California Supremes Invent Right to Marriage

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?

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.

A J.O.P. is a public servant. As such, he or she should no more be allowed to refuse public service to people based on their gender than on their race, their religion, their ethnicity or their politics.

The flower shop owner is not impacted by this ruling on who may marry whom- other than as more people get married the flower shop owner would have a potentially larger client base if he or she chose to avail herself / himself of it.

ziggy wrote: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". That would be a different law- a different legal issue for a different time.

You didn't answer the question Frank. If a court rules that a flower shop owner or a J.O.P must accomodate a same sex marriage cermony in spite of their moral objections, does it not create a protected class of people?

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

Like it or not, polygamist supporters have and will link the governments refusal to 'define' marriage, thus allowing same sex marriages, to their cause. Beastialitymay very well be next. That is one of the potential reprecussions of this decision.

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

No Frank, you are wrong. The 'legislative' branch of the government writes and pases bills and the exectuive branch signs those bills into laws, should they choose. If the exectuive branch veto's a bill, then the Legislative Branch can then pass the bill into law by overriding the veto.

The only say the judicial branch has is to review the law IF if it is legally challenged. And then all they can do is either say it's kosher and stands or overturn it because it violates the constitution, either state or federal, in some manner.

I haven't read the California constitution but there is NOTHING in the United States Constitution that requires the legslative branch to have compelling reasons for any legislation.

Unless the judicial branch can find a compelling reason based on either the California Constitution or the United States Constitution, then they have NO RIGHT WHATSOVER to overturn a law that was voted on and passed by the legislative branch and signed by the judicial branch. That is the American way of doing things Frank.

So unless the court has a constitutional reason for overturning the law, it is they that have overstepped their boundries, right Frank!!!

What constitutional right was violated by this law Frank?

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

You're the one that is comparing a psychological state (homosexuality) to a physical attribute (color of skin) Frank, not me. Sorry but your dog ain't got no hunt .

Try again Frank!!!

ziggy wrote:
A J.O.P. is a public servant. As such, he or she should no more be allowed to refuse public service to people based on their gender than on their race, their religion, their ethnicity or their politics.

So then if a J.O.P., as a public servant, is not allowed to refuse his services based on a discrimination issue, then how is this not creating a protected class.

ziggy wrote:The flower shop owner is not impacted by this ruling on who may marry whom- other than as more people get married the flower shop owner would have a potentially larger client base if he or she chose to avail herself / himself of it.

How are they not impacted? A flower shop cannot refuse to service black people based on the color of their skin. If they do, they face legal ramifications.

Will the face those same ramifications for failing to service homosexuals?

If so, how can you say they’re not impacted?

And this doesn’t even begin to address the religious issues of discrimination and what they can and cannot be forced to do.

What about Church's and/or ministers. What if they refuse? Will the face any legal ramifications.

What you're doing is FORCING society to accept one's personal lifestyle. How is that not creating a protected class of people?

Stephanie wrote: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.

And so? If pro-creation is the primary incentive, people don't have to get married. And fewer parents are getting married. The reasons same gendered couples have for wanting to marry are usually unrelated to having children- although some might figure that they night more likely be allowed to adopt children were they married.

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

And one way to "accomodate" them is to allow them to marry.

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.

I am not aware of any. I would point out that federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination in providing public accomodations are unrelated to marriage laws.

The Constitution makes no mention of homosexuality or marriage.

Right. But states nonetheless have taken it upon themselves to regulate and sanction marriages. The question at hand is can the state properly discriminate based on gender in that regulating and sanctioning.

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.

Why should they have to do that when the Constitution currently supports their right to marry? That would be like saying that folks who wanted to engage in an interracial marriage should have amended the Constitution to allow it.

Given SCOTUS has refused to review DOMA, I see an amendment to COTUS as the only solution for those who favor same sex marriages.

Why? How so? Why not just live with the Constitution the way it is- as a live and let live social instrument.

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.

MA did not put RI in this situation. The RI residents who got married somewhere else and later decided to get divorced in RI put RI into it. If RI had simply allowed those folks to get married in RI, then RI could have treated their divorce request as it would any other divorce request- and w/o spending extra $$$ to work the case through the Court system. .

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:
A J.O.P. is a public servant. As such, he or she should no more be allowed to refuse public service to people based on their gender than on their race, their religion, their ethnicity or their politics.

