Check out some similar questions!

George_1950 · May 15, 2008, 07:14 PM

Not if you are 'liberal' and worship at the altar of a 'supreme' court: "In its 4-3 ruling, the Republican-dominated high court struck down state laws against same-sex marriage and said domestic partnerships that provide many of the rights and benefits of matrimony are not enough." My Way News - California's top court legalizes gay marriage

More liberal, judge-created law. Whew

excon · May 16, 2008, 05:40 AM

Hello George:

Here's what you bigots on the right don't get. The court, of course, didn't create NEW law. It just legitimized the law that was already there.

What law is that you ask, with a right wing perplexed look upon your face??

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, I reply... That's the one that gives everybody EQUAL rights... To me, and to the supreme court, THAT means if YOU have the right to marry whom you choose to marry, so does everybody else.

OR, they could have just eliminated all the legal protections a married person has. That would do the same thing.

I truly don't understand why this is so difficult for you rightwingers. I mean you do believe in freedom, no??

excon

tomder55 · May 16, 2008, 06:11 AM

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
George Washington's Farewell Address.

I have said this before... because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause this is not a State issue any longer. The definition of marriage ultimately has to be decided at the Federal Level... and indeed it is the DEFINITION of marriage that is at issues here ;nothing at all related to the 14th Amendment . In my view CUs cover all the 14th Amendment issues because legally there is no difference .

The case in question was not argued on 14th Amendment grounds it overturned a law that was approved by the people of California (one of the most liberal states ) by over 60%. Once they amend their constitution then the case will also proceed to the Federal level where I think this issue will ultimately be decided.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said that the court overstepped its authority and that changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters.

BINGO

speechlesstx · May 16, 2008, 01:43 PM

The fourteenth amendment is about "equal application" of the laws, not "equality." Texas law allows marriage only between "a man and a woman" and it applies to everyone equally. No?

inthebox · May 16, 2008, 06:10 PM

What I don't understand is that the same people who scream "separation of church and state" want the state [judges] to rule on a religious institution.

If Chuck and Larry want to declare their love for each other in some ceremony, and have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples do it via a legal law. Call it garriage or civil unions for all I care. I'm all for that.

If gay couples want to be recognized, heck yeah, but the state interfering with a religious institution is a whole different matter.

George_1950 · May 22, 2008, 03:50 PM

Whoops! Here's another: Court: Gays cannot be automatically discharged - Navy News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Navy Times
Who said 'majority rules'?

michealb · May 22, 2008, 04:55 PM

The problem is that marriage is now a government function. The government should get out of marriage. Then this whole issue goes away.

Fr_Chuck · May 22, 2008, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by inthebox

What I don't understand is that the same people who scream "separation of church and state" want the state [judges] to rule on a religious institution.

If Chuck and Larry want to declare their love for each other in some ceremony, and have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples do it via a legal law. Call it garriage or civil unions for all I care. I'm all for that.

If gay couples want to be recognized, heck yeah, but the state interfering with a religious institution is a whole different matter.

I will let you know I don't care for Larry in "that way"

The real issue marriage is not and has never been a federal issue. Marriage is a states right issue ( and I would even say that it should not even be that) But each state has the right to decide who can marry, they already differ by age, by being underage and pregnant and more, so there is no equal and same in any marriage law, except that the state has the rights to set them.
The same is with any law, different years punishment for same crimes and more.

But I would go further that even the states do not have a right to regulate the lawful status of a relationship. This has always been regulated though religion or customs of the local people.

tomder55 · May 23, 2008, 05:48 AM

But Fr. As I mentioned it is indeed a Federal issue because of the 'Full Faith and Credit' Clause in the Constitution.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Art.4 Sec.1

Also are you saying that the raid on the cult in Texas was unfounded ? If a state can't regulate the status of relationships then you are opening up a whole new pandora's box.

tomder55 · May 29, 2008, 11:08 AM

To illustrate the above see how NY State is responding to the prospect of NY residents getting married in California.
Governor: N.Y. to recognize out-of-state gay marriage | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

This issue has to be ultimately resolved on a national level . A State by State approach is a failure and plays into the hands of those who would redefine marriage .

excon · May 29, 2008, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

resolved on a national level . A State by State approach is a failure and plays into the hands of those who would redefine marriage .

