SCOTUS not enough- prop 8 jerks trying to find another way

[EVT1]

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/12/19441850-prop-8-backers-make-long-shot-bid-to-stop-same-sex-marriage-in-california?lite

     The backers of Prop. 8, which amended the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, argue that when the smoke cleared after the U.S. Supreme Court shot down their appeal in late June, what was left was a victory only for the two gay couples who originally challenged the initiative in court. Now that those original plaintiffs are married, they argue, the state is free -- in fact, required -- to go right on enforcing Prop. 8's ban on any further same-sex marriages.

WTF do these people hope to gain?  Is life on this planet going to be that much better for them if they get to deny people rights?  I cannot understand their plight at all- because all it boils down to is one group of people trying to fuck with another group of people because who knows why.

[zibazinski]

Maybe because in their minds, gay marriage is something that should not be legal or recognized as such with the same standing as a marriage between a man and a woman? That'd be why I'd think theyre opposed to it. Just a thought.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 13, 2013 0:02:08 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/12/19441850-prop-8-backers-make-long-shot-bid-to-stop-same-sex-marriage-in-california?lite

     The backers of Prop. 8, which amended the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, argue that when the smoke cleared after the U.S. Supreme Court shot down their appeal in late June, what was left was a victory only for the two gay couples who originally challenged the initiative in court. Now that those original plaintiffs are married, they argue, the state is free -- in fact, required -- to go right on enforcing Prop. 8's ban on any further same-sex marriages.

not to point out the obvious, but the SCOTUS decision had nothing to do with these specific marriages, and neither did the lower court ruling.  the lower court ruling struck down prop 8, and that RULING stands, not the proposition.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I think we need to get past the idea that free people need permission from government to do anything they damn well please.

[zibazinski]

I agree that marriage should not be sanctioned or penalized by the govt.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jul 14, 2013 7:26:18 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I agree that marriage should not be sanctioned or penalized by the govt.

I also agree...however as long as it is, it is unconstitutional to ban "gay marriage".

[Sum Dum Gai]

I think we need to get past the idea that free people need permission from government to do anything they damn well please.

Unless it infringes on the rights or safety of others.

[Virgil Showlion]

I agree that marriage should not be sanctioned or penalized by the govt.

Government is the sine qua non of the "gay marriage" controversy.

Proposition 8 was a legislative measure to determine the majority view of Californians. In theory the government was expected to accede to the democratic will of the people.

The courts--another branch of government--later declared the results of the referendum to be unconstitutional.

DOMA advocates had earlier appealed to the US federal government to limit the government's role in administrating marriage to issuing "civil union" certificates, of which traditional marriage certificates would be one subtype, thus differentiating between sacramental marriage and "marriage" as a legal status.

This politicking was opposed for several reasons. The measure would require the government to either formally acknowledge the sacramental (i.e. religious) nature of traditional marriage, or else offload marriage to religious organizations except for the legal aspects, which would create headaches for existing married couples by splitting apart the meaning of "married" and "legally joined".

Ultimately, the courts (i.e. government, yet again) declared any kind of marriage/civil union distinction to be "inherently unequal" per 20th century segregation case law, eliminating it as an option.

The government is ultimately the authority that issues the certificates. It proscribes the rights and privileges enjoyed by the bearers, and that determines who may obtain them. Government is the be all and end all of the issue. It has nothing to do with "people's bedrooms" and it most certainly doesn't pertain to keeping the government "out of" anything.

[zibazinski]

I don't see how someone being gay infringes upon my rights. You'd think since marriage penalizes people tax wise, the gobmt would encourage anyone and everyone to get married.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 14, 2013 17:18:31 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I don't see how someone being gay infringes upon my rights. You'd think since marriage penalizes people tax wise, the gobmt would encourage anyone and everyone to get married.

For many people (myself included) the issue is simply about what constitutes marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God for the purposes of raising a family. What the state calls "marriage" is a legal status that grants two individuals certain rights re taxes, visitation, etc. Traditionally there was little conflict between the two definitions.

