Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

[ParanoiA]

I suppose part of my argument is that the existing laws are fine, and do, in fact, allow two same sex people to wed and be recognized as such by the state.

 

If the existing laws were written fine, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't see much disagreement about the ends, only the means. If I believed the supreme court could rule on the definition of "marriage" and end the debate, I'd certainly be with you.

 

The part with which I'm struggling is why we'd allow those who wish to ban the practice of same sex marriage to be the ones writing new laws[/i']... New laws which are polar opposite to the founding principles of our nation...

 

And you know why that is happening? Because of the insistence on legally redefining the word marriage, through the courts ala "reinterpretation retroapplication" maneuvers on the constitution, a position that does not enjoy majority support. And that's got them all charged up and motivated.

 

Rather than to instead, make your own charge and focus efforts on establishing the "civil union" as the government recognized institution through federal law, whereas traditional hetero "marriage" is merely one form that meets the qualifications. Others would include same-sex unions, and they could call them marriage all day long, what law would exist that cares what it calls itself? I would think that would stand a better chance of majority support.

Edited March 10, 2009 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

I understand your position. Thanks for taking a moment to clarify it again.

 

 

Now, does anyone have any thoughts as to how the California Supreme Court will respond, and how they might justify either decision they make about the amendment to their constitution banning same sex couples from marrying (aka... Prop 8)?

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr Skeptic - I apologize for letting my temper get the best of me above. I was way out of line calling you a jackass like I did, as you've posted a number of wonderful replies to this forum, you are someone I respect, and my comments above are below me and nor do you deserve that type of treatment. I am sorry, my friend. I just really struggle to understand your position about this somehow being about the definition of a word, but that happens.

 

I understand, it is easy to loose your temper on this sort of subject, especially since we already invested/wasted a lot of time on it. My position is rather murky as well, so I'll try to clarify it. I don't particularly like homosexuals, but I think they need to be given rights (both for their own good, and for the good of the rest of us).

 

I don't think that the correct way to give them rights involves changing the definition of marriage via non-legislative means thereby changing the laws. That would, simply put, be an extremely dangerous precedent. It would definitely be fair game to show that the word marriage in law already included same-sex couples, but I don't think anyone is going to do that.

 

I'm sick of hearing relatively pointless arguments or protests about what marriage means, and would support legislation defining marriage for legal purposes, whether or not it includes same-sex couples. Legislation defining marriage to include same sex couples may have constitutional problems if it requires religious people to accept that definition. Legislation defining marriage to exclude same-sex couples may be on shaky constitutional grounds depending on what marriage meant previously. I think I would be most happy with legislation that defines marriage to exclude same sex couples, if it is accompanied by legislation granting equivalent rights to same-sex couples. That would not violate anyone's rights.

 

The rights I don't think homosexuals should have: tax breaks for married couples, which I think are intended to make things easier on them and their children, which I think is somewhat less applicable to same-sex couples. Actually, I don't particularly like married people having a tax break in the first place, especially if the reason for it is not related to their children (I'm not married). I also think they do not have the right to force others to accept their union as a "marriage" -- that would infringe on others' rights to freedom of religion, since the Bible is very clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. iNow: If I'm not mistaken, this point is probably one of the reasons you want the definition changed, since you seem to want to attack religion wherever you can.

 

As to this being about the definition of "marriage": read the text of Proposition 8, and you will see that if you can prove you have the correct definition of marriage, Proposition 8 is either obviously correct (ie, "only marriages shall be recognized as marriages..."), or almost certainly unconstitutional (court has recognized marriage as a right, and changing the definition of marriage would probably require an amendment to the US Constitution, not the California Constitution). For more fun, we've been making laws about marriage for a long time, and if the definition of marriage has changed in the meantime, "marriage" might mean different things in different laws.

 

 

As Sayo has reminded everyone, I want this thread to be about Prop 8 and how the courts will rule. I am trying to figure out how we've gone so far away from our founding principels that our only recourse against such a ban staying on the books is whether or not they broke procedure or voilated some rule while doing so.

