WV Current Events Forum

TerryRC wrote:Marriage, historically, has been a SOCIAL institution, not a religious one.

There are many types of marriage and the word has varying definitions (an alloy is a marriage of two or more metals).

The religious right of Cali tried to get the word re-defined strictly along Judeo-Christian lines and got smacked for it.

This isn't making law, here. It was the religious right that tried to do that.

Judicial oligarchy, indeed. If the judges had ruled to define marriage as one man, one woman, you would be dancing in the streets.

Opponents of this bill say it will destroy "traditional" marriage. Setting slippery slope arguments aside, I must ask, "How?".

No, I wouldn't (dance in the streets). I pray to God that marriages within the Christian church be stronger, divorce far less prevelant, and that children be raised in positive, loving homes where Jesus is rightly valued as Lord. There would be no guarantees of this had the court followed the will of the people. The people of California voted on how they wished to define marriage, and AT NO TIME were gay people arrested afterwards for living together, having "weddings," or marching through San Francisco.

This was judicial oligarchy intended to make a social point. You can't tell me that somehow gay people in San Francisco are especially poor, vulnerable, and need the state's protection. ESPECIALLY because domestic benefits had long been extended to gay couples throughout the state.

This isn't about anyone's rights, it is about judges deciding that the people should not get to decide how to define marriage, but rather that they can. They need to now have the consistency to allow anyone to "marry" whomever and whatever they'd like, for as many times as they please. If a guy marrying a guy is the "pursuit of happiness," then a guy marrying three women is protected in that same way.

But in the larger picture, I am more concerned with the state of Christian marriage than I am with the state of California. The culture wars have been lost there years ago, and I will thank God for my marriage and for my church, and pray that it is protected, along with other Christian churches, from being coerced by the "tolerant" into performing gay weddings by threat of lawsuit.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:I wish the state would get out of the marriage business entirely. I didn't ask them to sanction mine. If a liberal church wants to bless two men, three men, two women, three women, two Eskimos and a kangaroo, or whatever, it's not for me decide. I reject same-sex marriage but then again I also reject apostate theology. I still would not ask them to change their ways for my sake. I ask that they afford my church the same courtesy (which they most assuredly will not) of being able to uphold Biblical marriage. The only benefits I think people should get from being married are either religious or personal; if the law is favoring the married over the single I dare suggest that there is discrimination going on against the single, and gay Californians are now part of the group of perpetrators.

And "straight" couples married under the civil laws are perpetrators of discrimination against the single, too?

YES.

If legal status in marriage is so crucial that gay people need to have it, then we must ask ourselves whether we are discriminating against the single and depriving them of their 14th amendment rights.

The state should not be defining marriage, period. If it insists on defining it, however, then it should define it as the people of the state want it defined.

This was judicial oligarchy intended to make a social point. You can't tell me that somehow gay people in San Francisco are especially poor, vulnerable, and need the state's protection. ESPECIALLY because domestic benefits had long been extended to gay couples throughout the state.

It most certainly was not. It was the religious right trying to make new law.

Do you agree that there are and have been many different types of marriage throughout the world?

Why then, should the religious right be able to use law to re-define it so narrowly?

If two women or two men, hell if multiple people want to call their relationship a marriage, who are we to stop them?

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has made a single valid argument as to how their rights are going to be infringed upon or how this will destroy "traditional" marriage.

This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”


An organization opposed to this type of marriage claimed that legalizing it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”


“I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose XXXX marriage as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” claimed a noted psychologist.


A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”


“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”


“When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”


These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.


In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good … (in accordance with) the God of nature.”


A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”


Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”
Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”


“The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates,” thundered a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state’s non-recognition of these types of unions. “And not,” he continued, “to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage.”

So, what type of marriage are these quote referring to?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
interracial marriage.

They sound damn familiar, though, don't they.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I certainly do. I do not consider myself "married" because of my legal status; in fact, I would rather not be married at all in the eyes of the government. My wife is a gift from God, and not the state, and we are answerable to Him as far as our marriage goes, and not to the state.

And people who do not recognize your God- or maybe not any any God at all- to whom are they answerable? If not to the general society through its government, then to whom or what?

I think that's part of the problem right here. Our government has taken an institution that is hundreds of years old, if not thousands and is, at least partially religious based, historically between one man and one woman, and made it a secular government institition, one which they created.

Honestly, I could care less and I don't have a problem with it so long as they don't force anyone, whether it be a religious preacher or a civil judge perform a cermony against that individuals personal beliefs.

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I certainly do. I do not consider myself "married" because of my legal status; in fact, I would rather not be married at all in the eyes of the government. My wife is a gift from God, and not the state, and we are answerable to Him as far as our marriage goes, and not to the state.

And people who do not recognize your God- or maybe not any any God at all- to whom are they answerable? If not to the general society through its government, then to whom or what?

