Courts Rule Against Gay marriage....

[MobBoss]

Sooooo.... sorry if I am going to be a bit off-topic, but if the majority goes to church on Sundays instead of going to the pub. Would it be right and democratic to pass a law forbiding the minority from going to the pub on Sundays?

Actually they did just that for awhile...it was called "Prohibition". But soon the minority was the majority again and they ended it.

 

[Commodore]

Before I ask this question I just want to make it clear that this is not a flame, troll, or anything else negative. I simply want to know how dedicated you all are to your position.

To those who have stated that right and wrong doesn't matter, only the majority matters: If the majority wanted something that you were absolutely against, would you not resist (seeing as you believe in majority rules)? If you were the minority, would you accept whatever the majority imposed on you, no matter how oppressive said law might be?

 

[Taliesin]

To clarify my earlier post...

Marriage is three things: 1) a legal contract, with legal and fiscal ramifications for parties to it; 2) an agreement which society recognises as being of a unique and institutional value; and 3) a covenant before God.

In my opinion, 1) must apply equally to all people and all marriages, and there is no overwhelming reason why homosexuals should not be able to enter into it with the person they love. There is an argument to be made that normalising same-sex legal unions may have a deleterious effect, in principle and in practice, on the well-being of children. I am not convinced by this argument, not yet at any rate, and regardless it could be resolved without imposing any limitations other than on the freedom to adopt children.

3) must be a personal choice, to interpret or disregard as one sees fit. Many religious people think that a same-sex marriage is as valid and divine a covenant as a different-sex marriage, and there are churches that will marry homosexuals. These churches may marry homosexuals qua 3) irrespective of whether the marriage is also a marriage qua 1) or 2).

My point is that same-sex civil unions satisfy equal rights and freedoms qua 1) and 3), and that if society doesn't recognise same-sex unions as marriages, then "same-sex marriage" is coterminous with "same-sex civil union." If two men or two women enjoy the legal benefits of being married, and consider themselves married before God, then I'm not sure they'll care if society doesn't say they're married. Further, I don't think there's any such thing as a right to be considered married, since that might imply a legal duty on the part of society to think something contrary to what it already thinks. I hope that we may reject out of hand any legal duty to think anything at all.

All of this being said, I would have absolutely no problem with society defining marriage so as to include same-sex unions. I think it would even be a good thing, if it makes homosexual people feel more welcome and accepted. Practically speaking, I think it would be wise to consider "a majority of society" to be roughly two-thirds for these purposes, just as in the standard rule about modifying constitutions, so that any question of vacillation or instablity would be silenced.


EDIT

Not by what aspect of the term marriage I consider quintessencial of the term. It's the desire to bind with another, of sharing a life, that I consider marriage, not the mere junction of a male and a female genitalias. Hence, IMHO, a gay couple which honestly desires to share a life are honoring the term much more than a heterossexual couple which marries on an impulse, with no real love, and divorce within 3 years.

Sure, you can value the genders as the most crucial, defining, aspect of it, if so you desire. I'll never consider that a wise choice, though.

I agree with you here, Fred. I think gender is not the single most important aspect of marriage, and if I could speak for society, gay unions would be called marriages. I'm saying though that the fact of society's refusal to recognise them as such, if a majority do refuse, renders meaningless any insistence on legally referring to gay unions as marriages. So for people such as us, same-sex "marriage" is something to support, and perhaps to look forward to, but not to insist upon by means of rights-based arguments.

Of course, Canada is moving as a society towards recognising gay unions as marriage-- I think it's presently about a 50-50 split-- so our situations are different.

 

[{|}$~\]

Wrong, the homosexual is not a second-class citizen. Its stated in the Catechism itself that eventhough, basing itself from Sacred Scripture, that homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity and are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life since they do not proceed to form a genuine affective and sexual complementary. Thus homosexual acts are not to be approved. However the psychological genesis remain largely unexplained in regards to homosexuality.

The Catechism goes on to say that homosexual persons are called and advised (note "called" and "advised", they can free chose to accept it or not) to chasity by the virtues of self-mastery that teaches them inner freedom. And that the number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, consitutes for most of them a trial of self-control against temptations. The Catechsim goes into that They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.




