 |
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Could that be because you remained silent when the black robed usurpers ruled in your favor?? Could be. Nevertheless, you always admonish me for arguing the way the law SHOULD be, instead of the way the law IS.
Besides, you're not saying, are you, that our civil rights ought to be left up to the whim of the public and/or the legislature?? I think you ARE saying that, which is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.
excon
Neil Steinberg's column in today's Chicago Sun-Times mentions this: "Despite the changes we've seen, marriage still has worth, and withholding it from gay people based on nothing is mere religious oppression. It's odd -- in some American colonies before the Revolutionary War, clergy were not allowed to perform wedding ceremonies; that was the realm of judges. The colonists, with fresh memories of the monolithic Church of England, did not want to let state religion get its foot in the door. So if you know your history, marriage in the United States is not a religious realm being intruded upon by the government, but a governmental realm that has been shanghaied by religion."
From "some American colonies" to the entire history of marriage in the United States. That's quite the leap.Quote:
"marriage in the United States is not a religious realm being intruded upon by the government, but a governmental realm that has been shanghaied by religion."
Colonies. This was pre-United States.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm quite clear on what "colonies" means. I'm also quite clear that "some colonies" doesn't define the history of "marriage in the United States."
Hello again,
What DOES the history of marriage have to do with it?? Ok, you want history? Here's the only history that's important here. When WE, as a nation, recognize that what we have HISTORICALLY done, was WRONG, we fixed it. THAT is a history to be PROUD of.
But, to continue to do the wrong thing, because we always have, isn't a sentiment I could latch onto.
excon
The Puritans, no less!
From historycooperative.org --
The English Puritans who founded Massachusetts in 1630 formed a society as committed to religion as any in history. But for them, marriage was a civil union, a contract, not a sacred rite. In early Massachusetts, weddings were performed by civil magistrates rather than clergymen. They took place in private homes, not in church buildings. No one wore white or walked down the aisle. Even later, when it became customary for ministers to preside at weddings (still held in private homes), the clergy’s authority was granted by the state, not the church.
Massachusetts’ founders insisted on civil unions, not as a reluctant compromise with the state, but as a direct outgrowth of their religious beliefs. Puritans were dissenters from the Church of England, which like the Catholic Church treated marriage as a sacrament. In England, the king was "defender of the faith," bishops sat in the House of Lords, and the Church of England had legal authority over all religious matters, including marriage. Puritans strongly opposed this system. They wanted to adhere strictly to the Bible in shaping their forms of worship, but as they read it, the New Testament offered no precedent for bishops, ecclesiastical courts, and royal control over religion. What’s more, they held that the Bible sanctioned only baptism and communion as sacraments, since these were the only sacraments that Jesus took part in himself.
Marriage remained important to Puritans (it was often used as a metaphor for the divine love between believers and God), but they wanted to remove it from the realm of sacred authority, leaving only the sacraments under church control. This radical change was impossible to achieve in England, where the unified church and state used its power to persecute dissenters. But when they migrated to Massachusetts, the Puritan founders were free to shape their new society according to their beliefs. As a result, Massachusetts had no bishops, no ecclesiastical courts. The state [civil government] regulated all aspects of the marriage process, from "publishing the banns"–an announcement of the intent to marry that was an early predecessor to the marriage license–to the marriage ceremony, the giving of dowries, property and inheritance rights, and in rare cases, divorce.
Hello again:
Looks like the mean, homophobic, anti-constitutionalists are at it again. Here's the deal. IF the ruling is NOT appealed, it applies only to those states within the Ninth Circuit. If it IS appealed to the Ninth Circuit, no matter what happens there, it WILL be appealed to the Supreme Court, where the ruling will effect the entire country...
So, since they KNOW they'll lose at BOTH venues, they're NOT going to appeal it, simply to punish gays and lesbians living OUTSIDE the Ninth Circuit.
I'm STILL having difficulty with the Constitution loving wingers who constantly want to CHANGE it, even though the think they don't. I don't know what's going on with them.
As an aside, Glenn Beck says, "progressivism is the cancer that is destroying the Constitution". I'm progressive to the extreme. I don't think I want to destroy the Constitution. There isn't a contributor to this board who argues the constitutionality of events MORE than I do.
Do YOU think I want to destroy the Constitution??
excon
Not being Glenn Beck I can't defend what he says nor divine what he means.
The judge said that the appeal needs to be made by the people who lost the case. In this case that would be the state of California.
As I already pointed out. The State of California's AG Brown was neither interested in defending the case ;nor will he likely attempt an appeal. In this case ,he is letting his own opinion dictate his course rather than his oath to serve the people of the state(indeed the judge's ruling is full of his own personal opinions also making it ripe for repeal... if only attempted ).
This was the same thing that happened in the DOMA case. The US justice dept did not want to defend the law.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
That's not exactly right. In fact the State of California REFUSED to defend it, so they didn't. The group who sponsored prop 8 in the first place defended the suit. I can't for the life of me find their name. But, whoever they are, it's up to THEM to appeal - not the state.
In fact, since the ruling, Jerry Brown is urging the appeals court NOT to grant a stay and wants gay couples to be allowed to marry right now.
excon
PS> I'll come up with their name, though. Don't you worry. It's THAT group that has standing to appeal. Nobody else - because it's THEIR suit that the judge ruled against.
I haven't looked much but here are some places worth checking to see who is behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ref: Bill sponsers
Protect Marriage - Yes on 8 » Home Page
Which leads to these people.
Engage
That is only part of the trail.
On a side note. Jerry Brown is an idiot and he was a horrible Governor. A terrible mayor of Oakland. And he was too entrenched with political family and cronies to get any real things done except what he was told to do.
Why where men given penises "ill tell you why " to reproduce with women " its been the answer from the start of time men should not be with men!
Here is something I found interesting. And disturbing at the same time.
Proposition 8 Contributions
The name of the case is Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Clearly it was the duty of the state to defend the constitution of the state. Brown chose not to defend the lawsuit,Schwarzeneggersaid that he supported the lawsuit .None of the state officials named in the suit sought to defend the law in court even though it was their job.
That left a group led Senate leader Dennis Hollingsworth and the Alliance Defense Fund , and a rival group, the Campaign for California Families to act in defense of the law. Except that Judge Walker also denied standing to the Campaign for California Families.
Here we had a law suit against the state ,and no proper government defendant.Even Imperial County ,in an attempt to at least have some government representing the state was denied standing by the judge.
Now the judge ,after giving standing to the Alliance Defense Fund to defend prop 8 is saying he doesn't think they have standing to appeal ? This is a travesty .
So, when are the gays going to support Polygamy, people marrying Children, their Pets, etc. Fair is fair. Can't discriminate against those groups either.
Hello again, smoothy:Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
If you're allowed to smoke cigarettes, why shouldn't you be allowed to burn your neighbors house down? Fair is fair. Can't discriminate against the stuff you burn.
excon
PS> I can match silly, with silly.
Who lives in the neighbors house... ;)
I've actuially had a few neighbors over the years that though has crossed my mind if only for a moment.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:09 AM. |