It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposal To Strike "Marriage" From California Law

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   

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 they those having a problem understanding the concept of equal access, can fathom what would under other circumstances, be easy to understand.


Perhaps I'm just obtuse, but the example left me more perplexed because of its extremity.

The girl will eventually be 18; the gay couple will never become a heterosexual couple.

The girl is incapable of understanding the responsibilities of a marriage due to her age and immaturity. Two gay adults are just as capable of understanding the responsibilities of marriage as two heterosexual adults.

The example is not extreme; it's inapplicably disparate.




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

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.


We know we are discussing consenting adults.

Don't jump the fence.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

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 they those having a problem understanding the concept of equal access, can fathom what would under other circumstances, be easy to understand.


Perhaps I'm just obtuse, but the example left me more perplexed because of its extremity.

The girl will eventually be 18; the gay couple will never become a heterosexual couple.

The girl is incapable of understanding the responsibilities of a marriage due to her age and immaturity. Two gay adults are just as capable of understanding the responsibilities of marriage as two heterosexual adults.

The example is not extreme; it's inapplicably disparate.



I apologize for the confusing aspect of what I was saying.

I am trying to show that the idea "love is love" and it must be allowed no matter what is not true.

Many people seem to believe that just because two individuals love each they can get married no matter what other circumstances exist.

I used an extreme example to show that standards for marriage do exist. That love is not the only prerequisite needed for two individuals to be married.

Age and understanding as you mention are key prerequisites for marriage. That was why I had used age. I was attempting to draw attention to these other prerequisites.

I am saying that there is more to marriage than just love. Love is just one of the many prerequisites for marriage like age, understanding etc...


I had not expected that my "Second Idea" would receive this much attention. I believe a more concerning aspect of this thread is the elimination of the legal status of a word which I mention in my post on Page 5 above my "Second Idea".


[edit on 14-3-2009 by Studious]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Studious]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I'm really lost in all this discussion.

This is purely and simply an Equal Rights issue. Consenting adults want to join their lives and households in a committed relationship.

The government license to do that is named: Marriage License. It has nothing to do with religion. There are many words that we commonly use today that come from antiquity - - when religion was rule. But we now have separation of church and state - - and religion is not rule (at least it shouldn't be).

The marriage license has nothing to do with Love - Religion - Sexuality - or anything - - except protection of persons and property.

Period!

These semantics over a word are ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy


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


That is just the point troy, is YOU are not the one compelled to have to tolerate anything, GAYS are in this case.

They like to threaten TC violations in threads like this all the time for disagreeing with them like they have with me but it isn't me that is not trying to usurp the entire married population's marriages with vindictive proposals just because "some" people cannot accept it they can't have it both ways. They want tolerance and anything even remotley taken as disparaging in anyway is deemd hate speech while i have seen it is anything goes when it comes to gays bashing bibles and Christians. They expect everyone to obey the laws in that regard but when the people have spoken and the rule of law is what it is, they go around like victims and as always. it is Religions fault.

The bottom line is this, they can assault Religious people in public all they want, they can scream their erroneous understanding of the separation powers and the ACLU all they want, but what goes on behind a voting booth curtain is where they find out if their tactics decreased conflict or increased conflict among them.

I am here trying to tell them something and rather than get a clue, and ask for alternative strategies that would be more conducive to seeing there political interests come to fruition, they call me names and assault my faith exascerbating an already volatile and controversial issue.

I really have no problem with gays getting married but I know how courts work and I know how laws, bills and the legislature argues these things pretty damn well and this argument of equal rights for all, doesn't fly.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studious

I am saying that there is more to marriage than just love. Love is just one of the many prerequisites for marriage like age, understanding etc...




This I can agree with. I even think it's possible to have a perfectly good marriage between people who aren't (or don't start off) "in love" -- it's not our way, but arranged marriages sometimes really do turn out good.

