California's Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='05 August 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1281040767' post='2152850']
I would like someone to rationally explain to me why lifelong partners of any kind (sibling, spouse, friend, gay partner) should be prevented from such things like having visitation rights to each other's deathbed, or act as their medical proxies, etc.
[/quote]
Already possible. Marriage not required.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='05 August 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1281068666' post='2153116']
Already possible. Marriage not required.
[/quote]

can you give me the non tl;dr version?

[Luigi]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='06 August 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1281069184' post='2153123']
can you give me the non tl;dr version?
[/quote]
State laws assume degrees of relatedness - parents exercise rights with regard to children; a spouse exercises rights with regard to her/his spouse; in the absence of a spouse, a child or children exercise rights in regard to parents. But unrelated strangers cannot exercise rights with regard to unrelated strangers (otherwise, I'd be able to walk in off the street and demand that they pull the plug on your grandfather or something), even if they've lived with each other for a lifetime. When I think of it this way, marriage is an official act that "relates" two unrelated stangers. Unrelated strangers can get around this by the writing of contracts - power of attorney and that kind of thing; by putting both names on joint bank accounts, insurance policies, next-of-kin-notification forms, and so forth; and for medical purposes, I think one can use a living will.

This is the kind of thing everyone should be familiar with - I don't what it should be called... "basic knowledge of the law"... "personal law"... "law as it relates to me"... something like that.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Luigi

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Luigi' date='06 August 2010 - 12:42 AM' timestamp='1281069775' post='2153135']
State laws assume degrees of relatedness - parents exercise rights with regard to children; a spouse exercises rights with regard to her/his spouse; in the absence of a spouse, a child or children exercise rights in regard to parents. But unrelated strangers cannot exercise rights with regard to unrelated strangers (otherwise, I'd be able to walk in off the street and demand that they pull the plug on your grandfather or something), even if they've lived with each other for a lifetime. When I think of it this way, marriage is an official act that "relates" two unrelated stangers.

This is the kind of thing everyone should be familiar with - I don't what it should be called... "basic knowledge of the law"... "personal law"... "law as it relates to me"... something like that.
[/quote]
However, you can appoint whomever you chose to be your power of attorney for medical matters, in which case that person could/would be told of your condition and be put in charge of the medical decisions should you be incapacitated. Therefore, the "they can't visit their life partner on their deathbed" is a non-issue.

[Resurrexi]

Guys, how can we fight discrimination and homophobia? The world today is so intolerant.

[Luigi]

[quote name='MissScripture' date='06 August 2010 - 12:47 AM' timestamp='1281070022' post='2153142']
However, you can appoint whomever you chose to be your power of attorney for medical matters, in which case that person could/would be told of your condition and be put in charge of the medical decisions should you be incapacitated. Therefore, the "they can't visit their life partner on their deathbed" is a non-issue.
[/quote]
This is exactly the part I forgot to write in my original post; I went back and edited it, but you must have been writing at the same time. I think you made the point more emphatically than I did.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Luigi

[Luigi]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='06 August 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1281070329' post='2153144']
Guys, how can we fight discrimination and homophobia? The world today is so intolerant.


[/quote]
We can [b]STAMP! IT! OUT![/b] at [b]EVERY[/b] TURN, [b]EVERY[/b] TIME we see ANY LITTLE [i][b]BIT[/b][/i] OF IT!

[Socrates]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='05 August 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1281032688' post='2152761']
Yes, I did see it. As I said before, doing away with marriage by the state altogether would be fine with me. I know it wouldn't be fine with you and a lot of other people, and [i]probably[/i] not the Church, then again, it's completely fine with the Church (particularly in the US) that the US doesn't enforce control of its borders (particularly the southern one). That, however, is a completely different can of worms that I'm not willing to open. Just something to think about.[/quote]
Red herring.

The CDF makes a number of strong arguments for the state supporting the institution of the family, which you have failed to address, but have instead tried to change the topic to enforcement of border control, which is entirely unrelated to the topic of "gay marriage" and "civil unions." Let's keep this on topic, please.


