Great! New challenge already to the Cali same sex marriage laws

[SUBMAN1]

Now on the chopping block, since gay marriage is allowed, why not Incest marriage and why not Polygamists?

Lets see how this one plays out. Using the same argument of the Cali Supreme Court, there is no way you can deny Incest relationships or Polygamists.

The argument the court used - any and all loving relationships. Guess cows and sheep can be married next.

Funny how the alarmists on this one 'under estimated' the impact this will have.

-S

[mookiemookie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy

Sure. And this is coming from a state where their courts sent little girls back to a Polygamist camp saying they weren't in danger! You are a funny guy!

-S

[Hitman]

Guess cows and sheep can be married next.

No. Speaking as a jurist, I must point out that a cow or a sheep can't give his agreement to being married. Free agreement from both parts and consciousness of what they are doing is essential to any contract or institution, and also to the marriage. No animal can therefore give the legally necessary agreement, since they are not able to understand what it is about.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Hitman

No. Speaking as a jurist, I must point out that a cow or a sheep can't give his agreement to being married. Free agreement from both parts and consciousness of what they are doing is essential to any contract or institution, and also to the marriage. No animal can therefore give the legally necessary agreement, since they are not able to understand what it is about.

I detect a bit of discrimination in your post! How dare you? A simple Baah definitely warrants consensual partnership! You should be stoned in the street for your intolerance!!!!!!

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

The state should not have any involvement in marriage whatsoever, including "traditional" marriages. This includes marriage licensing and taxation.

[Ducimus]

>>Great! New challenge already to the Cali same sex marriage laws


Eh, you mean the special interest groups are just now getting around to challenging it? If so, im surprised its taken them this long. I honestly don't see same sex marriage lasting for very long, as said special interest groups don't ever stop tell they get their way.

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

The state should not have any involvement in marriage whatsoever, including "traditional" marriages. This includes marriage licensing and taxation.

To me it's an equal protection under the law issue. A marriage is a contract between two people. For me the solution would be to only recognize civil marriage under law and use Religious marriage rites for those who wish a religious sanction to civil marriage. The problem with restricting the state from marriage is the consequences of divorce. On the other hand, I've read reports that the overall divorce rate is down in Massachusetts since gay marriage was adopted there.

[mrbeast]

Why does gay marriage bother you so much Subman?

[EDIT: just noticed, 1000th post!]

[trekchu]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Why does gay marriage bother you so much Subman?

[EDIT: just noticed, 1000th post!]

I second that question. Over here Gay MArriage is allowed for some time now and except for some rumblings in ultra conservative circles in Bavaria nobody really cares.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

To me it's an equal protection under the law issue. A marriage is a contract between two people. For me the solution would be to only recognize civil marriage under law and use Religious marriage rites for those who wish a religious sanction to civil marriage. The problem with restricting the state from marriage is the consequences of divorce. On the other hand, I've read reports that the overall divorce rate is down in Massachusetts since gay marriage was adopted there.

It goes both ways. Civil because, as you say, marriage is a binding legal contract. Religious because it's considered to be done "in the eyes of God". This holds true whatever god you happen to believe in.

Part of the problem is the question of how marriage came about in the first place. If it was instituted "by God", then the government should stay out of it altogether, and gay marriage becomes a moot point. But it could also be argued that marriage exists solely because of the social need to have two parents of opposite sex to raise the children for twenty years. In other words, it exists simply to force the father to stick around and provide for the family. If that's the case then religion becomes irrelevant, since the need for marriage is a social one. It also means that "benefits" from a job or the government are purely for the sake of raising children, so gay marriage becomes a joke, purely within that context. But if a corporation agrees to pay benefits to a gay partner, that's their business.

If we agree that marriage is for the security of the children, it may exclude gay marriage, but it also excludes the religious, since the civil reasons are obvious. But if that's the case, the religious have nothing to complain about, since their arguments are strictly of a moral nature. On the other hand, if marriage is for religious reasons, then you can hardly have religious freedom while excluding some because their beliefs are different from yours.