So then if a J.O.P., as a public servant, is not allowed to refuse his services based on a discrimination issue, then how is this not creating a protected class.

Discrimination laws have already been on the books for years- decades. And it is well established that public servants / public employees cannot arbitrarily and capriciously deny some citizens a service that the law allows to all citizens. If the J.O.P. doesn't want to perform otherwise legal marriage ceremonies, he/she should find another line of work, or be impeached for failure to perform his/her public duties.

ziggy wrote:The flower shop owner is not impacted by this ruling on who may marry whom- other than as more people get married the flower shop owner would have a potentially larger client base if he or she chose to avail herself / himself of it.

(Aaron)- How are they not impacted? A flower shop cannot refuse to service black people based on the color of their skin. If they do, they face legal ramifications. Will the face those same ramifications for failing to service homosexuals? If so, how can you say they’re not impacted?

Not because of what the Califiornia Court ruled yesterday, no. Yesterday's ruling was about what the state can or cannot deny, not some flower shop owner.

And this doesn’t even begin to address the religious issues of discrimination and what they can and cannot be forced to do.

You are correct, this does not address that. Again, this is about what the state, not churches, can or cannot do.

What about Church's and/or ministers. What if they refuse? Will the face any legal ramifications.

Not based on yesterday's California ruling, no. Again, this is about what the state, not churches or flower shops and or ministers, can or cannot do.

What you're doing is FORCING society to accept one's personal lifestyle. How is that not creating a protected class of people?

What is who being forced to accept here? Wasn't it you who was arguing only a day or so ago that no one has a right to not be offended?

Under the Constitution, Aaron, EVERYONE is a protected class of people- as long as their conduct does not create conditions that the public good compels the state or federal government to prohibit. And simply to not be offended does not meet the compelling public interest / compelling state interest test.

You don't get it Frank. You claim a JOP has to be able to perform all functions of his job. But for all those JOP's out there, same sex marriage wasn't one of his duties when he took the job, should he now be forced to perform a cermony that he is morally opposed to?

Same thing for the flower shop. Yes, discrimination laws exist and that is my point of saying this will create a new class or protected people that you argued against. Under the current California law, if a flower shop refuses to provide services for a same sex wedding cermony or a photographer refused to accept a job to photograph for a same sex marriage based on THEIR moral standards, they no longer have that right. According to current discrimination laws, they MUST provide that service. And, yes that court decision addressed this issue, even if it was indirectly.

Yet you say it doesn't create a newly protected class of people.

Sorry Frank, but you're wrong.

ziggy wrote:
Under the Constitution, Aaron, EVERYONE is a protected class of people- as long as their conduct does not create conditions that the public good compels the state or federal government to prohibit. And simply to not be offended does not meet the compelling public interest / compelling state interest test.

You don't have a clue Frank. The Constitution address the Executative, Legislative and Judicial branches of the government and the Bill of Rights and the government interacts with citizens. Anything beyond that is via the 10th amendment, up to the state.

For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

I think you need to do some reading this weekend Frank.

Aaron wrote:You don't get it Frank. You claim a JOP has to be able to perform all functions of his job. But for all those JOP's out there, same sex marriage wasn't one of his duties when he took the job, should he now be forced to perform a cermony that he is morally opposed to?

So should the KKK guy who was the local JOP after the interracial marriage prohibitions were struck down have had to perform a ceremony he / she was morally opposed to? Yes, absolutely- if performing marriages is what their public job was or included.

No public official should be allowed to unilaterally decide, based on his/her personal whims, what citizens he will or will not serve. That is called being "arbitrary and capricious", and Courts have long held that public officials cannot make those kinds of determinations other than what the laws direct, allow and authorize.

Same thing for the flower shop. Yes, discrimination laws exist and that is my point of saying this will create a new class or protected people that you argued against. Under the current California law, if a flower shop refuses to provide services for a same sex wedding cermony or a photographer refused to accept a job to photograph for a same sex marriage based on THEIR moral standards, they no longer have that right.

No, the California decision yesterday was not about that. This is a red herring.

According to current discrimination laws, they MUST provide that service. And, yes that court decision addressed this issue, even if it was indirectly.

No, not even indirectly. Only the state must "provide that service" under the case at hand.

Yet you say it doesn't create a newly protected class of people. Sorry Frank, but you're wrong.