 

One other thing I've been taking issue with is your repeated claims that there are no relevant constitutional secular reasons to support Proposition 8. I don't think that is true, and it is essentially begging the question, and you haven't supported that position (to be fair, I don't think you can). And if it were true then as noted above I'm sure some lawyer would have pounced on that rather than going for technicalities.

 

It's a tough question for the courts to address, and I wonder how they can get out of this without inciting an angry mob from either side. I wonder how they will do what's right for the long-term, and how they can do so without violating their power. I wonder what they will do these next ~90 days.

 

I think that the compromise that would anger the least people would be to define marriage to exclude same-sex couples while simultaneously granting them equal rights. But that is something the legislature can do, not the courts. What the courts could do to not get beaten up by an angry mob is what Zeus did in this story. [hide]Spoiler: delegate the responsibility to someone else -- in this case, the legislative branch[/hide]

[iNow]

But, if the court does NOT reject Prop 8, is it not already then legislated? You seem to be suggesting that the court can simply choose "not to rule," thus placing the onus of action into the congress. I'm not sure that's the case, but I could be wrong and welcome clarification.

 

If the court finds no way to reject Prop 8, is it not already going to be the "law of the land," and already beyond the legislature? This is a question to anyone who has an articulate answer.

 

 

---

line[/hr]

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_California

 

 

A brief history of the ongoing issue in California. Click on Prop 22, well down the article under referendum, which was the Prop 8, in the 2000 California Election....

 

Very interesting.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_22_(2000)

Separately, numerous challenges to the constitutionality of the opposite-sex requirements found in California's marriage statutes, including Prop 22, came before the courts. A San Francisco trial court threw out all of the gender requirements on state constitutional grounds. On appeal, an intermediate court reversed that decision. In December 2006, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review all six cases and held oral argument on March 4, 2008, consolidating the cases as In re Marriage Cases.

The Court ruled on May 15, 2008, that Proposition 22 violated the state Constitution and was therefore invalid

.

 

 

...and yet:

 

Despite the act's brevity — 14 words — its effect provoked debate long after its passage.

Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution with identical wording

[to Prop 22], was passed by voters in the November 4, 2008 general election.

 

 

Prop 22 deemed unconstitutional. So, Prop 8 with identical wording comes along and may be allowed to stand. I really worry about humanity sometimes.

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Nobody? Bueller? Bueller?

 

Did I at least manage to salvage this one from suicide by mod?

Edited March 10, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Saryctos]

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Nobody? Bueller? Bueller?

 

Did I at least manage to salvage this one from suicide by mod?

 

Not even Hitler would post in this thread

[Mr Skeptic]

But, if the court does NOT reject Prop 8, is it not already then legislated? You seem to be suggesting that the court can simply choose "not to rule," thus placing the onus of action into the congress. I'm not sure that's the case, but I could be wrong and welcome clarification.

 

If the court finds no way to reject Prop 8, is it not already going to be the "law of the land," and already beyond the legislature? This is a question to anyone who has an articulate answer.

 

My thought was that they could say something like, "Well, we can only judge whether this breaks any laws regardless of whether it is a good idea or not. If we were to throw it out, the legislative branch still has the power to pass similar legislation in a way we can't throw out. If we find no grounds to throw it out, you can still ask the legislative branch to repeal it." I guess that they have to rule one way or the other though, being a court and all (right?).

 

Even if they don't throw it out, it is not like it will be the end of gay rights or permanently become the law of the land. Eventually the old geezers who voted this in will die out, and a more tolerant generation will see to it that they get their rights. This regardless of how marriage ends up being defined.

[scrappy]

What are the likely explanations the courts will use for either a for or against decision on Prop 8?

The most likely explanation for a higher court to uphold Prop 8 will be the simple fact that no one in the GLBT community is being denied "marriage," if "marriage" is legally defined as a civil union between one man and one woman.

