Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:01:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
301 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
I’m a little lost on the pronouns here--does “they” refer to the people
getting married and/or the people performing/solemnizing those marriages?
|
Sorry. I was referring to those performing the marriages. California’s
Prop 22 specifically bans same-sex marriage! I mean, what the hey?
|
Oh. Yeah, I guess it’s pretty clear: Only marriage between a man and a
woman is valid or recognized in California.
Well, in that case, I applaud Mayor Newsom for defying a bogus,
descriminatory law!
|
Here is his justification:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/glrts/sfmayor21004ltr.html
I find this so disingenuous! “Pursuant to my sworn duty to uphold the California
Constitution, including specifically its equal protection clause...” What about
the rest of the CA Constitution? Upholding all of her laws, not just the
ones you capriciously find intolerable. Is that the way it is in California?
You only have to obey the laws you want? The point is that it isn’t up to him
which laws are or are not legal/whatever. And this isn’t just a case of civil
disobedience because he is a government employee sworn to uphold the laws of
California-- whether he likes them or not!
(snip)
| |
Hmm. “Civil Right to marry” might have been imprecise on my part. But if it
should happen that Minnesota were to ban heterosexual marriages
retroactively, would you shrug your shoulders and say “oh well, I didn’t have
a right to marry anyway?”
|
What do you mean by “ban”? Do you mean “not recognize”? I am not arguing for a
“ban” of gay marriage; only for not changing the definition of marriage, which
has always been understood as between 1 man and 1 woman. This is the definition
of marriage. If men are allowed to marry each other or women or brothers or
sisters, that is a fundamental change to the definition of what marriage is.
Changing the institution of marriage is what this issue is all about.
| |
I suppose it could be pursued on the grounds of freedom of religion, but then
it must be accepted that some faiths (Unitarian, for one) will sanctify
same-sex marriages, so a ban on gay marriage can be viewed as a ban on
exercise of religion.
|
Agreed. This is not a religious freedom issue. As I mentioned before, it is
not even a gay/straight issue. It is about changing the definition of marriage.
| |
| |
| |
In this regard I would caution that Dubya himself has little regard for the
system of checks & balances. For example, consider his interim appointment
of Pickering, thereby circumventing the Constitutionally-enshrined right of
the legislature to reject appointment of unsuitable judges.
|
“Unsuitable judges”?? Look at the unprecedented Democratic blocking of
Bush’s judicial nominations such as Miguel Estrada! It is disgusting
partisanship and bigotted litmus tests (which are illegal IMO) that has
forced Bush to play hardball.
|
Of course, the overwhelming majority of Dubya’s appointees were approved with
no problem. Estrada was blocked not because of his nationality (and, by the
way, it is racist of Republicans to have suggested that this was so) but
because he was evasive and secretive during the interview process. He
refused to reveal his opinions of previous Supreme Court decisions, and he
refused to answer legitmate hypothetical questions about cases he might
likely have faced, if he’d been approved. Such secrecy is unbecoming a
Federal Justice, and a similarly secretive Liberal judge certainly wouldn’t
have been tolerated by a Republican Senate!
|
Of course his reluctance to state his views is a direct result of his not
wanting to be torpedoed by Liberals! All of the hypotheticals are so
disingenuous anyway. I mean, just look at his record, for God’s sake! It’s all
political BS.
| |
Also, Sen. Jeff Sessions artificially inserted a litmus test into the review
process by asking if “Catholics need not apply” to the judiciary. The intent
of such an irresponsible tactic is to make it impossible to reject anyone who
carries a politically-favored trump card. It would be like suggesting, for
example, that Estrada should have been approved because he’s Hispanic,
which I’m sure you’ll recognize to be a racist criterion for selection!
|
Ha, I guess what is good for the goose isn’t good for the gander! Liberals are
champions of affirmative action (blatant racism), but I guess only when it
suits their purposes! Screw any minorities that have the nerve to eschew
Liberal thought!
(snip)
| |
| |
| |
Maybe I misunderstood you (and maybe sectarian was poor word choice).
