| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 07:35:19 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote:
:|I am passing along what the Supreme Court said. Many people try to pass off
:|the "marriage is civil right" phrase without including the entire text. What
:|the court said is that "marriage AND procreation" combine to form a
:|fundamental right basic to the survival of the race. Simple logic proves
:|this. Can we survive without marriage? Sure we can. Can we survive without
:|procreation. Not for long. In the days that this decision was taken, society
:|frowned upon unwedded child bearing. Thus, when the Supreme Court decided a
:|number of cases on the basis that "procreation" was fundamental to our
:|survival, they included marriage as a matter of political correctness of the
:|times. When the homosexual community attempts to use a case that claims
:|"marriage is a civil right" as a basis for same sex marriage they are being
:|dishonest. Marriage is a contract between 3 separate entities. A husband, a
:|wife and a state. It is not a right. A person can give up a right, such as
:|"you have the right to remain silent, if you give up this right", without
:|government accompaniment. No one can give up a legal marriage without
:|government accompaniment. They have to get court approval to disolve the
:|marriage. Even if it was a common law marriage, if there is property or
:|children involved.
What formal training have you had in law?
Do you know the meaning of Issues, Facts, Holding, Held, Ruled, Ruling,
Dicta?
Let's look at some important things:
LOVING v. VIRGINIA, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1
[Holding]
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on
the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection
and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
206 Va. 924, 147 S. E. 2d 78, reversed.
*****************************************************************************
SOME MORE INFO:
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/214/
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/love.shtml
http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/lov.shtml
Loving v. Virginia
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Loving%20v.%20Virginia
What Chief Justice Warren said
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate
all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.
There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest
solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe
generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. At
the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to
the "most rigid scrutiny", and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be
shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state
objective, independent of the racial discrimination which was the object of
the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court
have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative
purpose...which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his
conduct is a criminal offense."
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of
law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very
existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so
unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these
statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of
equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all
the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth
Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by
invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to
marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual
and cannot be infringed by the State.
*********************************************************************************
The Marriage Cases
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1707576
f a law doesn't infringe on a fundamental rights or involve a "suspect
class", it can still be challenged as totally arbitrary and unreasonable.
As long as the government can advance a "rational basis" for a law, it
survives the test. The reason doesn't have to be based on evidence or
facts, it just has to make sense. In effect, the judge says, "Give me one
good reason why the government needs this law" and if a lawyer can make up
a good reason off the top of his head, then the law stands. Here Judge
Kramer's opinion rests on solid United States Supreme Court precedent. The
Supreme Court has thrown out a Colorado law which abolished local civil
rights laws protecting homosexuals (equal access to housing, employment,
etc.) using the "rational basis test". Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
Also, the Supreme Court has recognized that sexual activity between
consenting adults is a protected exercise of "liberty", and struck down
Texas' sodomy laws. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (2003). Technically,
Lawrence was a Due Process case, not an Equal Protection case, and the
Court stated that its holding did not extend to the issue of same-sex
marriage. Lawrence does foreclose, however, the easiest "rational basis"
argument the government could have made here: that sodomy is a crime and
prohibiting same-sex marriage helps fight crime.
Now that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, opponents of same-sex marriage
are struggling to find a rationale for their position which will stand up
in a court of law. "The Bible says so" is not a very effective legal
argument, especially in this case, where the Bible says no such thing. The
government, pointing out that California law already extends many of the
legal protections of marriage to same-sex couples, tried to make a case
that California was not discriminating against homosexuals, but asserted
that the government had an interest in reserving the term "marriage" for
couples who can procreate. Citing language in some 19th century California
cases, the government argued that it had a legitimate purpose in defining
"marriage" to include only couples who can procreate. Judge Kramer
dispensed with this argument by pointing out that opposite sex couples who
either cannot or do not want children are allowed to marry in California.
In California, the judge observed, "One does not have to be married in
order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married."
Moreover, Judge Kramer noted, the fact that same-sex couples enjoyed all
the benefits of marriage under California law, except the dignity of the
name of "marriage", suggests that there was no legitimate government
purpose for the law depriving them of that dignity. Tradition isn't enough,
when entire classes are being denied fundamental rights for no reason other
than tradition.
Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately stepped up to microphones to
call the decision "ludicrous", "mind-boggling", "activist", and "judicial
tyranny". Talking heads on the television announced in grave tones that the
decision "was certain to be appealed", suggesting there was something wrong
with it. In fact, while the decision will be appealed, it will be affirmed.
In light of controlling precedent from the United States Supreme Court and
similar California State Supreme Court rulings, it does not appear to me
that Judge Kramer (who is decribed to be a Catholic and Republican in his
personal life) had much choice in ruling the way he did, nor will the
California Supreme Court.
Judge Kramer's decision was expressly based on the Constitution of the
State of California. This has led some same-sex marriage opponents to
announce that they will seek to amend the state constitution. State
constitutions are easier to amend than the federal Constitution. Two bills
are pending before the California Legislature that would put a
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot,
and if the passage of Proposition 22 (one of the laws defining marriage in
California as between a man and a woman) is any indication, such an
amendment could succeed. State constitutional amendments prohibiting
same-sex marriage passed last year in a dozen states.
