Prop 8 overruled by gay judge! - Page 13

Praxeas · #**121** 08-05-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

I agree.

But what if the judge said he was a "traditional family" guy? What then? Can we find an objective judge?

I am sure we can find an objective judge. I'm sure some smart lawyers can think of some more questions to ask him to determine if he can be impartial. That alone,being his personal preference, is not enough.

I don't think a person being gay is automatically enough to have him excused either, but I think they should ask him questions just as they would jurists

Socialite · #**122** 08-05-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That is your opinion. Im not sure if you see my point, but let me add that not to long ago the notion of two men getting married would be laughed at. It was an absurd suggestion.

Marriage has been defined by society as a union and contract between a man and a woman.

As for animals, the fact that they have no protection under the law does not mean a man can not marry his goat if he wanted to...the goat has no rights to protect him FROM such a thing.

What is happening is more than "legalities". The law that was proposed was a law some thought was needed to protect what society has defined since it was founded, that marriage is a union of a man and woman. Up until recently no law was needed because no challenge to the social norm was made

I do get your point.

What I'm saying is that it's simply not even possible to consider a man denied the privilege of marrying his goat (I'm sure there won't be a long line for this) on the basis of Equal Protection. The man can be denied and what legal recourse could he claim? Marriage is still between human beings and persons, not animals.

Socialite · #**123** 08-05-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So, now (beginning roughly 10 years ago), homosexuals can have civil unions? Good. Why then is it necessary to be married? Why is it necessary to redefine Marriage?

The point is, 10 years ago you nor I would think of conceding to civil unions. From their vantage point, this is progress and they may as well continue to obain equal status under the law (medical issues relating to spouses, health benefits, tax laws, etc).

I haven't said, by the way, that I support (personally) same-sex marriage on a legal basis. I'm challenging the notion on here, but not exactly claiming that for my own opinion.

What I do insist, though, is that a believer can have a permissible view legally even if they don't morally agree.

Socialite · #**124** 08-05-2010, 04:02 PM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

Quote:

John Stossel: Homosexuality. Should gays be allowed to marry?

Ron Paul: Sure.

Stossel: The State says, we will believe in this?

Paul: Sure they can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want , just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but they gay couples can do whatever they want. In fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function. I think it's a religious function. There was a time when only churches dealt with marriage, and they determined what it was. But 100 years or so ago for health reasons they claim that the state would protect us if we knew more about our spouses and we did health testing and you had to get a license to get married and I don't agree with that.

The position I lean towards is definitely more libertarian. At the least, it's up for state's to decide, the the maximum, I think the problem is government interference with marriage. It's all tangled up with taxation, benefits, etc now so fat chance of reforming that.

mfblume · #**125** 08-05-2010, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

Paul is a smart cookie, if you ask me.

Baron1710 · #**126** 08-05-2010, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Both parties wouldn't be eligible for protection under the law. Marrying a rock, a goldfish or a corpse. Marriage is two parties in contract.

Are you sure? Just two parties?

mfblume · #**127** 08-05-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Are you sure? Just two parties?

Good one.

Baron1710 · #**128** 08-05-2010, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

But are there times when this ideal is not served? Wasn't that what became of Slavery and the Civil Rights movement??

The pro-same-sex marriage groups would use that argument and claim this is one of those opportunities. The majority cannot vote for something that opposes the Constitutional rights of another. The Constitution is specifically for the protection of the minority and those not in power.

Isn't what your describing simply tyranny by the minority?

This isn't civil rights no matter how bad they want to portray it that way.

Socialite · #**129** 08-05-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Are you sure? Just two parties?

at least two parties

Socialite · #**130** 08-05-2010, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Isn't what your describing simply tyranny by the minority?

This isn't civil rights no matter how bad they want to portray it that way.

Depends who you ask.

In what ways are you being tyrannized?

I've heard the "civil rights" arguments on both sides and I can see both sides' point. The issue here is the rights of homosexual men and women to also participate in state-sponsored marriage.

Being excluded from that, they certainly feel denied that right by the majority, and are arguing their case with the Constitution.