[quote]Y'know, actually, on second thought, I'll get into it a little bit. For centuries, the Church and a multitude of states in Europe were intertwined. Since the rise of democracy (which I'm sure you're a fan of), the Church has lost a lot of the influence and power that it once enjoyed. Marriage, a largely social and cultural sacrament, was built into the fabric of society due to this. Marriage is a long-standing tradition, often cited to be older than the state itself. What I'm getting at is the idea of defending a tradition, especially one as good and as old as marriage, is definitely noble. However, to avoid things like this (events in California and other states so far), I think it would be best if the US just got rid of marriage by the state altogether, give civil unions (which the state itself can morally define) and leave marriage to those with the power invested in them from God to recognize.[/quote]
I've heard that argument before, and I don't really buy it. While "getting the state out of marriage altogether" may be preferable to the state enshrining homosexual activity as legally equal to marriage, it really doesn't do anything to help support marriage and the family either. Raising a family is expensive and can be financially burdensome - thus the tax cuts and such. Also, legally recognizing marriage makes issues regarding transfer of property and such easier.
If marriages between a man and woman are not recognized at all by the state, then they are not legally recognized as having any more importance or value than a couple merely temporarily shacked up, a homosexual couple in a sodomitic "relationship," or just any group of roommates.

And, as the Church has often pointed out, marriage is more than just a noble "tradition," but is something fundamental to human society itself. Neither is it only a religious institution, but is a natural institution at the root of human society. Thus, it is something that should be recognized and supported by society, rather than ignored or opposed.
You will note the Church is not just against homosexual "marriage," but "civil unions" as well, which give homosexual couples benefits and privileges equivalent to those of marriage.
I think we need to look at the reasons why the state gives legal recognition and benefits to marriage in the first place.

Marriage and the family ought to be encouraged and supported by society and the state, which, as the Church teaches, has an obligation to uphold the common good.

I don't buy the popular modern idea that morality must be completely separated from public policy - an idea which has already done untold damage in modern society.


[quote]If the Church in the US and elsewhere, however, continues to recognize this responsibility of the state to promote marriage, yet fails miserably to recognize the sovereignty of an independent state to make its own laws and to regulate who comes in and goes out, that's a bit lopsided, don't you think? I know this is slightly off-topic, but I think it's a point worth examining. And by examining, I don't mean ticking off snarky point after point. *coughsocratescough* [/quote]
Then, by all means start another thread on it. I'd be happy to discuss those issues, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. A state protecting its borders is not intrinsically immoral, but sodomy, and its legal promotion as equal to marriage, are. The CDF posesses a lot more binding authority than the USCCB, anyways, but let's keep this on topic, shall we.

You've largely ignored what Cardinal Ratzinger has to say on this topic, and tried to derail the discussion off on various different tangents.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='05 August 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1281040072' post='2152844']
It isn't a question of "benefits because they're sodomites," it's a question of the fact that no one has the right to prevent me from making a contract with a friend or even my [i]brother or sister[/i] to receive certain contractual benefits, in case of illness or death. But what's more? No one has the right to [i]force[/i] you to provide me with any benefits through the detriment (taking money) of others, married or not. There is a problem with [i]anyone[/i] getting special favors to the detriment of others, for [i]any[/i] reason, whether that "reason" is that two people are married or a sodomite couple.

Do the sodomites have a right to engage in sodomy? No. Do you have the right to lie? No. Does a law being passed to [i]not[/i] use violence against you for telling a lie an act of "supporting lying?" No! Just because something is immoral does not necessarily mean one may use violence in order to put an end to it. Or, in your estimation, [i]is[/i] there a right to use violence to prevent others from making mutually voluntary contracts?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
Legal recognition of marriage is not to the detriment of others. I was single for a long time, and other people's marriages being recognized by the state did not hurt me in the slightest.

The contractual benefits you mentioned can already be legally arranged by power of attorney. There's absolutely no necessity for homosexual "marriage" or "civil unions" for those reasons. The push for "gay marriage" in reality has nothing to do with being able to visit sick or dying friends (something which any non-married persons can arrange), but everything to do with publicly exalting homosexual sodomy to be the equal of marriage between man and woman.
It is the pushing of a false ideology at odds with both Christian religion and natural law.

