Marriage - secular or religious

Remove all ads!

I don't need to.

Nor should it be. The courts' job is to interpret the law, not the will of the people, which is why our founders chose to appoint our Supreme Court Justices for life.

That's because the third year and the third parliament wasn't explicitely mentioned in my post.

Too lazy to read Exodus, Deuteronomy, or Leviticus, huh?

The Pharisees came after Deuteronomy was finished, and Exodus is even older. Try again. At the time, they had a theocratic government, not a secular one.

If you still don't understand that there is more than one view of marriage than just the Christian one, you are hopeless. It is you who is trying to make everyone else conform to your standard. The secular notion of marriage is that not everyone has the same notion of marriage. Each religion should be allowed to practice marriage as it sees fit. Since not every religion sees marriage in the same light or allows the same people to marry, this means that the government has to legalize unions that some churches may not themselves practice or endorse...because other religions do. That said, I wouldn't be against replacing all references to marriage in our constitutions and other by-laws with the term "civil union" if - and only if - it would finally end this pointless debate.

Taking the Lord's name in vain, worshiping other deities, worshiping idols, working on the sabbath, disrespecting your parents, committing adultery, and coveting you're neighbor's stuff have all been legal since this nation's inception, but the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth commandments are all still there. If gay marriage is legalized, they won't re-write the bible...and church doctrine won't be changed.

No. I think that every religion and every belief system requires protecteion from every other religion and belief system. Without the separation of Church and State that you hate so much, your religion wouldn't even exist. Talk about ungrateful...

I wasn't talking about your personal life. I was talking about the isolating effects of living in a bubble where you refuse to acknowledge that different people have different points of view. It makes your world - and your mind - a whole lot smaller. Whatever personal problems you may have are none of my business, but judging from your response, it looks like I hit a nerve.

And both were written hundreds of years after the Church was stripped of its dominant role in governance. The doctrine of separation of Church and state was actually a step up from what came before.

I'm not the one arguing that we should elevate one religion's view of marriage over all the others. You are. I'm arguing that each individual religion should have the right to practice marriage as it sees fit, not that Mormons should be required to perform gay marriages.

This is a perfect example of the way you pluck little items completely out of context, ignore that they are part of a larger argument, and make a completely irrelevant non-point that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. My point can quite easily be gleaned by reading the entire exchange between Martaug and myself.

Are you also aware that many Christian sects perform gay marriages? Gnarff, gay marriage truly is your Morton's Demon. I think I'm done. Nothing I can possibly say will get you to understand that your perspective is no more - and no less - important than anyone else's.

 

Gnarfflinger,

Drew makes a good point a little too brief. What he writes makes sense because in your form of government the law is the will of the people because it came into existence as a result of the actions of the people's elected representatives. If you don't like that indirect approach, well, then it appears to me that perhaps Mr. Gravel of Alaska is your man - he wants more direct democracy.

Once instated, a law is no longer at the direct disposal of the will of the people, even though it can be changed by the responsible constitutional organs. Lifelong appointments of judges are there to protect the judges from electoral pressure to not re-appoint them if they decide in accordance with the law. The goal is not to pamper the judges, but to ensure proper application of the law even or especially when it is unpopular.

Consequently it is somewhat disingenuous to complain that the decisions by judges don't reflect the will of the people. All they have to do is to reflect the law. And the claim that judges once elected do what they want is ill informed at best, defamatory at worst. They don't roll dice on the bench. They interpret the law. As long as the judges don't set new law in areas reserved to the elected representatives or decide contra legem (= against the law), the interpretation of the law by the courts is within constitutional limits.

You may not like the verdicts on certain issues, but if you find them unbearable, then you're free to go to your elected representative and demand he changes the law. Contrary to popular lore, there are actually rather few cases of judicial overreach. If one today wants to find judicial activists in the US, the best place to start looking is the very conservative Federalist Society.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Ragusa. Sometimes I forget that you need to spell everything out for people.

 

Drew, Ragusa . . . . open your eyes guys. just look at the 9th circuit, which even some liberals criticise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals#Political_liberalism

You want accounts of judicial activism? http://victimsoflaw.net/JudicialActivismNewsViews.htm

You both are smarter than that so you must willfully be ignoring the facts in front of you. Mortons demon indeed.