Amendments to state constitutions will not help in the inevitable battle at
the federal level. The cases cited by Judge Kramer —United States Supreme
Court decisions based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal
Constitution— show that his decision was compelled by the United States
Constitution. Thus, opponents of same-sex marriage will have to muster
better arguments to persuade the United States Supreme Court, or gather
together the super-majority (3/4) of state legislatures necessary to amend
the United States Constitution, if they expect to prevail in the end. A
dozen "red states" are not enough to amend the federal Constitution.
In the Supreme Court, the only plausible argument I can think of would be
something based on the New Federalism: the notion that some areas of law
are for the States to decide. Granted, this would sound a lot like the
"States Rights" arguments which were shot down in flames during the civil
rights movement. "States Rights" might be more acceptable to the Court now,
if it were limited to marriage and domestic relations laws, which in the
United States have always been the prerogative of state legislatures to
define and regulate, and which vary considerably from state to state. This
would require, however, some fancy legal footwork to distinguish Loving v.
Virginia, Romer v. Evans, and Lawrence v. Texas, and I don't give it a
snowball's chance in Hell. If the commentary on this case from the
Religious Right is any indication, they will certainly fail to persuade the
necessary supermajority of the American people. As Lincoln said, "You can
fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the
time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Sterilization, Eugenics, and Privacy
http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/privacy/bldec_SkinnerOK.htm
Significance
In this decision, the Supreme Court held that the acts of marriage and
procreation were fundamental rights of all people, even though the
Constitution does not specifically list them as such. Thus, a private
sphere of conduct between individuals was being recognized.
*******************************************************************************************
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause,
though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the
foregoing cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which
involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to
sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating
effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are
inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no
redemption for the individual whom the law touches.
***********************************************************************************
Marriage and precreation does not mean procreation is required. It does
not mean even a potential for precreation is required.
It is absurb for you to imply or suggest otherwise. If they were so tests
would have to be made upon application fopr a marriage lic to ensure both
persons were capable of producing childern. They would have to swear they
wantd children and were going to try and have children.
Anyone who was infertile, or did not want to produce children would be,
based on your your position, denied the right to marry
How stupid your position is when actually looked at.
SUMMING UP
The Court's decisions have afforded constitutional protection to personal
decisions relating to marriage, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1,
procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, family relationships,
Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, child rearing and education, Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, and contraception, see, e.g., Griswold
v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, and have recognized the right of the
individual to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters
so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or
beget a child, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453. Roe's central
holding properly invoked the reasoning and tradition of these precedents.
Pp. 846-853.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION TO PERSONAL DECISIONS RELATING TO MARRIAGE:
LOVING v VIRGINIA, PROCREATION: SKINNER v OKLAHOMA
Marriage is a fundamental right, precreation is a fundamenetal right.
However, unliKe what you are trying to sell, precreation is not a required
standard for marriage.
Check out Griswold v Connecticut.
************************************************************************
http://www.bpf.org/html/resources_and_links/statements/pdfs/samesexmarriage.pdf
Here are a few facts to consider:
• In 1967, when interracial marriage was legalized, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that “marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man [sic],
fundamental to our very existence and survival.”
• Civil marriage offers 1,049 federal protections and benefits. Hundreds
more are offered by every state. These include rights that cover medical
emergencies, taxes, financial issues, inheritance, burial decisions,
adoption, family law, employment benefits, immigration, Social Security,
housing, and veterans’ benefits.
• In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional, and the first state-sanctioned same-sex
marriages began on May 17, 2004.
• Some cities and states offer domestic partnership benefits, Vermont
offers civil unions, and Hawaii has “reciprocal beneficiaries.” However,
these forms of partnership fall short of civil marriage, offering only a
handful of state rights and responsibilities, which are not transferable to
another state, and no federal rights. • Same-gender couples already legally
marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. The U.S. does not recognize
these marriages within the U.S.
• If ratified, the proposed U.S. constitutional amendment prohibiting
same-sex marriage would be the only constitutional amendment in history,
with the exception of Prohibition (which was repealed), to reduce civil
rights. Every other constitutional amendment has expanded civil rights.
• State-sanctioned marriage would not require any religious organization to
perform or recognize any marriage. No legislative enactment will change the
tenets of any religious faith. In the spirit of freedom, justice, civil
rights, and equal protection under the law for all human beings, the
Buddhist Peace Fellowship supports civil marriage for samegender couples
who choose to marry and to share fully and equally in the rights and
responsibilities of marriage. We oppose a U.S. constitutional amendment to
prohibit the basic civil right of marriage for same-gender couples.
*******************************************************************************
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833,851
(1992)
The following is how Justice Ling-Cohan follows up on the above point:
Under both the Federal and New York State Constitutions, it is beyond
question that the right to liberty, and the concomitant right toprivacy,
extend to protect marriage. The United States Supreme Court has long
recognized the fundamental importance of marriage. As early as 1888, in
Maynard v. Hill (125 US 190, 205, 211 [1888]), the Supreme Court stated
that marriage “creat[es] the most important relation in life” and is “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be
neither civilization nor progress.”
In 1923, the Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, 399 (1923),
recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up
children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process
Clause. Nineteen years later, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 US at 541 (1942),
it described marriage as “fundamental to the very existence and survival of
the race.” In 1967, the Loving Court recognized marriage as a fundamental
right under the Constitution, striking down the state’s antimiscegenation
statute: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital
personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free
men... Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to
our very existence and survival.” 388 US at 12 (quoting Skinner, supraat
541).
