except this is not merely a matter of changing society
LadyLorraine Send a noteboard - 05/08/2010 11:18:48 PM
as it stands, in almost every state in the union, if one member of a loving homosexual couple is debilitated in the hospital, their loved one cannot visit them as a family member (which means in some cases, they cannot visit at all). Marriage is a legal standing as well that gives the ability to be there for your loved one. In a sense, the difference between a nonmarried couple and a married couple is the difference between a two sisters and two dearest friends who are sisters in everything but blood and law. The feeling might be the same, and apart from the law, the only difference may be blood...but a hated family member has more "Right" (I'm using the term loosely, not literally) to an individual than their dearest companion in the world. Without adoption papers, all the feeling in the world will not make them legally family.
My point is, that the whole idea behind a legal marriage is to create legal family, much like Adoption.
People might believe that homosexuals shouldn't be a family together. But the fact is, that's nothing more than opinion. While people are definitely entitled to their opinion and the law shouldn't attempt to appease everyone at the cost of people's opinions (that's not "Democracy", not that we have one.), the law also has the purpose to protect people from being treated unjustly. If the whole country told you you could not marry the woman of your dreams, would you stand for it? It is not just to pass out legal benefits based on majority societal opinion.
My point is, that the whole idea behind a legal marriage is to create legal family, much like Adoption.
People might believe that homosexuals shouldn't be a family together. But the fact is, that's nothing more than opinion. While people are definitely entitled to their opinion and the law shouldn't attempt to appease everyone at the cost of people's opinions (that's not "Democracy", not that we have one.), the law also has the purpose to protect people from being treated unjustly. If the whole country told you you could not marry the woman of your dreams, would you stand for it? It is not just to pass out legal benefits based on majority societal opinion.
Still Empress of the Poofy Purple Pillow Pile Palace!!
Continued Love of my Aussie <3
Continued Love of my Aussie <3
Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional
04/08/2010 10:40:50 PM
- 1353 Views
Good news, but as the article says, it'll go all the way to the SC.
04/08/2010 10:55:58 PM
- 707 Views
So then is that how we do it?
04/08/2010 11:01:19 PM
- 829 Views
Of course.
04/08/2010 11:04:59 PM
- 740 Views
His point was
04/08/2010 11:40:14 PM
- 885 Views
Yeah but: What Ghavrel said below *NM*
05/08/2010 08:01:02 AM
- 430 Views
And again...
05/08/2010 06:08:56 PM
- 585 Views
To quote my property professor: "Can I make you think like a Californian?"
05/08/2010 06:39:48 PM
- 657 Views
I'm not the one who came up with the referendum system, you do realize.
04/08/2010 11:11:13 PM
- 731 Views
The referendum system, in my opinion, has been a failure, especially in CA.
04/08/2010 11:46:21 PM
- 810 Views
democracy has been a failure in CA.
05/08/2010 02:42:21 PM
- 600 Views
No. It just shows the problems of a crazy electorate.
05/08/2010 03:29:21 PM
- 713 Views
we vote fro way to much crap in general
05/08/2010 02:41:19 PM
- 660 Views
Yes, you still have to abide by the Constitution, even if a lot of people don't like it. *NM*
05/08/2010 12:07:44 AM
- 380 Views
Amend the Constitution to alter the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't like it. *NM*
05/08/2010 01:09:51 AM
- 442 Views
just a devil's advocate position here, but....
05/08/2010 04:23:43 AM
- 738 Views
Marriage is either an economic status regulated by law or a religious institution.
05/08/2010 05:13:17 AM
- 770 Views
There are certain things that should not be decided by a vote...
05/08/2010 02:02:45 AM
- 723 Views
I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular.
05/08/2010 02:17:24 AM
- 779 Views
Re: I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular.
05/08/2010 10:46:54 AM
- 769 Views
I understand it.
05/08/2010 03:06:40 PM
- 755 Views
I know you don't support proposition 8
05/08/2010 03:29:34 PM
- 742 Views
05/08/2010 03:34:01 PM
- 782 Views
But that is just simplistic and silly to complain about when it is a long standing possibility
05/08/2010 03:46:59 PM
- 661 Views
Oh, ees it?
