Subject:
|
Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Mar 2004 21:10:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
308 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
This is the problem. Nothing seems to matter-- federal law or state law.
Both are in effect and yet gay marriages are being performed regardless.
|
Which doesn’t mean a thing if they are in violation of the constition.
That’s the whole point in doing this kind of thing - to test the law. Gotta
admire their courage.
|
What courage? Newsom hasn’t even been arrested for disobeying the law! I think
I might come to California and steal your LEGO Pirate collection and expect
equal treatment Newsom is getting under the law-- namely the law looking the
other way.
| |
| |
| |
Anyway, since the DOMA therefore denies same-sex couples a right afforded
to opposite-sex couples, then the DOMA denies the civil right to marry to a
portion of the population based solely on the choice of spouse.
If a law’s unconstitutional, it’s unconstitutional from inception.
|
I disagree that there exists a civil right to marriage (feel free to cite
the Constitution to prove me wrong). Having said that, I tend to agree with
you that DOMA wouldn’t hold up under Article 14. This is why the only
resort is to actually amend the Constitution (as generally unpleasant that
is).
|
What a frivilous and idiotic misuse of the amendment process - just Dumbya’s
speed and style. :-)
|
I may have been hasty in my contempt for DOMA. It has yet to be successfully
challenged, but I’m not aware how many times (if any). If it could stand, an
amendment would be obviously be unnecessary.
| |
| |
“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.
|
Dave! summed this up better than I - conservatives love to play the race card
by claiming the other side is (a pre-retaliatory strike, so to speak).
|
Both sides are guilty, to be sure. That’s why we hate politicians, remember?
:-)
| |
| |
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 and I
and most other Americans aren’t willing to risk an entire generation on some
Liberal social experiment. Those who propose changing the definition of
marriage haven’t really thought through the monumental consequences to our
society. This really isn’t an issue of bigotry against gays. It goes way
beyond that.
|
Are you saying that if two men are allowed to marry this will produce a
“generation” of any kind to put at risk? I was saving this lecture for my
son, but let me explain about how we get more birds and bees....
|
lol Don’t waste it on me! I mean, certainly gay couples will be adopting and
raising families. They already do. And so will the 1 man, 2 women families; 1
women 2 men families; N men and N sister families; etc. The educational system
will be forced to teach that all of these models are equal and valid. Well
I’m arguing that they aren’t.
| |
| |
Again, I see no provision in the Constitution stating marriage is a civil
right.
|
So, you are saying there is no civil right to marriage at all? It is
entirely preventable by the government?
|
The issue is whether the government can recognize a marriage that is defined as
a union between 1 man and 1 woman and have that not violate equal protection.
I think it can.
| |
| |
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.
|
Actually, yes it can.
|
Tyranny of the minority? :-)
| |
| |
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.
|
Because the laws may be in violation of the Constitution, and the only way to
test this is by violating the law and seeing what happens.
|
Well, what should happen is for someone who feels that their rights have been
violated under DOMA to take their case to court. That is where the
constitutionality of the law should be decided-- not by some yahoo governmental
employee issuing illegal and bogus marriage licenses.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Yet. Courage is standing up for something you believe in the face of the consequences - that the other side has turned out too gutless to do anything about it doesn't change that. I (...) Let me introduce you to my counter-argument: Winchester (...) (21 years ago, 10-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
| (...) Which doesn't mean a thing if they are in violation of the constition. That's the whole point in doing this kind of thing - to test the law. Gotta admire their courage. (...) What a frivilous and idiotic misuse of the amendment process - just (...) (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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
