Government Laws on Marriage

[senojekips]

I don't understand your use of this phrase The whole idea being that the human race should advance not stagnate or die out" Are you still trying to use the excuse that marriage exists only for the creation of children?

Perhaps the reason for your inability to understand my views lies in you own preconceived notions, that those who disagree with you, all do it for the reasons that you attribute to them. This is certainly not the case.

In this last post, It was my impression that we were talking about the validity of the law, in particular the part pertaining to same sex marriages. I answered by saying how these laws come into being and the reasons behind it.

Anti social acts and behaviour are usually controlled by laws, so that society may move ahead. We don't all agree with them, but it is enough that the majority agree to enact laws that are for the betterment of society as a whole.

Same sex marriages contribute absolutely nothing to the advancement of society, and it has been deemed by the majority that for this reason (and others) that laws should be enacted to prevent the whole idea of marriage from becoming a laughing stock.

It is painfully apparent that the main reason that homos want recognised "marriage", is so that they may partake of the monetary and legal concessions that were intended for those who benefit our society by breeding or at least trying to. (Yes, I know,... there are some hetero marriages that should also be excluded) I also disagree with any person gaining benefit from any other act which damages the our society, it is not merely, same sex marriages.

 

[Chukpike]

Where do you get sexual discrimination from? Gay's are not claiming sexual discrimination. They are claiming bias against sexual preference.

I am making the claim of sexual discrimination. it is very simple the contract in my example is being denied because of the sex /gender of the signers.

So, you are making the claim of sexual discrimination. How is it sexual discrimination? Males and females can marry in California. They are not being denied the right to marry because of sex/gender. Are you saying that gays and lesbians are now a third and fourth sex?

Quite simple. I would also point out that was the reasoning by the court in California as well. Tradition alone is not a valid argument.

Please show me where the California courts determined that it was sexual discrimination. If this was the case, I am sure it would have moved on to Federal courts.
You may have not read the forum rules, so you should know when making claims like this, it is necessary to supply sources.

 

[Chukpike]

I have never forced anything upon them, I merely stating my approval of the fact that California is trying to make it illegal.

Just a note of clarification, with the passage of Proposition 8 Marriage was defined as "between one man and one women" it became illegal for two persons of the same sex to marry. Currently homosexuals are trying to overturn the law in California.

 

[senojekips]

Just a note of clarification, with the passage of Proposition 8 Marriage was defined as "between one man and one women" it became illegal for two persons of the same sex to marry. Currently homosexuals are trying to overturn the law in California.

Thank you Chukpike, I was aware of this, but my posting has been rather "slap dash" in the last 24 hours due to a heavy workload after returning from holidays. I'm up at 0500 again this morning trying to clear my backlog of emails etc.

 

[AeolusDallas]

Perhaps the reason for your inability to understand my views lies in you own preconceived notions, that those who disagree with you, all do it for the reasons that you attribute to them. This is certainly not the case.

In this last post, It was my impression that we were talking about the validity of the law, in particular the part pertaining to same sex marriages. I answered by saying how these laws come into being and the reasons behind it.

Anti social acts and behaviour are usually controlled by laws, so that society may move ahead. We don't all agree with them, but it is enough that the majority agree to enact laws that are for the betterment of society as a whole.

Same sex marriages contribute absolutely nothing to the advancement of society, and it has been deemed by the majority that for this reason (and others) that laws should be enacted to prevent the whole idea of marriage from becoming a laughing stock.

It is painfully apparent that the main reason that homos want recognised "marriage", is so that they may partake of the monetary and legal concessions that were intended for those who benefit our society by breeding or at least trying to. (Yes, I know,... there are some hetero marriages that should also be excluded) I also disagree with any person gaining benefit from any other act which damages the our society, it is not merely, same sex marriages.

First of all in the US and most other western nations individual rights are para mount. Not something as nebulous as "advancement of society" You have to show why limiting other individuals rights is needed.

Second things considered "anti social" are only regulated when said "anti social" activities are shown to have direct harm.

If you want to make marriage and it's intended benefits reserved only for breeding couples then be honest and ban all not breeding couples from marriage. Once you start making exceptions and allowing some non breeding couples to marry you loose the entire argument that marriage is for procreation.

