
Just invent something new. Then both "sides" can be happy. But I suppose some will never be happy until they can take existing things and warp them into what they want them to be, not caring how anyone else feels about it.

Back in the 70's and 80's it was about insurance and how they where not immediate family so they did not qualify for insurance or legal type issues like inheritance. From there it grew into a marital issue to become immediate family.

Cuda68 wrote:Some people are gender confused, I can be understanding to that and hope they get some help. But in this thread and as in others government should not be this involved in our lives. The only reason they are is because of big business refusing health coverage to un married or same sex couples. Regardless of my views on gays, if one works and the other does not, and they are willing to pay a premium to get the other covered - who cares, its being paid for.
Going beyond gender confusion, it may be two brothers or sisters or brother and sister living together and one losses there job. Why can't the one who is employed pick up the others health insurance cost and have coverage for both. You can't because big business wont allow it.

Actually, it would be cheaper to pay for 2 single policies than 1 policy that covers 2 people. The problem here is mandating employers to pay for someone in a relationship that is amoral to them (employer)

Also it is a sad state of affairs where 1 individual has the power to overturn the vote of 7 million other people. Will be interesting when this finally hits SCOTUs's door step.

Think \"death taxes\" and you'll understand why it's imperative to have a happy/gay marriage.

If 2 consenting adults who are not married but live together 'til death does them part, the government will get a healthy chunk of the estate, however if one \"spouse\" passes away then the estate is transferred to the surviving spouse.

Not rocket surgery.

Personally, I think marriage should have nothing to do with government. The government should call it something else so as to drop the religious overtones. All it is, in a legal sense, is a special way to look at taxes and such.

That way, anyone can get special tax benefits with anyone, and people who think that gay marriage is wrong but for some reason support it as long as it has a different name will be happy, too.

And Xamindar, I give you a 0/10 for trolling. It's not even original or anything.

The only reason people get married is to please themselves (symbol of commitment, celebration of their love, etc.) and/or to conform to their cultures traditions. There is no other purpose served, no naturally occurring survival or health or enrichment benefits.

So since the beginning of time men and women hooked up and tried to be mated for life and later that relationship began to be publicly established by ritual weddings in churches. there were gays for sure back then too but the peer group was 'officially' straight so the public display and celebration was for straights only and the authority that ratified the marriage agreement and invented the rules governing it was the religious authority...the church. Not the government.

The government got into the business of marriage much later.
And in all that time since it declared by force it's co-ownership of the authority on marriage the government has never added value to a marriage only used it as rationale for giving and taking from people with the married status but always with the goal of serving government.

It's time the government was separated from the church and told to get the hell out of the marriage business.

Marriage should be left to the religious/spiritual authority to ratify or not as they are free to do so under the constitution, straight churches and gay churches alike, and the government should remove itself from the religion immediately on constitutional grounds.

Insurance companies and governments etc. should still be able to use a couples marital status (straight or gay) to profile risk assessment, credit risk etc.
and if being straight proves to be an asset and being gay proves to be a detriment to your risk assessment so be it.
Adoption agencies can still consider the impact of a couple having a popular or unpopular marriage etc.
The way you live and how those lifestyles typically impact your life is relevant data to be given weight in considering your qualifications for a number of things.
However your marital status should not be used as a reason by itself to deny you anything. Being married isn't a handicap worthy of that kind of discrimination.

Being blind should mean you can't drive a car on the freeway.
Being married, or not, isn't a threat to your fellow citizens or your government.
Marriage isn't inherently a problem of it's own, it needs no government guidance, it's a glorified prayer not a commodity or natural resource. Government has no place in guiding the prayer.
The people should be free to practice their religion without the government telling them what is and isn't a valid relationship under their beliefs. That is a constitutionally protected right.

Well I would like to see some history on what you just said Will, because I disagree.

And I’m going to ask this question once again…

If marriage is the sole provence of religion, how do non religious people get married?

And if marriage is sanctioned only by the church, why should one religion recognize another’s marriage, or why should I even…

Man, we have been through this before…a marriage must be sanctioned by the highest legal authority, or it has no legal grounds.

