Same-sex marriage

[Master Mason]

Of course, just like the Catholic church doesn't currently marry couples in which neither member is Catholic -- and they aren't sued for religious discrimination.

that depends on the Perish, my son is getting married in the Catholic church next year and he is not Catholic.

 

[dejr_8]

Here's the WIKI post for the MA Ruling.

In a 50-page, 4–3 ruling delivered on November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that the state may not "deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry." Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, writing for the majority, wrote that the state's constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second-class citizens" and that the state had no "constitutionally adequate reason" for denying marriage to same-sex couples. On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples from marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.

Every place that "same-sex couple" is used replace with a "polygamist group". The arguments are still constitutionally valid.

My argument is once you have denied the State the right to define marriage on one basis (i.e. only a man and a woman) you MUST deny the State the ability to define marriage using any other basis as well (i.e the state can't limit marriage to only two people).

 

[daisax]

that depends on the Perish, my son is getting married in the Catholic church next year and he is not Catholic.

Presumably he's marrying a Catholic and has agreed to raise any children Catholic. And he probably won't have a mass. But the Catholic Church won't marry two non-Catholics to each other, which is what the poster you were quoting was pointing out.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Every place that "same-sex couple" is used replace with a "polygamist group". The arguments are still constitutionally valid.

My argument is once you have denied the State the right to define marriage on one basis (i.e. only a man and a woman) you MUST deny the State the ability to define marriage using any other basis as well (i.e the state can't limit marriage to only two people).

Wouldn't this mean you are also against Loving v. Virginia because it would lead to polygamy?

once you have denied the State the right to define marriage on one basis (i.e. only members of the same race) you MUST deny the State the ability to define marriage using any other basis as well (i.e the state can't limit marriage to only two people).

 

[Master Mason]

Presumably he's marrying a Catholic and has agreed to raise any children Catholic. And he probably won't have a mass. But the Catholic Church won't marry two non-Catholics to each other, which is what the poster you were quoting was pointing out.

Opps your right, I missed the N on neither and read it as either...

 

[Chuck S]

I think I mentioned this before (playing devil's advocate): There is no difference between this scenario and the case where a widowed parent is injured and the question comes up which of the two sons get to make the medical decisions.

But there are legal differences, the law automatically gives a spouse (even an only child) that right. If there is more than one spouse, it will likely go to court to decide, unless the laws are completely re-written. Many laws are already gender neutral when it comes to marriage, using the word "spouse" rather than husband/wife.

Not much different here between making wording gender neutral and making it singular/plural neutral.

Oh, but there is, Bicker, Ther eis a big difference between 1/2 of a house automatically going to a single spouse or going to several spouses. After the estate closes, what happens if one want to sell? Would they be tenants in common, or joint tenants? The state would have to decide. I see a lot more expensive court involvement than with a single surviving spouse.

Same story here. I'm executor of my mother's estate, though all three brothers are equal beneficiaries. The answer to your quandary is that I make the final determination of whether something gets sold or not.

Likely you'd be executor because the deceased names you as such in the will. But passing intestate, any of the brothers could be named executor, or the court could appoint a non-related executor if the brothers could not agree. In the case of a married couple, such court proceeding are normally not required, nor would they be for same sex two person marriage.

Ditto ditto: Which brother would be responsible for the children if one of my brothers and his wife are incapacitated, me or the other brother?

Neither, they would be wards of the state, most likely, until there is a hearing.

 

[bicker]

But there are legal differences, the law automatically gives a spouse (even an only child) that right.

But my point was, "What about two children?!"

Oh, but there is, Bicker, Ther eis a big difference between 1/2 of a house automatically going to a single spouse or going to several spouses.

Again, my point was, "What about 1/2 of a house getting split among two children?"

I see a lot more expensive court involvement than with a single surviving spouse.

But no more than two surviving children and no surviving spouse.

 

[eternaldisneyfan]

Throwing out any moral argument I want to focus on some legal issues which were confirmed by an unbiased lawyer.

If this prop fails churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. Right now Catholic churches have the right to refuse to marry people that aren't Catholic same with Muslims and Jews. If churches refuse they would lose their tax exempt status. A basic constitutional amendment is that the government cannot make a law that affects the right of churches to freely practice religion. If this prop fails this is a very possible reality.

Another issue is that starting as young as preschool schools could teach about same-sex relationships...When I was in elementary school if the school was going to teach about physical affection the parents had to sign a permission slip or at least be notified. In a different state there was a school that read a book to second graders called king and king that had a picture of kissing. And the teacher basically said that anyone who didn't agree with two people of the same-sex being together was stupid. The parents went to the school and just requested they be notified-the principal haughtily refused. The issue went all the way to the state supreme court which upheld the school and the national supreme court refused to see the case as it's a state issue...Wouldn't the public be outraged if school's taught in that fashion about God? Or afterlife? Or creation of the world? Or even relationships that young? Parents should be able to choose!

