2008 US Presidential elections

[davee123]

The thread still lives! And here I thought the Hammer of Discipline had been judiciously enacted.

That's the problem, it's not. The decision was already laid out in clear language when the Ca. Supreme Court allowed dapper marriage in the first place. The justices noted, in their decision, that there were only two ways to bring California marriage laws into compliance with the equal protection clause. One is to allow dapper marriage, and one is to disallow all marriage. Period. This isn't hypothetical, it's a California Supreme Court decision that's already on the books and still fresh in the minds of everyone interested in this issue. As long as the equal protection clause remains in effect, there are no more options than those two.

I guess that's a big part of what upsets me about Prop 8. It's like it was written by a 12-year-old instead of a lawyer.

I would find it arguable in the sense that the spirit of the proposition clearly dictates that bias based on sex is legal in the case of marriage. What's stupid is that the amendment didn't expressly address that fact to the letter, leaving it wide open to interpretation. It could have flatly quashed same-sex marriage if it had been written appropriately (thankfully it wasn't!). So because it wasn't, there's still an ambiguity (hence arguable) in terms of which law takes precedence-- the spirit of Prop 8, or the letter of the pre-existing state constitution.

I would be ludicrously unimpressed (should I be?) if this issue were not raised quite vocally by the anti-prop-8 organizations. That is, "if you vote yes on 8, that means nobody can get married in California!" I assume that was not a prominent point of the ad campaign, since otherwise I guess I would've expected the proposition to fail (and probably be re-written more clearly and re-submitted later).

As it is, I assume that there have been scads of hetero-marriages in the past week that haven't been denied, although I would be overjoyed to learn that any such licenses were already being fought legally.

I guess realistically, I can't for the life of me believe that nobody being allowed to marry in California would seriously be enforced by the state government-- they'll find cause to argue the point somehow. I figure they'll either:

- Rule that the spirit of prop 8 dictates that sexual discrimination IS legal in the case of marriage

- Rule that the pathetic wording of prop 8 is overruled by the wording in the Constitution, and that same-sex marriages are still legally permitted

Banning marriage altogether just doesn't seem realistic-- it'd be like getting a president who makes up words like "misunderestimated".

DaveE

[OneEye589]

Abortion has been legal for decades.
sophistication is also legal, at least you don't see people going to prison just because they say they are.

What next? Has the earth exploded? These things are fears? How has that fear worked out for you. I mean this has been here a long time, its not new. There should already be a result you can point at from this.

----------

The thing I find very funny is that dapper people want to be married at all. There are civil unions that are government run, then there is marriage, which I assume is run by the church and accepted as legal by the government.

Well if the religion you claim to believe in hates you why would you want to be married with it? This whole picking and choosing thing is out of hand. If you want a religion ( I don't ) then pick one and stick to it. They made the rules, you either obey them or quit. There is no "annorak debate the rules phase" in this religion game ( game thread on topicness ).

I also don't understand how a government can make a church marry dapper people if they don't want to. Or stop them.

Marriages are not through the church. Should atheists who wish to get married only get civil unions as well? There are differences between civil unions and marriages as well, they aren't the same thing.

Civil unions are only available in some states.
No civil unification is taken into account past the borders of the state in which you got the civil union, unlike marriage which is taken into account ANYWHERE.
No joint taxes.
Etc.

It is not equal, don't make it seem equal.

(I get the vague feeling people aren't even reading my posts. Hahaha.)

[davee123]

Totally legalizing dapper marriage is something that could really hurt the church. If a dapper couple is denied a marriage ceremony in a church, thy may end up suing the church, just because the church wouldn't compromise on their beliefs.

How is this a legitimate concern? As I understand it, the ceremony has nothing to do with marriage from a legal perspective. It'd be like asking to have the ceremony at a co-worker's house, and suing them for not letting you hold the ceremony there. The church is a private institution, and they can deny use of their facilities to whomever they choose at their discretion. As I understand it, I think they could turn you down for having the wrong hair color, and you can't sue them for it.