I just don't think that a drive to procreate is one of the things a marriage requires.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sestias
 



Wow that's a really good idea. I'm a christian you might say, and i think it's great. Being able to have marriage refer exclusively to it's historical roots is all any christian/jew(?)/whomever could ask for. Any association with government should be seen as embarrassing at this point, even the legality/definition of unions.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Whatever your position on same-sex marriages, unions etc...

A bigger issue here is the elimination of the legal status of a word.
Back on Page 5, I explore this in depth.

(I would post it again but I would be repeating the same ideas I already had written.)



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I'm really lost in all this discussion.

This is purely and simply an Equal Rights issue. Consenting adults want to join their lives and households in a committed relationship.

The government license to do that is named: Marriage License. It has nothing to do with religion. There are many words that we commonly use today that come from antiquity - - when religion was rule. But we now have separation of church and state - - and religion is not rule (at least it shouldn't be).

The marriage license has nothing to do with Love - Religion - Sexuality - or anything - - except protection of persons and property.

Period!

These semantics over a word are ridiculous.


Annee, if YOU are a lesbian, you can marry any consenting adult meeting the requirements for the definition of marriage you want as long as they are of age and as long as you could find a man that would make the leap to want you.

So how is it your equal rights are being infringed?

Care to show me where in the constitution it says separation of church and state applies to the religious ceremony made famous by Religion who chose this method of terminology because it the word marriage has nothing to do with religion according to you?

So which is it annee because anything you say can and WILL be used bt me to impeach your argument and so far you STILL don't have a real understanding of legalese NOR do you have a leg to stand on.

Have you considered ASKING what might be a better way to accomplish this or are you just obstinate and glutton for an argument you cannot win legally or rhetorically

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Here's how it should have gone down.

We are gay - we have the same committed relationships hetero couples do.

We want to get married too and have the same equal rights by law.

OK - - here is your marriage license. Congratulations!

-----------------------

It is the word used for the license. The word can not change.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studious
Whatever your position on same-sex marriages, unions etc...

A bigger issue here is the elimination of the legal status of a word.
Back on Page 5, I explore this in depth.

(I would post it again but I would be repeating the same ideas I already had written.)


This is exactly where they are not "getting" this issue studio is that "words" where laws are concerned, have status, their is a vernacular in both Medicine and Law that is held to a much higher standard to ensure the language for these two professions is clear with the distinction of being rigorously protected from being re-defined so that they are black and white without room for interpretation and / or semantics and without additional subjective meanings imposed by special activists or special interests like we see going on here with the term "marriage"

Regardless of whether you think it has religious roots or not, the term "marriage" is defined as one man and one woman and to meet the requirements of that defintion, is no more an equal rights issue for gays as it is anyone else who wants to get married but doesn't fit that kind of legal definition for this type of civil union. Love, sexual orientation, gay's transexuals who are bisexual, polygamist's, pedophiles, lesbians, roommates interested in tax breaks, need not apply for any reasons other than those prescribed by the legal definition of marriage whether it is holy matrimony or not. Annee said it herself, she wants the legitimacy the "word" marriage conveys as it is accepted without question and treated as the traditionally held idea that these two people are the opposite sex, the spouse, mother or father of the other and their children and have all the rights thereof.

Many see this being reduced to the definition of some couples sexual partner in addition to always having to ask, "are you gay" when filling out hospital papers and insurances, while many others like NOT having the stigma being gay would have just as annee alluded to in the reverse wanting to avoid the stigma herself, why superimpose what you find unattractive about the "stigma" on everyone else when you wouldn't want it yourself?

Whether said stigma is imagined or not.

Their are so many more compelling reasons for keeping marriage defined as it is without further disparaging the meaning with connotations not globally agreed with much less accepted just so that a couple can get all the attention and legal respect that heterosexual couples should get because their unions have much more comlicated ramifications and responsiblities to consider and the law will use to hold each one of them to in the legally binding agreement called marriage.