Eventually a critical mass of people built up that wanted to be "married" in the civil sense but not per a marriage covenant with God. The state persisted in calling these unions "marriage" since its only interest lied in the legal aspects. Few Christians, Jews, or Muslims objected since a man wedding a woman isn't spiritually unlawful.

The issue came to a head when homosexual couples demanded the same right, and insisted that the union be called "marriage"--which it is not. It is a civil status devoid of any specific spiritual meaning and religious background, hence the schism between "marriage" and "traditional marriage". People at last saw their error in tolerating a secular definition of "marriage". The courts could ostensibly redefine it to mean anything they wanted to, including unions the Abrahamic religions call "abominable" in no uncertain terms. Since homosexuals, atheists, etc. are adamant that "marriage" pertain to the legal contract rather than traditional marriage, there's little room for compromise.

Gay "marriage" will be a reality in the US shortly. I hold no delusions.

But I do respect the fight by US lawmakers to acknowledge and preserve the original, correct definition of marriage, in the same way that I'd respect US lawmakers fighting to guarantee "certified organic" meant "pesticide-free" even if it was politically expedient to allow some pesticides in "organic" foods.

[Angel!]

The definition of marriage has evolved just like the defintion of so many words. Through much of the bilble marriage is between one man and as many wives as he can get, which are essentially his property.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 14, 2013 19:03:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

The definition of marriage has evolved just like the defintion of so many words. Through much of the bilble marriage is between one man and as many wives as he can get, which are essentially his property.

Jewish marriage is complicated.

Christian marriage derives from the fulfillment of the law at Christ's coming. I can't quote the verses here, but Christ made it clear that polygamy is a form of adultery. In Deuteronomy, taking multiple wives is strongly discouraged, albeit permitted. The reason it was permitted is expounded in the NT.

Neither form of marriage ever permitted same-sex unions. Christian marriage hasn't changed since the 1st century. Jewish marriage arguably hasn't changed since the 12th century--and even then only in ritual details.

I should think that 800-2,000 years should be long enough to establish a definition.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 14, 2013 19:44:52 GMT -5 @patstab said:

I don't care one way or another, they can do what they want.  I'm not gay but I don't care what  people do in their bedrooms. And not everyone believes all that stuff in a book.

You pick and choose parts of it, if you took it literally you would be living a heck of a life, and not the one you are now.

What do bedrooms have to do with anything?

[Deleted]

Jul 14, 2013 19:53:12 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 14, 2013 19:03:38 GMT -5 Angel! said:

The definition of marriage has evolved just like the defintion of so many words. Through much of the bilble marriage is between one man and as many wives as he can get, which are essentially his property.

Jewish marriage is complicated.

Christian marriage derives from the fulfillment of the law at Christ's coming. I can't quote the verses here, but Christ made it clear that polygamy is a form of adultery. In Deuteronomy, taking multiple wives is strongly discouraged, albeit permitted. The reason it was permitted is expounded in the NT.

Neither form of marriage ever permitted same-sex unions. Christian marriage hasn't changed since the 1st century. Jewish marriage arguably hasn't changed since the 12th century--and even then only in ritual details.

I should think that 800-2,000 years should be long enough to establish a definition.

But tax law aint that old.

[frankq]

The only thing I can think of is the issue of health and pension/retirement benefits accrued. Benefits for couples are calculated based on the actuarial statistics of a man and a woman as the standard couple. Women generally live longer than men by about 7-8 years, and the average gap in age was around 5 years or less last I heard. Same sex couples may not fit those benefit guidelines. That could fuck up some fucked up government pension systems even more and affect private plans. There might be other impacts to health plans. While male same sex couples cannot reproduce and need no maternity benefits, but would female couples be entitled to demand expensive in vitro fertility coverage? I'd bet some attorneys would sue to get it. And you can't discriminate, so everyone will get it. You think health costs are high now? What about kids? We should be entering the time when some of the early same sex couples who had adopted children are bringing those children to adulthood. Just curious to see if being raised in a same sex home has influenced these kids sexually. This isn't a homophobic question, just wondering.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 14, 2013 21:00:21 GMT -5 frankq said:

