California gay marriage ban comes down to the wire

[Lone Wolf]

Noah and his family were left to procreate again.

 

[holy king]

Oh, absolutely. The State should butt right out of a church's business. Just like if the church told kids that God wiped out humanity with a giant Flood 4,000 years ago: the State shouldn't interfere.

But the parishoners should certainly try to change things.

that's why there are schools? (in which the churches should have no business at all)

 

[Ecofarm]

Noah and his family were left to procreate again.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that the bible does not stipulate that we are all decendants of Noah, his wife and incest therein.

Besides, if the flood "wiped out humanity" that would include Noah.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I'm pretty sure that the bible does not stipulate that we are all decendants of Noah, his wife and incest therein.

I think it's the only logical explanation... Bible experts, can you solve that issue, plz? Does the Bible stipulate what Ecofarm said?

And anyway, according to the Bible, the children of Adam and Eve did have no other choice then marrying their siblings.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm no biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that the bible does not stipulate that we are all decendants of Noah, his wife and incest therein.

8 people on the ark! That's it! And the Bible is very explicitly, specifically wrong about the (non)event. But if churches want to lie to their kids about it, the State shouldn't interfere.

 

[MobBoss]

How much do you know about Californian constitutional law? Did Arnold veto the bill and pass it over to the courts, according to constitutional norms?

Veto'd bills are not passed to the courts as they are not laws. /sheesh. The courts cannot create legislation. What was being 'passed to the courts' as you put it, was the former law which the veto'd bill was supposed to replace. Apparently, I know a bit more about the law than you do.

Ask Cleo, I'm following his post which Mobboss utterly ignored.

Wth dude, I gotta sleep some time. /sheesh.

EDIT: Just checked. I frikkin answered/replied to Cleos post. Dude, lay off the medication, K?

 

[Bill3000]

The courts cannot create legislation.

Have you ever heard of the concept called "common law"?

 

[philippe]

yeah, it sucks. It creates these awfull precedents that are the foundation of some principles in anglo-saxon countries.

 

[Arwon]

EDIT: Just checked. I frikkin answered/replied to Cleos post. Dude, lay off the medication, K?

Huh. Is that what you call that post?

 

[MobBoss]

Have you ever heard of the concept called "common law"?

Yes. Now a question for you. Does it apply in all states?

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes. Now a question for you. Does it apply in all states?

Could you please expound your question, and what you think your question is asking?

Because, to me, the question is asking whether all the States use a common law system.

 

[MobBoss]

Could you please expound your question, and what you think your question is asking?

Because, to me, the question is asking whether all the States use a common law system.

My reply is asking does common law apply in all states. yes or no?

'Common law' is a specific situation, as in a 'common law wife', in which a state will recognize someone as a spouse if they have cohabited for 7 years or more. Its not referring to a 'common system'.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

How much do you know about Californian constitutional law? Did Arnold veto the bill and pass it over to the courts, according to constitutional norms?

If I recall correctly, there was first a ballot proposition (not a constitutional amendment) that banned same-sex marriage in California. Some litigants challenged its constitutionality in In re Marriage Cases (which is a perfectly normal thing to do in a constitutional democracy, though some don't understand that). The California legislature then passed a bill establishing same-sex marriage, and Arnold vetoed it, citing the earlier ballot proposition. The legislature did not have enough votes to over-ride the veto. The next term, the legislature passed a similar bill, and Arnold cited the pending In re Marriage Cases appeal before the California Supreme Court and waited for the resolution of the cases.

The Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional to grant marriage to opposite-sex couples while denying it to same-sex couples. Which is a perfectly legitimate exercise of judicial power. Nobody would argue that it was improper for the Supreme Court to rule that it was unconstitutional to grant marriage to same-race couples while denying it to mixed-race couples, would they? See, the argument on the merits is that sexuality is a valid basis on which to discriminate in law, not that the actions of the court in finding otherwise are illegitimate. I can't stand the latter argument, whether it comes from someone on these boards or a moron talking-head on TV. Since judges, as non-political bodies, can't defend themselves, it really harms American democracy. Claiming that the actions of courts are illegitimate when they are not makes people distrust the courts, and weakens the People's understanding of the law. It does violence to the concept of law generally, but, as I've argued elsewhere, right-wing authoritarians don't actually believe in law anyway, so it makes sense.

