Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

Everything is religious based. That is not a legitimate argument.

The history of this planet is religious based. People were put to death for heresy.

Fortunately - - logical minds have progressed.

Originally posted by Sestias
As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is a separation of church and state in this country.

Separation of Church and State? How is it laws for marriage is an attempt by the State to establish a state religion? What do YOU think you know about the separation powers?

arguments for marriage are all a logical fallacy , baseless and ridiculous.


Bad argument No. 1
"Gay marriage is a basic human right."
There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married.

Bad argument No. 2
"Gay marriage is a civil right."
This is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage. This is why philosophically opposed African American leaders such as Shelby Steele and Jesse Jackson agree that "gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue."

Bad argument No. 3
"Opposition to gay marriage is discrimination."
Let's not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws," since this restriction applies equally to every individual.

Bad argument No. 4
"Marriage has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would be just another development in its ever-changing definition."
True, our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of children, as well as intimate companionship.

Bad argument No. 5
"Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state."
It is true that Western marriage and family law stem in part from the Judeo-Christian tradition, as do many of our other laws. But the separation of church and state (assured by constitutional law) is different from the enforced separation of religion and politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.

Bad argument No. 6
"Marriage is necessary for gays to gain important legal benefits."
Homosexuals don't need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example, hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree about medical treatment, even marriage won't solve the problem, as the Terry Schiavo case has demonstrated. The answer is medical power of attorney, which is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Another example is Social Security benefits. Children's benefits are not dependent on the marital status of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of $255. A wife can access her deceased husband's Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor's benefit—and she must choose one or the other. Most other benefits are based on work history.

Bad argument No. 7
"There is no proof that gay marriage would change the marriages of heterosexuals."
If marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that don't seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more quickly. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan has shown that since gay marriage came to Scandinavia in the early '90s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has leaped significantly, and the family dissolution rate has risen. Only where the gay marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of Norway, formerly the most conservative of the Nordic countries.

Bad argument No. 8
"Social science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual parenting."
Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago's emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting "contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).

Bad argument No. 9
"The fact that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not intrinsically related to procreation."
Yet the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse. In all cultures, even if some couples are childless, marriage as an institution is principally concerned with children and, therefore, society's future.

Bad argument No. 10
"Heterosexuals have done a terrible job at marriage. Who are they to speak?"
It is true that half of all new heterosexual marriages end in divorce. But far more than half have succeeded, if you count marriages established before the divorce boom of the '70s and '80s. Yet the point is not how many are successful, but what marriage means. To accommodate gays, marriage would have to change into something it has never been: an institution for same-sex love without the biological possibility for children. It will probably not require sexual fidelity, which even the majority of unfaithful heterosexuals have conceded is the ideal. Some of the most prominent proponents of gay marriage, such as Andrew Sullivan, say the ideal needs to change, since gay understanding of fidelity includes other sexual liaisons.

Bad argument No. 11
"The resistance to gay marriage is motivated by fear and loathing for homosexuals."
While no large group is free of hate-mongers, the vast majority resist because they strongly believe in the positive features of traditional marriage. They have experienced the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are complementary in many important ways—biological, psychological, temperamental, and spiritual—and who, because of this complementarity, have a unique capacity to bear and nurture children. It is appreciation for the unparalleled success of this complementarity—not fear or hatred for gays—that motivates most Americans to oppose gay marriage.

Bad argument No. 12
"Those who resist gay marriage are irrational, Neanderthal, and bigoted."
The gay marriage movement is only a few decades old. Could it be that billions of people who for millennia upheld traditional marriage were really irrational and bigoted? On the contrary, we would argue that a common-sense understanding of life leads in the direction we have argued. Further, it seems clear that reason without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life. It tends to dissolve basic human institutions into contracts between persons who make whatever they want of them, to the detriment of children and society.

