it seems the cali judge has a good reason to overturn.

[Oldvol75]

It is true, things have changed rapidly in terms of culture and society. Certainly not always for the better, but I think life in the United States is more "fair" today than ever before, despite what some Obama types say. There is always room to grow, though. I am about to turn 26, fyi.

"Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains." - Churchill.

I have socks that old!

 

[gsvol]

I have socks that old!

But do they stink that bad??

I havn't read the whole thread or paid that much attention to the topic since we knew already how the openly gay Clinton appointee judge would rule before the case even went to court.

But did you know he came up with a 136 page ruling???

Prop. 8 Judge: Pope Hurt Homosexuals

This is a tutorial on how activist judges should view law and society!!!!

The ruling quotes the document's statement that "Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts 'as a serious depravity.'"

The ruling also quotes the statement that there "are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," as well other short statements summarizing Catholic theology.

These quotations are offered in support of the ruling's 77th "finding of fact": "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians."

Walker's ruling has fully 80 findings of fact, which are separated from the "conclusions of law" in which he decides the case. Appellate courts are typically deferential to a lower court's findings of fact, which has lead most commentators to agree that Walker's ruling was specifically written to withstand appeal.

As evidence that religious beliefs harm homosexuals, Walker also quotes resolutions from the Southern Baptist Convention, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the Free Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the Orthodox Church of America.

None of these resolutions recommend violence against homosexuals; all of them generally state only that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's will.

What a freaking joke!

I suppose the funny part is that this puts the homosexual community in the first rank of those opposing islamic sharia law, oh wait, Elaena Kagan is for sharia law. I guess the muslims will make an exception if you are anti-Christian, at least for a while.

What in the hell am I missing in this equation??

 

[IPorange]

But do they stink that bad??

:dry:

 

[CSpindizzy]

I'm not squirming, and assuming people who disagree with you "do not truly understand what this issue creates" is silly. The issue is a matter of removing religious morality from governmental institutions. Like it or not, "marriage" in how it applies to our discussion is not the same as a biblical or Christian marriage. It never was, unless you think the State of Missouri or where ever one gets granted their license is God. And the more you bring up issues of tax credits, property rights, and even child custody, that only highlights that the current setup is unable to properly deal with the sort of relationships our society now has. Like it or not, there are millions of homosexuals in this country.

It's amazing to see how your dislike for religion has clouded your logic. You do realize the laws we have are nothing but morality right? Perhaps you need to take a few classes on anthropology and philosophy and see how our base of laws and standard of living are based in morality and that comes from religious ideas.

As for your above statement, clearly you did not even read my post. If you did, you did not comprehend what I said. You see, I have repeatedly stated that this issue is far beyond just two same sex people getting married. But because same sex couples feel like they have a right to this particular contract the whole issue is being opened up for a new interpretation. It's not just about privacy in the bedroom. This is a huge issue involving quite public matters. Those who defend "gay marriage" are not realizing the complexity and scope of what they are doing to the whole issue. If to them marriage is a "right" then the courts have to figure out what this 'right' is and who it includes. It's not just two people who happen to be same sex. And it's not just about a certificate. And it surely is not about picking a definition from Webster and letting that be law. but in your mind you just think this is about poor gay people and what they do in their bedroom and their Constitutional right to marriage (which where is that again?).

 

[lawgator1]

New Theory:

Get rid of marriage, period. Recognize that it is obsolete concept (we don't plough fields with oxes anymore, do we?) and allow people simply to enter into written contracts for partnering up on finances, raising children.

 

[gcbvol]

the government, at all levels, should get out of the marriage business altogether. Couples (yes, couples only) should go to the government for a civil union contract (for tax and other purposes) and to a church for a consecrated "marriage".

the gay rights movement would do well to ally themselves with libertarians on this issue, but they won't. They would much rather stick with the "government-is-all-things-to-all-people" crowd.

I agree with this as well. If the federal government were to move to CU contracts as part of delineation of federal benefits, etc. and leave marriage to the church, we might find something close to an amicable solution.

 

[volfanjustin]

This should be a state issue and activist judges should stay out of it. I am personally against gay marriage but if the people of a state vote to legalize it then ok. Let the people decide if they want gay marriage or not.

 

[IPorange]

It's amazing to see how your dislike for religion has clouded your logic. You do realize the laws we have are nothing but morality right? Perhaps you need to take a few classes on anthropology and philosophy and see how our base of laws and standard of living are based in morality and that comes from religious ideas.

As for your above statement, clearly you did not even read my post. If you did, you did not comprehend what I said. You see, I have repeatedly stated that this issue is far beyond just two same sex people getting married. But because same sex couples feel like they have a right to this particular contract the whole issue is being opened up for a new interpretation. It's not just about privacy in the bedroom. This is a huge issue involving quite public matters. Those who defend "gay marriage" are not realizing the complexity and scope of what they are doing to the whole issue. If to them marriage is a "right" then the courts have to figure out what this 'right' is and who it includes. It's not just two people who happen to be same sex. And it's not just about a certificate. And it surely is not about picking a definition from Webster and letting that be law. but in your mind you just think this is about poor gay people and what they do in their bedroom and their Constitutional right to marriage (which where is that again?).

Okay, I think you should reread all my posts while restraining your knee-jerk reaction to be a pompous ass. I never said it was just about privacy in the bedroom. And you telling me to go and study up on anthropology (I doubt you agree with what most anthropologists have to say about human behavior and it's origins, btw) and philosophy just reinforces my point about it being a matter of removing religious norms that were folded into the structure of civil society due to the era that we were in, when we are not in that era any more.

The Bible should not be being invoked when discussing civil law, any more than the Koran should be. And yet that has been the principle reasoning (aside form only people who can reproduce should be able to marry, but even then that doesn't really hold since some couples are infertile and some choose not to have kids) of why this shouldn't happen. That and that it is "wrong."

 

[gsvol]

:dry:

So you say you smell better than an old pair of socks??

Gee, that isn't saying much for you IP! :unsure:

 

[IPorange]

It really depends on how often the socks were worn and how thoroughly they've been cleaned, honestly.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

New Theory:

Get rid of marriage, period. Recognize that it is obsolete concept (we don't plough fields with oxes anymore, do we?) and allow people simply to enter into written contracts for partnering up on finances, raising children.

In short, you are for limiting the rights of religious groups?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Gay marriage is trivial!

Why in the world do any one of you want gov't to define any thing to do with marriage?

 

[IPorange]

In short, you are for limiting the rights of religious groups?

Religious groups can do whatever they want. Government doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) involved with their courting and family rituals.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You know how to beat a phrase in the ground don't you? Reinforces your point? Times we live in? Last I checked, morality and religion is not 'extinct' as you allude to. I'm not sure what benchmark suddenly 'removed' religion as being a part of society. What 'era' are you speaking of? Maybe I didn't get the phone call, email, letter, or whatever telling me society has "moved on" from a specific way of thinking. I guess we've returned to some period in evolution where more's, ethics, law and order, etc. have no basis. Murder, robbery, usury, honoring terms of contracts, and numerous other examples have a basis in religious thought. A set standard by society is based on a set standard concept in religion. If we're just beings following along in some evolutionary path equal to that of other animals shouldn't the law of the jungle essentially apply? Survival of the fittest? Or is there some sort of 'order' that sets us apart?

As for just getting rid of marriage, this is what Marx advocated. He felt that marriage and the concept of family in our society are relics of religious fanaticism. He called for complete removal of these systems since it took away from what benefits the collective mind. Complete equality rather than individual groupings in categories counter to the notion of the state. I wonder if a few of you knew just how much of Marx you believed in.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

There are plenty of hard core gov't lovers on the board.

 

[CSpindizzy]

There are plenty of hard core gov't lovers on the board.

Government lovers find themselves on both sides of the aisle. And clearly the "equality" lovers who think they are only in some libertarian universe actually find themselves in complete agreement with the teachings of Marx. Complete equality and removal of certain "hindrances" such as religion, morality, customs, etc. are basic tenets of his beliefs. When one starts dabbling into the "equality" argument, you move from the liberty side of things into a whole new domain.

 

[IPorange]

You know how to beat a phrase in the ground don't you? Reinforces your point? Times we live in? Last I checked, morality and religion is not 'extinct' as you allude to. I'm not sure what benchmark suddenly 'removed' religion as being a part of society. What 'era' are you speaking of? Maybe I didn't get the phone call, email, letter, or whatever telling me society has "moved on" from a specific way of thinking. I guess we've returned to some period in evolution where more's, ethics, law and order, etc. have no basis. Murder, robbery, usury, honoring terms of contracts, and numerous other examples have a basis in religious thought. A set standard by society is based on a set standard concept in religion. If we're just beings following along in some evolutionary path equal to that of other animals shouldn't the law of the jungle essentially apply? Survival of the fittest? Or is there some sort of 'order' that sets us apart?

As for just getting rid of marriage, this is what Marx advocated. He felt that marriage and the concept of family in our society are relics of religious fanaticism. He called for complete removal of these systems since it took away from what benefits the collective mind. Complete equality rather than individual groupings in categories counter to the notion of the state. I wonder if a few of you knew just how much of Marx you believed in.

And the specter of communism is invoked. This just gets better and better! Of course, the USSR and it's satellites were brutally oppressive of homosexuals. As was Nazi Germany. Should I wonder aloud how much you have in common with them? Of course not, that would be stupid.

You are presenting this as a simple dichotomy: either you are for biblical morality being legally enforced on the country, or you are for a chaotic "law of the jungle," stealing, raping, murdering apocalypse. It's like you are the President from Escape from New York.

It's telling that my religious views and my views on evolution keep being brought up by you. You are basically conceding that your argument is entirely biblical. That isn't good enough in a truly free country. Maybe in Iran...

 

[lumberjack4]

Religious groups can do whatever they want. Government doesn't need to be (and shouldn't be) involved with their courting and family rituals.

Kill the government sponsorship of marriage and all tax breaks and incentives for married people and it all becomes a mute point.

 

[IPorange]

Government lovers find themselves on both sides of the aisle. And clearly the "equality" lovers who think they are only in some libertarian universe actually find themselves in complete agreement with the teachings of Marx. Complete equality and removal of certain "hindrances" such as religion, morality, customs, etc. are basic tenets of his beliefs. When one starts dabbling into the "equality" argument, you move from the liberty side of things into a whole new domain.

We aren't talking redistribution, we are talking about legal blindness. Don't use semantics to cloud that point.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Pretty much, gov't = failure.

 

[IPorange]

Kill the government sponsorship of marriage and all tax breaks and incentives for married people and it all becomes a mute point.

I would think so. If "marriage" is just a word one can use to describe their partnership, then everyone is equally able to access "marriage."

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Ding, ding, ding....................... pesky gov't gets in the way.

 

[lumberjack4]

I would think so. If "marriage" is just a word one can use to describe their partnership, then everyone is equally able to access "marriage."

Of course I'm sure several 'Small Government Conservatives' would throw a shiz fit it you started taking away their tax breaks.

 

[gsvol]

Okay, I think you should reread all my posts while restraining your knee-jerk reaction to be a pompous ass. I never said it was just about privacy in the bedroom. And you telling me to go and study up on anthropology (I doubt you agree with what most anthropologists have to say about human behavior and it's origins, btw) and philosophy just reinforces my point about it being a matter of removing religious norms that were folded into the structure of civil society due to the era that we were in, when we are not in that era any more.

The Bible should not be being invoked when discussing civil law, any more than the Koran should be. And yet that has been the principle reasoning (aside form only people who can reproduce should be able to marry, but even then that doesn't really hold since some couples are infertile and some choose not to have kids) of why this shouldn't happen. That and that it is "wrong."

Gee, he must have really rattled your cage!!

Did you notice the glaring omission from the gay liberal judge's opinion???'

In case you missed it, he qouted all sorts of Christian groups but not one mention of muslim opinion, isn't that supposed to be racist in liberal la la land??

FWIW most Christian sect say that homosexuality is a sin.

OTOH most Islamic sects not only say homosexuality is a sin but proscribe death by decapitation for those found guilty.

Eminent scholars of Islam, such as Sheikh ul-Islam Imam Malik, and Imam Shafi amongst others, ruled that Islam disallowed homosexuality and ordained capital punishment for a person guilty of it.

I suppose the lesson to be learned is that before losing your head and applying for a same sex marriage license in a sharia court, think about it because you might really lose your head.

 

[CSpindizzy]

And the specter of communism is invoked. This just gets better and better! Of course, the USSR and it's satellites were brutally oppressive of homosexuals. As was Nazi Germany. Should I wonder aloud how much you have in common with them? Of course not, that would be stupid.

You are presenting this as a simple dichotomy: either you are for biblical morality being legally enforced on the country, or you are for a chaotic "law of the jungle," stealing, raping, murdering apocalypse. It's like you are the President from Escape from New York.

It's telling that my religious views and my views on evolution keep being brought up by you. You are basically conceding that your argument is entirely biblical. That isn't good enough in a truly free country. Maybe in Iran...

Specter of communism? Nice try but desperate. Read Marx. I'm not saying anything about Stalin and Hitler's views of homosexuality. Can you not read a post without taking it completely out of context? Are you that dysfunctional? Read the post guy. Read Marx's teachings. I referred to marriage. I referred to people taking marriage out and how it had ties to religion.

I'm not "conceding" anything. I'm not saying anything about my own views. I'm merely pointing out how morality plays an integral part in the concepts of more's, laws, ethics, etc. Read Aristotle some time. Where have I ever said my argument is based on being Biblical? Where have I ever defined my arguments and them being limited by anything. If anything, I am saying how a religious viewpoint and a viewpoint on morality in general is a part of our society and has been a part of all societies. There is no removal of it. You act as if it can be unplugged and has already faced some imaginary expiration date. I ask where did that come from and when did it happen?

I'll try to repeat something again for you. I never limited ANYTHING on being Biblical. I have repeatedly said "religious" and "morality" since it encompasses MANY religious views and over a few thousand years.

I'm not sure what your beef is with Christianity but it is quite obvious you have a problem with it. If anyone mentions anything religious, you go off on some anti-Christian tangent. You did in this argument and you have in others. I'm arguing religious views, morality, ethics, more's, etc. and you keep harping on the Bible. You seriously need to read a post and try extra hard to stay limited to that post you respond to. Putting words in my mouth is not a strong way to argue a point.

Another point - what Marx stated and what Hitler and Stalin did are two different things. Try to focus on the points made - Marx was dead far before the USSR and Nazi Germany. Bringing those two "examples" in was pointless. You're conceding you had no point and had to bring in some very reaching examples to argue a point.