 

The most likely explanation for a higher court to overturn Prop 8 will be...maybe that the traditional definition of "marriage" needs revision to accommodate the GLBT people.

 

But even in California, I don't think there are enough GLBT people to influence the high court's decision. It will be in favor of Prop 8. But if it is overturned then what's to stop polygamists from demanding that the definition of "marriage" should be revised to accommodate Mormon people?

 

And it won't end there.

[Sayonara]

The rights I don't think homosexuals should have: tax breaks for married couples, which I think are intended to make things easier on them and their children, which I think is somewhat less applicable to same-sex couples.

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Not providing the same tax breaks to same-sex couples is quite clearly providing a barrier to them having a family. This is a classical example of discrimination. How do we think the courts' views on Prop 8 might be affected by such examples?

 

I also think they do not have the right to force others to accept their union as a "marriage" -- that would infringe on others' rights to freedom of religion, since the Bible is very clear that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I don't follow the logic. It seems to me like you are saying "the bible defines marriage in this particular way, and so if anyone acts as if there might be a different definition then they are somehow trampling on the rights of people who deny the meaning of words which are used outside the context of biblical stories."

 

If that is the logic that Proposition 8 is based upon then good luck to it; it's a specious and egocentric argument which I'd hope a court won't buy.

 

But even in California, I don't think there are enough GLBT people to influence the high court's decision. It will be in favor of Prop 8.

I don't think popularity is a factor at court.

 

But if it is overturned then what's to stop polygamists from demanding that the definition of "marriage" should be revised to accommodate Mormon people?

Slippery slope. The same argument won't necessarily lead to the same conclusion if the premises and circumstances differ even slightly.

[Mr Skeptic]

Isn't this putting the cart before the horse? Not providing the same tax breaks to same-sex couples is quite clearly providing a barrier to them having a family. This is a classical example of discrimination. How do we think the courts' views on Prop 8 might be affected by such examples?

 

To be fair, I don't think that married people deserve tax breaks either. But I made my case as to why there could be a difference between same-sex and opposite sex marriages with respect to raising a family, and therefore costs associated with that, and you have shown nothing to refute it. So I have nothing more to add, other than that this is an extremely minor point and only my opinion, and that you completely glossed over the major point -- the definition of marriage, and its relevance to a proposition that effectively defines marriage.

 

I don't follow the logic. It seems to me like you are saying "the bible defines marriage in this particular way, and so if anyone acts as if there might be a different definition then they are somehow trampling on the rights of people who deny the meaning of words which are used outside the context of biblical stories."

 

If that is the logic that Proposition 8 is based upon then good luck to it; it's a specious and egocentric argument which I'd hope a court won't buy.

 

No, I was quite clear. Let me make it more clear: What relevant secular constitutional reason would there be to pass a law that defines a religiously charged word in a way opposite to a religion's definition? Why not just worry about their rights, whatever they may be called? I think the only reason for that is to influence said religious people in some way.

 

Then, once you found a good reason as above, is that reason good enough to trample on people's freedom, especially if they are expected to accept the definition? Alternately, show that being forced to accept a definition that goes against what the Bible says does not violate the right to religious freedom.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But if it is overturned then what's to stop polygamists from demanding that the definition of "marriage" should be revised to accommodate Mormon people?

 

I got news for you, the word "marriage" already includes the possibility of polygamous marriages. A union between a man and a woman, then another union between a man and a woman, then... However, our laws require you to divorce the person you are married to before you marry again, such that you can only be married to one person at a time.

[Sayonara]

To be fair, I don't think that married people deserve tax breaks either.

Me neither, it is somewhat anachronistic. Especially since the downturn in population trends is actually a global blessing.

 

But I made my case as to why there could be a difference between same-sex and opposite sex marriages with respect to raising a family, and therefore costs associated with that, and you have shown nothing to refute it.

Wait, what? Where did you make that case? All you said was "[i don't think same-sex married couples should have] tax breaks for married couples, which I think are intended to make things easier on them and their children, which I think is somewhat less applicable to same-sex couples!"

