The Battle Over the Definition of Marriage - Timeline

[livingwordunity]

First will come lawsuits against companies in states that do not recognize gay marriage. Even though the state does not recognize gay marriage, if a company located in that state does interstate business with a state that does, or does business with the government, it will be sued to provide benefits to partners of same sex couples, thereby getting around state law or even a vote for a change in state law. Big companies will cave in first, followed by smaller companies. Small business owners who do not provide benefits for same sex partners will be vilified and called homophobic.

So America’s morality sinks down to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Personanongrata]

Homosexuals rejected marriage, and now they want their relationship to be considered the same as the very thing they reject.

If they really believe that SSM is the same as marriage between one man and one woman why are they against marrying the opposite sex?

It makes zero sense.

.

Kind of like this post.

 

[rossum]

But its not unconstituional if the people voted for it…

You are incorrect. It is unconstitutional if the courts find it so; that is one of the jobs of the courts. The courts found it to be unconstitutional, so it is.

Just the same if a state voted to ban all firearms by a popular majority. That would be unconstitutional because it would violate the 2nd Amendment.

rossum

 

[Dawnia]

Indeed it did not, the California court ruled it unconstitutional. The Federal court did too, but the Supremes have now said that the Federal court shouldn’t have ruled so the only legal ruling left standing is the one from the California court, which ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.

rossum

I think you need to go back and look again. The State upheld the constitutionality of Prop 8. The federal district court said it was unconstitutional, but a district court does not have the final say on constitutionality of a law.

Another district court judge in CA could hypothetically declare it constitutional in another district. But, truthfully I think CA is a lost cause anyway. Eventually it would have been overturned through another proposition.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I think you need to go back and look again. The State upheld the constitutionality of Prop 8. The federal district court said it was unconstitutional, but a district court does not have the final say on constitutionality of a law.

Another district court judge in CA could hypothetically declare it constitutional in another district. But, truthfully I think CA is a lost cause anyway. Eventually it would have been overturned through another proposition.

The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively puts an end to the Proposition 8 legal battle. The State is the only party with standing to appeal the District Court ruling and they wont do it. Besides, we already know that the 9th Circuit would uphold the District Court ruling on this issue because they’ve already done it once. Its game, set, match in California. You are right about one thing though, it would have eventually been overturned through another ballot initiative.

 

[Dawnia]

The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively puts an end to the Proposition 8 legal battle. The State is the only party with standing to appeal the District Court ruling and they wont do it. Besides, we already know that the 9th Circuit would uphold the District Court ruling on this issue because they’ve already done it once. Its game, set, match in California. You are right about one thing though, it would have eventually been overturned through another ballot initiative.

Of course not with this governor, but in theory it could happen. But don’t anyone hold their breaths.

 

[Tucker_R]

That post was fine. What is your problem with the Church?

Kind of like this post.

 

[Tucker_R]

YOU are incorrect… if the people voted for it… there is nothing in the constituion that allows unatural things to be married.

Apples and oranges so your gun arguement holds no bearing.

You are incorrect. It is unconstitutional if the courts find it so; that is one of the jobs of the courts. The courts found it to be unconstitutional, so it is.

Just the same if a state voted to ban all firearms by a popular majority. That would be unconstitutional because it would violate the 2nd Amendment.

rossum

 

[Tucker_R]

Too bad too… california ( and of course NY ) are EXACTLY what is wrong with America… America is no more.

The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively puts an end to the Proposition 8 legal battle. The State is the only party with standing to appeal the District Court ruling and they wont do it. Besides, we already know that the 9th Circuit would uphold the District Court ruling on this issue because they’ve already done it once. Its game, set, match in California. You are right about one thing though, it would have eventually been overturned through another ballot initiative.

 

[Digitonomy]

Homosexuals rejected marriage, and now they want their relationship to be considered the same as the very thing they reject.

If they really believe that SSM is the same as marriage between one man and one woman why are they against marrying the opposite sex?

It makes zero sense…

Hmmm… I’m trying to make sense of your post. I wouldn’t characterize gays as rejecting marriage. They may have individually chosen not to marry in most cases, but I assume most do not oppose the institution of marriage, or even favor it. To say that gays reject marriage, it seems that you would equally have to say that numerous other groups reject marriage, when in fact the others don’t reject marriage, they perhaps haven’t found the right one yet, or can’t yet afford it, or aren’t old enough yet, or their religious vows preclude it, etc.

 

[JimG]

Democracy is not just about a plurality of votes. It’s also about constitutional protection of minority rights. If it were just a matter of number of votes, then it would be possible for instance, for a state to pass a racist law, and instead of a democracy you’d have mob rule.

The issue here isn’t whether there was plurality of votes involved, but whether same-sex marriage is a matter subject to constitutional protection. Your Supreme Court seems to think so.

Yes, of course, I’m sure it’s right there in black and white printed in the U.S. Constitution. I seem to recall that there was a press conference when the 14th Amendment was passed, in which one of its authors plainly stated: “You understand of course, that this amendment will give freed slaves the right to vote, and also allow men to marry men and women to marry women?” Surely the whole nation understood that, no? So why should we be surprised?

Or did the SCOTUS Justices have to go digging around among the words in there trying to find something which wasn’t there to begin with?

 

[Z_Ninja]

How many lawsuits have there been from divorced couples wanting to marry in a Catholic Church? How many of those lawsuits have succeeded? How long has it been since civil divorce has been legal?

Predicting dire consequences that then don’t happen only makes you look like a false prophet.

rossum

but for any Catholic to remarry in the CC, they would have to get a decree of nullity. if not then they cannot be considered remarried in the CC. or they cannot get married. I don’t know if anyone has sued over it. but as far as the Church goes, if they remarry in a civil ceremony, they are committing adultery. That would or should be explained if they went to a priest to be married. If they withhold information and lie about being divorced previously, then that’s another issue altogether.

