Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional.

Smallc · August 5, 2010

Now,down at City hall,in front of a JP,when it comes to issues of property etc...Whatever..That's no concern of mine because i's in the secular scope of things.But the seperation between church and state works both ways,not one way.No church,well a church that believes in the precepts of the Holy Bible,should be forced to conduct a ceremony between "marriage" minded homosexuals...

You don't have to worry about that happening. Freedom of religion wins out in such a case.

Remiel · August 5, 2010

Gay marriage does not force churches which don't believe it is right to preform the marriage.

I think the more common problem is folks who are empowered by the state to grant civil marriage licenses but then refuse to give them to homosexual couples because they " morally disapprove " .

dre · August 5, 2010

I think the more common problem is folks who are empowered by the state to grant civil marriage licenses but then refuse to give them to homosexual couples because they " morally disapprove " .

Thats why you should separate the licensing entities from the ceremonial ones. Stop allowing churches to hand out government backed civil marriage licenses. Since marriage licenses are legal instruments it makes no sense for churches to issue them anyways. Get your marriage license at the Access Center... and have your ceremony put on by a church.

Jack Weber · August 5, 2010

Gay marriage does not force churches which don't believe it is right to preform the marriage.

For now,I agree..

But I've heared and read some of the more militant proponents of this and they feel that all churches should be forced to do this.So much so that they have openly mused about Charter cases,human rights commissions,going after charitable status,etc...

punked · August 5, 2010

I think the more common problem is folks who are empowered by the state to grant civil marriage licenses but then refuse to give them to homosexual couples because they " morally disapprove " .

Tough.

eyeball · August 5, 2010

Youre confused. The term minority rights doesnt mean special rights for minorities. The term applies to the denying minorities rights that are extended to everyone else.

For example freedom from slavery is considered a minority rights issue... not because freedom from slavery is some kind of special "minority right", but because it was a right that the rest of society was denying that minority.

Horseshit. Slavery is a human rights issue...because it's inhumane.

dre · August 6, 2010

Horseshit. Slavery is a human rights issue...because it's inhumane.

And its a minority rights issue because one particular minority was subjected to it.

Shady · August 6, 2010

And its a minority rights issue because one particular minority was subjected to it.

No, it's not a minority rights issue. It's a rights issue. Whether it's a majority infringing on a minority, or a minority infringing on a majority like in South Africa. There's no such thing as minority rights, or minority freedoms. Just rights and freedoms that are completely unrelated to sex, race, religion, etc.

Mr.Canada · August 6, 2010

Uh..It's semen,Mr.Falange...Not seamen...

It was a joke...I guess we know who took the short bus...

BubberMiley · August 6, 2010

There's no such thing as minority rights, or minority freedoms. Just rights and freedoms that are completely unrelated to sex, race, religion, etc.

That's true. And so you must agree that all grown-ups should have the equal right to marry another willing grown-up.

ToadBrother · August 6, 2010

There is no such thing as minority rights.

Hmmm, that's odd, because both Canada and the US have bills of rights that sharply limit the government's ability to mess with people, and thus, by consequence enshrining the notion that majorities (or if you like, pure democratic decisions) have limits on where they can go. This is a pretty basic concept of constitutional democracy.

ToadBrother · August 6, 2010

No, it's not a minority rights issue. It's a rights issue. Whether it's a majority infringing on a minority, or a minority infringing on a majority like in South Africa. There's no such thing as minority rights, or minority freedoms. Just rights and freedoms that are completely unrelated to sex, race, religion, etc.

You mean like the freedom of religion?

You are one dumb guy.

Jack Weber · August 6, 2010

It was a joke...I guess we know who took the short bus...

Sure...Your lengthy polemnic was just a joke... :rolleyes:

By the way,that polemnic was very graphic...

Reviewing a scene from a few weeks ago?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Jack Weber

Jack Weber · August 6, 2010

You mean like the freedom of religion?

You are one dumb guy.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

bush_cheney2004 · August 6, 2010

That's true. And so you must agree that all grown-ups should have the equal right to marry another willing grown-up.

.....or more than one "grown-up", or mother, father, sister, brother, cousin, grandmother, or grandfather...so basic this "equal right" be. No exclusions for medical status, mental disability, or military service. Oh, and let's not forget extra-terrestials!

Remiel · August 6, 2010

Tough.

Tough for the homosexuals or tough for the marriage commissioners?

Shady · August 6, 2010

You mean like the freedom of religion?

You are one dumb guy.

How am I dumb? You're agreeing with me.