Legal issues behind the amendment.

Right now in California same-sex couples have all the same legal rights as people who are married. THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE

 

[bicker]

I don't believe your lawyer friend is unbiased, since he gave you biased information. The right for a religious institution to refuse to marry anyone outside their faith is inviolate. That was pointed out earlier in the thread.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Throwing out any moral argument I want to focus on some legal issues which were confirmed by an unbiased lawyer.

If this prop fails churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. Right now Catholic churches have the right to refuse to marry people that aren't Catholic same with Muslims and Jews. If churches refuse they would lose their tax exempt status. A basic constitutional amendment is that the government cannot make a law that affects the right of churches to freely practice religion. If this prop fails this is a very possible reality.

Another issue is that starting as young as preschool schools could teach about same-sex relationships...When I was in elementary school if the school was going to teach about physical affection the parents had to sign a permission slip or at least be notified. In a different state there was a school that read a book to second graders called king and king that had a picture of kissing. And the teacher basically said that anyone who didn't agree with two people of the same-sex being together was stupid. The parents went to the school and just requested they be notified-the principal haughtily refused. The issue went all the way to the state supreme court which upheld the school and the national supreme court refused to see the case as it's a state issue...Wouldn't the public be outraged if school's taught in that fashion about God? Or afterlife? Or creation of the world? Or even relationships that young? Parents should be able to choose!

Legal issues behind the amendment.

Right now in California same-sex couples have all the same legal rights as people who are married. THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE

This is absolute ********.

Your claims about religious organizations don't even make sense. The Catholic Church *now* has the right not to marry two Jews, but will lose that right if Prop 8 doesn't pass. What? How exactly is that supposed to happen?

Could you at least try to make your lies coherent?

 

[Chuck S]

Throwing out any moral argument I want to focus on some legal issues which were confirmed by an unbiased lawyer.
[
If this prop fails churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. Right now Catholic churches have the right to refuse to marry people that aren't Catholic same with Muslims and Jews. If churches refuse they would lose their tax exempt status. A basic constitutional amendment is that the government cannot make a law that affects the right of churches to freely practice religion. If this prop fails this is a very possible reality.

Why would Prop 8 failing to pass change the status of a churches ability to not marry gay people? Churches have had the right to not marry anybody the chose to not marry, what about Prop 8 not passing, specifically, would change that? I mean, if the churches have that right currently, then a no on prop 8 vote would not change any current law.

Another issue is that starting as young as preschool schools could teach about same-sex relationships...When I was in elementary school if the school was going to teach about physical affection the parents had to sign a permission slip or at least be notified. In a different state there was a school that read a book to second graders called king and king that had a picture of kissing. And the teacher basically said that anyone who didn't agree with two people of the same-sex being together was stupid. The parents went to the school and just requested they be notified-the principal haughtily refused. The issue went all the way to the state supreme court which upheld the school and the national supreme court refused to see the case as it's a state issue...Wouldn't the public be outraged if school's taught in that fashion about God? Or afterlife? Or creation of the world? Or even relationships that young? Parents should be able to choose!

Again, as a No vote on prop 8 makes no changes at all to existing law, how would it make schools have to teach anything, one way or the other about marriage?

Legal issues behind the amendment.

Right now in California same-sex couples have all the same legal rights as people who are married. THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE

Again, not correct. They have all the same legal rights BECAUSE they ARE legally married. A YES on prop 8 would make same sex marriage illegal, and CA does not currently have a civil union law, it would have the effect of taking gay couples back to 2nd class citizenship. They would not be equal, and the status of those currently married would even be in jeopardy.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Throwing out any moral argument I want to focus on some legal issues which were confirmed by an unbiased lawyer.

If this prop fails churches will be forced to marry same-sex couples. Right now Catholic churches have the right to refuse to marry people that aren't Catholic same with Muslims and Jews. If churches refuse they would lose their tax exempt status. A basic constitutional amendment is that the government cannot make a law that affects the right of churches to freely practice religion. If this prop fails this is a very possible reality.

Another issue is that starting as young as preschool schools could teach about same-sex relationships...When I was in elementary school if the school was going to teach about physical affection the parents had to sign a permission slip or at least be notified. In a different state there was a school that read a book to second graders called king and king that had a picture of kissing. And the teacher basically said that anyone who didn't agree with two people of the same-sex being together was stupid. The parents went to the school and just requested they be notified-the principal haughtily refused. The issue went all the way to the state supreme court which upheld the school and the national supreme court refused to see the case as it's a state issue...Wouldn't the public be outraged if school's taught in that fashion about God? Or afterlife? Or creation of the world? Or even relationships that young? Parents should be able to choose!

Legal issues behind the amendment.

Right now in California same-sex couples have all the same legal rights as people who are married. THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE

Pathetic.

