Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[Good_News_1]

I guess what it comes down to for me is as follows: I’m fighting because I think everyone deserves a fair shake to try to be happy.

Yeah, and everyone who disagrees with you is a hater.

Why are you fighting so hard to keep these people from the same?

I thought it was all about the federal benes? Most of us won’t keep them from the benes.

Here is the reason, as I see it:

Marriage is foundational to traditional society - the nuclear family. It is a structure to hold cultural values such as chastity and two parent child rearing. Some of us consider that to be essential for a thriving civilization. And we don’t just get that from the bible - liberals are concerned about illegitimacy, single parent households, the increasing impersonal, impermament nature of our society.

However, over the course of a generation, the legal structures of marrige have been dismantled, in the name of some causes that have merit. This includes the institution of no fault divorce, and the imposition of traditional marital principles (such as property division) on nonmarital relationships.

We don’t dispute that this has occured. All this decision does is note that marriage has been drained of its traditional moorings over a single generation. So, because the institution has been largely legally gutted, it is meaningless. There isn’t any reason not to let everyone participate.

To which traditionalists like myself say: you are looking at one generation of rapid change, and the results are decidedly mixed. A sane, rational approach is to figure out where marriage stands in the long run, not just continue to gut it because that’s the way the momentum is running at the moment.

Under the court’s decision, marriage isn’t a serious institution. It really can’t be taken seriously as a right. It is a joke. Now, maybe that’s the way that our society will want it, in the end. But why make it into a joke, on the one hand, and pretend it is an important right, on the other.

And the obvious answer, to me, is hatred, from the judge, of the nuclear family.

And that’s why we fight. Because of his hate, and how it will continue to make people suffer.

I can’t make it any clearer than that.

 

[ThomasToo]

I’m not fighting- I would not vote for or against gay marriage. I’d stay home and hear about the results the next day.

As much as it pains me to say it presuming we are ideological opposites, I would encourage you to vote if legally able to do so.

There are several criteria that a unit must meet to be considered a marriage- one is being singled out as discriminatory. For that to hold water, it must be substantially different than all the others- and your personal morality can not be that factor. If you’re happy with polygamy, marriages involving more than two people, or anything else is not sufficiently differentiated then you must (logically) support that with equal vigor.

On polygamy- do we restrict other ‘basic human rights’ because they harm society? A cartoonist who draws a derogatory image of Muhammed is within his right to free expression, but certainly harms society. A brother sister couple is within their supposed right to marry, but certainly harm society. A homeless man is certainly within his rights to beg outside a restaurant, but certainly harms society.

I’ve granted the point about polygamy in principle but there are plenty of things that I am for (the legalization of marijuana–NB never touched the stuff–for example) that I don’t support with all my vigor. We all have to pick our fights and do the best we can with what time we have. Of course we don’t restrict basic human rights because of possible harms as I’ve said elsewhere here tonight, fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Your idea that only certain groups can truly consent to marriage (adult humans) is no less narrow minded than the proclamation that gay love is not ‘real.’

Not hardly. If you can show that psychologically and legally a non-human animal (a) understands and (b) consents to marriage then I’d happily lower my objection. This, however, cannot happen since they lack the inherent ability to understand–let alone enter into–a marriage. Both of these question have rational, scientific means by which we can investigate them so neither is proclamation by fiat…

 

[ThomasToo]

Yeah, and everyone who disagrees with you is a hater.

Not at all and you know that but sometimes it’s hard for me to remember that when–for example–a man dies unable to see his partner of forty years because it’s family only in his room and his lover doesn’t count as family.

I thought it was all about the federal benes? Most of us won’t keep them from the benes.

How? I’m not arguing (here) but I don’t get how all the legal protections of marriage can be conferred without giving the word too.

Here is the reason, as I see it:

Marriage is foundational to traditional society - the nuclear family. It is a structure to hold cultural values such as chastity and two parent child rearing. Some of us consider that to be essential for a thriving civilization. And we don’t just get that from the bible - liberals are concerned about illegitimacy, single parent households, the increasing impersonal, impermament nature of our society.

However, over the course of a generation, the legal structures of marrige have been dismantled, in the name of some causes that have merit. This includes the institution of no fault divorce, and the imposition of traditional marital principles (such as property division) on nonmarital relationships.

We don’t dispute that this has occured. All this decision does is note that marriage has been drained of its traditional moorings over a single generation. So, because the institution has been largely legally gutted, it is meaningless. There isn’t any reason not to let everyone participate.

