Evil Genius

More cross posting goodness. Someone mentioned I wasn't creating enough threads!

Posted at 9/8/2005 2:18 pm : I don’t understand Republicans. I really don’t understand California Republicans. Last year judges in several states ruled Gay Marriage, or some semblance thereof, legal in their various states. The outcry from the Right was deafening. “Activist Judges!” they shouted. “Leave it up to the people!”

Well the people are apparently schizophrenic.

Last year, California passed Proposition 22 by a margin of 61%-39%, which identified marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Yesterday, the California State Legislature passed AB 849 41-35 (votes, not percents) which would change the definition of marriage in the state to be between “two persons.”

Governor Schwarzenegger has pledged to veto the bill “out of respect for the will of the people.” But the legislature is accountable to the people. Historically, legislatures must support the will of the people at the peril of their jobs. If the legislature managed to stand behind this, it’s because the will of the people has shifted as well.

This is where the contradictions come forward. Activist Judges get to be activist because they aren’t elected. That’s the fundamental problem most people have with judicial activism – the judges are effectively making law without the electoral blessings of the people. When the California Family Council (a conservative think tank) says "We can count on our activist legislators, like activist judges, ignoring our votes and our voices,” they only demonstrate their own ignorance. You can vote a legislator out of office. It’s harder to do that to a judge.

More interesting is that Conservatives in the state have indicated that they want the issue decided either by referendum (which is what happened in the case of Proposition 22 last year) or by the courts, which they were busy calling “Unconstitutional Activists” last time they made a ruling on the topic.

No matter its historical roots, marriage in twenty-first century America is a legal matter, not a religious one. Marriage has to do with inheritance, power of attorney, tax status, and the stability of domestic relationships. God doesn’t enter into it.

When the state, for one reason or another, denies homosexual couples access to this legal status, it does so in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This is an extremely clear cut matter. The only thing blurring this issue is the bigotry and close-mindedness we’ve tried to banish from our society for the last 140 years. First color, then gender, then creed, now sexuality. In this age of open-mindedness and free thought, one would think that institutionalized discrimination would be a thing of the past.

Damn shame, it should be equality and freedom for all. That means EVERYONE.

However, I think it should be legalize marriage for everyone, and not just specific to homosexuals. What we are doing is removing the man and women requirement.

However, keep in mind that the only logical reason why anyone would want to make marriage a union between man and woman is to give that 'couple' benefits because in turn they will breed and produce offspring that will also be citizens and be productive.

I cant understand how you can be against Gay marriage.

But its clear that these feeble people follow their Conservatives leaders....

psi29a wrote:However, keep in mind that the only logical reason why anyone would want to make marriage a union between man and woman is to give that 'couple' benefits because in turn they will breed and produce offspring that will also be citizens and be productive.

I spent Labor Day at a college lecture on just this topic. What did you do?

Marriage has a number of functions dependent upon the society in which it exists. In a society in which marriage is arranged, it serves to unite families, and is really more about resource allocation than anything else. This is why the first born traditionally inherited everything in feudal societies in Europe -- it prevented family wealth from becoming diffuse.

In a society where Marriage is based on Romantic Love, the institution serves to create stability and limit sexual competition. Ultimately, society is more stable if people aren't fighting over mates. As such, marriage provides a legal method of preventing these squabbles by identifying certain people as legal partners. There are consequences for breaking the bounds of marriage.

In this case, it has very little to do with reproduction.

If we were really concerned with reproduction would we be telling teenagers to avoid getting pregnant? Would we be encouraging people to wait until after college or even later to get married?

When population growth was a priority, marriage typically happened as early as 14, rarely later than 18.

This is really more about law then about what marriage is for. There's no legal basis for denying these people the right to marry, save that the state law says marriage is between a man and a woman. The state Courts have ruled that law unconstitutional -- it violates the 14th amendment.

It's a free country, isn't it?

People should able to do whatever they want, that includes same sex marriage.

Indeed.

Good idea with starting a new section by the way.

Femto wrote:It's a free country, isn't it?

