Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter mommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
The definition of marriage is a standard.
Click to expand...
But it is not universally defined in the various states of America, so there is no standard definition.
 
40.png
Richardols:
But it is not universally defined in the various states of America, so there is no standard definition.
Click to expand...
However regardless of variations as to age, whether you can marry a cousin, etc, marriage has always had the ONE common factor as being between men and women. There have been same sex activities, even in some societies such relationships were not considered perverted, but they have NEVER redefined marriage until now. So we have a bunch of judges who are creating rights out of privileges. I still want to marry my l8 month old nephew…after all we LOVE each other and that’s all that matters right?

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
However regardless of variations as to age, whether you can marry a cousin, etc, marriage has always had the ONE common factor as being between men and women. There have been same sex activities, even in some societies such relationships were not considered perverted, but they have NEVER redefined marriage until now. So we have a bunch of judges who are creating rights out of privileges.
Click to expand...
I agree that marriage never had to be defined before, but it’s always been a natural human right, not a privilege.
I still want to marry my l8 month old nephew…after all we LOVE each other and that’s all that matters right?
Click to expand...
No. There’s a problem of consent in your situation.
 
40.png
Richardols:
I agree that marriage never had to be defined before, but it’s always been a natural human right, not a privilege.

No. There’s a problem of consent in your situation.
Click to expand...
Natural human right? How so? And then if so how could homosexual marriage be a NATURAL right?

As to consent, it is merely our law that children cannot consent. Not natural right is it?

Lisa N
 
The California GOp is a total sham…look at the governor that state has, he claims to be a Republican, yet is strongly pro-choice and is slightly pro-gay. National Republicans praise the guy because he is the “(name removed by moderator).”
 
Lisa N:
Natural human right? How so?
Click to expand...
Historically, the family is recognized as the most natural and fundamental unit of human society and therefore the right of all to marry and found a family has been recognized throughout the centuries by all societies and has also been protected recently in human rights law.

It is not a privilege granted by the civil authority.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
he claims to be a Republican, yet is strongly pro-choice and is slightly pro-gay.
Click to expand...
He is a Republican. The GOP has a broad tent in this regard. It rejects neither pro-choicers nor homosexuals.
 
Official Church Statements About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions:

  1. *]From the President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Support of the Federal Marriage Amendment (July 2004)
    *]From the full U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (November 2003): Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers about Marriage and Same-Sex Unions
    *]From the Administrative Committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (September 2003): Promote, Preserve, Protect Marriage
    *]From the Bishops’ Committee on Marriage and Family and the Committee on Domestic Policy (July 1996): Statement on Same-Sex Marriage
    *]From the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (July 2003): Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons
    *]From the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family (July 2000): Family, Marriage and “De Facto” Unions

    Additional Resources and Links:

    1. *]The Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts are leading a campaign in favor of an amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Various statements and background documents are available through the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.
      *]The Marriage Law Project at the Catholic University of America (Washington DC) monitors the progress of state and federal legislation regarding marriage and same-sex unions. It provides updates and other resources.
      *]The Catholic Organization for Life and Family (COLF), working with the Canadian Catholic Bishops, has published a very helpful question/answer leaflet about same-sex marriage entitled Marriage Matters.
 
40.png
Richardols:
He isn’t a high-ranking judge. Also, he was indeed interpreting. Interpreting wrongly IMO, but interpreting nonetheless.
Click to expand...
High enough ranking to make a decision that, at least temporarily, effects millions. As you point out below, marriage is not mentioned in the constitution. Nor or the rights of marriage. Therefore, he is not interpreting the constitution but rather reading what he wants into the consitution.
40.png
Richardols:
Actually, nowhere in the Constitution is marriage even mentioned.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why judges have no business even hearing these cases.
 
40.png
Richardols:
But it is not universally defined in the various states of America, so there is no standard definition.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you know how to use a dictionary. Look it up.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Marriage itself, however, is considered a basic human right.
Click to expand...
More a priviledge than a right.
40.png
Richardols:
Limits set by a religion are only enforceable in that religion. The state, for example, doesn’t have to consider marriage indissolvable just because Catholics believe that it is.
Click to expand...
While this may be true, the fact is that the state has a law against the modification of the marriage definition of one man and one woman. It is a judge or judges that are trying to change the law. Further, the state, to continue to exist, must not make laws that run contrary to the laws of God, as they will be self-defeating.
 
40.png
Brad:
More a priviledge than a right.
Click to expand...
Not historically. All societies have recognized marriage as a right of their members, not as something that had to be granted by the tribe or whatever.
the modification of the marriage definition of one man and one woman.
Click to expand...
Herein lies the debate, would you not agree? Between those who believe that marriage is defined to be wholly heterosexual and those who would extend the definition to include homosexuals.
 
40.png
Brad:
Which is why judges have no business even hearing these cases.
Click to expand...
There is great deal that is not mentioned in the Constitution, but which courts, both conservative and liberal, have chosen to rule on.
 
40.png
Richardols:
If the meaning is open, some might argue that it doesn’t exclude homosexuals.

Also, court decisions do not have to define every term they employ. Some terms might be presumed to be common knowledge.
Click to expand...
Someone could argue this but it would be a ludicrous argument. Like Gilliam said, if they are going to label something a “basic civil right”, they must have some definition that is known plainly or definitively - at that time it was without question one man and one woman. I could argue that they really meant marriage included automatic land ownership granted by the state, but that argument has no basis in reality of the time.
 
40.png
mommy:
It seems to be common in California for the judges to overrule what the voters want. It’s pretty sad.
Click to expand...
Not just California. It’s everywhere. And it needs to be stopped.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Historically, the family is recognized as the most natural and fundamental unit of human society and therefore the right of all to marry and found a family has been recognized throughout the centuries by all societies and has also been protected recently in human rights law.

It is not a privilege granted by the civil authority.
Click to expand...
You continue to contradict yourself. If marriage is a natural right by virtue of using this institution to ‘found a family’ then once more HOW does this translate into being able to use marriage to describe a relationship that is by definition UNABLE to create a family?

Further in EVERY society, regardless of the structure of marriage, whether single, plural, religious or secular, it has ALWAYS been male/female. There are other relationships between men and men or women and women. Even if they ‘love each other’ it is still not a natural union that would be condisive to founding a family. Such relationships were a peculiar form of friendship but again NEVER considered marriage.

Lisa N
 
40.png
mjdonnelly:
There are alot of laws from the old testament we do not obey anymore. If you remember, Jesus kind of overturned alot of them.
Click to expand...
Jesus came not to abolish the law but to fufill it. Specificially regarding marriage, he lifted it up to it’s original level under Adam and Eve, reinstating permanence and one woman for one man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top