Bad argument No. 13
"The legal issue of gay marriage ought to be left up to the states."
Quite the opposite, we need a national definition of marriage. Without a public definition embodied in a constitutional amendment, activist judges at various levels will undo the conviction of the vast majority of Americans. Some already have, in defiance of state defense-of-marriage acts. Precedent for a national definition is ample—the federal government outlawed polygamy in the 19th century and the Supreme Court has ruled in the 20th century on many cases regarding marriage.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the final analysis, to claim that opponents of "gay rights" or same- sex marriage recognition are "discriminating against gays and lesbians" is begging the question: assuming gays already possess universally accepted suspect status, which, as we have seen, is not the case. Criticism of, or legal action contrary to, the whims of affluent special interest groups which do not possess or qualify for suspect status does not constitute "discrimination." Saying that wealthy Caucasian corporation presidents as a class do not qualify for suspect status does not "discriminate" against the white and well-heeled. It simply states a fact. No amount of non-actionable verbal "millionaire-bashing" will compel government to declare Caucasian plutocrats a suspect class. They simply do not qualify for that status, nor do gay activists or other wealthy, powerful special interest groups. Gay activists have ample resources to secure virtually all the benefits they might desire-without tapping the public till or using government as a billy club to punish their opponents.

Refusing to grant special status (suspect or marital) to gay activists does not deny gay people a single fundamental Constitutional right. Suspect and marital status bestow privileges additional to the U.S. Constitution's fundamental protections. Again, Caucasian males under age 40 with no disabilities or firm ethnic identities are not beneficiaries of suspect status; nevertheless, it cannot be said that they do not possess all fundamental Constitutional rights because they do not enjoy special status.

In fact, it is gay activists who seem most eager to practice reverse discrimination against other Americans, by using suspect or marital status leverage to force society to subsidize and advance gay lifestyles and to institutionalize their own political goals, using government to advance their interests. Opposing gay activist special interests is not "discriminating against gays;" it is preserving rational and just Civil Rights policies; it is simply saying, "no special status and benefits" to a powerful special interest group which already shares the fundamental rights of American citizenship and enjoys far more advantages than most American citizens.

2) Marriage is a "basic human right" and choice of marriage partners should in no way be regulated by government; therefore same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry.

One will search the Constitution of the United States in vain for a "fundamental right to marry," or even for a mention of marriage. It is true that numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions have referred to the extraordinary significance of marriage; the High Court has called marriage "one of the basic civil rights of man" (see Skinner vs. Oklahoma, 1942; Zablocki vs. Redhail, etc.). But perhaps David Shapiro, managing editor of The Honolulu Star-Bulletin, has answered this argument as pointedly as is necessary:

There's no civil right to marry whomever you wish. Gay and lesbian couples aren't the only ones who can't get marriage licenses. You can't get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can't get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can't get a license to marry a 9-year-old child or your horse.

Every man and woman in Hawaii has the exact same right to get married. It just has to be to an individual of the opposite sex who is of age, is not a close relative and is human.

If men and women are treated the same, there's no sex discrimination unless you hold that gay men and lesbian women are the third and fourth genders. There's a lot of legal ground to plow between here and there.[85]

Far less likely will one be to discover in the Constitution any "right" to marry whomever one wishes based on particular self-alleged varieties of sexuality alone.

So NO you're wrong, it is NOT a civil rights issue nor is it an equal rights issue. It is a sexual self image issue and getting married isn't about alleviating toxic shame gays believe Religion has imposed on them, or that they think getting married will open any doors to more acceptance of this lifestyle.



[edit on 13-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


It sounds like it is a more of a gay political move. If you can marry when your gay is it okay and the same as being hetero. It makes it more acceptable to people to take. If they are married, they are normal and live a normal lifestyle. But in the end they really do live a normal lifestyle, at least not one that has been taught to us through out the history of our culture since the beginning of recorded history. It is all a political move.

Hmmmmm - - let me think. Equal rights. Wanting the same Equal Rights as anyone else who gets married.

Kind of like black people and women wanted Equal Rights.

Well if all that is about is politics - - I guess its political.

While I don't accept homosexuality as something that really "needs" to exist, I don't think it is my place to say whether gay people can marry each other.

Now, I am not saying I am embracing homosexuality, because I can't. It doesn't forward our survival as humans.

But, I am being tolerant where need be. If you really want to be gay and all that stuff, then ok. It is your life. If you are a contributing member of society, then that means a lot to me, no matter your sexual preference.

Troy

reply to post by cybertroy


One fine point, troy.

Being gay is not a 'choice', it is not a 'preference'.

A 'choice' is whether you want coffee, or tea. A 'preference' is whether you want cream, or just sugar.

