Posted on 03/24/2009 7:53:44 AM PDT by SmithL
At California's historic hearing on Proposition 8 earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin briefly imagined a scenario that might solve the legal conflict over a gay marriage ban.
What if the government were to get out of the "marriage business," Ming asked, and issue civil-union licenses to both straight and gay couples?
The justices agreed such a change would have to be handled by the Legislature, and discussion closed.
But outside the court, the question still hung in the air.
On March 10, five days after the court hearing, two California college students got the OK from state election officials to try to put Ming's question before voters.
The students are circulating petitions for a ballot initiative that would strike the word "marriage" from state laws and substitute "domestic partnership."
The change would keep all the rights of marriage now on the books. But it would nullify Proposition 8 and make the new partnership category applicable to both gay and straight.
"We want to take marriage out of the battlefield," said Ali Shams, a University of California, San Diego, student who co-authored the language.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
We have a winner!
It will not only destroy the institution of family further but will also further destroy our right to representation. This compromise is one that states that people should not have a say on the issue of how the states recognizes sexuality.
It’s more about destroying God’s first human institution - marriage and family.
This is what the left, and their god of this world, are after - the destruction of the family as the primary unit for training and raising children and passing on traditional values.
No compromise in defense of marriage.
In general terms, this has been used as the reasoning behind the massive government expansion over the last 70 years.
So then what issues do you believe that people have a right to have representation on? Since I guess you don’t believe that we should be allowed to make laws regarding sexuality as you are claiming that will expand government too much.
Agreed. The People have a right to representation in defining marriage or in defining right and wrong in regards to sexuality. It is this right to have representation on issues of sexuality in society that the leftwing wants to take away.
The Catholic Church recognizes the marriages of non-Catholics as valid; and the marriages of baptized non-Catholics as valid and sacramental.
Otherwise, you could have Catholics running around getting married to other people's spouses, and then saying, "But it's OK, because they weren't really married." This is false.
Marriage was instituted before Catholicism, before Judaism even, at the dawn of the human race. What it requires is a man, a woman, the sincere consent to marry, and natural intercourse, the act which consummates marriage.
However, if either partner is a Catholic, the Catholic is bound by the requirement that Catholics be married in the Catholic Church. Otherwise the Catholic Church will not recognize the validity of the marriage.
In other words, the Catholic Church is saying, "We recognize that all kinds of people --- not just Catholics --- get married. We respect that. But if you ARE a Catholic --- then hey, buddy, your are obliged to be married in the Catholic Church."
Catholics who are married outside the Church--- possibly because of ignorance of the requirement --- and then want to make things right, usually do not have any difficulty in getting the marriage covalidated (blessed.)
You're right in saying the State has no essential role in this.
You'd also be right in saying that under no circumstances could two men or two women do this (marry), because same-sex people cannot do the marriage-defining act: have natural intercourse with each other.
I’m not certain that this has not been an acceptable plan “B” all along...
I can’t even be certain that this was not plan “A” all along...
And, you could argue that it is none of the government’s business. I agree that the traditional definition of marriage should remain unchanged. I do not think that the meaning of words should be shaped by law. I do not think that a person should have a reasonable expectation that the government should force everyone to say that “blue” is “green” in order please “blue.” This does not deny them equality. It simply preserves the integrity of language. And, the integrity of language is –very- important in order to communicate clearly. A left and a right shoe together are a “pair.” Two left shoes nor two right shoes together are not a “pair.” Either ought to be able to do as they please, but neither is a pair. No amount of legislation can change that reality. It can only obscure that reality by destroying the meaning of the word, “pair.”
The government should not tell us how to live, what to eat, whom to marry, how long to sleep, what kind of car we should drive, etc.
Moral issues are not a matter of the state. It ought to be plain to see that we do –not- want the government to be the arbiter of what is moral and what is not. Freedom of conscience is no small thing. We cannot champion freedom of conscience while simultaneously surrendering the moral domain to the government. We must claim morality as our own, independent from the state. Our Constitution depends on the morality of the people. You can’t legislate morality. We should not try to do so, except where legislation is necessary to protect another person (of any age, from conception to natural death) from harm.
We cannot insist on our rights while insist that the rights of others be restricted. There are better places to focus our efforts.
JMHO
Morality is the human determination of right and wrong. All issues are moral issues. Every law is in essence dictating morality of one sort or another.
And the government most certainly should define what right or wrong in public areas.
Anyone could claim that they are marryed to eachother in private. Who cares?
This is an issue of what society deems as right or wrong for itself.
How about describing the three most serious consequences of having the government completely ignore the marriage status of individuals. Why are you convinced that marriage needs government help to succeed? I don't perceive any benefit to MY marriage in the law.
The government is the final say in how society operates. Check out the happiness quotient of Somalians for a lesson on the success of anarchy.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said marriage NEEDS government help. Nor did I make any statement about established marriages.
However, the act of removing state recognition of marriage will provide an implication, especially to those without a strong moral grounding, that marriage is no longer important. A 'marriage', whether a state-recognized marriage or a religious sacrament, still carries a status that is greater than a simple legal agreement. A couple that is stressed may seek to save their marriage, but may not seek to save their legal agreement. Couples may enter into and break legal agreements with ease, and perhaps produce children in the process, without the stigma associated with breaking a marriage up.
I appreciate the clarification.
1) Consequence number one would be that marriage has no legal definition in society. In essence it could mean anything and that is how state run schools will teach it to our children. Thus further destroying the institution of marriage and the family unit.
2) Consequence number two will be that the People are being told that they have no right to define marriage for the society that they live in. Thus further destroying our right to representation on issues of sexuality.
3) Consequence number three will be that it would be a victory for those who want to use the state (the Court) to force people to have to accept homosexuality and other forms of sexuality as being equal top heterosexuality.
I recently had dealings with a neighbor who was so convinced of the value of recycling that she sought community action to force people to recycle.
To my mind, if the benefits of recycling are so weak that social coercion must be used to create behavior that would otherwise not occur, then it becomes obvious that the recycling itself is of very little value.
Do you picture heterosexual marriage the same way? Is the benefit of encouraging and recognizing lasting monogamous, heterosexual unions so marginal that state sanction must be used or "marriage" will cease to have the importance that we might wish it to have?
If the state had never meddled in the institution of marriage, would we have the divorce laws that we now have? My parents were Catholic and it simply didn't matter that the state permitted divorce. The Church did not permit it.
So was Ming Chin an accomplished jurist deserving of a seat on the state’s highest court?
Or another instance of reverse discrimination?
Well obviously the concept of marriage, family and heterosexuality is weak enough that we now have scores of people running around saying that homosexuality is normal and should be treated as equal to heterosexuality and that marriage should be however anyone wants it to be defined.
Also we do not have the right to association in this country. Discrimination law suits are common. By saying that the state has no right in the marriage business will still not stop the leftwing from trying to make it illegal (by penalty of lawsuit) to not recognize homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality. They will simply continue to bring lawsuits against anyone who does not agree with them. So no matter what the state will still be involved in this issue. We will simply have agreed to let them bully us into having no representation on the issue of marriage, family and sexuality in open society.
How can a partnership be limited to two people? That seems illogical and discriminatory, not to mention at odds with general partnership law.
In any event if California gets out of the marriage business it won’t be able to prosecute anyone for bigamy/polygamy any more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.