Ok then. Just what is the newly protected class- that isn't already protected under the Constitution anyway?

Aaron wrote:For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

But the government cannot- without "reasonable cause" and a search warrant.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

But the government cannot- without "reasonable cause" and a search warrant.

Exactly, which only proves you wrong. The Constitution doesn't automatically protected EVERYONE against EVERYTHING unless there is something that would compell the government to prohibit as you stated.

Thanks for agreeing with me Frank.

I'll concede your point on the J.O.P. Frank but you're wrong on the flower shop. This decision does have the potential to effect them if they can be cited or sued for discrimination, as well as any other service industry. And we haven't even begun to discuss religious groups or persons.

I know you probably think I'm against gay marriage Frank. I'm not. I just think the government needs to do a better job of defining marriage and to be perfectly honest, as 'marriage' has historically been between one man and one woman, I see nothing wrong with the government defining it as such.

By the same token, I think two people of the same sex who wish to cohabitate in a committed relationship should be entitled to the same legal rights as two people of the opposite sex. I think that relationship should be clearly defined and all rights and legal issues clearly spelled out so that there are no issues and they can name if what ever they want to, with the exception of ‘marriage’.

I think the key here is the government needs to do some clear defining of what exactly is and isn’t allowed and what is acceptable in all instances. At least that’s the way I see it.

Ziggy,

I didn't bring up issues surrounding children. You did.

As far as discrimination laws being enforced on private businesses, I see that just another unreasonable government intrusion. If my father doesn't want to perform at gay wedding receptions, who is the government to tell him he has to? If he doesn't want to perform at an interracial wedding reception, by what authority does the government have to compel him? He is a private citizen. If my father doesn't want to perform at an anniversy party because the couple is Jewish or too fat or too thin or have too many children the government should not interfer with his decision. There are other singers in the area they can hire.

The Constitution is in dire need of an overhaul. I have been saying that long before I met all of you wonderful people. One of the issues that needs to be dealt with is same sex marriage. It says nothing, and SCOTUS refuses to review DOMA. That's why.

Finally, MA should have immediately restricted same sex marriage to MA residents. I seem to recall that they have restricted issuing marriage licenses to MA residents. RI does not recognize homosexual marriages. Until yesterday no other state in the union did either. MA refused to grant them a divorce because they are not residents. RI will not grant them a divorce because they don't recognize the marriage in the first place. MA needs to clean up its own mess.

Gay activists are looking for something they simply do not require. I don't care who you live with. I don't care if you have 1 wife or 100. I don't care what you do in your private life provided you are not harming other people. However, these activists are trying to force Americans of all backgrounds to accept their lifestyle. I've got news for them, the Terry's & Michael's of this nation don't have to accept them. They need to learn to live with it.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

But the government cannot- without "reasonable cause" and a search warrant.

Exactly, which only proves you wrong. The Constitution doesn't automatically protected EVERYONE against EVERYTHING unless there is something that would compell the government to prohibit as you stated.

Thanks for agreeing with me Frank.

You and your employees are not in the marriage business. But the state is. And if the state is involved in it, it has to be non-discriminatory other than based on demonstrated public need, puiblic good, public necessity. 14th Amendment, and all that, you know.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

I didn't bring up issues surrounding children. You did.

Well, forgive me, but I thought you were bringing up children related issues when you said:

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 discrimination laws being enforced on private businesses, I see that just another unreasonable government intrusion. If my father doesn't want to perform at gay wedding receptions, who is the government to tell him he has to? If he doesn't want to perform at an interracial wedding reception, by what authority does the government have to compel him? He is a private citizen. If my father doesn't want to perform at an anniversy party because the couple is Jewish or too fat or too thin or have too many children the government should not interfer with his decision. There are other singers in the area they can hire.

Again, yesterday's California decision was about what the state can or cannot do, not about what people in services ancillary to marriage must do.

The Constitution is in dire need of an overhaul. I have been saying that long before I met all of you wonderful people. One of the issues that needs to be dealt with is same sex marriage. It says nothing, and SCOTUS refuses to review DOMA. That's why.

What, specifically in wrong with the Constitution? And why should the Constitution deal with marriage at all?

Finally, MA should have immediately restricted same sex marriage to MA residents.

Does it restrict male-female marriages to MA residents?