To which traditionalists like myself say: you are looking at one generation of rapid change, and the results are decidedly mixed. A sane, rational approach is to figure out where marriage stands in the long run, not just continue to gut it because that’s the way the momentum is running at the moment.

I can almost follow your reasoning to here though I–obviously–disagree.

Under the court’s decision, marriage isn’t a serious institution. It really can’t be taken seriously as a right. It is a joke. Now, maybe that’s the way that our society will want it, in the end. But why make it into a joke, on the one hand, and pretend it is an important right, on the other.

And the obvious answer, to me, is hatred, from the judge, of the nuclear family.

Here’s where you lose me. It’s a joke because two people who want to get married can and happen to both have penises? And hatred of the nuclear family? There you really lost me. I can understand concern and patience but to jump from there to ‘marriage is a joke and the judge hates families’ seems a bit extreme. I suppose part of that is that I can read approval of marriages of gay persons in principle in to your thought process above but a note of caution to wait a bit and see but this last bit take it too far for me to follow.

And that’s why we fight. Because of his hate, and how it will continue to make people suffer. I can’t make it any clearer than that.

I think it’s funny (in the sense of strange) that we think the same way on this part. We both do what we do and believe what we believe because of what we see–rightly or wrongly–as hatred from the other side and because of perceived–again, right or wrong–suffering the other side’s attempted course will cause.

This isn’t a sappy ‘oh look we’re just the same’ moment but it’s nice in that your argument here reminded me that we’re both after the good as we see it despite (radically) differing notions of what that is and what it means/requires of us. Thank you for that–truly.

 

[ConcernedApathy]

Statistically speaking homosexuals whether “married” in a civil relationship or just dating have a kind of hippie free love understanding usually. f(you can do what ever you want sexually just don’t get emotionally attached to someone else) Traditionally married people don’t and therefore more divorce. (if you want stats you’ll have to look them up yourself-you won’t find any on pro-homosexual pages you’ll have to go to NARTH etc. to get the FACTS)

DoT

NARTH is exactly the place where you would pick up a sweeping generalization of an idea that homosexuals have a “hippie free love understanding” .

Anyone looking to NARTH to find facts will be sorely disappointed.

 

[tjm190]

As much as it pains me to say it presuming we are ideological opposites, I would encourage you to vote if legally able to do so.

I vote, but I meant if America just decided to put gay marriage to vote, yes or no, my views on the matter have no strength in either direction- hence, I’d stay home.

I’ve granted the point about polygamy in principle but there are plenty of things that I am for (the legalization of marijuana–NB never touched the stuff–for example) that I don’t support with all my vigor. We all have to pick our fights and do the best we can with what time we have. Of course we don’t restrict basic human rights because of possible harms as I’ve said elsewhere here tonight, fiat justitia ruat caelum.

So then, you are on board for sister-brother marriage as well? Regardless of course of society’s consequences.

Not hardly. If you can show that psychologically and legally a non-human animal (a) understands and (b) consents to marriage then I’d happily lower my objection. This, however, cannot happen since they lack the inherent ability to understand–let alone enter into–a marriage. Both of these question have rational, scientific means by which we can investigate them so neither is proclamation by fiat…

While I might argue the need for consent, rather than the lack of objection, is an arbitrary moral standard if backed into a corner, the views you’ve expressed are far more self-consistent than most who support gay marriage (oh but polygamy is different, how can you compare the two groups, nobody wants to marry their brother), so I’ll happily leave you to argue with those who actually oppose gay marriage. Enjoy!

 

[ThomasToo]

I vote, but I meant if America just decided to put gay marriage to vote, yes or no, my views on the matter have no strength in either direction- hence, I’d stay home.

Got it. I’m (mostly) glad to hear you vote (mostly).

So then, you are on board for sister-brother marriage as well? Regardless of course of society’s consequences.

Justice is justice, consequences (and me according to some around here) be damned.

While I might argue the need for consent, rather than the lack of objection, is an arbitrary moral standard if backed into a corner, the views you’ve expressed are far more self-consistent than most who support gay marriage (oh but polygamy is different, how can you compare the two groups, nobody wants to marry their brother), so I’ll happily leave you to argue with those who actually oppose gay marriage. Enjoy!

Thanks (I think)! I realized very shortly after thinking about my thoughts on gay people marrying that the principle has a whole lot more reach than that. Have a good night.