 

Can someone please tell me what Martaug just posted as he is on my ignore list & i would be happy if he put me on his? The crap he spews i got sick off & now don't have to view it.


[warning pending - dmc]

 

Martaug posted some links of instances of harmful judicial activism.
http://victimsoflaw.net/JudicialActivismNewsViews.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9th_Circuit_Court_of_Appeals#Political_liberalism

The definition of what is "judcial activism" usually depends on "whose ox is geing gored," IMO.

 

Isn't there a but tom you can push to temporarily view a post? I had that on another forum.

The post was in response to Ragusa'sand Drew's.

 

It was actually a joke. It was obviously not appreciated, but it is what it is. Satire aside, neither of us said that the system was perfect, and just as there are ideological hacks from the right in high places, there are bound to be a few ideological hacks from the left as well. The real importance behind appointing rather than electing our judges stems from the fact that the job of a judge is to interpret the law, not to write it. His legal decisions need to be based on the law, not the upcoming election cycle. It should also be pointed out that liberal doesn't seem to mean what it used to, anymore. Nowadays, "liberal" and "not neo-conservative" seem to mean more or less the same thing.

 

Yep, that is true. I was actually just posting them to refute ragusa's claim of there not being much judical overreach. In fact the victims of law site lists both liberal activism as well as conservative activism & there appears to be about as much of one as the other

Sorry drew, i should have let you know that you would get a warning for posting that without making it abundently clear you were only mocking me. My bad.

 

But at some point, don't even the Judges have to recognize the will of the people? Remember that if they are appointed for life, isn't there a risk that some nutter who is pissed at a ruling that they gave will take one out in hopes of getting one they like better there? I'm not advocating murder, but as you like to remind me, there are more than one point of view out there...

Paul Martin took over when Jean Chretian retired. Paul Martin was re-elected to a minority government once, whent he Gay Marriage law was forced upon the Canadain people, then later a vote of non-confidence sent Canadians back to the polls, where Stephen Harper and his Conservative party gor a minority government. This is where the second vote occured, likely again, the other parties sending a message to Harper that they didn't want him in the PM chair. There will be another election soon, possibly this fall, or next spring. The Issue will likely be brought forth yet again, and if the Conservatives get a Majority, they can revisit the issue without interference from the other parties.

The Scribes and Pharisees represent the civil attempts to clarify divine law. They were not priests and prophets. They have always been around in some form or another. They were not priests or prophets, but lawyers...

You keep throwing it into my face and I keep rejecting it because it's critically flawed. To reduce it to merely a contract as many of you seem to insist on, then why is it so important to those of you who have been trying to make the secular arguement? The Secular arguement takes out the spiritual, emotional or any other component that cannot be empirically proven. You remove that, and all you have is an empty, hollow, sterile framework around what is essentially a Religious (or spiritual if you prefer) ordinance. That Framework is universally build by government around this ordinance, likely for many of the reasons you claim the ordinance itself for a secular government. That Framework is Civil in nature, and it's not Marriage. That Framework could solve the civil crisis that is presented by Gay rights without interfering with Religious rites or even the notice of the mainstream religions that oppose gay marriage--as long as you don't call it marriage...

No, I'm just arguing for where I want the line drawn. I want marriage restricted to Heterosexuals only, and leave gay rights to the secular authority. I want you secularists to use your head for once and solve the problem without trying to get your digs in at religion.

Because they are religious matters, and theoretically none of the state's business.

I'm pretty sure only Murder and theft are universally illegal. There are some laws regarding sexuality and lying, but only where they come to certain standards that the state can't ignore. Some of the ten commandments are specifically not the business of the state (like no otther Gods, no graven images, honouring thy parents, honouring the Sabbath, coveting, taking the name of God in vain), and some likely unprovable in any court even if they were criminalized.

Not the whole thing, but it will attempt to impose itself on some elements of the doctrine. When the Government tries to supercede such docrtine, there is no seperation between church and state.