The only thing I can think of is the issue of health and pension/retirement benefits accrued. Benefits for couples are calculated based on the actuarial statistics of a man and a woman as the standard couple. Women generally live longer than men by about 7-8 years, and the average gap in age was around 5 years or less last I heard. Same sex couples may not fit those benefit guidelines. That could fuck up some fucked up government pension systems even more and affect private plans. There might be other impacts to health plans. While male same sex couples cannot reproduce and need no maternity benefits, but would female couples be entitled to demand expensive in vitro fertility coverage? I'd bet some attorneys would sue to get it. And you can't discriminate, so everyone will get it. You think health costs are high now? What about kids? We should be entering the time when some of the early same sex couples who had adopted children are bringing those children to adulthood. Just curious to see if being raised in a same sex home has influenced these kids sexually. This isn't a homophobic question, just wondering.

Frankq-males couples can adopt and therefore would be eligible for FMLA. While FMLA is unpaid leave, it is a benefit afforded across the nation. Additionally, one of the two spouses in a male same-sex marriage can use a surrogate to carry his child through artificial insemination.

[mmhmm]

Word definitions aren't established by length of use.  They're established by usage by the populace at large.  Word meanings, therefore, expand and change according to the meaning assigned to them through current use.  Before the "cap gun" was invented, a "cap" was a hat.  "Cap guns" do not fire hats.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 14, 2013 16:38:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I agree that marriage should not be sanctioned or penalized by the govt.

Government is the sine qua non of the "gay marriage" controversy.

Proposition 8 was a legislative measure to determine the majority view of Californians. .

"was" being the operative term.  the reason the SAJ abandoned defending the proposition is that it is not longer supported by a majority.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 14, 2013 18:43:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 14, 2013 17:18:31 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I don't see how someone being gay infringes upon my rights. You'd think since marriage penalizes people tax wise, the gobmt would encourage anyone and everyone to get married.

For many people (myself included) the issue is simply about what constitutes marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God for the purposes of raising a family. .

it is unclear whether that is true, but even if it is, WHY is it true?  i know people who married in their 60''s.  there is no obvious intent to raise kids.  i know childless couples.  i know people who married after kids were born.

here is the real problem with this issue for me.  it is perfectly legal for a man and a woman who hate each other to get married, and illegal in most places for a woman and a woman to do so.  what business does the state have determining what marriages are "good"?

[EVT1]

Not to mention people that have divorced and remarried against church doctrine- those people are not married as far as the church is concerned- well those particular churches are concerned, and some religions and/or churches have no problem with gay people being married.  Have to agree with Virgil only to the point that the problem lies with the government for getting involved in the first place by allowing special privileges for certain people.

Should the government require to be listed and consult with the churches attended by people applying for a marriage license to make sure the marriage is sanctioned by the proper religious authority? If the answer is no than marriage by government is nothing but a legal relationship and not allowing it between certain people based solely on the religious traditions of the majority religions is obviously against the Constitution.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 14, 2013 21:23:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 14, 2013 18:43:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

For many people (myself included) the issue is simply about what constitutes marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God for the purposes of raising a family. .

it is unclear whether that is true, but even if it is, WHY is it true?  i know people who married in their 60''s.  there is no obvious intent to raise kids.  i know childless couples.  i know people who married after kids were born.

here is the real problem with this issue for me.  it is perfectly legal for a man and a woman who hate each other to get married, and illegal in most places for a woman and a woman to do so.  what business does the state have determining what marriages are "good"?

The covenant isn't exclusively for childbearing. Biblically it's necessary, ensuring the children have both a mother and a father in a lifelong relationship. There are no Biblical condemnations for married couples that can't or won't have children, although several proverbs call children a blessing.

As for the state determining which marriages are "good": no such determination is taking place. The state is determining which couples can legally call themselves "married", and the definition of the term--as well as the institution it refers to--predate the state by millennia.

