|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/3/2008 7:11:41 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 753
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
It makes an excellent case, as my argument is that certain legal precepts are assumed
. . . and this one is assumed for all people. You oppose this concept if you think that certain people should be barred from marrying via a recently confabulated definition.
quote:
Actually, it is highly relevant because it is the foundation from where legal rights are rightly derived, and there is no such basis for ‘equating’ homosexual relationships with heterosexual ones.
Again, "[…]all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights[…]"
quote:
Of marriage, from the one offered by the California court.
You were talking about a definition recognized throughout "American jurisprudence," and now you are trying to bring it back to the California amendment which only goes back not quite eight years?
quote:
No, that is the definition found in one online dictionary; I showed several different legal uses of the language.
Sorry, but I choose to not take your word for it over the online legal dictionary. Your examples demonstrated to me your misunderstanding of how the term was being used.
quote:
Homosexuals have (and always have) the same right to marry as anyone – the California court wants to change the definition of what ‘marriage’ means.
Wrong. They explicitly stated the exact opposite. They were not ruling on what marriage should or should not be, but only on whether California's marriage amendment could be upheld vis a vis the California constitution.
quote:
I don’t have a law degree
I gathered that.
quote:
What do you think ‘equal protection’ means?
The definition of "protected class" and "equal protection" is not at issue. The application of these concepts is at issue. Here is an express example of an equal protection application striking down a marriage amendment wherein the judged specifically ruled that homosexuals are a protected class.
However, the California ruling does not resemble this one, at least not by my understanding.
quote:
I think you fail to see the courts logic here.
The court sees homosexuals as a protected class, like racial groups – that is why they felt free to employ Perez v. Sharp, a case concerning interracial marriage.
They did very little to "employ" Perez v Sharp. They did refer to it. But where equal protection was concerned, it was about whether or not homosexuals could be deemed "suspect classification" and subject to strict scrutiny, not a protected classification per se.
The point was not whether gays are a protected class against discrimination per the equal protection clause, but whether they were being discriminated against by the I22 marriage amendment specifically and in direct violation of the constitution of the state of California.
quote:
The court intentionally chose to ignore what marriage is
Wrong. They gave extensive coverage to the topic of the operative definition (as it were) of marriage, its evolution, and its implications in the state of California and in other states as well.
But in the long haul, the court did not seek to rule on whether or not same-sex unions should by policy be considered marriages. Instead, the court looked toward California's constitution to see if it was permissible to deny marital status to same-sex unions.
quote:
or the fact that homosexuals were free to participate in marriage as it was defined historically.
No, they were not-- not in California, anyway. Same-sex unions enjoyed the same legal benefits as opposite-sex marriages, but they were never as policy considered true marriages under California law, rather they were deemed "domestic partnerships."
quote:
What they weren’t free to do was something that had never been considered before – that is engage in a state sanctioned relationship with a person of the same sex, and call it marriage.
The court did not do this, i.e. they did not officially rule same-sex unions as marriages. What they did do was strike down California's "statutory scheme"-- the marriage amendment and its predecessors-- as unconstitutional. Their stand is not that California's constitution sanctions same-sex marriage, but rather that it does not expressly forbid it, nor can it forbid it.
Btw, in keeping with our argument about overriding "the will of the people," the ruling made this point:
quote:
Although defendants maintain that this court has an obligation to defer to the statutory definition of marriage contained in section 308.5 because that statute — having been adopted through the initiative process — represents the expression of the “people’s will,” this argument fails to take into account the very basic point that the provisions of the California Constitution itself constitute the ultimate expression of the people’s will, and that the fundamental rights embodied within that Constitution for the protection of all persons represent restraints that the people themselves have imposed upon the statutory enactments that may be adopted either by their elected representatives or by the voters through the initiative process.
quote:
Actually, interpretive justice rulings gave us Dred Scott and the expansion of slavery; proper legislation removed the inequality.
. . . Proper legislation based on a better interpretive ruling.
Interpretation is a proper exercise of judicial jurisprudence. In fact, it is quite necessary for cases precisely like this one.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/3/2008 7:37:11 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/4/2008 12:23:47 AM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
No, they were not-- not in California, anyway. Same-sex unions enjoyed the same legal benefits as opposite-sex marriages, but they were never as policy considered true marriages under California law, rather they were deemed "domestic partnerships."
Just wondering...
Do you believe it's a good thing that the court granted homosexuals the right to marry?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/4/2008 11:16:46 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
. . . and this one is assumed for all people. You oppose this concept if you think that certain people should be barred from marrying via a recently confabulated definition.