BubberMiley · August 6, 2010

.....or more than one "grown-up", or mother, father, sister, brother, cousin, grandmother, or grandfather...so basic this "equal right" be. No exclusions for medical status, mental disability, or military service. Oh, and let's not forget extra-terrestials!

Your argument would be equally persuasive in the debate over changing the definition of marriage to include cross-racial partnerships. It took a judge to decide that those opposed were wrong.

bush_cheney2004 · August 6, 2010

Your argument would be equally persuasive in the debate over changing the definition of marriage to include cross-racial partnerships. It took a judge to decide that those opposed were wrong.

That's fine by me..it's just that if there are to be no legal restrictions based on social custom, then all such restrictions should logically be eliminated. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage at all beyond civil contract law.

ToadBrother · August 6, 2010

That's fine by me..it's just that if there are to be no legal restrictions based on social custom, then all such restrictions should logically be eliminated. Government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage at all beyond civil contract law.

A-men

Shady · August 6, 2010

Your argument would be equally persuasive in the debate over changing the definition of marriage to include cross-racial partnerships. It took a judge to decide that those opposed were wrong.

That doesn't make any sense. The definition of marriage didn't need to be changed to include cross-racial marriages. What part of man/woman don't you understand? Now you definitely need to change the definition of marriage to include man/man, or woman/woman.

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. The fact that a qualifier is needed in front of marriage (same-sex) proves the point. If marriage didn't mean man/woman, one wouldn't need the same-sex part of the term.

eyeball · August 6, 2010

And its a minority rights issue because one particular minority was subjected to it.

More than one race has practiced and been subjected to it. The ability to subject humans to slavery has more to do with the application of force and power than numbers of people. In many cases one person could own dozens of slaves. The concept of minority rights gets a little blurry in this light. No doubt a slave owner wouldn't think so.

In any case the issue of slavery and the right of gays to be married are so different as to be incomparable on virtually every level that matters in this day and age.

BubberMiley · August 6, 2010

That doesn't make any sense. The definition of marriage didn't need to be changed to include cross-racial marriages.

Yes it did. Until the 1960s, cross-racial marriages were illegal in many states. They had to change the definition to make them legal.

NA Carter · August 6, 2010

I don't think this ruling suprised anybody on either side of the debate. The case really came down to two points: "can a human rights issue be determined by ballot initiative?" and "How does same-sex marriage impact the marriages of straight people?". The Christian Right are going to have problems finding ANY judge (liberal or conservative) who will agree with the first point. As for the second, the Christian Right has NEVER had a cogent answer to this question. Their entire argument is that although same-sex marriage has zero impact on individual marriages, it will bring down the entire social institution. Sorry, what? Correct me if my math is wrong, but isn't anything multiplied by ZERO still ZERO - no matter how many times you try and multiply it?

They trot out the old pearl that marriage is an institution for the bearing of children, and that children born outside of this institution are at a distinct social disadvantage. Frankly, this is a moot point. We already allow those who are either unable, or have no intention of bearing children to wed, with the full range of entitlements that other married couples have. My wife and I have no children (as of yet), yet nobody would say that our marriage is any less valid without kids.

Even with the number of SOCUS conservative judges, from a legal standpoint, the Christian Right has very little to stand on. Full marital rights for same-sex couples is now a matter of when, and not if.

NA Carter · August 6, 2010

I don't think this ruling suprised anybody on either side of the debate. The case really came down to two points: "can a human rights issue be determined by ballot initiative?" and "How does same-sex marriage impact the marriages of straight people?". The Christian Right are going to have problems finding ANY judge (liberal or conservative) who will agree with the first point. As for the second, the Christian Right has NEVER had a cogent answer to this question. Their entire argument is that although same-sex marriage has zero impact on individual marriages, it will bring down the entire social institution. Sorry, what? Correct me if my math is wrong, but isn't anything multiplied by ZERO still ZERO - no matter how many times you try and multiply it?

They trot out the old pearl that marriage is an institution for the bearing of children, and that children born outside of this institution are at a distinct social disadvantage. Frankly, this is a moot point. We already allow those who are either unable, or have no intention of bearing children to wed, with the full range of entitlements that other married couples have. My wife and I have no children (as of yet), yet nobody would say that our marriage is any less valid without kids.

Even with the number of SOCUS conservative judges, from a legal standpoint, the Christian Right has very little to stand on. Full marital rights for same-sex couples is now a matter of when, and not if.

Edited August 6, 2010 by NA Carter