05-15-2008, 06:05 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
California....Vanguard of Civil Rights
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
05-15-2008, 06:26 PM | #2 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
05-15-2008, 06:37 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,589
|
I really wish the church wouldn't fight this so hard, because honestly, I'm not sure how two gay people being married affects the sanctity of my marriage or family AT ALL.
BUT, for the attorneys out there, how is limiting marriage to a man and a woman unconstitutional? What constitutional right is this limit violating? I'm just curious what the line of reasoning is. |
05-15-2008, 06:46 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
But the federal constitution is so general and maleable and archaic in much of its language that there 's a lot of room for lawyers and judges to maneuver whatever Justice Scalia says, god bless him. You could argue that it violates Equal Protection, Right to Privacy, right of free association (a penumbra of the First Amendment), maybe even the Establishment Clause. There's lots to work with.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
05-15-2008, 06:55 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
Quote:
Heterosexual marriage is not harmed if homosexuals can get married. My guess is that, politically speaking, it is in the Church's best interest to keep gay marriage illegal. Once it becomes legal, the Church faces heavier scrutiny for condemining it. From an operational standpoint, legalized gay marriage does not impede the Church one bit, any more than legalized alcohol, abortions, or stores being open on Sunday. The Church and its members will still go about their business as before.
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
|
05-15-2008, 07:01 PM | #6 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
While I am not a huge anti-gay-marriage opponent, I REALLY HATE IT when courts decide this issue.
When the courts overstep, there is going to be a backlash. We will see if there will be backlash in the form of the proposal to change the state constitution. CA already had gay marriage. It just wasn't called that. And now they will pay. |
05-15-2008, 07:09 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North Central God's Country
Posts: 1,534
|
The founder of our company came into my office and asked if I'd heard the news from California. I said no, I hadn't. He said, laughing, "They're going to let the queers marry." I stared at him blankly until he left.
He's a Penn State alum, for what it's worth.
__________________
I see a hobo. And when I see the hobo, I think to myself, "This man is poor. His monetary value is low, and my monetary value is high, and it's a shame that he is himself. What can I do?" |
05-15-2008, 07:14 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
05-15-2008, 07:15 PM | #9 |
I must not tell lies
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 5,103
|
In our democracy of checks and balances, the CA Supreme Court did not change any laws today or give same-sex couples the right to marry. Rather, they interpreted the constitutions in a manner that indicates the current CA marital statutes are illegal. So now the state legislature has the prerogative of deciding what to do about it, and they don't have to conform to the court. As SU alluded to, language is so ambiguous (remember Bill Clinton testifying "that depends on what your definition of "is" is"), that the legislature can challenge the court's interpretation, and modify the language of the statutes however they want.
So this is far from over. |
05-15-2008, 07:16 PM | #10 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|