Texas GOP now wants to reverse the ban on "Sodomy" laws, and is seeking to make gay marriage a felony offense (amongst other choice proposals).
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0621/tx-gop-platform-jail-mexicans-criminalize-sodomy-gay-marriage-felony/
And these are the same people who scream for less government in our lives. Right.
Would they just secede already? The Southern Baptist Convention and the AG could take turns running the new country, Kenneth Copeland could be president, Obama could officially become the antichrist, and they could set up checkpoints at the borders- all those entering who are not "born again" must be stamped with the mark of the beast.
Well, at least it would make a great made-for-TV mini series.
Did someone wee wee in Azbad's Wheaties today?
Here's something I don't understand. If the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' provisions make my wedding license issued in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a legally binding document here in Oklahoma, how is it that states can say that a same sex couple cannot be legally married when they cross into a state that prohibits such a union? Sometimes a marriage license is called a marriage contract, and I have to wonder if that's the correct terminology, because if it is, then a good argument could be made that by denying such contracts the states are engaged in sexual discrimination.
Just a thought.
Quote from: Ed W on June 24, 2010, 08:38:22 PM
Here's something I don't understand. If the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' provisions make my wedding license issued in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a legally binding document here in Oklahoma, how is it that states can say that a same sex couple cannot be legally married when they cross into a state that prohibits such a union? Sometimes a marriage license is called a marriage contract, and I have to wonder if that's the correct terminology, because if it is, then a good argument could be made that by denying such contracts the states are engaged in sexual discrimination.
Just a thought.
But who wee weed in Azbad's Wheaties?
Seriously, you raise a frequently asked question that I think I can provide the answer to. First, as a general matter, other state statutes are treated differently that other state judgments/order. More specifically, in
U.S. v. Ramirez, 2004 WL 100525, * 1 (10th Cir. (Utah) 2004), the Tenth Circuit in
dicta noted:
QuoteThe Full Faith and Credit Clause provides that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. The Supreme Court has emphasized there is a difference between "the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments." Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 232, 118 S.Ct. 657, 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998) (cited with approval in Franchise Tax Bd. of California v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488, 123 S.Ct. 1683, 1687, 155 L.Ed.2d 702 (2003)). The Full Faith and Credit Clause "is exacting" with respect to "[a] final judgment ... rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment." Id. at 233. On the other hand, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel "a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate." Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 722, 108 S.Ct. 2117, 100 L.Ed.2d 743 (1988)
[Internal citations and punctuation in original]. I hope this helps conceptually.
Quote from: Ed W on June 24, 2010, 08:38:22 PM
Here's something I don't understand. If the Constitution's 'full faith and credit' provisions make my wedding license issued in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a legally binding document here in Oklahoma, how is it that states can say that a same sex couple cannot be legally married when they cross into a state that prohibits such a union? Sometimes a marriage license is called a marriage contract, and I have to wonder if that's the correct terminology, because if it is, then a good argument could be made that by denying such contracts the states are engaged in sexual discrimination.
Just a thought.
That's why the legality of state same-sex marriage bans (prop 8 ) are being challenged, and will ultimately be decided by the US supreme court.
Eventually, just as the civil rights laws in the 60's were, gay marriage will be legalized nationally by the feds because it is unconstitutional to deny certain Americans the same rights afforded to others.
Honestly the terminology should be changed. The 'contract' granted by the government should be called a civil union, and should be equally allowed (with all the benefits) to all consenting adults. The 'marriage' should be the ceremony, performed by a priest, or whatever, and should not have any bearing on the legalities of the government sanctioned union.
Currently the separation between church and state is blurred when it comes to marriage, when really 'marriage' should only be the religious or ceremonial aspect of a 'civil union'. Regardless of what it's called, the term should be the same for everyone. Separate is never equal.
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2010, 08:17:58 PM
Did someone wee wee in Azbad's Wheaties today?
You should see me when I'm
really cranky :P
I didn't realize Sally Kearn is also a member of the Texas legislature
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2010, 09:33:51 PM
I didn't realize Sally Kearn is also a member of the Texas legislature
Different spelling (Kern) I think....