 

[Good_News_1]

Here’s where you lose me. It’s a joke because two people who want to get married can and happen to both have penises?

No, it’s a joke because it has no purpose. Marriage used to mean something. You couldn’t just walk away from it in 90 days. Having sex and children out of wedlock had serious negative social implications. But there aren’t many repercussions now, other than the federal benes, which are recent inventions. If you live under the same roof, you can be married. You don’t need to have sex, or be monogamous. You can be roommates and want more Social Security. No one is excluded. Without exclusion, there is no definition. Without defintion, there is no meaning. If there is no meaning, then it can’t be much of a “fundamental right.”

And hatred of the nuclear family? There you really lost me. I can understand concern and patience but to jump from there to ‘marriage is a joke and the judge hates families’ seems a bit extreme.

Perhaps there’s a touch of mindreading there. However, I do find it troubling that certain individuals seem to be completely oblivious to the havoc that the dismantling of marriage created. Now, that doesn’t mean that I would reconstruct it the same way it was. But I do find a society that has no rules about sex and procreation brings upon itself some negative consequences - AIDS, illegtimacy, cheapening of human intimacy. And I can’t get my head around someone who seems to have absolutely no regard for this concern, or who considers it laughable, or who wants to accelerate it without even looking at the downside. Maybe it isn’t hate. But I don’t know what it is.

 

[ThomasToo]

No, it’s a joke because it has no purpose. Marriage used to mean something. You couldn’t just walk away from it in 90 days. Having sex and children out of wedlock had serious negative social implications. But there aren’t many repercussions now, other than the federal benes, which are recent inventions. If you live under the same roof, you can be married. You don’t need to have sex, or be monogamous. You can be roommates and want more Social Security. No one is excluded. Without exclusion, there is no definition. Without defintion, there is no meaning. If there is no meaning, then it can’t be much of a “fundamental right.”

Perhaps there’s a touch of mindreading there. However, I do find it troubling that certain individuals seem to be completely oblivious to the havoc that the dismantling of marriage created. Now, that doesn’t mean that I would reconstruct it the same way it was. But I do find a society that has no rules about sex and procreation brings upon itself some negative consequences - AIDS, illegtimacy, cheapening of human intimacy. And I can’t get my head around someone who seems to have absolutely no regard for this concern, or who considers it laughable, or who wants to accelerate it without even looking at the downside. Maybe it isn’t hate. But I don’t know what it is.

I haven’t (yet) done a comprehensive study of jurisprudence related to marriage as a fundamental right nor social implications of it (nor sociology in general) but it seems like we may be in a post hoc ergo propter hoc situation. Changing ideas about marriage may simply be symptomatic–not to imply they’re bad, of course–of the same changes that lead to the things you mentioned above (along with a slew of others both positive and negative)… I don’t know that it’s fair to hang the millstone of what you see to be societal disintegration around the neck of a changing idea of marriage.

 

[Los_Angeles]

Isn’t this the problem precisely? Marriage_Church has a set of rather stringent requirements which must be fulfilled before a man and a woman can be wed in the Catholic Church. Marriage_State, on the other hand, is a legal institution which amounts to civil recognition of a relationship and confers numerous benefits (visitation and decision making rights in hospital, Social Security, family leave, portability and validity between states &c&c). I will happily grant that what most Catholics think about when they say ‘marriage’ is marriage_church but most liberals, atheists and gays and lesbians seeking to marry intend is marriage_state.

The question, it seems to me, is why they need to hold the same set of requirements and prerequisites? I’m more than content to let you define marriage_church (and Jews marriage_synagogue, Muslims marriage_mosque &c) but marriage_state is a legal concept and as such there are rules (like the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause) that apply.

Yes exactly the play on words IS the problem with Marriage. But first…

I sense that you might be a programmer, so this might help clarify my point.

It is not Marriage_Church but rather Church_Marriage.

This is about USA_State_Marriage vs. allowing the creation of USA_State_Marriage_Gay

If you want to get super technical about it you could include history and say

0 AD Catholic Church_1517 AD Protestant Church_1776 United States of America_1850 California_Marriage

 

[ThomasToo]

Yes exactly the play on words IS the problem with Marriage. But first…

I sense that you might be a programmer, so this might help clarify my point.

It is not Marriage_Church but rather Church_Marriage.