 

Where is the difference? All you have stated there which is capable of being a proposition (and therefore being refuted) is that same-sex couples can't physically have a family, which is completely false. What more need I refute? If you are happy with that refutation but would like some evidence, maybe I could post some gay adoptive or assisted conception parents and their children to you by UPS so that you can inspect them for authenticity.

 

So I have nothing more to add, other than that this is an extremely minor point and only my opinion, and that you completely glossed over the major point -- the definition of marriage, and its relevance to a proposition that effectively defines marriage.

YOU raised the issue of tax breaks being a bug-bear for you, with regards to the apparently quite different marriages of the heterosexuals and those other second class citizens. Regardless of whether you object to those tax breaks across the board, YOU made the distinction. I can't see the relevance of that point and therefore can't discuss the "major point" in terms of it if you don't adequately elaborate on what you meant.

 

You have already plainly stated in this thread "I don't particularly like homosexuals", so it falls on you to go the extra mile to show unambiguously that when you say things like "gay families should be financially persecuted as compared to straight families" it has a rational basis and is not simply based in parochial disdain.

 

No, I was quite clear.

The words are clear, yes. The logic isn't.

 

Let me make it more clear: What relevant secular constitutional reason would there be to pass a law that defines a religiously charged word in a way opposite to a religion's definition?

You can't have your cake and eat it though, can you? That is precisely the problem with religion in politics where there is supposed to be separation of church and state, and that is exactly what Prop 8 is trying to exploit. Very cleverly too, it has to be said. I think we both recognise the core problem with the debate here and it is almost certain that this issue will appear as the major battlefront in the courts.

 

Also, a legal definition being at odds with a "religiously charged" definition is not good enough reason for the legal definition to not be adopted in legal circles. Far from it being up to anyone to show why it should be, I think it falls on the hypothetical complainant to show why it shouldn't. If the hypothetical complainant is going to kick up a stink and make that stink the basis of their attack on a much-needed social change, then the hypothetical complainant ought to put their money where their hypothetical mouth is and explain just what all the stink is about.

 

And "it demeans this arbitrary institution which some humans made up once for the exclusive use of their own in-group" is not very compelling. Especially if you want to restrict the scope of the arguments to those which are "relevant secular constitutional" ones.

 

Then, once you found a good reason as above, is that reason good enough to trample on people's freedom, especially if they are expected to accept the definition?

Yes. I strongly disagree that their freedom is being trampled on, as they have not suffered any form of loss or denial, but still yes. However I'm not invested in your political system which may be a factor there.

 

Alternately, show that being forced to accept a definition that goes against what the Bible says does not violate the right to religious freedom.

False requirement. Allowing gay couples to call their unions "marriages" doesn't force anyone else to do squat.*

 

 

* That should be the closing remark at court.

[doG]

What relevant secular constitutional reason would there be to pass a law that defines a religiously charged word in a way opposite to a religion's definition?

 

Does religion somehow have a patent or ownership of the word?

 

marry

1297' date=' from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," [b']of uncertain origin[/b], perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said from 1530 of the priest, etc., who performs the rite.

 

Why should I even care what religion thinks? We are talking about law here and religion HAS NO PLACE in any laws of the United States. If religion is concerned about what meaning the word has among the non-religious then let it come up with it's own term. As it is now many non-religious marriages take place officiated by Justices of the Peace, Ship Captains, Tribal Elders and other non-religious officials so religion can back off on calling any explicit authority over the definition of marriage.

[Mr Skeptic]

You can't have your cake and eat it though, can you? That is precisely the problem with religion in politics where there is supposed to be separation of church and state, and that is exactly what Prop 8 is trying to exploit. Very cleverly too, it has to be said. I think we both recognise the core problem with the debate here and it is almost certain that this issue will appear as the major battlefront in the courts.