They are answerable to each other, to their families, and to themselves. Personally, I don't care much other people do with their private lives provided they aren't harming others. I see it as none of my business.

I have a handful of grave concerns regarding "gay marriage". I stand by my earlier statement that marriage has historically been a religious institution. Throughout the history of humanity it has always involved members of the opposite sex. I am very concerned that legalizing same sex marriage will ultimately lead to legal actions against private citizens and business owners who are unwilling to participate in an event that runs counter to their personal convictions. I foresee florists, bakers, photographers, bands......anybody and everybody who is part of the wedding industry as being suseptible to this kind of legal harrassment.

In this specific case, I have a major problem with a court overturning what is clearly the will of the vast majority of the people. That is judicial tyranny, plain and simple. The people of California have spoken on this issue, and now the court is telling them to piss off. I find that reprehensible.

In addition, the California Supreme Court is going to create a huge problem for other states. They have made it perfectly legal for citizens of any of the 48 states who do not recognize homosexual marriages to come to California to hold a ceremony not recognized in their state of residence. This can lead to complications further on down the road that the citizens of those other states will need to shoulder the costs of. Ask officials in my home state of RI.

TerryRC wrote:This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”


An organization opposed to this type of marriage claimed that legalizing it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”


“I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose XXXX marriage as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” claimed a noted psychologist.


A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”


“The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”


“When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”


These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.


In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good … (in accordance with) the God of nature.”


A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”


Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”
Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”


“The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates,” thundered a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state’s non-recognition of these types of unions. “And not,” he continued, “to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage.”

So, what type of marriage are these quote referring to?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
interracial marriage.

They sound damn familiar, though, don't they.

Do you know how insulting it is to compare an innate characteristic to a chosen perverted activity? People are born Eskimo, Polynesian, Black, White,etc. However, people choose to be homosexual, adulterers, pedophiles, etc. Homosexual is what a person DOES--not what a person IS.

SheikBen wrote:

ziggy wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

I certainly do. I do not consider myself "married" because of my legal status; in fact, I would rather not be married at all in the eyes of the government. My wife is a gift from God, and not the state, and we are answerable to Him as far as our marriage goes, and not to the state.

And people who do not recognize your God- or maybe not any any God at all- to whom are they answerable? If not to the general society through its government, then to whom or what?

Why must they be answerable to anyone, in terms of their marriage?

As relates to the Gods, that was my point exactly. This incessant arguing about which Gods are real and which are inventions of human minds is debilitating because it amounts to nothing more than "my God can beat up on your God" childish rants.

Your question demonstrates that when God is removed, the state then takes the role of god.

No. The state takes the role of the people, collectively represented- devising and implementing the rules of and for society. With marriage, with childbearing- with human interactions in general- come responsibilirties of each of us to others in those partnerships / relationships. We can leave the management of that to the Gods of some of us and argue endlessly about whose Gods should manage that, or assign that management to the secular government of all of us.

Stephanie wrote:I have a handful of grave concerns regarding "gay marriage". I stand by my earlier statement that marriage has historically been a religious institution. Throughout the history of humanity it has always involved members of the opposite sex. I am very concerned that legalizing same sex marriage will ultimately lead to legal actions against private citizens and business owners who are unwilling to participate in an event that runs counter to their personal convictions. I foresee florists, bakers, photographers, bands......anybody and everybody who is part of the wedding industry as being suseptible to this kind of legal harrassment.

I agree completely. In fact, I didn't think of the business owners that will be forced to deal with a whole new leagally protected class of citizens.

Stephanie wrote:In this specific case, I have a major problem with a court overturning what is clearly the will of the vast majority of the people. That is judicial tyranny, plain and simple. The people of California have spoken on this issue, and now the court is telling them to piss off. I find that reprehensible.

In addition, the California Supreme Court is going to create a huge problem for other states. They have made it perfectly legal for citizens of any of the 48 states who do not recognize homosexual marriages to come to California to hold a ceremony not recognized in their state of residence. This can lead to complications further on down the road that the citizens of those other states will need to shoulder the costs of. Ask officials in my home state of RI.

There is precedence for other states not having to acknowledge Californias same sex marriages in spite of the equal protection clause. I'll do some research this weekend and post it.

But if same sex marriage is allowed, why not pologmy? And with that comes a whole host of social issues where rights are afforded to ones spouses.


How would you deal with everything here???

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:And people who do not recognize your God- or maybe not any any God at all- to whom are they answerable? If not to the general society through its government, then to whom or what?

They are answerable to each other, to their families, and to themselves.

Says who or says what? Without the civl law, a spouse can thumb his or her nose at the other spouse, at theiur children, at their families, and even themselves. What about parental responsibilities? What about community property spouses acquire jointly, then when they split, what happens? Should hubby just be able to give it all to his next concubine, and to hell with the last one one?

