Jump to content

My First Political Rally And March


ejaycat

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Considering it was a legal ballot and a question the legislator thought was appropriate, I don't even think a Court has the duty to interfere.

The people of California have spoken.

Well, I would think that Supreme Courts are precisely there to check that the legislators abide by the constitution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering it was a legal ballot and a question the legislator thought was appropriate, I don't even think a Court has the duty to interfere.

The people of California have spoken.

But with a lot of devious minds (i.e., lawyers with a lot of time on their hands), California's often liberal-leaning attitudes, and a vaguely-worded Constitution open to twisting and self-serving interpretation, the gates aren't as solidly locked as one might think. There are all these pink-star Barbarians foaming at the mouth and at the Gate!! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I would think that Supreme Courts are precisely there to check that the legislators abide by the constitution.

I think Courts have too much power, personally. If the legislator, which is elected by the PEOPLE, felt the need for this to be on the ballot, then I don't see why the court now feels it can interfere. But hey,

Link to post
Share on other sites
But with a lot of devious minds (i.e., lawyers with a lot of time on their hands), California's often liberal-leaning attitudes, and a vaguely-worded Constitution open to twisting and self-serving interpretation, the gates aren't as solidly locked as one might think. There are all these pink-star Barbarians foaming at the mouth and at the Gate!! :lol:

And go go sticks, at the ready.

I just don't get all this fuss. This isn't a civil rights issue. To me, its what marriage represents. I think Gays are up in arms, as they see one side that have it, and demand equality, but fail to understand the religious definition and symbolism which marriage ultimately represents.

I support gays having equal rights in terms of support, if a partner dies or other financial benefits. I just don't support marriage, as that is an act between god and man&woman. Not an act between god and 2 men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I just don't support marriage, as that is an act between god and man&woman. Not an act between god and 2 men.

That would make sense if marriage didn't predate religion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And go go sticks, at the ready.

I just don't get all this fuss. This isn't a civil rights issue. To me, its what marriage represents. I think Gays are up in arms, as they see one side that have it, and demand equality, but fail to understand the religious definition and symbolism which marriage ultimately represents.

I support gays having equal rights in terms of support, if a partner dies or other financial benefits. I just don't support marriage, as that is an act between god and man&woman. Not an act between god and 2 men.

Sigh, as the board's resident "civilly partnered" gay member, I suppose I feel obliged to give my input.

And the thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with you Michelle. I at least respect your point of view. I suppose it all comes down to the definition of the term "marriage". It really seems to be the main sticking point. Between those who say the term should cover the whole civil sphere of partnerships and don't attach a religious significance necessarily to it, and those who see it as very much as a religious commitment and think any equation of marriage with a non-religiously sanctioned partnership is a dilution of the whole institution. It all boils downs, I suppose, to whether it is a term that should be reserved for a religiously-blessed institution entered into mostly for the motive of sanctified procreation ... or not.

When I got "hitched", it wasn't for me important that it be called a "marriage". What I basically wanted was to make some kind of public gesture of my commitment to my partner, and at least have some of legal recognition (or at least recognised in many parts of the world, even if not in my home state of NSW) of our personal and practical partnership. I'm happy to live with the term "civil partnership". I hope eventually that it is also a partnership that WILL eventually get some sort of legal recognition in my homeplace. I don't and didn't feel the need for any type of "spiritual" blessing _ not being religious, I'd be hypocritical if I did. I liked having a sense of ceremony about it, but that's as far as it went for me in regarding it as a "wedding".

That said ...

I do think, though, that if you are looking at equality before the law, that isn't the case if the term "marriage" IS able to be applied to hetrosexual unions in civil society _ such recognition of non-religious unions is certainly common throughout the world _ but not to same-sex couples who seek equal civil definition of it. IF "marriage" is to be reserved for a particular type of church or religion-blessed partnership, then NO civil union should be able to be recognised as marriage if it is to be equal before law regardless of sexuality.

I suppose it's basically an argument about symbolism, but it's a symbolism that needs to be applied equally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the people may have spoken, remember there is such a thing as a Constitution and a Bill of Rights which are designed to protect individuals and groups from injustices and prejudices. The majority (be it slim like in this case or a vast margin) having their say isn't always a guarantee that justice is being served. History is full of stories of oppression handed out by the wishes of the majority. That is what the court system is for...to argue, debate, and interpret the meaning, intent, and extent of the words in those documents.

I don't see the need to ban such relationships in a Constitution. Although, that is likely to later ensure that gay marriage will come to the US. It just seems to me that in the USA, whenever there is a Constitutional amendment that denies an individual right or a freedom, that amendment comes crashing down. I know that when I was in Cali, I was able buy and consume wine thanks to the 21st Amendment eliminating the 18th.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts are the only progressive institution in the United Sates anymore. The courts are there to limit the power of the executive and legislative powers of the government.

Michelle a few facts

Constantius banned same-sex marriage in 342

Religious instituted weddings and marriage didn't come about until the Council of Trent in 1545. Before this it was an entirely civil and private matter between the people involved.

