Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

WinterBorn said:
Which leads us back to the original topic of gay marriage. No state can deny them access to marriage solely on religious ideaology. And outside of religious reasons, there is no valid reason for banning gay marriage.

Although I still maintain that the states should have no part of religious rituals. Let churches marry whoever they want. And it will be valid in that church.

If the state issues a licence for civil unions, and there are benefits to that union, let them be issued to all who fit the criteria of concenting adult. And those who marry in a church will need to have a separate civil union licence to gain the benefits.
Click to expand...
I believe that the argument can be made that the State has no power to legislate religious definitions at all and that their mucking about in Marriage is an overstep of government power and a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Licensing "unions" is just a way around it. They can apply contract law without licensing people's personal relationships.
 
WinterBorn said:
SCOTUS has consistently ruled otherwise. And they are the authority on the matter.
Click to expand...

Again:
That's why I put little stock on legal precedence. To me its like that "telephone" game that we played in elementary school: everyone gets into a circle and the first kid whispers something to the kid on his right, then the message goes around the room. When it gates back to kid #1 it's nothing like the original message.

I prefer to read the original message, which in this case is the Constitution, and interpret it in the context of the day that it was written. Since its a plain language document it is easy for me, a plain language type, to interpret correctly. If I need a little guidance I look for the Federalist for the thoughts of the Founders.

Some weenie Judge [or Judges] can't negate the work of the founders.
Click to expand...

WinterBorn said:
The US Constitution?
Click to expand...

Read much?
 
Southern Man said:
Again:



Read much?
Click to expand...

Yes, I read quite a bit. And I have read numerous accounts of the SCOTUS shooting down attempts to combine religion and gov't.

The separation of church & state is a fact of life. Your continued denial of it changes nothing.


Whether you put stock in legal precedences or not does not change the fact that they are the law of the land.
 
Southern Man said:
What could be more official to State law then its own Constitution?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

This is just foolish. Some of the Southern states still have anti-mixed marriage written into their constitutions, it isn't enforceable, it isn't their official stance yet people voted to leave it in as an historical reference. It doesn't make it "official" or even "legal".

Quit being so deliberately obtuse. It makes you appear as constantly naive, foolish, and incapable of presenting an argument from reality.

We understand in your "perfect" world all laws would glorify your religion, but here you don't get to see that as a reality even at the state level.
 
Damocles said:
I believe that the argument can be made that the State has no power to legislate religious definitions at all and that their mucking about in Marriage is an overstep of government power and a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Licensing "unions" is just a way around it. They can apply contract law without licensing people's personal relationships.
Click to expand...
They are not legislating religious definitions, but using the traditional definition, worked out over centuries and found to be the most beneficial to a civil society, as a basis for the legal definition. You've resorted to another straw man.
 
Southern Man said:
They are not legislating religious definitions, but using the traditional definition, worked out over centuries and found to be the most beneficial to a civil society, as a basis for the legal definition. You've resorted to another straw man.
Click to expand...

The benefits that the gov't bestows on married people is not teh results of centuries.

If you want to maintain the religious definitions, do so without the benefits of the state.

And allow other religions to use their definitions.
 
Damocles said:
:rolleyes:

This is just foolish. Some of the Southern states still have anti-mixed marriage written into their constitutions, it isn't enforceable, it isn't their official stance yet people voted to leave it in as an historical reference. It doesn't make it "official" or even "legal".

Quit being so deliberately obtuse. It makes you appear as constantly naive, foolish, and incapable of presenting an argument from reality.

We understand in your "perfect" world all laws would glorify your religion, but here you don't get to see that as a reality even at the state level.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you can quote a particular passage of a particular State Constitution states this, otherwise you're being obtuse. I, however, am writing plainly, in spite of your absurd assertion otherwise.
 
Southern Man said:
They are not legislating religious definitions, but using the traditional definition, worked out over centuries and found to be the most beneficial to a civil society, as a basis for the legal definition. You've resorted to another straw man.
Click to expand...
"Traditional" is simply code-word for "religious" in this case.

