redefining marriage

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

which implies people should get with the times, and not cling to older definitions.

If language did not evolve, we wouldn't be speaking English.

True, true. Middle English developed after William the Conqueror came over from Normandy in 1066. Old English mixed with French.

And English has evolved. Check out a dictionary from 30 years ago and "zit" wouldn't be in it.

But REDEFINING words is the issue. I think that "I" should mean "you." You have just as much right to change the definition of a word as anybody else does.

So when you continue to support Libertarian causes, something that you consider worthwhile (you even voted Libertarian yesterday despite my personal misgivings) you support the idea that that you think that redefining words is dangerous. You and you can both agree on that, right? Where do you and you differ?

You look forward to your response. And please, don't use "you" when speaking about "you."

No individual can successfully redefine a word's meaning or spelling (see phat for an example of both), only society can collectively do so. But slang will always emerge and over time become acceptable use, and then included in the dictionary. To deny this, or rail against it, is tilting at windmills.

Your argument is rather silly, unless you're popular enough to get others to follow your use of "you." Sorry, man, you're not that popular.

I believe Kallend is bitching about 'gay' not 'marriage.' But I'm not sure, not old enough to know whose fault that one was. I grew up hearing remarks about how that kid is so gay, or that action is so gay. Seems heartily embraced by the immature and the homophobes, not the homosexuals themselves.

It's unfortunate that Prop 8 squeezed out a victory. It would appear that the Sunday sermons, filled with lies about churches being forced to marry fags, was worth a 5pt jump. And so this matter will drag out for another decade. The end result is inevitable - gays will have equal rights some day - but we'll have to waste more time and energy on it rather than more productive moves we could be undertaking.

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

I think the "people" of CA have spoken at this point.

And they are wrong. Gays are not looking to redefine the word marriage, just looking for the same rights married couples have.

One of the principles of democracy is majority rule, with minority rights. I came across this and it pretty much sums it up.

"Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual."

What is so hard to understand about this?

[rushmc 23]

What is so hard to understand about this?

I read your posts and I can only wonder.

The people have spoken to the Constitution of thier state. That is the supreem law. A court can not turn over the constitution. the Constitution is the guide BY WHICH they determine if a law is within the confines of said Constitution.

Really quite simple you one thinks about it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

The point is that the institution no longer promotes a positive social order and cooperation or governs the behavior individuals and thus it should be destroyed and a new institution created in its place ...

I do not agree. Further more I believe a position like this is dangerous and destructive

More stupid childish responses ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The point is that the institution no longer promotes a positive social order and cooperation or governs the behavior individuals and thus it should be destroyed and a new institution created in its place ...

I do not agree. Further more I believe a position like this is dangerous and destructive

More stupid childish responses ...

Where is billvon when he is needed?

I least I know no one can have an opinon contrary to yours and be shown repect!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

No, I stated I think they should be allowed the same rights under the law. I just dont think it should be called a marriage

and I ask again:

then how do YOU propose allowing them to declare themselves life partners and be afforded the exact same rights as "married" hetero couples?

No separate but equal, different language stuff here, either. You know how lawyers are, and if a law says "married" and a gay couple tries to exercise the right listed under said law, you KNOW someone will challenge it, civil union or not.

So give us a solution.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

No, I stated I think they should be allowed the same rights under the law. I just dont think it should be called a marriage

and I ask again:

then how do YOU propose allowing them to declare themselves life partners and be afforded the exact same rights as "married" hetero couples?

No separate but equal, different language stuff here, either. You know how lawyers are, and if a law says "married" and a gay couple tries to exercise the right listed under said law, you KNOW someone will challenge it, civil union or not.

So give us a solution.

I think you are nit picking terribly here. If the rights under the words civil union are spelled out then we have a solution.

I dont think what you say is really your problem with all of this however. Just a guess though........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Quote

I least I know no one can have an opinon contrary to yours and be shown repect!

Respect others and I might respect you ...

PS: Also, I don't respect irrational opinions that are based on bigotry, religion, etc...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[BikerBabe 0]

nit picking is what lawyers do. I'm not a lawyer, but you and I both know how it works.

And how is it nitpicking in the following scenario?

Law says married couples get certain tax benefits. And i mean the law uses the term "married".