One decade later, in Zablocki v. Redhail, (434 US at 384 [1978]), the Court
reaffirmed its holding in Loving, stating that “[a]lthough Loving arose in
the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of
this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for
all individuals.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court has noted that marriage is
a: “right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our
political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming
together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to a
degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life,
not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty,
not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a
purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
Griswold v. Conn., 381 US at 486 (emphasis supplied). The Supreme Court has
“long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and
family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.” Cleveland Bd of Ed v. LaFleur, 414 US 632,
639-40 (1974); see also Zablocki, 434 US at 384 (quoting Griswold, supra).
As stated by the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to
define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of
the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the
attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”
Lawrence v.Texas, 539 US 558, 574 (2003) (quoting Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US at 851). The Court further
emphasized that “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal
choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal
dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Id.
As other States have also observed, the right to marry "is not a privilege
conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against
unwarranted State interference." Goodridge v. Department of Public Health,
440 Mass at 345, 798 NE2d at 970 (Greaney, J. concurring). "[I]t is a
fundamental right of free men." Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal 2d at 714, 198 P2d
at 19.
The second aspect of the fundamental right to marry, which is what this
action concerns, is the right to choose whom one marries. The right to
choose one's spouse "resides with the individual." See Loving, 388 US at 12
(freedom to marry embraces the choice to select a partner across racial
lines which cannot be infringed by State);Perez, 32 Cal 2d 711, supra
(same); Goodridge, 440 Mass 309, supra (freedom to marry person of same
sex). "The right to marry means little if it does not include the right to
marry the person of one's choice..." Goodridge, 440 Mass at 227, 798 NE2d
at 958. See also Perez, 32 Cal 2d at 715, 198 P2d at 19 ("right to marry is
the right to join in marriage with the person of one's choice"); Brause v.
Bureau of Vital Statistics, 1998 WL 88743*6 (Alaska Super)(deciding whom to
marry is a fundamental right, whether decision results in traditional or
nontraditional choice), superseded by Alaska Const Art 1, § 25 (effective
Jan. 3, 1999) (providing that a valid marriage "may exist only between one
man and one woman").
Because the exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for civil
marriage infringes the fundamental right to choose one's spouse, such
exclusion may be sustained only if it serves a compelling state interest.
The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed that, since the freedom to
marry is a fundamental right, restrictions that “significantly interfere
with decisions to enter into the marital relationship” are subject to
“rigorous scrutiny” and “cannot be upheld unless ... supported by
sufficiently important state interests ...closely tailored to effectuate
only those interests.” Zablocki, 434 US at 386-388.
There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry:
Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York,
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather
Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the
state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose
one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S.
Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay
couples the right to marry.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
01 Apr 2005 04:17:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 23:56:35 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
wbt@privacy.net wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:46:36 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
and there is no underlying assumption of reproductive capacity in het
couples, the law doesn't addrress it......
The state doesn't have to, nature does; they accept that.. Nature has
never made a mistake about the reproductive limits of homosexual
couples. You are as less likely to reproduce than is a dog that tries
to ***** your leg, dear.
Wait--nature hasn't made a mistake.....You are aknowledging that your
relationships are natural--
Incredible!!!
Yes, it is natural for WBT to have relationships with male canines.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
31 Mar 2005 02:51:53 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:00:39 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:46:36 GMT, Natalie Clifford Barney
<SalonHostess@20RueJacob.fr> wrote:
and there is no underlying assumption of reproductive capacity in het
couples, the law doesn't addrress it......
The state doesn't have to, nature does; they accept that.. Nature has
never made a mistake about the reproductive limits of homosexual
couples. You are as less likely to reproduce than is a dog that tries
to ***** your leg, dear.
I'm sorry, but we are discussing the laws of the various states. Can
you show me a law requiring fertility? Yes or no.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fritz" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
31 Mar 2005 12:03:46 PM |
|
|
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:23:28 -0500, Fritz <fssamith@b1aiauwhcpl.net>
wrote:
wrote:
Now, tell me which states have a fertility requirement for marriage
licenses, please.
All of them excepting Massachusetts and it will be reverting back
after the next statewide ballot. Maybe even before since the sane
people on the state Supreme court have agreed to reconsider the
activist Chief Justices's biased decision.
Wrong. Not a single state requires fertility for marriage. You can
be 102 years old, and get married. Lost your balls in an accident?
You can still get married. Inferile due to chemotherapy? You can
still get married.
WRONG! The state doesn't ask heterosexuals who seek a marriage license
if they are fertile or not. It's presumed since they are man and
woman.
WRONG! There is no presumption of fertility in the marriage of two
70-year old people. Fertility is a non-starter in the marriage
argument.
It not up to the state to presume that age affects fertility. It's not
within their power.
So you're saying you were wrong. Thank you.
There will always be an assumption of fertility
between a man and a woman. Nature demands it.
Nature demands that you make sense, I guess there
are disappointments all around.
There will never be that
assumption in a homosexual relationship.
Doesn't matter to the law.
Babble on, boy.
Too fast for you dear?
-- Fritz ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
30 Mar 2005 09:13:04 AM |
|
|
In article <a8kk41hsbi3a3b7e6png6c4pd2r0goro4j@4ax.com> writes:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 23:42:21 -0500, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 04:02:16 GMT, wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:00:48 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:51:42 GMT, drained his beer,
leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the
following
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:19:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now, tell me which states have a fertility requirement for marriage
licenses, please.