Personally, I don't care much other people do with their private lives provided they aren't harming others. I see it as none of my business.

But what if they are harming others? Is that no one else's business either?

I have a handful of grave concerns regarding "gay marriage". I stand by my earlier statement that marriage has historically been a religious institution. Throughout the history of humanity it has always involved members of the opposite sex.

Only the sanctioning of it has involved members of the opposite sex. Sam gendered folks have, just like their hetereosexual brothers anbd sisters, have been "shaking up" w/o benefit of clergy or state sanction forever.

I am very concerned that legalizing same sex marriage will ultimately lead to legal actions against private citizens and business owners who are unwilling to participate in an event that runs counter to their personal convictions. I foresee florists, bakers, photographers, bands......anybody and everybody who is part of the wedding industry as being suseptible to this kind of legal harrassment.

Maybe you can "see" it. But what eveidence is there to support that? Inter-faith marriages, and legalization of interracial marriages has produced no such "legal harassment".

In this specific case, I have a major problem with a court overturning what is clearly the will of the vast majority of the people. That is judicial tyranny, plain and simple. The people of California have spoken on this issue, and now the court is telling them to piss off. I find that reprehensible.

And what about the Constitution? What about the right of people to enjoy the advantages of government sanctioned marriage regardless of their gender? What business is it of "the majority of the people" even of what gender two people who desire to be married are?

In addition, the California Supreme Court is going to create a huge problem for other states. They have made it perfectly legal for citizens of any of the 48 states who do not recognize homosexual marriages to come to California to hold a ceremony not recognized in their state of residence. This can lead to complications further on down the road that the citizens of those other states will need to shoulder the costs of. Ask officials in my home state of RI.

Ok. What kinds of "complications", specifically?

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:I have a handful of grave concerns regarding "gay marriage". I stand by my earlier statement that marriage has historically been a religious institution. Throughout the history of humanity it has always involved members of the opposite sex. I am very concerned that legalizing same sex marriage will ultimately lead to legal actions against private citizens and business owners who are unwilling to participate in an event that runs counter to their personal convictions. I foresee florists, bakers, photographers, bands......anybody and everybody who is part of the wedding industry as being suseptible to this kind of legal harrassment.

I agree completely. In fact, I didn't think of the business owners that will be forced to deal with a whole new leagally protected class of citizens.

What "whole new legally protected ckass" of people? They will be married, period. What is "new" about that?

But if same sex marriage is allowed, why not pologmy? And with that comes a whole host of social issues where rights are afforded to ones spouses.

Yeah yeah. We heard that when the interracial marriage barriers were knocked down, too. We heard about people being able to marry sheep and dogs and maggots maybe even then. But it was all just so much chaff in the wheels of social justice back then, too.

In this specific case, I have a major problem with a court overturning what is clearly the will of the vast majority of the people. That is judicial tyranny, plain and simple. The people of California have spoken on this issue, and now the court is telling them to piss off. I find that reprehensible.

And if "the people of California" wanted to prohibit marriage between Jews & Gentiles, or Catholics and Protestants, or Blacks and Whites, or born again Christians and atheists- and the Courts barred those prohibitions- would that be "judicial tyranny plain and simple" too?

If states are going to be in the marriage business, and extending certain benefits of "marriage" to those couples, then it cannot Constitutionally just arbitrarily selectively deny those benefits to certain people without showing a complelling state interest in doing so. And in the situation of homosexual marriage, no such compelling state interest has been shown. Just saying that "it's a sin", or that "the people of California" want it that way does not a compelling state or compelling public interest make.

I think we would be better off we were more concerned about our own marriages than about someone else's.

ziggy wrote:What "whole new legally protected ckass" of people? They will be married, period. What is "new" about that?

And if a flower shop owner doesn't want to do business with a homosexual couple, should they be forced to? What if a J.O.P is morally set against homosexuality, will he face losing his positon if he refuses to marry a homosexual couple? If the answer is yes, then you have a newly protected class of citizens.

But if same sex marriage is allowed, why not polygamy? And with that comes a whole host of social issues where rights are afforded to ones spouses.

ziggy wrote:Yeah yeah. We heard that when the interracial marriage barriers were knocked down, too. We heard about people being able to marry sheep and dogs and maggots maybe even then. But it was all just so much chaff in the wheels of social justice back then, too.

And one of the arguments I heard last night one of the news channels was some lawyer saying that this opened the door for polygamy. If the government can't define marriage as between one man and one woman, how can they legally put any sort of definaton on marriage at all?

I think your problem (well at least one of them, I have neither the time or space to list them all) is that you are equating a psychological state to a physical state and it’s just not the same thing.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:

ziggy wrote:And people who do not recognize your God- or maybe not any any God at all- to whom are they answerable? If not to the general society through its government, then to whom or what?

