California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[BryanS]

I'm not sure you understand what natural law is. It is a moral norm recognized innately by people as having universal claim, and being involved in the plan of nature. You are welcome to ridicule those concepts if you like, but societies that adopt the view that there are no objective standards of right and wrong are generally chaotic and short-lived.

Name one...

So the question is... is it depriving those same-sex unions of a civil right to say that what they are doing is not "zerning"? When the word has no other meaning than simply to describe what it was invented to describe - a union between a man and a woman?

You keep missing the fundamental point. As a matter of secular law... you can call unions of two people, regardless of their gender - whatever you want. As a matter of religious expression, marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, for religious institutions that want to believe that.

Again, the court did not mandate same-sex marriage. It said that couples have to be treated equally under the law. There are two ways to do that: let same-sex couples obtain civil marriage licenses or create one system of civil unions, that covers everyone.

[TJones]

At first, marriages were performed or arranged to promote the joining of lands and or wealth, also to keep the procreation of sons and daughters going in a morally bonding way before God. Although loads of people have children out of wedlock, the whole basis for being married was to have LEGITIMATE children in the eyes of God. This is my belief also, that the only two TRUE reasons for getting married are 1: out of love between a man and a woman, to pledge yourself for better or worse before God in manogomy to that person and B: to procreate and have children to continuously populate the race and carry on your name in the eyes of God.

If you don't believe in God, then you have nothing to worry about. Marriage wasn't invented as a way to have something that gay people didn't. It was invented to make a union before God. I know I am throwing alot of God out here, but marriage is based for HIM, not so you can have cheaper healthcare, but again that is a company's way of doing business.

So, let's not call it marriage, civil union is a great term, because these couples can't copulate to procreate, so the definition of marriage falls to the wayside for gay couples.

[memebag]

I am going to exit this discussion because we are talking past each other. You are saying that it is a violation of civil rights that a term means a certain thing. And you are using the very decision we are arguing about as your evidence that the decision is right - classic circular logic.

I'm not saying that. Read my words again. I'm saying that there is a legal right to marry, and that denying that right to same sex couples has been ruled unconstitutional in California.

Before I take off though, let me put this whole thing in persective. Imagine a society invents a word - we'll call it "zerning." When a man and a woman decide to form a legal union, it is said that they are "zerning." When once they are in that union, they are "zerned." Imagine that there are also unions between two men and two women, with all of the same privileges and rights, but society merely doesn't call those "zernings." All that's different is a word.

So the question is... is it depriving those same-sex unions of a civil right to say that what they are doing is not "zerning"? When the word has no other meaning than simply to describe what it was invented to describe - a union between a man and a woman?

Is the word "zern" used in any of this society's laws? Are the imaginary equivalent terms for spouses used in any laws? If the laws of this society recognize zerniage in any way then yes, it is depriving same sex unions of civil rights.

[H-Town Man]

I'm not saying that. Read my words again. I'm saying that there is a legal right to marry, and that denying that right to same sex couples has been ruled unconstitutional in California.

...by the very decision that I am disputing.

Is the word "zern" used in any of this society's laws? Are the imaginary equivalent terms for spouses used in any laws? If the laws of this society recognize zerniage in any way then yes, it is depriving same sex unions of civil rights.

It is mentioned in the laws, but the laws give all the same rights and privileges to unions that aren't zerniage. They just call one type of union zerniage and another type of union something else.

[memebag]

At first, marriages were performed or arranged to promote the joining of lands and or wealth, also to keep the procreation of sons and daughters going in a morally bonding way before God. Although loads of people have children out of wedlock, the whole basis for being married was to have LEGITIMATE children in the eyes of God. This is my belief also, that the only two TRUE reasons for getting married are 1: out of love between a man and a woman, to pledge yourself for better or worse before God in manogomy to that person and B: to procreate and have children to continuously populate the race and carry on your name in the eyes of God.

But you realize that other people don't share your view, right? And that you aren't allowed to impose your view on them, right?

If you don't believe in God, then you have nothing to worry about.

Woo-hoo!

So, let's not call it marriage, civil union is a great term, because these couples can't copulate to procreate, so the definition of marriage falls to the wayside for gay couples.

There's clearly more to marriage than appeasing god(s) or procreating. Are you saying that once people get married they can only boink for babies? And that God doesn't want gay people to get married?

[H-Town Man]

Name one...

Weimar society in Germany.

You keep missing the fundamental point. As a matter of secular law... you can call unions of two people, regardless of their gender - whatever you want. As a matter of religious expression, marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman, for religious institutions that want to believe that.