Marriage is a “legal” status.

null0010 wrote:Personally, I think marriage should have nothing to do with government. The government should call it something else so as to drop the religious overtones. All it is, in a legal sense, is a special way to look at taxes and such.

That way, anyone can get special tax benefits with anyone, and people who think that gay marriage is wrong but for some reason support it as long as it has a different name will be happy, too.

Thanks for stating my thought in a "non-trolling" manner.

And Xamindar, I give you a 0/10 for trolling. It's not even original or anything.

Yeah, well, this subject has been discussed countless times on here. Can't you think of anything more interesting to discuss instead of this? This debate will never be settled because both sides have completely different beliefs on the definition of marriage.

Yea, we can call hetero marriage …stones, gay marriage…bricks, and if you marry your sister, we can call those concrete blocks.

Good luck building your house on that foundation.

Xamindar wrote:

null0010 wrote:Personally, I think marriage should have nothing to do with government. The government should call it something else so as to drop the religious overtones. All it is, in a legal sense, is a special way to look at taxes and such.

That way, anyone can get special tax benefits with anyone, and people who think that gay marriage is wrong but for some reason support it as long as it has a different name will be happy, too.

Thanks for stating my thought in a "non-trolling" manner.

And Xamindar, I give you a 0/10 for trolling. It's not even original or anything.

Yeah, well, this subject has been discussed countless times on here. Can't you think of anything more interesting to discuss instead of this? This debate will never be settled because both sides have completely different beliefs on the definition of marriage.

It's important, current news.

Just because it's current news doesn't make it important.

Heretic wrote:Just because it's current news doesn't make it important.

So don't discuss it?

Heretic wrote:Just because it's current news doesn't make it important.

Non importante

Spidey wrote:Well I would like to see some history on what you just said Will, because I disagree.

It is based on my perception of reality...that book hasn't been written yet

Spidey wrote:And I’m going to ask this question once again…

If marriage is the sole provence of religion, how do non religious people get married?

Because non-religious entities have assumed the authority to dictate what a marriage is. They have no history or tradition with regards to it they simply decided that the existence of marriage between two citizens was a useful tool in their construction of society as they see fit.
There is no nationalistic or racial or commercial or diplomatic or community welfare component to a marriage. The act of declaring yourself "married" is a promise and a prayer, it belongs to no one else except to who ever you make the promise to. People choose to make that promise in the arena of their god....government forces it's tentacles into the arrangement not for the health of the marriage but for it's own social engineering purposes.

Non-religious people get married by choosing to make their promise to the government. In my mind that is a totally different commitment and if they want to serve the government as a couple then go ahead. But I think we would all be better served if government wasn't allowed to have that intrusion on anyones life and non-religious people would make their commitments in the eyes of their community or friends without giving authority to the government to reign over it.

Spidey wrote:And if marriage is sanctioned only by the church, why should one religion recognize another’s marriage, or why should I even…

Man, we have been through this before…a marriage must be sanctioned by the highest legal authority, or it has no legal grounds.

Marriage is a “legal” status.

There shouldn't be any reason for anyone to seek your recognition of their marriage.
As an example, if you were an insurance company you may find that statistics regarding married people give you useful data to calculate risk exposure and you can adjust your rates to be profitable and competitive when including the 'married' behavior to all your other data....smoker/nonsmoker, etc. etc.
Just because you are aware of their married status doesn't mean you have to believe in it and certainly doesn't give you the right to start to dictate to them how they can marry, who they can marry, etc.

Christians should be able to say "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and their church will stand by that definition and practice unmolested by government. They are harming no one by taking that position.

Gays should be able to say "Of course two men or two women can be married!" and their church or community will stand by their definition and practice unmolested by the government. They too are harming no one.

All the other people sticking their nose into the business of marriage can just deal with the way things are because at the root of this issue that is exactly what the problem is. Some people having a problem dealing with the way things really are and trying to force change upon others.
This is not a job for government, it is a job for the Beatles! Let It Be

Marriage is the formation of a family, by the union of a man and a woman, the church has no authority to say who or what constitutes a legal family in this country.

