Same Sex Marriage: California's Gift to Mc Cain

[pickel]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Your god is a new comer to the party pickel.

This page pretty well covers the history of marriage and dispels the myth, "that marriage is a Sacrament of God".
The history of marriage

If the will of the majority (people) is found unconstitutional, the majority have no more rights to pass laws that are unconstitutional than the legislature. All the previous bills concerning gay marriage presented to the Governor had technical errors and Swartz wanted the courts to make the interpretation and decision on gay marriage. This was the correct approach.

The Significance of the Wedding in Cana of Galilee (No. 50)

The Sacrament

[Beemer]

In the meantime the congregations debated the draft of the decree on the Sacrament of Matrimony, and at the twenty-fourth session (11 Nov., 1563) there were promulgated a dogmatic decree (with twelve canons) on marriage as a sacrament and a reformatory decree (in ten chapters), which treated the various conditions requisite for contracting of a valid marriage. A general decree on reform (in twenty-one chapters) was also published which treated the various questions connected with the administration of ecclesiastical offices.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Trent

[pickel]

Originally Posted by Beemer

In the meantime the congregations debated the draft of the decree on the Sacrament of Matrimony, and at the twenty-fourth session (11 Nov., 1563) there were promulgated a dogmatic decree (with twelve canons) on marriage as a sacrament and a reformatory decree (in ten chapters), which treated the various conditions requisite for contracting of a valid marriage. A general decree on reform (in twenty-one chapters) was also published which treated the various questions connected with the administration of ecclesiastical offices.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Council of Trent

The Seventh Session

Celebrated on the third day of the month of March, MDXLVII.

DECREE ON THE SACRAMENTS

Proem.

For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired. With this view, in order to destroy the errors and to extirpate the heresies, which have appeared in these our days on the subject of the said most holy sacraments,-as well those which have been revived from the heresies condemned of old by our Fathers, as also those newly invented, and which are exceedingly prejudicial to the purity of the Catholic Church, and to the salvation of souls,-the sacred and holy, oecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the same legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein, adhering to the doctrine of the holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions, and to the consent of other councils and of the Fathers, has thought fit that these present canons be established and decreed; intending, the divine Spirit aiding, to publish later the remaining canons which are wanting for the completion of the work which It has begun.

ON THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL

CANON I.-If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord; or, that they are more, or less, than seven, to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; or even that any one of these seven is not truly and properly a sacrament; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that these seven sacraments are in such wise equal to each other, as that one is not in any way more worthy than another; let him be anathema.

[Beemer]

Someone was knocking on my door so I rushed to post that last comment.

You may consider marriage to be sacred but you do realise that here in North America a church or religion is not required to be married. You do need a secular contract to be legally recognised as being married by our governments.

[pickel]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Someone was knocking on my door so I rushed to post that last comment.

You may consider marriage to be sacred but you do realise that here in North America a church or religion is not required to be married. You do need a secular contract to be legally recognised as being married by our governments.

I fully realize that. However , I just have my beliefs as all in our great country are entitled too. As I posted earlier in this thread, you have to be open minded to the wishes of others. While I am opposed to same sex marriage, the union between people should be respected and given the same rights and responsibilities as those of a man and woman relationship but not a recognition of the married state.

[Beemer]

Yes. You are entitled to your beliefs but are not entitled to have your beliefs pushed on others. Proposition 22 as brought in by the voters was found to be unconstitutional in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The term marriage is a offically recognised term by the California government and this is where the argument starts. Can the California government legally recognise the right to marry as entitled to all citizens by the state constitution as only between a man and a woman without being contradictory to the state constitution?

It also is important to understand at the outset that our task in this proceeding is not to decide whether we believe, as a matter of policy, that the officially recognized relationship of a same-sex couple should be designated a marriage rather than a domestic partnership (or some other term), but instead only to determine whether the difference in the official names of the relationships violates the California Constitution. We are aware, of course, that very strongly held differences of opinion exist on the matter of policy, with those persons who support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage maintaining that it is unfair to same-sex couples and potentially detrimental to the fiscal interests of the state and its economic institutions to reserve the designation of marriage solely for opposite-sex couples, and others asserting that it is vitally important to preserve the long-standing and traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, even as the state extends comparable rights and responsibilities to committed same-sex couples. Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative provisions.

Read up to page 12 and you'll see that your part comment, "While I am opposed to same sex marriage, the union between people should be respected and given the same rights and responsibilities as those of a man and woman relationship but not a recognition of the married state." is exactly the contradiction to civil rights that the court had to deal with.

Under the current statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.

So basically, as I see it, the solution is for the government to change it's terminology from "marry" to "domestic partnership" or "civil union". One term that fits all. The word marriage should become a slang or common term used unofficially by the masses if they so choose.

The court doc.
In re MARRIAGE CASES
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e713_35332.pdf
Read up to page 12, paragraph 1 to get the feel of what was being decided by the courts. A lot of the media reports fall short of the actual details. Religious web sites are really twisting the details of what went on and most completely miss the point. (Go figure. )

[pickel]

Originally Posted by Beemer

Yes. You are entitled to your beliefs but are not entitled to have your beliefs pushed on others. Proposition 22 as brought in by the voters was found to be unconstitutional in defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The term marriage is a offically recognised term by the California government and this is where the argument starts. Can the California government legally recognise the right to marry as entitled to all citizens by the state constitution as only between a man and a woman without being contradictory to the state constitution?Read up to page 12 and you'll see that your part comment, "While I am opposed to same sex marriage, the union between people should be respected and given the same rights and responsibilities as those of a man and woman relationship but not a recognition of the married state." is exactly the contradiction to civil rights that the court had to deal with.So basically, as I see it, the solution is for the government to change it's terminology from "marry" to "domestic partnership" or "civil union". One term that fits all. The word marriage should become a slang or common term used unofficially by the masses if they so choose.

The court doc.
In re MARRIAGE CASES
http://www.aclu.org/images/asset_upl...e713_35332.pdf
Read up to page 12, paragraph 1 to get the feel of what was being decided by the courts. A lot of the media reports fall short of the actual details. Religious web sites are really twisting the details of what went on and most completely miss the point. (Go figure. )

How , in the Hell, am I pushing my beliefs on others???? I live in Mississippi. Didn't you notice that?? I really don't care one way or the other what anyone else does as long as they don't infringe on mine or my families rights. I don't even know any gay people and don't want to. It's my right to differ in ANY opinion with any one, any city, federal government of ANY country I choose. If you can't understand or appreciate that, you'll just have to deal with it any way you can.

[Beemer]

You used your beliefs as an example and so did I. I then follwed up with, "Proposition 22 as brought in by the voters...." which brings us back to Californian's who voted based on their beliefs that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman which is pushing their beliefs on others although their beliefs have been found in contradiction to the state constitution.

Get a grip.

[pickel]

Originally Posted by Beemer

You used your beliefs as an example and so did I. I then followed up with, "Proposition 22 as brought in by the voters...." which brings us back to Californian's who voted based on their beliefs that defining marriage as being between a man and a woman which is pushing their beliefs on others although their beliefs have been found in contradiction to the state constitution.

Get a grip.

Render to California what is California's and I could care less what California does. And I still think they were right. Wait til November then we pick this up again.

A Constitution CAN be AMENDED.

[Beemer]

California's constitution is easy to amend. A petition with the signatures of registered voters equal to 8% of the vote in the prior gubernatorial election will get a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

But, me thinks that there is a signal being sent in the decision.

As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family — constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

So if a constitutional amendment does get passed by initiative, me thinks since in California the courts do play a big role in the initiative process any ammendment will be challenged.

See ya in November.