RI does not recognize homosexual marriages. Until yesterday no other state in the union did either. MA refused to grant them a divorce because they are not residents. RI will not grant them a divorce because they don't recognize the marriage in the first place. MA needs to clean up its own mess.

Why is it a MA mess? If RI law does not recogfnize gay marriages, and thus not gay divorces, then let the matter become precedent setting and go on with life. RI should not be worrying about what MA does about marriage. But there may come a time when it adjusts its laws to be more or less consistent with other states.

Gay activists are looking for something they simply do not require.

And you and I don't "require" marriage, either. But it is convenient for us. And since the state choses to be in the marriage business, marriage should be convenient for all its citizens unless a demonstration of good public policy demands otherwise. For example, there are plausible good public policy reasons to prohibit marriage between closely related people, or to disallow 10 year olds from getting married. But no such reasons are demonstrated to disallow marriages based solely on the gender of the partners.

I don't care who you live with. I don't care if you have 1 wife or 100. I don't care what you do in your private life provided you are not harming other people.

If you really believe that, then you have no plausible excuse for opposing gay marriage. But more importantly, the state has no plausible excuse either, and so it must allow what it allows to some, to all.

However, these activists are trying to force Americans of all backgrounds to accept their lifestyle.

Being allowed a marriage license is not forcing anyone to accept anything any more than allowing homosexuals to have a drivers license is forcing someone to accept "their lifestyle".

I've got news for them, the Terry's & Michael's of this nation don't have to accept them.

But, since it is in the marriage business, the state does.

Now, if a state were to decide to get out of this marriage business altogether, then it would be rid of the problem. And since some people think the government should not be in the business of sanctioning amd regulating marriage anyway, maybe states should get out of the marriage business and leave it up to churches and preachers, or to bar owners and operators, or to barbers and beauticians, or to whomever picked up the torch.

Aaron wrote:I know you probably think I'm against gay marriage Frank. I'm not. I just think the government needs to do a better job of defining marriage and to be perfectly honest, as 'marriage' has historically been between one man and one woman, I see nothing wrong with the government defining it as such.

And I am not particularly for gay marriage either.

But I believe that whatever the government allows and regulates for the convenience of some of its citizens, that it should allow for all of its citizens- baring a demonstration of reason(s) of the public good not to.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:For instance, I can search any of my employees cars for drugs and there is NOTHING they can do about it, period.

But the government cannot- without "reasonable cause" and a search warrant.

Exactly, which only proves you wrong. The Constitution doesn't automatically protected EVERYONE against EVERYTHING unless there is something that would compell the government to prohibit as you stated.

Thanks for agreeing with me Frank.

You and your employees are not in the marriage business. But the state is. And if the state is involved in it, it has to be non-discriminatory other than based on demonstrated public need, puiblic good, public necessity. 14th Amendment, and all that, you know.

You didn't say anything about, the marriage business, equal protection or the 14th Amednment, you said the constitution protects EVERYONE for EVERYTHING unless there is a compelling reason not to. I merely, as is most often the case, proved you wrong.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I know you probably think I'm against gay marriage Frank. I'm not. I just think the government needs to do a better job of defining marriage and to be perfectly honest, as 'marriage' has historically been between one man and one woman, I see nothing wrong with the government defining it as such.

And I am not particularly for gay marriage either.

But I believe that whatever the government allows and regulates for the convenience of some of its citizens, that it should allow for all of its citizens- baring a demonstration of reason(s) of the public good not to.

Including polygamy? Because that is exactly what the next step is going to be if the government refuses to define marriage and allows this to stand. It's only a matter of time. Are you prepared to go there?

And earlier you were spouting garbage, saying that the legislative branch was required to have a compelling reason to pass the legislation that the citizens of California damanded. What happend to that garbage Frank?

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

I didn't bring up issues surrounding children. You did.

Well, forgive me, but I thought you were bringing up children related issues when you said:

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 discrimination laws being enforced on private businesses, I see that just another unreasonable government intrusion. If my father doesn't want to perform at gay wedding receptions, who is the government to tell him he has to? If he doesn't want to perform at an interracial wedding reception, by what authority does the government have to compel him? He is a private citizen. If my father doesn't want to perform at an anniversy party because the couple is Jewish or too fat or too thin or have too many children the government should not interfer with his decision. There are other singers in the area they can hire.

