|
micfranklin
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: May 16, 2008, 12:47:17 PM » |
|
California earned 10 points from me for this: the "your life, your right to marry" principle kicked in finally.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
tadpol
|
|
« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2008, 03:06:26 PM » |
|
Having read the first section of the decree I find it fairly interesting.
"separate but equal" does not appear. But the court considers civil unions as functionally the same as marriage. I'd think that phrase would be a powerful tool for making this ruling stand.
It holds the state has no vested interest in persevering traditional definitions. I'm not sure I agree, I would have thought the point of the court was to preserve the continuity of law, which I see as resting on traditional definitions.
And is citing cases from other states allowed in a state's courts? I'd think NH law would have no effect in CA. If there where federal courts citing other districts I could get behind it, but I thought states answered only to their people and the feds not other states.
I'm curious about a right to marry. Where does that come from as a specific right, why is it a fundamental right in CA, does that mean the government should have an arranged marriage service to provide for the unfortunate or imply the duty to say yes if someone proposes? What does it mean? They include the right to the word here and that makes me kinda nervous about whether that means it doesn't really include anything else. I never heard of this before, and I'm not sure I like it.
I think I may have to start Peisithanatos's movement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
illy
Hero Member
Karma: +86/-103
Posts: 811
illerino if youre not into the whole brevity thing
|
|
« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2008, 03:52:13 PM » |
|
The government ought not to be in the marriage business. It is the government that sets the rules on tax exemptions. It will be the government that will force health care companies to cover the 'significant other.' Government will force all states to recognize marriage. Government is in the dead center of it. I'm surprised to hear such a liberal sentiment from you. I share Toaster's opinion on this one. Marriage is a very personal thing, possibly the the most personal thing one can do. To me it's the epitome of "behind closed doors", a place the state has no rightful business. Additionally, I would asked why I should be penalized (relative to those who are married) for being single. Two people who combine funds, call it a corporation and produce useful goods and services get taxed more, while two people who combine funds, call it a marriage and produce dependents get taxed less. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Ammunition spitting is him, is it, you listening
Littering written, it\\'s in slippers, get the rebel in him
Sticking it with sinners, sizzlin\\' rhythm, verbally hit him
Did he did it, or did he didn\\'t, admit it -
Rugged Man - Give it Up
|
|
|
|
neue regel
|
|
« Reply #18 on: May 16, 2008, 05:28:40 PM » |
|
I'm surprised to hear such a liberal sentiment from you.
I share Toaster's opinion on this one. Marriage is a very personal thing, possibly the the most personal thing one can do. To me it's the epitome of "behind closed doors", a place the state has no rightful business.
Additionally, I would asked why I should be penalized (relative to those who are married) for being single. Two people who combine funds, call it a corporation and produce useful goods and services get taxed more, while two people who combine funds, call it a marriage and produce dependents get taxed less. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I agree. We should take a good hard look at a flat tax or a consumption tax. The fact someone is married or not should not play into how the tax load is divied. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2008, 07:56:43 AM » |
|
Its a slippery slope.... Indeed....cause yer next quote... You know what? Why does government have to be in marriage at all?
That's an excellent question that has an answer. Can I ask...what government are we speaking about here. Cause...the California Supreme Court is the government...is it not? The government being three branches...the Executive Branch the Legislative and the Judiciary...correct? And yet...government gets involved by the count of 4 justices to 3 and we suddenly have an issue after the California referendum soundly defeated same sex marriage(there is no such thing as gay marriage). In other words, 4 people shut up 30 million Californians and then we're getting asked why government must get involved. You do think this ruling was correct? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 07:58:38 AM by CharlesMartel »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +196/-190
Posts: 3,407
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2008, 10:23:01 AM » |
|
Its a slippery slope.... Indeed....cause yer next quote... Actually, I didn't say that. Reaganite did. You know what? Why does government have to be in marriage at all?
That's an excellent question that has an answer. Can I ask...what government are we speaking about here. Cause...the California Supreme Court is the government...is it not? The government being three branches...the Executive Branch the Legislative and the Judiciary...correct? And yet...government gets involved by the count of 4 justices to 3 and we suddenly have an issue after the California referendum soundly defeated same sex marriage(there is no such thing as gay marriage). In other words, 4 people shut up 30 million Californians and then we're getting asked why government must get involved. You do think this ruling was correct? The court ruled that a state banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. That's not government interference. That's a reduction of state control that never should have existed in the first place. Or am missing the point of your post? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #21 on: May 18, 2008, 12:21:53 PM » |
|
The court ruled that a state banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.
That's not government interference. That's a reduction of state control that never should have existed in the first place.
Or am missing the point of your post?