They are answerable to each other, to their families, and to themselves.

Says who or says what? Without the civl law, a spouse can thumb his or her nose at the other spouse, at theiur children, at their families, and even themselves. What about parental responsibilities? What about community property spouses acquire jointly, then when they split, what happens? Should hubby just be able to give it all to his next concubine, and to hell with the last one one?

Personally, I don't care much other people do with their private lives provided they aren't harming others. I see it as none of my business.

But what if they are harming others? Is that no one else's business either?

I have a handful of grave concerns regarding "gay marriage". I stand by my earlier statement that marriage has historically been a religious institution. Throughout the history of humanity it has always involved members of the opposite sex.

Only the sanctioning of it has involved members of the opposite sex. Sam gendered folks have, just like their hetereosexual brothers anbd sisters, have been "shaking up" w/o benefit of clergy or state sanction forever.

I am very concerned that legalizing same sex marriage will ultimately lead to legal actions against private citizens and business owners who are unwilling to participate in an event that runs counter to their personal convictions. I foresee florists, bakers, photographers, bands......anybody and everybody who is part of the wedding industry as being suseptible to this kind of legal harrassment.

Maybe you can "see" it. But what eveidence is there to support that? Inter-faith marriages, and legalization of interracial marriages has produced no such "legal harassment".

In this specific case, I have a major problem with a court overturning what is clearly the will of the vast majority of the people. That is judicial tyranny, plain and simple. The people of California have spoken on this issue, and now the court is telling them to piss off. I find that reprehensible.

And what about the Constitution? What about the right of people to enjoy the advantages of government sanctioned marriage regardless of their gender? What business is it of "the majority of the people" even of what gender two people who desire to be married are?

In addition, the California Supreme Court is going to create a huge problem for other states. They have made it perfectly legal for citizens of any of the 48 states who do not recognize homosexual marriages to come to California to hold a ceremony not recognized in their state of residence. This can lead to complications further on down the road that the citizens of those other states will need to shoulder the costs of. Ask officials in my home state of RI.

Ok. What kinds of "complications", specifically?

First of all Ziggy, it is biologically impossible for two men, or two women, to conceive a child together. In order to parent a child, they must adopt (contract/court), use a surrogate (another contract), or a sperm donor. In each of these cases, one or both of the parents is not biologically related to the child. Even for married heterosexual couples our legal system is involved.

As far as homosexual couples desiring things like power of attorney, joint property, etc, the legal system can accomodate them as well.

Are you trying to tell me that there have been no instances of vendors and professionals being sued, or threatened with legal action, for refusing to participate in an interracial or interfaith marriage? Honestly I find that impossible to believe. I don't have the time right now to look into it, but I'd bet nearly everything I have that it has been done. Even if it has never been done successfully, the expense of such an event would be devastating to a small business owner.

The Constitution makes no mention of homosexuality or marriage. If homosexuals desire the right to marry in all 50 states they should seek an amendment, just as I am convinced those opposed to homosexual marriage are very likely to do. Given SCOTUS has refused to review DOMA, I see an amendment to COTUS as the only solution for those who favor same sex marriages.

As far as RI is concerned, I don't really follow the goings on there very much at all. I do know that not too long ago a lesbian couple who had married in MA attempted to get a divorce in RI, where they reside. The RI courts rejected their case. They are boo-hooing this decision. If I were still a taxpayer in RI I'd be fuming mad at neighboring MA for putting my state (and my tax dollars) in this situation to begin with. It costs taxpayer money for these cases to work their way through the court system.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:What "whole new legally protected ckass" of people? They will be married, period. What is "new" about that?

And if a flower shop owner doesn't want to do business with a homosexual couple, should they be forced to? What if a J.O.P is morally set against homosexuality, will he face losing his positon if he refuses to marry a homosexual couple? If the answer is yes, then you have a newly protected class of citizens.

The Court's decision was not about a "protected" class any more than an earlier Court's decision about interracial marriage was about a "newly protected class". A "protected class" law would be a different law- a different legal issue for a different time.

And one of the arguments I heard last night one of the news channels was some lawyer saying that this opened the door for polygamy.

And some lawyer could say it opens the door to marrying your cat. But does it actually? No. Polygamy is a different issue, and has been debated in the past and will be in the future- regardless of the gender of marital partners.

If the government can't define marriage as between one man and one woman, how can they legally put any sort of definaton on marriage at all?

It comes back to that principle of establishing some compelling public interest for the legislation- which means something more than just "this is what the majority of Californians want".

I think your problem (well at least one of them, I have neither the time or space to list them all) is that you are equating a psychological state to a physical state and it’s just not the same thing.

Guess what, Aaron. Marriage in America is ALL about a psychological state- about the conscious choice of whom we want to be married to. Why should it be any other way?