Fed Judge overturns CA ban on gay marriage

[shibumiseeker]

If the argument is, as proposed, "Anyone who is able to give consent is permitted to marry," then the next logical question is, "Who does that include or exclude?" The definition of "consenting adults" isn't even consistent from state to state. To say that that one believes that changing the parameters of marriage endangers a important societal norm (even some gays believe that) is not the same as saying, "it's icky and I don't like it." That's a straw man that's been grafted onto the former position.

My primary argument is that the government should get out of the "who can marry" business completely. Anything else is just a distraction.

The secondary justifications as to why the government should prevent consenting adults from marrying are flawed and boil down to "I think it's icky and should not be allowed". I have yet to see ANY rational justifications as to why allowing two or more consenting adults will bring down society. Point in fact if one of the goals of marriage is to provide for greater stability in a family structure then restricting who can marry also makes no sense since marriage is a stabilizing influence on interpersonal relationships regardless of the gender of the principles. The only justifications I have EVER seen were along the lines of either "slippery slope" (very, very weak), or "I think it's icky." (also very weak).

 

[CarmelHP]

I think Eddie answered the first part of your post. As to "an important societal norm" again, those change and I'd prefer not to have them enforced by the weight of the law. I refer again to the societal norms about race that have changed.

But again, it's not simply, "I don't like it," perhaps for some, but many, including some gays, also think that marriage and a family based on a union between a man and woman is an important foundation of a family and society. Many also think that a push for redefining marriage is not from those who wish to extend the fruits of marriage, but comes from those who are contemptuous of both marriage and bourgeois monogamy, and who are advancing same-sex marriage as a club to break both. That's a more nuanced position than that for which you give credit.

"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture."
-Barack Obama

 

[dross]

But again, it's not simply, "I don't like it," perhaps for some, but many, including some gays, also think that marriage and a family based on a union between a man and woman is an important foundation of a family and society. Many also think that a push for redefining marriage is not from those who wish to extend the fruits of marriage, but comes from those who are contemptuous of both marriage and bourgeois monogamy, and who are advancing same-sex marriage as a club to break both. That's a more nuanced position than that for which you give credit.

"I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture."
-Barack Obama

I agree that many of the proponents have a sub-agenda. In the places where the extension of their political philosophy as been implemented - like the Soviet Union and Cuba - homosexuals have been persecuted. I also point out that they cynically tried to use Cheney's daughter against him with social conservative voters.

That said, sometimes the right position can be used by bad people for the wrong reasons. I understand that some people think it's an important foundation. That's not enough reason to deny equal treatment through law.

As to the quote you used, what, are you trying to solidify my position?

Actually, my mother - a Democrat - told me one of the reasons she couldn't vote for McCain/Palin was their position on gay marriage. When I pointed out that Obama/Biden were both on the record against gay marriage, at first she didn't believe me. When I convinced her it was their position, she said, "But they don't really mean it."

 

[CarmelHP]

That's not enough reason to deny equal treatment through law.

Equal treatment based on gender, that is, one man is exactly equal to one woman for all potential purposes is not something the law embraces. That's why there are gender specific bathrooms and gender specific qualifications for combat duty. You're trying to paint a constitutional veneer on a fundamentally political question in order to allow a single or even a handful of federal judges to make the call as to what will be the shape of society in an area that was never conceivably vested with them. That's why whenever same-sex marriage referendums or the ERA has ever been proposed to the people they have been soundly rejected. This is a political question that deserves a political discussion and a political resolution in the states.

 

[dross]

Equal treatment based on gender, that is, one man is exactly equal to one woman for all potential purposes is not something the law embraces. That's why there are gender specific bathrooms and gender specific qualifications for combat duty. You're trying to paint a constitutional veneer on a fundamentally political question in order to allow a single or even a handful of federal judges to make the call as to what will be the shape of society in an area that was never conceivably vested with them. That's why whenever same-sex marriage referendums or the ERA has ever been proposed to the people they have been soundly rejected. This is a political question that deserves a political discussion and a political resolution in the states.

I often speak from my position based on my belief in natural law. The Constitution doesn't fully support natural law, though it does so more than any other such document that I'm aware of. I am undecided as to whether I think this is a Constitutional issue.

There are physical differences between the sexes that must be taken into consideration in some areas. In others, I think it's much harder to defend differential treatment. The comfort of others isn't enough for me.

In the end, this will be decided completely not by the courts nor by the politicians, but by what society deems acceptable. Just as civil rights were easy to deny despite the law changing, but societal changes and the pressures society can exert have changed the climate in a much more effective way than the law.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

(Snipped)

In the end, this will be decided completely not by the courts nor by the politicians, but by what society deems acceptable. Just as civil rights were easy to deny despite the law changing, but societal changes and the pressures society can exert have changed the climate in a much more effective way than the law.

Societies in general, and our society in particular, tend to pendulum back and forth between "progressive" and "conservative". Our society is getting a bellyful of "progressive" rammed down its throat; wouldn't be surprised if the pendulum doesn't swing back the other way.

 

[antsi]

My primary argument is that the government should get out of the "who can marry" business completely.

That's how I'd do it.

Who can get "married" is entirely up to whatever church you go to.

All the legal stuff - custody, property, inheritance - goes under some kind of civil union agreement. That's the only part the government has any business in, anyhow (if that, even).

 

[Blackhawk2001]

That's how I'd do it.

Who can get "married" is entirely up to whatever church you go to.