 

Also, a legal definition being at odds with a "religiously charged" definition is not good enough reason for the legal definition to not be adopted in legal circles. Far from it being up to anyone to show why it should be, I think it falls on the hypothetical complainant to show why it shouldn't. If the hypothetical complainant is going to kick up a stink and make that stink the basis of their attack on a much-needed social change, then the hypothetical complainant ought to put their money where their hypothetical mouth is and explain just what all the stink is about.

 

And "it demeans this arbitrary institution which some humans made up once for the exclusive use of their own in-group" is not very compelling. Especially if you want to restrict the scope of the arguments to those which are "relevant secular constitutional" ones.

 

Well, I'll point out that you have not yet given any reason why it should force this definition on them. Why not simply use a new word, or just give them their rights without worrying about what it's called? If there is no good reason to do it, then we shouldn't do it.

 

Alternately, if you so want to, I'll accept that the onus is on people who don't like a new law to make their case that the law is bad rather than on the people in favor of a law to show that it is a good law. But then, have fun with Proposition 8, and similar as yet unpassed laws.

 

Yes. I strongly disagree that their freedom is being trampled on, as they have not suffered any form of loss or denial, but still yes. However I'm not invested in your political system which may be a factor there.

 

Ah, what an excellent argument. I strongly disagree that the freedom of homosexual is being trampled on by Proposition 8, as they have not suffered any form of loss or denial, but still yes.

 

False requirement. Allowing gay couples to call their unions "marriages" doesn't force anyone else to do squat.*

 

 

* That should be the closing remark at court.

 

Ah, so are you saying that others (eg the people in charge of hospital visits) don't need to accept them as married.

[iNow]

Why not simply use a new word, or just give them their rights without worrying about what it's called?

 

Yeah, precisely. I think you should probably try listening to yourself on this one.

 

Why not simply give them their rights without worrying about what it's called?

 

 

 

If there is no good reason to do it, then we shouldn't do it.

Equality. Constitutionality. Alignment of human rights regardless of sexuality. I find those reasons extraordinarily good ones, myself.

 

 

Alternately, if you so want to, I'll accept that the onus is on people who don't like a new law to make their case that the law is bad rather than on the people in favor of a law to show that it is a good law.

I implore you to review almost every post I made to this thread. I discussed the relevant bits of our constitution, its amendments and articles, as well as our other founding documents. I shared numerous SCOTUS cases which set precendent, and also amply demonstrated how our representative democracy was explicitly crafted to offer protection to minorities. Yet, you still think that those against Prop 8 need to "make their case?" Have you not been paying attention? Do you live in an alternate reality? What's happening here?

 

If you're ignoring the arguments, or just simply don't accept them, then that's one thing, but to claim that none have been made is incredibly disingenous and seriously lacking in integrity.

 

 

 

I strongly disagree that the freedom of homosexual is being trampled on by Proposition 8, as they have not suffered any form of loss or denial, but still yes.

I presume that this position you're arguing rests on your assumption that they didn't previously have the right to have a marriage recognized by the state, correct?

Edited March 11, 2009 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, thanks for helping me make my point about double standards.

[iNow]

iNow, thanks for helping me make my point about double standards.

 

Would you please be so kind as to explain precisely how it is you think I did that? If at all possible, can you please do so in context of the discussion regarding the California State Supreme Courts pending decision about Prop 8?

[doG]

Well, I'll point out that you have not yet given any reason why it should force this definition on them. Why not simply use a new word, or just give them their rights without worrying about what it's called? If there is no good reason to do it, then we shouldn't do it.

 

That's a two way street. If there's not a good reason not to then why shouldn't we? Why should any us bow to the authority of the church? Let them choose a new word.

[Mr Skeptic]

That's a two way street. If there's not a good reason not to then why shouldn't we? Why should any us bow to the authority of the church? Let them choose a new word.