Your talk about laws recognizing marriage between man and woman being "violence" is pure nonsensical drivel.
As I don't buy your anarchist ideology, it carries no weight with me.
(And why a self-proclaimed "anarchist" would come out in favor of the state giving recognition to homosexual "unions" is utterly beyond me, anyways.)
Again, you might want to read that CDF document I linked to if you're interested in how the Church views this issue.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Socrates

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Luigi' date='06 August 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1281071715' post='2153162']
This is exactly the part I forgot to write in my original post; I went back and edited it, but you must have been writing at the same time. I think you made the point more emphatically than I did.
[/quote]
It's one argument that really bugs me, because it's completely incorrect, and it (power of attorney stuff) is something I have to know about because I am going to be working in healthcare.

At any rate, even if someone ISN'T the POA, I've honestly never seen anyone (while I was doing clinicals for 2 months in a hospital) turned away from visiting someone just because they aren't family, unless the staff has specifically been told by the patient that someone is not allowed to visit. Pretty much if you know the person's name and you ask at the desk what room they're in, you'll be told where they are. You may not be allowed to know their medical information per HIPPA laws, but you'll at least be able to see them in the hospital (though this does differ with ICU stuff). And again, even if someone is not POA, you can tell the hospital to release your medical information to them. So all in all, I find that argument one of the lamest out there...Granted, if you are incapacitated in an accident or something, then you can't tell the hospital any of this, but that's why you should have POA stuff set up.

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Socrates' date='06 August 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1281117310' post='2153314']
Red herring.

The CDF makes a number of strong arguments for the state supporting the institution of the family, which you have failed to address, but have instead tried to change the topic to enforcement of border control, which is entirely unrelated to the topic of "gay marriage" and "civil unions." Let's keep this on topic, please.[/quote]

Actually, I'm going to disagree with that assessment.

While the topics themselves are unrelated, yes, the ramifications for society concerning both are actually similar. The Church urges the state to protect the dignity of the family to what end? The preservation of society. Why does the US enforce border control? For the same reason. Our economy is in shambles. Spending is out of control. Unemployment is up like never before. At the center of all of this are millions of people who came to this country illegally. They're working jobs. Their children are going to school. They're receiving ER care with absolutely no charge to them whatsoever. They're receiving benefits from government programs that are should be exclusively for those of our own country (some who need it, some who are too lazy to get it themselves). Meanwhile, bishops in the US in areas that are affected most by this tragedy are on the side of the criminals and not the victims. This is absurd when the money that the Church makes comes directly from the hands of the parishioners, the ones who are looking for jobs, the ones who are being terrorized by the violence of some of these illegal immigrants. Earlier this week, two Catholic nuns were gravely injured and one was killed by a drunk illegal immigrant on the road with multiple DUIs who had never been deported. By supporting the "rights" of these illegals, these bishops are hurting not only the Church, but the state as well. We're already in enough trouble. We simply don't want to deal with anymore.

If gays are allowed to marry by the state, there will be social ramifications, yes. However, the economic ones won't be nearly as devastating as the ones that are affecting us RIGHT NOW with the illegal immigration issue. I don't need to address any statements that the CDF made. I already admitted that the Church supports the state's duty to protect marriage and the family. I know that the cause is a good one. I'm just saying that there are more important things. The number one issue that many people have with the overturning of Prop 8 isn't what it overturned, but the fact that the will of the people was overturned in the first place. While the law that was declared unconstitutional is important, the fact that the vote of 52% of the state doesn't matter to a non-elected civil servant is even more important in the eyes of many Americans, myself included.


