Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

When a nation makes laws that the people have no choice in determining, it is no longer democracy in the fullest sense. When people do not WANT a law in place, and the nation puts it through anyway, it is not actual democracy. We have enough of that trash in Canada. But where is the BY THE PEOPLE in the USA? Maybe I am missing the US's intended thought in BY THE PEOPLE. I'm no political guru.

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.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by geekette

John Adams also served as President under the U.S. Constitution, which contains, in Article VI, Section 3, the following language:



I'm going to take the words of the Constitution as the law of the land over a letter that John Adams wrote in 1798 to Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts.

I think we head down a very slippery slope when we say we disagree with court decisions because a gay person can't rule for a Christian. Why, someone might say that a woman can't legislate for them, or an African American or a Jew, or a Mormon, or a member of the Assemblies of God...

(It should be noted that Adams was not a signatory to the Constitution.)

I don't think Adams or I said anything about a "test". I see no conflict in the two statements. He is simply stating that our system won't work for those who do not give place to God.

Politicians are elected by the people. Of course some judges are appointed by the politicians. I would never vote for an openly gay person, nor would I vote for someone who is known to appoint such. Nor anyone who accepts abortion as "birth control".

If others feel that way about Pentecostals or Catholic, then so be it - no problem.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Wasn't intending on losing you. Point being, I clarified and narrowed down what "believer" means.

I am fine with your definition too. Some of the founders were deists of sorts.

[Praxeas]

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.

It is now, It used to be two parties of the opposite sex

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

"Who" applying to human beings.

but who is to say that won't change either? Marriage has been redefined

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Socialite

That's a stretch. Would it be a conflict of interest of the judge was heterosexual? If the judge was religious? If the judge was...?

I don't see how if he was heterosexual but I could see how if he was a christian and if his personal views were that it should not be legal, then he should recuse himself

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by geekette

States also didn't permit "chattel property" (aka "slaves") to marry because they could not legally consent--as property.

Marriage is not strictly for procreation. We don't require prospective heterosexual couples undergo fertility tests prior to marriage. We let heterosexual couples marry who have absolutely no intention of having children. (Like elderly folks getting married for companionship.) Additionally, the judge talks in the opinion at length about the testimony he received on the impact of same-sex marriage on children and found the testimony that there was no difference between children from straight and gay marriages to be persuasive.

"Marriage" can be for whatever reasons one wants it to be, even for something so "trivial" as tax purposes. However, marriage laws have historically been concerned with procreation, even when misguided as in the case of bans on inter-racial marriages. It is the subject of marriage laws and the role of government in formulating those laws that is under discussion here, not the question of why one person chooses to spend the rest of their life with another.

The children from "gay marriages" must be present through adoption by either one or both of the "gay partners" as they are impossible to produce by the coupling of same sex partners. Thus, historically all marriage laws centered around procreation and forbade consanguinity for obvious eugenic reasons. Racial laws concerning marriage were added as the world (and people's minds) grew smaller. In all cases the concern expressed by government involved the children of the potential union. The happiness of the couple involved was never considered to be a legal matter.

I fully realize that developments in medicine will complicate, if not completely confound my position. But I need to find some sort of ground upon which to stand so I have chosen the historical outlook.

"What was the purpose of any marriage law?" The historical approach shows that government administered marriage laws for the purposes of addressing the offspring of such unions. If no offspring are possible then neither a government sanction nor a ban is not really warranted. You simply are dealing with something that is not "marriage."

Gay couples adopting children is a separate issue from gay couples producing children. IMHO.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I don't think Adams or I said anything about a "test". I see no conflict in the two statements. He is simply stating that our system won't work for those who do not give place to God.

Politicians are elected by the people. Of course some judges are appointed by the politicians. I would never vote for an openly gay person, nor would I vote for someone who is known to appoint such. Nor anyone who accepts abortion as "birth control".

If others feel that way about Pentecostals or Catholic, then so be it - no problem.

That quote simply references moral and religious people, it is not exclusive to Christians only. If they are moral and religious according to their own religion, then that quote does not cover them. They are moral, therefore they can interpret the Constitution.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I see your point but doesn't a homosexual have more to gain? Obviously many heterosexuals voted against this bill. Wouldn't the judge, being gay, be more likely to be biased?

No more than a straight judge would be biased, presiding over this case.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

No more than a straight judge would be biased, presiding over this case.

I think this could only be true if you accept that homosexuality is not more perverted, immoral and deviant in and of it'self.