All the legal stuff - custody, property, inheritance - goes under some kind of civil union agreement. That's the only part the government has any business in, anyhow (if that, even).

Well, they'll certain have some interest in the inheritance, anyway, since they're planning to tax it at 55% come next year.

 

[mrjarrell]

All the talk about getting the government out of marriage is all well and good (and something I agree with), but it fails to address the fact that government is involved and is going to remain involved for a very long time. Until that day comes there will continue to be cases like this brought before the courts to be decided. This one has been decided, (at one level) and marriage equality was addressed and approved. Same sex unions will likely begin in California sometime in the next 7 days, due to the judge allowing for a delay should a higher court take the decision to place a longer stay on them.

 

[BloodEclipse]

What makes someone an adult or capable of consent is something that is already pretty well established in our society at this time and to introduce that as an argument as to why government should discriminate against consenting adults is disingenuous. Using the slippery slope argument (what's next, hamsters?), a favorite tactic of the anti-gun movement, to justify your own personal biases isn't a very good argument against it and just looks stupid. If you try to use your own religious beliefs and then try to say that anyone who doesn't agree with all of your moral and spiritual beliefs would also obviously support murdering babies or somesuch (as these discussions invariably lead to) is also outrageous and looks pretty ignorant as well. Hi there, I'm Agnostic.

I have yet to see an argument against is that isn't "I think it's icky so I don't think it should be allowed."

Government should either get out of the marriage business completely (my choice) or they should recognize any marriage between CONSENTING ADULTS.

If they get out of it completely then who sets the parameters for marriage?

So if the Government stays out, we can go back to prearranged marriages?
Many religions have marriage parameters that fall outside our socially accepted norm.
If you want the Government out, then you are setting the stage for underage marriages, arraigned marriages, polygamy and various other forms that would not under current laws be legal.
If you say you only want them to be involved up to a set age, you are advocating government involvement.
So what is it everyone wants?

I ask again, what type of marriages do "YOU" want to see as legal?

 

[lyric911]

I ask again, what type of marriages do "YOU" want to see as legal?

You didn't ask me, but my answer is, "Any - between any two consenting adults."

(Heck, I wouldn't have a problem with bigamy either.)

 

[mrjarrell]

You didn't ask me, but my answer is, "Any - between any [strike]two[/strike] consenting adults."

(Heck, I wouldn't have a problem with bigamy either.)

There. Fixed it for you. Altho, bigamy is a legal thing, not a marriage thing. Polygamy and polyandry should be "legal" as well. As well as other forms of marriage between consenting adults (S groups, line families, etc..)

 

[BloodEclipse]

You didn't ask me, but my answer is, "Any - between any two consenting adults."

(Heck, I wouldn't have a problem with bigamy either.)

And who sets the definition of Adult?

What age should that be?

16 legal to drive?

18?

21 legal to drink?

Some other age?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There. Fixed it for you. Altho, bigamy is a legal thing, not a marriage thing. Polygamy and polyandry should be "legal" as well. As well as other forms of marriage between consenting adults (S groups, line families, etc..)

Why are you being "ageist"? Why limit it to adults? Just think of all the young adolescents you are discriminating against. "If they're old enough to bleed, they're old enough to breed" and all that.

You insist upon putting rational limits on a subject where rationality has been thrown out in favor of a different particular group against another group which was opposed (e.g. the majority of the population). Any other limits on marriage now can also be seen as discriminatory.

 

[Roadie]

A couple years ago the head Saudi Cleric declared it was OK for adult men to marry girls as young as 10...

Top Saudi cleric: OK for young girls to wed - CNN.com

 

[CarmelHP]

There. Fixed it for you. Altho, bigamy is a legal thing, not a marriage thing. Polygamy and polyandry should be "legal" as well. As well as other forms of marriage between consenting adults (S groups, line families, etc..)

The above is perhaps why the great unwashed masses of middle America think that the same-sex movement is fed by radical hacks contemptuous of them, the institution of marriage, and traditional monogamy.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

And who sets the definition of Adult?

What age should that be?

16 legal to drive?

18?

21 legal to drink?

Some other age?

Knowing the direction this would go.... Puberty.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Knowing the direction this would go.... Puberty.

LOL my daughter went through puberty at 8.

 

[Roadie]

LOL my daughter went through puberty at 8.

..and in 2 more years she would be able to marry in Saudi Arabia

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

LOL my daughter went through puberty at 8.

Im not laughing. I dont think I could laugh out loud, thinking about some sick freak with my daughter at age 8.


It probably wouldnt shock you to think of what a angry 200 plus pound Daddy can do to a pervert freak when it comes to family.

I can take this issue seriously. Not for fear of 'could' happen, but of what "WILL" happen, if I have some disgusting perv culture pushed on me, my family, especially my children. Thing's like what happens in other Countries scares me to death to think it's even considerable here, by people who claim to be responsible, logical American patriots, perhaps even more is thinking about the type of daddy I'll have to be to ensure the protection of my family.

I am not who am I, or have my beliefs for selfish reasons, but for people like your daughter, my daughter, people who I will never meet, they're family.

BTW, a New Study links that the increase decrease in age of puberty is linked to food.

Im thinking a pure non-commercial food source is the way to go to ensure the safety of my children.

Any hunters here care to explain the dangers of eatting meat,veggies which arent grown in the supermarkets.

My father cites Lyme disease and parasites for reason to NOT eat "Wild" foods.