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

[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.

So....."marriage" can have different definitions for Jewish people and Christian people, but not for homosexual people?  

Why does it matter what the government calls it, anyway? If marriage is so sacred to someone it's not going to "count" unless their ceremony is performed in their church, then as long as your church ceremony is called a marriage who gives a flying #*%& what a secular union is termed? 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 14, 2013 22:44:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion 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"?

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. .

of course it is.  are you REALLY saying that there is no moral underpinning to law?  SERIOUSLY?

no, Virgil, i completely disagree.  the state is judging what is a good or bad marriage in creating this standard.  NO determination would be that they would allow all couples to marry.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 14, 2013 22:44:44 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

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

"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. .

no, i say that because it is a fact.

[djAdvocate]

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?

as soon as civil unions have the exact same legal standing, i am all for it.

but i have another idea: how about creating two classes of marriage: secular, and holy?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 9:27:36 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

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

gays have a lower divorce rate, but they still divorce. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 15, 2013 10:36:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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

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?

as soon as civil unions have the exact same legal standing, i am all for it.

but i have another idea: how about creating two classes of marriage: secular, and holy?

There's no one-upmanship in that.

[djAdvocate]

i object to the idea that our notion of what constitutes marriage cannot change over time.

when the founders drafted the constitution, women were little better than slaves in marriage.  they could not own property, they could not file for divorce, they could be legally raped by their husbands, abuse was tolerated, etc.  they were essentially powerless chattle.  is that REALLY the kind of marriage we want now?  of course not.  marriage has evolved along with women's rights.  why not evolving with human rights?  why not with gay rights?  what is the problem, here?

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2013 10:38:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2013 9:27:36 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

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

gays have a lower divorce rate, but they still divorce. 

As they have a lower "marriage" rate at this point...that statistic is yet to be determined.

Either way....divorce lawyers win......YAY!

[Virgil Showlion]

of course it is. are you REALLY saying that there is no moral underpinning to law? SERIOUSLY?

I have no doubt the courts believe they're doing good. That still doesn't make this a "good or bad" determination. This is an "is or isn't" determination.

A "good or bad" determination would prohibit homosexual unions entirely if the courts deemed them 'bad'.

Why does it matter what the government calls it, anyway? If marriage is so sacred to someone it's not going to "count" unless their ceremony is performed in their church, then as long as your church ceremony is called a marriage who gives a flying #*%& what a secular union is termed?

For the same reason Muslims won't compromise on the word 'halal'. Or why the USDA won't compromise on the word 'organic'.

as soon as civil unions have the exact same legal standing, i am all for it.

but i have another idea: how about creating two classes of marriage: secular, and holy?

If it's all the same to you, let the two terms be "secular union" (secular) and "marriage" (religious).

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.

It has to do with correctness, and with what is scripturally defensible. Blindly treating it as bigotry is a cop-out.

As for your and Dark's greater criticism re churches that will perform "gay marriage" ceremonies, see Reply #21.

[Deleted]

"Correct" in your eyes, but not to everyone. And therein lies the problem -- you can't please all people all of the time. So I guess in this particular instance those who believe the same as you do are the ones who get to pound salt.

[mmhmm]

Frankly, it's not all that important to me what something is called.  If an individual fills out a form that asks if he/she is married and they check the box "yes" because they've had a secular cermony that creates a legal joining, I figure that's good enough for me.  I'm not going to sit here and tell them what they are, or are not.  They can call themselves "married", "joined", "unioned", or "paired".  It doesn't hurt me.  It doesn't affect my life.  If they're happy, and healthy, and proceeding as part of the human race, I'm content.

[zibazinski]

Gays have a lower rate because in a lot of states, it's still illegal and also there are still less of them than non-gays.

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2013 12:56:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Frankly, it's not all that important to me what something is called.  If an individual fills out a form that asks if he/she is married and they check the box "yes" because they've had a secular cermony that creates a legal joining, I figure that's good enough for me.  I'm not going to sit here and tell them what they are, or are not.  They can call themselves "married", "joined", "unioned", or "paired".  It doesn't hurt me.  It doesn't affect my life.  If they're happy, and healthy, and proceeding as part of the human race, I'm content.

And, in a totally unprecedented move, the government decided that the easiest (and cheapest) thing to do is to classify all unions as marriages and then we don't have to change any existing paperwork! 

[mmhmm]

Jul 15, 2013 13:03:17 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Jul 15, 2013 12:56:03 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Frankly, it's not all that important to me what something is called.  If an individual fills out a form that asks if he/she is married and they check the box "yes" because they've had a secular cermony that creates a legal joining, I figure that's good enough for me.  I'm not going to sit here and tell them what they are, or are not.  They can call themselves "married", "joined", "unioned", or "paired".  It doesn't hurt me.  It doesn't affect my life.  If they're happy, and healthy, and proceeding as part of the human race, I'm content.

And, in a totally unprecedented move, the government decided that the easiest (and cheapest) thing to do is to classify all unions as marriages and then we don't have to change any existing paperwork! 

That's sure what I'd do!  Just the thought of changing all those multi-copy forms gives me the willies!

[kittensaver]

: "but i have another idea: how about creating two classes of marriage: secular, and holy?":

====================

No need to create this. It already exists. Churches and religions already have their rituals that make their marriages "holy." They already deny this ritual to folks who do not belong to them - and will continue to do so. And States have their civil ceremonies that follow the issuance of a license.

Neither should be allowed to co-op the definition of marriage from the other. JMHO.

