by AGuest 7 Replies latest jw friends
for those who are interested (may you all have peace):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/proposition-8-overturned_n_670739.h
tml
Next stop, the U.S. Supreme Court? But, why? Surely, there are better things to spend taxpayer dollars on. Like... safe bridges? Tracking pedophiles? Why not just let each one stand to his/her own master? Ah, well...
Again, peace to you all!
A slave of Christ,
SA
Obviously, gay marriage is a "hot-button" topic. But with all due respect, I don't understand your point about taxpayer dollars.
Being able to waste taxpayer dollars is clearly a key proficiecy needed to get into American politics, but I don't see where there is waste in this particular case. By courts hearing the case? We already have judges and justices and courts in place. They aren't paid by the case. One of very purposes of having the court system is to settle divisive issues in an amicable, non-violent manner, no?
I don't see where there is a waste in this particular case...
Greetings, dear Chase... and peace to you! The "waste" IMHO, would be for the feds to take on a case decided by a state court pursuant to its state constitution, which is even stricter than the federal constitution, which Constitution states that marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens subject to it. Now, true, for most "marriage" is "between a man and a woman," but, unfortunately, the Constitution does not say that... and times are a'changing - apparently, the public doesn't want an amendment to say that. Majorily, that is.
Be all of that as it may, I'm not really sure what the big deal is. Folks already live, sleep, eat, bathe, and have families together. Are we afraid of folks going against Biblical law? If so, that seems awful funny to me because although homosexuality isn't including among the Big Ten... adultery is. Yet, married men and women (meaning, straight and/or married to the opposite sex) commit adultery... all the time. Some like breathing. But no one's denying them THEIR "marital" rights.
The truth is that all "legal" marriages are really nothing more than "civil unions." They don't even have to be consummated. Once you sign that paper, in most states, well, you're married. And if it's a community property state, then you're on the hook for one-half of the community. On the other hand, consummation actual forms a marriage, in God's eyes, regardless of whether is a civil ceremony/registration/certification.
So, again, I say to his own master let each one stand or fall... and let us leave off the hypocrisy of judging others while we ourselves exist in [some sort of] sin.
So, yeah, I'd rather they soup up the "track a pedophile" system or some similar PRODUCTIVE use of public funds. I mean, if it were up to me. It ain't though, so the whole thing's moot anyway, right?
How's that?
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
I think Aguest has a balanced viewpoint on the matter as a christian. i kind of didnt care for a while about prop 8, as i am not gay and dont live in california, but then i started to watch both sides of the debate, and frankly the way the anti gay marrige people acted, and the hateful and mean things some of them said about gay people like comparing them to pedofiles made me take the side of legalizing gay marriage. the level of ignorance it takes to put gay people and pedofiles in the same catagory is staggering and upsetting. also the anti gay marrige folks kind of misrepresented the argument, they act like the issue is about biblical marriage, but its not, its about the rights that come with marriage. there are almost 100 rights that gay people were not allowed to have with their partners and children. so its an issue of civil rights, imo.
so the right is going to take this to the supreme court? why? why cant you let people live their lives? why must everyone be a christian or live the way you would like? how is that any different than the muslim countries?
to me if you believe in the bible, the bottom line is that humans are in a fallen state, and in the end God will sort everything out, its up to him who to judge. so its not up to me to judge gay people or anyone else.
i kind of on a rant here, but this brings up another issue, and thats gay adoption. i have a question for people against gay adoption, would you rather a child stay in some of these horrible orphanages than be with a gay couple in a stable relationship that can offer the child better living conditions?
AGuest: Greetings back to you! Thanks for explaining your position. I'll mention that I agree with today's decision and would be more than happy to just let it be. The problem is however, that it is established law that state contitutions can give broader rights than the U.S. constitution, but cannot take away rights granted by the U.S. consitution. That is what the court today ruled the CA law was doing.
The right disagrees of course, because the U.S. constitution actually does not explicity say that "marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens subject to it" as you may have been led to believe. In fact, it does not make a single mention of marriage. So it's inevitable that this issue will find its way to the highest court because a large chunk of the population want gay marriage banned. The Supreme Court will settle it permanently, in my opinion by holding the same way as the California court. In my own opinion, that is a rare instance of the system working as it was designed to, and not a waste.
It's a waste because they can't stop it forever! These people are not going to just say 'oh hey wow legal descrimination lets just let this go'... No, no they are not. They will keep fighting and fighing and fighting and they ARE eventually going to get their rights (as they should) so the only thing that fighting is doing is costing money give up let them get married which is the morally right thing to do, and get on with our lives.
the U.S. constitution actually does not explicity say that "marriage is a fundamental right of all citizens subject to it" as you may have been led to believe. In fact, it does not make a single mention of marriage.
You're absolutely right, dear Chase (peace to you!), I misspoke. I should have said that the Constitution protects our "fundamental rights"... and the Supreme Court has recognized a fundamental right to marriage in the landmark cases Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, and Turner v. Safley.
Thanks for allowing me to clarify!
Again, peace to you!
Your servant a slave of Christ,
SA
You know, Shelby, if all Christians were like you, I'd like a lot more of them. Thanks for this well-thought and compassionate opinion.