 

[AeolusDallas]

So, you are making the claim of sexual discrimination. How is it sexual discrimination? Males and females can marry in California. They are not being denied the right to marry because of sex/gender. Are you saying that gays and lesbians are now a third and fourth sex?



Please show me where the California courts determined that it was sexual discrimination. If this was the case, I am sure it would have moved on to Federal courts.
You may have not read the forum rules, so you should know when making claims like this, it is necessary to supply sources.

I don't see why it is so hard for you to see. It is a very simple equation. Person A can sign contract with person B. Person C is identical in every way except gender but Person A cannot sign an identical contract with Person C. Reason = gender of person C. Therefore reason person C cannot sign contract with person A is sexual discrimination.

 

[AeolusDallas]

Just a note of clarification, with the passage of Proposition 8 Marriage was defined as "between one man and one women" it became illegal for two persons of the same sex to marry. Currently homosexuals are trying to overturn the law in California.

Redress of grievances is a constitutional right. There is nothing wrong with attempting to have a law overturned.

 

[The Other Guy]

Has potential.
Problem is the gays want the laws changed to allow same sex marriage. Will they be satisfied with a downgraded religious marriage?
Civil union has not satisfied them.

But my idea is to downgrade religious marriage and upgrade civil unions for everyone.

 

[Chukpike]

So, you are making the claim of sexual discrimination. How is it sexual discrimination? Males and females can marry in California. They are not being denied the right to marry because of sex/gender. Are you saying that gays and lesbians are now a third and fourth sex?

Please show me where the California courts determined that it was sexual discrimination. If this was the case, I am sure it would have moved on to Federal courts.
You may have not read the forum rules, so you should know when making claims like this, it is necessary to supply sources.

From forum rules:
"6. Please provide sources (links preferred) for things you have posted if requested by other members. Lack of sources may be considered spamming!"
I will not ask again. Failure to supply source for California courts determination that it was sexual discrimination per your post will get you reported to the mediators.

I don't see why it is so hard for you to see. It is a very simple equation. Person A can sign contract with person B. Person C is identical in every way except gender but Person A cannot sign an identical contract with Person C. Reason = gender of person C. Therefore reason person C cannot sign contract with person A is sexual discrimination.

"identical in every way except gender". Suggest you go to the first post in this thread and read all of the posts in this thread to avoid duplication of ideas. Obviously by inserting except in your description they are no longer the same.
Example:
Person A can sign contract with person B. Person C is identical in every way except under 18 but Person A cannot sign an identical contract with Person C. Person C did not meet the criteria to sign a contract. Everything is identical except one thing that makes it illegal for person C to sign contract.

Redress of grievances is a constitutional right. There is nothing wrong with attempting to have a law overturned.

Never said there was anything wrong. I just clarified the fact that PROP 8 passed and as of November 5th, 2008 Marriage in California is between one man and one women.

 

[Chukpike]

Has potential.
Problem is the gays want the laws changed to allow same sex marriage. Will they be satisfied with a downgraded religious marriage?
Civil union has not satisfied them.

But my idea is to downgrade religious marriage and upgrade civil unions for everyone.

Like I said it has potential. Now all you have to do is get the concerned parties to agree.
I seriously wish you luck.

 

[senojekips]

First of all in the US and most other western nations individual rights are para mount. Not something as nebulous as "advancement of society" You have to show why limiting other individuals rights is needed.

I find your reasoning to be absolutely typical of a newer generation of individuals who are too egotistical and self centred to care about society as a whole, only really interested in the fullfilment of their own selfish desires and dreams (Most of which were only made possible by those who helped this society get to the stage where it is now and without whom you would not have your precious "rights"). You would be living in a society with expectations and living standards similar to those found in places like Mozambique or Nigeria.

Second things considered "anti social" are only regulated when said "anti social" activities are shown to have direct harm.

And I suppose you feel that the fact that the wishes of the majority are of no consequence? Obviously they see harm in it.

If you want to make marriage and it's intended benefits reserved only for breeding couples then be honest and ban all not breeding couples from marriage. Once you start making exceptions and allowing some non breeding couples to marry you loose the entire argument that marriage is for procreation.