Spidey wrote:Marriage is the formation of a family, by the union of a man and a woman, the church has no authority to say who or what constitutes a legal family in this country.

no but the Government does. Marriage is a legal and Binding contract and the Government has domain over such matters. read the link that I posted above. it explains it in detail.

Xamindar wrote:

null0010 wrote: consenting adults

My cat's an adult.
Why can't their be consenting children? In fact, why not remove all age limits? Just because you are older doesn't mean you are wiser.

No, but that won't stop people from repeating platitudes about age and wisdom.

Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why does marriage exist in the first place? ^_~

Next to where I live there is a mountain, and on it is a cross. It has been there for about 100 years, or so people say. Yet some people, whom I politically identify with on most issues, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation to have it removed. They dedicate months of their lives, in fact for many, removing it is their \"life cause.\"

And for the life of me I can't figure out why. I do get the whole separation of church and state. I get that mixing them together is \"bad.\" But seriously, with all of the legitimate windmills that need charging in this world, why choose this one? What is your dog in this fight?

This is also exactly how I feel against conservatives with the gay rights issue. Sure, believe its wrong, I get that--its your choice. But aren't there better things to do with your time, then prevent people who love each other from being able to use the same word that you use? And get the same rights that you get? I don't get people who spend real money fighting against this.

If you are against gay marriage, don't do it.

Spidey wrote:Marriage is the formation of a family, by the union of a man and a woman, the church has no authority to say who or what constitutes a legal family in this country.

I don't see the mention of marriage anywhere in the definition of family.
Government doesn't insist on marriage among couples, it includes changes in laws to accommodate the unmarried couples, their children, their property, etc.
I have friends who are unmarried and certainly they and their children are every bit as much a family as mine is.

So just because government currently makes use of the marital status in some form doesn't mean their use of it is needed or even appropriate.

Have you ever asked yourself why this is such an important debate in the first place? ^_~

Neo wrote:Have you ever asked yourself why this is such an important debate in the first place? ^_~

Sure, lemmings.



Christians don't want their government to support something that is wrong.
Gays don't want their government to enforce something that is wrong.

But that debate, by itself, isn't big enough to make nationwide news until you get the two political party's involved, stirring up the pot which they do because the conservatives latch on to the Christian argument and the liberals latch on to the gay argument and it becomes a polarizing tool to keep those two voting blocks coming out to vote.

It's not election day, it's lemmings day.

Number 5 has it covered Will, definitions don’t always have how something got that way, only what something “is“.

I’m not going to argue that it’s the only way to start a family, but in my opinion…it’s the right way.

Neo wrote: Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why does marriage exist in the first place? ^_~

Yes and I keep coming to the conclusion that it was God who started it. Spidey keeps talking about government starting the marriage thing but wasn't it both government and religion? Were not ancient civilization's governments controlled by the religious leaders?

Marriage predates written history. The oldest law written comes from 1790 BC written on a stone tablet called Code of Hammurabi. Hammurabi the sixth Babylonian king, said he came to deliver the law of the gods to his people. Which outline the laws and contractual obligations to marriage.

So I would have to say yes marriage is both religiousness and governmental in nature.

Spidey wrote:Number 5 has it covered Will, definitions don’t always have how something got that way, only what something “is“.

I’m not going to argue that it’s the only way to start a family, but in my opinion…it’s the right way.

#5 seems to support gay couples as well as traditional and there is no mention of a marriage. #5 doesn't exclude non-married, it seems to include it quite purposely.

As to the "right way", sure, everyone probably has an idea of what the right way is but the right way isn't always the only successful way and the only time a person wants the government to be the authority on what is the right way is when the government happens to agree with them.

So why do we need the government to be the authority? My default position is always to deny the federal government any power that they don't need to maintain their mandate.

Sheesh Will, you split hairs until they disappear from the universe…

It’s not the federal government that sanctions marriage…it’s the states.

“So why do we need the government to be the authority?”

