|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 23, 2008 13:33:50 GMT -5
It doesn't open the door to polygamy any more than traditional marriage does. The slippery slope arguments are getting old. There are laws against bestiality, there are laws against polygamy, there are laws against incest. In the eyes of the state, marriage can be between two consenting adults who are not related. End of story. There used to be laws against homosexuality. And sodomy. And inter-racial marriage. And people of opposite sex living together without benefit of marriage, too. The CA Court overturned a law supported by a majority, almost a plurality, of CA voters. What is to prevent it from deciding that what is a right for two is also a right for 3 or more? The exact same reasoning can apply. |
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on May 26, 2008 11:51:09 GMT -5
It doesn't open the door to polygamy any more than traditional marriage does. The slippery slope arguments are getting old. There are laws against bestiality, there are laws against polygamy, there are laws against incest. In the eyes of the state, marriage can be between two consenting adults who are not related. End of story. End of story, I think not. The ruling clearly stated that the law defining marriage as one man one woman denied individuals equal protection under the law because of the sexual orientation. If a man defines his happiness by being married to two or more wives, or a women deems her happiness is being married to two or more husbands, how can we deny them the right of marriage based on how the California State Supreme Court ruled. The slippery slope arguement just got more slippery. What if someone argued that their true love was for a minor and that current laws forbid them from marrying? Would laws have to be stricken or ammended to allow for chabges in our society's view on consenting adults and the age of consent? In most states in the United States, the age of consent is 16 years old. www.coolnurse.com/consent.htmAnd of course, we always have the tradition of pedastery in the homosexual community. Who are we to say that it is wrong? The California State Supreme Court ruled by a 4 to 3 margin that the laws defining marriage was between one man and one woman. This laws was passed by a majority vote of 60% of California voters. Just as in the case of Prop 187, liberal judges are enacting laws or voiding them by interpeting the law by their own prejudices. This ruling will come back to haunt them. Remember what happen to State Supreme Court Justice Rose Bird when she went against the will of the people. We recalled her along with her allies Cruz Reynoso and Joseph Grodin. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 28, 2008 10:48:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 28, 2008 12:12:32 GMT -5
The only valid argument is that the state has no authority in this issue. The laws requiring marriage licenses were Unconstitutional at the time of their creation, and remain so today. A violation of both the first and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
All other arguments are just semantics.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 28, 2008 13:56:32 GMT -5
Saunerelle, this is from the article you posted the link to: "The Field Poll’s finding conflicts with a Los Angeles Times/KTLA poll of 705 voters released last week that found 54 percent backed the proposed gay marriage ban and 35 percent opposed it. The Field survey had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points on the general amendment question, and plus or minus five percentage points on the more specific question."
So, which is it? Which poll is correct? And, until there is another vote on the legislation, it is still on the books as the will of the people.
I will say that I agree with bolverk, the State has no business in the marriage business since marriage is historically a religious intstitution.
<slaps his forehead> Silly me! I forgot that progressives will mix chuch and state when it suits their own agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 28, 2008 14:34:57 GMT -5
It isn't progressives who mix church and state. I too would be happier if marriage was not recognized by the state and was strictly a church thing.
I guess we'll find out in the fall which poll was correct. But this latest poll is an indication that people's minds are changing on this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 28, 2008 17:27:26 GMT -5
"It isn't progressives who mix church and state."
Oh really? Care then to expain Leland Yees (D-SF) push to make feng shui the state religion a few years ago? How about the spirit posts in a public park along Sonoma Ave, put in wiht proper ceremony by whatever animist/shamanist practicioner?
How about the push to surpress the free exercise (that is a clause in the 1st amendment, by the way - course, it does only say Congress shall make no law, says nothing about the states, but then, there is that pesky 14th amendment) of Christianity, while pushing whichever animist/shamanist/ spritiualist religion is the fad of the day? Sorry Saunterelle, that dog don't bark. There are too many examples of progressives pushing eastern religion and suppressing western ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 28, 2008 18:22:23 GMT -5
Oh please, you really think Christianity is really in danger of falling to progressive's "Eastern religions?" What about all the progressives who fight for no prayer in schools, no 10 commandments on the courtroom wall, no nativity scenes displayed on public land, etc.? They fight because they want pure separation of church and state!
And maybe the reason why progressives veer toward Eastern religions is because those religions tend to encompass all spiritual beliefs by promoting an abstract sense of God inside all of us that we are each free to define. Not living strictly adherent to a book of fairy tales written 2000 years ago like the Christians in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on May 28, 2008 18:49:00 GMT -5
What a stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 28, 2008 20:19:50 GMT -5
Ah, so then you feel it is OK for the state to surpress one religion and exalt others? You prove my point for me, thank you.
No, I don't believe that the 'progressives' will be able to stamp out Christianity - Rome didn't, Stalin didn't, Hitler didn't, Mao didn't, Pol Pot didn't. So I don't expect the gutless wonders we now keep reelecting to do it either. BUT - I do expect the EQUAL PROTECTION clause to be the law of the land. Check it out, it is in the Constitution. If the fasci-libs are going to take religion out of public view, then, by damn, take it ALL out. Take the feng shui, qi gong, and yoga out of the parks and rec offerings, take them out of the JC and other colleges (they are at the basic level all religious practices). Pull those spirit posts out of the park there on Sonoma Ave. One way or the other. I don't care which.
As for fairy tales, seems that those eastern religions all have their own books of them that they go by. And as for " promoting an abstract sense of God inside all of us that we are each free to define" you are opening a dangerous door there, basically saying that there is no good or evil, just differences of opinion. I guess that is one way of getting the crime rate down - since nothing is wrong, there are no crimes.
By the way, you failed to address any of the examples I gave. Care to take a crack at it? Or are you just going to ignore anything that you might have to think about?
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 28, 2008 22:09:15 GMT -5
It isn't progressives who mix church and state. please provide ONE example of conservatives mixing C and S: 1. _________ |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on May 28, 2008 22:12:31 GMT -5
And maybe the reason why progressives veer toward Eastern religions is because those religions tend to encompass all spiritual beliefs by promoting an abstract sense of God inside all of us that we are each free to define. Not living strictly adherent to a book of fairy tales written 2000 years ago like the Christians in this country. maybe the reason is because eastern religions don't forbid the sins taht you like to indulge in, i.e. sodomy, homosexuality, adultery, etc. speaking of fairy tales i think the bible stacks up pretty well against those religions featuring a fat bald guy and believing that cows are your reincarnated ancestors. |
|