A referendum by the public...passed by an overwhelming margin.....is "state control?" No, I don't think you're missing my point at all, I'm stuggling however with yours. If the public takes this issue to the legislature(where this issue belongs in my opinion), and the issue is decided rather thoroughly, this is 'state control?' And yet when another equal branch of the government overrules 30 million Californians and decides by a count of 4-3...that's "reduction" of state control.....? I don't follow that logic. The court is there to interpret, correct. Allow me to ask....if California rewrites, in other words, amends its state Constitution, does the High Court have precedence then, would they have trouble interprettting, who has final say here? Like so many states have already done, Cal needs to amend its Constitution and settle the matter altogether. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +196/-190
Posts: 3,407
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #22 on: May 18, 2008, 12:54:43 PM » |
|
The court ruled that a state banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.
That's not government interference. That's a reduction of state control that never should have existed in the first place.
Or am missing the point of your post? A referendum by the public...passed by an overwhelming margin.....is "state control?" Something tells me that a public referendum would pass in most states to make the US a Christian nation... but that doesn't mean it's constitutional. No, I don't think you're missing my point at all, I'm stuggling however with yours. If the public takes this issue to the legislature(where this issue belongs in my opinion), and the issue is decided rather thoroughly, this is 'state control?' And yet when another equal branch of the government overrules 30 million Californians and decides by a count of 4-3...that's "reduction" of state control.....? Hence the appeals proccess. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #23 on: May 18, 2008, 01:29:23 PM » |
|
Something tells me that a public referendum would pass in most states to make the US a Christian nation... but that doesn't mean it's constitutional. First, I could list a thousand such examples. Something tells me a pr would pass denying gun ownership, that would be unconstitutional. Something tells me most would allow the UN to order US troops into battle..and out as well, don't mean it's constitutional. As the Constitution is written now. However, all of these endeavors would come from the legislature...where they belong. Secondly, I fail to understand where this mentality that government tells you what's Constitutional and what is not. All three branches of government serve the people...they are the final decider especially their own institutions. You seem to disagree. No, I don't think you're missing my point at all, I'm stuggling however with yours. If the public takes this issue to the legislature(where this issue belongs in my opinion), and the issue is decided rather thoroughly, this is 'state control?' And yet when another equal branch of the government overrules 30 million Californians and decides by a count of 4-3...that's "reduction" of state control.....? Sorry, I don't see the reduction in state control. Bottom line, should judges be making these kind of decisions? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +196/-190
Posts: 3,407
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #24 on: May 18, 2008, 01:47:06 PM » |
|
First, I could list a thousand such examples. Something tells me a pr would pass denying gun ownership, that would be unconstitutional. Something tells me most would allow the UN to order US troops into battle..and out as well, don't mean it's constitutional. As the Constitution is written now. However, all of these endeavors would come from the legislature...where they belong. Yes, the law started in the legislature, was voted on by the public and was struck down by the courts. The judicial branch of government didn't write law, they only said the laws that the legislature wrote were unconstitutional. What's the problem? This isn't "judicial activism" - or whatever Bill O'Reilly will end up calling it. Secondly, I fail to understand where this mentality that government tells you what's Constitutional and what is not. All three branches of government serve the people...they are the final decider especially their own institutions. You seem to disagree. No, I think the conflict between the 4 pieces of government (legislature, executive, judiciary and the people) are supposed to debate the lagality of a law until one side of the debate wins. It's a slow process were mistakes have to be made and the actual legality of the law has to come into question. Just look at the D.C. gun ban... or Roe v. Wade... I imagine both will be overturned in time. Basically, the lagality of a law is not determined until it is questioned, reviewed and put on trial. It's a process, not a checklist. Sorry, I don't see the reduction in state control. Bottom line, should judges be making these kind of decisions? Are you questioning the democratic system? The judiciary branch reviews, interprets and assigns legitimacy to laws. What's not to get? "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority... between a state, or the citizens thereof..."
- US Constitution, Article III, Section 2 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2008, 02:24:44 PM » |
|
DC isn't a State and so immediately dismissed as an analogy..do we have a little confusion here? Are we seriously going to argue that the government defines our institutions..as a society? Are you saying that society itself through its elected representatives or flat out referendum doesn't or shouldn't define these issues? And Roe V Wade is under assault, third term abortion excluded and that shot across the bow should wake many as well. I'm sorry, I'm beginning to think many of you in here actually support government appointed judges defining marriage for you. Am I mistaken? And I'm being asked about my adherence to the democratic system? Hold on....  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Abraxas
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +196/-190
Posts: 3,407
"You do not speak for the rest"
|
|
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2008, 03:19:07 PM » |
|
DC isn't a State and so immediately dismissed as an analogy. ... so I guess the people there (and the consititutional right to own a firearm) doesn't matter? I'm beginning to question what you consider relevant. do we have a little confusion here? Are we seriously going to argue that the government defines our institutions..as a society? Are you saying that society itself through its elected representatives or flat out referendum doesn't or shouldn't define these issues? You're the one saying the court is defining our institutions. Many would say they're only upholding the constitution. Personally I don't think government should be involved in marriage at all and I don't think it should ever become an issue that even HAS to go before a judge. That's what I've said since the beginning. And Roe V Wade is under assault, third term abortion excluded and that shot across the bow should wake many as well. ... which is what I said: "... or Roe v. Wade...