The reason government should be the sanctioning body for marriage is because you want your legal rights/status to stem from a constitutional body, given its power by the people, not some church. Also to provide a uniform system, do you really want some oddball church to start wedding humans and snakes? And the list goes on and on…

Remember…we threw the other system out. (church in control)

Spidey wrote:Sheesh Will, you split hairs until they disappear from the universe…

It’s not the federal government that sanctions marriage…it’s the states.

and I'm the one splitting hairs?! OK, so in this case I would like the State to not have that authority either...back on track...

Spidey wrote:“So why do we need the government to be the authority?”

The reason government should be the sanctioning body for marriage is because you want your legal rights/status to stem from a constitutional body, given its power by the people, not some church.

I never thought there was a constitutional 'right to marry'. There is a right to not be stopped by government from marrying, not explicitly but certainly implied a few different ways thus the cases that are heading for the Supreme Court today.
So if the government wasn't the sanctioning body of marriage you would still have every right to marry and would still be protected by the constitution/Bill of Rights.

Spidey wrote:Also to provide a uniform system, do you really want some oddball church to start wedding humans and snakes? And the list goes on and on…

There most likely is an oddball church in America that lets you marry snakes, animals, etc. it's just that the snake marrying kind don't represent enough of a voting block to engage either Party's demagoguery machine....

So I still wonder, why do we need the government to be the authority on marriage? If the marriage isn't breaking a law like polygamy, incest, 12 year old brides, etc. or harming anyone in some other way why ask the government to have any other trigger for their involvement?
What purpose does it serve other than to buttress a particular special interests position on who can or can't be married be it gays, Christians or whoever.

wow.

I was expecting the same crazy right wing nuttery i see almost all the time here, and i was certainly expecting to see will in particular talking about how gay marriage is wrong, how it leads to bestiality, is this, is that, etc.

what I saw was VERY different. It was very balanced, expressed no intolerance at all and respected a person's right to do what they should be able to do, and that is to lead a fulfilling life.


government stuck their hooks into marriage as a way to get even more money out of us, and of course the religious people had to make a giant stink about it because they thought it went against their bible. That's a crock of shiete. Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone at all. the worst it does is make certain people uncomfortable. it's a nonissue and people who make it an issue really have too much time on their hands.

I heard a saying way back when where if you don't want gay marriage, don't marry a man.

Were ancient civilizations' governments not controlled by the religious leaders?

that's right, they were. It's still prevalent even today with a lot of people. their mindlessness and ignorance beyond what their church leaders tell them regarding a lot of issues these days is downright scary.

Sorry Will, my last post was written up wrong, the “hairs” comment was based on the definition thing, where you had to persist, even after I conceded that the definition did not contain the origin of said family.

Xamindar wrote:

Neo wrote: Have you ever stopped and asked yourself why does marriage exist in the first place? ^_~

Yes and I keep coming to the conclusion that it was God who started it. Spidey keeps talking about government starting the marriage thing but wasn't it both government and religion? Were not ancient civilization's governments controlled by the religious leaders?

Are you sure? =P

Neo wrote: Are you sure? =P

I'm sure we are all ready to hear your opinion whenever you feel like posting it.

Seems now we find out the judge who ruled on the case is openly gay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100807/ap_ ... rial_judge

Heretic wrote:Seems now we find out the judge who ruled on the case is openly gay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100807/ap_ ... rial_judge

I think that was reported before he ruled on the case and I remember thinking at that time that either way he would be potentially biased. So unless you can find an asexual judge you have to let a judge with a personal side in the issue rule.

I'm not worried about whether the judge was gay or straight, or whether gays should be allowed to marry or not at this point. What I'm worried about is the fact that a judge overturned a law that was VOTED IN BY THE PUBLIC.

Xamindar wrote:I'm not worried about whether the judge was gay or straight, or whether gays should be allowed to marry or not at this point. What I'm worried about is the fact that a judge overturned a law that was VOTED IN BY THE PUBLIC.

Standard operating procedure in California, they have a left leaning circuit court out there, 9th district, and liberals often bring a lawsuit up against a law that popular vote approved to get it overturned and tied up in years of court cases before it could ever be enforced.
But that is one of the functions of the judicial branch, to stop the legislative branch from enacting unconstitutional laws.