California Legalizes Same Sex Marriages

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From a legal standpoint, I do not see the point. From a religious standpoint, I do not like it one little bit. From a PR standpoint, it was a good move for them. It would not play as well in Alabama.

I keep wondering what will happen when a homosexual couple wants to get married in a church in one of these states and is denied. Will they frame it as a political move and say that by denying them theya re promoting a political agenda and need their tax exempt status removed?
 
Again, a small coterie of secular humanists (the California Supreme Court) is able to overturn the democratic process and reverse the will of the people.
 
Steadfast said:
Again, a small coterie of secular humanists (the California Supreme Court) is able to overturn the democratic process and reverse the will of the people.
Click to expand...
And the worse part is that they acn and will keep doing it. Even if it is written into state law, they can say that it is against the US Constitution, or, like with some more recent rulings, other nations :mad:
 
We need to decide whether we are a democracy or not.

I can see the danger of legislating the supremacy of plebiscite; i.e. saying that once a proposition makes it to the ballot, the decision forthcoming cannot be overturned.

But the danger of making the conclusions of every election day subject to approval by a court system made up (largely) of men and women who have a very different apprehension of justice and law than the vox populi seems much more dangerous, and unjust and, frankly, insufferably condescending.
 
Steadfast said:
We need to decide whether we are a democracy or not.

I can see the danger of legislating the supremacy of plebiscite; i.e. saying that once a proposition makes it to the ballot, the decision forthcoming cannot be overturned.

But the danger of making the conclusions of every election day subject to approval by a court system made up (largely) of men and women who have a very different apprehension of justice and law than the vox populi seems much more dangerous, and unjust and, frankly, insufferably condescending.
Click to expand...
I have heard all kinds of ways to fix the issues, from electing judges to review panels. I am really not sure what to do.

I think one way to start is to get rid of the appointment for life issue. I know that the Pope is that way, but we beleive the Holy Spirit guides him. Who guides the courts? Besides, show me a pope with a worse track record that the California courts.
 
ralphinal said:
Besides, show me a pope with a worse track record that the California courts.
Click to expand...
Not that I agree with the California courts… but there have been popes with worse track records: Pius II for one. And didn’t Stephen VI dig up the deceased Pope Formosus and put him on trial?

Formosus must have been one bad little boy.
 
O.S.Luke said:
Not that I agree with the California courts… but there have been popes with worse track records: Pius II for one. And didn’t Stephen VI dig up the deceased Pope Formosus and put him on trial?

Formosus must have been one bad little boy.
Click to expand...
You know, after I posted it, I thought it would cause trouble. I’d still rather deal with the bad popes: you see the knife coming.

How about recent popes? Can we agree with that?
 
You know its very sick…Its a shame how the world sees the constitution as being above God…The same happened here last year in South Africa, after all the demostrations from various faiths, civil society and interviews from the public rejected the law…I think the governments are really ruining democracy and wasting people’s time.
 
I’ve got a slightly different take on this. Fisrt, this is and should be a state level issue. Marriage has alwys mostly been a state issue, adn will remain so. Some states will do as CA and MA have done, most wont.

second, this is a plural country. Not everyone here is a Christain, and among christians there is disagreemtn on these matters. non christians, gays, moslems, etc, they pay taxes too, and shouldn’t have OUR morality forced down their throats. And I’m not talking about morality regarding murder and stealing, in which secualr and religious sectors agree for the most part.

What the gays appear to want is equal status regarding health and other benefits for partners, and I don’t see a problme with that at all. It doesn’t mean the Church will, or must, recognize these as “marriages.” after all the Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce. There is a line of separation between church and state, and I’m OK with that. it is a shame of course that the entire nation can’t agree on the sanctity of marriage, but that is how it is, and we just have to live with it.
 
J_C said:
I’ve got a slightly different take on this. Fisrt, this is and should be a state level issue. Marriage has alwys mostly been a state issue, adn will remain so. Some states will do as CA and MA have done, most wont.

second, this is a plural country. Not everyone here is a Christain, and among christians there is disagreemtn on these matters. non christians, gays, moslems, etc, they pay taxes too, and shouldn’t have OUR morality forced down their throats. And I’m not talking about morality regarding murder and stealing, in which secualr and religious sectors agree for the most part.

What the gays appear to want is equal status regarding health and other benefits for partners, and I don’t see a problme with that at all. It doesn’t mean the Church will, or must, recognize these as “marriages.” after all the Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce. There is a line of separation between church and state, and I’m OK with that. it is a shame of course that the entire nation can’t agree on the sanctity of marriage, but that is how it is, and we just have to live with it.
Click to expand...
I agree up to a point. Why does the state recognize marriage? Why are there marriage liscenses? To protect women and children, who historically had no voice. It was a way to insure that they would have inheritance or support, especially if the man left the family.

