05-16-2008, 12:20 AM | #51 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Valencia CA
Posts: 1,384
|
Quote:
Quote:
mumble mumble *wipes drool* *picks nose* |
||
05-16-2008, 12:39 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where do you think?
Posts: 1,201
|
Well of course everyone has the choice to pack some dude's fudge or not.
|
05-16-2008, 12:45 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
|
05-16-2008, 01:24 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where do you think?
Posts: 1,201
|
What is really wrong about this decision is these judges are over-ruling the voice of the people. The stench from the bench is making me clench. FOUR people are making their opinions count more than the millions of us who voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman. They are inventing a basic human right that does not exist in the constitution, namely the right for gays to marry.
This actually may end up hurting the gay agenda and gay marriage in California more than helping it in the long run. This decision is going to rally, and energize all those against gay marriage in the state to come out and vote in November to pass the constitutional amendment. It will be very interesting to see the Church's position on this election. When the marriage proposition was on the ballot several years ago the boys from SLC were very clear in their directives to the local leaders here. The stakes, and wards all over California were VERY active, and organized in supporting the proposition. Each ward had a person in charge of campaigning activities. Things like getting people yard signs to post, collecting signatures, etc. It was pretty ugly during the campaign last time. I remember one guy in our stake kept having his yard sign stolen, and he finally caught the people stealing it one night. I can only imagine it will be ten times worse this time. Last edited by NorCal Cat; 05-16-2008 at 06:25 AM. |
05-16-2008, 12:00 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Happy Valley, PA
Posts: 1,866
|
Sounds about right. The Klan is still strong in Central Pennsylvania.
__________________
I hope for nothing. I fear nothing. I am free. - Epitaph of Nikos Kazantzakis (1883-1957) |
05-16-2008, 01:37 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 525
|
IPU, you're an opponent of equal rights because the number of recipients of benefits would increase? And you gave yourself props?
|
05-16-2008, 01:44 PM | #57 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
The best argument I can really come up with is that marriage is not a right. It's a benefit provided by the state. The state provides it, because the state believes it benefits from it. The state has the right to promote certain kinds of marriages, while prohibiting other kinds of marriages (such as consanguinous marriages). Therefore the state can determine that it has no compelling interest in promoting gay marriages becaue of perceived lack of benefit to the state.
Could gay couples live together and have sex? Yes. Could polyamorous folks live together and have sex? Yes. But they could not marry. Well, some might argue that it is a benefit to the state to have gays marry. But the state does not benefit froma polyamorous marriage. (I can't think of a reason for the discrepancy, perhaps you can help me out). The compelling state interesting in promoting heterosexual marriage, is that it forms the basis for stable reproduction. Does the state have an interest in stable reproduction? Yes it does. Some countries are so worried about the lack of fertility that they are paying couples of have children. It could be argued that generally speaking, a homosexual marriage is not the basis for stable reproduction, therefore the state has no compelling interest in providing "marriage status." I'm not saying I believe all of this, I'm just trying to provide a framework that can be discussed. |
05-16-2008, 03:43 PM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,059
|
Quote:
Because California statutes allow for domestic partnerships for same-sex couples, which are basically marriage without the name, the Supreme Court held that California law recognizes that same-sex partners have virtually the same rights as heterosexual partners. Therefore, there is no compelling state interest in giving the relationships different names, when they're virtually the same in effect. It's not an activist Supreme Court here, as many are claiming. The activism was done years ago by the legislature in enacting the domestic partnership statutes.
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug |
|
05-16-2008, 03:45 PM | #59 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
|
|
05-16-2008, 03:50 PM | #60 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
The concern I have is activist legislatures compelling Churches to recognize gay marriages within their congregations or losing their tax exempt status. It won't be enough and everybody will be compelled to think and behave alike. Judicially compelled conformism in some cases doesn't make sense.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|