 

Well, for one thing there would be less support for such legislation because of it (from people who support gay rights but think marriage should mean between a man and a woman), so presumably it would be worth the loss of support for gay rights to have that definition for marriage, from a merely practical standpoint. I am no constitutional scholar, but I think it could potentially be unconstitutional to legislate a definition of a religiously charged word that goes against the religious definition, without a good enough reason. It's not a matter of bowing to the authority of the church, its a matter of not making them bow to someone else's authority for no reason.

[iNow]

It's not a matter of bowing to the authority of the church, its a matter of not making them bow to someone else's authority for no reason.

 

Where and how, precisely, is anyone making or forcing anyone to do anything? In addition, if you could please respond to my previous request for clarification, that would be helpful.

[doG]

I am no constitutional scholar, but I think it could potentially be unconstitutional to legislate a definition of a religiously charged word that goes against the religious definition...

 

Can you prove the origin of the word as religious? I cited the known etymology of the word earlier. Can you prove otherwise? What exactly do you mean by "religiously charged word" anyhow? What is unconstitutional is letting "religion" have any bearing on legislation written. Legislation is about writing law and religious concerns have no legitimate place in that process.

[Sayonara]

Well, I'll point out that you have not yet given any reason why it should force this definition on them.

I thought I'd quite robustly stated that I didn't perceive any necessity to do so. The onus is on the people saying they are having a definition "forced on them" to show that this is true, and furthermore to show why it should not be allowed to happen. Indignation alone has never been a legal argument and it never will be. If it were, an obvious defence to a charge of murder would be that you don't much appreciate having that definition forced on you. That wouldn't be very good at all, would it?

 

Why not simply use a new word, or just give them their rights without worrying about what it's called? If there is no good reason to do it, then we shouldn't do it.

As has already been pointed out, this aptly demonstrates that the debate is a two-way street, and to use this as an argument against gay couples using the word "marriage" reeks of hypocrisy.

 

Alternately, if you so want to, I'll accept that the onus is on people who don't like a new law to make their case that the law is bad rather than on the people in favor of a law to show that it is a good law. But then, have fun with Proposition 8, and similar as yet unpassed laws.

Even better yet, acknowledge all the other words which current laws define differently to the counterpart meanings found in documents from the Dark Ages and consider that the reason nobody is crying foul about those differences is because they don't threaten the institutional discrimination which has allowed religion to tread down on groups they don't like for centuries for no reason other than spite endorsed by "god".

 

 

Ah, what an excellent argument. I strongly disagree that the freedom of homosexual is being trampled on by Proposition 8, as they have not suffered any form of loss or denial, but still yes.

So being denied the right to call your marriage a marriage because of the petty whim of one particular club of like-minded people is not denial? Or is it a special kind of denial which can be safely ignored because it's okay, it's just those awful gays who are affected?

 

 

Ah, so are you saying that others (eg the people in charge of hospital visits) don't need to accept them as married.

That wasn't your argument. Please leave the goalposts where they are. Since you asked, the people in charge of hospital visits are professionally obligated to follow the rules that govern those visits. ALL the rules. You don't get to decide which rules jibe with your personal prejudices on the way into work, and making a special case out of one particular rule because you* don't like it is Special Pleading. The only way you can link this to the point of yours which I was replying to is to state that hospital workers are denying access to visitors because of their own personal Biblical beliefs, in which case the only response is that they should be fired immediately.

 

I find it extraordinary that you keep "pointing out" that I have not given reasons for things which don't need any reasons given, yet you have utterly failed to address or refute any of the major points I made.

 

I am going to reiterate what iNow said. Pay special attention:

Equality. Constitutionality. Alignment of human rights regardless of sexuality.

 

You are arguing against these principles. Take a step back from your objections and consider carefully if you think that they are in proportion with what is at stake. Then consider how the arguments might play out in the Supreme Court and get back to us with your findings.

 

 

 

* Not necessarily you, obviously.

[padren]

I am no constitutional scholar, but I think it could potentially be unconstitutional to legislate a definition of a religiously charged word that goes against the religious definition, without a good enough reason. It's not a matter of bowing to the authority of the church, its a matter of not making them bow to someone else's authority for no reason.

