Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[larkin31]

My points made on this website will always be biblical. If you have a secular argument we may have to respectfully agree to disagree. The passage in Genesis 2:24 does say “man… shall cleave unto his wife” which indicates it is talking about marriage. When the Pharisees came to Jesus tempting him with a question about marriage/divorce he scolded them for not knowing the scriptures and then quoted the above passage from Genesis. The first part of Jesus’ answer seems pertinant to today’s discussion:

“And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them in the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matt. 19:4-6) (emphasis added)

Do you assume that marriage did not exist in human cultures before the Torah was written nor in cultures where the Torah was not known?

 

[Betterave]

Where does it address the definitional dispute other than simply to state that marriage is only between a man and a woman?

It explains what the definition is, where it comes from, legally speaking, and why it is justified. It does so, IIRC, in the section already mentioned, Section V.

 

[Betterave]

My own opinion is that our courts are not very predictable, and it could go either way. My experience during the multiple times that I have been a juror is that most jurors prefer to ignore the facts of a case, and to rule based on the preferences and prejudices. I don’t know if this is also true with judges.

That’s a very good question. It certainly looks a little fishy, doesn’t it? Here’s another example of apparent judicial incoherence, in this case between Wisconsin and Vermont:
“Wisconsin Court Tells Lesbian: Legal Adoption, Not ‘Nurturing,’ Gives Parental Rights”
By Peter J. Smith
MADISON, Wisconsin, June 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Wisconsin appeals court has ruled against a woman seeking joint custody of her former lesbian partner’s adopted children, saying that only legal adoptive status, not years of caretaking, provide parental rights.
The District 4 Court of Appeals ruled against a woman identified in court documents as Wendy M., who was seeking legal guardianship of two children whom her partner, identified as Liz K., had adopted from Guatemala.
“Wisconsin law neither provides for joint adoption of a child by an unmarried couple, nor permits same-sex couples to marry. Thus, gay and lesbian couples in close, committed relationships cannot jointly adopt a child,” observed the court.
Wendy and Liz had lived together for seven years before adopting Olivia and Sofia. The court record states that the couple had decided that Liz would be the legal adoptive parent of the children, instead of Wendy, because she was a practicing attorney and could add Olivia and Sofia to her health insurance. Over the next five years, Wendy stayed at home with the children, while Liz provided financially.
However, the women split and Liz retained legal custody of the children. While they have maintained an “informal” parenting relationship, Liz refused to give Wendy guardianship status after an incident involving Wendy as she was taking care of the children. The nature of the incident is not mentioned in the court record.
Wendy then sought the court to coerce Liz into giving her guardianship status, arguing that she was a parent under the “ordinary usage” of the term as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (2006), which includes “one who … nurtures and raises a child.”
The court, however, said that the “application of a dictionary definition of parent is inappropriate” and that statutory definitions, not dictionary entries, are the ones that matter in Wisconsin law.
“The term ‘parent’ is defined … as ‘either a biological parent … or a parent by adoption,’ a definition that plainly excludes Wendy,” the court stated.
They also cited state supreme court precedent set by Barstad v. Frazier, which ruled that having a relationship with a child was not sufficient criteria to bestow parental rights over the objections of a fit parent. Only if Liz were “drastically” harming the welfare of her children, they said, would the state have a right to interfere.
A different story is playing out in a Vermont case, in which a lesbian with no biological relation to her ex-partner’s child convinced a court to award her parental rights despite lacking legal adoptive status.
In the Vermont Supreme Court, lawyers in the custody fight are now disputing district court Judge Richard Cohen’s decision to strip ex-lesbian Lisa Miller of all parental rights to her 8-year-old daughter Isabella, whom she conceived by artificial insemination. Miller’s former partner Janet Jenkins sued and successfully received the right to unsupervised visits with Isabella. Miller decided to defy the courts and cut off contact between Jenkins and Isabella after Isabella complained that she wanted to kill herself following the visits, and had been forced to bathe naked with Jenkins.
After being ordered to hand custody of Isabella over to Jenkins, Miller disappeared last year with her daughter in tow. No one has reported having had contact with Miller since November 20 at the latest.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062512.html

In any case, as I had to point out earlier, it’s clear that we can’t just refer to legal decisions if we’re interested in the truth.