That's so wrong, it's also offensive. The Church continues to thrive becasue in 1891, the First presidency and Quorum of the Twelve accepted the demands of the Federal Government to ammend their doctrine to stop the practice of polygamy. When executed properly, it is no more or less harmful to non-believers than same sex marriage. The Church gave in to government pressure to preserve the faith. That's not seperation of anything...

You mean there's an actual point of view in there among the insults and inconsistencies that litter your posts with? I must say you hide it well...

Keep making personal jabs, sooner or later that was inevitable...

I'm not asking for religious dominance, but I do what them to have SOME influence in public policy. If you'd take your fingers out of your ears when a religious person tries to defend his position you might agree with some of the points they want to make. This isn't about forcing my beliefs on anyone, just defending where I want social lines on moral issues drawn.

But to demand that we even support them is demanding blasphemy. To tell us we have no right to oppose them is denying us our political voice by virtue of our faith.

Like I said, What's your point. I think you'll find that they are in a great minority. But you are also aware that other Christian faiths want to re-criminalize homosexuality?

Ragusa: I like what Gravel has to say. If enough of the population doesn't like what the politicians are proposing, they can vote against it. In Canada, that could have a major impact. Just because some candidate wins the election, doesn't mean that they have popular support. In Canada, party could theoretically could claim a majority of seats on about 20% of the popular vote. The Senate is appointed, and it's the PM that does the appointing. Royal Ascent is just a joke as the Governor General is usually a puppet of the PM...

I can accept that, but there should be a greater accountability on the judges once they get there. It should consist of more than just a singular paper on the ruling that one judge writes. All of them should write papers defending their own positions and why they voted for or aganst a case so that anyone can access them.

And one thing that should cause concern is that you don't notice it until it's one of your oxen getting gored...

Sometimes they should be reminded of that. They can point out a problem that Congress needs to look at, but they also need to be aware of the risks in trying to fix the problem. I don't see the Court doing a good job of that...

You're right, this porblem exists on both sides of the equation. What accountability is there on Judges? They seem to be in a position where once they are happy with their position, they can do what they want with impunity.

 

See it from a lawyer's perspective. What paragraph exactly is it where the will of the people is written in? What does the will of the people say? Not to pay taxes? Free ice cream and gasoline for everyone?

In the 1930s and 1940s we had laws in Germany that took the presumable will of the people into account, the phrase was 'das gesunde Volksempfinden' (the sensible perception of the people'). It had implementation problems. One was clarity of definition - what exactly does the 'das gesunde Volksempfinden' say on a given issue? Practically implemented it led to situations like this one: You'd paint a painting, it would be considered to violate das gesunde Volksempfinden (think of disgusting obscenities like this), and it would be banned and confiscated, and you would be prohibited from publishing and selling your paintings. Why, well, because it violated das gesunde Volksempfinden, of course you dummy

It led to utter arbitrariness. Arbitrariness is what a judge or a lawyer doesn't want and what a legal system must not have.

 

OK, I said I was done, but you've pulled me back in.

It isn't a mere contract to Two-Spirits following Native American tradition that wish to marry. It isn't a mere contract to the over 30 Christian denominations that currently perform (in many cases, non-legally binding) gay marriages. The point behind the secular interpretation is that it is important to allow all religions to perform marriage as they see fit. You are asking your religious interpretation to override the religious or philosophic (an ethos is granted the same legal protections granted to any religion) interpretations of any who disagree with you.

Banning gay marriage does make a dig in at religion, Gnarff. Two examples of just that are in my post above.

Actually, lying is illegal any time it has a victim. Perjury, slander, libel, and fraud are just a few of those types of crimes.

You'd be wrong about this one. In many theocracies like Iran or Saudi Arabia, you can be put to death for leaving Islam for another faith or, if you are already of another faith, you can be put to death for proselytizing, and you can be brutally punished for violating even minor tenets of your faith (like, say, working on the sabbath). In Egypt, they make everyone put their religion on their driver's licenses, and if an Egyptian violates certain tenets of his stated faith, he can and will be punished for it.