....oh, you're being facetious...ah!
You get your phone working, BTW?
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 24, 2010, 09:10:55 PM
Honestly the terminology should be changed. The 'contract' granted by the government should be called a civil union, and should be equally allowed (with all the benefits) to all consenting adults. The 'marriage' should be the ceremony, performed by a priest, or whatever, and should not have any bearing on the legalities of the government sanctioned union.
Currently the separation between church and state is blurred when it comes to marriage, when really 'marriage' should only be the religious or ceremonial aspect of a 'civil union'. Regardless of what it's called, the term should be the same for everyone. Separate is never equal.
I believe the gay community is causing resistance to their cause by insisting on using the word "marriage". It's just semantics but we all know that some words ignite fire in some peoples' minds.
Surprise.... I think gay people should have access to the legal aspects such as survivor benefits, the right to half the other persons' stuff in the case of a divorce, etc. Much of it could be done by a bunch of legal finagling but I believe Social Security and retirement benefits would be excluded. One all inclusive contract should not be out of line. However, thousands of years of tradition of "Western" culture does make it difficult for me to accept the word "marriage". I would probably support it in a vote though even if just to tick off the religious wackos that have hijacked conservatism.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 09:45:20 PM
even if just to tick off the religious wackos that have hijacked conservatism.
+1
I may seem like a flaming liberal sometimes, but I'm sympathetic to a broad swath of the traditional conservative ideology. The Eisenhower Republicans, if you will. The current crop is generally either so focused on keeping Reagan's religious bloc in the fold or such complete stooges for corporations even when they are pissing on conservative principles (like environmental preservation, which is historically a conservative ideal) that I can't support them in the least.
Even supporting the few who do hold to those principles just lends legitimacy and support to the crazy wing of the Republican party. I think it's sad, as I'd like more of a choice at the ballot box.
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2010, 10:07:01 PM
I may seem like a flaming liberal sometimes,
may?
sometimes?
;D
Sorry, you left yourself open on that one.
I've been got for some of my stuff too.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 10:45:02 PM
may?
sometimes?
;D
Sorry, you left yourself open on that one.
I've been got for some of my stuff too.
Ok, Ok, usually. It's only because the discourse in this country has shifted so far right in the last 30 years, though.
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2010, 11:23:16 PM
Ok, Ok, usually. It's only because the discourse in this country has shifted so far right in the last 30 years, though.
No kidding. When people I know at work cite Glenn Beck as a sane source of information, I feel the need to slap that person. I resist though... ;D
Quote from: Hoss on June 24, 2010, 11:38:25 PM
No kidding. When people I know at work cite Glenn Beck as a sane source of information, I feel the need to slap that person. I resist though... ;D
Resistance is futile....slap away.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2010, 09:45:20 PM
I believe the gay community is causing resistance to their cause by insisting on using the word "marriage". It's just semantics but we all know that some words ignite fire in some peoples' minds.
I agree with you on this one. 'Marriage' should be kept as a religious/traditional ceremony, performed as you wish. What everyone should be granted by the government in the form of certain rights and benefits should be called a civil union.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 25, 2010, 12:25:18 AM
I agree with you on this one. 'Marriage' should be kept as a religious/traditional ceremony, performed as you wish. What everyone should be granted by the government in the form of certain rights and benefits should be called a civil union.
The way you and Red Arrow said it is the best way I've ever heard it put. Marriage is a spiritual concept in the first place, and I don't believe government has any business meddling in spiritual concepts. From a social aspect, recognizing domestic unions seems just. But, that doesn't mean either that you turn around and re-write thousands of years of scripture or theology to make it okay by God or any other tradition which does not approve of same sex marriage.
My biggest problem of all is how much the "D" word (discrimination or discriminitory) gets thrown around. That is probably the one thing which has become a turn-off to me, don't ask me why, maybe because it's over-used. Azbad, you say we don't see it because we aren't gay, but being a white, Anglo, hetero male, I feel like I've got a pretty large target on my back. Supposedly we are the white devils still holding everyone else down. I've done nothing in my life to promote that at all yet I hear on a regular basis about how much everyone else is discriminated against.