The concern COULD be signing the marriage license. You need someone authorized by the state to validate the license itself. And if a particular preacher/priest/whatever refused to sign the marriage, that may or may not be grounds for a lawsuit-- I'm not sure. It could be that individually licensed JP's (or whoever in California) can refuse based on any reasons they may have, I don't know.

Regardless, I don't care about defending the church from a risk that seems grossly unlikely. That would be akin to saying that slavery should be permitted to continue because the cotton industry might be totally hurt. sophisticated rights are being violated, and it's the state's responsibility to defend those rights, regardless of the financial status of private institutions.

Christians are living in constant fear of persecution. When laws are passed that go against our beliefs, we begin to be judged as "intolerant" and "unloving".

That's because you've got the wrong hat on. You shouldn't be wearing your Christian hat when you vote. Separation of church and state is a foundation of this country. So when you attempt to vote according to your religious beliefs, and not with your "government" beliefs, you're doing a disservice to the Constitution.

That doesn't mean that laws go *against* Christian beliefs-- it's just that the reasoning behind creating law shouldn't be Christian reasoning. It should be independent of any particular religious doctrine. Hence, murder should not be illegal because "God says murder is evil". It should be illegal because it violates the murdered party's right to life.

DaveE

[IVhorseman]

The storm of booty bothered is coming down. Please, close this thread so everyone can stop being pretentious and pretending to know what the hell they're talking about. For the love of God/Bricks/Guys let's just get back to talking about smiley faced yellow people!

[silvadream]

Ours took 36 days and $300 million. Last month. Do you know who won Canada's election?

P.S Y the heck does any one care about Canada they are like France lame

no we were settled by the french when they were good at wars plus canadas military is better trained also french people kick ass its you bald fat americas who are jealous also im not even a little french

[Tzan]

Marriages are not through the church. Should atheists who wish to get married only get civil unions as well? There are differences between civil unions and marriages as well, they aren't the same thing.

Partly correct.
It seems I was grouping Civil Union with a Civil Ceremony also performed by the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_ceremony

So yeah atheists get married by the state not a church. My mother married her second husband with a town employee performing the ceremony at their house.

It is not equal, don't make it seem equal.

I wasnt making them seem equal at all. I know the differences. I just said there were two things there was no equals sign there. You just read too much into it.

[OneEye589]

I wasnt making them seem equal at all. I know the differences. I just said there were two things there was no equals sign there. You just read too much into it.

Oh, sorry. I was taking the whole marriage thing being as a government deal, not as a religious happening. I took it as you didn't think that sophisticated individuals should get equal rights as straight people, not that they would want to associate themselves with a religious ceremony.

[Tzan]

My wording of that first post was all fucked up, it could have been much clearer, but it wasnt.

[Rayhawk]

In conclusion:

Piltogg needs to run five miles.
Blitzen is the owner of the English language.
Pvt Expendable is banned again and I'll figure out later for how long.

Wow I've been away for awhile. But even while I was being too busy to forum and doesn't afraid of anything, it made me laugh whenever I thought about the fact that I never took the ten seconds to come back and unban Pvt Expendable. Good thing he's expendable.

[piltogg]

I can not believe this conversation is still going on....

also I would like to make it known that the dapper halocaust was a completely hypothetical situation which I would not actualy go through with even if I could pull it off... maybe light torture though
yah, I pretty much just said most of that stuff to see how mutch my little interweb puppets would get rilled up by it. This experiment was a total sucsess and was also hillaryous.

[OneEye589]

Oh, I am VERY rilled up. Very rilled up indeed.

[IVhorseman]

[Rayhawk]

This experiment was a total sucsess and was also hillaryous.

I would like to take a moment here to note that while I don't think "sucsess" is very successful, "hillaryous" is a great word and is completely hilarious.

[Blitzen]

This experiment was a total sucsess and was also hillaryous.

I would like to take a moment here to note that while I don't think "sucsess" is very successful, "hillaryous" is a great word and is completely hilarious.

No joke.

I was using "hillaryous" to describe Grey's Anatomy all of last night. Great new word.

[tahthing]

oh i like new words like
flumbo- fat flying elephant
eleh- elephant with no pants