I imagine [it] will be overturned in time."Again, law is a process that is vetted by every part of government. Laws are not built on constitutionality (cause if they were the 18th ammendment would have NEVER made it to the constitution) but rather refined through the judiciary. As for "society" - I'm the last one to say that government should define morality, but for a long time "society" thought slavery was alright. They also thought the Jim Crow laws were alright. "Society" can be wrong, especially when the document that governs us garuntees the equal rights of ALL people. So why should straight couples enjoy benefits that homosexuals can't? I'm sorry, I'm beginning to think many of you in here actually support government appointed judges defining marriage for you. Am I mistaken? And I'm being asked about my adherence to the democratic system? Hold on.... And I'm beginning to think you have a tough time understanding opinions that disagree with your own. That is a quality you shouldn't laugh about. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like its from Neptune.
- Noam Chomsky
... you can almost see the high water mark - that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.
- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #27 on: May 19, 2008, 05:31:57 AM » |
|
I'm beginning to question what you consider relevant. No, I consider that statement blatantly disingenuous. I'm discussing same sex marriage and our state's influences and affects on that issue. I've been more than clear. I've discussed many states having an amendment defining same sex marriage. I've discussed from a perspective of the state's legislature being the government branch that should engage same sex marriage. DC is not a State. The Federal Government has gun laws that determine DC's politics. As far as I know, the Federal Government doesn't recognize same sex marriages across states, they've made that clear. I question your genuine concern for objective debate when you ask what I find relevant. First, why not merely ask me what I think it relevant. You analogy to DC isn't. do we have a little confusion here? Are we seriously going to argue that the government defines our institutions..as a society? Are you saying that society itself through its elected representatives or flat out referendum doesn't or shouldn't define these issues? I'm the one saying the court is defining marriage? Aren't the 4 Justices saying the Courts are defining marriage, I'm merely commenting on California politics. You're telling me you don't think the government should be involved...however...they ARE involved. And that's because citizens like myself engage the government that represents me. I've given them power to protect marriage by making it illegal to marry your sister, aunt, first cousin, or brother. Illegal for you to enter into a marriage contract if you're already married...and illegal to marry someone of the same gender. As for "society" - I'm the last one to say that government should define morality, but for a long time "society" thought slavery was alright. They also thought the Jim Crow laws were alright. "Society" can be wrong, especially when the document that governs us garuntees the equal rights of ALL people. Society can be wrong....so can 4 Justices. And slavery and civil rights LEGISLATION is landmark in this nation. If there are social ills that need addresssing...such as those you mentioned and the one I'm focusing on being ssm, it is society that defines that morality or social definition. Many times society will use the government and that is exactly what they should do. So why should straight couples enjoy benefits that homosexuals can't? I'm sorry? No two persons of the same gender can enjoy marriage benefits regardless of orientation. The method upon which you engage in sex is irrelevant to the State, you're not being denied a marriage license because you're 'gay.' I'm sorry, I'm beginning to think many of you in here actually support government appointed judges defining marriage for you. Am I mistaken? And I'm being asked about my adherence to the democratic system? Wow...I guess I'm not mistaken. Well...we'll agree to disagree. You'd like you societal institutions defined for you, I enjoy my freedoms. We move on. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
bringbackwigs
Professional Post-Whore
Global Moderator
Hero Member
Karma: +136/-183
Posts: 2,884
Please refrain from taking my posts seriously
|
|
« Reply #28 on: May 19, 2008, 09:15:45 PM » |
|
OK, so the "ban gay marriages" thing seems to hinge on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
So, if it changes, why is that a problem again? Is it all about getting pissy when it comes to definitions? This seriously bugs me.
BTW, I haven't read to see if anybody is against this, and if there isn't, oh well.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
CharlesMartel
|
|
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2008, 10:28:19 AM » |
|
OK, so the "ban gay marriages" thing seems to hinge on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.
So, if it changes, why is that a problem again? Is it all about getting pissy when it comes to definitions? This seriously bugs me.
BTW, I haven't read to see if anybody is against this, and if there isn't, oh well.
I don't know anything about banning 'gay marriages.' This thread, I thought, was about same sex marriage. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