The only recent understanding is the idea that two men can form a marriage relationship, something never recognized by the courts or American law until the 21st century.
Indeed, this court case acknowledges this:
It is beyond dispute, as the Court of Appeal majority in this case persuasively indicated, that there is no deeply rooted tradition of same-sex marriage, in the nation or in this state. Precisely the opposite is true. The concept of same-sex marriage was unknown in our distant past, and is novel in our recent history, because the universally understood definition of marriage has been the legal or religious union of a man and a woman.
And supports this notion thusly:
This traditional understanding is certainly confirmed by the definitions of “marriage” contained in standard dictionaries. (See, e.g., Webster’s Third New Internat. Dict. (2002) p. 1384, col. 3 [“1 a: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife. b: the mutual relation of husband and wife: WEDLOCK . . .”]; Random House Webster’s College Dict. (2d rev. ed. 2001) p. 814, col. 1 [“1. the social institution under which a man and woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments . . .”]; IX Oxford English Dict. (2d ed. 1989) p. 396, col. 1 [“1.a. The condition of being a husband or wife; . . . [¶] . . . [¶] 2.a. . . . [t]he ceremony or procedure by which two persons are made husband and wife”]; American Heritage Dict. (2d ed. 1985) p. 768, col. 1 [“1.a. The state of being married: wedlock. b. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. . . .”].) In light of the recent development of the issue, late editions of some such works dutifully allude to the concept of same-sex marriage. (See, e.g., American Heritage Dict. (4th ed. 2000) p. 1073, col. 1 [“ . . . d. A union having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage”]; compare, e.g., Black’s Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) p. 994, col. 2 [noting that “[t]he United States government and most American states do not recognize same-sex marriages,” but citing recent decisions on the issue], with Black’s Law Dict. (7th ed. 1999) pp. 986, col. 2, 987, cols. 1-2, 988, col. 1; compare also, e.g., Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dict. (11th ed. 2004) p. 761, col. 2, with Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dict. (10th ed. 2000) p. 711, cols. 1-2.) But such recent acknowledgements in reference books do not undermine the fact that, until very recently, the institution of marriage has universally been understood as the union of opposite-sex partners.
quote:
Again, "[…]all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights[…]"
Well, that would then cause us to ask ‘what rights would a Creator endow us with?’ and your answer appears to be ‘the right to engage in a state sanctioned homosexual relationship’ – to which I would say, you have a completely perverted notion of ‘rights’.
quote:
You were talking about a definition recognized throughout "American jurisprudence," and now you are trying to bring it back to the California amendment which only goes back not quite eight years?
The California statute (not amendment) simply codified the previously accepted definition, as the courts own statement demonstrated.
Indeed, the fact that it had to be codified simply exemplifies how perverted the courts and our society have become on the matter – the law can no longer recognize ‘male’, ‘female’, ‘husband’, ‘wife’, etc as a matter of established understanding, so now we must carefully define such things in a society and court system that has so lost it’s way it cannot even comprehend that which had long been understood in Western culture – present company excepted of course.
quote:
Sorry, but I choose to not take your word for it over the online legal dictionary. Your examples demonstrated to me your misunderstanding of how the term was being used.
No, I was just familiar with its use in the legal system and demonstrated such; you were only familiar with a single online definition, and so you blindly copied and pasted it hoping no one would know better – you of course were wrong.
quote:
Wrong. They explicitly stated the exact opposite. They were not ruling on what marriage should or should not be, but only on whether California's marriage amendment could be upheld vis a vis the California constitution.
The effect of the ruling was to change the definition of marriage whatever the courts claimed it wanted to do.
quote:
I gathered that.
But certainly more experience and learning on legal matters than yourself.
quote:
The definition of "protected class" and "equal protection" is not at issue. The application of these concepts is at issue. Here is an express example of an equal protection application striking down a marriage amendment wherein the judged specifically ruled that homosexuals are a protected class.
However, the California ruling does not resemble this one, at least not by my understanding.
Actually, they used almost exactly the same basis in considering a protected class:
Finally, all this is then corroborated by the recent Miguel court that such different treatment by a state actor is unconstitutional, even under a rational basis test, so that this court now finds that homosexuals in the context of state action, in authorizing civil contracts between adult citizens, constitutes a suspect class under the state constitution calling for a higher level of scrutiny than merely finding a rational basis to justify the action.