"was" being the operative term. the reason the SAJ abandoned defending the proposition is that it is not longer supported by a majority.

You say that as though the majority view of Californians actually meant something at some point.

Not to mention people that have divorced and remarried against church doctrine- those people are not married as far as the church is concerned- well those particular churches are concerned, and some religions and/or churches have no problem with gay people being married

If some church wants to marry homosexuals based on some perverse doctrine and call it "marriage", I agree the state shouldn't have the authority to prevent it from doing so.

But "gay marriage" doesn't respect doctrine. In Canada, any institution that wants the ability to marry couples may not discriminate against homosexuals, doctrines be damned. Churches presently have the option to require both participants in a marriage to be members (and then could arguably deny membership to homosexuals on a doctrinal basis), but this protection has been persistently challenged by LGBT lobbyists as well.

[mmhmm]

Jul 14, 2013 21:23:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 14, 2013 18:43:42 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

For many people (myself included) the issue is simply about what constitutes marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man, a woman, and God for the purposes of raising a family. .

it is unclear whether that is true, but even if it is, WHY is it true?  i know people who married in their 60''s.  there is no obvious intent to raise kids.  i know childless couples.  i know people who married after kids were born.

here is the real problem with this issue for me.  it is perfectly legal for a man and a woman who hate each other to get married, and illegal in most places for a woman and a woman to do so.  what business does the state have determining what marriages are "good"?

Yep.  My husband and I were married for 37 years.  I had children when we got married, and we didn't intend to have more.  Ours was a covenant between the two of us.  That did not, however, make us any the less married.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 14, 2013 22:52:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 14, 2013 21:23:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is unclear whether that is true, but even if it is, WHY is it true?  i know people who married in their 60''s.  there is no obvious intent to raise kids.  i know childless couples.  i know people who married after kids were born.

here is the real problem with this issue for me.  it is perfectly legal for a man and a woman who hate each other to get married, and illegal in most places for a woman and a woman to do so.  what business does the state have determining what marriages are "good"?

Yep.  My husband and I were married for 37 years.  I had children when we got married, and we didn't intend to have more.  Ours was a covenant between the two of us.  That did not, however, make us any the less married.

That would depend on how you define "married". Obviously there's disagreement, which is why the "gay marriage" controversy exists.

But you'd also be among the Americans who'd accept calling your husband/wife relationship a "civil union" if that's the term the state chose for secular unions, no?

[EVT1]

Well here is a thought- if we are going to base our marriage law on a particular religious interpretation, then divorce should not be granted by the state.  Think any conservative male is going to try and pose that legislation?  Hell no- that could affect THEM.  They are usually interested in what they can legislate other people have to endure.

[mmhmm]

Jul 14, 2013 23:00:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 14, 2013 22:52:12 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Yep.  My husband and I were married for 37 years.  I had children when we got married, and we didn't intend to have more.  Ours was a covenant between the two of us.  That did not, however, make us any the less married.

That would depend on how you define "married". Obviously there's disagreement, which is why the "gay marriage" controversy exists.

But you'd also be among the Americans who'd accept calling your husband/wife relationship a "civil union" if that's the term the state chose for secular unions, no?

I don't particularly care what it's called.  I certainly don't care what other individuals who choose it call it.  That's their business, not mine.

[mmhmm]

LOL!  Has anybody stopped to think about the number of trees that would have to die if the US decided to make a legal difference between "marriage" and "civil union"?  Think of the forms that ask if you're "married, divorced, single, widowed"!  O. M. G.!

[Sum Dum Gai]

Eventually a critical mass of people built up that wanted to be "married" in the civil sense but not per a marriage covenant with God. The state persisted in calling these unions "marriage" since its only interest lied in the legal aspects. Few Christians, Jews, or Muslims objected since a man wedding a woman isn't spiritually unlawful.