Again, the court did not mandate same-sex marriage. It said that couples have to be treated equally under the law. There are two ways to do that: let same-sex couples obtain civil marriage licenses or create one system of civil unions, that covers everyone.

I am not missing the point. Religion has its way of defining marriage, and secular law has its way. When something is defined a certain way by law, in a democratic society, it is done by the majority.

The couples were treated equally under law before. One kind of couple was called a "marriage" and the other was called a "civil union," but they were treated equally.

[memebag]

...by the very decision that I am disputing.

But you haven't disputed the ruling. You've said the ruling redefines marriage (which it doesn't), but you haven't explained why denying the right to marry to same sex couples should be constitutional.

It is mentioned in the laws, but the laws give all the same rights and privileges to unions that aren't zerniage. They just call one type of union zerniage and another type of union something else.

If it has been established that there is a "right to zern", then yes, calling it something else denies that right.

[TJones]

But you realize that other people don't share your view, right? And that you aren't allowed to impose your view on them, right?

Woo-hoo!

There's clearly more to marriage than appeasing god(s) or procreating. Are you saying that once people get married they can only boink for babies? And that God doesn't want gay people to get married?

I realize that my point of view is not of a more vocal point of view these days. Although, I would be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that it is the most popular view of marriage in an anonymous poll. I could give two squirts though about whether two gay folks want to tie the knot, more power to them. I don't judge 'em, I just live life around them.

However,I was simply stating WHY marriage was invented, perhaps I should have said that as the world has changed so has alot of people's tolerances. I am simply stating what marriage was intended for when it first began. Do I think it should change to fit the needs of the certain peoples, because they feel like they are the "have nots" ? Depends on WHAT your belief system is.

As far as "boinkin for babies". It is ok to boink for recreation as well as procreation, but if you get a bun in the oven, they won't be a bastard bun.

[H-Town Man]

But you haven't disputed the ruling.

I disputed it in my first post, with quotes from the ruling.

You've said the ruling redefines marriage (which it doesn't), but you haven't explained why denying the right to marry to same sex couples should be constitutional.

If it has been established that there is a "right to zern", then yes, calling it something else denies that right.

Sure there is a right to zern, as long as you are doing what zerning is - namely, a union between a man and a woman. Demanding that something that isn't zerning be called zerning because there is a "right to zern" is silly. It would be like someone who didn't have any children demand they be called a parent, because of some "right to parenting."

[BryanS]

Weimar society in Germany.

I am not missing the point. Religion has its way of defining marriage, and secular law has its way. When something is defined a certain way by law, in a democratic society, it is done by the majority.

The couples were treated equally under law before. One kind of couple was called a "marriage" and the other was called a "civil union," but they were treated equally.

Given the choice between Weimar Germany... and the government that ultimately crushed it, Hitler and the Third Reich, I would much rather live under the rule of the former. In many ways, I've seen troubling parallels, in this country over the past many years, in terms of an extreme government trampling the rights of its citizens. Similar, but not quite to the extent, that citizens of Germany from about 1920 to 1933 saw their democracy destroyed by the Nazis in 1933. Good example.

Your line of logic, of separate but equal, dates back to 1896 and was finally overturned in 1954. Separate is never equal, no matter how hard you try to make them the same. And if it weren't for the action of the Supreme Court, in 1954, but rather by vote of the majority of that era, as you suggest, we'd still be living under that unjust doctrine, going on over 100 years by now...

[H-Town Man]

Given the choice between Weimar Germany... and the government that ultimately crushed it, Hitler and the Third Reich, I would much rather live under the rule of the former. In many ways, I've seen troubling parallels, in this country over the past many years, in terms of an extreme government trampling the rights of its citizens. Similar, but not quite to the extent, that citizens of Germany from about 1920 to 1933 saw their democracy destroyed by the Nazis in 1933. Good example.

Your line of logic, of separate but equal, dates back to 1896 and was finally overturned in 1954. Separate is never equal, no matter how hard you try to make them the same. And if it weren't for the action of the Supreme Court, in 1954, but rather by vote of the majority of that era, as you suggest, we'd still be living under that unjust doctrine, going on over 100 years by now...

My only point concerning Weimar was to use it as an example that societies of moral license are inherently unstable. The fact that from one extreme the pendulum swung to the other extreme of total authoritarian control with the Third Reich only strengthens my point. A long line of political thinkers, including Plato, Aristotle, and Tocqueville, has pointed out that a society of moral anarchy can only lead to tyranny.