For a heterosexual man, your 'preference' might be women with blonde hair and big boobs. Your 'choice' would be which one, of two, you liked better.

The meanings of these words are important. Because the lack of understanding lies at the root of the intolerance and hatred being exhibited.

Originally posted by Annee
Hmmmmm - - let me think. Equal rights. Wanting the same Equal Rights as anyone else who gets married.

Kind of like black people and women wanted Equal Rights.

Well if all that is about is politics - - I guess its political.

They have EXACTLY the same rights as anyone else that wants to get Married anne.

EXACTLY

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by cybertroy

 

One fine point, troy.

Being gay is not a 'choice', it is not a 'preference'.

A 'choice' is whether you want coffee, or tea. A 'preference' is whether you want cream, or just sugar.

For a heterosexual man, your 'preference' might be women with blonde hair and big boobs. Your 'choice' would be which one, of two, you liked better.

The meanings of these words are important. Because the lack of understanding lies at the root of the intolerance and hatred being exhibited.

Your choice is who you want to have sex with if they are willing and your preference is men if you're gay. I know many people who have tried both or Bi-sexuals, does that mean they get to marry both? why shouldn't they be allowed to love who they want too? The line was drawn.


Get over it

reply to post by Aermacchi


No, you are wrong.

I am attracted to men, but not all men. You likely are attracted to women, but not all women.

the 'preference' is within the subset of the group a person is attracted to, and vice versa.

Bi-sexuality is an entirely different subject.

Human sexuality is far too complicated for a Forum discussion.

besides, the subject is about the term 'marriage'. Too many nosy-posey's sticking their faces into something that should be a right for any two people.

What does removing marriage's legal status do?

It legalizes something that a majority of voters in California decided should be illegal, not through any open means such as simply putting up a contrary proposal to Proposition 8, but by changing the legal status of words included in that law.


For the purposes of argument lets say this idea were applied to other U.S. legal documents. The italicized word was the original word that has lost its legal status. The Bold words are the new phrase that now holds legal status and replaces the italicized word

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction Area outside state control the equal protection of the laws.

By removing the legal status of the word jurisdiction and replacing it with another word that has a different meaning. The entire meaning of the law changes. Now this law no longer protects citizens from states forming laws that deprive citizens of life liberty and property it now only protects people living outside the states control.



If the word marriage can be dissolved from use and now holds no legal meaninng it usurps the voters. Proposition 8 was voted into law by a majority of voters. If marriage now has no legal meaning it undermines that law. An open process which would repeal Proposition 8 would be a more reasonable approach. The attempted removal of an institution from legal status is dangerous and must not be applauded.

Laws must be straightforward and open. It must say this is illegal and why, and this is legal and why. Not a constant shifting flux of the legal status of words.

Words carry with them bytes of information. We cannot simply say that those bytes of information no longer hold legal weight. Words should not be able to have their legal status questioned. You can say that things should be illegal or legal using the current vocabulary not declaring one word as no longer relevant and replacing it with another word of different meaning. This leads to shifty dishonest practices. Sometimes in which both sides use different vocabulary or the same vocabulary with different meanings. Almost Orwellian in nature. Where Newspeak words are slowly replaced with words that have different meaning.

If individuals in California want Proposition 8 repealed they must put forward a ballot initiative to do just that, and not attempt to eliminate the legal status of a word or words.

reply to post by Studious


I think, Studious, you just made the same point I did a while back.

This idea, removing the term 'marriage', is really meant, it would seem, to draw attention to Prop 8, and how ridiculous it is.

The wheels keep going 'round, and eventually they fall off of the bus....

Nothing new to see here....move along, move along.

Imagine, for a moment, the outrage if a 'proposition'....let's call it "Prop 9" had made it to the ballot....this imaginary 'Prop' would define 'marriage' as between a 'White Man and a White Woman' only.

Can anyone see the comparison?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

No, you are wrong.

I am attracted to men, but not all men. You likely are attracted to women, but not all women.

the 'preference' is within the subset of the group a person is attracted to, and vice versa.
Bi-sexuality is an entirely different subject.

Human sexuality is far too complicated for a Forum discussion.


besides, the subject is about the term 'marriage'. Too many nosy-posey's sticking their faces into something that should be a right for any two people.