The issue came to a head when homosexual couples demanded the same right, and insisted that the union be called "marriage"--which it is not. It is a civil status devoid of any specific spiritual meaning and religious background, hence the schism between "marriage" and "traditional marriage". People at last saw their error in tolerating a secular definition of "marriage". The courts could ostensibly redefine it to mean anything they wanted to, including unions the Abrahamic religions call "abominable" in no uncertain terms. Since homosexuals, atheists, etc. are adamant that "marriage" pertain to the legal contract rather than traditional marriage, there's little room for compromise.

You interpretation of the bible isn't the only valid one.  Plenty of churches perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples.  I have no idea how they square that with the good book, but they do, and you're foreign ass has no right to tell a US church they can't perform a religious ceremony because it doesn't mesh up with your interpretation of the bible.

Your church is of course free to tell all homosexuals that they're going to burn I hell for all eternity and refuse to perform same sex marriage ceremonies.  If another church wants to provide those services, and allow openly gay clergy, they absolutely have the right to do that, and the government should stay the hell out of it.  They've never had the right to interfere with religious ceremonies or beliefs, or try to use public policy to dictate acceptable religious beliefs.

[Sam_2.0]

Jul 15, 2013 1:12:42 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL!  Has anybody stopped to think about the number of trees that would have to die if the US decided to make a legal difference between "marriage" and "civil union"?  Think of the forms that ask if you're "married, divorced, single, widowed"!  O. M. G.!

I get what you are saying, but not really. Replace "married" with "civil union". In my mind, they are two separate things. DH and I have a civil union because we filed the appropriate papers at the court house. We have a marriage because we had our particular religious ceremony performed. You can have one, the other, or both.

I say we call any government recognized union a civil union. Then we have to get into the issue of will we allow more than two people into a union, and what are the consequences of that. Let churches go on having the ceremonies that are relevant to them as they choose. I didn't have a Catholic or Jewish marriage ceremony because I am not Catholic or Jewish. Some LDS churches still perform plural marriages in the church, but they are not recognized by the government.

If a church does not want to perform a certain type of marriage (religious) ceremony, then they don't have to. But those persons could still receive the same rights and benefits in the eyes of the government as every other civil union.

I don't get why it's that difficult to separate the meanings between the two.

[zibazinski]

Think of how much happier divorce attorneys will be when there's more divorces because there's more marriages going around.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 9:21:14 GMT -5 Sam_2.0 said:

Jul 15, 2013 1:12:42 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

LOL!  Has anybody stopped to think about the number of trees that would have to die if the US decided to make a legal difference between "marriage" and "civil union"?  Think of the forms that ask if you're "married, divorced, single, widowed"!  O. M. G.!

I get what you are saying, but not really. Replace "married" with "civil union". In my mind, they are two separate things. DH and I have a civil union because we filed the appropriate papers at the court house. We have a marriage because we had our particular religious ceremony performed. You can have one, the other, or both.

I say we call any government recognized union a civil union. Then we have to get into the issue of will we allow more than two people into a union, and what are the consequences of that. Let churches go on having the ceremonies that are relevant to them as they choose. I didn't have a Catholic or Jewish marriage ceremony because I am not Catholic or Jewish. Some LDS churches still perform plural marriages in the church, but they are not recognized by the government.

If a church does not want to perform a certain type of marriage (religious) ceremony, then they don't have to. But those persons could still receive the same rights and benefits in the eyes of the government as every other civil union.

I don't get why it's that difficult to separate the meanings between the two.

There seems to be a need for some to lower the status of same-sex marriages to simply civil unions. And in their minds a union held in a religious building is greater than a union legalized at city hall.

The problem with religious marriages versus civil unions for some of these folks is that some Christian churches do recognize same-sex marriages celebrated in their houses of god are just as valid and blessed by their Creator as heterosexual marriages. Then the issue arises that the Christian churches performing and celebrating same-sex marriages aren't really Christian churches. Some folks just need to be 'better' than everyone else.

I recommend everyone must first get married at city hall. If they wish to have some type of religious at a church that is fine. But everyone is married once the marriage certificate is signed at city hall.

Separate but equal is still unequal.