It was also 1891. Think for a moment about all the injustices and outright travesties we allowed back then with no interference or repercussion from the government. Right or wrong, what we did in 1891 is not in any way indicative of what we would do today. For example, several religions in this country right now have what they call polyamorous marriage. Our government has not - and will not - step in to stop them unless they actually break the law by forcing people to do it or committing bigamy.

All of that had nothing to do with my argument, anyway, and wasn't the point I was making. The point is that creating a new religion is a crime when the state mandates what religion you would follow. Joseph Smith would have been arrested for simply writing the Book of mormon and attempting to gather followers. His followers would have been arrested, too. Sure, your faith would have had a tiny chance of surviving in such an environment, but it wouldn't have been likely. With the book confiscated and Joseph Smith behind bars, finding a printer - especially a printer willing to risk harsh punishment for printing the book - would have been a bit tough.

We aren't demanding that you support them. By all means, protest, petition, scream at the top of your lungs about it. Knock yourself out. In the end, though, gay marriage will be legalized, as it was in Canada, but your faith will not be required to change its doctrine because of it.

That your beliefs aren't universal. I'm sure the number of Christians who want to re-criminalize homosexuality and would like for the church to start performing gay marriages are about equal. Even if they weren't, it would be irrelevant, anyway, since our secular government doesn't exist merely to protect the rights of the largest religious groups or individuals. It exists to protect them all. This, however, is a complicated matter.

Our government, as mentioned, is required to protect the rights of the individual, but this automatically means that you have to limit other rights, elsewhere. In order to protect someone from being punched in the face, the government has to restrict everyone from punching everyone else in the face (with exceptions for, say, boxing and the martial arts). The case of gay marriage, however, is different, since protecting the rights of the episcopal church to perform gay marriage doesn't require the government to force anyone else to do so. They aren't changing the definition of marriage, but merely accommodating definitions that people alrealdy hold. It is clear that accommodating such viewpoints may offend some people or perhaps a whole lot of people, but this is immaterial. Free practice of religion is a right that the government must protect, marriage is a right that the government must also protect, but protecting you or your religious beliefs from being offended isn't the government's job. Since other people already view gay marriage as a valid form of marriage, the government can't change the definition. It has, like it or not, already been changed by the simple fact that other people hold different definitions than you.

Good God, Ragusa! How dare you post a link to such a putrid ,vile, sickening, disgusting and shockingly offensive work of "art" in a forum such as this?!! I am shocked! Positively shocked, by this crude, crass imagery! The "artist" should be imprisoned, possibly deported - or lobotomized - for even thinking of creating such a tawdry work; clearly an effort to gain the extraordinary publicity that comes with great notoriety, and you support this sickening display by posting it willy-nilly in a place like this? I thought you were a better man than that, and I'm truly disapointed.

 

And you're not? You want to cater to a minority even though it will offend a majority? There has to be another solution. You refuse to figure it out because you would rather see Religion take a back seat to everyone else.

Just following the precident set with an 1878 ruling that defended the traditional definition of Marriage. I can live with that dig at my religious tradition if that standard is maintained. Just because one religion allows it is not complete grounds to legitimize something. That has been made clear to me. I want that followed here too, and those 30 faiths or so that caved in to a fad cause will have to live with it, just like we had to.

I was talking about North America...

And you want that replicated today on a larger scale.

Only what they are supposed to do in all future cases of similar nature. In 1878, The Supreme Court upheld the definition of marriage, binding them to do likewise again. This means that Civil authorities have to find some other way to deliver Gay rights without messing with that.

That's why I want the state to stay the Hell out of the affairs of religion. You want the State to override the religious discretion to satisfy one minority, thus eroding that which they call sacred. Isn't that what you want?

Actually, I don't think that it will be legalized in the US. 44 of 50 states have already legislated against it, 27 by constitutional ammendment. I don't see enough politicians that willing to commit political suicide by opposing that many people...

Actually, the State can blackmail a church into compliance. Had it not been for compulsion of the state the Mormons probably would not have abandoned polygamy. It has happened, and with the prevalence of complaining special interest groups means that any church that does not adapt the state's standard will be called before a judge, and sooner or later, one will rule in favour of the gay couple. I want a hard line drawn. Defining Marriage as explicitly heterosexual does just that.