Getting back to the story, the people of California thought that the Court was wrong, and so they amended their constitution to overrule the Court (another perfectly normal thing to do in a constitutional democracy). I happen to think that the amendment is a shame, and violates principles of equality before the law upon which our country is based, but I have the understanding of law and American democracy not to ignorantly claim that the actions of the people of California are fundamentally illegitimate in some way.

Cleo

 

[Bill3000]

My reply is asking does common law apply in all states. yes or no?

'Common law' is a specific situation, as in a 'common law wife', in which a state will recognize someone as a spouse if they have cohabited for 7 years or more. Its not referring to a 'common system'.

Common law isn't a situation, it's a legal system. Rulings change depending on the state much like legislation changes depending on the state, but the fundamental system of common law - law created through judicial precedent - remains the same. Except in Louisiana.

"Common law wife" is simply one example of legislation created through common law - created through precedent, not legislation.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

My reply is asking does common law apply in all states. yes or no?

'Common law' is a specific situation, as in a 'common law wife', in which a state will recognize someone as a spouse if they have cohabited for 7 years or more. Its not referring to a 'common system'.

You keep using this term, "common law." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Cleo

 

[El_Machinae]

'Common law' is a specific situation, as in a 'common law wife', in which a state will recognize someone as a spouse if they have cohabited for 7 years or more. Its not referring to a 'common system'.

I'm glad I asked! "Common Law" is also the legal system by which judges create law. That's what Bill was referring to, and asking if you if you'd heard about.


edit: x-post from a lawyer and the person who asked the original question! It took me time to post, because I was considering describing "civil law" but decided it would be too complicated.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Oh, absolutely. The State should butt right out of a church's business. Just like if the church told kids that God wiped out humanity with a giant Flood 4,000 years ago: the State shouldn't interfere.

But the parishoners should certainly try to change things.

Yeah, they should really point out that it was actually closer to 5,000 years ago. Saying it was only 4,000 years ago is just silly, and really bad math.

8 people on the ark! That's it! And the Bible is very explicitly, specifically wrong about the (non)event. But if churches want to lie to their kids about it, the State shouldn't interfere.

It says Noah, his wife, his sons, and his sons wives. It doesn't say that his sons were monogamous. Monogamy may have been the original ideal, but polygamy is mentioned before the flood, and would make a lot of sense for repopulating the earth quickly. Thus, there could have been dozens of people on board.

Have you ever heard of the concept called "common law"?

That is not legislation though. In Latin there is a very clear distinctions between 2 words for Law: Lex (legislation) and Ius (common law/jurisprudence/justice).

 

[JollyRoger]

My reply is asking does common law apply in all states. yes or no?

'Common law' is a specific situation, as in a 'common law wife', in which a state will recognize someone as a spouse if they have cohabited for 7 years or more. Its not referring to a 'common system'.

Common law refers to law developed through decisions of courts, rather than through legislative statutes or executive action. "Common law marriage" was a judicial creation that has now been codified by statute in most jurisdictions.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

That is not legislation though. In Latin there is a very clear distinctions between 2 words for Law: Lex (legislation) and Ius (common law/jurisprudence/justice).

In American law, though, there isn't. It's all law.

Cleo

 

[El_Machinae]

It says Adam, his wife, his sons, and his sons wives. It doesn't say that his sons were monogamous. Monogamy may have been the original ideal, but polygamy is mentioned before the flood, and would make a lot of sense for repopulating the earth quickly. Thus, there could have been dozens of people on board.

I am apostate and a blasphemer, but (good sir!) I am not wrong!

"1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. "

edit: I'm assuming "Adam" was a typo