I honestly believe that if two men or two women choose to live together 30-40 years (or 5 or 10), own property together, etc. they should have the same rights to retirement, survivorship, and insurance benefits. If the government is willing to dole out social security survivor benefits to my wife (if I were married), why shouldn't a life partner in a same sex union be able to recieve the same benefits, assuming that their union was legal and the survivor depended partially or fully on the other partner's income, which is basically the standard recognized in "traditional" man/woman marriages. That's not asking for any special treatment for which heteros don't get now.
I'm friends with a lesbian couple that owns a house together and one of them was just recently impregnated. They are going to raise a child or possibly children together. I really don't see why that union, as far as the secular world is concerned is any different than if I chose to get re-married at some point and have another child. In both cases, I think the spouse and child are equally as entitled to any survivor benefits. One should not be any less entitled than the other.
Where I draw the line on civil unions is where it could be abused to get around immigration laws, and yes, I'm quite well aware that happens now with heterosexual marriage.
Civil Unions?
Why get the Teamsters involved?
I find that religion is discriminatory.
Did you know that you can get fired for your sexual preference?
The problem here is everyone is equating marriage with a civil union. In most cases, a marriage is a very uncivilized union.
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 11:13:05 AM
The problem here is everyone is equating marriage with a civil union. In most cases, a marriage is a very uncivilized union.
Ya think?
Quote from: dbacks fan on June 25, 2010, 11:15:56 AM
Ya think?
Mine was very barbaric to say the least. And from what I have seen, it was comparitivly mild.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2010, 08:48:06 AM
My biggest problem of all is how much the "D" word (discrimination or discriminitory) gets thrown around. That is probably the one thing which has become a turn-off to me, don't ask me why, maybe because it's over-used. Azbad, you say we don't see it because we aren't gay, but being a white, Anglo, hetero male, I feel like I've got a pretty large target on my back. Supposedly we are the white devils still holding everyone else down. I've done nothing in my life to promote that at all yet I hear on a regular basis about how much everyone else is discriminated against.
Well, our policy on gay marriage is discriminatory. Right now, the government is calling its part of the process "marriage."
I think what makes more sense than carving out a new civil union and going through the work of amending all the laws that mention marriage to change it to civil union is to let churches who want to marry gay people do so and let churches who do not wish to do so make that choice. Sort of along the lines of how I can't get married as a Catholic since I'm not Catholic. I don't think anybody is for forcing churches to perform ceremonies they aren't comfortable with. Nobody is forcing them to do second marriages today. There are churches perfectly happy to do so, however.
I don't get where the idea that churches will be forced to rewrite scripture or whatever comes from.
That said, as long as we're all stuck with the same thing from the government's perspective, whatever its name, it doesn't really matter in the end.
Quote from: nathanm on June 25, 2010, 11:35:40 AM
Well, our policy on gay marriage is discriminatory. Right now, the government is calling its part of the process "marriage."
I think what makes more sense than carving out a new civil union and going through the work of amending all the laws that mention marriage to change it to civil union is to let churches who want to marry gay people do so and let churches who do not wish to do so make that choice. Sort of along the lines of how I can't get married as a Catholic since I'm not Catholic. I don't think anybody is for forcing churches to perform ceremonies they aren't comfortable with. Nobody is forcing them to do second marriages today. There are churches perfectly happy to do so, however.
I don't get where the idea that churches will be forced to rewrite scripture or whatever comes from.
That said, as long as we're all stuck with the same thing from the government's perspective, whatever its name, it doesn't really matter in the end.
Huh? Government sanctioning same sex unions necessarily requires that new laws be passed and others amended.
Via our consititution, churches already can recognize any ceremony or sacrament they like without government intervention. They can marry anyone they want and it's recognized within the church, but the government can refuse to legally sanction that marriage.