CA constitution says "marriage is only between a man and a woman".

ergo...gay couples in a "civil union" are NOT entitled to the same tax benefit mentioned in that law. It's not nitpicking. it's what this entire damned thread is about!

Now that we're clear, how do you propose to allow gay couples who are "civil-unioned" but not married (because the constitution says they can't be) the same rights and privileges as married couples under the law?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[skybytch 273]

Quote

I'm not sure why one would need to exclude ancient religious texts.

Because ancient religious texts shouldn't have any bearing on the law.

Quote

If the government steps in and says that one church may implement 100% of their doctrine and the other may not, how is that *not* prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

How does changing the wording on a LEGAL DOCUMENT mean that churches would have to "legitimize before God" relationships that are counter to their beliefs?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I least I know no one can have an opinon contrary to yours and be shown repect!

Respect others and I might respect you ...

PS: Also, I don't respect irrational opinions that are based on bigotry, religion, etc...

Ah, I have shown nothing but respect here. You have now stated at least 5 PA's aimed directly at me.

I have given and defended my opinion. You dont like it so the name calling began.

Childish, stupid,irrational, bigoted are the first four that come to mind you have used in the last 2 or 3 posts.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Quote

Ah, I have shown nothing but respect here. You have now stated at least 5 PA's aimed directly at me.

I have given and defended my opinion. You dont like it so the name calling began.

Childish, stupid,irrational, bigoted are the first four that come to mind you have used in the last 2 or 3 posts.

You might want to research what is considered a personal attack before you begin crying foul ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Ah, I have shown nothing but respect here. You have now stated at least 5 PA's aimed directly at me.

I have given and defended my opinion. You dont like it so the name calling began.

Childish, stupid,irrational, bigoted are the first four that come to mind you have used in the last 2 or 3 posts.

You might want to research what is considered a personal attack before you begin crying foul ...

Please, show me in this thread where I shown anyone any disrespect.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The people have spoken to the Constitution of thier state. That is the supreem law. A court can not turn over the constitution. the Constitution is the guide BY WHICH they determine if a law is within the confines of said Constitution.

Really quite simple you one thinks about it.

right - so tomorrow they can put in constitutional amendments to ban interracial marriage?

No, it doesn't really work that way. The state constitution has contrary verbiage that says all must have equal rights.

An issue that at least in the short run hurts the proponents of gay marriage is that they are afraid to have the US Supreme Court touch the issue, since there's at least a good change they'll come up with another one of those brilliant Plessy v Ferguson decisions that took 56 years to undo.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

no one that skydives should be afraid of a lawyer - worst he can do is bore me to death. And they hardly have a monopoly on linguistics.

I would say you're probably wrong in your first assumption. While there may be some excellent wordsmiths and parsers in the skydiving community, my guess is that there is a MUCH higher percentage of lawyers that can handle the language than skydivers as a whole.

And you're 100% absolutely correct about lawyers not having a monopoly on linguistics. The general public should probably also not get into a battle of words with, for instance, professional stand up comics. It's not that they don't have a grasp of the language, but the person that does it for a living is probably going to win over the heckler. He just has more practice.

Oh, certainly one can lose. But to be afraid to even try?

Kallend has no official credentials either, and he's slippery with language than Johnny Cochrane.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The people have spoken to the Constitution of thier state. That is the supreem law. A court can not turn over the constitution. the Constitution is the guide BY WHICH they determine if a law is within the confines of said Constitution.

Really quite simple you one thinks about it.

right - so tomorrow they can put in constitutional amendments to ban interracial marriage?

No, it doesn't really work that way. The state constitution has contrary verbiage that says all must have equal rights.

An issue that at least in the short run hurts the proponents of gay marriage is that they are afraid to have the US Supreme Court touch the issue, since there's at least a good change they'll come up with another one of those brilliant Plessy v Ferguson decisions that took 56 years to undo.

And where does this vote show someone has been denied any rights?

States rights have been trampled on by the Feds for a long time. And while you may be right that the US SC could overturn this, it will only be done using the same kind of convoluted logic used in Roe v Wade. (I am not nor do I want to argue Roe v Wade. Not my point. My point is to the logic used by the SC in this case)

The argument could be made that allowing "marriage" is an attack on religous orgs. The state shall make no law......

And no, I am not makeing that argument either. I am only trying to demonstrate directions from which different viewpioints can be argued

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BikerBabe 0]

In the language of the ballot proposition itself, actually...

"Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry..."

Yes, it actually SAID that on the ballot. And this measure actually passed. Read it again.

Makes me sick.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In the language of the ballot proposition itself, actually...

"Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry..."

Yes, it actually SAID that on the ballot. And this measure actually passed. Read it again.

Makes me sick.

Well, the Prop 8 supporters did not want that language, Jerry Brown made the change. Now he's in a funny position of having to defend Prop 8 for the state, while also arguing that all marriages done this year should stand.

Rush - you have it quite backwards. The state court ruled it was a right. Prop 8 was immediately put out to take it away.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Gays are not looking to redefine the word marriage, just looking for the same rights married couples have.

Bullshit. They are looking to redefine the word to include themselves. Anything short of that indicates societal non-acceptance, "equal rights" be damned.

. . =(_8^(1)

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

We then reserve the term "marriage"...

Gawd, I LOVE when an answer (proposed or not) to an issue is simply a matter of semantics.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure why one would need to exclude ancient religious texts.

Because ancient religious texts shouldn't have any bearing on the law.

I agree, however the fact of the matter is that many marriages are performed as religious ceremonies. One need not ignore that fact in order to make an argument in favor of gay marriage. You can accept that fact and still argue that prohibition of gay marriage abridges the right of homosexuals to practice their religion.

Quote

Quote

If the government steps in and says that one church may implement 100% of their doctrine and the other may not, how is that *not* prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

How does changing the wording on a LEGAL DOCUMENT mean that churches would have to "legitimize before God" relationships that are counter to their beliefs?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not proposing that any church be forced to perform marriages counter to their beliefs. I think both churches should be *allowed* to perform marriages according to their beliefs.

I don't understand why it is that the religious majority in California thinks that I, as an agnostic, should be allowed to marry my atheist girlfriend, but Christian gays should not be allowed to marry each other. Given that it doesn't affect them either way, I've heard no better explanation than simple bigotry.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

In the language of the ballot proposition itself, actually...

"Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry..."

Yes, it actually SAID that on the ballot. And this measure actually passed. Read it again.

Makes me sick.

Well, the Prop 8 supporters did not want that language, Jerry Brown made the change. Now he's in a funny position of having to defend Prop 8 for the state, while also arguing that all marriages done this year should stand.

Rush - you have it quite backwards. The state court ruled it was a right. Prop 8 was immediately put out to take it away.

No, I know what you said to me is true. The ballot was in response to a state SC ruling.

On that note, what other process can check any court these days? Hell, some state SC have told legislators of laws they need to make!!

NOT their place. They only determin if laws are constitutional under the constitution. They can not claim a state constittutional statue is wrong. Only the US SC can do that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm not sure why one would need to exclude ancient religious texts.

Because ancient religious texts shouldn't have any bearing on the law.

I agree, however the fact of the matter is that many marriages are performed as religious ceremonies. One need not ignore that fact in order to make an argument in favor of gay marriage. You can accept that fact and still argue that prohibition of gay marriage abridges the right of homosexuals to practice their religion.

Quote

Quote

If the government steps in and says that one church may implement 100% of their doctrine and the other may not, how is that *not* prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

How does changing the wording on a LEGAL DOCUMENT mean that churches would have to "legitimize before God" relationships that are counter to their beliefs?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I was not proposing that any church be forced to perform marriages counter to their beliefs. I think both churches should be *allowed* to perform marriages according to their beliefs.

I don't understand why it is that the religious majority in California thinks that I, as an agnostic, should be allowed to marry my atheist girlfriend, but Christian gays should not be allowed to marry each other. Given that it doesn't affect them either way, I've heard no better explanation than simple bigotry.

Blues,
Dave

So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

NOT their place. They only determin if laws are constitutional under the constitution. They can not claim a state constittutional statue is wrong. Only the US SC can do that

When two statutes in the constitution conflict, they can say one is wrong. Traditionally they do not do this very often.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So, do you think a court then should order a phamisist to despense a drug with which his religion does not agree with?

Yep. His professional obligation outweighs his religious beliefs. At least in California, a pharmacy can't discriminate in any way, can't even require a membership. Costco must let anyone in for drugs or alcohol. That's part of their contract with the state to get a license.

If he has someone else in the pharmacy to do it instead, that is acceptable, but not very professional.