This is about USA_State_Marriage vs. allowing the creation of USA_State_Marriage_Gay

If you want to get super technical about it you could include history and say

0 AD Catholic Church_1517 AD Protestant Church_1776 United States of America_1850 California_Marriage

Mathematician by training and temperament but I follow. I think the problem is that we’re not having the creation of USA_State_Marriage_Gay, a good four pages of the finding of law in the Perry case were describing exactly why that’s not what’s happening. Just like we didn’t make USA_State_Marriage_Miscegenation, we’re not making USA_State_Marriage_Gay; there’s only USA_State_Marriage and now–aside from the injunction until the appeal is decided and its decision–gays are invited in too (at least in California).

I would not call it word play as much as I would equivocation (though that may just be a fancy way of saying the same thing). I would be just as happy if the US government stopped having anything to do with marriages and only offered civil unions (or ‘iWed’ or whatever you want) but the civil protections of this sort needs to have one, and only one, class. The word ‘marriage,’ however, is here to stay for both sorts but we just need to be careful that we don’t try to tie our ideas about what it means in the religious sphere and what it means in the civil one together.

Your history would probably need to go a bit further than that… we all know the RCC didn’t invent marriage as a religious or a social idea.

 

[CatholicGerman]

No, it’s a joke because it has no purpose. Marriage used to mean something. You couldn’t just walk away from it in 90 days. Having sex and children out of wedlock had serious negative social implications. But there aren’t many repercussions now, other than the federal benes, which are recent inventions. If you live under the same roof, you can be married. You don’t need to have sex, or be monogamous. You can be roommates and want more Social Security. No one is excluded. Without exclusion, there is no definition. Without defintion, there is no meaning. If there is no meaning, then it can’t be much of a “fundamental right.”

This.

 

[sharmin]

Originally Posted by Brooklyn
I Corinthians 6:9-11: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.”

There are other verses in the Bible, but I think this one will do for now.

Wow, so men who are effeminate will go to hell? Either we take this verse completely literally or we don’t. Maybe this has been taken out of context? I can’t believe God would condemn someone for being effeminate but not sexual. There are many instances where men are born who seem a little more feminine. Or with feminine “parts”…do you really thing God sends them to Hell, Brooklyn? And if you don’t, then why do you feel he sends any of those in this quoted scripture to Hell? I don’t know the answer,which is why I can’t say that God automatically sends the homosexual, thief, drunkard, OR effeminate person." What are your thoughts, since you used this scripture to back up your argument?

 

[sharmin]

But they did have a voice - they voted no! And one liberal judge decided they were all wrong. That is called oppression.

In the 40s people would have voted no for the rights of African Americans. Thank God we didn’t rely on public opinion then. When it comes to the rights of a certain group of people, who want to participate in LEGAL activities and relationships, right is right and no mob mentality group of people should deny them. Now, obviously, if this was pedophilia, with a child victim, it would be different. We are talking about a group of people who do NOT believe the state they were born in is disordered at all, and the love they seek is LEGAL in our country.

**Edited to add I am not really a proponent of gay marriage. I believe in civil unions. However, I still do not believe that these situations should be relied on public opinion. We need judges to interpret the constitution to determine if this is a civil rights issue or not.

 

[sharmin]

Um… the discussion is about *civil *marriage, not a religious rite. There is no attempt to stop gays from marrying privately. It’s to stop their so-called marriages from being recognized by the state. Why should they be recognized if they aren’t real marriages? It doesn’t even make any sense.

Because oftentimes these people are in these relationships for YEARS. When one of them gets sick, her partner sits by her bedside, nursing her to health, helping her get around, changing depends if she is unable, going to doctor appts with her, etc. How can we deny that partner the right to be in the hospital room, to be considered the person the doctor can talk with about the sick partner, the person who automatically gets the home, etc.?

 

[CatholicGerman]

Wow, so men who are effeminate will go to hell? Either we take this verse completely literally or we don’t. Maybe this has been taken out of context? I can’t believe God would condemn someone for being effeminate but not sexual.

Why not? Cross-dressing and other effeminate habits are forbidden, just as women are forbidden from dressing like a man, dominating their husbands, preaching in church, or any other masculine behavior.

The Bible stresses the differences between the sexes. That is the basis of complementarity.

But this isn’t about hermaphrodites, or whatever. This is about sinful behavior.

 

[sharmin]

At least someone is finally honest that this will lead to legalized polygamy.
.

Why would you care if polygamy were legal? It was legal in OT times, and though it certainly isn’t our Christian view of God’s calling of marriage (as ss marriage isn’t either), it certainly isn’t our business if other religions view it as legitimate.

