The ninth circuit court just handed down a decision allowing same sex marriage here in California.
Time to watch the bible thumpers knee jerk reaction like they just had a 2300 Volt probe stuck where the moon doesn't shine.
Lew
But first we get to see religious intolerance here....lucky us.
Having a state Supreme court act as King without regard to both the CA legislature and the CA 2000 public initiative should give anyone pause. This is clearly a arrogant attempt to place their view above the will of the people, a fine example of the all knowing all powerful Big brother. Even worse the imagined "social injustice" doesn't exist as CA has a very comprehensive domestic partner act. Possibly a insight as to what kind of federal judges we may get under a Obama presidency. That the highest court in the state chooses to overturn a 5000 year old word or concept definition might also tell you they don't have nearly enough to do in their normal day job. Rod
As put forward in Brown versus the Kansas Board of Education:
"Separate but equal is inherently unequal"
The court system is there to help keep things orderly and interpret what is and is not legal. The voters approved a law that the courts judged went against the state's constitution. Either it was plainly against the constitution or the defense lawyers didn't do a very good job. The outcome would have been the same had the voters attempted to pass a law forbidding a public education to children of rich people. If it's unconstitutional, it's going to get struck down.
That said, the voters are attempting to put a measure on the ballot to make it constitutional in California.
I doubt it'll pass, but there is a chance it will.
-Nathan
No intolerance, just don't want someone trying to jam the biggest scam job on the planet up my keister.
Keep it to your self and I'll be satisfied.
Lew
That would be organized religion and the right-wing religiofacists..
That's what I'm stressin'.
Dave in Houston
There are *way* bigger scams pal:
1) The government is here to help 2) From each according to his ability to each according to their need 3) There is no important teleology to the physical universe 4) Universal healthcare will be cheaper 5) Do it for the children 6) Do it for the common good 7) If it saves just one life 8) Madonna is a musician 9) Noam Chomsky is a deep thinker 10) Rap is music
What intolerance? It's the "bible thumpers" who attempt to apply their beliefs to everyone else.
Typically republican claptrap when they disagree with a court decision.
The supreme court found that the law was in contradiction to the constitution. The constitution wins. Purely a matter of law.
I think any real American should rejoice in the decision. The state is refraining from involvment in the affairs of the people, shouldn't that be the way it is? If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay. But don't take your biblical fundamentalism and personal beliefs and attempt to apply them to the rest of the populace.
scott
How about that? We agree on something :-).
But how about polygamy, or polyandry, or group marriage, or whatever. Yes they should also be legal. But how do you define child abuse in those groups? If a girl willingly (albeit brainwashed) becomes a wife at an age below that which the state considers informed consent, does the state have the right to step in? I'm still scratching my head on that one.
BTW, I ran across a sentence in a book today that reminded me of the cults, etc.. "The biggest lies are those we tell ourselves."
How on earth any man would want more than one woman telling him what to do all the time is beyond me. It's like signing up to go to GTMO I think.
I'm not. We choose an age of majority as a society. It is an average that will be too high or low for some people. But we choose one as a matter of rule of law. People engaged in sexual activity with partners below that age are committing a crime, period. Having said that, I think you have to have a scaled set of responses. How about 10 years in jail for every year the minor was below majority age. Have sex with a 12 year old, go to jail for 60 years. A 17 year old, 10 years. Something like that. Or better still make it geometric:
Age Of Minor Jail Time
17 1 year 16 2 years 15 4 years 14 8 years 13 16 yearsOr non linear:
Age Of Minor Jail Time
17 1 year 16 5 years 15 15 years 14 30 years 13 75 yearsSomething along these lines, with room in the first couple of years for judicial latitude (a boy who just turned 18 who has sexual contact with his girlfriend who won't be 18 until next week shouldn't go to jail or be seen as a felon in any sense).
Naw. You lefties tell the biggest whoppers I ever heard.
Insofar as group clusters are concerned, we already have partnerships, corporations, etc. People and animals (or vegetables) are covered by a bill of sale. kreegah, jo4hn
John -
For the first time in my life, I finally understand "hot" peppers ...
Ah, but don't you know that's not bigotry -- just ask Robatoy. You see it's OK to attack people who hold religious beliefs (unless they are islamic, then it's racist).
Just for the record, I don't believe that having laws enacted to enforce religious viewpoints is a good idea. It a) turns people off to religion and/or b) it makes people comfortable with a civic righteousness that may actually do more harm than good by making people think they are doing right by the Lord.
OTOH, having certain laws that enforce moral codes does make for a more prosperous and peaceful society. Things like "do not steal", "do not commit murder" are pretty good ideas regardless of one's religious beliefs. The idea that adultery may be a bad idea goes beyond just religious injunctions, it prevents various STD's and maintains the integrity of the family -- all beneficial to society. Same thing goes for the idea of not bearing false witness -- preserving peoples' reputations also benefits society. Same for the idea of coveting, that leads to the idea that "what is yours should be mine", leading to either a) theft, or b) the idea that people can elect others to the government to take from some people and give to them. Respect for parents and authority? Again, that provides for a peaceful society and good relations among people in that society.
The real problem here is the continuing incrementalism, the more traditional societal norms are destroyed, the more problems we are going to see in society.
Whatever? Just leave the sheep out of this - it's difficult to know if they consent or can be brainwashed. I don't think it's consent when they say baaaaa-d.
That's an interesting crock of shit if ever I saw one. You started this thread Lew, complete with your off-hand jab. None of the very folks you seem so concerned about had poked their heads out of the fox hole before you fired your first round, and yet you are whining about them pushing stuff in your face? Pot... Kettle... Maybe you should just keep your stuff to yourself. Clearly you're just spoiling for the very fight you profess to despise.
He he he... So that is how California is going to implement population control.
I agree, but if your some outfit like the Boy Scouts then be ready to suffer the consequences. There has been an assault against them for years.
Well, I don't think anyone supports legal sex with a 10 year old - there's no gray area there. But it hasn't been that long ago that 14 was considered the age of consent in several states, and may still be in some - at 71 I don't keep up with that sort of thing :-).
And what if the male having sex with the 14 year old is himself 14? Surely that's less of an offense than if he was 40. Maybe your list needs to be a table :-).
As long as those NGOs are not taking government funds, I agree in principle. Unfortunately, most of them are grabbing all they can get.
And we have to be on the alert for those who think "lack of recognition" and "exclusion" are the same thing. A private hospital may well refuse to provide equal benefits for employees based on whatever, but they should not be able to refuse treatment. Nor should they be able to exclude a legal partner from visitation rights or a voice in care decisions.
Yeah, but that was when people died at 40 and you needed all the kids you could have to keep the farm alive. One of the great blessings of Capitalism, specialization, and industry is that we can live longer with fewer children, enjoy the children we do have by seeing them well into their middle age before we die, and not have to resort to teenage reproduction. 14 is just plain too young. Then again, there are people I know that I pray *never* have such contact at any age on the off chance they reproduce, thereby polluting the gene pool.
I shudder to contemplate any of the above...
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote
Actually, and inarguably, at whatever age a human is old enough to "reproduce" is decided entirely by nature.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.