As far as the comment about re-writing scripture, it's pretty self expanitory but appears to have gone over your head: Just because the government may eventually recognize same-sex marriage doesn't mean that years of tradition within religious faiths will change. There will still be *gasp* "discrimination" from churches regarding it.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2010, 11:47:53 AM
As far as the comment about re-writing scripture, it's pretty self expanitory but appears to have gone over your head: Just because the government may eventually recognize same-sex marriage doesn't mean that years of tradition within religious faiths will change. There will still be *gasp* "discrimination" from churches regarding it.
Churches, being private religious institutions, can discriminate against whoever they like when it comes to refusing sacrament or whatever. They shouldn't be required to accept gay marriage.
The Government, on the other hand, should not be in the business of discrimination, except insofar as necessary to make up for past discrimination against a group and then only so long as it remains necessary. As an example, affirmative action was certainly needed at one time, although I don't think it generally is today.
That's what I find so annoying about the anti-gay-marriage people. Nobody is asking their church to accept it, only the Government. Hell, it would be
unconstitutional to force it on a church, so it's really just a distraction from issue of government recognizing same sex marriage.
I think I'm with Nathan on this one. This whole civil union thing is just trying to call the same thing by another name. If it is a marraige, then it is a marraige, and that falls into the class of an individuals religious beliefs. The "civil union" part of it is where the government comes in and decides on if they can be together or not. While two completely differant things, unless you you seperate the terminology out on both sides of the fence, then it shouldn't be done at all. As such, the discrimination by the government is nothing more then an extention of the religious beliefs of the current majority.
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 12:44:09 PM
I think I'm with Nathan on this one. This whole civil union thing is just trying to call the same thing by another name. If it is a marraige, then it is a marraige, and that falls into the class of an individuals religious beliefs. The "civil union" part of it is where the government comes in and decides on if they can be together or not. While two completely differant things, unless you you seperate the terminology out on both sides of the fence, then it shouldn't be done at all. As such, the discrimination by the government is nothing more then an extention of the religious beliefs of the current majority.
I love how people are perfectly fine letting the state determine the status of their religious ceremony.
Government recognition of marriage is discriminatory. Why should the government recognize me (as a married man) differently than my single friends?
Why should their be an advantage/disadvantage on either side?
Mostly this relates to property law, and shared decision making, but why shouldn't a single person have the right to share and distribute their property as they wish without government sanction? . . .and why should marriage be a motive for shelter from government plunder?
As for decisions, I should be able to name anyone I wish as proxy for me in the event that I lose the power to make choices for myself. Actually I can.
You are free to be whatever religion you want, yippee for you, but when government recognizes religious sacrament as a further means for plunder or as a shelter from plunder, than you have discrimination.
The government has no right to dictate a different standard for an individual based on the way they live their life, or who they choose to live with, as long as their actions do no harm to the rights of others.
The only motive for government to promote any form of civil union is to dictate morality and grant favor for one lifestyle over another by providing shelter from plunder.
The government sanction of marriage has become an industry. Divorce attorneys plunder billions every year dissolving these contracts, when a simple civil filing would be just as effective.
If I am unmarried and share a home with a female roommate some states go so far as to impose civil union under common law marriage.
So, why should the government grant concession for one lifestyle over another?
How is this not discriminatory?
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 12:44:09 PM
I think I'm with Nathan on this one. This whole civil union thing is just trying to call the same thing by another name. If it is a marraige, then it is a marraige, and that falls into the class of an individuals religious beliefs. The "civil union" part of it is where the government comes in and decides on if they can be together or not. While two completely differant things, unless you you seperate the terminology out on both sides of the fence, then it shouldn't be done at all. As such, the discrimination by the government is nothing more then an extention of the religious beliefs of the current majority.
"Marriage" connotates a spiritual or religious union.
"Civil Union" (again that cracks me up after your comments on it) or a "domestic union" has more of a secular sound to it.
It's the whole "marriage" thing that's got the fundamentalists upset because "marriage" originated as a religious union...more or less.
Before the literalist police get involved here, I'm quite aware that marriage has also been socially recognized for many millenia as well, but it is most commonly considered a religious rite and existence.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 25, 2010, 02:03:28 PM
"Marriage" connotates a spiritual or religious union.