Castle v. State, Judge Richard D. Hicks
In analyzing the validity of this differential treatment under the latter clause, we first must determine which standard of review should be applied to the statutory classification here at issue. Although in most instances the deferential “rational basis” standard of review is applicable in determining whether different treatment accorded by a statutory provision violates the state equal protection clause, a more exacting and rigorous standard of review — “strict scrutiny” — is applied when the distinction drawn by a statute rests upon a so-called “suspect classification” or impinges upon a fundamental right. As we shall explain, although we do not agree with the claim advanced by the parties challenging the validity of the current statutory scheme that the applicable statutes properly should be viewed as an instance of discrimination on the basis of the suspect characteristic of sex or gender and should be subjected to strict scrutiny on that ground, we conclude that strict scrutiny nonetheless is applicable here because (1) the statutes in question properly must be understood as classifying or discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, a characteristic that we conclude represents — like gender, race, and religion —a constitutionally suspect basis upon which to impose differential treatment.
In re MARRIAGE CASES. Justice J. KENNARD
quote:
They did very little to "employ" Perez v Sharp. They did refer to it. But where equal protection was concerned, it was about whether or not homosexuals could be deemed "suspect classification" and subject to strict scrutiny, not a protected classification per se.
The point was not whether gays are a protected class against discrimination per the equal protection clause, but whether they were being discriminated against by the I22 marriage amendment specifically and in direct violation of the constitution of the state of California.
It’s like you are just attempting to parrot words you don’t understand.
Applying the strict scrutiny test to a ‘suspect class’ establishes a protected classification. You are proving my point inadvertently because you don’t know what you are talking about! You should stop while you are only slightly behind. (okay, you are far behind – but should stop to keep from dropping even further).
quote:
Wrong. They gave extensive coverage to the topic of the operative definition (as it were) of marriage, its evolution, and its implications in the state of California and in other states as well.
But in the long haul, the court did not seek to rule on whether or not same-sex unions should by policy be considered marriages. Instead, the court looked toward California's constitution to see if it was permissible to deny marital status to same-sex unions.
And effectively changed the definition of marriage.
quote:
No, they were not-- not in California, anyway. Same-sex unions enjoyed the same legal benefits as opposite-sex marriages, but they were never as policy considered true marriages under California law, rather they were deemed "domestic partnerships."
No, a homosexual could marry someone of the opposite sex – they were free to participate in a marriage, as any adult could.
quote:
The court did not do this, i.e. they did not officially rule same-sex unions as marriages. What they did do was strike down California's "statutory scheme"-- the marriage amendment and its predecessors-- as unconstitutional. Their stand is not that California's constitution sanctions same-sex marriage, but rather that it does not expressly forbid it, nor can it forbid it.
Well, whatever the flaws of the courts ruling, it appears Californians are set to amend the constitution itself. There is more than one way to reign in a runaway court.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/4/2008 5:34:31 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 753
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Just wondering...
Do you believe it's a good thing that the court granted homosexuals the right to marry?
They didn't grant them the right to marry. They overturned a predatory amendment because it violated the constitution of California.
And I do think that this decision was good in some ways.
But, for the record, I am not advocating homosexuality or same-sex marriage . . . just to clear up any doubt in the minds of the moderators.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/4/2008 11:12:23 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Just wondering...
Do you believe it's a good thing that the court granted homosexuals the right to marry?
They didn't grant them the right to marry. They overturned a predatory amendment because it violated the constitution of California.
And I do think that this decision was good in some ways.
Good for gays? And if so, why?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/4/2008 11:32:57 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 753
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
The only recent understanding is the idea that two men can form a marriage relationship
. . . Or two women.
quote:
something never recognized by the courts or American law until the 21st century.
Actually, it began to be an issue in the 1970s:
"In the mid-1970’s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses from county clerks in a number of California counties, relying in part upon the 1971 change in the language of Civil Code section 4101 . . ."
quote:
Again, "[…]all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights[…]"
quote:
Well, that would then cause us to ask ‘what rights would a Creator endow us with?’
Jefferson enumerated three, but he did not limit anyone to those three:
"The United States Supreme Court initially discussed the constitutional right to marry as an aspect of the fundamental substantive 'liberty' protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution. . . the federal high court additionally identified the right to marry as a component of a 'right of privacy' protected by the federal Constitution."
quote:
and your answer appears to be ‘the right to engage in a state sanctioned homosexual relationship’
Marriage cannot be defined as "the right to engage in a state-sanctioned homosexual relationship" because this would expressly exclude heterosexuals.
quote:
The California statute (not amendment) simply codified the previously accepted definition, as the courts own statement demonstrated.
