Legal marriage

[Lursa]

You mean this comment.."No...'designing,' 'creating' (rather than mechanical building) a message is different than serving someone."

You're wrong about designing a wedding cake is just serving someone.

That's what I wrote. It is NOT. Holy shit.

You are so blinded by bias and agenda.

I'm done with this subject here. I wrote that earlier, now I am. If you want to discuss it further, start a thread. We had plenty in the past.

In fact creating a wedding is in fact creative expression is precisely Phillips, the cake baker in the Masterpiece Cake case, argued that throughout the legal proceedings. Also, the same year that Supreme Court case was decided a Superior Court judge in California decided quite differently than you belief

Wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that baker may deny to same-sex couple, California judge rules​

Wedding cake is an 'artistic expression' that baker may deny to same-sex couple, California judge rules

Forcing a baker to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage over her religious objections violates her right to free speech, a California judge has ruled.

www.sltrib.com

"A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis," wrote Superior Court Judge David R. Lampe in a decision late Monday. "It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage. There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct," he said.

 

[Ganondagan]

That's what I wrote. It is NOT. Holy shit.

You are so blinded by bias and agenda.

I'm done with this subject here. I wrote that earlier, now I am. If you want to discuss it further, start a thread. We had plenty in the past.

Not intersted. Bye.

 

[Lursa]

Not intersted. Bye.

Of course not, since I pointed out your mistake.

And I'm good with the past discussions on it, enjoined in good faith.

 

[Lursa]

Before I leave, what the hell are you saying? you think what I posted supports your previous comments?

Go back and read it. I broke it out for you more than once. Holy shit.

 

[Ganondagan]

Go back and read it. I broke it out for you more than once. Holy shit.

Your argued that designing a wedding cake is not artistic expression. I just showed you evidence that it is.

 

[Ganondagan]

Go back and read it. I broke it out for you more than once. Holy shit.

Looks like I owe you an apology. I misunderstood the point you were making.

 

[Lursa]

Your argued that designing a wedding cake is not artistic expression. I just showed you evidence that it is.

That is EXACTLY what I was writing.

Looks like I owe you an apology. I misunderstood the point you were making.

ok

 

[hecatmoggie]

Yes, I agree. Ive proposed what you proposed many times, it is by far the most reasonable solution for anyone interested in simply a reasonable solution that protects everyone rights. But instead, its really about societal recognition of validity as a marriage. Its the societal recognition they are going after, not just the legal one.

As I said earlier, marriage evolved as both a societal and religious function, as well as a legal one. As our society has become less and less religious, the legal and social functions have taken over the religious in terms of importance. So when a solution is given that sort of takes out the legal aspects of marriage and gives it to civil unions, what remains is the social aspects. In search of being

why do you think so many people hate the idea ?

 

[hecatmoggie]

I oppose @hecatmoggie on many points of this discussion, but he has been consistent in that he supports, as a legal entity, interracial and same sex marriage, and would even welcome related and poly marriages in the legal system. His main gripe has been about the label use within law, not the potential variations within law.

Luce makes tons of accusations towards me and never backs a single one of them up

Thanks for noticing that I try to stay consistent and call things fair and equal as they are. We used to discriminate against giving licenses (blacks/whites/gays etc) and we still do discriminate .... using age and kinship and then there is the polygamy angle. I don't care how states set up their rules/regulations/restrictions - that's up to them.

I do think age limits matter - and for that I'm very consistent ..... not legal to let kids marry, to smoke, to set in motion sex change .... very consistent

Adults? Let them marry, smoke, sex change, ..... they're adults. Only drug use is what I would reign in because of the massive damage it causes

 

[hecatmoggie]

So that would be a strawman argument since no one, especially here, has made that assertion. Please don't pick up on the bad habits of certain others.

its not - I'm not continually bringing it up as racist/homophobic etc , and the examples of churches being forced and bakeries being forced etc and hell I'm FOR gay marriage and still get told I'm not. Incredible that ...... but it was a question more than a statement

 

[AZRWinger]

Actually, we don't know this. The origins of marriage are lost to history. We don't have anything, despite the claim of some CHristians, to show how and where marriage began. And that is before we take into account all of the various changes and forms that have occurred across history. At best, all we can say is that throughout verifiable recorded history, all of the forms (legal, religious, social) and variations (monogamy, polygyny, polyandry, polygamy, ghost, etc)) of marriage have been present and part of various societies. But, in theory, at some point before recorded history marriage might have been purely a religious institution, and most likely not a Judeo-Christian one. While I doubt it, nobody knows it for a fact.

The fact is before judicial tyrants began their assault on the institution of marriage in the US it was understood to be between 1 man and 1 woman. States responded to the assault by reaffirming the tradition of marriage by referendum vote including California's proposition 8. As has become typical Democrats showed their support for democracy by filing lawsuits solicting judicial direction to override a vote they didn't like.