All of them excepting Massachusetts and it will be reverting back
after the next statewide ballot. Maybe even before since the sane
people on the state Supreme court have agreed to reconsider the
activist Chief Justices's biased decision.
Wrong. Not a single state requires fertility for marriage. You can
be 102 years old, and get married. Lost your balls in an accident?
You can still get married. Inferile due to chemotherapy? You can
still get married.
WRONG! The state doesn't ask heterosexuals who seek a marriage license
if they are fertile or not. It's presumed since they are man and
woman.
WRONG! There is no presumption of fertility in the marriage of two
70-year old people. Fertility is a non-starter in the marriage
argument.
It not up to the state to presume that age affects fertility. It's not
within their power. There will always be an assumption of fertility
between a man and a woman. Nature demands it.
"Nature" does not "depend" -- whatever that is supposed to mean --
on obviously post-menopuasal women getting a visit from three
men riding camels.
Seeing as how there have been homosexuals in the population for
as long as we have written records, and seeing as how we've nonetheless
managed to endanger our own species by cranking out 6,000,000,000
people, I don't think "nature" is having any problems along these
lines.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 12:37:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:51:42 GMT, wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:19:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now, tell me which states have a fertility requirement for marriage
licenses, please.
All of them excepting Massachusetts and it will be reverting back
after the next statewide ballot. Maybe even before since the sane
people on the state Supreme court have agreed to reconsider the
activist Chief Justices's biased decision.
None of them have a fertility requirement.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "curtsybear" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 08:43:55 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.politics.homosexuality.]
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:51:42 GMT, <> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:19:36 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
Now, tell me which states have a fertility requirement for marriage
licenses, please.
All of them excepting Massachusetts and it will be reverting back
after the next statewide ballot. Maybe even before since the sane
people on the state Supreme court have agreed to reconsider the
activist Chief Justices's biased decision.
Of course, we expected you to lie, but we never expected you to do
it so poorly as you've done.
--
"I don't got NONE in the bed room. My peanut butter doesn't never
leave the kitchen." -- Lurlean Tucker's *other* condiments tend to
wander around the house freely, though.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
25 Mar 2005 05:20:27 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
Having any kind of sex what-so-ever is not a requirement of marriage.
Your opinion of what different parts of the body are to be used for
means nothing except for you.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
26 Mar 2005 08:01:14 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
Having any kind of sex what-so-ever is not a requirement of marriage.
Not completely true, a Marriage, in certain parts of the Country,
and certain religions must be "consummated", to be official.
Consummation requires "penetration", of some form...
including for people who no longer have their "male appendage",
"penetration" by a big toe, at least based upon case history.
There also have been cases of people getting married, and the
spouse refusing sex till weeks later, it is declared null
and void, annulled in other words.
YMMV, depending upon your region, and religion.
I am not sure where the dividing line between law, and
religious practices start, and end, in this particular case.
I can just remember the "Toe" precedent.
Your opinion of what different parts of the body are to be used for
means nothing except for you.
Agreed. Penetration , above, most certainly isn't with a body appendage,
one would originally think of...
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
26 Mar 2005 12:39:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:01:14 -0500, Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net>
wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
Having any kind of sex what-so-ever is not a requirement of marriage.
Not completely true, a Marriage, in certain parts of the Country,
and certain religions must be "consummated", to be official.
No it does not. A marriage can be annulled if there is no
consummation, but it is not automatic. A non-consummated marriage,
unless an annulment is requested and granted, is every bit as much a
marriage as consummated ones are.
Consummation requires "penetration", of some form...
including for people who no longer have their "male appendage",
"penetration" by a big toe, at least based upon case history.
There also have been cases of people getting married, and the
spouse refusing sex till weeks later, it is declared null
and void, annulled in other words.
YMMV, depending upon your region, and religion.
I am not talking about religious requirements for marriage; they are
not relevant in a secular country.
I am not sure where the dividing line between law, and
religious practices start, and end, in this particular case.
I can just remember the "Toe" precedent.
Your opinion of what different parts of the body are to be used for
means nothing except for you.
Agreed. Penetration , above, most certainly isn't with a body appendage,
one would originally think of...
And consummation is not a requirement for marriage.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
25 Mar 2005 10:05:27 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
What sort of F*cked up definition of "marriage" do you use?
Obviously, marriage isn't about reproduction since society allows
infertile couple and couples who choose not to procreate to marry,
just like any other couple...
And what does "joining at the same time" even MEAN? A man and woman
are just as "joined" if they are having vaginal or anal sex, are they
not? Even MORESO, when two MEN are "joined" God found it right and
proper to create the prostate gland and insert it in just the right
location as to give the reciever much pleasure.
That god is a nice fellow for doing that, wouldn't you agree? :-)
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 02:24:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:05:27 -0800, RainLover
<SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
What sort of F*cked up definition of "marriage" do you use?
The same fucked up drooling idiocy Christians utlize in myraid ways.
Obviously, marriage isn't about reproduction since society allows
infertile couple and couples who choose not to procreate to marry,
just like any other couple...
And what does "joining at the same time" even MEAN? A man and woman
are just as "joined" if they are having vaginal or anal sex, are they
not? Even MORESO, when two MEN are "joined" God found it right and
proper to create the prostate gland and insert it in just the right
location as to give the reciever much pleasure.