"Civil Union" (again that cracks me up after your comments on it) or a "domestic union" has more of a secular sound to it.
It's the whole "marriage" thing that's got the fundamentalists upset because "marriage" originated as a religious union...more or less.
Before the literalist police get involved here, I'm quite aware that marriage has also been socially recognized for many millenia as well, but it is most commonly considered a religious rite and existence.
Thatn's kind of what I'm getting at here. Marraige is a religous union. If a persons personal religious beliefs do not prohibit him/her from same sex marraige, then the government has no business pushing it off on them that it is wrong. On the flip side of that, if you want to call it an "(un)civil union" or a "domestic union", then it needs to be applied across the board, otherwise the government is making a bias based on the religous beliefs of the majority.
I have been following this thread and am genuinely confused. "Marriage" is not simply a "religious rite", it is a legal status with far reaching implications such as inheritance, tax, and child custody. Oklahoma defines marriage in Title 43 as follows:
QuoteMarriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties legally competent of contracting and of entering into it is necessary, and the marriage relation shall only be entered into, maintained or abrogated as provided by law.
43 O.S. §, 1.
For whatever reason, gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma and DOMA has pretty much made it impossible for one state to recognize another state's decision to allow gay marriage.
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2010, 04:03:40 PM
I have been following this thread and am genuinely confused. "Marriage" is not simply a "religious rite", it is a legal status with far reaching implications such as inheritance, tax, and child custody. Oklahoma defines marriage in Title 43 as follows:
43 O.S. §, 1.
For whatever reason, gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma and DOMA has pretty much made it impossible for one state to recognize another state's decision to allow gay marriage.
That's pretty much what we all agreed upon here, in so many words mind you. It takes us about five hours and four pages to form a cogent thought some times.
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2010, 04:03:40 PM
I have been following this thread and am genuinely confused. "Marriage" is not simply a "religious rite", it is a legal status with far reaching implications such as inheritance, tax, and child custody. Oklahoma defines marriage in Title 43 as follows:
43 O.S. §, 1.
For whatever reason, gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma and DOMA has pretty much made it impossible for one state to recognize another state's decision to allow gay marriage.
No, it's not just a religous right, but it is the religious meaning behind it that is sited as to why it should be refused to gays.
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 04:12:40 PM
No, it's not just a religous right, but it is the religious meaning behind it that is sited as to why it should be refused to gays.
You sound as if this is the first time you have learned that some of our laws are rooted in religion.
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2010, 04:32:46 PM
You sound as if this is the first time you have learned that some of our laws are rooted in religion.
yes, I know, plenty of laws have made it into the books because the majority of people were of this religion or that. Doesn't make it right.
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2010, 04:03:40 PM
I have been following this thread and am genuinely confused. "Marriage" is not simply a "religious rite", it is a legal status with far reaching implications such as inheritance, tax, and child custody. Oklahoma defines marriage in Title 43 as follows:
It is both, unfortunately. That's what causes it to be such a hot button issue. If it were just a religious rite and conferred no special benefit then it would be up to individual religions to decide how they want to treat it. If it were solely a legal thing, people wouldn't get so upset about same sex marriage being allowed under the law.
So, gay people want it for the legal benefits and others are against it due to their religious views. (which is silly, IMO, for the reasons I stated earlier)
The legal and religious concepts of marriage need to be separate.
As it stands, in some states two people simply can't enter into contracts that create a status similar to marriage, and even in places where there are civil unions or domestic partnerships and what have you, the pseudo-spouse often can have difficulty exercising a right to hospital visitation or to make medical decisions for their partner when the partner is unable to make those decisions on their own.
That doesn't even begin to get into issues of inheritance, custody of children, and the like, much less the smaller ones like the rights granted to spouses under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and others, which can be a big issue in some corner cases (in the case of the FCRA, the case of a non-working spouse having not having joint accounts reported on his/her report, which can be a big problem in case of divorce)
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 12:44:09 PM
The "civil union" part of it is where the government comes in and decides on if they can be together or not.