No.

well, it's the land of freedom, and I can't wait for the debates on pedo marriages, or maybe necro marriages (nothing personal here)...

oh for crying out loud, is nothing sacred anymore?!?!?!?
what are they going to pervert after the sanctity of marriage?!?!?!?
put christmas and halloween on the same day?!?!?!?

call me conservative, but some things are just too much for my feeble stomach

granting some rights to homosexual couples is different and that I wouldn't mind, but wedding is something diferent in my eyes

Im not sure if it was someone on the forums who mentioned this or one of my history classes or friends, but marriage was apparently created in order to combat the same sex unions that were being formed (probably by the greeks) and to ensure the production of a next generation . They forget that one of the benefits of gay marriage would be the acquisition of orphans by the said couple. Not only would this help create a stabler home for many children, but with imported children (:kekeke:) and them having babies made (lesbo's and female friends of theirs takin up the task or w/e) they would still serve the function of helping to create productive citizens...who are more fashionable if anything else

Wow so conserverative views skull.



Wedding isnt something sacred its something humans come up with cause they wanna have a system to live by.


Why would Gay people have less right when the human rights laws says every human is equal.

the thing is, no one is stopping homosexuals from being married...you can get married to the same sex, a dog, a cat, anything you want and call it marriage. the difference is that the state does not recognize marriages outside of a man and a woman.

the dictionary defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, so gay marriage is like an oxymoron in terms.

i say let same sex couples have civil unions, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

then by that, we should eliminate marriage in terms of law then. Strike it from the laws as government is conserned. That kills both problems. Replace all marriages with Civil Unions in the eyes of the laws. Let the those who wish to marry, do so under their specific beliefs, however it would only be recognized as a Civil Union in the eyes of the Government and Corperations.

why not? marriage is a religious practice and the last i heard there was a separation between church and state

Marriage isnt so important nowadays in sweden many people live together thier hole lives without getting married.

ucrzymofo87 wrote:why not? marriage is a religious practice and the last i heard there was a separation between church and state

Not with GWB in office.

finally, somone with sense in him

but gay couples wouldn't have to be married to adopt children, would they? if not, a new law would be enough, or a change in some rule

anyhow, I look at a wedding as the ultimate seal of the love a man and a woman feels for each other which they would like to proclaim before the state, before friends, before God, before the relatives...to celebrate the passion they feel and the faith they have in life together
this is all just freaky to me...
meh, but it's been chewed upon before, I don't want to repeat the whole stuff

Actually, more gays there are, the less competitors there are for chicks. That's what Michael Moore said, heh.

MrFelony wrote:Marriage was apparently created in order to combat the same sex unions that were being formed (probably by the Greeks) and to ensure the production of a next generation .

I know you're only stating this opinion MrFelony, not supporting it, but the topic deserves discussion.

Marriage predates written history. The practice of men taking younger boys as lovers in Ancient Greece came comparatively late - some say as late as the PeloponnesianWars, certainly not significantly earlier than the Persian Wars.

Marriage, in contrast, appears in The Iliad, which predates the written word (it was passed down orally before being committed to paper). Helen is married to Menelaus in the famous legend.

Marriage exists to create stability. Marriage exists to prevent change in society. People who are married or have some legally recognized tie to another person tend to consider their actions more thoughtfully.

Femto wrote:

ucrzymofo87 wrote:why not? marriage is a religious practice and the last i heard there was a separation between church and state

Not with GWB in office.

well, with all due respect, GWB didn't sign marriage into US law

Eldo wrote:Actually, more gays there are, the less competitors there are for chicks. That's what Michael Moore said, heh.

With Micheal Moore being an overweight retarded bastard, I'm not surprised he said that.

Femto wrote:With Micheal Moore being an overweight retarded bastard, I'm not surprised he said that.

haha, micheal moore has never gotten laid in his life so why should he care about marriage

ucrzymofo87 wrote:well, with all due respect, GWB didn't sign marriage into US law

Don't be a smartass.

Bush's strong views on religion are widely known and criticized and, with him in office, it's unlikely for the state to become completely independant of the church.

ucrzymofo87 wrote:

Femto wrote:With Micheal Moore being an overweight retarded bastard, I'm not surprised he said that.

haha, micheal moore has never gotten laid in his life so why should he care about marriage

Ouch! I bet you he lurks in here and reads what we have to say.

*mwah hahahah*

psi29a wrote:Ouch! I bet you he lurks in here and reads what we have to say.

*mwah hahahah*

I bet he likes anime and Berserk.

Femto wrote:

ucrzymofo87 wrote:well, with all due respect, GWB didn't sign marriage into US law

Don't be a smartass.

Bush's strong views on religion are widely known and criticized and, with him in office, it's unlikely for the state to become completely independant of the church.

the united states has never been "a part" of any church...i dont know where you draw that conclusion