I won't even answer that, as it is petty and frivolous, not worth the time, once again typical of your having not taken into account what has been written on this subject previously. I thought that yo may have enough brain power to realise that because I (or anyone else) only mention only one reason directly associated with a previous question or statement does not limit my answer to only that one reason.

 

[AeolusDallas]

From forum rules:
"6. Please provide sources (links preferred) for things you have posted if requested by other members. Lack of sources may be considered spamming!"
I will not ask again. Failure to supply source for California courts determination that it was sexual discrimination per your post will get you reported to the mediators.



"identical in every way except gender". Suggest you go to the first post in this thread and read all of the posts in this thread to avoid duplication of ideas. Obviously by inserting except in your description they are no longer the same.
Example:
Person A can sign contract with person B. Person C is identical in every way except under 18 but Person A cannot sign an identical contract with Person C. Person C did not meet the criteria to sign a contract. Everything is identical except one thing that makes it illegal for person C to sign contract.



Never said there was anything wrong. I just clarified the fact that PROP 8 passed and as of November 5th, 2008 Marriage in California is between one man and one women.

from here http://"hubpages.com/hub/California-Supreme-Court-overturns-ban-on-gay-marriage-as-gender-discrimination
The Supreme Court's opinion is that the state constitution prohibits discrimination against any person based on their gender. It doesn't attempt to say what marriage is or isn't, it simply said that the state can not deny a person's right to marry based on the gender of either applicant. It doesn't redefine marriage, but says that the attempt to legally redefine marriage by those opposed to gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The interesting thing here is that the court didn't create any new right specific to homosexuals but simply reaffirmed that the state may not make laws which limit access to any institution based on the gender of the person attempting to access it. If the law allows one group of people a certain right, the constitution guarantees that right must be extended to all people.

As to the under 18 argument...Are aware that people under 18 cannot sign legal contracts in the US? Marriage is a legal contract. Luckily every year support for marriage or civil unions grows and Obama will probably get to name 2 new justices to the Supreme court. Hopefully in a few years the whole issue will be revisited. Eventually gay marriage will be legal. maybe in a year maybe 5 maybe 10 but sooner or later it will be legal.

 

[AeolusDallas]

I find your reasoning to be absolutely typical of a newer generation of individuals who are too egotistical and self centred to care about society as a whole, only really interested in the fullfilment of their own selfish desires and dreams (Most of which were only made possible by those who helped this society get to the stage where it is now and without whom you would not have your precious "rights"). You would be living in a society with expectations and living standards similar to those found in places like Mozambique or Nigeria.

And I suppose you feel that the fact that the wishes of the majority are of no consequence? Obviously they see harm in it.

I won't even answer that, as it is not worth the time, once again typical of your self centred attitude.

If we left civil rights up to a majority vote blacks would probably still be slaves. they certainly would not be allowed to eat in restaurants with whites. I can't even imagine how bad it would be for atheists if civil rights were up to majority vote. The US was built on the ideal of the triumph of individual rights. i certainly will not apologise for holding those ideals sacred..

 

[senojekips]

If we left civil rights up to a majority vote blacks would probably still be slaves. they certainly would not be allowed to eat in restaurants with whites. I can't even imagine how bad it would be for atheists if civil rights were up to majority vote. The US was built on the ideal of the triumph of individual rights. i certainly will not apologise for holding those ideals sacred..

If you just stopped to think for a second, you would see that Civil Rights for Blacks were decided by the majority.

If the USA was built on individual rights, you would be still in the stone age, what you state is no more than the wishful thinking of some airhead, similar to those who state such rubbish as "we live in a free society".

Nothing is "free", and individual rights, come right at the bottom of the ladder, if you are not aware of that by now you are living in a dreamworld. Your country (last time i looked) was a representative democracy, meaning that it's laws are shaped by the majority, not individual rights.

Had you have read this subject as you claimed, you would have seen this pointed out earlier.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Chukpike... Never answered me... I guess you missed it? What part of that scenario was missing a few pages back?

 

[The Other Guy]

Like I said it has potential. Now all you have to do is get the concerned parties to agree.
I seriously wish you luck.

If they get their benefits and it's the same for everyone, I don't see any issues.

Getting congress' attention will be the harder part...