The government shouldn't be able to decide if a couple can be together or not. As long as they are consenting adults, then the government has no business getting involved.
Quote from: bugo on June 25, 2010, 05:48:31 PM
The government shouldn't be able to decide if a couple can be together or not. As long as they are consenting adults, then the government has no business getting involved.
let me rephrase, it's determines what benefits, if any, are dirived from the coupling. Now I have to ask, do you feel the same about polygamy?
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
let me rephrase, it's determines what benefits, if any, are dirived from the coupling. Now I have to ask, do you feel the same about polygamy?
Any person wanting to "marry" more than one other person at a time needs a psychiatric examination. Sometimes I think a person even getting "married" to only one person should be examined for a vacuum between the ears. It's a good way to lose your stuff. Even living together without the "benefit" of marriage won't prevent losing your stuff. Ask Clint Eastwood.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 10:01:28 PM
It's a good way to lose your stuff. Even living together without the "benefit" of marriage won't prevent losing your stuff.
For better or for worse, most states no longer recognize newly (the definition of newly varies by state, in Oklahoma, the cutoff was sometime in '97, IIRC) formed common law marriages.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 10:01:28 PM
Any person wanting to "marry" more than one other person at a time needs a psychiatric examination. Sometimes I think a person even getting "married" to only one person should be examined for a vacuum between the ears. It's a good way to lose your stuff. Even living together without the "benefit" of marriage won't prevent losing your stuff. Ask Clint Eastwood.
Well, sadism aside, how do you feel about a persons personal choice to be married to multiple partners? Should it be restricted legally? Or should a persons religious beliefs allow them to exponentially increase their own suffering?
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 10:12:18 PM
Well, sadism aside, how do you feel about a persons personal choice to be married to multiple partners? Should it be restricted legally? Or should a persons religious beliefs allow them to exponentially increase their own suffering?
I think the proper term is masochism.
I accept monogamy much as I accept other arbitrary laws. I don't know that it can actually be defended other than on a cultural basis and that property laws, child custody etc are already messy enough.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 10:34:29 PM
I think the proper term is masochism.
Sadist, masochist, one likes to hurt others, the other likes to be hurt, I just can't remember which is which.
Quote
I accept monogamy much as I accept other arbitrary laws. I don't know that it can actually be defended other than on a cultural basis and that property laws, child custody etc are already messy enough.
I can understand the need to have something in place to keep things simple. Something like you have to have a "primary" spouse for legal decisions and what not, and you can only claim being married once on your taxes. But I don't think that the law should dictate if a marraige situation is illegal if it does not hurt anyone, or violate serious moralities (like being married to a 13 year old, or your cousin).
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 11:02:19 PM
(like being married to a 13 year old, or your cousin).
Now you are imposing your morality. In some cultures, marrying a 1st cousin is acceptable. I can also imagine that marrying a 13 year old is acceptable in some cultures. I know my sister would be totally revolted, (and so would I) but if some culture allowed marrying siblings, would you object to that?
Your bias is showing.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 11:23:27 PM
Now you are imposing your morality. In some cultures, marrying a 1st cousin is acceptable. I can also imagine that marrying a 13 year old is acceptable in some cultures. I know my sister would be totally revolted, (and so would I) but if some culture allowed marrying siblings, would you object to that?
Your bias is showing.
I know your playing the devil's advocate here, but I'll play up the argument.
if a person is under the age of 18, is is expected, at least in this country, that they are not mature enough to make life dicisions for themselves. And to marry a minor would be concidered making a life choice for them, something that will effect them even beyond when they are of the age to make the choice themself.
As far as insestual (I have no idea if I spelled that right, and I really doubt I did) relationships, I have no problem with it, as long as they are of age, consenting, and steril. I can not agree to the pruduction of children from such a relationship because with such a tight gene pool, it runs a very high risk of birth defects. High enough that it does not justify taking the risk. Of course you also have to consider the pschological ramifications of such a relationship as well, and consider if it is a sign of poor mental health, which could be an indication of someone who might be a danger to society.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 25, 2010, 11:23:27 PM
Now you are imposing your morality. In some cultures, marrying a 1st cousin is acceptable. I can also imagine that marrying a 13 year old is acceptable in some cultures. I know my sister would be totally revolted, (and so would I) but if some culture allowed marrying siblings, would you object to that?