Then both should be equally dissatisfied. Don't re-criminalize it, but also don't allow Gay Marriage. A perfect lose-lose situation...

I'll believe that when I see it. The Same laws that existed in 1878 that forced one minority to ultimately abandon their fight in 1891 exist today. Redefining marriage is NOT the only way to protect the rights of Gay couples. Secularists are just too lazy to find another solution. Either that or they really do want to erode religion in the people they govern. I don't really think that they are too stupid to think of something that works for everyone...

Yes, they are changing the definition to include homosexuals, and they are forcing it on those that do not approve of that definition. Exactly the opposite of what you claim the secular Government has NO authority to do.

Not to politicians that want to get re-elected. But such offense is unnecessary. If people in charge of government would just think for a bit, they would have an answer that does not creat such a divisive problem...

I knew I didn't want to click that link that Ragusa provided...

 

This simply isn't true. I want to see all religions accommodated. Hell, I'm not even opposed to legalizing polygamy, provided that both men and women are allowed to take multiple spouses, that taking an additional spouse requires the signed and notarized permission of any currentl spouses, and provided that it provides no tax breaks above and beyond what normal married couples get.

1878. In 1878, homosexuality was a punishable offense. In 1878, segregation was the law. In 1878, women couldn't vote. In 1878, the KKK did whatever it wanted with impunity, murdering, lynching, terrorizing any black man, woman, or child for any reason - real or imagined. If cases ever did get to court, there was still jury nullification to make it go away. In 1878, union busting was perfectly legal. In 1878, there were no child labor laws (and child labor was rampant). Can you get over 1878, already?

Absolutely. I want to re-criminalize homosexuality, bring back segregation, end women's suffrage, bring back lynchings and restore the KKK to its former place of glory, get our kids back to working 12 hour days in factories for substandard wages with no breaks or overtime...man, think about what you are saying for a second. Does legalized gay marriage come even remotely close to any of this?

Not if the court decision was wrong, or if you are grossly over-simplifying what the case is about. Not every court case sets a precedent that is used in future cases. Take a look at Plessy vs Ferguson. Better yet, take a look at Korematsu V. United States . In 1944, our Supreme court made one of the most shamful decisions in its history, upholding the right of our government to inter all people of Japanese descent without provocation or reason for suspicion other than their race...and that was 1944. In 1878, our courts were even worse than that.

One way or the other, someone is going to be pissed off. The government has 2 choices. Deny one group -we'll call them group "A"- a civil right while also eroding their rights to free expression of religion, or pissing off another group - group "B" - by accommodating - not changing - a definition of marriage that they refuse to accept. This, legally speaking, is a no-brainer. It is irelevant that group "A" is smaller than group "B". Since allowing group "A" to practice gay marriage doesn't require group "B" to do the same, legalizing gay marriage does not violate the rights of group "B". Banning it however, does violate the rights of group "A".

Actually, the state didn't compel them to abandon polygamy. They merely made it a condition for statehood. That said....1891.

No. The only definition they would be changing is the legal definition. Since denominations like the Episcopal church have been performing gay marriages for years, the definition of marriage has included gay marriage for years. You don't have to like it, but this is the nature of language. If one group of people co-opts a word, the meaning of that word grows to encompass their usage. As it stands now, marriage is usually a union between a man and a woman, but not always. Whether the government legalizes gay marriage or not, this will not change. The episcopals, the Unitarian Universalists, and even the reverend Wright will keep performing gay marriages and calling those unions marriages no matter what the law says.

Actually, Gnarff, that was a joke. Had Ragusa actually linked to a filthy, filthy picture, do you honestly believe I would give a flying **** about it? This is me, you know.

 

If you would, it would help you understand my point. I can reassure you that it will not hurt either your feelings or religious belief.

 

Sure, Rags, try to corrupt people by fooling them into clicking on the link with the old "it won't hurt you" line. I always knew you were scummy, but this is beneath even you. You sicko pervert.