[quote]I've heard that argument before, and I don't really buy it. While "getting the state out of marriage altogether" may be preferable to the state enshrining homosexual activity as legally equal to marriage, it really doesn't do anything to help support marriage and the family either. Raising a family is expensive and can be financially burdensome - thus the tax cuts and such. Also, legally recognizing marriage makes issues regarding transfer of property and such easier.
If marriages between a man and woman are not recognized at all by the state, then they are not legally recognized as having any more importance or value than a couple merely temporarily shacked up, a homosexual couple in a sodomitic "relationship," or just any group of roommates.[/quote]

How do you reckon that getting the state out of marriage and having it offer everyone civil unions while you can go get married for real at your place of worship is "preferable to the state enshrining homosexual activity as legally equal to marriage"? If marriage by the state doesn't exist, it can't be equal to marriage. If anything, people rallying for "equality" will finally shut up because technically, they'll have it, just not the way you're saying it.

[quote]
Marriage and the family ought to be encouraged and supported by society and the state, which, as the Church teaches, has an obligation to uphold the common good.[/quote]

HA. HA. HA. Funny you should say that, since you also said that you don't think that the state exercising its sovereignty and protecting its borders from leeches and murderers is necessary even though anyone with a brain can see that it would certainly "uphold the common good". This just goes to the heart of the "red herring" that I brought up. The Church wants to throw its no-longer-existent weight around and promote traditional marriage. Great! Why isn't it doing the same thing when it concerns illegal immigration and border control? It's not even the fact that criminals and parasites are sucking us dry. It's the fact that the US as an independent state has sovereignty and it should be upheld as well. With the added factor of leeches and such, I don't think anything that they've managed to present as a reason for their stance can qualify as coherent thought. As I said before, [s]a bit[/s] really lopsided.

[quote]I don't buy the popular modern idea that morality must be completely separated from public policy - an idea which has already done untold damage in modern society.[/quote]

I don't buy the idea that morality should be separate from public policy either. I'm just not of the mind that there's more than one way to implement a solution to a problem. I don't think that homosexuals should have the right to marry (as marriage itself isn't a "right" anyway).

[quote]Then, by all means start another thread on it. I'd be happy to discuss those issues, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. A state protecting its borders is not intrinsically immoral, but sodomy, and its legal promotion as equal to marriage, are. The CDF posesses a lot more binding authority than the USCCB, anyways, but let's keep this on topic, shall we.
[/quote]

I believe you meant to say a state [i]not[/i] protecting its borders.

I also believe that you're going a [i]bit[/i] far to say that the state ceding its appropriation of marriages equates to legally promoting homosexual acts to the same dignity of marriage.

[quote]You've largely ignored what Cardinal Ratzinger has to say on this topic, and tried to derail the discussion off on various different tangents.[/quote]

"[V]arious different tangents"? I've only injected one thought into the discussion that involved one other topic.

Edited August 6, 2010 by iheartjp2

[Nihil Obstat]

[iheartjp2]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='06 August 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1281123179' post='2153348']

[/quote]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='05 August 2010 - 04:39 PM' timestamp='1281040767' post='2152850']
I would like someone to rationally explain to me why lifelong partners of any kind (sibling, spouse, friend, gay partner) should be prevented from such things like having visitation rights to each other's deathbed, or act as their medical proxies, etc.
[/quote]
I've visited more than one completely unrelated person on his deathbed. I think the supposed stories are excrement.

You can designate anyone to power of attorney, and will your property to anyone.

[Socrates]

[quote name='iheartjp2' date='06 August 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1281121340' post='2153343']
Actually, I'm going to disagree with that assessment.

While the topics themselves are unrelated, yes, the ramifications for society concerning both are actually similar. The Church urges the state to protect the dignity of the family to what end? The preservation of society. Why does the US enforce border control? For the same reason. Our economy is in shambles. Spending is out of control. Unemployment is up like never before. At the center of all of this are millions of people who came to this country illegally. They're working jobs. Their children are going to school. They're receiving ER care with absolutely no charge to them whatsoever. They're receiving benefits from government programs that are should be exclusively for those of our own country (some who need it, some who are too lazy to get it themselves). Meanwhile, bishops in the US in areas that are affected most by this tragedy are on the side of the criminals and not the victims. This is absurd when the money that the Church makes comes directly from the hands of the parishioners, the ones who are looking for jobs, the ones who are being terrorized by the violence of some of these illegal immigrants. Earlier this week, two Catholic nuns were gravely injured and one was killed by a drunk illegal immigrant on the road with multiple DUIs who had never been deported. By supporting the "rights" of these illegals, these bishops are hurting not only the Church, but the state as well. We're already in enough trouble. We simply don't want to deal with anymore.[/quote]
Dude, what part of "keep it on topic" do you not understand?