That god is a nice fellow for doing that, wouldn't you agree? :-)
(PEALS OF RACOUS LAUGHTER)
Beside male-male and female-female sex and marriage is, by definition,
part of the "Divine Plan®." :D
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 02:06:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:38:11 -0500, "Rodney Kelp"
<Rodneykelp605@hotmail.com> wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
Marriage is more than reproduction, dimwit. I notice, oh bigoted and
ignorant one, you have no problem with heterosexual marriages where
the couples do not intend to spawn or they are beyond the age of
spawning. Further, many heterosexual couples do have anal sex.
Take your bronze age *****, which has no legal standing in the US,
and shove it up your *****-diagonally!
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
25 Mar 2005 09:51:19 AM |
|
|
Rodney Kelp wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same
time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
So are you claiming that marriage - a civil institution,
concerned with property rights - requires that the
participants have penis-in-vagina sexual relations with
each other? So people who are infertile, or even
simply impotent, aren't allowed to marry? Would you
like to point out any US state government (the entities
that actually monitor the validity of marriages) that
actually checks to see if married couples are having
penis-in-vagina sexual relations with each other?
But please, continue your fight to support a man
and a woman's right to get married for a few hours
by an Elvis impersonator in a drive-through chapel
at 3AM, while preventing two men or two women from
enjoying that same right.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
25 Mar 2005 10:08:51 AM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111765879.024543.139530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Rodney Kelp wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same
time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made for
joining a couple.
So are you claiming that marriage - a civil institution,
concerned with property rights - requires that the
participants have penis-in-vagina sexual relations with
each other?
Maybe this will help. Read it all.
SKINNER v. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
316 U.S. 535
June 1, 1942, Decided
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma
deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation
of a race -- the right to have offspring. Oklahoma has decreed the
enforcement of its law against petitioner, overruling his claim that it
violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Because that decision raised grave and
substantial constitutional questions, we granted the petition for
certiorari.
The statute involved is Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act. That
Act defines an "habitual criminal" as a person who, having been convicted
two or more times for crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral
turpitude," either in an Oklahoma court or in a court of any other State, is
thereafter convicted of such a felony in Oklahoma and is sentenced to a term
of imprisonment in an Oklahoma penal institution. Machinery is provided for
the institution by the Attorney General of a proceeding against such a
person in the Oklahoma courts for a judgment that such person shall be
rendered sexually sterile. Notice, an opportunity to be heard, and the right
to a jury trial are provided. The issues triable in such a proceeding are
narrow and confined. If the court or jury finds that the defendant is an
"habitual criminal" and that he "may be rendered sexually sterile without
detriment to his or her general health," then the court "shall render
judgment to the effect that said defendant be rendered sexually sterile" by
the operation of vasectomy in case of a male, and of salpingectomy in case
of a female. Only one other provision of the Act is material here, and that
is § 195, which provides that "offenses arising out of the violation of the
prohibitory laws, revenue acts, embezzlement, or political offenses, shall
not come or be considered within the terms of this Act."
Petitioner was convicted in 1926 of the crime of stealing chickens, and was
sentenced to the Oklahoma State Reformatory. In 1929 he was convicted of the
crime of robbery with firearms, and was sentenced to the reformatory. In
1934 he was convicted again of robbery with firearms, and was sentenced to
the penitentiary. He was confined there in 1935 when the Act was passed. In
1936 the Attorney General instituted proceedings against him. Petitioner in
his answer challenged the Act as unconstitutional by reason of the
Fourteenth Amendment. A jury trial was had. The court instructed the jury
that the crimes of which petitioner had been convicted were felonies
involving moral turpitude, and that the only question for the jury was
whether the operation of vasectomy could be performed on petitioner without
detriment to his general health. The jury found that it could be. A judgment
directing that the operation of vasectomy be performed on petitioner was
affirmed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma by a five to four decision.
Several objections to the constitutionality of the Act have been pressed
upon us. It is urged that the Act cannot be sustained as an exercise of the
police power, in view of the state of scientific authorities respecting
inheritability of criminal traits. It is argued that due process is lacking
because, under this Act, unlike the Act upheld in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S.
200, the defendant is given no opportunity to be heard on the issue as to
whether he is the probable potential parent of socially undesirable
offspring. It is also suggested that the Act is penal in character and that
the sterilization provided for is cruel and unusual punishment and violative
of the Fourteenth Amendment. We pass those points without intimating an
opinion on them, for there is a feature of the Act which clearly condemns
it. That is, its failure to meet the requirements of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We do not stop to point out all of the inequalities in this Act. A few
examples will suffice. In Oklahoma, grand larceny is a felony. Larceny is
grand larceny when the property taken exceeds $ 20 in value. Embezzlement is
punishable "in the manner prescribed for feloniously stealing property of
the value of that embezzled." Hence, he who embezzles property worth more
than $ 20 is guilty of a felony. A clerk who appropriates over $ 20 from his
employer's till and a stranger who steals the same amount are thus both
guilty of felonies. If the latter repeats his act and is convicted three
times, he may be sterilized. But the clerk is not subject to the pains and
penalties of the Act no matter how large his embezzlements nor how frequent
his convictions. A person who enters a chicken coop and steals chickens
commits a felony; and he may be sterilized if he is thrice convicted. If,
however, he is a bailee of the property and fraudulently appropriates it, he
is an embezzler. Hence, no matter how habitual his proclivities for
embezzlement are and no matter how often his conviction, he may not be
sterilized. Thus, the nature of the two crimes is intrinsically the same and
they are punishable in the same manner....