Again, this is you assuming equal rights is equal access and it is NOT.

the 'preference' is within the subset of the group a person is attracted to, and vice versa.
Bi-sexuality is an entirely different subject.

Using semantics is something that doesn't work well in contract law when examining it to see if it has legal grounds to enforce it in a binding agreement. You say Bi- sex is an entirely different subject?

So what? it is a valid question gay sex marriage opens being allowed on the basis of what is an equality for all doesn't mean for gays, straights but Bi-sexual people need not apply? You are evading me, NOT because it is another subject but because you know the slippery slope I am putting you in checkmate with and you simply want to forfiet the argument using the same method of avoidance you did with BAC in the other thread.

No, you are wrong.

I am attracted to men, but not all men. You likely are attracted to women, but not all women.

No I am not wrong Weed, you have painted yourself in a corner if you think otherwise and Ill tell you why, if you are saying you are of a class distinction (like race or gender) that this is a genetic bias inherent in Gay men for example, their is no Scientific data to substantiate that, Even if their were, it would more then likely be a disorder that can be altered as ergnomically suitable for the opposite sex is what would be considered natural and normal and I don't care what monkeys do in the wild they are monkeys having gay sex that doesn't have anything to do with being natural, it is STILL an aberration ergnomically speaking.

This Gays would reject but YOU STILL CHOOSE to have sex with men if you are gay and because you are attracted to the same sex is WHY you choose to have sex with them but Race we cannot choose what choose what race we were born, no matter WHAT race would be attractive to be it is what you are where homosexual proclivities are merely a desire, they are NOT what you are but what you do.

The moment a society makes a class distinction based on what we DO rather than what we are, it opens up the legal flood gates for the same kinds of problems Boston is having already.

I don't care who you are attracted to, male, female, goat, sheep, it makes no difference as they are just options for the choice you make to HAVE sex, not "BE" sex. They are the avenues for mutual sexual gratification which is merely a lustful desire and not something you are compelled to act on but CHOOSE to satisfy and by the way, choosing NOT to, never killed anyone.

So no, again this argument cannot be made into a class distinction to justify it and compare it to civil rights violations blacks endured. Sorry, gays don't have it that bad and don't have any reason to say they do on the same basis.





[edit on 14-3-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Studious
What does removing marriage's legal status do?

It legalizes something that a majority of voters in California decided should be illegal, not through any open means such as simply putting up a contrary proposal to Proposition 8, but by changing the legal status of words included in that law.


For the purposes of argument lets say this idea were applied to other U.S. legal documents. The italicized word was the original word that has lost its legal status. The Bold words are the new phrase that now holds legal status and replaces the italicized word

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction Area outside state control the equal protection of the laws.

By removing the legal status of the word jurisdiction and replacing it with another word that has a different meaning. The entire meaning of the law changes. Now this law no longer protects citizens from states forming laws that deprive citizens of life liberty and property it now only protects people living outside the states control.



If the word marriage can be dissolved from use and now holds no legal meaninng it usurps the voters. Proposition 8 was voted into law by a majority of voters. If marriage now has no legal meaning it undermines that law. An open process which would repeal Proposition 8 would be a more reasonable approach. The attempted removal of an institution from legal status is dangerous and must not be applauded.

Laws must be straightforward and open. It must say this is illegal and why, and this is legal and why. Not a constant shifting flux of the legal status of words.

Words carry with them bytes of information. We cannot simply say that those bytes of information no longer hold legal weight. Words should not be able to have their legal status questioned. You can say that things should be illegal or legal using the current vocabulary not declaring one word as no longer relevant and replacing it with another word of different meaning. This leads to shifty dishonest practices. Sometimes in which both sides use different vocabulary or the same vocabulary with different meanings. Almost Orwellian in nature. Where Newspeak words are slowly replaced with words that have different meaning.

If individuals in California want Proposition 8 repealed they must put forward a ballot initiative to do just that, and not attempt to eliminate the legal status of a word or words.

Thank you for adding your knowledge and analogy for why this legislation would open the floodgates for case law to be used in such deceptive means if this idiotic idea to remove marriage ever passed.

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Imagine, for a moment, the outrage if a 'proposition'....let's call it "Prop 9" had made it to the ballot....this imaginary 'Prop' would define 'marriage' as between a 'White Man and a White Woman' only.

Can anyone see the comparison?