You're free to discuss illegal immigration and securing borders in another thread (but don't expect any debate from me on it, because I totally agree with you there).
That's hardly an argument against keeping legal marriage between a man and a woman.

[quote]If gays are allowed to marry by the state, there will be social ramifications, yes. However, the economic ones won't be nearly as devastating as the ones that are affecting us RIGHT NOW with the illegal immigration issue. I don't need to address any statements that the CDF made. I already admitted that the Church supports the state's duty to protect marriage and the family. I know that the cause is a good one. I'm just saying that there are more important things. The number one issue that many people have with the overturning of Prop 8 isn't what it overturned, but the fact that the will of the people was overturned in the first place. While the law that was declared unconstitutional is important, the fact that the vote of 52% of the state doesn't matter to a non-elected civil servant is even more important in the eyes of many Americans, myself included.
[/quote]
So you don't consider the issue important because it is a moral issue, rather than economic?
I'd say the complete breakdown of moral standards in society is at least as big as devastating to society when you look at the big picture.
I agree, of course, about the horrendous ruling by a federal judge to overturn the will of the people, in blatant defiance of the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

[quote]How do you reckon that getting the state out of marriage and having it offer everyone civil unions while you can go get married for real at your place of worship is "preferable to the state enshrining homosexual activity as legally equal to marriage"? If marriage by the state doesn't exist, it can't be equal to marriage. If anything, people rallying for "equality" will finally shut up because technically, they'll have it, just not the way you're saying it.
[/quote]
I don't think sodomitic "unions" are deserving of legal equality with marriage between man and woman. And neither does the Church. That's the whole point.


[quote]HA. HA. HA. Funny you should say that, since you also said that you don't think that the state exercising its sovereignty and protecting its borders from leeches and murderers is necessary even though anyone with a brain can see that it would certainly "uphold the common good". This just goes to the heart of the "red herring" that I brought up. The Church wants to throw its no-longer-existent weight around and promote traditional marriage. Great! Why isn't it doing the same thing when it concerns illegal immigration and border control? It's not even the fact that criminals and parasites are sucking us dry. It's the fact that the US as an independent state has sovereignty and it should be upheld as well. With the added factor of leeches and such, I don't think anything that they've managed to present as a reason for their stance can qualify as coherent thought. As I said before, [s]a bit[/s] really lopsided.
[/quote]
Again, a complete non-argument with regards to the "gay marriage" issue.

Or is your point that since "the Church" (ie. the USCCB, a body with no magisterial authority) is wrong about SB 1070 and illegal immigration, therefore the Church is wrong about everything, and should just shut up about moral issues, keep its nose out of public affairs, and stick to organizing Friday night fish fries and Saturday night bingo?


[quote]I don't buy the idea that morality should be separate from public policy either. I'm just not of the mind that there's more than one way to implement a solution to a problem. I don't think that homosexuals should have the right to marry (as marriage itself isn't a "right" anyway).



I believe you meant to say a state [i]not[/i] protecting its borders.[/quote]
I meant to say exactly what I said.

[quote]I also believe that you're going a [i]bit[/i] far to say that the state ceding its appropriation of marriages equates to legally promoting homosexual acts to the same dignity of marriage.[/quote]
That's exactly what it does. Legally, there is no difference between a real marriage and a homosexual one.


[quote]
"[V]arious different tangents"? I've only injected one thought into the discussion that involved one other topic.[/quote]
You've talked about a lot things, but very little to address the arguments Card. Ratzinger made in that CDF document, which you've dismissed off-hand.

If you want to talk about immigration and protecting borders, start another thread about that topic. It's not that hard to do.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Socrates