-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/some_logical_corollaries_of_californias_gay_marriage_decision -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
[quote]Having got rid of the old Judeo-Christian taboos[/quote]
The US Supreme court, I believe has nixed polygamous marriage. In fact, before Utah was admitted to the union, they had to agree not to recognize polygamous marriages. The Texas takings of children therefore should be tried in the 9th Circuit and a good case be made for illegal takings---except that the marriages were heterosexual. /had they only been homosexual--and not religious, then everything would be "blessed" by the CSC/sarcasm, but point made.
Just like any other woman, you are free to marry any man who would have you.
Wrong. It is a specific social institution, which exists for specific social purposes, and has specific requirements for those who wish to participate. The gay pressure lobby wants to simply eliminate one of the requirements(the most fundamental one), but as this article points out, eliminating that requirement opens the door to eliminating all the requirements, thus making the word meaningless. Of course, this is the real purpose of the gay pressure group.
You can do whatever you want and you can call it whatever you want, but you have no right to demand that the citizens recognize it as such.
Rights are innate. They are not derived from other people.
Any questions, ask.
Is everyone granted a Driver's License, qualified or not? No! It is a privilege granted by the state, it is not a civil right. There are overwhelming state interests, like public safety, that requires people meet certain requirements to obtain a driver's license.
In a similar way, not everyone is qualified to be granted a marriage license, it is a privilege and not a civil right, and there are overwhelming state interests in keeping marriage between a man and woman. (1) When the basic definition of marriage changes, then as suggested, there is no way that polygamous marriages could be lawfully prevented, or other many other marital arranegements. (2) Marriage itself becomes meaningless, as does the foundation of the family.
I could list many more reasons why homosexual marriage should be against the law. They can have all the legal rights of marriage through civil unions, so why marriage? They want to remove the social stigma attached to their perverse (a change of natural course) relationships and demand that even Christian Churches must accept their unions that somehow thereby, at least to them, the spiritual condemnation of that lifestyle choice is also removed.
They deserve to be treated decently, in the love of Christ and not denied those things that are basic to life, like work, home, clothing, etcetera; while society should deny them the social and legal imprimatuer over their sexual lifestyle choice.
Neiman is right, as I wrote originally. This court should rule in favor of multiple partnerships, but this really is nothing more than liberal ideology or communist as they have outlined back in the 1850s.
Are any of the dirt-bags who voted [u]for[/u] gay marriage eligible for recall under that provision?
We, as a people, as part of a civilized world have always accepted the fact that marriage should be an act of discrimination for the public good. Thus, the single most important qualification is that marriage only be between one man and one woman. We further discriminate that they should not be too closely related and until very recently that they cannot be of the same gender. This has been true in all civilized societies, in every geographical setting, throughout all recorded human history and is demanded by every human religion, accept rare man made cults. This form of discrimination is still accepted by Islamic states, Hindu and even Communist states, it is universal and the manifold reasons still tell us that a sound, stable and moral society and future generations are best served under this form of discrimination.
We must ask ourselves why? Why in just recent decades has homosexuality become socially aceptable in the West? Why are the homosexual activists demanding marriage now? After all, marriage is mostly a religious concept and that founded upon Judeo-Cheristian teachings. Why marriage, homosexuals in most states can obtain all the legal rights associated with marriage without the label, and why is the label important when most homosexuals deny Scripture and Judeo-Christian teachings? They insist they are born homosexual, that homosexual conduct is not perverse but normal and moral, so if the believe that is true, why marriage?
I believe at its heart we will find this to be true: (1) No one can feel normal and healthy when their behavior is viewed as being abnormal. So, force the world to accept homosexuality as being normal and bingo, no more guilt or shame. (2) No one wants to feel inferior to people of faith, any condemnation of homosexuality makes them feel inferior. So, force even churches to at minimum be silent about homosexuality and bingo, no more feelings of spiritual inferiority. (3) True marriage, as known by every human being ever born demands fidelity, it provides for family stability and other social benefits. So, destroy marriage by demanding it for homosexuals and bingo, no more restraints of sexual activities, no more being bound by God to marital fidelity and with the heterosexuals no longer constrained by marriage, no greater benefits to being married than not.
One last point: If homosexual marriage is lawful in enough states, every state will be forced to recognize homosexual marriages licensed in others states.
RZ, what is the make up of the CA supreme court?
How many justices are there?
Who appointed them?
Do you know the make up of the court?
I know that RZ is afraid to talk to me anymore...
When I decide what to eat for dinner, I am discriminating against all the other choices I might have made, which isn't illegal. The issue here is that the CSC invented a new form of illegal discrimination, based solely on the existence of a different name. In fact, what gays do is different from what real married couples do, which certainly merits a different name, because it is a different thing. Under this "ruling", heterosexuals living together, or even close friends, could be defined as "married", because to call their relationship by its right name would now be "discrimination". Clear?
This decision was issued by the California State Supreme Court, the majority on the court and in this decision were appointed by Republicans; However, so was Earl Warren the worst, most vile Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in our history. So were converted to the extreme Left Wing, Justice Souter and former Justice O'Conner. So, who apointed them is absolutely immaterial to this issue.
This was legislating from then bench, no more and no less and the people of this state will amend the Constitution in November and shut up these extremist justices on this issue.
A guy and a gal could do the same. I'm not sure I see what that's supposed to tell us, though.
It seems obvious that the result will be to make the word "marriage" meaningless.
Exactly why I am against going down the road of changing the meaning. When marriage means anything, it will mean nothing.
Some, not all, but some of the "gay marriage" proponents have exactly that goal in mind.