Several states allow 13 year olds (possibly even 12, I don't recall for sure) to marry with their parent's consent. I think 16 is the more common cutoff, though.
Bringing kids into the discussion probably isn't the best idea, given the thorny issues of consent involved.
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2010, 04:03:40 PM
For whatever reason, gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma and DOMA has pretty much made it impossible for one state to recognize another state's decision to allow gay marriage.
It's really not for whatever reason, it is religious reasons why gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma, and elsewhere.
And DOMA only says that states do not
have to recognize same sex marriage- but only explicity prohibits the federal govt from recognizing them.
There are 5 states, and D.C. that grant same sex marriages, as well as recognize all legal gay marriages, and 3 more states that recognize them but do not perform them, and there are 3 more states that grant pretty much the same rights to gays as they do to straights through a 'civil union' but the gays still cannot legally 'marry'.
It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the 'Perry vs Schwarzenegger' case under review right now regarding Prop 8. Experts are predicting it will go all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately could overturn DOMA, and the illegality of same sex marriage in the other 45 states. I have serious doubts however, given the current makeup of the SCOTUS.
The Obama administration has already vowed to overturn the highly discriminatory DOMA. I'm not holding my breath on that one either....
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 26, 2010, 04:29:24 PM
It's really not for whatever reason, it is religious reasons why gay marriages are not recognized in Oklahoma, and elsewhere.
And DOMA only says that states do not have to recognize same sex marriage- but only explicity prohibits the federal govt from recognizing them.
There are 5 states, and D.C. that grant same sex marriages, as well as recognize all legal gay marriages, and 3 more states that recognize them but do not perform them, and there are 3 more states that grant pretty much the same rights to gays as they do to straights through a 'civil union' but the gays still cannot legally 'marry'.
It will be interesting to see how the courts rule on the 'Perry vs Schwarzenegger' case under review right now regarding Prop 8. Experts are predicting it will go all the way to the Supreme Court, which ultimately could overturn DOMA, and the illegality of same sex marriage in the other 45 states. I have serious doubts however, given the current makeup of the SCOTUS.
The Obama administration has already vowed to overturn the highly discriminatory DOMA. I'm not holding my breath on that one either....
I've been reading reports on the Prop 8 trial, and it's amazing how the defense didn't even bother to present any evidence to support the ban on gay marriages. That's not an exaggeration. The defense didn't present *any* evidence to bolster its case. :o
Based on that alone, I can't see how the judge can do anything but rule for the plaintiffs.
Before jamesrage or some other fool blames the upcoming ruling on "liberal" judges or lawyers, it should be known that the judge in this case is a Bush appointee, and that the plaintiffs' lead attorney is Ted Olson, who worked for the Bush II administration and is an avowed conservative.
I am not sure what "evidence" has to be produced to establish that Prop 8 violates the fourteenth amendment's equal protection violation clause. In any case, these sort of constitutional violation trials are not just about the facts/evidence, it also is about the law as it is applied to these facts. This case will drag on for years and imho will be heading to the Supremes.
Quote from: rwarn17588 on June 26, 2010, 06:25:38 PM
I've been reading reports on the Prop 8 trial, and it's amazing how the defense didn't even bother to present any evidence to support the ban on gay marriages. That's not an exaggeration. The defense didn't present *any* evidence to bolster its case. :o
Based on that alone, I can't see how the judge can do anything but rule for the plaintiffs.
Before jamesrage or some other fool blames the upcoming ruling on "liberal" judges or lawyers, it should be known that the judge in this case is a Bush appointee, and that the plaintiffs' lead attorney is Ted Olson, who worked for the Bush II administration and is an avowed conservative.
Apparently, early on, the defense presented the TV show 'Will & Grace' as evidence that gays are not a discriminated class and are just as accepted socially as anyone.
I find it completely ironic that the defense has used the tactic of downplaying discrimination, in order to defend a totally discriminatory ban on marriage!