 

First of all, there is no single religious definition of Marriage - there are priests who have performed religious same sex marriages. They consider the word religious while not ascribing to the more restrictive definition. The problem of course, is even if same sex marriage is supported by a church and performs one, that marriage fails to provide the same benefits at the state level that other religious marriages provide such as hospital visiting rights. The reason is not the church, but because the state discriminates in preference to one narrow religious definition.

 

No church would be "forced" to perform a same sex marriage anymore than they can be "forced" to accept women to their priesthood. But if priests had certain legal benefits granted by the state, would we at the state level refuse those benefits to churches that allowed women to become priests, simply because some churches (granted, a majority) felt it ran against their definition of a priest as a man of God?

[Mr Skeptic]

I thought I'd quite robustly stated that I didn't perceive any necessity to do so. The onus is on the people saying they are having a definition "forced on them" to show that this is true, and furthermore to show why it should not be allowed to happen. Indignation alone has never been a legal argument and it never will be. If it were, an obvious defence to a charge of murder would be that you don't much appreciate having that definition forced on you. That wouldn't be very good at all, would it?

 

OK, then. If you don't like the definition of marriage that the California constitution now has, then the onus is on you to show that the definition is bad. And obviously, no need for those in favor of Proposition 8 to show that it was a good definition.

 

As has already been pointed out, this aptly demonstrates that the debate is a two-way street, and to use this as an argument against gay couples using the word "marriage" reeks of hypocrisy.

 

No, it just shows that you don't understand what I said.

 

Even better yet, acknowledge all the other words which current laws define differently to the counterpart meanings found in documents from the Dark Ages and consider that the reason nobody is crying foul about those differences is because they don't threaten the institutional discrimination which has allowed religion to tread down on groups they don't like for centuries for no reason other than spite endorsed by "god".

 

Strawman. I'm talking about a recent definition, which if you like has remained unchanged for many times longer than this country existed. Since our laws were not written in the Dark Ages, we didn't use the definitions for that time in the law.

 

So being denied the right to call your marriage a marriage because of the petty whim of one particular club of like-minded people is not denial? Or is it a special kind of denial which can be safely ignored because it's okay, it's just those awful gays who are affected?

 

Why don't you re-read a bit, maybe you'll find your criticism amusing.

 

That wasn't your argument. Please leave the goalposts where they are. Since you asked, the people in charge of hospital visits are professionally obligated to follow the rules that govern those visits. ALL the rules. You don't get to decide which rules jibe with your personal prejudices on the way into work, and making a special case out of one particular rule because you* don't like it is Special Pleading. The only way you can link this to the point of yours which I was replying to is to state that hospital workers are denying access to visitors because of their own personal Biblical beliefs, in which case the only response is that they should be fired immediately.

 

So, as you said no one is forcing any definition on them but they'll just get their asses fired if they don't abide by the definition that isn't being forced on them?

 

I find it extraordinary that you keep "pointing out" that I have not given reasons for things which don't need any reasons given, yet you have utterly failed to address or refute any of the major points I made.

 

Well, since the legislation we have now is currently the opposite, we might as well wait until some comes along before discussing it. In any case, in saying there is no need for a reason, you also say that there need be no reason in favor of Proposition 8, for it to be acceptable.

 

I am going to reiterate what iNow said. Pay special attention:

Equality. Constitutionality. Alignment of human rights regardless of sexuality.

 

You are arguing against these principles. Take a step back from your objections and consider carefully if you think that they are in proportion with what is at stake. Then consider how the arguments might play out in the Supreme Court and get back to us with your findings.

 

* Not necessarily you, obviously.

 

Truth. Constitutionality. Equality. Alignment of human rights regardless of religion.

 

You are arguing against these principles. Take a step back from your objections and consider carefully if you think that they are in proportion with what is at stake. Then consider how the arguments might play out in the Supreme Court and get back to us with your findings.

