California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

#479
#479
TennNC said:
How did you come to that conclusion? You think I don't believe in God?

Let's backtrack.

Your point was that marriage came from God, therefore it is sacrosanct, not to be messed with, man and woman only. My point was that using that logic, every human creation/contract/law etc. is sacrosanct b/c God created us, therefore God created everything - including slavery, polygamy, discrimination, etc.

Here's what I believe: marriage was created by humans for very practical purposes -- mainly, to create or protect one's power. It was for alliances, for establishing order, for creating offspring. I think it took on religious meaning over time b/c it gave churches more power and influence. Religious leaders were smart.

Now, I got married (to a woman) in a church (with my father, a preacher, conducting the wedding, btw). Was it necessary to make it a religious ceremony? No. Do I think God thinks any different of me b/c I got married in a church, by a preacher, instead of a justice of the peace? No. I chose to do that b/c my faith was an important part of the commitment.

And do I think God favors me b/c I married a woman and not another man? No.

Making a marriage a religious ceremony and commitment is a personal choice and should have no bearing on marriage law.

It's your right to think it's wrong for two people of the same sex to marry, but why should you deny them the same legal opportunity you have of making a commitment to someone they love? Just because your religious beliefs say so?
Click to expand...

That was a big post, yet you missed the point. That's what you believe, yet when I state what I do, I'm listed a hundred reasons why I'm ignorant. Yes, God did create everything... however, nowehere in the Bible does it say he created slavery, etc... it does talk about the fact HE created marriage, so your point is really not a good one on that front. It seems to me your talking out both sides of your mouth... that is what I believe, and just like me your entitles to your beliefs. There is no getting around the fact that marriage was started as a religious ceremony... and the Constitution doesn't even bring it up. I'm getting tired of being lectured about why I shouldn't stop people from being together; that's not my goal. I'm not trying to deny anyone rights, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't care who you or anyone else love, that's your business. It's not an issue of discrimination, it's protecting something that many deem to be a serious and holy institutuion, and more importantly it's about a few judges legislating from the bench. I''m not sure how many different ways I can put that... if you disagree with it, terrific, but don't make me to be something I'm not.

By the by, your quote about marriage being used to give the church more power is kind of what I think this debate is really about (and I don't mean with just you), I don't think it's about gay people's rights as much as it's people having a problem with religion.
 
#480
#480
utvolpj said:
how did they legislate from the bench? Their job is to decide if a law is acceptable under the CA constitution and it seems that's exactly what they did. They passed no laws that I am aware of but rather decided the laws were discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't see a plroblem with that doesn't mean that many people agree with you. This isn't a Constituional matter.
 
#481
#481
volsforever27 said:
That was a big post, yet you missed the point. That's what you believe, yet when I state what I do, I'm listed a hundred reasons why I'm ignorant. Yes, God did create everything... however, nowehere in the Bible does it say he created slavery, etc... it does talk about the fact HE created marriage, so your point is really not a good one on that front. It seems to me your talking out both sides of your mouth... that is what I believe, and just like me your entitles to your beliefs. There is no getting around the fact that marriage was started as a religious ceremony... and the Constitution doesn't even bring it up. I'm getting tired of being lectured about why I shouldn't stop people from being together; that's not my goal. I'm not trying to deny anyone rights, but there is nothing wrong with wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage. I don't care who you or anyone else love, that's your business. It's not an issue of discrimination, it's protecting something that many deem to be a serious and holy institutuion, and more importantly it's about a few judges legislating from the bench. I''m not sure how many different ways I can put that... if you disagree with it, terrific, but don't make me to be something I'm not.

By the by, your quote about marriage being used to give the church more power is kind of what I think this debate is really about (and I don't mean with just you), I don't think it's about gay people's rights as much as it's people having a problem with religion.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to make you something you're not - I wasn't trying to make you anything at all. But
it appears I haven't given you enough respect, and I apologize for that.

I respect your stance on judges vs. the popular vote. I understand but also believe that sometimes we need to make judgments that protect the Constitution and ensure equal rights for all, even if the populace doesn't see it that way.

I respect that you want to protect the sanctity of marriage -- and I'd say there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you are referring to the sanctity of religious marriage. If you disagree with the way people are getting married in your religion or denomination, then fight for what you believe. I agree with you 100% there, in fact.

I also believe that we should respect the institution of marriage (all marriage -- not just religious) more and probably should focus our efforts on the 50% or so of marriages that end in divorce instead of the 5% or so of the population who would like to have the opportunity to be married. Should we do more to ensure fewer people make this commitment before thinking through whether it's the right decision?

But there is something wrong, IMO, with denying others the opportunity to be married according to the law, not according to any church or religion. That's what is happening, whether that's what you're trying to do or not.

On your last point, I think this fear is unwarranted. Do you think people are trying to tear down religion by wanting to get married? I'm a deacon in my church. I've grown up in the church my entire life. In no way at all do I think legally recognizing gay marriage threatens organized religion, unless organized religion continues to make it its problem. Neither do most (if not all) members of the church I attend. In fact, several gay couples in the church would choose to get married in the church b/c their faith means that much to them.
 