 

[larkin31]

That’s a very good question. It certainly looks a little fishy, doesn’t it? Here’s another example of apparent judicial incoherence, in this case between Wisconsin and Vermont:
“Wisconsin Court Tells Lesbian: Legal Adoption, Not ‘Nurturing,’ Gives Parental Rights”
By Peter J. Smith
MADISON, Wisconsin, June 25, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Wisconsin appeals court has ruled against a woman seeking joint custody of her former lesbian partner’s adopted children, saying that only legal adoptive status, not years of caretaking, provide parental rights.
The District 4 Court of Appeals ruled against a woman identified in court documents as Wendy M., who was seeking legal guardianship of two children whom her partner, identified as Liz K., had adopted from Guatemala.
“Wisconsin law neither provides for joint adoption of a child by an unmarried couple, nor permits same-sex couples to marry. Thus, gay and lesbian couples in close, committed relationships cannot jointly adopt a child,” observed the court.
Wendy and Liz had lived together for seven years before adopting Olivia and Sofia. The court record states that the couple had decided that Liz would be the legal adoptive parent of the children, instead of Wendy, because she was a practicing attorney and could add Olivia and Sofia to her health insurance. Over the next five years, Wendy stayed at home with the children, while Liz provided financially.
However, the women split and Liz retained legal custody of the children. While they have maintained an “informal” parenting relationship, Liz refused to give Wendy guardianship status after an incident involving Wendy as she was taking care of the children. The nature of the incident is not mentioned in the court record.
Wendy then sought the court to coerce Liz into giving her guardianship status, arguing that she was a parent under the “ordinary usage” of the term as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (2006), which includes “one who … nurtures and raises a child.”
The court, however, said that the “application of a dictionary definition of parent is inappropriate” and that statutory definitions, not dictionary entries, are the ones that matter in Wisconsin law.
“The term ‘parent’ is defined … as ‘either a biological parent … or a parent by adoption,’ a definition that plainly excludes Wendy,” the court stated.
They also cited state supreme court precedent set by Barstad v. Frazier, which ruled that having a relationship with a child was not sufficient criteria to bestow parental rights over the objections of a fit parent. Only if Liz were “drastically” harming the welfare of her children, they said, would the state have a right to interfere.
A different story is playing out in a Vermont case, in which a lesbian with no biological relation to her ex-partner’s child convinced a court to award her parental rights despite lacking legal adoptive status.
In the Vermont Supreme Court, lawyers in the custody fight are now disputing district court Judge Richard Cohen’s decision to strip ex-lesbian Lisa Miller of all parental rights to her 8-year-old daughter Isabella, whom she conceived by artificial insemination. Miller’s former partner Janet Jenkins sued and successfully received the right to unsupervised visits with Isabella. Miller decided to defy the courts and cut off contact between Jenkins and Isabella after Isabella complained that she wanted to kill herself following the visits, and had been forced to bathe naked with Jenkins.
After being ordered to hand custody of Isabella over to Jenkins, Miller disappeared last year with her daughter in tow. No one has reported having had contact with Miller since November 20 at the latest.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10062512.html

In any case, as I had to point out earlier, it’s clear that we can’t just refer to legal decisions if we’re interested in the truth.

Even in seeking legal justice we don’t ONLY refer to legal decisions. Both legal and religious history are not always later considered “right.” And wisely so!

 

[larkin31]

It explains what the definition is, where it comes from, legally speaking, and why it is justified. It does so, IIRC, in the section already mentioned, Section V.

I’ll take a look again and see if there is something I missed.

 

[Betterave]

Even in seeking legal justice we don’t ONLY refer to legal decisions. Both legal and religious history are not always later considered “right.” And wisely so!

And of course this was the point I had to make *against your *demand for “legal reasoning” earlier in the thread. I’m glad you’ve seen the light.

 

[larkin31]

And of course this was the point I had to make *against your *demand for “legal reasoning” earlier in the thread. I’m glad you’ve seen the light.

What I understand this to mean is not how you understand it. That is clear.

 

[Betterave]

What I understand this to mean is not how you understand it. That is clear.

Not clear if you don’t explain it!

 

[mtolympus]

Do you assume that marriage did not exist in human cultures before the Torah was written nor in cultures where the Torah was not known?

First of all I must say that I do not speak for my chuch. I speak only from my beleifs that have developed as a life long member.

I believe that all Scripture has been revealed to mankind on earth through prophets to teach us about our spiritual world, our spiritual lives and salvation. As a scientist by profession I accept science and what it teaches us about our physical world. Someday, when all truth is known and the two ends of the spectrum come together there will be no conflicts.

 

[larkin31]

First of all I must say that I do not speak for my chuch. I speak only from my beleifs that have developed as a life long member.

I believe that all Scripture has been revealed to mankind on earth through prophets to teach us about our spiritual world, our spiritual lives and salvation. As a scientist by profession I accept science and what it teaches us about our physical world. Someday, when all truth is known and the two ends of the spectrum come together there will be no conflicts.

I asked about when, chronologically, you thought that marriage first came into human history–before the Torah was written or after. I don’t see how you answered this at all.

 

[mtolympus]

I asked about when, chronologically, you thought that marriage first came into human history–before the Torah was written or after. I don’t see how you answered this at all.

I believe the marriage of Adam and Eve was the first marriage in human history.