Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I think this could only be true if you accept that homosexuality is not more perverted, immoral and deviant in and of it'self.

Has nothing to do with what we think. If that person is being moral and religious in anyway, even if it is not according to what our religion thinks, then they fit within that quote. If John Adams had used Christianity in the quote as the standard, then it would be a different story.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"Marriage" can be for whatever reasons one wants it to be, even for something so "trivial" as tax purposes. However, marriage laws have historically been concerned with procreation, even when misguided as in the case of bans on inter-racial marriages. It is the subject of marriage laws and the role of government in formulating those laws that is under discussion here, not the question of why one person chooses to spend the rest of their life with another.

The children from "gay marriages" must be present through adoption by either one or both of the "gay partners" as they are impossible to produce by the coupling of same sex partners. Thus, historically all marriage laws centered around procreation and forbade consanguinity for obvious eugenic reasons. Racial laws concerning marriage were added as the world (and people's minds) grew smaller. In all cases the concern expressed by government involved the children of the potential union. The happiness of the couple involved was never considered to be a legal matter.

I fully realize that developments in medicine will complicate, if not completely confound my position. But I need to find some sort of ground upon which to stand so I have chosen the historical outlook.

"What was the purpose of any marriage law?" The historical approach shows that government administered marriage laws for the purposes of addressing the offspring of such unions. If no offspring are possible then neither a government sanction nor a ban is not really warranted. You simply are dealing with something that is not "marriage."

Gay couples adopting children is a separate issue from gay couples producing children. IMHO.

I'm going to disagree with you on the legal purpose of marriage at a very fundamental level. It was not, as you say, a way to regulate procreation and offspring. It was a way to regulate the movement of property (a woman) from the possession of her father to her husband.

Early American suffragists (women who wanted the vote) noted that they had about the same amount of rights as slaves, given that marriage left women in what was essentially legal childhood. This began to change when husbands were being sued for and found responsible for the torts (civil wrongs--example: the slander case of the UPC pastor) of their wives. As a result, laws were passed emancipating wives, not because it was the right thing to do but because it cost their husbands less.

The problem with marriage today is that even if we accept your definition, it has gone so much beyond that. So many benefits are based on the marital status--and it has nothing to do with whether or not the married couple have children. These are two separate things in the law. And, I note, you do not address the fact that we allow heterosexuals who are unable to conceive children due to age or fertility to marry. We are not requiring couples to prove their ability to have children prior to issuing a marriage license.

I'm 50 years old and single. Absent some heroic intervention in the way of "reproductive technology", it's very unlikely I could bear a child at my age. But if I showed up at the county courthouse today with my boyfriend in tow and my money in hand, the government would issue me a marriage license and not ask any questions about my ability to have children. If marriage was strictly about procreation, that wouldn't happen. It's not.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

I don't think Adams or I said anything about a "test". I see no conflict in the two statements. He is simply stating that our system won't work for those who do not give place to God.

Politicians are elected by the people. Of course some judges are appointed by the politicians. I would never vote for an openly gay person, nor would I vote for someone who is known to appoint such. Nor anyone who accepts abortion as "birth control".

If others feel that way about Pentecostals or Catholic, then so be it - no problem.

And again, I'd like to read the full speech to see these words in context.

If they are as they read, I disagree with John Adams! Imagine that!

I respect anyone's choice to vote for whomever they wish -- however, I think it's a little ignorant to say these are incapable of interpreting the Constitution if they aren't believers. And I've also asked you to clarify what it means to "give place to God?" Buddhists count? Muslim? How much of a believer does it take to be able to interpret the law?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It is now, It used to be two parties of the opposite sex

No, actually it wasn't. There was no such law.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

but who is to say that won't change either? Marriage has been redefined

That's just silly. Transferring the arguments to non-humans seems desperate.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I don't see how if he was heterosexual but I could see how if he was a christian and if his personal views were that it should not be legal, then he should recuse himself

A judge is supposed to have a tract record, prior to being appointed, of interpreting the law objectively and without advocacy. This is why it shouldn't be an issue if a President nominates a Christian as a Supreme Court judge --- it should be a non-issue to their ability to interpret. A Christian shouldn't be recused simply because he's suspsected of being an activist.

Either way, the Supreme Court will likely hear this case next... maybe.

[mfblume]

One thing is for sure, the enemy of our souls is wise and cunning and has a way of getting God's people to indirectly condone sodomy and bring the wrath of God on a nation.

Jud 1:7 KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Just saying.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

One thing is for sure, the enemy of our souls is wise and cunning and has a way of getting God's people to indirectly condone sodomy and bring the wrath of God on a nation.

Jud 1:7 KJV Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Just saying.

I don't think anyone on this thread has "condoned" sodomy on a faith level.

I just find it interesting when we demand godly behaviors of unbelievers. Lot's instructions to save the city weren't "make 10 men quit having gay sex." It was "find me 10 righteous men" or men that were serving the Lord.

Some believers have a personal opinion that we must seek to legislate as few morals as possible, and usually it is only those that harms or exploits another without consent. As a Libertarian, I'd also lean that way. In this instance, finding legal liberty for someone to live a life of sodomy is not the same as condone the sin.

Just sayin.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Socialite

I don't think anyone on this thread has "condoned" sodomy on a faith level.

I just find it interesting when we demand godly behaviors of unbelievers. Lot's instructions to save the city weren't "make 10 men quit having gay sex." It was "find me 10 righteous men" or men that were serving the Lord.

Some believers have a personal opinion that we must seek to legislate as few morals as possible, and usually it is only those that harms or exploits another without consent. As a Libertarian, I'd also lean that way. In this instance, finding legal liberty for someone to live a life of sodomy is not the same as condone the sin.

Just sayin.

So it is wrong on a faith level, but we should not vote against it as Christians? We should not use our rights to vote and vote NO to gay marriage? The only conclusion is to vote YES for gay marriage. See where this leads?

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by mfblume

So it is wrong on a faith level, but we should not vote against it as Christians? We should not use our rights to vote and vote NO to gay marriage? The only conclusion is to vote YES for gay marriage. See where this leads?

Let's see, should we vote for modesty and come up with a way to define that? Vote for no indecent programming on the internet or television? Vote for outlawing fornication? Vote for making adultery a capital offense? Vote for the stoning of alcoholics and drug addicts? How far should we go with this?

I'm saying, not all brothers and sisters view the role of government the same. Marriage belonging to the State was our first problem. Some brothers and sisters see government in a way that should be limited, less infringing on personal liberties, etc. Some like the idea of more government. Some brothers and sisters have a socialist utopia in their vision for the ideal government.