05/08/2010 04:07:39 PM
- 802 Views
Well they knew the rules before they started the whole thing
05/08/2010 04:12:33 PM
- 640 Views
Why would you complain if you won?
05/08/2010 04:15:20 PM
- 727 Views
You could recognise that you won by the system working in a way you don't like?
05/08/2010 04:23:58 PM
- 612 Views
I'm sure that happens, in general.
06/08/2010 02:43:18 PM
- 599 Views
It seems to happen a lot nowadays
06/08/2010 03:06:33 PM
- 632 Views
It's so weird that you feel differently - there is only room for one opinion here!
06/08/2010 03:41:52 PM
- 557 Views
instead it should be decided by judges who answer to no one? *NM*
05/08/2010 07:12:59 AM
- 385 Views
The same judges who upheld our private right to bear arms.
05/08/2010 02:09:07 PM
- 757 Views
not when judges stop using the Constitution
05/08/2010 02:30:51 PM
- 733 Views
Sexual preference is not the right being protected.
05/08/2010 03:22:04 PM
- 803 Views
I know that the 14th amendment is routinely used in ways it was never intended.
05/08/2010 05:25:07 PM
- 711 Views
I realize that, but it is ultimately a good thing.
05/08/2010 05:31:19 PM
- 784 Views
let's take away the citizenship of all black people if that's the way you think
05/08/2010 09:06:23 PM
- 641 Views
Come now lets not be stupid
06/08/2010 05:31:18 PM
- 610 Views
sorry but your statement was completely ignorant.
06/08/2010 07:27:09 PM
- 725 Views
I will talk as soon as you stop spouting stupid rhetoric and say something relevant
06/08/2010 07:54:09 PM
- 691 Views
Let's just be clear about which amendment is which.
05/08/2010 11:50:57 PM
- 608 Views
but that still ignores intent and expands the law in ways not intnented when it created
06/08/2010 04:53:43 AM
- 668 Views
Yes, no, no, and no.
06/08/2010 05:29:09 AM
- 700 Views
there are serious flaws in your thinking here
06/08/2010 06:18:13 PM
- 781 Views
Your assertions continue to lack support.
06/08/2010 07:23:17 PM
- 809 Views
not all you just refuse to see things you disagree with
06/08/2010 08:36:32 PM
- 775 Views
...said the pot to the kettle
06/08/2010 09:17:28 PM
- 847 Views
yes but a shiny stainless steel pot
09/08/2010 11:21:33 PM
- 893 Views
You continue to be wrong about history and the role of courts.
10/08/2010 01:05:39 AM
- 1236 Views
If he's wrong, a lot of law scholars and Supreme Court Justices are wrong.
10/08/2010 01:44:05 AM
- 696 Views
Brown vs. Board of Education, 'nuff said. *NM*
10/08/2010 04:32:37 AM
- 381 Views
Actually, that only proves his point, if I understand correctly. *NM*
10/08/2010 11:11:19 AM
- 408 Views
part oif the problem appears to be you completely missing the point
10/08/2010 01:23:19 PM
- 907 Views
There's a simple way to determine the degree to which that opinion is objective or subjective...
06/08/2010 09:32:21 PM
- 643 Views
Since when is marriage a right? *NM*
05/08/2010 04:11:16 PM
- 371 Views
it may not be a "right"...
05/08/2010 04:22:44 PM
- 644 Views
This is where the debate comes into play....
05/08/2010 05:04:08 PM
- 658 Views
except this is not merely a matter of changing society
05/08/2010 11:18:48 PM
- 721 Views
It's a benefit that is being extended selectively to one set of the populace.
05/08/2010 04:52:52 PM
- 722 Views
Hey, I'm single....
05/08/2010 05:05:41 PM
- 638 Views
That's a specious argument and you know it.
05/08/2010 05:13:17 PM
- 711 Views
A homosexual has every opportunity as well.....
05/08/2010 05:23:56 PM
- 659 Views
Oh quit the bullshit already.