Hello tom:

In order to redefine something, it has to be defined first. I'll bet your state law isn't.

George, in his original post said he had a problem with them overturning a law that gave gay people almost the same rights as those who are not.

Maybe if the laws granted the same rights they wouldn't care what you call it. But it didn't, and you're fine with keeping some rights to yourself...

That's not very American of you. I thought everybody should have the same rights... I know, you guys just can't subscribe to equality, can you?

Oh well, if you did, I wouldn't have a job.

excon

squeaks77 · May 29, 2008, 12:46 PM

Keeping it simple:
A couple must get a marriage certificate from their STATE, and they do not have to have it "approved" by any kind of religion.
SO.. . Marriage shouldn't be a religious issue at all, UNLESS the couple want it to be.

If people have to prove anything, it should be love. Why can't a gay couple, deeply in love and extremely committed, get married but any two idiots with interlocking parts who want better benefits or a green card can get married?

tomder55 · May 29, 2008, 01:33 PM

Because marriage is defined between man and women .That goes back longer than you and I and our country. I have no problem with the legal issues being equal .My state ;one of the bluest of blue does have a definition of marriage that the State's highest court upheld as Constitutional .

Same-Sex Marriage Ruled Out in New York, Georgia - washingtonpost.com

That doesn't stop this poser of a Governor to run roughshod over the will of the people . And as I pointed out ;the only legitimate claim he has is the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause ' to back up his decision.

squeaks77 · May 29, 2008, 03:16 PM

Tomder55 said:
"because marriage is defined between man and women .That goes back longer than you and I and our country."
Soooo.. . By that logic all women should be subservient to men because "thats the way it used to be"??
The world changes and those who cannot or will not accept change, will not survive.

tomder55 · May 29, 2008, 04:21 PM

Tell me where the dismantling of the traditional marriage has been a positive change ? But that is not really the point . The issue here is the will of the people . If your view of evolution is correct then it would not need courts to usurp the will of the people. If the people of California and NY voted for a legal redefinition of marriage I would at least think the law had a basis of legitimacy because it wasn't imposed on us by black robed appointed for life oligarchs.

excon · May 30, 2008, 10:41 AM

Hello again, tom:

You fellows keep on using terms line "redefine", and dismantle... However, you haven't ever told me ONE thing that expanding the word "marriage" to include gays, takes anything from you, diminishes anything, or damages you in any way shape or form.

You just don't like sinners getting the same rights as you. If you would admit that, I'd have a lot more respect for you.

excon

tomder55 · May 30, 2008, 10:59 AM

again I will repeat my position... It is about the right of the people to make social value judgments, and the right of judgments to be made by the representatives of the people rather than by unaccountable judges appointed by the Government.They have chosen to make change without social consensus.

my definition :
The traditional definition of marriage is the union of man and women. Historically society determined it was in it's best interests to promote marriage as a stable way to procreate and raise children.It has been the foundation of every civilization in human history.

excon · May 30, 2008, 11:20 AM

Hello again, tom:

And when the social decisions you or your representatives make, conflict with the Constitution, it IS up to the judiciary to fix it. That's what they did. Good for 'em.

excon

tomder55 · May 30, 2008, 11:25 AM

There is no conflict with the Constitution . I reject the idea that CUs are violations of the 14th amendment .You are only reinforcing the argument made by those who propose a Marriage amendment as the remedy to this usurpation of the will of the people . Me I don't think it's necessary because CUs are equitable in everything legal.

squeaks77 · May 30, 2008, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by tomder55

tell me where the dismantling of the traditional marriage has been a positive change ?

Not all change is positive in ONE person's point of view. Can you say that you truly think any group will be able to keep marriage to only hetero couples? The world becomes more open minded every day. And to address your issue with a judge issuing a decree that does not represent the peoples wishes.. . Do you know the percentage of liberal, gay, hippy lifestyle people who just want equality and happiness for all in California? Even if the Governator is a republican, I bet that percentage is pretty darned high.