San Francisco Marrying Gays

[sysyphus]

Actually Peri, your joke brings up a very good point not much made in discussions on this topic:

People decrying gay marriage do so on the basis of the so-called 'sanctity of marriage'. Divorce has become so rampant and has degraded the instituion of marriage, many people almost making a mockery of it (most notably Johnny Carson and Elizabeth Taylor)

Where have these so-called defenders of the institution been on this issue? Virtually silent.

In modern society, marriage has taken a beating, it is becoming viewed as more and more antiquated, some see it as littl emore than a 'piece of paper'

Opening marriage to same-sex couples is the best thing that could have ever happened to it. In jurisdictions where it has been legalised, it is now becoming relevant again, more modern.

The focus is shifting back to what marriage should be about: a life-long commitment between two loving people.

 

[andrewgprv]

Why arn't the "defenders of marrage" boycotting shows like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire"

 

[sysyphus]

Maybe they plan on becoming contestants!

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

In fact the most egregiously marriage-mocking shows are run by the FOX network, I've noticed...

 

[Sims2789]

@andrewgprv
Hey! i consider myself a Defender of Marriage! look at this brilliant legislation i passed in CivFanatics Parlament(scroll down a little bit past the act about Marijuana) :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1576142#post1576142

 

[metalhead]

Huzzah for SF. No doubt, the challenge to State law was the motivating factor behind this, and the case may be the one that eventually makes it up to the US Supreme Court. I personally think marriage is nothing more than a contract any more. Most couples nowadays cohabit before ever getting married, so getting married has become a mere formality. Opposing gay marriage with some stupid "sanctity of marriage" bullcrap is not only intellectually dishonest, but downright stupid. One person's religious morals about marriage should never apply to society as a whole. There is no practical reason why gays should not be allowed to marry. If anyone has one, I'd like to hear it, but I'm pretty sure it'll get shot done before you're even done typing it

 

[MrPresident]

I think this is the most stupid for a pro-gay marriage person to do. The Mayor of San Francisco has no legal right to do this. In fact, what he did was illegal because the people of California recently voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The reason I think it is stupid is because it allows those opposed to gay marriage to gain the support of those, like me, who think the law should be respected. Personally I believe gay people should be allowed to suffer the joy of marriage like heterosexuals. However marriage is sanctioned by the government for a reason and the government must follow the wishes of the people. The American people do not want homosexuals to marry, at least at the moment. That should be respected. If you want to change that then change the people's minds. Don't ignore laws that you don't like.

 

[sysyphus]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Don't ignore laws that you don't like.

Laws that ignore the Constition open themselves to being ignored.

For interest sake, in a special Valentine's Day spirit, there are seven gay American couples here in Toronto getting married today, they're having an open celebration. It'll be interesting to see what happens when they go back and try to have their marriages recognised.

 

[Speedo]

Laws that ignore the Constition open themselves to being ignored.

Last I checked, interpreting the Constitution wasn't listed in the powers of the executive branch.

 

[andrewgprv]

Laws are not sacred. Unfair laws are meant to be broken.

 

[Sims2789]

Originally posted by MrPresident
I think this is the most stupid for a pro-gay marriage person to do. The Mayor of San Francisco has no legal right to do this. In fact, what he did was illegal because the people of California recently voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The reason I think it is stupid is because it allows those opposed to gay marriage to gain the support of those, like me, who think the law should be respected. Personally I believe gay people should be allowed to suffer the joy of marriage like heterosexuals. However marriage is sanctioned by the government for a reason and the government must follow the wishes of the people. The American people do not want homosexuals to marry, at least at the moment. That should be respected. If you want to change that then change the people's minds. Don't ignore laws that you don't like.

i'm assuming you're also against Rosa Parks when she sat in the front of the bus because it was illegal for blacks to do so?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Toasty
Nice to see that there are Americans still standing up for what is right.

mmm, too bad the mayor and his cronies beat them to the punch...

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Last I checked, interpreting the Constitution wasn't listed in the powers of the executive branch.

If understand the judicial process correctly, an unfair law must be broken before the Supreme Court can rule it unConstitutional. After all, they have to have a case, right?

I agree that this was possibly not the best way to go about getting that case, however. If this gets to the Court they may be able to sidestep the entire issue of whether the law is just or unjust and just rebuke the mayor for breaking it.

And, knowing the Supreme Court, that irrelevant decision will then be used to strike down any other more legitimate cases that may arise.

 

[metalhead]

That's not how it works, Pilate. They couldn't rule on the matter based on the fact that the mayor was involved, and then preclude the issue from being argued again. In fact, if issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples is not a criminal offense, the Court would most likely ignore that part of it. There would be no legal basis for sidestepping the issue just because the mayor is involved. If there was, the Court would then have no basis whatsoever for precluding someone else bringing a similar challenge. That's just not how our common law system works.

 

[MrPresident]

Originally posted by sims2789
i'm assuming you're also against Rosa Parks when she sat in the front of the bus because it was illegal for blacks to do so?

Two questions for you. Could Rosa Parks vote then? Can Homosexuals vote now?