Except that the court also noted that the old definition as such did not specify gender exclusivity:
"In contrast to the position advanced by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense
Fund and the Campaign, the Attorney General and the Governor recognize that the California Constitution does not define or limit the marriage relationship to a union of a man and a woman."
quote:
you were only familiar with a single online definition, and so you blindly copied and pasted it hoping no one would know better – you of course were wrong.
"Hoping no one would know better?"
You are the "no one," Jhud. I'm not trying to fool you or anyone else for that matter.
quote:
The effect of the ruling was to change the definition of marriage whatever the courts claimed it wanted to do.
Wrong. What they expressly stated was that it was the ones introducing the new statutory scheme who tried to change the definition. The court actually kept the definition the same as before.
quote:
But certainly more experience and learning on legal matters than yourself.
You have experience; I have intelligence.
quote:
Actually, they used almost exactly the same basis in considering a protected class
Yet they never overtly declared homosexuals as a protected class. The Washington decision did so expressly.
quote:
It’s like you are just attempting to parrot words you don’t understand.
. . . No, words you don't understand.
quote:
Applying the strict scrutiny test to a ‘suspect class’ establishes a protected classification.
But the point here is that by allowing the change of the definition of marriage to expressly exclude homosexuals would invoke a compelling state interest.
quote:
And effectively changed the definition of marriage.
And you impugned my ability to decipher the ruling?
They prevented a change in the definition, Jhud. The ruling struck down changing the definition of marriage to expressly exclude homosexuals.
quote:
No, a homosexual could marry someone of the opposite sex – they were free to participate in a marriage, as any adult could.
Read the ruling. Even though "domestic partnerships" were bestowed with the same legal rights and responsibilites as with marriage unions, they were not by policy true marriages, and did not enjoy federal benefits such as SSI.
quote:
Well, whatever the flaws of the courts ruling, it appears Californians are set to amend the constitution itself. There is more than one way to reign in a runaway court.
Well, gittyup.
I hope they hire you to represent their efforts.
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 6/5/2008 11:03:40 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/4/2008 11:35:57 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 753
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Good for gays? And if so, why?
Like I said, the marriage amendment was predatory. It was a statutory scheme aimed directly at homosexuals. Crying "Foul!" in the name of fairplay is always the right thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/4/2008 11:54:05 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Good for gays? And if so, why?
Like I said, the marriage amendment was predatory. It was a statutory scheme aimed directly at homosexuals. Crying "Foul!" in the name of fairplay is always the right thing to do.
Are you saying the government did the right thing?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/5/2008 12:09:51 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 753
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Are you saying the government did the right thing?
No. The government did the wrong thing; the courts righted that wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/5/2008 12:18:53 AM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Are you saying the government did the right thing?
No. The government did the wrong thing; the courts righted that wrong.
The courts are part of the government and the bible says the government is suppose to be the minister for God towards those who do evil... So how could what the court did be considered anything but wrong?
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/5/2008 12:29:37 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 753
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
The courts are part of the government and the bible says the government is suppose to be the minister for God towards those who do evil... So how could what the court did be considered anything but wrong?
In this case, the "evil" was perpetrated by those who sought to discriminate against homosexuals.
I don't know if this upholds biblical principle or not, but it is moot because our civil laws are not beholden to the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/5/2008 12:41:04 AM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
In this case, the "evil" was perpetrated by those who sought to discriminate against homosexuals.
The government is acting in evil by allowing homosexuals to marry... And given the fact it's ordained by God makes what it's doing even worse...
quote:
I don't know if this upholds biblical principle or not, but it is moot because our civil laws are not beholden to the bible.
Roman 13
1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
The government is beholden to the bible, therefore the its laws are... In fact they are acting in defiance to God in regards to its ordained purpose and the biblical fact that homoseuxality is clearly evil according to God's word...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/5/2008 9:55:56 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 753
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
The government is acting in evil by allowing homosexuals to marry
Again, the government-- the people-- tried to bar homosexuals from being deemed "married" as a policy. The courts reversed this attempt by holding the government-- the people-- to their own constitution.
What are the courts supposed to do?: pretend that their constitution doesn't exist?
quote:
The government is beholden to the bible, therefore the its laws are
Perhaps in the Great Hereafter the courts and the government will answer to the Almighty for their actions. But here and now, the government and the courts must remain secular.
