Pray for California

[_Abyssinia]

Supreme Court delays decision on taking up gay marriage cases

 

[Stephen168]

Whatever. I don’t know why you think “What is your definition of marriage” is such a checkmate move.

When the game is to show that the Ancient and Catholic definition of marriage is more rational than the homosexualist, it is a checkmate move. For most of them wanting to call same sex unions marriage is basically a tantrum. They want what they want and have never thought about it. The few that have given some thought and actually give a definition, are should how irrational there definition is.

It’s an easy question to answer. And I answered it. And you don’t really have a response except to pretend that I didn’t.

Yes, it is easy for people who have thought about it; for most it is just a tantrum. Yours is closer to a tantrum…Because you reference the “State” which is regulated in so many different ways around the world to be meaning less. You just want what you want and you can’t define what it is.

 

[Giants]

When the game is to show that the Ancient and Catholic definition of marriage is more rational than the homosexualist, it is a checkmate move. For most of them wanting to call same sex unions marriage is basically a tantrum. They want what they want and have never thought about it. The few that have given some thought and actually give a definition, are should how irrational there definition is.

Yes, it is easy for people who have thought about it; for most it is just a tantrum. Yours is closer to a tantrum…Because you reference the “State” which is regulated in so many different ways around the world to be meaning less. You just want what you want and you can’t define what it is.

Silly nonsense. You say the State has so many definitions, but you treat the ‘Ancient’ definition, first like it was identical to the later Catholic definition, and second, like it was uniform everywhere. Ridiculous, on its face.

The U.S. Federal Government’s definition of marriage is X. My definition of marriage is also X, but it also includes gay couples. I join the gay rights movement in petitioning the U.S. government to expand its definition to include gay couples. There’s nothing irrational about this.

 

[Stephen168]

When the game is to show that the Ancient and Catholic definition of marriage is more rational than the homosexualist, it is a checkmate move. For most of them wanting to call same sex unions marriage is basically a tantrum. They want what they want and have never thought about it. The few that have given some thought and actually give a definition, are should how irrational there definition is.

Yes, it is easy for people who have thought about it; for most it is just a tantrum. Yours is closer to a tantrum…Because you reference the “State” which is** regulated** in so many different ways around the world to be meaning less. You just want what you want and you can’t define what it is.

Silly nonsense. You say the State has so many** definitions**, but you treat the ‘Ancient’ definition, first like it was identical to the later Catholic definition, and second, like it was uniform everywhere. Ridiculous, on its face.

The U.S. Federal Government’s definition of marriage is X. My definition of marriage is also X, but it also includes gay couples. I join the gay rights movement in petitioning the U.S. government to expand its definition to include gay couples. There’s nothing irrational about this.

Now all you have to do is define X and compare the definitions of regulate and define.

You claim defining marriage is easy but you don’t seem to be able to do it.

 

[Faithdancer]

How about this: marriage is the state in which two people, of an age to make mature decisions and not directly biologically connected, are in when they each make a committment to each other to spend the rest of their lives together in an intimate relationship.

Personally I don’t believe that the state needs to be involved, although I can appreciate the argument that says that some sort of legal recognition might be required.

So that would preclude incestual relationships and those involving young children but would allow people of the same sex and those who don’t want, or can’t have children. It would also preclude multiple partners, but for the life of me I can’t think of a valid reason against it.

Once the Pandora’s box is opened…Why indeed does it have to be two people? How is that fair to trios, quartets and larger groups who want to make a commitment to each other to spend the rest of their lives together in an intimate relationship? And what is “of an age to make mature decisions?” Some people are "making mature decisions in their teens. Others are not making mature decisions in their 30s and beyond. If marriage is not to be gender restricted, how is it fair that it should be restricted by number or by chronological age?

 

[Faithdancer]

You are wrong on both counts. It is homosexualists that rely on the state for a definition because they don’t have their own. They just want what they want without reason.

The homosexualists cannot define the number of parties in a “marriage” as only two, without revealing gross hypocrisy. And that is just the tip of the iceberg, as far as increasingly bizarre definitions of “marriage…” not that same sex “marriage” isn’t already bizarre enough.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think that the same sex definition of marriage must reside principally in a piece of paper that says the “marriage” exists.

 

[Faithdancer]

Apparently the Supreme Court has deferred announcing its decisions on which cases to take up until next week. Most expert analysts predict that the court will not take up Proposition 8, which means the decision of the lower court to overrule the vote of the people of California will stand, and same sex “marriages” will resume within the month. The homosexuals will have their piece of paper saying they are “married,” but said “marriage” will be artificial and an imitation, at best.

 

[Bradski]

Once the Pandora’s box is opened…Why indeed does it have to be two people?

As I said, I’m not sure I can think of a valid reason why it shouldn’t be more than two people. I restricted it to two only because I don’t think that the state would entertain it. Too many legal implications.

And what is “of an age to make mature decisions?”

How does 14 sound?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Barring any further delays, the US Supreme Court is expected to announce on December 3rd whether or not it will take up the matter of the 9th Circuit Court’s upholding of a District Court overturn of Proposition 8, the California measure, passed in 2008, which would amend the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, only. If the court refuses the case, same sex “marriage” will quickly resume in California, perhaps within days. This is landmark because if the court does take up the case, analysts think it will overrule the Circuit and District Courts’ decisions, since to affirm the decision could in effect make same sex marriage the law of the land. Even the most liberal court members may not be willing to deal with the fallout from such a decision- not just yet, anyway. Justice Kennedy may be the swing vote, as he often is.

Prop 8 and its identical predecessor have been passed twice.by the people of California, only to have it blocked by the courts. In the case of Prop. 8 the initial adverse ruling on this proposed amendment was made in the District Court by an openly homosexual judge who should have recused himself. The higher, Circuit Court upheld his decision not to recuse himself.

The impedance of this amendment, passed by the will of the people, is a gross miscarriage of justice and a deliberate thwarting of a popular vote. Please join your prayers to mine that the US Supreme Court does the right thing, takes up the case and overturns the lower court’s decision.

Probably a 5-4 decision, but no surprise if its 6-3 or 7-2.

Seriously, though, the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court has no business whatsoever in this matter and it is a violation of the Constitution and state’s rights.

 

[Giants]

SCOTUS agrees to hear the case. Which means about 6 more months until we have a verdict.

 

[Bradski]

The homosexuals will have their piece of paper saying they are “married,” but said “marriage” will be artificial and an imitation, at best.

And the problem with that is…? No-one is really going to mind if you don’t accept it as valid. You can still look upon it as immoral and try to get the rest of the Catholics to accept your views.

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m surprised that SCOTUS took up the Prop. 8 case. They are either willing to take the heat of making same sex “marriage” the law of the land, or contrariwise, or limiting it to California. The latter possibility seems least likely because just letting the writ lie would have accomplished that.

I will pray for a conversion experience for Justice Kennedy, in any case.

 

[Faithdancer]

And the problem with that is…? No-one is really going to mind if you don’t accept it as valid. You can still look upon it as immoral and try to get the rest of the Catholics to accept your views.

I’m quite content that God accepts my views…from whom my views emanate.

 

[Bradski]

I’m quite content that God accepts my views…from whom my views emanate.

I am likewise content with that view.

 

[epan]

Once the Pandora’s box is opened…Why indeed does it have to be two people? How is that fair to trios, quartets …

Well, I might be in favor of a “barbers’ quartet”, as neighbors, as long as they didn’t squabble. What would an argument sound like?