I’m not predicting anything, just saying it CAN lead to something. It already happens with businesses in general. The cases about a photographer or baker being sued because they didn’t want to accept a contract because through their faith they did not agree with SSM. What’s not to lead it to any churches that do not perform SSM ceremonies?

 

[Digitonomy]

I’m not predicting anything, just saying it CAN lead to something. It already happens with businesses in general. The cases about a photographer or baker being sued because they didn’t want to accept a contract because through their faith they did not agree with SSM. What’s not to lead it to any churches that do not perform SSM ceremonies?

The First Amendment. The fact that you’re focusing on the contract points you in the right direction in seeing the distinction. The government can regulate commerce, and one part of that is public accommodation. This is a legal term of art that doesn’t just include hotels, but can range from grocery stores to internet dating sites. Religious ceremony, on the other hand, enjoys a great deal more protection than public accommodations do.

There are certainly ways to chip away at this, like saying churches can’t perform marriages for the state (or only churches that don’t discriminate can perform marriages for the state). This would put the Church in the same situation as in several other countries, where the government-recognized marriage takes place elsewhere, and the Church-recognized wedding takes place in the Church. But no one with any credibility has suggested that the government will ever be able to regulate how religious ceremonies such as marriages are practiced in churches.

 

[livingwordunity]

I think that they still reject marriage. Do they really want a life-long indissoluble union, with fidelity to only one partner for life, and no extramarital sex? I would also ask if their union is open to life, but by its very nature it cannot be. It cannot be marriage because it is not conjugal. It is like a child pretending to be an adult, a nice game but not real.

 

[Maso]

The logic fails.

And… when laws are codified on the basis of a fallacy… there will be bad laws, and that is detremental.

Consider… If I were to press the law makers for a definition of the term “sexual orientation”… eventually it would come down to homosexuality ( among other things ) is a “sexual orientation”.

Hummm…

But isn’t homosexuality inherantly and by definition in fact a sexual dis-orientation…???

If these lawmakers can explain to me how a sexual orientation can be a sexual dis-orientation… then I will explain to you how one ( 1 ) can equal zero ( 0 ).

                           1 = 0 ...?!
                           Go figure...

The notion of a “Gay Marraige” is just as legitimate as would be the notion of a “Square Circle”.

Laws can be written that are just wrong, that’s all. And laws that embody fallacies are detrimental and have the potential to bring civilization down.

There are a lot of people out there who will have hard time facing that reality. I can’t help it…

Statutary laws that are at a variance to natural laws carry with them the potential to destroy civilisation. You might just as well try to repeal the Law of Gravity…!

If Queen Elizibeth is in favor of so called “Same Sex marraiges”… then why doesn’t she just go ahead and declair herself King…!?

 

[Darken_Rahl]

I think that they still reject marriage. Do they really want a life-long indissoluble union, with fidelity to only one partner for life, and no extramarital sex? I would also ask if their union is open to life, but by its very nature it cannot be. It cannot be marriage because it is not conjugal. It is like a child pretending to be an adult, a nice game but not real.

Yep. I couldn’t remember the woman’s name, but luckily Fr. Z. addressed the issue here: wdtprs.com/blog/2013/04/what-homosexual-marriage-advocates-are-really-after/
**
Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage Written**

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

*“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, [Ahhh… aren’t they all just soooo hip? Soooo superior? That’s what the MSM and entertainment industry would have you think by their portrayal of them.] and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.*

 

[SuperLuigi]

Homosexuals rejected marriage, and now they want their relationship to be considered the same as the very thing they reject.

If they really believe that SSM is the same as marriage between one man and one woman why are they against marrying the opposite sex?

It makes zero sense.

.

It’s the entitlement mentality, pure, plain and simple.

So-called “gay marriage” won’t last as long as the progressives think, and if it’s so popular, why do they need the courts to shove it down everyone’s throat?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Yep. I couldn’t remember the woman’s name, but luckily Fr. Z. addressed the issue here: wdtprs.com/blog/2013/04/what-homosexual-marriage-advocates-are-really-after/
**
Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage Written**

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen. On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda. She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it.

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview:

*“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, [Ahhh… aren’t they all just soooo hip? Soooo superior? That’s what the MSM and entertainment industry would have you think by their portrayal of them.] and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.*

Won’t happen. See if they’ll try that hogwash in Southern Church that is mostly African-America or a mosque.

 

[Honorius]

The logic fails.

                           1 = 0 ...?!
                           Go figure...

That statement is false according to the reflexive property of equality. shaw:

The notion of a “Gay Marraige” is just as legitimate as would be the notion of a “Square Circle”.

Laws can be written that are just wrong, that’s all. And laws that embody fallacies are detrimental and have the potential to bring civilization down.

There are a lot of people out there who will have hard time facing that reality. I can’t help it…

Statutary laws that are at a variance to natural laws carry with them the potential to destroy civilisation. You might just as well try to repeal the Law of Gravity…!

If Queen Elizibeth is in favor of so called “Same Sex marraiges”… then why doesn’t she just go ahead and declair herself King…!?

You’re not seriously suggesting that gay people are the reason many civilizations have fallen, are you? If you are, please provide some examples, because that idea is seriously flawed.

 

[Maso]

You’re not seriously suggesting that gay people are the reason many civilizations have fallen, are you? If you are, please provide some examples, because that idea is seriously flawed.

1). Sodam
2). Gamoreh
3). Anchient Greece
4). Roman Empire
5). Byzantine Empire
6). France under Louis XIV

Here we go again…!

That statement is false according to the reflexive property of equality. shaw:

RIGHT…!!!

Congratulations…!!!