You are incorrect when you say that our laws are beholden to the bible; they most certainly are not. Our laws and government are strictly secular and cannot adhere anymore to the Holy Bible than they can to the Q'ran or the Bhagavad Gita.
quote:
In fact they are acting in defiance to God in regards to its ordained purpose and the biblical fact that homoseuxality is clearly evil according to God's word
Then if they were to do the truly godly thing, they would outlaw homosexuality altogether. But they can't outlaw it because in a secular government this constitutes unfair discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/5/2008 9:21:03 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Again, the government-- the people-- tried to bar homosexuals from being deemed "married" as a policy. The courts reversed this attempt by holding the government-- the people-- to their own constitution.
What are the courts supposed to do?: pretend that their constitution doesn't exist?
It would be better for them to pretend the constitution doesn't exist than to not fear God...
quote:
You are incorrect when you say that our laws are beholden to the bible; they most certainly are not. Our laws and government are strictly secular and cannot adhere anymore to the Holy Bible than they can to the Q'ran or the Bhagavad Gita.
They should adhere to the bible... Everyone, including governments have been, are, and will be judged according to it, so actually I am not incorrect...
quote:
Then if they were to do the truly godly thing, they would outlaw homosexuality altogether. But they can't outlaw it because in a secular government this constitutes unfair discrimination.
Regardless they will be held accountable for it...
John
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/5/2008 11:19:42 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
I hope they hire you to represent their efforts. . . . Or two women.
Same difference
quote:
Actually, it began to be an issue in the 1970s:
"In the mid-1970’s, several same-sex couples sought marriage licenses from county clerks in a number of California counties, relying in part upon the 1971 change in the language of Civil Code section 4101 . . ."
The fact they sought them doesn’t mean that, as I said, they were, “ recognized by the courts or American law”.
quote:
Jefferson enumerated three, but he did not limit anyone to those three:
"The United States Supreme Court initially discussed the constitutional right to marry as an aspect of the fundamental substantive 'liberty' protected by the due process clause of the federal Constitution. . . the federal high court additionally identified the right to marry as a component of a 'right of privacy' protected by the federal Constitution."
Yeah funny how a right like ‘privacy’ (not itself found in the Constitution) has been used to justify killing babies and state sanctioned sodomy.
quote:
Marriage cannot be defined as "the right to engage in a state-sanctioned homosexual relationship" because this would expressly exclude heterosexuals.
That is what a homosexual marriage is; a state sanctioned homosexual relationship – it is nothing like a marriage.
quote:
Except that the court also noted that the old definition as such did not specify gender exclusivity:
"In contrast to the position advanced by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense
Fund and the Campaign, the Attorney General and the Governor recognize that the California Constitution does not define or limit the marriage relationship to a union of a man and a woman."
It didn’t define marriage at all, because up until the 21st century it didn’t have to – but it will soon.
quote:
You are the "no one," Jhud. I'm not trying to fool you or anyone else for that matter.
Actually, I don’t think a single other person who actually knows anything about the law accepts your limited definition – because it ignores all the other cases I demonstrated. Why do you cling to what is obviously wrong? It’s rather pitiful that you can’t concede a single ignorance.
quote:
Wrong. What they expressly stated was that it was the ones introducing the new statutory scheme who tried to change the definition. The court actually kept the definition the same as before.
No, the law simply sought to codify what was commonly understood for several thousand years, or a couple of hundred years in American jurisprudence. The court perverted the definition beyond all recognition.
quote:
You have experience; I have intelligence.
Another claim you have yet to justify.
quote:
Yet they never overtly declared homosexuals as a protected class. The Washington decision did so expressly.
Yes they did. That is what a constitutionally suspect classification is.
quote:
. . No, words you don't understand.
*yawn*
quote:
And you impugned my ability to decipher the ruling?
They prevented a change in the definition, Jhud. The ruling struck down changing the definition of marriage to expressly exclude homosexuals.
Wrong – as I pointed out the court even detailed the previous definition.
quote:
Read the ruling. Even though "domestic partnerships" were bestowed with the same legal rights and responsibilites as with marriage unions, they were not by policy true marriages, and did not enjoy federal benefits such as SSI.
Right – they were civil unions, not marriages – but homosexuals could still marry, just not people of the same sex, because that isn’t a marriage by definition.
quote:
I hope they hire you to represent their efforts.
Well, if there are still a few moral and sane people in California they won’t need to; if there aren’t any, then nothing anyone would say could help.
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/6/2008 11:38:49 AM
|
|
|
rcjames
Posts: 5693
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Oklahoma
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe
Are you saying the government did the right thing?
No. The government did the wrong thing; the courts righted that wrong.