Well, I am sorry the same rules for single unmarried heterosexuals do apply to homosexuals. I disagree on your comment on being "inherently unequal".

Forcing homosexuals to remain chaste for life while heterosexuals only have to remain chaste until they find the "right person" that they want to spend the rest of their life with is unfair and unequal.

Moving on why I believe that marriage is to be defined as a union between a man and a woman and opposing same-gender marriage goes as follows. The Church believes that sexual intercourse was ordained by god and designed biologicaly and anatomicaly exclusively for a male (husband) and female (wife).

ARGVMENTVM AD VERECVNDIAM

 

[GenMarshall]

Forcing homosexuals to remain chaste for life while heterosexuals only have to remain chaste until they find the "right person" that they want to spend the rest of their life with is unfair and unequal.

I dont see it as unfair and unequal. Homosexuals are not forced to remain chaste for life. Homosexuals are called and/or advised to live a life of chasity. I take it you missed my note that they are called and/or advised into chasity, they can eather accept it or not by their own freewill.

ARGVMENTVM AD VERECVNDIAM

I am sorry, but thats not an Argvmentvm Ad Verecvndiam. Realy, I would appreciate it if people do respect my beliefs and values insted of riticuling them . Quite honestly, I am starting to get annoyed when people start to wiki and smouther another person's face with logical flaws. Anyway, Its a biological fact that only a male and a female are anatomicaly compadible to each other.

 

[{|}$~\]

I am sorry, but thats[sic] not an Argvmentvm Ad Verecvndiam. Realy[sic], I would appreciate it if people do respect my beliefs and values insted of riticuling[sic] them . Quite honestly, I am starting to get annoyed when people start to wiki and smouther[sic] another person's face with logical flaws.

Did you even read the article?

Anyway, Its[sic] a biological fact that only a male and a female are anatomicaly compadible[sic] to[sic] each other.

Define "compatible".

 

[GenMarshall]

Define "compatible".

Realy, if you must (As well as keeping it clean). To me I am refering to anatomy. Its quite ovious that a male component is suppost to go into the female component and vice versa. Two male components and two female components are not compatible because they are not anatomicaly correct.

 

[.Shane.]

Hate to say I told you so, but:

I'm not sure you told me anything that's not obvious or common sense.

Courts make rulings. Especially at the state level, there is wide disagreement from issue to issue.

So, until the Supreme Court settles the issue we'll continue to get decisions on both sides of the fence. The only difference is when you like it you'll stand up and cheer and say "the system works!" and when you don't like it you'll say "those evil activist judges! how dare they"

Other than that, this is just gay marriage thread #459045, take a number and get in line.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not sure you told me anything that's not obvious or common sense.

Courts make rulings. Especially at the state level, there is wide disagreement from issue to issue.

So, until the Supreme Court settles the issue we'll continue to get decisions on both sides of the fence. The only difference is when you like it you'll stand up and cheer and say "the system works!" and when you don't like it you'll say "those evil activist judges! how dare they"

Other than that, this is just gay marriage thread #459045, take a number and get in line.

I am willing to bet the supreme court never hears the matter and as such, decisions by the various states supreme courts will apply.

 

[.Shane.]

There's no such thing as right and wrong in a democracy, it's about the rule of the majority, not a dictatorship by a minority.

Incorrect.

Democracy is a careful balance between majority rule and the protection of the minority. Depending on the issue and the social era, the pendulum swings back and forth, all the time.

 

[GenMarshall]

I am willing to bet the supreme court never hears the matter and as such, decisions by the various states supreme courts will apply.

Some how I am getting the feeling that the Supreme Court would not care about the issue and would just rule that Marriage is between a man and a woman if it ever gets to their desk. Just to check, how many Socialy Conservative SC Judicaries do we have on the bench?

 

[Tulkas12]

This is precisely the sort of thing that should not be democratic.

I agree with this, but can't we just find a compromise that isn't as ********, as "we are right" "No, we are right". This is so very stupid imo.

 

[Urederra]

Incorrect.