It was stated in Buck v. Bell, supra, that the claim that state legislation
violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is "the
usual last resort of constitutional arguments." Under our constitutional
system the States in determining the reach and scope of particular
legislation need not provide "abstract symmetry." They may mark and set
apart the classes and types of problems according to the needs and as
dictated or suggested by experience. It was in that connection that Mr.
Justice Holmes stated, "We must remember that the machinery of government
would not work if it were not allowed a little play in its joints." Thus, if
we had here only a question as to a State's classification of crimes, such
as embezzlement or larceny, no substantial federal question would be raised.
For a State is not constrained in the exercise of its police power to ignore
experience which marks a class of offenders or a family of offenses for
special treatment. Nor is it prevented by the equal protection clause from
confining "its restrictions to those classes of cases where the need is
deemed to be clearest." As stated in Buck v. Bell, ". . . the law does all
that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it
to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly
situated so far and so fast as its means allow."
But the instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause,
though we give Oklahoma that large deference which the rule of the foregoing
cases requires. We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of
the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to
the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if
exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or
reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the
dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the
individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is
to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We
mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the
States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict
scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is
essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are
made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the
constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws. The guaranty of "equal
protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws." When
the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the
same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as
invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or
nationality for oppressive treatment. Sterilization of those who have thrice
committed grand larceny, with immunity for those who are embezzlers, is a
clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination. Oklahoma makes no attempt to
say that he who commits larceny by trespass or trick or fraud has
biologically inheritable traits which he who commits embezzlement lacks. We
have not the slightest basis for inferring that that line has any
significance in eugenics, nor that the inheritability of criminal traits
follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those
two offenses. In terms of fines and imprisonment, the crimes of larceny and
embezzlement rate the same under the Oklahoma code. Only when it comes to
sterilization are the pains and penalties of the law different. The equal
protection clause would indeed be a formula of empty words if such
conspicuously artificial lines could be drawn. In Buck v. Bell, supra, the
Virginia statute was upheld though it applied only to feeble-minded persons
in institutions of the State. But it was pointed out that "so far as the
operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned
to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will
be more nearly reached." Here there is no such saving feature. Embezzlers
are forever free. Those who steal or take in other ways are not....
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, concurring:
I concur in the result, but I am not persuaded that we are aided in reaching
it by recourse to the equal protection clause.
If Oklahoma may resort generally to the sterilization of criminals on the
assumption that their propensities are transmissible to future generations
by inheritance, I seriously doubt that the equal protection clause requires
it to apply the measure to all criminals in the first instance, or to none.
Moreover, if we must presume that the legislature knows -- what science has
been unable to ascertain -- that the criminal tendencies of any class of
habitual offenders are transmissible regardless of the varying mental
characteristics of its individuals, I should suppose that we must likewise
presume that the legislature, in its wisdom, knows that the criminal
tendencies of some classes of offenders are more likely to be transmitted
than those of others. And so I think the real question we have to consider
is not one of equal protection, but whether the wholesale condemnation of a
class to such an invasion of personal liberty, without opportunity to any
individual to show that his is not the type of case which would justify
resort to it, satisfies the demands of due process.
There are limits to the extent to which the presumption of constitutionality
can be pressed, especially where the liberty of the person is concerned (see
United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4) and where
the presumption is resorted to only to dispense with a procedure which the
ordinary dictates of prudence would seem to demand for the protection of the
individual from arbitrary action. Although petitioner here was given a
hearing to ascertain whether sterilization would be detrimental to his
health, he was given none to discover whether his criminal tendencies are of
an inheritable type. Undoubtedly a state may, after appropriate inquiry,
constitutionally interfere with the personal liberty of the individual to
prevent the transmission by inheritance of his socially injurious
tendencies. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200. But until now we have not been
called upon to say that it may do so without giving him a hearing and
opportunity to challenge the existence as to him of the only facts which
could justify so drastic a measure.
Science has found and the law has recognized that there are certain types of
mental deficiency associated with delinquency which are inheritable. But the
State does not contend -- nor can there be any pretense -- that either
common knowledge or experience, or scientific investigation, has given
assurance that the criminal tendencies of any class of habitual offenders
are universally or even generally inheritable. In such circumstances,
inquiry whether such is the fact in the case of any particular individual
cannot rightly be dispensed with. Whether the procedure by which a statute
carries its mandate into execution satisfies due process is a matter of
judicial cognizance. A law which condemns, without hearing, all the
individuals of a class to so harsh a measure as the present because some or
even many merit condemnation, is lacking in the first principles of due
process....
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON concurring:
I join the CHIEF JUSTICE in holding that the hearings provided are too
limited in the context of the present Act to afford due process of law. I
also agree with the opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS that the scheme of
classification set forth in the Act denies equal protection of the law. I
disagree with the opinion of each in so far as it rejects or minimizes the
grounds taken by the other.
Perhaps to employ a broad and loose scheme of classification would be
permissible if accompanied by the individual hearings indicated by the CHIEF
JUSTICE. On the other hand, narrow classification with reference to the end
to be accomplished by the Act might justify limiting individual hearings to
the issue whether the individual belonged to a class so defined. Since this
Act does not present these questions, I reserve judgment on them.