If you think American society today has strong parallels to Nazi Germany in terms of an "extreme government trampling the rights of its citizens," you should probably leave the country quickly, or at least refrain from expressing those views in a place where our oppressive government could see them and nab you for saying them. Hurry BryanS! That evil Bush gestapo is probably already on its way!!

That's a pretty absurd leap, to conflate what I am saying about the definition of marriage with the "separate but equal" opinion on segregation. I am proposing that only through majority decision should we extend the meaning of a term that has up until now meant opposite sex unions to also include single sex unions. How is that like segregation?

[memebag]

That's a pretty absurd leap, to conflate what I am saying about the definition of marriage with the "separate but equal" opinion on segregation. I am proposing that only through majority decision should we extend the meaning of a term that has up until now meant opposite sex unions to also include single sex unions. How is that like segregation?

It's like segregation because what you propose is a separate but equal marriage for gay people. You want to give them equal status but keep them separate. See? That's the argument for segregation.

[BryanS]

My only point concerning Weimar was to use it as an example that societies of moral license are inherently unstable. The fact that from one extreme the pendulum swung to the other extreme of total authoritarian control with the Third Reich only strengthens my point. A long line of political thinkers, including Plato, Aristotle, and Tocqueville, has pointed out that a society of moral anarchy can only lead to tyranny.

You're absolutely right. Gay and lesbian people should just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride on the back of the bus. Because if they don't, then the wrath of an authoritarian, Third Reich type of response/government awaits them. If we all lived under the fear of not challenging the status quo, this country would be no where near what it is today, in terms of civil rights. That is, we

[H-Town Man]

It's like segregation because what you propose is a separate but equal marriage for gay people. You want to give them equal status but keep them separate. See? That's the argument for segregation.

It's a separate name. One name refers to unions of different genders. The other name refers to unions of the same gender.

How is that like segregation? What "civil right" is being denied, if the name means nothing else in the eyes of the law? This is absurd.

You're absolutely right. Gay and lesbian people should just sit down, shut up, and enjoy the ride on the back of the bus. Because if they don't, then the wrath of an authoritarian, Third Reich type of response/government awaits them. If we all lived under the fear of not challenging the status quo, this country would be no where near what it is today, in terms of civil rights. That is, we

[RedScare]

You're not Rosa Parks

Good point. At least Ms. Parks was allowed to get on the bus.

[memebag]

It's a separate name. One name refers to unions of different genders. The other name refers to unions of the same gender.

Agreed.

How is that like segregation?

We just went over that. It's an attempt to create a separate but equal marriage.

What "civil right" is being denied, if the name means nothing else in the eyes of the law?

The right to marry. We went over that, too.

This is absurd.

Agreed.

[H-Town Man]

Good point. At least Ms. Parks was allowed to get on the bus.

Two different names for two different things, Red. No rights are being denied.

We just went over that. It's an attempt to create a separate but equal marriage.

If having two different names for two different things that are treated equally under law is segregation, then I guess it is segregation that we call some people "males" and others "females." I guess it is segregation that we call some people "black" and others "white," even if blacks and whites are given equal rights and privileges.

You still have not addressed the silliness of saying that it is "segregation" to give two different names to two different types of union.

[RedScare]

Two different names for two different things, Red. No rights are being denied.

In your world, perhaps not. In many others, most definitely. It is not uncommon for those receiving the full benefit to wonder why the ones receiving only the partial benefit cannot be content with that partial benefit.

[H-Town Man]

In your world, perhaps not. In many others, most definitely. It is not uncommon for those receiving the full benefit to wonder why the ones receiving only the partial benefit cannot be content with that partial benefit.

You clearly have not read any of my posts, because I have said all along that same-sex unions should have all the same benefits as opposite-sex unions, and the same status under law.

I think that in your mind you are simply lumping me together with everyone with whom you have ever argued on this issue - the sign of an emotional arguer.

[RedScare]

You clearly have not read any of my posts, because I have said all along that same-sex unions should have all the same benefits as opposite-sex unions, and the same status under law.

I think that in your mind you are simply lumping me together with everyone with whom you have ever argued on this issue - the sign of an emotional arguer.

I have read your posts. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, let's call it a duck.

And, I have never argued this point before, as none of my friends oppose gay marriage. Not sure what an emotional arguer is, but it sounds bad. If I have it, I sure hope it doesn't affect my 21 year career as a trial attorney.