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2013 13:00:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Gays have a lower rate because in a lot of states, it's still illegal and also there are still less of them than non-gays.

But if all of the states start letting gays marry all of our kids are going to learn that gay marriage is great and all of our kids are going to turn gay and get gay married and then be unhappy and get gay divorced sending the divorce rate of gay couples skyrocketting.

[swamp]

Jul 15, 2013 13:08:23 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:00:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Gays have a lower rate because in a lot of states, it's still illegal and also there are still less of them than non-gays.

But if all of the states start letting gays marry all of our kids are going to learn that gay marraige is great and all of our kids are going to turn gay and get gay married and then be unhappy and get gay divorced sending the divorce rate of gay couple skyrocketting.

 Ow.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 11:47:36 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jul 15, 2013 10:38:28 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

gays have a lower divorce rate, but they still divorce. 

As they have a lower "marriage" rate at this point...that statistic is yet to be determined.

no, it can be determined now.  whether that plays out over time (your point, i am guessing) is another matter.

Either way....divorce lawyers win......YAY!

indeed.  so do bridal shops.  and catering companies.

[Virgil Showlion]

Joke about it if you want.

But as you do, don't bother wondering why when those "prop 8 jerks" are trying to find another way.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 12:50:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

of course it is. are you REALLY saying that there is no moral underpinning to law? SERIOUSLY?

I have no doubt the courts believe they're doing good. That still doesn't make this a "good or bad" determination. .

i fervently disagree.  that is precisely what it is.  it is the marriage equivalent of jim crow laws.  inferior standards for inferior people.

[swamp]

Jul 15, 2013 13:11:51 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Joke about it if you want.

But as you do, don't bother wondering why when those "prop 8 jerks" are trying to find another way.

Because they're prigs with an overreaching interest in what happens in other people's lives?

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 12:50:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

as soon as civil unions have the exact same legal standing, i am all for it.

but i have another idea: how about creating two classes of marriage: secular, and holy?

If it's all the same to you, let the two terms be "secular union" (secular) and "marriage" (religious).

it is NOT all the same.  that is precisely the problem. 

but moreover, there is nothing in the definition of marriage that says "religious".  it is a social union, not a religious one.  and besides, this is a secular society.  it is not the business of state to sanctify religion in the form of marriage.  i would call that a first amendment right.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 13:12:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2013 12:50:49 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I have no doubt the courts believe they're doing good. That still doesn't make this a "good or bad" determination. .

i fervently disagree.  that is precisely what it is.  it is the marriage equivalent of jim crow laws.  inferior standards for inferior people.

Make them distinct. Let "marriage" apply to the religious definition.

If you insist there's inferiority inherent in that statement, so be it. I can't change your mind.

it is a social union, not a religious one.

Addressed in an earlier post.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:00:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Gays have a lower rate because in a lot of states, it's still illegal and also there are still less of them than non-gays.

no, they have a lower divorce rate because there are fewer divorces per marriage than straight couples. 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:17:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:12:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i fervently disagree.  that is precisely what it is.  it is the marriage equivalent of jim crow laws.  inferior standards for inferior people.

Make them distinct. Let "marriage" apply to the religious definition.

not in a secular society.  if you want that, then move to a caliphate.

If you insist there's inferiority inherent in that statement, so be it. I can't change your mind.

it has nothing to do with what i think.  it is a legal fact.

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2013 13:17:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:12:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i fervently disagree.  that is precisely what it is.  it is the marriage equivalent of jim crow laws.  inferior standards for inferior people.

Make them distinct. Let "marriage" apply to the religious definition.

If you insist there's inferiority inherent in that statement, so be it. I can't change your mind.

it is a social union, not a religious one.

Addressed in an earlier post.

*cough* *cough* separation of Church and State...

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:17:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:12:14 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is a social union, not a religious one.

Addressed in an earlier post.

yeah, if you call that addressing.  the only problem is that it fails to point out that there are parallel institutions (called "marriage") worldwide that have nothing to do with religion.  that also happens in the US.  i think the most interesting one is "common law marriages".

[djAdvocate]

Jul 15, 2013 13:25:19 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:17:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Make them distinct. Let "marriage" apply to the religious definition.

If you insist there's inferiority inherent in that statement, so be it. I can't change your mind.

Addressed in an earlier post.

*cough* *cough* separation of Church and State...

i think that is the elephant in the room.  this is being prosecuted on a "separate but equal" basis, which is fine.  whatever works.  but my point is that the state really has no business deciding this sort of stuff in the first place, and more than it has the right to demand that we practice Sufism.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 15, 2013 13:19:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 15, 2013 13:17:00 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Make them distinct. Let "marriage" apply to the religious definition.

not in a secular society.  if you want that, then move to a caliphate.

If you insist there's inferiority inherent in that statement, so be it. I can't change your mind.

it has nothing to do with what i think.  it is a legal fact.

The courts of men decide what is "legal fact" on a whim, hence I won't dispute you.

I concern myself with what is right. What is right does not change, and is not subject to the approval (or lack thereof) of the US Supreme Court.

I posted in this thread to provide the original three posters with my perspective on why the "prop 8 jerks" are persisting in spite of the SCOTUS ruling. You and several others obviously don't care. Some seem to think it's a joke.

Regardless, I rest my case.

that also happens in the US. i think the most interesting one is "common law marriages".

Also addressed in an earlier post.

[Deleted]

The government needs a term to describe "the union of two people". There are FORMS that need to be COMPLETED, dangnabit!!! 


ETA: (Sorry Virgil  )