 

[TwinsinCA]

Oh, also, the courts haven't take away anything. The "will" of the people you a e referring to was unconstitutional. Just as if the people had voted that all churches should be closed, you can't have that as a law as it is unconstitutional.

Why do they allow props on the ballot in this state that are unconstitutional? Will the outcome of prop 8 even matter or can it simply be overturned again?

I'm voting no, BTW. It just seems like a waste of time to vote on something that can be overturned by a judge. I remember an earlier proposition on illegal immigration that later got overturned by a judge. That kind of thing ticks me off.

 

[eternaldisneyfan]

First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding


October 11, 2008
Contact: Chip White/Sonja Eddings Brown, 916-215-4392
SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 – In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legalize same-sex marriage has real consequences.

"Taking children out of school for a same-sex wedding is not customary education. This is promoting same-sex marriage and indoctrinating young kids," said Yes on 8—ProtectMarriage.com Campaign Co-Manager Frank Schubert. "I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding," Schubert said.

When asked by the Yes on 8 campaign, The San Francisco Chronicle reporter said she did not know if the school had ever sponsored a field trip for students to a traditional wedding. Telling the Chronicle that the field trip was "a teachable moment," the school's principal believes it is perfectly appropriate for first graders to attend a same-sex wedding. Officials in other school districts disagree.

"Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage," said Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie "Rosie" Avila. "We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will," Avila added.

The lesbian teacher's wedding was officiated by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom is featured in a Yes on 8 television ad, released last week, in which he arrogantly declares of same-sex marriage: "The door's wide open now. It's gonna happen, whether you like it or not."

The Yes on 8 campaign's ads explain that if the voters do not overturn the California Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling, teachers will be required to teach young children that there is no difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage. “It's totally unreasonable that a first grade field trip would be to a same-sex wedding," said Chip White, Press Secretary for Yes on 8. "This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to understand it.” The field trip underscores the Yes on 8 campaign’s message that unless Prop. 8 passes, children will be taught about same-sex marriage in public schools. “Not only can it happen, it has already happened,” White said.

Has there ever been a field trip to any other wedding???

 

[chisnpeke]

It doesn't. It's just people pushing their religious views down other people's throats. I'm a Christian, btw. It makes me sick to see how judgemental people are. If itt isn't affecting you get over it!

 

[eternaldisneyfan]

The church issue-see Parker v. Hurley-it will take away the rights of parents- separation of church and state! Same reason why, although I am extremely religious, I am against prayer in school

 

[smartestnumber5]

The church issue-see Parker v. Hurley-it will strip churches of the constitutional right- separation of church and state!

This appears to be a case in which it was ruled that parents cannot tell a public school what it can and cannot teach because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.

What does that have to do with whether a Catholic Church will be forced to marry 2 Jews?

 

[eternaldisneyfan]

I modified the original post to clarify...Churches would be forced to marry anyone who asked.

 

[Chuck S]

I modified the original post to clarify...Churches would be forced to marry anyone who asked.

I'm sorry, but again, that is untrue.

A proposition, any proposition, if passed, changes or creates a law. If the proposition fails, the law does not change. That is the very definition of a proposition.

Are you saying churches are currently forced to perform a wedding they do not condone or sanction? If proposition 8 fails, the law is not changed.

Schools are NOT required to have their students attend a gay wedding. If fact, schools are not required to teach about marriage at all, are they? If Prop 8 fails, there is no new law created to mandate that. A failure of Prop 8 creates no new law.

However, if a school teaches about different types of families, or what is LEGAL or not legal, then of course, they would need to include same sex families. Or do you believe that children who are part a same sex parented family should be told their parents are evil? Personally, I'm OK with not mentioning anything about any marriage to young children in school, but when the kids are older, I think the consequences and risks of all relationships should be included in health classes.


Your propaganda is not born out by the very definition of a ballot proposition.

A failure or NO vote = no changes to existing laws.

A passage or YES vote = new laws and restrictions on established rights.

Again, that is the very definition of ANY proposition, not just Prop 8.

Oh, and BTW, I know it has been a while since I was in school, but when I was younger, parents needed to sign a permission slip whenever children left the school grounds for a field trip. That means that the children that went to that wedding had to have the permission of their parents. I can't imagine, given all the modern liability issues, that permission slips would no longer be required. Obviously, if a parent had a problem with it, they could have refused to give their permission. No matter what your propaganda claims.

 

[jenn&nelsonrego]

Here in MA, where gay marriage is legal, no one has ever sued a church to marry them. That's not the kind of marriage that is legal. The lawsuits would be against town clerks. That's the only kind of marriage that is legal, and therefore that which gays wishing to marry have a right to assert.

I see no rationality to oppose gay marriage while something like divorce is still legal. If you're going to ban things, why not ban bad things, instead of good things?

Isn't it great that the sky has not fallen down on us yet?