[H-Town Man]

I have read your posts. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, let's call it a duck.

Yep, anyone who disagrees with this court decision must just be someone who hates gays. Don't bother trying to understand what he says, let's just put words in his mouth.

Sorry Red, I expected better of you.

And, I have never argued this point before, as none of my friends oppose gay marriage. Not sure what an emotional arguer is, but it sounds bad. If I have it, I sure hope it doesn't affect my 21 year career as a trial attorney.

Has anyone kept track of how many separate times RedScare has let us know that he is an attorney on this forum?

[MidtownCoog]

Yep, anyone who disagrees with this court decision must just be someone who hates gays. Don't bother trying to understand what he says, let's just put words in his mouth.

Not to mention it was a 4-3 "majority" decision.

[dbigtex56]

Two different names for two different things, Red. No rights are being denied.

If having two different names for two different things that are treated equally under law is segregation, then I guess it is segregation that we call some people "males" and others "females." I guess it is segregation that we call some people "black" and others "white," even if blacks and whites are given equal rights and privileges.

You still have not addressed the silliness of saying that it is "segregation" to give two different names to two different types of union.

Using your logic, it's OK to refer to white males as men, and black males as boys.

Try it sometime.

[BryanS]

It's a separate name. One name refers to unions of different genders. The other name refers to unions of the same gender.

How is that like segregation? What "civil right" is being denied, if the name means nothing else in the eyes of the law? This is absurd.

When did I say that an "authoritarian, Third Reich type of response/government" awaits gay people? What does "status quo" have to do with having two different names for two separate things? How would anything I have said imply that gay and lesbian people are at the back of the bus, especially when I said that their civil union should have all the rights and privileges of opposite sex unions?

You're not Rosa Parks, or Anne Frank. You're not living under a Nazi regime. I have not said anything that could reasonably be construed as oppression. You are importing your emotions from other arguments on this matter with people who probably took a much different stance than mine.

"

," either... Thank you, for stating the obvious.

Please explain this statement: "The fact that from one extreme the pendulum swung to the other extreme of total authoritarian control with the Third Reich only strengthens my point." What exactly do you mean?

[BryanS]

Not to mention it was a 4-3 "majority" decision.

4/7 = 57%. Pretty solid majority. Quite a few elected officials would love to win by that kind of margin. So I guess when the people of CA amend their constitution this Nov by 51% - that shouldn't count.

[TJones]

Has anyone kept track of how many separate times RedScare has let us know that he is an attorney on this forum?

Yeah, 237.5 times. The half came when somebody called him a "Shister", and he just said "Thanks."

Look H-town, Red doesn't bother you in the morning when you are picking up those trashcans and throwin'em in the back of that big truck, so why do you want to bother him about his job ?

[rps324]

It's a separate name. One name refers to unions of different genders. The other name refers to unions of the same gender.

How is that like segregation?

Let me see if I understand at least one of your assertions correctly.

"Civil Unions" and a "Marriage" are both basically the same, so why can't the Gay & Lesbian community be satisfied with the Civil Union concept since they are both basically "equal." It is just a separate name, so what's the big deal?

That leaves a question for me.

If the Gay and Lesbian community shouldn't be concerned over the simple wording or whatever, so long as benefits are the same, then why do you get to be concerned over it? If it is all the same, and not another of example of how "separate but equal" never is, then why is it necessary to create a different definition?

[H-Town Man]

Let me see if I understand at least one of your assertions correctly.

"Civil Unions" and a "Marriage" are both basically the same, so why can't the Gay & Lesbian community be satisfied with the Civil Union concept since they are both basically "equal." It is just a separate name, so what's the big deal?

That leaves a question for me.

If the Gay and Lesbian community shouldn't be concerned over the simple wording or whatever, so long as benefits are the same, then why do you get to be concerned over it? If it is all the same, and not another of example of how "separate but equal" never is, then why is it necessary to create a different definition?

I didn't create a different definition. This is the definition that has existed since our laws were created. All I am saying... and please read this carefully... all I am saying is that if the definition is going to be changed, it should be done by majority vote - not by a court.

[houstonmacbro]

Civil unions do not carry all the benefits of marriage. For example, tax benefits.

[memebag]

I didn't create a different definition. This is the definition that has existed since our laws were created. All I am saying... and please read this carefully... all I am saying is that if the definition is going to be changed, it should be done by majority vote - not by a court.

Why should this be decided by a vote while other civil rights issues weren't? Is it because it's about gay people or because it's about marriage?