Again, yesterday's California decision was about what the state can or cannot do, not about what people in services ancillary to marriage must do.

The Constitution is in dire need of an overhaul. I have been saying that long before I met all of you wonderful people. One of the issues that needs to be dealt with is same sex marriage. It says nothing, and SCOTUS refuses to review DOMA. That's why.

What, specifically in wrong with the Constitution? And why should the Constitution deal with marriage at all?

Finally, MA should have immediately restricted same sex marriage to MA residents.

Does it restrict male-female marriages to MA residents?

RI does not recognize homosexual marriages. Until yesterday no other state in the union did either. MA refused to grant them a divorce because they are not residents. RI will not grant them a divorce because they don't recognize the marriage in the first place. MA needs to clean up its own mess.

Why is it a MA mess? If RI law does not recogfnize gay marriages, and thus not gay divorces, then let the matter become precedent setting and go on with life. RI should not be worrying about what MA does about marriage. But there may come a time when it adjusts its laws to be more or less consistent with other states.

Gay activists are looking for something they simply do not require.

And you and I don't "require" marriage, either. But it is convenient for us. And since the state choses to be in the marriage business, marriage should be convenient for all its citizens unless a demonstration of good public policy demands otherwise. For example, there are plausible good public policy reasons to prohibit marriage between closely related people, or to disallow 10 year olds from getting married. But no such reasons are demonstrated to disallow marriages based solely on the gender of the partners.

I don't care who you live with. I don't care if you have 1 wife or 100. I don't care what you do in your private life provided you are not harming other people.

If you really believe that, then you have no plausible excuse for opposing gay marriage. But more importantly, the state has no plausible excuse either, and so it must allow what it allows to some, to all.

However, these activists are trying to force Americans of all backgrounds to accept their lifestyle.

Being allowed a marriage license is not forcing anyone to accept anything any more than allowing homosexuals to have a drivers license is forcing someone to accept "their lifestyle".

I've got news for them, the Terry's & Michael's of this nation don't have to accept them.

But, since it is in the marriage business, the state does.

Now, if a state were to decide to get out of this marriage business altogether, then it would be rid of the problem. And since some people think the government should not be in the business of sanctioning amd regulating marriage anyway, maybe states should get out of the marriage business and leave it up to churches and preachers, or to bar owners and operators, or to barbers and beauticians, or to whomever picked up the torch.

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?

You posted the above earlier today to me. To my knowledge, that was the first time children and parental obligations were injected into this conversation.

You can deny that the decision of the California court will have no impact on small businessmen but I think you know that isn't the truth. There will be photographers, florists, and others under pressure to participate in gay weddings. Some of those private citizens who refuse will surely be hauled into court. Not that this is necessary, mind you. There undoubtedly are plenty of printers and wedding singers that would be happy to take their money. That won't matter, there will be those who demand to be served by those who object to their lifestyle.

I'm not in agreement with those who say homosexuals decide to be gay. I don't believe that at all. They are who they are and they should spend their lives with the person that makes them happy. They just can't demand that those who believe differently aren't forced to cater to them.

I don't think same sex couples seeking benefits from the federal government are going to have any success at all in the near future, nor are they likely to be successful at getting the majority of other states to recognize their marriages. DOMA sees to that. RI has decided it will not recognize gay marriages. It wasn't cheap and RI taxpayers shouldered the bill. That is the mess MA created for RI I was speaking of. You seem to think it will never be challenged again, but it likely will.

Aaron wrote:And earlier you were spouting garbage, saying that the legislative branch was required to have a compelling reason to pass the legislation that the citizens of California damanded. What happend to that garbage Frank?

The compelling state interest test is a test used by the US Federal Courts in due process and equal protection claims (all claims with Constitutional bases, actually) under the Fourteenth Amendment for state action and under the Fifth Amendment for federal action. It is part of the strict scrutiny analysis that a federal court will employ when either a suspect class is involved or a fundamental right. A government action or statute subject to strict scrutiny must satisfy a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The court will give the strictest scrutiny of the state or federal action when it impacts or targets a specially protected class (race, ethnicity) or when a fundamental and Constitutionally protected right is involved (Freedom of Speech, Right to Vote). The compelling state interest test is distinguishable from the rational basis test, which involves Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment claims that do not involve a suspect class and involve a liberty interest rather than a fundamental right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelling_interest