 

[Gordy327]

The fact is before judicial tyrants began their assault on the institution of marriage in the US it was understood to be between 1 man and 1 woman. States responded to the assault by reaffirming the tradition of marriage by referendum vote including California's proposition 8. As has become typical Democrats showed their support for democracy by filing lawsuits solicting judicial direction to override a vote they didn't like.

The only "tyrants" were those trying to deny marriage rights to same sex couples for no rational or legal reason. That's why they lost in court. Equal rights should never be put to popular vote anyway. As such, Prop 8 was rightfully challenged and defeated in the courts via due process.

 

[Ganondagan]

That is EXACTLY what I was writing.


ok

I seriously do apologize, Lursa, with no excuses. It's inexcusable of me to have not gone back to reread your post.

 

[maquiscat]

We used to discriminate against giving licenses (blacks/whites/gays etc)

Let's put it out there as it really was. We made the licenses in order to discriminate.

and we still do discriminate .... using age and kinship and then there is the polygamy angle.

To be fair, the whole non-discrimination thing isn't about absolute nn-discrimination, but discrimination for arbitrary reasons, such as race, or sex or religion, or any of the other categories. And as I noted during the week that never was, we don't so much discriminate against age, as we do ability to provide informed consent, and then use age as our guideline or rule of thumb in enforcing that. Polygamy is also a legit limit because the government does have to consider the logistics of tracking those who qualify for the legal benefits. On the other side of the coin, they should not be making laws with regards to who can and cannot cohabitate with each other, regardless of what the relationship is called outside of legal bounds. Again numbers being a legitimate limit, such as maximum long term occupancy for the size of the residence, and bathroom and septic requirements, and such.

Only drug use is what I would reign in because of the massive damage it causes

That is going to be a whole other thread.

 

[maquiscat]

its not - I'm not continually bringing it up as racist/homophobic etc , and the examples of churches being forced and bakeries being forced etc and hell I'm FOR gay marriage and still get told I'm not. Incredible that ...... but it was a question more than a statement

The church aspect was still out of the blue and does come across as if it were part of the debate before. The bakeries were legit in that those cases did happen. No cases have happened with any given church being made to recognize SSM. The closest that has happened in over property of services that are open for the general public to pay for. Those specifically are subject to the nn-discrimination laws. But if those things are only available to the church's members, paid or free, then the non-discrimination laws do not apply since it's all internal.

 

[AZRWinger]

The only "tyrants" were those trying to deny marriage rights to same sex couples for no rational or legal reason. That's why they lost in court. Equal rights should never be put to popular vote anyway. As such, Prop 8 was rightfully challenged and defeated in the courts via due process.

Great job parroting Democrat propaganda.

Do you really want to condemn the majority of state referendum voters, including Californians, as tyrants?
Do you want to second guess the majority of voters? What do you have against the will of the People?

The reason Proposition 8 supposedly lost in court is the gay judge what the law should be altered to please his personal preferences. On appeal the judge's incredibly shoddy legal argument was ignored on favor of debauching marriage with an incredibly imaginative reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

All of our rights are put up for a vote. The Constitution and amendments were voted on by either ratification or by elected state legislatures.

 

[maquiscat]

The fact is before judicial tyrants began their assault on the institution of marriage in the US it was understood to be between 1 man and 1 woman. States responded to the assault by reaffirming the tradition of marriage by referendum vote including California's proposition 8. As has become typical Democrats showed their support for democracy by filing lawsuits solicting judicial direction to override a vote they didn't like.

This has nothing to do with what the origins of marriage are. Strawman argument.

However, taking the argument itself out of that context, it could just as easily be claimed that marriage in the US was understood to be between 1 man and 1 woman of the same race. Except that was never actually the case. Interracial marriage happened, whether it was with blacks or with various Native Americans, including the "lost" Roanoke colony marrying into the local tribe. Polygamy was also a form that happened. The reasons that they had to make laws against these things is that they happened and there were people that didn't want them to happen.

But regardless of what was, in the end the issue is what is and isn't allowed by law. And with the amendments and laws that make it such that we cannot discriminate by sex and/or gender, nor by race, if marriage is to be a legal institution (and I still assert that there is no constitutional requirement to have such a legal institution), then it cannot be limited by those factors. It doesn't matter what the past was, nor what any given religion says. The law is separate from those things.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Let's put it out there as it really was. We made the licenses in order to discriminate.

sure - just like the laws/rules/restrictions today does

To be fair, the whole non-discrimination thing isn't about absolute nn-discrimination, but discrimination for arbitrary reasons, such as race, or sex or religion, or any of the other categories. And as I noted during the week that never was, we don't so much discriminate against age, as we do ability to provide informed consent, and then use age as our guideline or rule of thumb in enforcing that. Polygamy is also a legit limit because the government does have to consider the logistics of tracking those who qualify for the legal benefits. On the other side of the coin, they should not be making laws with regards to who can and cannot cohabitate with each other, regardless of what the relationship is called outside of legal bounds. Again numbers being a legitimate limit, such as maximum long term occupancy for the size of the residence, and bathroom and septic requirements, and such.