 

Oh ROTFLMAO Ragusa, you are joshing, right? Maybe my browser couldn't take the horrible picture you actually linked to. I admit that sometimes you guys (all of you) annoy me so I want to shake you. Other times you make my day. I needed that.

Gnarf, believe me you won't be offended in any whatsoever except at peoples nonsense.

Nakia smiles happily as she goes off to find the real picture.

PS: Just so one can't say it is my lousy eyesight causing me to miss something I enlarged the picture took my handy dandy magnifier and went over that picture very carefully. Pretty mare.

 

Recognizing Marriage as a religious ordinance and thus outside of the juristiction of government control, that is taken care of. Then if two gays are that serious about Marriage, they should appeal to one of these faiths that allow this to marry them.

A formulae or chart can be worked out to reflect the number of adults in the house and the number of children.

But in all of the above cases, one class of citizens saw their rights curtailed. You would see that happen to the majority of religious faiths to accommodate one minority. I think I've proposed a solution where that does not happen, but that doesn't seem good enough for those that want to see religion taken down a peg...

I think the only reason that bull**** wasn't tried after 9/11 was the public relations disaster that would have come with it. This meant that the Government had to actually get something on the person before shipping them to Guantanamo Bay...

And you insist that it be the Religious folks. There has to be a better solution...

You're looking at this as a binary choice. You think they can legalize Gay marriage or not. Try to look at this from what you claim Secularism is: Seperation of Church and State. By recognizing Marriage as Religious, that satisfies the Majority. By looking at the Civil framework around the religious ordinance, it is possible to satisfy the civil demands of Gay Rights. That Framework, if properly done, should extend to non religious unions (common Law, same sex, or just people that want the Religious component specifically excluded) with no legal differences apparent.

I guess the only people that get pissed off are the extremists, like Fred Phelps on the one side, or the people that Hate religion and want to see it eroded on the other side.

This is Revelation given to the Prophet at the time. How inaccurate would this be if the Church had not abandoned polygamy?

It is that threat that I hold as the reason the Church abandoned the practice.
I consider that compulsion...

WE're talking about establishing ONE definition and forcing all others to comply with it.

And I admit you got me...

 

Gnarff,
the point of that joke went beyond the contradiction between the link title and the content: The painting is from Fanz Marc, a German expressionist painter. It was banned, with about the same argument I made - that according to the 'will of the people' it was 'degenerate art'.

You can argue for and justify a lot of pretty silly and nasty things while invoking something as imponderable as the 'will of the people'.

On a funnier note, as far as paintings are concerned: If you'd let Bill O'Reilly interpret what's art under the 'will of the people', you'd probably have America's arts museums full of screaming eagles.

 

Gnarff, the "civil unions" for everyone solution isn't without its problems, either. Do you honestly believe that the religious right, a large and powerful group with the stated agenda of eroding or preferably outright eliminating the separation of church and state, would be willing to stand for the government deciding that it no longer recognizes marriage at all? This solution works great in dorm room bull sessions, but the truth is that pretty much everyone will hate it, and enough people would probably come out to fight it that it will never be passed.

The "civil unions for homosexuals, marriage for everyone else" solution is no better. First of all, the Christian right protests gay civil unions every bit as vociferously as they do gay marriage. If there weren't legions of Conservative Christians out there protesting gay civil unions, even succeeding at having them over-turned once in a while, I'd see this as a possible solution, but that just isn't the case. Whether you call it a marriage or a civil union, the same people come out to protest it. This type of solution also smacks of "separate but equal," which will also cause trouble in trying to pass such legislation.

Yes but not for the reasons you think. In this case, we have the choice of pissing off group A or pissing off group B and violating their civil rights. This is a no-brainer.

"You don't support the war in Iraq, therefore you hate America." Does this argument make sense? "You want to see gay marriage legalized, therefore you hate religion and want to see it eroded." This argument makes just as much sense as the first one.

You don't know the first thing about linguistics, do you? Words have multiple meanings. That is why the dictionary lists multiple meanings for each word. Acknowledging that many people consider gay marriage valid does not change the fact that other people do not, and changing the legal definition of marriage will not change your definition of marriage or your church's definition one bit.