From what I've heard, Ted Olson and David Boies have done an outstanding job. It's really cool IMO that these guys chose to pursue this lawsuit because they knew it was the right thing to do, in spite of the ridicule and demonization from some of their conservative peers.
Quote from: custosnox on June 25, 2010, 06:32:16 PM
let me rephrase, it's determines what benefits, if any, are dirived from the coupling. Now I have to ask, do you feel the same about polygamy?
If all parties are consenting, I have no problem with polygamy. I wouldn't do it myself, but if somebody wants to it's their business.
Quote from: azbadpuppy on June 26, 2010, 07:55:43 PM
From what I've heard, Ted Olson and David Boies have done an outstanding job.
If you haven't seen it, you should watch Bill Moyers' discussion with them (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/profile.html) on his (now ended) show.
It's very enlightening as to the actual issues being raised.
I believe the Jews/Hebrews (I don't know the correct term for that era in history) were originally polygamous (many wives, doubt many husbands). I don't recall the details of converting to monogamy but that obviously followed into Christianity. Whether our most famous founding fathers were actually "Christians" or just believed in a supreme being is for another thread. The laws of our country though are obviously founded in Christian beliefs. That still does not make us a Christian nation such as the European countries of the Middle Ages when the King was still subservient to the Pope.
Quote from: nathanm on June 26, 2010, 08:45:12 PM
If you haven't seen it, you should watch Bill Moyers' discussion with them (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02262010/profile.html) on his (now ended) show.
It's very enlightening as to the actual issues being raised.
Thanks for linking to that.
One legal angle I'd forgotten was that 18,000 gay couples were married before Prop 8, but the courts allowed those marriages to stand. That's a clear case of California painting itself into a corner when you've got a certain number of gay couples who remain married and scores of others in that state who cannot. If anything, this incongruity bolsters the plaintiffs' case.
Meh, Olson's a toe-tapper
Sorry couldn't resist.
Sorry for the cultural ignorance but..... what is meh? Several posters have used it.
Sounds like "so what".
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 26, 2010, 11:06:55 PM
Sorry for the cultural ignorance but..... what is meh?
UrbanDictionary.com
MEH - "Indifference; to be used when one simply does not care."
Thanks, about what I thought.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 26, 2010, 09:51:09 PM
I believe the Jews/Hebrews (I don't know the correct term for that era in history) were originally polygamous (many wives, doubt many husbands). I don't recall the details of converting to monogamy but that obviously followed into Christianity. Whether our most famous founding fathers were actually "Christians" or just believed in a supreme being is for another thread. The laws of our country though are obviously founded in Christian beliefs. That still does not make us a Christian nation such as the European countries of the Middle Ages when the King was still subservient to the Pope.
A large portion of our founding fathers were christian, though a number of them were Deist and at least one that quiet possibly was an athiest (no sound proof one way or the other). As far as the laws being founded on Christian beliefs, that issue was cussed and discussed on the OKC monument thread.
Quote from: custosnox on June 27, 2010, 09:11:22 AM
As far as the laws being founded on Christian beliefs, that issue was cussed and discussed on the OKC monument thread.
True. This thread seemed to be asking where we got all our laws from. For further enlightenment, see the OKC monument thread.
Texas judge nixes death benefits for transgendered widow.
QuoteWHARTON, Texas (AP) -- A Texas judge has signed an order that voids the marriage of a transgender widow whose firefighter husband died battling a blaze.
The order prevents Nikki Araguz from receiving the death benefits of her firefighter husband, Thomas Araguz III, who died last year.
State District Judge Randy Clapp's ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by the firefighter's family. The suit claims his widow should collect nothing because she was born a man and Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriages.
In his ruling signed last week and made public Tuesday, the Wharton County judge said the marriage was "void as a matter of law."
Clapp's decision was first made known early last week after attorneys in the case saw a draft of the decision.
The widow has previously said she would appeal.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FIREFIGHTER_TRANSGENDER_WIDOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-05-31-19-27-23
Wow, that family are such jackasses.