Now, I do not think that anyone’s morality should be forced upon people. I think the state is oversteping its bounds here. If a company wants to extend benefits, fine. If a state wants to allow for the equivalent of Common Law to homosexual couples, so be it. But once it is marriage that is a problem and here is why: what is recognized in one state has to be allowed in another if the person moves. A driver from New Mexico can legally drive in Alabama. A person legally married in California is legally married in all 50 states. Suddenly, it is no longer something a state can determine.

I see another problem, one that is fast approaching. At some point, someone will accuse the Catholic Church, and other denominations, of hate crimes for prohibiting the homosexual marriage. There is a UN Court that can hear the case, removing the US. Talk of it is already occuring. Then what? Sooner or later, someone will challenge our status as a tax-exepmt entity because of a “political” position. I would not be surprised if a state or court doesn’t tie the two together in the next 20 years.
 
J_C said:
I’ve got a slightly different take on this. Fisrt, this is and should be a state level issue. Marriage has alwys mostly been a state issue, adn will remain so. Some states will do as CA and MA have done, most wont.

second, this is a plural country. Not everyone here is a Christain, and among christians there is disagreemtn on these matters. non christians, gays, moslems, etc, they pay taxes too, and shouldn’t have OUR morality forced down their throats. And I’m not talking about morality regarding murder and stealing, in which secualr and religious sectors agree for the most part.

What the gays appear to want is equal status regarding health and other benefits for partners, and I don’t see a problme with that at all. It doesn’t mean the Church will, or must, recognize these as “marriages.” after all the Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce. There is a line of separation between church and state, and I’m OK with that. it is a shame of course that the entire nation can’t agree on the sanctity of marriage, but that is how it is, and we just have to live with it.
Click to expand...
Suppose they wanted to adopt children, do you think they should?

zerinus
 
What is the state’s interest in regulating (legally protecting or enforcing) the relationship between two men or two women?
 
It is all a very sad sign of the times. My heart is heavy. 😦

Let us pray.
 
Pug said:
What is the state’s interest in regulating (legally protecting or enforcing) the relationship between two men or two women?
Click to expand...
That is my question. There are typically not any children and under current laws, both parties have the rights to work and to own property.
 
zerinus said:
Suppose they wanted to adopt children, do you think they should?

zerinus
Click to expand...
perspnaaly, no. but the various jurisdictions already allow adoptions to non-standard families, indlucing gay partners, as well as single adults, and Lord knows what else.

apparenlty there just aren’t enough of us Christians left who are willing to mold society in our image. the will of the majority will generally prevail, even if it is the result of apathy.
 
ralphinal said:
Why does the state recognize marriage? Why are there marriage liscenses? To protect women and children, who historically had no voice. It was a way to insure that they would have inheritance or support, especially if the man left the family.
Click to expand...
the social cultural norms have been changing, especially in the late 20th century in America. surprisingly few heteros even bother to get married anymore. That is why it seems odd that gays are so pressing for marriage. on one level I think this is nothing more than money for divorce lawyers. They’ll get married, and tehy’ll get divorced, for sure.

in the long run, we must face that we’re in the post Christian era in teh West. the times when Christian norms were superimposed upon the secular world are passing away, in most places are already gone. marriage is just another brick in teh wall.
 
J_C said:
the social cultural norms have been changing, especially in the late 20th century in America. surprisingly few heteros even bother to get married anymore. That is why it seems odd that gays are so pressing for marriage. on one level I think this is nothing more than money for divorce lawyers. They’ll get married, and tehy’ll get divorced, for sure.

in the long run, we must face that we’re in the post Christian era in teh West. the times when Christian norms were superimposed upon the secular world are passing away, in most places are already gone. marriage is just another brick in teh wall.
Click to expand...
The first point, i agree with 100%. The second, I partially do. I do not think that it is too late.
 
If people agree that in the long run it is money for the divorce lawyers, then also in the long run it is money that you and I will pay out to run the courts to deal with the divorces and the clerks for the licenses. I don’t mind paying out if it is in the state’s interest to do so, but I’m not sure that it is. Is there a cost of this nature that will be paid, anyway? I mean two things by that. Do the courts cost money, or is that an assumption? Will gay couples cause social money costs when the break up, regardless of the legal protection they have/don’t have?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top