What I meant was that I wholly support any faith’s right to acknowledge or
disavow marriages within that faith, but I abhor efforts by any religious
group to enshrine their definition of marriage in the Constitution.
|
Regardless of where the concept of marriage originated, I think that the
model of 1 father and 1 mother is the ideal situation in which to raise the
next generation. This model has worked fairly well over the centuries
|
I submit that heterosexual divorce and heterosexual adultery are far more
destructive to heterosexual families than homosexuality ever has been (or is
ever likely to be).
|
Changing the definition of marriage to including 1 man and 1 man, etc opens
pandora’s box. Soon the institution will no longer exist. There will be so
many variations of it, in subsequent generations it will be taught that all of
these variations are equally valid. I see nothing wrong with our society
deciding that we want to hold up a 1 man 1 woman model on which to base our
society.
| |
Do you support a Constitutional Amendment banning
divorce and adultery? If the goal, as stated, is to protect the institution
of marriage, it would seem necessary to outlaw such direct assaults upon it.
|
I am interested in protecting the definition of it. That there are a lot of
failed marriages is a reflection on the participants rather than the institution
itself.
| |
| |
and I and most other Americans aren’t willing to risk an entire generation
on some Liberal social experiment.
|
I have to call you on this one: recognizing the full rights and
responsibilities of citizens is not “some Liberal social experiment.”
|
We are talking about 2 different things I fear.
| |
| |
Those who propose changing the definition of marriage haven’t really thought
through the monumental consequences to our society.
|
Unfortunately, this is the same argument that was used to fight against
abolition of slavery, to deny voting rights to women and minorities, and to
deny the right to interracial marriage.
|
I’m not using it as an argument, just pointing out a fact. Certainly you
wouldn’t deny that the abolition of slavery, granting women’s suffrage, etc, had
profound effects upon society. I think many people only consider this issue
to be one of denying rights to a certain group (with which most would disagree).
I am saying that there are unforseen societal consequences if we change the
definition of marriage.
| |
| |
This really isn’t an issue of bigotry against gays. It goes way beyond
that.
|
**snip**
| |
Citing “Equal Protection under the law” isn’t germane, since all
are free to enter into a 1 man 1 woman marriage.
|
I’ve heard this argument elsewhere, but I don’t find it convincing. It’s
rather like the famous quote by Henry Ford (likely mis-quoted here): “They
can have any color car they want, as long as it’s black.” Why must marital
“freedom” be restricted to this false choice?
|
Because that’s what marriage is. Anything else isn’t that. I likewise find
the discrimination charge by gays unconvincing. Yeah, it discriminates against
men marrying men. So what? We discriminate all the time. Try using a women’s
restroom sometime. Try playing college basketball on a women’s team. Separate,
but equal? Sounds like Plessy vs Ferguson to me.
| |
| |
That someone doesn’t like the numbers or sexes of that equation is a
mute point:-)
|
Nice!
| |
| |
I’m on record saying
that I don’t object to polygamous marriage, and
elsewhere I’ve asserted
that I don’t see why siblings should not be allowed to wed. Admittedly, I
wouldn’t choose to enter into either such marriage, but that doesn’t give
me any right or reason to forbid others from doing so.
|
I remember you saying so. And I applaud your consistency. Trouble is, you
are so in the minority that the overwhelming will of the people cannot be
ignored.
|
Well, obviously I’m right and everyone else is wrong. The sooner we all
recognize this, the better off we’ll all be.
|
lol Keep working on us:-)
| |
| |
Explain how California can have a law like Prop 22, how the US can have a
federal law like DOMA and yet some quack in San Francisco decides to
recognize and perform gay marriages anyway. Seems to me laws, whether
they be state or federal are meaningless on this issue.
|
Do you, in principle, object to judges throwing out unjust laws? That is to
say, do you accept that, in some cases, “judicial activism” is appropriate?
|
No. I find judicial activism counter to the Constitutional process,
disenfranchising of the will of the People, and disgustingly hubristic.
JOHN
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Oh. Yeah, I guess it's pretty clear: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Well, in that case, I applaud Mayor Newsom for defying a bogus, descriminatory law! (...) Hmm. "Civil Right to marry" might have (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
