SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Why? Staying in the marriage for kids will on average, be better for them than breaking up. Marriage is not easy, and everyone has rough patches. In affirming the love, what will couples do when they find it difficult to love each other? Will they weather the storm, or insist on their entitled happiness?

This is an enntirely separate issue, but I've seen many cold households where the parents are just there because of the kids and barely speak too eachother. They would be better off apart or dead because they are not living.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
1. Are you for the state telling you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love?

Are you for the principle that allows inferior governing bodies to pick and choose the laws they will and will not follow? Or to put it more bluntly do you believe that a mayor has the authority to ignore state law?

[Pax]

I believe unjust laws should be changed, challenged, broken in the spirit of the boston tea party.
I guess I'm just a Patriot.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I believe unjust laws should be changed, challenged, broken in the spirit of the boston tea party.

So Judge Moore was right in what he did then?

[Pax]

If it was an unjust law he was right. But was it unjust?
A muslim man should not have to submit to christian law. If the judge wanted to get a paper weigh with the 10 commandments and put it on his office desk fine, a poster of the 10 commandments on his wall fine. But not in the courtroom, not on the bench, and not in the public spaces. Separate Church and State.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
But was it unjust?

To him it was. After all if we are willing to let governing bodies to cherry pick which restrictions a democratic society choses to place on thier power, who are we to judge?

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on.

Separation of church and state.

I think they are the same for another reason. A more local legal entity is violating the laws set up by a higher legal entity. In Alabama, the state SC was violating federal Constitutional law. In California, San Fran was violating California state law.

If you condemn one for violation of the law, then I think you have to condemn the other.

I see the second case as SF enforcing federal constitutional law, which is violated by California state law.

Generally on civil disobedience: I believe everyone has the responsibility to stand up for what they believe is right, even in violation of the law. However, in a democratic society, I also believe they do not have the right to resist their punishment for their action. They can and should defy unjust laws, but also accept the consequences of violating those laws because they do not have the right to impose their own beliefs on the rest of the society.

[Pax]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
To him it was. After all if we are willing to let governing bodies to cherry pick which restrictions a democratic society choses to place on thier power, who are we to judge?

I guess that's a good point. Although it makes no sense to me.
A judge.
I work for the government. I am a christian. I may wear a cross or some religious article under my clothes. I am not allowed to force my beliefs on others. In my court there will be all manner of people. I must give them each a fair deal. I cannot be biased.

My first action is to make muslims submit or walk before a representation of my good christian beliefs so now he knows that this is the law I go by he feels that he a muslim will get a fair deal.WTF!!!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Surely if you cannot control your own affections it is unreasonable to ask gay people to do the same.

Agreed.

I won't bang Mariah Carey, if gay people can hold their end up.

How's that for a deal?

[civman2000]

Ben: Say specifically why gays should not be allowed to marry. I understand your arguments that not letting them marry does not discriminate them, but are there any reasons that allowing them to marry would be harmful?

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Are you for the state telling you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love?

Yes. If I love my mother, I ought not to be allowed to marry her.

government control of your bedroom and your household.

Marriage, to be recognised by the state, requires a witness. Ergo, marriage cannot both fall under the provisions of privacy and be recognised by the state.

Seriously, what I was taught in school is that the founders recognized that church and state should be separate.

Remember the established church of England, the Anglicans? That's the whole purpose of a seperation of the church and state, to preserve religious freedom. It does not mean that those who are Christians ought to abandon their principles when they enter the door of the legislature. If that were so, then the entire constitution ought to be thrown out, because you affirm one nation under God.

I'm sure that the founders would have voted for slavery and against gay marriage. That does not matter as much as the words they left us.

If the founders do not interpret the constitution to recognise marriage for homosexuals, why should we?

2. Ben, If you are against gay marriage then that's okay. I personally don't want to marry another man or woman so long as I live. I think marriage sucks. But I do believe, that people who are fool enough to jump even with my warnings should be allowed to do so.

Provided they are one man and one woman. Yes, there are benefits to remaining unmarried. "The one who can accept this, should accept it."

But how many gay men do you hear clamouring for a chaste lifestyle?

But you should not be allowed to deny them their life.

But you just said that people can choose not to get married. How will they die if they are not married?

3. You are misinformed if you think that gays have not been persecuted for the way choose to live.

Why should their homosexual proclivities have anything to do with their job in the military forces? They should not be asked whether they are gay, and it should not matter one whit for their job. The very fact that they are allowed to serve, is evidence that they do have access, that they are not kept out.

people look at their gay family members with shame and scorn.

So? That will not be alleviated by marriage.

Free to marry, to love, work, raise a family. Why can't we give them that.

No one is free to marry whomever they love. Not one of us.

4. The plague is the plague of fear and unacceptance

And AIDS is a plague of sores, and infections, devoted to gays.

[Ben Kenobi]

them to marry would be harmful?

To whom?

To society? To each other? Can't really answer the question unless you specify to whom the harms would apply.

I have already stated some harms to society, in the problems of children growing up without parents of both genders.

[Ben Kenobi]

A muslim man should not have to submit to christian law.

So then a Muslim ought to be able to have four wives?

[MrBaggins]

Society deems it acceptable to raise children in single parent households, however...

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


To whom?

To society? To each other? Can't really answer the question unless you specify to whom the harms would apply.

I have already stated some harms to society, in the problems of children growing up without parents of both genders.

To society. To each other. To anyone.

I'll acknowledge that it is quite possibly harmful for kids to grow up without parents of both genders--so why are single people allowed to adopt? And I would guess that (as others have said) having an abusive father would be worse than having no father and two mothers. And yet we allow the first and not the second.

Is it harmful in any other ways?