Thuis country is of the people, by the people, and for the people; the people through their vote, and their representatives said no to gay marriage. The court overturned the will of the people.
In November the people will try again to do the right thing; maybe this time they will get it right and the courts cannot turn it over.
Thsnks
RC
_____________________________
Just a country Preacher's humble opinion
Read the first chapter of my latest book here;
http://www.deliveranceofsara.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/6/2008 11:58:42 AM
|
|
|
blessed_every_day
Posts: 4
Joined: 7/5/2005
Status: offline
|
USAToday Survey on June 3, 2008
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-03-gay-marriage-poll_N.htm
quote:
Most say Gay Marriage a Private Choice
Six in 10 Americans say the government should not regulate whether gays and lesbians can marry the people they choose, a survey finds.
No endorsement of gay marriage intended (TOS violation), just pointing to the conclusions drawn by USA Today. Of course, all surveys, though based on some kind of data, can be interpreted in many ways...
-B
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/6/2008 2:57:09 PM
|
|
|
Fritzpw_Admin
Posts: 7663
Joined: 2/28/2005
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
ADMIN'S NOTE :: ATTENTION PLEASE
1dblthnk02,
An email has been sent to your account. If you did not receive it please contact community@salemwebnetwork.com
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message.
_____________________________
Fritz
Senior Manager of Social Media
fritz@salemwebnetwork.com
Want to see my latest online project? Check out http://budurl.com/CWonFacebook
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/7/2008 10:36:07 AM
|
|
|
bombers3602
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/5/2006
Status: offline
|
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/al-qaeda-agains.html
Al Qaeda Against Marriage Equality
quote:
At his arraignment here Thursday, the alleged 9/11 mastermind said he would not accept any attorney, even a fellow Muslim, “who is sworn to your American constitution.” Displaying a surprising understanding of such concepts as federalism and dual sovereignty, Mohammed referenced recent decisions by state courts in California and Massachusetts under the powers reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment.
“I consider all American constitution” evil, he said, because it permits “same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad,” he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. “Do you understand?”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/06/khalid-sheik-mohammed-on-same-sex-marriage-value-of-counsel/
< Message edited by bombers3602 -- 6/7/2008 10:42:21 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/7/2008 3:36:22 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7794
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
Al Qaeda Against Marriage Equality
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Al Queda also opposes the war in Iraq - does that make them Democrats?
_____________________________
Jack
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first..
- Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/8/2008 5:56:49 AM
|
|
|
TheosCentric
Posts: 1958
Joined: 2/26/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bombers3602
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/al-qaeda-agains.html
Al Qaeda Against Marriage Equality
quote:
At his arraignment here Thursday, the alleged 9/11 mastermind said he would not accept any attorney, even a fellow Muslim, “who is sworn to your American constitution.” Displaying a surprising understanding of such concepts as federalism and dual sovereignty, Mohammed referenced recent decisions by state courts in California and Massachusetts under the powers reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment.
“I consider all American constitution” evil, he said, because it permits “same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad,” he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. “Do you understand?”
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/06/khalid-sheik-mohammed-on-same-sex-marriage-value-of-counsel/
It's not that it's just Al Qaeda that would oppose same-sex marriage. It would be Islam itself. What's your point?
_____________________________
"Missions exists because worship doesn't." -- John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad
God at the Center
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/8/2008 10:18:35 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1334
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Priest warns fascism has arrived in Canada
'It is a first for a province to claim right to determine moral teaching'
Posted: June 07, 2008
12:16 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
It apparently takes more than a government investigation and the threat of fines to keep a priest in Canada from speaking his mind about biblical issues. Father Alphonse de Valk, who WND reported just days ago is the target of a Human Rights Commission case over his biblical references regarding homosexuality, now is warning of an educational agenda to be implemented in support of "gay" pairs.
In a column at Catholic Insight, de Valk writes under the headline "Fascism has come to Canada" that the Department of Education in British Columbia plans in September to "introduce the mandatory teaching of SSM [same-sex marriage] from kindergarten to grade 12 in provincial schools. "It is a first for a province in Canada to claim the right to determine moral teaching in schools when the vast majority of its citizens reject it as unscientific and contrary to the common good," he wrote. "So we move from [former Prime Minister Pierre] Trudeau's 1967 slogan 'there is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation' – falsely used to destroy traditional morality – to the new slogan that the state will determine people's moral thinking."
Story Continues
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Homosexuality in the News - 6/13/2008 11:16:06 AM
|
|
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