[Sayonara]

OK, then. If you don't like the definition of marriage that the California constitution now has, then the onus is on you to show that the definition is bad. And obviously, no need for those in favor of Proposition 8 to show that it was a good definition.

Riiiight... so Proposition 8 can revise the legal meaning of "marriage" only by means of a ballot which turns out to be insufficient, but nobody else can. Maybe you should let the Supreme Court know before they mistakenly allow a review of the challenges. Whooops! Too late.

 

Throughout your posts (and this one) you continue with this theme of trying to turn the tables instead of countering points. I find this snake-like.

 

No, it just shows that you don't understand what I said.

Yes, it is much more likely that I don't understand simple sentences than it is that you have erred in your reasoning.

 

Strawman. I'm talking about a recent definition, which if you like has remained unchanged for many times longer than this country existed. Since our laws were not written in the Dark Ages, we didn't use the definitions for that time in the law.

I was talking about the (Christian) religious definition of "marriage". The Bible as we know it was largely written in the Dark Ages (oddly enough, coinciding with cultural collapse in Western Europe. Hmmm). That paragraph will now probably make more sense in the light of this revelation.

 

Why don't you re-read a bit, maybe you'll find your criticism amusing.

I find you quite transparent and so you can be assured that I won't find it amusing in the least.

 

So, as you said no one is forcing any definition on them but they'll just get their asses fired if they don't abide by the definition that isn't being forced on them?

Sigh. Let me run through Special Pleading again. You have a scenario where the law defines who is and is not married. Any given person has as much right to eschew that definition in favour of a religious definition to which they voluntarily subscribe as they have the right to ignore the definition of murder and stone an adulterer to death.

 

If you are going to cry out "help, help, I'm being repressed" every time someone in a same-sex marriage tries to visit one of their loved ones in hospital, then you also have to have the same tantrum whenever society's laws prevent you from stoning an adulterer to death in accordance with your Biblical morals. And on all the other myriad occasions on which an unlawful action is mandated by your religion's tenets. So if you just pick out that one instance to have a hissy fit, then you are making a case of Special Pleading, and it does not take a genius to work out that the extra ingredient which prompted the leap into action is prejudice against the subjects of your wrath.

 

Nobody is having a definition "forced on them" any more or less than they already do by the countless other laws which already exist (or are on the books) and which trump religious values or teachings. Calling this a "forced definition" is poisoning the well, another fallacy, but if it were the case that Christendom were to make a legal challenge to enshrine their specific definition in law (which would be incredibly egotistical and self-involved, but that's in-groups for you), then as I indicated above - and you parroted by way of reply - the onus would be on them to make their case.

 

Furthermore, even if it were the case that you could magically suspend ethical consistency, when this person from a same-sex marriage comes to visit their loved one in hospital, then the worker who objects to their use of the term marriage has only to think to themselves "I don't think I want to consider them married, I shall henceforth regard them as being civil partners", and POOOF! all is well with the world.

 

Choosing vile recrimination and spiteful attacks is exactly that - a choice. Someone once said "turn the other cheek"; quite poor advice when you are facing a stoning or a witch hunt but rather apt in this scenario.

 

Truth. Constitutionality. Equality. Alignment of human rights regardless of religion.

I think it's incredibly bare-faced of you to put "truth" and "equality" in there, given what you have said in this thread. Since "alignment of human rights regardless of religion" is a concern for you then you may wish to apply this to your argument. Unless of course the small print includes "...except for the gays".

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How do you think the Supreme Courts will rule? Do you think they'll cave in for fear of being recalled and/or voted out by an angry religious mob (as was expressly threatened by supporters of prop 8 per the article I shared above), or do you think secular and more libertarian groups will come together to outnumber them? Either way, what do you think the courts will do and why?

Last call for the on-topic train.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Sayonara³
Consecutive posts merged.

[YT2095]

and POOOF! all is well with the world.

 

please tell me that wasn`t Intentional

[Sayonara]

It was Mavis Cruet, waving her wand.