Democracy is a careful balance between majority rule and the protection of the minority. Depending on the issue and the social era, the pendulum swings back and forth, all the time.

Wise definition of democracy... I'll keep it.

@MobBoss... I didn't know they passed that kind of law, It was just an example it crossed my mind, I was debating between writing that example or the prohibition of eating pizza on Sundays, providing the majority votes in favour of the prohibition . Nice to learn something from you.

@FredLC. Very good post, Mr mod.

 

[.Shane.]

I am willing to bet the supreme court never hears the matter and as such, decisions by the various states supreme courts will apply.

Well, the only way I don't see it eventually* going to the SC is if there's an amendment.

I'd assume that someone would sue on the basis of their civil rights being violated by a state. Since the fed is the guarantor of those rights, I think that's the basis for a federal suit. I know a couple lawyers post here, so it would be great to hear their objective opinion of how such a thing would come to pass.

*by "eventually" I don't mean "immediately"

 

[.Shane.]

Wise definition of democracy... I'll keep it.

Yes, and I'll give you a very easy and obvious example of it....

Congress.

The House Representation is based purely on population. Hence, California has 50+ reps, North Dakota has one. The House truly represents the idea of the will of the majority.

Contrast that to the Senate. Its 2 per state, regardless of population. So, California, which in the House has 50 times the voice of North Dakota, is the equal of North Dakota in the Senate. Hence preventing the majority from dominating the minority.

 

[Tulkas12]

Yes, and I'll give you a very easy and obvious example of it....

Congress.

The House Representation is based purely on population. Hence, California has 50+ reps, North Dakota has one. The House truly represents the idea of the will of the majority.

Contrast that to the Senate. Its 2 per state, regardless of population. So, California, which in the House has 50 times the voice of North Dakota, is the equal of North Dakota in the Senate. Hence preventing the majority from dominating the minority.

*Sigh. This is because the US is not a democracy, we have mis-used this word so badly it no longer holds its original meaning. . . Which was one man one vote.

The US is a constitutional republic. It is a republic that must follow the contract of the constitution.

 

[.Shane.]

*Sigh. This is because the US is not a democracy, we have mis-used this word so badly it no longer holds its original meaning. . . Which was one man one vote.

The US is a constitutional republic. It is a republic that must follow the contract of the constitution.

I'm not sure what the '*sigh' is for? What I posted wasn't a criticism or an endorsement, a simple statement of fact.

Yes, technically speaking the US is not a "democracy", but, like it or not, there's an evolved, defacto definition of democracy that has come to mean a representative government. So, given that, yes, the US is a democracy.

 

[Tycoon101]

'Tis a pity that those 5 other states don't ban homosexual marriage. It's a good day for democracy, but it's wretched that those other states have clouded judgement...

 

[Tulkas12]

I'm not sure what the '*sigh' is for? What I posted wasn't a criticism or an endorsement, a simple statement of fact.

Yes, technically speaking the US is not a "democracy", but, like it or not, there's an evolved, defacto definition of democracy that has come to mean a representative government. So, given that, yes, the US is a democracy.

I know, hence the sigh. . . It wasn't direted at you really, I just hate the bastardization of the word, sam egoes for liberal. . . I'm a liberal, but now I have to describe myself as a classical liberal.

 

[MobBoss]

Well, the only way I don't see it eventually* going to the SC is if there's an amendment.

I'd assume that someone would sue on the basis of their civil rights being violated by a state. Since the fed is the guarantor of those rights, I think that's the basis for a federal suit. I know a couple lawyers post here, so it would be great to hear their objective opinion of how such a thing would come to pass.

*by "eventually" I don't mean "immediately"

Two things. While something could certainly be appealed to the supreme court level, unless they choose to hear the matter, it is good as dead. They may not address it at all...may pass on it with comment...or may open it up to a full hearing. As this is generally regarded as a state constitutional matter and not a federal one, most likely they would not hear it at all.

Secondly. As has been stated repeatedly and often there is no constitutional protection of marriage in the constitution or bill of rights. There is no "civil right" to be lost where marriage is concerned. Another reason the supreme court most likely would not hear the matter.

*caveat: I am not a lawyer, but a paralegal.