05/08/2010 05:29:15 PM
- 860 Views
Sorry, but what a nonsense.
05/08/2010 09:27:17 PM
- 626 Views
hey that's it, jens! you solved the WHOLE PROBLEM!!!
05/08/2010 11:24:29 PM
- 758 Views
ON TO WORLD HUNGER!
06/08/2010 07:59:51 AM
- 638 Views
LET THEM HAVE CAEK. *NM*
06/08/2010 02:29:56 PM
- 353 Views
Are you sure it's wise to feed people on a lie? *NM*
06/08/2010 02:34:26 PM
- 443 Views
People are fed lies all the time
06/08/2010 09:30:37 PM
- 635 Views
Quite so, but I don't think it's commonly a mainstay of their diet *NM*
06/08/2010 09:50:33 PM
- 382 Views
It is the only thing which is abundant enough for everyone to have some... *NM*
06/08/2010 10:01:44 PM
- 621 Views
I invite you to read the judge's conclusions, linked again inside.
05/08/2010 11:43:44 PM
- 744 Views
Since 1948
06/08/2010 04:01:02 AM
- 844 Views
gah. can. only. see. typo. *NM*
06/08/2010 03:43:21 PM
- 341 Views
I don't see any typo... *NM*
06/08/2010 04:07:18 PM
- 398 Views
I agree
05/08/2010 07:22:17 AM
- 718 Views
And Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South.
05/08/2010 03:44:56 PM
- 728 Views
but it was done by congress passing laws and the president signing those laws
05/08/2010 04:20:19 PM
- 677 Views
I was under the impression that the supreme court had a role in it
05/08/2010 04:31:51 PM
- 656 Views
but the court was not over turning the laws passed by congress
05/08/2010 05:11:06 PM
- 699 Views
No, like in this case, isn't it?
05/08/2010 05:24:19 PM
- 648 Views
I would say that is another case of judicial activism and shows the danger of the practice
05/08/2010 05:43:02 PM
- 611 Views
Hard to believe it's the same governor who said "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." *NM*
04/08/2010 11:05:45 PM
- 456 Views
Link to the full court order inside:
04/08/2010 11:43:29 PM
- 836 Views
The judge quoting Scalia in favour of gay marriage is fairly amusing.
04/08/2010 11:50:47 PM
- 714 Views
What page was that on?
05/08/2010 11:25:49 AM
- 632 Views
Nah, it was way above page 109, in the findings of fact somewhere.
05/08/2010 12:37:48 PM
- 736 Views
Oh, that is brilliant.
05/08/2010 01:12:21 PM
- 640 Views
Pretty much.
05/08/2010 01:44:22 PM
- 770 Views
I've always wondered what basis there is for banning necrophilia if "it's disgusting" is invalid.
05/08/2010 01:51:19 PM
- 714 Views
because you cannot give consent when you are dead?
05/08/2010 03:04:46 PM
- 704 Views
what if you give consent while you are still alive?
05/08/2010 03:21:59 PM
- 804 Views
Is it then illegal?
05/08/2010 03:23:46 PM
- 723 Views
given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence
05/08/2010 03:33:11 PM
- 777 Views
Re: given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence
05/08/2010 03:34:57 PM
- 816 Views
I would think it would be illegal even then
05/08/2010 03:34:31 PM
- 739 Views
Wikipedia to the rescue!
05/08/2010 04:20:15 PM
- 863 Views
you would hope the other states would cover it under improper treatmentof human remains
05/08/2010 07:38:59 PM
- 682 Views
A dead body is just an object, not a person with rights.
05/08/2010 03:27:08 PM
- 724 Views
Yes, but
06/08/2010 08:42:05 AM
- 680 Views
Absolutely not.
06/08/2010 03:21:14 PM
- 731 Views
not to mention necrophilia has a large potential to be hazardous to health.
06/08/2010 09:42:43 PM
- 776 Views
Irrelevant decision.....this was heading to SCOTUS from day 1 *NM*
05/08/2010 12:53:26 AM
- 410 Views