#483
#483
TennNC said:
I wasn't trying to make you something you're not - I wasn't trying to make you anything at all. But
it appears I haven't given you enough respect, and I apologize for that.

I respect your stance on judges vs. the popular vote. I understand but also believe that sometimes we need to make judgments that protect the Constitution and ensure equal rights for all, even if the populace doesn't see it that way.

I respect that you want to protect the sanctity of marriage -- and I'd say there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you are referring to the sanctity of religious marriage. If you disagree with the way people are getting married in your religion or denomination, then fight for what you believe. I agree with you 100% there, in fact.

I also believe that we should respect the institution of marriage (all marriage -- not just religious) more and probably should focus our efforts on the 50% or so of marriages that end in divorce instead of the 5% or so of the population who would like to have the opportunity to be married. Should we do more to ensure fewer people make this commitment before thinking through whether it's the right decision?

But there is something wrong, IMO, with denying others the opportunity to be married according to the law, not according to any church or religion. That's what is happening, whether that's what you're trying to do or not.

On your last point, I think this fear is unwarranted. Do you think people are trying to tear down religion by wanting to get married? I'm a deacon in my church. I've grown up in the church my entire life. In no way at all do I think legally recognizing gay marriage threatens organized religion, unless organized religion continues to make it its problem. Neither do most (if not all) members of the church I attend. In fact, several gay couples in the church would choose to get married in the church b/c their faith means that much to them.
Click to expand...
Episcopalians don't count.
 
#484
#484
TennNC said:
I wasn't trying to make you something you're not - I wasn't trying to make you anything at all. But
it appears I haven't given you enough respect, and I apologize for that.

I respect your stance on judges vs. the popular vote. I understand but also believe that sometimes we need to make judgments that protect the Constitution and ensure equal rights for all, even if the populace doesn't see it that way.
I respect that you want to protect the sanctity of marriage -- and I'd say there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you are referring to the sanctity of religious marriage. If you disagree with the way people are getting married in your religion or denomination, then fight for what you believe. I agree with you 100% there, in fact.

I also believe that we should respect the institution of marriage (all marriage -- not just religious) more and probably should focus our efforts on the 50% or so of marriages that end in divorce instead of the 5% or so of the population who would like to have the opportunity to be married. Should we do more to ensure fewer people make this commitment before thinking through whether it's the right decision?

But there is something wrong, IMO, with denying others the opportunity to be married according to the law, not according to any church or religion. That's what is happening, whether that's what you're trying to do or not.

On your last point, I think this fear is unwarranted. Do you think people are trying to tear down religion by wanting to get married? I'm a deacon in my church. I've grown up in the church my entire life. In no way at all do I think legally recognizing gay marriage threatens organized religion, unless organized religion continues to make it its problem. Neither do most (if not all) members of the church I attend. In fact, several gay couples in the church would choose to get married in the church b/c their faith means that much to them.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to respond to everything in your post, but tell me how this is a Constitutional matter. That's my main point about the judges legislating from the bench.
 
#485
#485
volsforever27 said:
I don't have time to respond to everything in your post, but tell me how this is a Constitutional matter. That's my main point about the judges legislating from the bench.
Click to expand...
It became constitutional the day that the original law was passed. Beyond that point, any official opinions on that particular law are left to the judiciary. One of their tests of that law, if questioned appropriately, is to determine the constitutionality of said law.
 
#489
#489
TennNC said:
Suetonius Life of Nero 28-29; Martial Epigrams 1.24, 12.42; etc.

Don't know if this helps, but it was the reference listed in Wiki.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the info. I added it to my list and one day in a few years after my daughter is grown some I may have enough time to sit down and read.
 
#492
#492
KB5252 said:
Thank you for the info. I added it to my list and one day in a few years after my daughter is grown some I may have enough time to sit down and read.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. I admire your devotion to your daughter and your reading - you're more of a scholar than I.
 
#493
#493
TennNC said:
You're welcome. I admire your devotion to your daughter and your reading - you're more of a scholar than I.
Click to expand...

Seriously doubt that, I just always found the Mediterranean and Central/South American ancient civilizations interesting.
 
#494
#494
BigPapaVol said:
It became constitutional the day that the original law was passed. Beyond that point, any official opinions on that particular law are left to the judiciary. One of their tests of that law, if questioned appropriately, is to determine the constitutionality of said law.
Click to expand...

... but not to force their opinions (which everyone seems to think if you don't agree with them, that's what you're doing in this manner).

Here's the dissents...

Nothing in our Constitution, express or implicit, compels the majority’s startling conclusion that the age-old understanding of marriage — an understanding recently confirmed by an initiative law — is no longer valid. California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights this state can bestow. If there is to be a further sea change in the social and legal understanding of marriage itself, that evolution should occur by similar democratic means. The majority forecloses this ordinary democratic process, and, in doing so, oversteps its authority.

[W]e should hesitate to use our authority to take one side in an ongoing political debate. The accommodation of disparate views is democracy’s essential challenge. Democracy is never more tested than when its citizens honestly disagree, based on deeply held beliefs. In such circumstances, the legislative process should be given leeway to work out the differences. It is inappropriate for the judiciary to interrupt that process and impose the views of its individual members, while the opinions of the people are still evolving.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top