It is not the government's place to protect this particular religious tradition.
 
Southern Man said:
Perhaps you can quote a particular passage of a particular State Constitution states this, otherwise you're being obtuse. I, however, am writing plainly, in spite of your absurd assertion otherwise.
Click to expand...
Please. We had threads where Dixie defended that particular vote. I don't need to "prove" what was already spoken about ad nauseam on this site.

http://www.slate.com/id/30352 Here is a link to where the state Senate voted to finally remove the provision in the Alabama Constitution in 1999... 1999! Yes, 32 years after the Virginia case that struck down such laws as unconstitutional, Alabama kept it on the books (and their Constitution) for 32 years, unenforced and unenforceable as a historical reference.

Your ignorance notwithstanding, the 1st Amendment is "incorporated" and applies to all levels of government. While some states have historical reference (particularly Southern states) left in their constitutions of currently unconstitutional laws, it doesn't change that North Carolina, nor any other state, cannot be officially "Christian" as a legislative body.
 
WinterBorn said:
The benefits that the gov't bestows on married people is not teh results of centuries.

If you want to maintain the religious definitions, do so without the benefits of the state.

And allow other religions to use their definitions.
Click to expand...

In NC, and to the best of my knowledge every other State in the US, does not allow certain types of marriages that would be sanctioned by certain religions. These include multiple spouses, first cousins, and to or amongst children. Instead we have settled on a traditional definition, again worked through by centuries of refinement.
 
Damocles said:
Please. We had threads where Dixie defended that particular vote. I don't need to "prove" what was already spoken about ad nauseam on this site.

Your ignorance notwithstanding, the 1st Amendment is "incorporated" and applies to all levels of government. While some states have historical reference (particularly Southern states) left in their constitutions of currently unconstitutional laws, it doesn't change that North Carolina, nor any other state, cannot be officially "Christian" as a legislative body.
Click to expand...
Yet the plain language of the NC Constitution says otherwise. Curious.
 
Southern Man said:
In NC, and to the best of my knowledge every other State in the US, does not allow certain types of marriages that would be sanctioned by certain religions. These include multiple spouses, first cousins, and to or amongst children. Instead we have settled on a traditional definition, again worked through by centuries of refinement.
Click to expand...

As long as it fits with what you are comfortable with, thats fine? lol

This is gov't meddling on an epic scale.
 
Southern Man said:
Yet the plain language of the NC Constitution says otherwise. Curious.
Click to expand...
Again. Historical references notwithstanding. Deliberately obtuse is not a form of argument, it is simply deliberate ignorance and you waste our time "arguing" the ridiculous.

Your State cannot have an official religion any more than any other state can.
 
Southern Man said:
Post 251.
Click to expand...
Post 249.

Traditionally the government had nothing to do with marriage. Licensing is a recent provision exercised by the government, first to control certain types of marriages (inter-racial) and continued to gain money. If one were protecting tradition, they'd be arguing to remove the government from this institution, not to continue it as this is recent government intrusion into people's lives.

This was simply an overreach of government power, stepping into religious territory to support and define into law the religious beliefs of the majority.

Saying it is "traditional" is like saying an illegal immigrant is an "undocumented worker"...
 
Damocles said:
Post 249.

Traditionally the government had nothing to do with marriage. Licensing is a recent provision exercised by the government, first to control certain types of marriages (inter-racial) and to gain money. If one were protecting tradition, they'd be arguing to remove the government from this institution, not to continue it.

This was simply an overreach of government power, stepping into religious territory to support and define into law the religious beliefs of the majority.

Saying it is "traditional" is like saying an illegal immigrant is an "undocumented worker"...
Click to expand...

Therein lies the crux of the matter. The gov't interference.
 
Damocles said:
Again. Historical references notwithstanding. Deliberately obtuse is not a form of argument, it is simply deliberate ignorance and you waste our time "arguing" the ridiculous.

Your State cannot have an official religion any more than any other state can.
Click to expand...
The NC Constitution is current law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top