In 1566 Catholic marriage was defined

In Protestant countries, marriage was still a private, civil and state matter after the reformation. Ironically its the Lutheran Church that is fighting hardest against same-sex marriage in Canada.

So the Church and marriage have not also gone together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, President-Elect Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

--------

As the President-Elect of the United States so eloquently points out, as far as we are concerned, as Christians, marriage is a religious institution.

As I said, this is not a civil rights issue and neither is it about equality. Marriage, to Christians, is a religious event. I am all in favour of rights for Homosexuals, in terms of compensation, benefits & pensions. But as a Christian, I can't support gay marriage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If marriage is something religious, then it should not exist outside of churches and those in marriages should not be allowed to break that bond through, as religion also prohibits divorce. But too sad for religion, humanity is what it is. So marriage is not necessarily something that is religious at all. The right to marriage and creating a family is a fundamental human right as expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just like religion, it is first and foremost a human creation and a human institution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
t is first and foremost a human creation and a human institution.

I strongly disagree with you Kendegra.

Marriage was created by God, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh'. - Genesis 2:24.

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument regarding same sex marriage. I don't usually express my faith on these forums, as I know it's very much frowned upon. But my views are very much in sync with my faith, naturally you can understand why I may not support the idea of gay marriage.

Let's just agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree with you Kendegra.

Marriage was created by God, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh'. - Genesis 2:24.

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument regarding same sex marriage. I don't usually express my faith on these forums, as I know it's very much frowned upon. But my views are very much in sync with my faith, naturally you can understand why I may not support the idea of gay marriage.

Let's just agree to disagree.

That's fine, Michelle, if you're talking about a religiously-blessed marriage. I wouldn't expect many religions to bless a same-sex marriage, and I wouldn't demand that any religious organisation be forced to bless a marriage that goes against its core beliefs.

But ...

In civil societies, which most of us members here live in (I don't think we have too many members here, if any, living in theocracies), not all marriages are entered into as religious instiutuitions. Civil marriages can be registered and recognised in nearly all our home countries here without the need to have a church, dominant in a particular country or otherwise, giving its blessing. People get married in registry offices, town halls, beaches, hotels, and it's not a requiremewnt that an ordained minister of any church officiate at it. While I'm sure many church's may not recognise such unions, the thing is, in the civil legal systems of our countries, those unions ARE still recognised. In which case, if those are, where is the equality before the law for same-sex unions not to be recognised as such?

I respect your spritual beliefs, Michelle. But not all of us are religious, and it is not a precondition for citizenship of our countries to be religious. Therefore, while I certainly agree that religions should not be forced to recognise same-sex unions as marriages, by the same token I do think they should have the same legal recognition of non-religiously entered into unions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michelle - I am against same sex marriage for the same reasons you are, but I agree with rols that if non-religious marriages are state recognized than it is an equality matter if same-sex unions do not have the same state recognition.

I live in a country where same sex marriage is legal, but within the law there is protection of religious institutions to not have to preform same-sex unions if it is against their beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And we haven't even gotten into the gay-divorce thingy!!! Wait until that happens. Which spouse gets to support the other??? :wacko:

That was actually a problem for a short time in Canada: same-sex marriage became legal before same-sex divorce... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Group hug.

Like I said, we can all agree to disagree on this matter.

Ken, I follow scripture to the best of my ability, but I fall down somtimes like every other person on Earth.

Fair enough, Michelle! It's not like an issue I get steamed up or passionate about anyway, just figured because I actually had explored, and done the gay "marriage", or rather civil partnership, thing, I of course have my opinions. As I said, though, I'd never try to force someone to accept it against their religious beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michelle, had no idea you were so religious. I, personally, am more of a humanist. I believe in evolution, in science, and in human understanding. So I have no problem with people expressing themselves and their passions in ways that does no harm to anyone else. So while I disagree with your view, it is yours to keep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Group hug.

Like I said, we can all agree to disagree on this matter.

Ken, I follow scripture to the best of my ability, but I fall down somtimes like every other person on Earth.

where exactly in scripture does it teach you to be such a contemptuous, dismissive little bitch all the time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, that's just from being from Belgium, when you are forgotten for so long the inferiority complex sets in and you get the attitude. :P

Why does it surprise people when people they know are religious? How is it such a shock when agnostics and atheist are in the minority? 90% of French are Catholic (though about 89% of them are lapsed).

Michelle - too bad you are not in Paris, I would love to have a coffee with you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough, Michelle! It's not like an issue I get steamed up or passionate about anyway, just figured because I actually had explored, and done the gay "marriage", or rather civil partnership, thing, I of course have my opinions. As I said, though, I'd never try to force someone to accept it against their religious beliefs.

I respect your views on the issue, Roland.

I don't think I have ever pushed my religion on anyone on these boards, which is surprising, being a contemptuous little bitch n all =)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...