You see annee their is a side effect of heterosexual relationships where marriage has a way of punishing those who haven't thought it out very much. They run the risk of a side effect inherant in their combined DNA that whether you think is not justified when so many do NOT have the intention of this side effect and get marraied anyway, more times than not, even those with no intention of this phenomena get "surprised" and have what we straights believe are the very reasons, Gays getting marriage rights is the most self serving self indulgent and vain excuse for any reasons THEY would ever deserve such a distinction in their relationships. It is known as Child Birth!

Now knowing you as I do, where you have argued unsuccessfully the right to kill such a side effect of that kind of liason, I know for a fact, for you, it is ALL about YOU. Even if you were to have a straight marriage, chances are you would use abortion as birth control. You really haven't impressed me at all as someone needing to have what married adults have because you have no intention of living up to the responsibilities of marriage much less deserve the right to it predicated on satisfying your lustful desires.

You can't even see past your own selfishness to consider the insult your idea of committed relationships means to those who really have them. You probably think gays have the same ones straights do.

I don't see those ramifications in gay relationships.

The only responsibilty they have to consider is the sexual gratification needs of the other. They really don't have to worry about getting the kids off to school having mouths to feed, showing up for soccer games and paying for tuitions, bandaids for many many skinned knees etc,

You know,, REAL responsibities.

not vain self indulgences









[edit on 14-3-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Here's how it should have gone down.

We are gay - we have the same committed relationships hetero couples do.

We want to get married too and have the same equal rights by law.

OK - - here is your marriage license. Congratulations!

-----------------------

It is the word used for the license. The word can not change.



You can "should" on people all you like annee but a legal argument does that NOT make.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Here's how it should have gone down.



We want to get married too and have the same equal rights by law.

OK - - here is your marriage license. Congratulations!

-----------------------

It is the word used for the license. The word can not change.







We are gay - we have the same committed relationships hetero couples do.


NOPE, not even close to being the same annee,, not anywhere near it



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I like this!

On one hand, fair is fair. If two homosexuals wish to partner for the social and tax benefits, I have no right to deny them that. I only have the right to disagree with their lifestyle, not the right to deny them the ability to live it equally. On the other hand, as a Christian who understands the sanctity the religion places on marriage, I cannot condone the calling of something obviously outside the basic tenets of the religion by the religious name.

If the word marriage is struck from all legal codes and replaced with something like 'domestic partnership', then as far as the law is concerned, there is no marriage. A marriage is then something performed in a church, similar to a christening or a Bar Mitzvah. As it should be. I assume from the wording of the source that a marriage performed in a church with a 'domestic partnership' license would be accepted as a legal domestic partnership... same thing as happens now, but with a legal separation between the religious ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of domestic partnership.

I have been proclaiming this route as the only real way to hammer out a compromise since the whole Prop 8 thing began (before actually). I am relieved to see it is being taken seriously finally by someone.

The thing that worries me is Annee above. Why in the world would anyone oppose this? The only reason I can see is that they either want to force churches to perform gay marriage by law (which I believe some people do wish to do, out of bitterness toward Christianity), or they simply like the present fight going on.
And even more amazing to me, Annee, is that we have had some pretty good debates over this issue in the past. I would never have suspected you of being in either category.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear about this. It's about time some common sense came out of California.


TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I like this!

On one hand, fair is fair. If two homosexuals wish to partner for the social and tax benefits, I have no right to deny them that. I only have the right to disagree with their lifestyle, not the right to deny them the ability to live it equally. On the other hand, as a Christian who understands the sanctity the religion places on marriage, I cannot condone the calling of something obviously outside the basic tenets of the religion by the religious name.

If the word marriage is struck from all legal codes and replaced with something like 'domestic partnership', then as far as the law is concerned, there is no marriage. A marriage is then something performed in a church, similar to a christening or a Bar Mitzvah. As it should be. I assume from the wording of the source that a marriage performed in a church with a 'domestic partnership' license would be accepted as a legal domestic partnership... same thing as happens now, but with a legal separation between the religious ceremony of marriage and the legal contract of domestic partnership.