That is going to be a whole other thread.

you are justifying YOUR beliefs/reasons .... 70 years ago, people could justify theirs too

remember what Muhammad Ali said

“No intelligent white person wants his white sons and daughters, marrying black sons and daughters. Why would anyone marry outside of their race. It’s a destruction of your own people. I want kids that look like me.” -Muhammad Ali


it wasn't just whites against mixed marriages .... a very close relative of mine dates a black man. Blacks discriminated against them worse than whites do

 

[maquiscat]

Do you really want to condemn the majority of state referendum voters, including Californians, as tyrants?
Do you want to second guess the majority of voters? What do you have against the will of the People?

If the will of the people is to reinstitute slavery should we respect that?

 

[maquiscat]

sure - just like the laws/rules/restrictions today does

As noted, there is no universal non-discrimination. And even with such laws in place, discrimination still happened, until those rights were fought for and won.

you are justifying YOUR beliefs/reasons .... 70 years ago, people could justify theirs too

The thing is, I'm not even justifying my beliefs. If I had my way we would have polygamy again, and even marriage between those already related by law. But despite my beliefs/reasons, I recognize that numbers is not a protected status, and thus not subject to the same arguments as interracial and same sex marriage were, I also recognize that it will take a lot more work to make it so, even being constitutionally valid to have. I recognize that relationship is not a protected class, and thus it is valid, in and of itself, to have such banned. That doesn't mean that I think that the reason used is sufficient. But that is a different matter and aspect.

remember what Muhammad Ali said

That's unavailable.

 

[hecatmoggie]

As noted, there is no universal non-discrimination. And even with such laws in place, discrimination still happened, until those rights were fought for and won.

The thing is, I'm not even justifying my beliefs. If I had my way we would have polygamy again, and even marriage between those already related by law. But despite my beliefs/reasons, I recognize that numbers is not a protected status, and thus not subject to the same arguments as interracial and same sex marriage were, I also recognize that it will take a lot more work to make it so, even being constitutionally valid to have. I recognize that relationship is not a protected class, and thus it is valid, in and of itself, to have such banned. That doesn't mean that I think that the reason used is sufficient. But that is a different matter and aspect.

That's unavailable.

“No intelligent white person wants his white sons and daughters, marrying black sons and daughters. Why would anyone marry outside of their race. It’s a destruction of your own people. I want kids that look like me.” -Muhammad Ali


realize then in 1940 interracial marriages was like polygamy is today - just generally not accepted

 

[Gordy327]

Great job parroting Democrat propaganda.

What propaganda? I cited facts.

Do you really want to condemn the majority of state referendum voters, including Californians, as tyrants?

States that try to deny equal rights to minor or marginalized groups is tyrannical.

What do you have against the will of the People?

What do you have against people being given equal rights? What part of "equal rights should not be put to popular vote" did you not understand?

The reason Proposition 8 supposedly lost in court is the gay judge what the law should be altered to please his personal preferences. On appeal the judge's incredibly shoddy legal argument was ignored on favor of debauching marriage with an incredibly imaginative reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

That's nice. Prove it! By your "logic,' interracial marriages shouldn't be allowed. Bigots lost then and they lost on the issue of SSM.

All of our rights are put up for a vote. The Constitution and amendments were voted on by either ratification or by elected state legislatures.

When challenges made, then it goes through the courts via due process as it did with SSM rights. Why do you hate our system of jurisprudence?

 

[Gordy327]

“No intelligent white person wants his white sons and daughters, marrying black sons and daughters. Why would anyone marry outside of their race. It’s a destruction of your own people. I want kids that look like me.” -Muhammad Ali


realize then in 1940 interracial marriages was like polygamy is today - just generally not accepted

And today, interracial marriage is accepted by the government and law, just as SSM is. That is all that really matters. Individual acceptance or not is irrelevant. There was no valid legal argument to restrict interracial marriages then just as there was none to restrict SSM.

 

[hecatmoggie]

And today, interracial marriage is accepted by the government and law, just as SSM is. That is all that really matters. Individual acceptance or not is irrelevant. There was no valid legal argument to restrict interracial marriages then just as there was none to restrict SSM.

and age discrimination is still in place, kin discrimination and polygamist discrimination you're right

different kinds, but still discrimination

why are you not outraged ?

 

[Gordy327]

and age discrimination is still in place, kin discrimination and polygamist discrimination you're right

different kinds, but still discrimination

why are you not outraged ?

Feel free to take it to the courts. Better yet, come up with a valid legal reason to restrict marriage to homosexuals or any other group you want to marginalize.