When the government started giving out goodies for doing it. Also, as has been stated, when Loving v Virginia pretty much confirmed it.
Your definition was even wrong when it comes to the legal definition. So how the hell are you going to sit there chortling to yourself with undeserved smug satisfaction when you couldn't even get it right?
As previously noted, it is far easier to change bad legislation if that is truly the case here than having a huge emotion filled argument trying to force the vast majority of the population to suddenly re-define what marriage constitutes without any respect to their religious views.
The notion that my definition, one that has been used for centuries, is wrong when you can't even fabricate your own requires willful denial.
But in the interest of honest and open discourse, why don't you educate me with the "proper" and "accepted" definition of marriage so that I can be MORE informed instead of continuing your typically arrogant smug chortling about some "perceived" notion.
And, specific to California law, in Sharp v Perez.
The Multiracial Activist - PEREZ v. SHARP (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711, CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
Petitioners contend that the statutes in question are
unconstitutional on the grounds that they prohibit the free
exercise of their religion and deny to them the right to
participate fully in the sacraments of that religion. They are
members of the Roman Catholic Church. They maintain that since the
church has no rule forbidding marriages between Negroes and
Caucasians, they are entitled to receive the sacrament of
matrimony.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects an area
of personal liberty not yet wholly delimited. "While this Court has
not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed,
the term has received much consideration and some of the included
things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not
merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the
individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations
of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home
and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of
his own conscience, and, generally, to enjoy those privileges long
recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of
happiness by free men." (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S.
390, 399 [43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042].) Marriage is thus
something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the
state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no
prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective
and by reasonable means.
No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably
discriminatory or arbitrary. The state's interest in public
education, for example, does not empower the Legislature to compel
school children to receive instruction from public teachers only,
for it would thereby take away the right of parents to "direct the
upbringing and education of children under their control." (Pierce
v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-535 [45 S.Ct. 571, 69
L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468].0
The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's
child to a particular school or the right to have offspring.
Indeed, "We are dealing here with legislation which involves one
of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are
fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
(Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, at p. 541.) Legislation infringing
such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free
from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional
requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws.
In determining whether the public interest requires the
prohibition of a marriage between two persons, the state may take
into consideration matters of legitimate concern to the state.
Thus, disease that might become a peril to the prospective spouse
or to the offspring of the marriage could be made a
disqualification for marriage. (See for example, Civ. Code, §§
79.01, 79.06.) Such legislation, however, must be based on tests
of the individual, not on arbitrary classifications of groups or
races, and must be administered without discrimination on the
grounds of race.
...I can't resist....
I like how gays are using president established in difference of religion while passionately speaking out against religion.
Where is the modern pro-gm argument stating that denying gay marriage infringes on the first amendment?
To continue:
So now, per Jallman's argument, we can take the "marriage is a strictly legal contract" and the "government has no business regulating marriage in the first place" arguments and toss them right out; according to Jallman, a gay man.
To continue:
Oooo I'm saving that for another thread...anyway....back on topic...
So Perez v. Sharp is based in part on Skinner which does not uphold even the vaguest notion that same-sex unions are "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race". Rightly so, IMO, because 2 people of the same gender can not act out "procreation", which, according to Jallman's source and thus Jallman's own argument, is the expected legitimate function of marriage in the first place.
"What about infertile couples" you cry? Ban them for all I care.
To continue:
Oooh look, pro-incest folks will like Jallman's argument to, as apparently he supports them as well.
To continue...
<<Character limit>>
That was the most craptastic post I have ever read.
If you want to go that route, the government is limiting the rights of homosexuals who do not prescribe to a religion from marrying based on the moral disapproval of their lifestyle inherent in established religion.
Problem solved.
Well why don't you start with taking a long hard look at your requirement that a minister be involved...
I was originally married by a Justice of the Peace. Atheists do the same today. Some even have the Justice come out to a private ceremony which is family oriented and not religious by any measure.
Also, Churches differ in opinion greatly, and many marry gays, so that doesn't fly.
"What about infertile couples" you cry? Ban them for all I care.
What is this? Equivocation? Again?
Please Jallman, educate me on the definition of Marriage. I want to be more informed. :roll:
Well neither did that ill conceived crap that started with "Sharp v Perez was a purely religious argument" and ended with "Jallman supports incest". :doh
Come on...after how many years, did you think I was going to even consider giving that load of bull**** more than a moment's thought before swatting it aside as the load of baloney it is?
Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand(05-26) 14:30 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- California voters legally outlawed same-sex marriage when they approved Proposition 8 in November, but the constitutional amendment did not dissolve the unions of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who wed before the measure took effect, the state
The 6-1 decision upholding Prop. 8 was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one's spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation.
Prop. 8 undid that ruling by reinstating the definition of marriage that the court had struck down, this time as an amendment to the state Constitution. The author of last year's 4-3 decision, Chief Justice Ronald George, said today that the voters were within their rights to do so.
"All political power is inherent in the people," George said, quoting the Declaration of Rights in the state Constitution. He said the voters' power to amend their Constitution is limited - and might not include a measure that, for example, deprived same-sex couples of the right to raise a family - but that Prop. 8 did not exceed those limits.
Under California's domestic-partner law and anti-discrimination statutes, the chief justice said, "same-sex couples continue to enjoy the same substantive core benefits ... as those enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, including the constitutional right to enter into an officially recognized and protected family relationship with the person of one's choice and to raise children."
George said voters have added "the sole, albeit significant, exception that the designation of 'marriage' is ... now reserved for opposite-sex couples." That was within their authority, he said, and any further change can come only at the ballot box.
Cheer!
I'm glad to see the same court that undermined the people now upholding the people.
Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand
6-1 not even close to the much ballyhood ruling the activists liked.
A decision made based on actual Rights and actual Laws.
Cheer!
I'm glad to see the same court that undermined the people now upholding the people.
.
Cheer!
I'm glad to see the same court that undermined the people now upholding the people.
Court upholds Prop. 8 but lets marriages stand
6-1 not even close to the much ballyhood ruling the activists liked.
A decision made based on actual Rights and actual Laws.
You don't follow the news much do you Navy? Prop 8 passed with 52%....which is substantially down from when Prop 22 was on the ballot a decade earlier....
"Oh the times....they are a changin".....
52% to 48% is still a huge majority in one of the most liberal states in this country....
Chief...4% is not a huge majority.
It could be millions of people my friend depending on how many people voted.....
Both times they were upholding the Constitution. Nothing more nothing less no activism.
But that still doesn't constitute a huge majority. Ratios, my friend.
So, in 1955, my parents should not have been given a marriage license?
Then who would have adopted my sister and me?
Kinda cold, man.
Oh yeah...because it's always a great day when a mob limits the equality of the few. :roll:
You should have been aborted.
Gays still have all the same civil rights with their partners as heteros do with theirs...so...there's no inequality in any way.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?