I have been proclaiming this route as the only real way to hammer out a compromise since the whole Prop 8 thing began (before actually). I am relieved to see it is being taken seriously finally by someone.

The thing that worries me is Annee above. Why in the world would anyone oppose this? The only reason I can see is that they either want to force churches to perform gay marriage by law (which I believe some people do wish to do, out of bitterness toward Christianity), or they simply like the present fight going on.
And even more amazing to me, Annee, is that we have had some pretty good debates over this issue in the past. I would never have suspected you of being in either category.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear about this. It's about time some common sense came out of California.


TheRedneck


Just to be clear,? are advocating suggesting changing the defintions of marriage to mean civil unions?



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Of course, by now, everyone knows that separation of church and state is (1) not in the constitution, (2) was an idea in a letter by T. Jefferson to a Baptist church telling them not to fear --- the state would not be involved in their church.

How the heck this got reversed is probably the same way the movie about the Scopes monkey trial came out for evolution. It didn't. Just the movie did.

Now "they" want to eat away at the churches again. Churches have been doing our country right since the beginning, providing for the poor and needy, giving faith in times of trouble, providing sanctuary for folks in dire circumstances, and lending a helping hand. Sure, there are always a few rotten apples in every barrel.

If you "make" churches marry "gay" people against their fellowship principles, and they resist or fold, the next step is to sue them out of existence. Is that really what you want? Do you just see churches as judgmental?

[edit on 15-3-2009 by Jim Scott]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi

Just to be clear,? are advocating suggesting changing the defintions of marriage to mean civil unions?

No, I am advocating making marriage a strictly religious ceremony. I am suggesting that the term 'marriage license' be changed to 'domestic partnership license', and that the tax forms not use the word marriage. I am also quite sure nothing will force the churches to cease using the term marriage. There could then be no inequality between married and partnered couples, since no legal marital status is recognized, but the legal aspects of marriage would still exist as a domestic partnership. In simpler language, if you want to be married, no problem: go to a church and get married. The state just will see it as a domestic partnership. Don't want a religious ceremony? No problem! Go to the local courthouse and they'll partner you.

Another benefit is that no church can be forced to marry anyone they do not wish to, since they will perform marriages and not domestic partnerships.

My wife and I are married; that means we have a contract under the law to each other, and that we are seen in the eyes of God as one flesh. I don't think God is very worried about how I file my taxes (as long as I do), and the state shouldn't care about how we view our relationship between ourselves and our God. Doesn't it make sense to separate the two aspects?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Oh - don't even go there with churches being forced to marry gays.

And why would I have a problem with "Separate but Equal" - - Oh gee - let me guess.

Because its not Equal.

You can not get married in a church as the law stands now. There is no sanctity in a license.

I am fully aware of where Separation of Church and state originated from. But just like words - they become part of history/society and evolve into current times - need - and meaning.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Studious
 


I know somewhere I wrote that the elimination of the word 'marriage' was ridiculous, and likely a prank to draw attention to the stupidity of prop 8.

You were simply more coherent than I in the writing.

And, before I go....this is not directed at YOU, studious.....I have the floor, so I just wish to mention the notion of homophones, for a moment.

Especially, "their", "there" and "they're".


There, got that off my chest. Those demons, they're a hard bunch to satisfy until they've gotten their way......

Enjoy!!!



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by googolplex
 


Arghhhhh!!!!!

Either you are trying to be sarcastic and humorus in a way that failed, or you actually believe the pablum you just wrote!

First idea: Not funny.

Second idea: Might be one of the most disgusting, ill-informed hateful "rants" I've seen lately, on ATS.

Either way.....fail.



This is just amazing. There was a person that had their post censured early on for using offensive language toward gays.

There have been several references to "religious nut jobs" and the like on here without any restrictions. What hypocrisy!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join