Of course the religious don't want to allow gay marriage, because it seems to them to be an acceptance of something they see as morally wrong. But to actively ban such a thing means applying restrictions on a purely moral basis.

I don't like the idea either, but I always have to fall back on my bottom line: Either you have freedom or you don't.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

To me it's an equal protection under the law issue. A marriage is a contract between two people. For me the solution would be to only recognize civil marriage under law and use Religious marriage rites for those who wish a religious sanction to civil marriage. The problem with restricting the state from marriage is the consequences of divorce. On the other hand, I've read reports that the overall divorce rate is down in Massachusetts since gay marriage was adopted there.

There is your problem - reducing marriage to nothing more than a legal contract.

-S

[UnderseaLcpl]

There is your problem - reducing marriage to nothing more than a legal contract.

-S

Good point. Marriage is a religious or personal institution and should not involve the state. If it does you have state-sanctioned religous or personal ceremonies. Should the state regulate your baptism or kegger? Hell no!!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by trekchu

I second that question. Over here Gay MArriage is allowed for some time now and except for some rumblings in ultra conservative circles in Bavaria nobody really cares.

Because it is not about marriage at all. It is about forcing punishment on people that don't agree with it.

Just some examples:

Religious Freedom

Private Property rights


Why is it that when a Methodist retreat center recently refused to marry two lesbians that New Jersey punished them by removing their tax exempt status?

After marriage laws in Kalifornia, Catholic charities are now forced by the state to accept homo's as possible candidates for child adoption?

Are you seeing how this goes against peoples beliefs? This is forced by the state!

Kalifornia public schools now must be gay friendly! Of course this won't stop at 'public' schools either. Imagine Catholic gay friendly schools? Quebec even recently forced a school to provide curriculum about how gay lifestyles are a valid way of life!

Where does it stop? These special rights? These crazy thoughts? The thought police are coming down hard on you - you must conform! BS!

If you speak out these days against homo's marriage, you can get fired! Worse, one lady named Crystal Dixon wrote a peice about support of traditional marriages recently - just an opinion column, and the U. of Toledo fired her for it because it didn't include gays! That's the craziest thing I've ever heard!

ANyway, you guys can jump back on your PC bandwagon and travel down a path to your eventual demise, but I'll get off here thank you very much.

-S

PS. Lets list some more:

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Association

All under threat.

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Because it is not about marriage at all. It is about forcing punishment on people that don't agree with it.

Just some examples:

Religious Freedom

Private Property rights


Why is it that when a Methodist retreat center recently refused to marry two lesbians that New Jersey punished them by removing their tax exempt status?

After marriage laws in Kalifornia, Catholic charities are now forced by the state to accept homo's as possible candidates for child adoption?

Are you seeing how this goes against peoples beliefs? This is forced by the state!

Kalifornia public schools now must be gay friendly! Of course this won't stop at 'public' schools either. Imagine Catholic gay friendly schools? Quebec even recently forced a school to provide curriculum about how gay lifestyles are a valid way of life!

Where does it stop? These special rights? These crazy thoughts? The thought police are coming down hard on you - you must conform! BS!

If you speak out these days against homo's marriage, you can get fired! Worse, one lady named Crystal Dixon wrote a peice about support of traditional marriages recently - just an opinion column, and the U. of Toledo fired her for it because it didn't include gays! That's the craziest thing I've ever heard!

ANyway, you guys can jump back on your PC bandwagon and travel down a path to your eventual demise, but I'll get off here thank you very much.

-S

PS. Lets list some more:

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Association

All under threat.

Fine. Let's take it in the opposite direction. Only religious marriages are real. Then we can abolish civil marriage altogether and end marriage and dependant tax exemptions so everyone would be single and abolish all divorce and family courts as the government should have no standing in any divorce or custody battle. Any inheritance rights would have to be specifically spelled out in a will and if you die without one, everything reverts to the state.