I also think the present plan to sterilize the individual in pursuit of a
eugenic plan to eliminate from the race characteristics that are only
vaguely identified and which in our present state of knowledge are uncertain
as to transmissibility presents other constitutional questions of gravity.
This Court has sustained such an experiment with respect to an imbecile, a
person with definite and observable characteristics, where the condition had
persisted through three generations and afforded grounds for the belief that
it was transmissible and would continue to manifest itself in generations to
come. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200.
There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority
may conduct biological experiments at the expense of the dignity and
personality and natural powers of a minority -- even those who have been
guilty of what the majority define as crimes. But this Act falls down before
reaching this problem, which I mention only to avoid the implication that
such a question may not exist because not discussed. On it I would also
reserve judgment.
Exploring Constitutional Conflicts
--
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution,
according to the fixed rules which govern the
interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the
theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to
control its meaning, we have no longer a Con-
stitution; we are under the government of individ-
ual men, who for the time being have power to
declare what the Constitution is according to
their own views of what it ought to mean"
Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 08:14:28 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111765879.024543.139530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Rodney Kelp wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same
time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made
for
joining a couple.
So are you claiming that marriage - a civil institution,
concerned with property rights - requires that the
participants have penis-in-vagina sexual relations with
each other?
Maybe this will help. Read it all.
SKINNER v. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
316 U.S. 535
June 1, 1942, Decided
Sure, it mentions marriage in passing - but I think that
a case about involuntary sterilization and reproductive
rights is *very* poor support for your theory that marriage
necessarily involves reproduction, since the actual
intent or ability to reproduce has *NEVER* been a requirement
for marriage - the government has never even checked to see
if the participants were fertile or not.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 08:19:45 AM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112019268.836383.251700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111765879.024543.139530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Rodney Kelp wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same
time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made
for
joining a couple.
So are you claiming that marriage - a civil institution,
concerned with property rights - requires that the
participants have penis-in-vagina sexual relations with
each other?
Maybe this will help. Read it all.
SKINNER v. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
316 U.S. 535
June 1, 1942, Decided
Sure, it mentions marriage in passing - but I think that
a case about involuntary sterilization and reproductive
rights is *very* poor support for your theory
It is supreme court justice Douglas' theory. It is the case the homosexual
community keeps referring to in an attempt to promote the idea that
"marriage" is a fundamental civil right. But, a reading of the case will
show the error of that attempt.
--
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution,
according to the fixed rules which govern the
interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the
theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to
control its meaning, we have no longer a Con-
stitution; we are under the government of individ-
ual men, who for the time being have power to
declare what the Constitution is according to
their own views of what it ought to mean"
Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 08:22:26 AM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112019268.836383.251700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111765879.024543.139530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Rodney Kelp wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same
time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made
for
joining a couple.
So are you claiming that marriage - a civil institution,
concerned with property rights - requires that the
participants have penis-in-vagina sexual relations with
each other?
Maybe this will help. Read it all.
SKINNER v. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
316 U.S. 535
June 1, 1942, Decided
Sure, it mentions marriage in passing - but I think that
a case about involuntary sterilization and reproductive
rights is *very* poor support for your theory that marriage
necessarily involves reproduction, since the actual
intent or ability to reproduce has *NEVER* been a requirement
for marriage -
It is nice to see people agree that there are "requirements" for marriage.
It has always been a "requirement" that there be a "husband" and a "wife",
one man, one woman, for marriage.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Analyst" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 12:35:53 PM |
|
|
"Maverick" <justgopub...@nomail.com> wrote in
news:BqU1e.6492647$f47.1198632@news.easynews.com:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112019268.836383.251700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111765879.024543.139530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Rodney Kelp wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same
time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made
for
joining a couple.
So are you claiming that marriage - a civil institution,
concerned with property rights - requires that the
participants have penis-in-vagina sexual relations with
each other?
Maybe this will help. Read it all.
SKINNER v. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
316 U.S. 535
June 1, 1942, Decided
Sure, it mentions marriage in passing - but I think that
a case about involuntary sterilization and reproductive
rights is *very* poor support for your theory that marriage
necessarily involves reproduction, since the actual
intent or ability to reproduce has *NEVER* been a requirement
for marriage -
It is nice to see people agree that there are "requirements" for
marriage. It has always been a "requirement" that there be a "husband"
and a "wife", one man, one woman, for marriage.
Well, there IS the fundamental requirement of at least two people
involved and willing :); even the "willing" isn't always required
(arranged and "shotgun" marriages). That requirement is there by ALL
definitions of marriage. And, nope, historically speaking it hasn't
always been the reqirement of one man, one woman; that's why the
definition of marriage is so expansive.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeanne Deckers" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 08:58:27 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112019268.836383.251700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111765879.024543.139530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Rodney Kelp wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same
time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made
for
joining a couple.
So are you claiming that marriage - a civil institution,
concerned with property rights - requires that the
participants have penis-in-vagina sexual relations with
each other?
Maybe this will help. Read it all.
SKINNER v. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
316 U.S. 535
June 1, 1942, Decided
Sure, it mentions marriage in passing - but I think that
a case about involuntary sterilization and reproductive
rights is *very* poor support for your theory that marriage
necessarily involves reproduction, since the actual
intent or ability to reproduce has *NEVER* been a requirement
for marriage -
It is nice to see people agree that there are "requirements" for marriage.
It has always been a "requirement" that there be a "husband" and a "wife",
one man, one woman, for marriage.