Nope, because their IS no comparison and I think you insisting on using this to align it with race discrimination makes a mockery of those who HAVE suffered genuine oppression of their civil rights under the law.

I have thought for a long time now that legal unions (otherwise known as marriages) should be called civil unions, and not marriages, because marriages are the ceremonial or ritualistic mergings of two separate lives into one. If a church does not perform same-sex marriages that is their choice and should be respected. They should be protected from lawsuits trying to force them to perform marriages contrary to their beliefs.

Legal marriages or civil unions are legal contracts, entered into by 2 people who meet specific requirements as defined by law. The contract binds the parties by law and defines certain legal rights and obligations to which they must adhere. The only thing that should be required for a civil union to be legal, is that both parties be consenting, competent adults.


On a side note, I have a question for those who oppose same sex marriage...
Are we men and women because we are born that way, physically? Isn't a person who is born as a woman, and is attracted to women, gay? Does she become a straight man if she has a sex-change, or is she still a gay woman with male parts, in your opinion?
I ask because this woman would legally be allowed to marry another woman if she became a man.
Would this marriage be considered straight or gay in your book?

If you don't accept a transsexual person's new gender as valid, then the law already allows same-sex marriages, in some situations, so it is not justified in denying it to others.
If you do, then gender is arbitrary, and should be recognized as a variable rather than a constant state of existence. In this case, whether one is a man or woman ceases to be relevant (since it can be altered at will) and should no longer be a prerequisite for marriage.

Originally posted by jezebel5150
I have thought for a long time now that legal unions (otherwise known as marriages) should be called civil unions, and not marriages, because marriages are the ceremonial or ritualistic mergings of two separate lives into one. If a church does not perform same-sex marriages that is their choice and should be respected. They should be protected from lawsuits trying to force them to perform marriages contrary to their beliefs.

Legal marriages or civil unions are legal contracts, entered into by 2 people who meet specific requirements as defined by law. The contract binds the parties by law and defines certain legal rights and obligations to which they must adhere. The only thing that should be required for a civil union to be legal, is that both parties be consenting, competent adults.


On a side note, I have a question for those who oppose same sex marriage...
Are we men and women because we are born that way, physically? Isn't a person who is born as a woman, and is attracted to women, gay? Does she become a straight man if she has a sex-change, or is she still a gay woman with male parts, in your opinion?
I ask because this woman would legally be allowed to marry another woman if she became a man.
Would this marriage be considered straight or gay in your book?

If you don't accept a transsexual person's new gender as valid, then the law already allows same-sex marriages, in some situations, so it is not justified in denying it to others.
If you do, then gender is arbitrary, and should be recognized as a variable rather than a constant state of existence. In this case, whether one is a man or woman ceases to be relevant (since it can be altered at will) and should no longer be a prerequisite for marriage.

If the law was such that gay marriage was legal, I accept it. I don't think gender is synonymous with genitalia either. I know there are anamolies such as klinfelters syndrome and those who believe they are trapped in the wrong body etc. Their were the female russian olymics athletes whose bodies had changed so much from the anabolic steroids they had been taking, their attractions to the opposite sex reversed and the russian government paid for their sexual reassignment surgery essentially making them males. Some were married and lost all sexual attraction to their husbands and vice versa as they became so masculinized, the husbands felt the Kremlin had kidnapped their wives and brought them back as men they were not gay so all got divorced.

You seem to be trying to corner me in a paradox using some pretty clever but pretty unique circumstances so Ill use your own logic to prove my point as to why choosing one or the other is denying the rights of others if I fall for this.

1) First, it is for this reason already stated that muddying the waters for accepting an anything goes precedent would give lawyers case law to refer to in just about any kind of arraingment based on the same legalese you would suggest to prove me being unfair in the transexual scenario

2) Shemale: An invention of the pornography industry used to describe what are, effectively, effeminate gay men with breasts. First, they assume a transsexual female is still an anatomically functional male, essentially a gay guy in a dress.


Someone truly born transgendered ( trapped in the wrong body type) is for all intents and purposes, biologically inconsistent with their own biochemistry. They do not see themselves as male; Generally they can't stand having male genitalia and want to get rid of "it" as soon as possible, if they haven't already done so. Legally and officially they are re-assigned the new gender after undergoing a long process of medical and psyhcological testing and examination. Then, they have the full op which many describe as a rebirth and even mentioning their old first name, reminds them of body parts they don't want and a part of their past they'd rather forget.

