California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

#427
#427
allvol123 said:
I honestly don't know how he reconciles the two and probably won't ask as I'd see it as an invasion of his personal space to ask. My assumption and perception is that he does not reconcile it very well and feels guilt over the issue.
Click to expand...

Here are two options:

1) Continue to assume.

2) Show him you care and are interested, and ask him about it. I think you could do this in a non-invasive way, and I bet he'd appreciate that you'd want to know more. Would you feel he was invading your space if he asked you about being a heterosexual Christian?
 
#428
#428
TennNC said:
Here are two options:

1) Continue to assume.

2) Show him you care and are interested, and ask him about it. I think you could do this in a non-invasive way, and I bet he'd appreciate that you'd want to know more. Would you feel he was invading your space if he asked you about being a heterosexual Christian?
Click to expand...

I will continue to assume because I have respect for him and feel no need to delve into his sexuality or views on it. I would probably not be comfortable with people asking me about the sins I commit.
 
#430
#430
Some people may be wired differently than others are, but I still think environment plays a big part in a many cases.
 
#432
#432
BigPapaVol said:
I just don't get why we care enough to take the right away from anyone.
Click to expand...

For me the question revolves around whether or not it is a "right" in the Constitutional sense. It is a social contract and as a result, society should decide the rules of the contract.
 
#433
#433
volinbham said:
For me the question revolves around whether or not it is a "right" in the Constitutional sense. It is a social contract and as a result, society should decide the rules of the contract.
Click to expand...
then society would have already ruled against interracial marriage.

I just think this is an instance where society can't be relied upon to make the right decision.
 
#434
#434
BigPapaVol said:
I just think this is an instance where society can't be relied upon to make the right decision.
Click to expand...

Clearly you see the problems with this type statement.

Who determines what these instances are?

Who determines what a "right" decision is?

I sincerely don't have a problem with gay marriage but I still don't see denying it as some type of unconstitutional denial of civil rights.
 
#435
#435
volinbham said:
Clearly you see the problems with this type statement.

Who determines what these instances are?

Who determines what a "right" decision is?

I sincerely don't have a problem with gay marriage but I still don't see denying it as some type of unconstitutional denial of civil rights.
Click to expand...

I see the problems with the comment, but there is historical precedent.

Given that non-discrimination has effectively become become a right in our nation, written or not, I believe this easily falls into unjust discrimination.

The arguments against gay marriage have no legal relevance whatsoever, while the pro arguments for equality certainly do.

I just don't care about the issue and understand the social contract argument, but just can't see the justification for the denial.
 
#436
#436
volinbham said:
Clearly you see the problems with this type statement.

Who determines what these instances are?

Who determines what a "right" decision is?

I sincerely don't have a problem with gay marriage but I still don't see denying it as some type of unconstitutional denial of civil rights.
Click to expand...

The Framers made us a Republic because they recognized the dangers of a Democracy (mob rule).
 
#437
#437
VolDad said:
The Framers made us a Republic because they recognized the dangers of a Democracy (mob rule).
Click to expand...

Not sure how this is relevant - it was the judicial branch that struck down a legislative action. I'm arguing it should be a legislative action (if it is to be any action at all).
 
#438
#438
volinbham said:
Not sure how this is relevant - it was the judicial branch that struck down a legislative action. I'm arguing it should be a legislative action (if it is to be any action at all).
Click to expand...
And I'm arguing that part of the court's function is to rule upon the constitutionality of those laws, should they be properly questioned.

I, like you, don't like legislation from the bench, but overruling bad law is right in my book.
 
#439
#439
BigPapaVol said:
And I'm arguing that part of the court's function is to rule upon the constitutionality of those laws, should they be properly questioned.

I, like you, don't like legislation from the bench, but overruling bad law is right in my book.
Click to expand...

I was responding to VolDad's commentary about democracy vs. republic.
 
#440
#440
volinbham said:
I was responding to VolDad's commentary about democracy vs. republic.
Click to expand...
I saw that, but stuck in my 2 cents anyway. I have that tendency.

I think his argument, similar to mine, says that representative democracy can be flawed in its thinking at times and probably needs judicial activism at times to preserve the republic.
 
#441
#441
BigPapaVol said:
I saw that, but stuck in my 2 cents anyway. I have that tendency.

I think his argument, similar to mine, says that representative democracy can be flawed in its thinking at times and probably needs judicial activism at times to preserve the republic.
Click to expand...

No way!.... :p
 
#444
#444
TennNC said:
In some ceremonies, it is. In many, it is not. Atheists can get married. Agnostics can get married, and they don't have to mention God or religion at all. Religion is not a requirement for marriage. Do you understand this?
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not, but my point was marriage originated from God. Do you understand this? I'll type slower if need be.
 
#447
#447
Everyone always goes to that. It is CLEARLY stated that there needs to be a separation of church and state.
 
#448
#448
VolinArizona said:
Everyone always goes to that. It is CLEARLY stated that there needs to be a separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

And everyone always says it's not a religious issue when if it's a ceremony that God created... I'm not sure what else it can be. If you want to talk civil unions, that's another debate.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top