 

[Chukpike]

from here http://"hubpages.com/hub/California-Supreme-Court-overturns-ban-on-gay-marriage-as-gender-discrimination
The Supreme Court's opinion is that the state constitution prohibits discrimination against any person based on their gender. It doesn't attempt to say what marriage is or isn't, it simply said that the state can not deny a person's right to marry based on the gender of either applicant. It doesn't redefine marriage, but says that the attempt to legally redefine marriage by those opposed to gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The interesting thing here is that the court didn't create any new right specific to homosexuals but simply reaffirmed that the state may not make laws which limit access to any institution based on the gender of the person attempting to access it. If the law allows one group of people a certain right, the constitution guarantees that right must be extended to all people.

As to the under 18 argument...Are aware that people under 18 cannot sign legal contracts in the US? Marriage is a legal contract. Luckily every year support for marriage or civil unions grows and Obama will probably get to name 2 new justices to the Supreme court. Hopefully in a few years the whole issue will be revisited. Eventually gay marriage will be legal. maybe in a year maybe 5 maybe 10 but sooner or later it will be legal.

WeClick2Travel


From:Northern MichiganScore:76Fans:18Hubs:11Joined:9 months ago
This is the source you offer?
Let me show you how it is done.

This is a link to the official California Records site:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/CACourts/

This is the actual California Supreme Court case file negating Proposition 22 the original voter initiative Baning Gay marriage.

In re MARRIAGE CASES. [Six consolidated appeals.] 1


1 City and County of San Francisco v. State of California (A110449 [Super. Ct. S.F. City & County, No. CGC-04-429539]); Tyler v. State of California (A110450 [Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. BS-088506]); Woo v. Lockyer (A110451 [Super. Ct. S.F. City & County, No. CPF-04-504038]); Clinton v. State of California (A110463 [Super. Ct. S.F. City & County, No. CGC-04-429548]); Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund v. City and County of San Francisco (A110651 [Super. Ct. S.F. City & County, No. CPF-04-503943]); Campaign for California Families v. Newsom (A110652 [Super. Ct. S.F. City & County, No. CGC-04-428794]).
S147999
SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
43 Cal. 4th 757; 183 P.3d 384; 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 683; 2008 Cal. LEXIS 5247

May 15, 2008, Filed


(this section starts about 2/3rds of the way down the page).

Section V.
"Plaintiffs maintain, on three separate grounds, that strict scrutiny is the standard that should be applied in this case, contending the distinctions drawn by the statutes between opposite-sex and same-sex couples (1) discriminate on the basis of sex (that is, gender), (2) discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and (3) impinge upon a fundamental right. We discuss each of these three claims in turn."
Note: Plaintiffs represent those seeking to overturn Prop 22 gay marriage ban.

"Although the governing California cases long have established that statutes that discriminate on the basis of sex or gender are subject to strict scrutiny under the California Constitution (see, e.g., Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 32 Cal.4th 527, 564; Sail'er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, 17–20), we conclude that the challenged statutes cannot properly be viewed as discriminating on the basis of sex or gender for purposes of the California equal protection clause."

It was not discrimination based on gender.

'The issue is one of first impression in California, 61 however, and for the reasons discussed below we conclude that sexual orientation should be viewed as a suspect classification for purposes of the California Constitution's equal protection clause and that statutes that treat persons differently because of their sexual orientation should be subjected to strict scrutiny under this constitutional provision."

It was based on a new interpretation of sexual orientation.

And by the way your source sucks.

 

[Rob Henderson]

........Chukpike?...... Put me on the ignore list?

 

[senojekips]

And by the way your source sucks.

Yeah, they do too,... and that's another thing I don't like about 'em.:wink:

 

[Chukpike]

Okay, so, with that definition in mind, let's lay the scenario out: A man wants to marry another man. These two men are homosexual (this is the group/category into which they fit). The thinking of heterosexuals (we men and women) that homosexuals do not deserve to get married (a right that we see fit to bestow upon heterosexual human beings) is DISCRIMINATION (because it is making a distinction against a person based on the group to which that person belongs). Is that correct, Chukpike? Am I missing anything?

Not correct.

Missing anything? Same thing as the scarecrow in The Wizard of OZ.

........Chukpike?...... Put me on the ignore list?

No, I had answered this. Unless there is another post I missed. I said not correct.