So once this has been all legally and medically accomplished, a male sexually reassigned to female wanting to marry a natural born female would be a gay marriage and according to Calif State law is not allowed.


So there ya have it

First WeedWacker you have stated that you already explained my previous post. After re-reading all of your posts you state nothing even remotely similar. I apologize if you edited your posts that contained the content that was similar, but I cannot see how your posts had anything to do with what I am talking about. I can only assume that my previous post was misinterpreted to be similar to the idea of a previous post of yours.

I was talking about the legal status of words and how they can be removed.

That is dangerous because old laws that use those words are effected. This can change entirely the purpose of those old laws.

What happens as a result of these changing the legal status of a word?

Either

A. These laws now are void as they include words that have no legal status
or
B. All instances of the "word in question" are replaced by the a new word that now has legal status.


If A happens many laws would be declared null for no reason and voiding so many laws would have serious repercussions.

If B happens than the legislators or voters who made those laws had their ideas usurped and changed.



Changing laws in this way is extremely concerning. It means that a limited number of people can easily null or change hundreds of existing laws.

Law must build upon itself, look at the Constitution for example. The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol. The 21st Amendment to the Constitution repealed the 18th.

That system makes sense. One law is proposed, is in effect and then is repealed or replaced by new laws. Changing the meaning of the words in a law is entirely different.

A process changing each individual law is more intelligent because it does not radically alter laws previously passed.

Changing the legal status of a word has a fallout that is difficult to track. It is difficult to know how each law will be effected by the change. Making new laws with a clearly defined objective is less dangerous because it is more transparent and its effects are easier to see.

Example:

Which laws effects would be easier to know.

1. Law which changes the the legal status of individual to nothing and instates a new word "individuall" (the double l is intentional) which means all instead of an indivdual.

2. Law which instates a 25 mph speed limit on Example st. between Logic Av. and Reason Rd.


If people in California want a change in their laws they must do it according to procedure. They must either have legislators change the law or make a ballot initiative. Changing the legal status of words is dangerous and must not be condoned.




Second Idea.

I do not understand the "love is love" and you have to allow it idea. What about 50 year old man and a 5 year old girl. Hopefully no one here would say that they should be allowed to get married even if they loved each other.

If you believe that a law that would allow a 50 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl is wrong. Then you must agree that there are standards that transcend love when dealing with marriage.


[edit on 14-3-2009 by Studious]

Originally posted by Studious


Second Idea.

I do not understand the "love is love" and you have to allow it idea. What about 50 year old man and a 5 year old girl. Hopefully no one here would say that they should be allowed to get married even if they loved each other.

If you believe that a law that would allow a 50 year old man to marry a 5 year old girl is wrong. Then you must agree that there are standards that transcend love when dealing with marriage.

A five year old girl is not capable of romantic love, so the comparison is moot.

We have laws that protect children from the predatory "love" of pedophiles for that reason.

Once the girl is of age, let's say 18 though it varies from state to state, she will be allowed to marry the 63-year-old if they still are in love (or for any other of the reasons that men and women get married).

Originally posted by americandingbat
A five year old girl is not capable of romantic love, so the comparison is moot.

We have laws that protect children from the predatory "love" of pedophiles for that reason.


Once the girl is of age, let's say 18 though it varies from state to state, she will be allowed to marry the 63-year-old if they still are in love (or for any other of the reasons that men and women get married).

Hence the point made about issues that trancsend love and laws that do not allow equal access to marriage. I think studio's analogy albeit ridiculous as it was, is ridiculous for a reason, that for some, one must take things to extremes before those having a problem understanding the concept of equal access, can fathom what would under other circumstances, be easy to understand.

Once the girl is of age, let's say 18 though it varies from state to state, she will be allowed to marry the 63-year-old if they still are in love (or for any other of the reasons that men and women get married).

There ya have it, you like to use extremes yourself I see. Ill bet that studio already is aware of this one and would readily agree that the two consenting adults in your example have all the requirements that must be met to satisfy the definition of marriage and that those are the same restrictions and requirements, ALL of us have to comply with so, again.

NOT a civil rights OR an equal rights issue.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Aermacchi]