Prop 8 unconstitutional

The state court ruled it unconstitutional, and now a federal court has upheld that ruling. The courts have the authority to strike down laws that are unconstitutional, even if the law was passed by popular vote. It is a legal pricipal that the opinion of the majority does not trump the rights of the minority.

proutdoors wrote:

Okay, Einstein, tell me where the act of marriage FIRST started? Just because most societies have adopted the practice, doesn't change where it started, why it was started, and by whom it was started.

Homosapiens have been roaming the earth as a species for about 100,000 years. Recorded history goes back maybe 6,000 years. Do really think you or anyone can pinpoint the time, place, and reason people started pairing up into what we would currently recognize as a committed partnership? You really think the tribes of isreal invented this concept because the man in the sky told them to? I would submit that people have entered into mutually beneficial and exclusive partnerships (or polygamous units) that served the same function of modern marriage dating far back before recorded history.

Answer you own question. Where, why, and who started marriage? Are you going to quote me a bible verse? This should be good...

So why should government have the say who get's married to whom?

Government recognized marriages have certain advantages over non-recognized relationships. The push for gay marriage is to put same sex couples on equal footing and give them the same recognition and benefits as hetero couples. It really is pretty simple. My wife and I can move to any state and do certain things like file our taxes jointly, get family insurance coverage, apply for credit, make purchases, etc. as a single entity. We share a name, a house, raise kids together.

Since government has taken a role in the recognition of marriage, and bestowes these types of legal rights in a single package to every married couple, regardless of what state they live in, that is why gay couples want federally recognized marriage. It is not a matter of the 'government saying who can be married to whom', but a matter of what the government recognizes as a marriage.

ScottyP wrote:

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise therof'

This has been interpreted to mean that the government will not establish a religion, and that civic matters are seperate from religious matters. You are free to excercise your religion but your religion does not trump the basic rights of others to life, liberty, and property.

Making law is entirely different than "I don't hate religious belief in and of itself, but when religious ideals are pushed on others or used to shape public policy that is where I (and the bill of rights, and the SCOTUS) draw the line." How any sane person can argue otherwise..... And tell me how want to get the government OUT of the marriage issue altogether is 'trumping' the 'basic' rights of others to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

ScottyP wrote:

The job of the supreme court is to interpret the intent of the constitution, hence they have interpreted that the first ammendment creates a 'wall of seperation' between church and state. If you disagree with this interpretation, do you also disagree with their interpretation that a 'well regulated militia' having the right to bear arms applies to the individual? Or that the right to bear arms can be suspended or denied to felons or the mentally ill? The constitution and bill of rights are the law of the land, but must be constatly interpreted and clarified every time competing interests are brought to the forefront. If the constitution is not open to interpretation, why did it provide for a supreme court, or 'final arbiter'?

Disagreeing with some Supreme Court rulings does NOT equate to disagreeing with ALL Supreme Court rulings. Good hell, I am 100% positive there are several that YOU disagree with, yes? I just reread an excellent book yesterday; The Law by Federic Bastiat. I highly recommend you read it. It was written back in 1850, but is very insightful. He goes to great lengths to point out the fallacies of expecting the government to look out for 'competing interests'. When it does, it is ensured that some, if not all, will suffer. Instead, the government should stick to protecting life, liberty, and property and NOTHING else!

ScottyP wrote:

Government recognized marriages have certain advantages over non-recognized relationships. The push for gay marriage is to put same sex couples on equal footing and give them the same recognition and benefits as hetero couples. It really is pretty simple. My wife and I can move to any state and do certain things like file our taxes jointly, get family insurance coverage, apply for credit, make purchases, etc. as a single entity. We share a name, a house, raise kids together.

Since government has taken a role in the recognition of marriage, and bestowes these types of legal rights in a single package to every married couple, regardless of what state they live in, that is why gay couples want federally recognized marriage. It is not a matter of the 'government saying who can be married to whom', but a matter of what the government recognizes as a marriage.

And a far easier, and far more rational, action is to eliminate the government in the process altogether. Take away the 'advantages/disadvantages of marriage as far as government benefits and the problem is solved. The government has no business recognizing/endorsing/condemning any marriage unless it is done under force or involves minors.

proutdoors wrote:

Alright, Mr Devil's Advocate, tell me where in the Constitution marriage is under the jurisdiction of the government, let alone the federal government?

Good answer! Look to the 9th and 10th amendments.

A "marriage" can be defined by those entering into it and the government should not be involved one damn bit.

Imabout to marry my beer. Try and stop me.

Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

FatBass, how do these two Amendments give the government a green light to enter into the religious realm and approve/deny who gets married, and to charge a fee to do so?

proutdoors wrote:

Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

FatBass, how do these two Amendments give the government a green light to enter into the religious realm and approve/deny who gets married, and to charge a fee to do so?

My beer addled post apparently didn't make my point.

I'm with you here, pro. The feds have no business getting involved with marriage. Since the Constitution does not specifically give the feds power to approve/deny marriage, that right is left to the states or the people.

Whew, I was worried for a while........I thought one of my mentors had crossed over to the dark side.

And one more thing for those trying to cram an ungodly lifestyle down our throats by trying to change the very definition of marriage. Marriage is ONE man and ONE woman. The End.

Gay Marriage is NOT a civil rights issue!!!!!

http://patriotupdate.com/23788/black-church-leaders-gay-marriage-not-a-civil-rights-issue

BERG wrote:

And one more thing for those trying to cram an ungodly lifestyle down our throats by trying to change the very definition of marriage. Marriage is ONE man and ONE woman. The End.

Gay Marriage is NOT a civil rights issue!!!!!

http://patriotupdate.com/23788/black-church-leaders-gay-marriage-not-a-civil-rights-issue

Nor is it a government issue! It is an issue between men/women and their God, NO ONE else!!!!!