 

[sharmin]

Why not? Cross-dressing and other effeminate habits are forbidden, just as women are forbidden from dressing like a man, dominating their husbands, preaching in church, or any other masculine behavior.

The Bible stresses the differences between the sexes. That is the basis of complementarity.

But this isn’t about hermaphrodites, or whatever. This is about sinful behavior.

I can’t tell if you are joking or not, but are you saying that women who dress in man-like clothing they will go to hell?

 

[irishpatrick]

That is not my response. My response is that I must seek to do justice (in this case extend the protections of civil marriage to everyone regardless of sexual orientation) regardless of the consequences. That’s what justice means and that’s our duty regarding it however weighty and uncomfortable it may make us.

No, it is not “our” duty to take actions that are:

1. Against natural law.
2. Against the needs of our nation.
3. Against the needs of the world.
4. Are gravely sinful.
5. Can lead to consequences that are unspeakably negative, up to and including forcing all Christians to have to worship in secret or underground.

In actual fact, if we are speaking of “our” duties, than it is our duty to make sure the five things I just listed are not done–ever. Christians are called to struggle against sin, not embrace it; we are called to help the world struggle against sin, not embrace sin; we are called to help the cause of Christ through His Church, not take actions 100% contrary to His truths. We are called to do these things with steadfast resolution, no matter how difficult it may seem…those “callings” seem to have been largely lost in this modern world, yet they are still 100% true.

Please, be careful when you use the word “our.”

 

[Corki]

Here is the reason, as I see it:

Marriage is foundational to traditional society - the nuclear family. It is a structure to hold cultural values such as chastity and two parent child rearing. Some of us consider that to be essential for a thriving civilization. And we don’t just get that from the bible - liberals are concerned about illegitimacy, single parent households, the increasing impersonal, impermament nature of our society.

However, over the course of a generation, the legal structures of marrige have been dismantled, in the name of some causes that have merit. This includes the institution of no fault divorce, and the imposition of traditional marital principles (such as property division) on nonmarital relationships.

We don’t dispute that this has occured. All this decision does is note that marriage has been drained of its traditional moorings over a single generation. So, because the institution has been largely legally gutted, it is meaningless. There isn’t any reason not to let everyone participate.

To which traditionalists like myself say: you are looking at one generation of rapid change, and the results are decidedly mixed. A sane, rational approach is to figure out where marriage stands in the long run, not just continue to gut it because that’s the way the momentum is running at the moment.

Under the court’s decision, marriage isn’t a serious institution. It really can’t be taken seriously as a right. It is a joke. Now, maybe that’s the way that our society will want it, in the end. But why make it into a joke, on the one hand, and pretend it is an important right, on the other.

Yes, this is why we fight. Marriage has been gutted in a little over a single generation. It’s not just same-sex marriage; it started with contraception and no-fault divorce. Americans were stupid and careless to let that happen. We are fighting to hold onto the little that is left of marriage as an institution. I am a parent of teenagers. They don’t know their vocations yet and may not have vocations to marriage. But it frustrates me to no end that what we, as a society, have to offer as “marriage” is just a shell of what it should be.

As our newest friend put it:

After all, there is a difference between a civil marriage and a spiritual marriage.

That is a great (and tragic) way of looking at this. Even if one was not religious, the world used to look at marriage as something other than just a civil exercise, like renewing your driver’s licence. It had a spiritual component. Civil marriage wasn’t a seperate entity; it was (until now) a non-religious way of reaching the spiritual reality of being a married couple and starting a family.

Yes, Sacramental marriage will still be the beautiful, Christ-filled creation of a family. In a way, this pigeon-holes Christians (along with Mulims, most Jews and many other people of faith). A Sacramental marriage won’t be our own participation in the larger institution of marriage but will be a “Church thing” like going to Mass on Sunday. What Catholics do at Mass on Sunday is very different than how most people spend their Sundays. Marriage will become the same. What Christians do and feel about marriage will be much different than what marriage is societally. This will be a great loss to society and a great loss to our children.

I am willing to fight hard to keep that day as far off as possible.

 

[DawnInTexas]

How about these, for starters:

Deuteronomy 22:5
"A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.

1 Timothy 2:9
Similarly, (too,) women should adorn themselves with proper conduct, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hairstyles and gold ornaments, or pearls, or expensive clothes,

usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn