CA Prop. 8 shot down

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Alias said:
What does that have to do with the definition of marriage? That's the issue. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This was never an issue until the definition was challenged, then all of a sudden we are a nation of bigots.
Click to expand...

Matrimony, root of the word MATER, MOTHER!

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Click to expand...

The gay judge in California used the judicial fiction that the thousands of year old limitation of marriage to a man and a woman, wasnt intended to include those couples who have the potential to procreate, but instead has been by design to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. Absurd!
 
Imperator Julius Caesar said:
While I oppose Prop 8, I believe this ruling sets a potentially negative precedent. It is almost inevitable that this matter will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. Do you believe the Supreme Court should impose gay marriage onto all 50 states?
Click to expand...

That would be the result of S Ct decision in their favor.
 
It's a very old story. I'm not sure this is for the current fight in the courts. Winterborn has asked me to delete this thread. However, there is a good discussion going on, I'm going to ask him to keep it.
 
Darla said:
Is that what marriage is? Tax breaks and government entitlements?
Click to expand...

Gays are free to marry anyone they like. Even here in conservative central Texas, you can go down to the local chuch of christ and marry whoever you like. But the government wont recognize the marriage and therefore wont be eligible for the tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Yes, they want tax breaks and governmental entitlements. They are already free to marry whomever they want.
 
dixon76710 said:
Gays are free to marry anyone they like. Even here in conservative central Texas, you can go down to the local chuch of christ and marry whoever you like. But the government wont recognize the marriage and therefore wont be eligible for the tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Yes, they want tax breaks and governmental entitlements. They are already free to marry whomever they want.
Click to expand...

When your marriage is not legally recognized, you can't utilize many of the legal benefits of that marriage. For instance, hospital visitation, medical authority, and many things along those lines.

As for "entitlements" perhaps you refer to things like married people being able to transfer their homes to their spouses so that it isn't attached by Medicaid when they get sick in their old age. Entitlement? So what you are saying is that only heterosexuals are entitled to "entitlements" like those? What makes you think so?
 
Alias said:
What does that have to do with the definition of marriage? That's the issue. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This was never an issue until the definition was challenged, then all of a sudden we are a nation of bigots.
Click to expand...

Marriage is, of course, re-defined and has been updated to include, consenting adults, regardless of gender.
 
Imperator Julius Caesar said:
While I oppose Prop 8, I believe this ruling sets a potentially negative precedent. It is almost inevitable that this matter will eventually make it to the Supreme Court. Do you believe the Supreme Court should impose gay marriage onto all 50 states?
Click to expand...

I understand your concerns, but in the imperfect system that we have with regards to state sanctioned marriages, yes I believe it should.
 
one has to wonder just how badly the peoples intelligence and willpower has gotten when they've amended their own state constitution, and just meekly accept an idiot judges decision of 'no, you can't'.
 
Alias said:
State laws.
Click to expand...

licenses are granted by six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, plus Washington, D.C. and Oregon's Coquille and Washington state's Suquamish Indian tribes. Same-sex marriages could be legally performed in California between June 16, 2008, and November 4, 2008, after which voters passed Proposition 8 prohibiting same-sex marriages. Maryland recognizes same-sex marriages but does not grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[1][2] The legalization of same-sex marriage has been driven by court rulings and legislative action, rather than voter referendums.[3]

And now California. It's only a matter of time before other states amend their laws prohibiting marriage between same sexes.
 
Alias said:
Now why would winterborn start a thead and then ask that it be deleted?
Click to expand...

I believe he thought this was a new ruling which is why he posted it when in fact it was one from 16 months ago. Upon realising that he asked for it to be removed. As Damo stated a debate about it can still be had if that is what people desire.
 
Alias said:
What does that have to do with the definition of marriage? That's the issue. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This was never an issue until the definition was challenged, then all of a sudden we are a nation of bigots.
Click to expand...

At one time marriage was between a man and women of the same race. This was never an issue, until the definition was challanged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top