You really need to look at the funerary marble by Patricia Cronin
entitled "Memorial to a Marriage" It is a cemetery in the NYC area and
stands as testimony to a relationship that the law wouldn't recognize.
http://www.grandarts.com/exhibits/PCronin.html
Now tell me that your requirement is more than arbitrary bigotry
--
"We hope God will welcome us. He saw us suffer."
Jeanne Decker and her lover,Annie Pecher
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
28 Mar 2005 09:30:15 AM |
|
|
"Jeanne Deckers" <deckersj@Lesbian.Singing.Nun.bg> wrote in message
news:4242D585.2B04ED17@Lesbian.Singing.Nun.bg...
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112019268.836383.251700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111765879.024543.139530@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Rodney Kelp wrote:
To be married you have to be able to join each other at the same
time. Not
one then the other. The ***** is not a reproductive organ nor made
for
joining a couple.
So are you claiming that marriage - a civil institution,
concerned with property rights - requires that the
participants have penis-in-vagina sexual relations with
each other?
Maybe this will help. Read it all.
SKINNER v. OKLAHOMA EX REL. WILLIAMSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
316 U.S. 535
June 1, 1942, Decided
Sure, it mentions marriage in passing - but I think that
a case about involuntary sterilization and reproductive
rights is *very* poor support for your theory that marriage
necessarily involves reproduction, since the actual
intent or ability to reproduce has *NEVER* been a requirement
for marriage -
It is nice to see people agree that there are "requirements" for
marriage.
It has always been a "requirement" that there be a "husband" and a
"wife",
one man, one woman, for marriage.
You really need to look at the funerary marble by Patricia Cronin
entitled "Memorial to a Marriage" It is a cemetery in the NYC area and
stands as testimony to a relationship that the law wouldn't recognize.
http://www.grandarts.com/exhibits/PCronin.html
Now tell me that your
It's not my requirement and I don't care to engage in a name calling
contest. PLONK
--
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution,
according to the fixed rules which govern the
interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the
theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to
control its meaning, we have no longer a Con-
stitution; we are under the government of individ-
ual men, who for the time being have power to
declare what the Constitution is according to
their own views of what it ought to mean"
Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 08:19:02 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
It is nice to see people agree that there are "requirements" for
marriage.
Just like any other social construct, the "requirements" are
"what the people involved say they are".
It has always been a "requirement" that there be a "husband" and a
"wife",
one man, one woman, for marriage.
Tell me again how it hurts *you* if two (or more!) people
who love each other get married. Sounds like they're not
people you might have married, and they're probably not
even people you're comfortable socializing with - so how
does it affect *you*?
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 08:39:06 AM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112105942.947959.142700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
It is nice to see people agree that there are "requirements" for
marriage.
Just like any other social construct, the "requirements" are
"what the people involved say they are".
It has always been a "requirement" that there be a "husband" and a
"wife",
one man, one woman, for marriage.
Tell me again how it hurts *you* if two (or more!) people
who love each other get married.
Doesn't hurt me at all. Tell me how it promotes the survival of humanity.
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same sex marriage
for over 200 years, we need to change now. Tell me how same sex marriage
will help me. If you choose to put this on a "you and me" basis, I'll tell
you up front, in order to change my mind, you need to comply with what the
Constitution directs and what ALL of the Supreme Court decisions have said.
But, if you have the mental capacity to discuss an issue without the
personal involvement and address the point rather than the person, we both
might learn something.
--
"When a strict interpretation of the Constitution,
according to the fixed rules which govern the
interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the
theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to
control its meaning, we have no longer a Con-
stitution; we are under the government of individ-
ual men, who for the time being have power to
declare what the Constitution is according to
their own views of what it ought to mean"
Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
Maverick
http://www.independent.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 08:45:07 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112105942.947959.142700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Maverick wrote:
It is nice to see people agree that there are "requirements" for
marriage.
Just like any other social construct, the "requirements" are
"what the people involved say they are".
It has always been a "requirement" that there be a "husband" and a
"wife",
one man, one woman, for marriage.
Tell me again how it hurts *you* if two (or more!) people
who love each other get married.
Doesn't hurt me at all. Tell me how it promotes the survival of
humanity.
Helps keep the population growth down. Overpopulation kills,
as assuredly as anything else.
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same
sex marriage for over 200 years, we need to change now.
Because with each passing year, we are undoing the hatred
and prejudice that was inherent to our predecessors. Each time
we pass a mark of tolerance, we leave footprints in history, that are remembered
and celebrated centuries later.
Tell me how same
sex marriage will help me.
One homosexual will assist and help support another. Which means
that both will do better than they would have, otherwise. This results
in lower cost Social programs, and increased tax revenue.
If you choose to put this on a "you and me"
basis, I'll tell you up front, in order to change my mind, you need to
comply with what the Constitution directs and what ALL of the Supreme
Court decisions have said. But, if you have the mental capacity to
discuss an issue without the personal involvement and address the point
rather than the person, we both might learn something.
Have fun. But, FWIW, I doubt it will be a real discussion, and
more a flame fest.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Calif. can't ban gay marriage |
29 Mar 2005 11:24:06 AM |
|
|
Maverick wrote:
Tell me why, after having gotten along quite well without same sex
marriage
for over 200 years, we need to change now.
Because if we don't then, 1) we will be discriminating against a class
of people, and 2) we will deny those people a right which is essential
to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Josh Ro | | | | | | | |
