We should all just live and let live.

Off topic: I can't believe how many of us are from the Philadelphia area.

Law
 

Whenever the court acts on a divisive issue, there are always sore losers. I will say that at least the left has not coined the phrase 'activist judges' to explain away valid judgements like some conservatives have.

The ruling simply states that the mayor overstepped his authority in the situation and ignored the law in the face of his own convictions. In a way it is similar to the judge with the large statue of the ten commandments on display who refused to remove it.

IMO, as a civil authority, the mayor could not perform an illegal ceremony. However, if the mayor had been a clergyman the issue would have been much more interesting because of the 1st amendment. In fact, when interracial marriage was illegal, the church had a proud tradition of flouting the law and even in some cases keeping a second set of books to record marriages.

In this case the court had the responsibility to uphold the law. Whether they had to void the marriages already performed is a seperate issue. IMO, they should have issued an injunction against further marriages and left the marriages intact pending appeals.

Have I ever told you how much I actually like many of the things you post here, Happy Monkey? I mean this quite seriously.You will often add a source to back up your arguments and tend not to come across as being the self appointed Oracle. Whether you care or not, that encourages people to actually read and consider you comments. :)

That doesn't mean that I agree with your positions, but I appreciate many of the things you post.

This is interesting to me. You quoted the second paragraph from my post.

The point of that whole post was to present some possibilites that may not have been condered. Non religious or moral possibilites that seem to be the focus of the debate.

That's why is posted this sentence:

"There are tangent issues that have nothing directly to do with religion that may come into play."

The series of "would you agree" questions are not intended to bring credibility to excluding gays from being married. They are to establish the reality that there are large numbers of people that are influenced by religion, they have kids, that many would see the passage of gay marriage as "the last straw" and take their kids out of public school, and that doing so in large numbers would effect eveyone no matter where they stand on the issue.

The last paragraph of that same post asks the question:

"In which of the two situations would tolerance and acceptance be more likely......home schooling, where the kids are basically not dealing with any kids outside of the parent's circle of friends.......or the public school?"

If the Christian masses decided to take their kids out of public school to be home schooled or entered them into a private school , it would be their right to do so for whatever reason it might be. They would not be denying anyone's rights by doing so. The same is true of the migration from private school to homeschooling. Having read my entire post, I can't imgaine anyone coming to the conclusion that this would not look out of place as an argument against racial integration in public schools.


I'm sure I'm wrong though and that someone will chime in to tell me why.


There's more I have to add to this argument, but I can't get credit for a Cellar debate over gay marriage. Oh well.



Syc, Bruce, Griff, Skunks, Snake, RichLevy....great comments in there too. I don't have the time now to reply as I would like for the lack of time.

A few more months and I should have more time.

I'm going to stop coming in for a while again. Maybe I can do it, maybe not. Anyway.....see you all later. :thumbsup:


:rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat::rattat:

Thanks. I also have a tendency to occasionally phrase things in a more accusatory and harsh way than I intend. I hope my post didn't come off as an accusation of bigotry, though I expect it did.
I do, however, think it fits. I'm sure that many people changed schools to avoid integrated schools, and I'm sure that many people felt that forcing integration "too soon" would decrease support for the civil rights movement. It hasn't been perfect, but I think it was the right move. Likewise, I think that the best way to decrease homophobia is to have a few gay families in schools, being normal.
Come back soon!

So if I don't ever intend to breed, I shouldn't be able to get married? If that's your argument, we gotta make all childless couples divorce right away.

- Pie

This remains my position. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS contract, and should remain so. What's really at issue here is a civil contract ... a union/division of property rights, really. The Marriage license presented by most states is the civil permission for a union, that's not in effect until someone pronounces the necessary holy words (of the religion(s) of the couple's choice). There are people who are married religiously, not civilly. I know that my coworker's Quaker Meeting has solemnized several gay unions.

Homosexuals are as entitled to the misery of divorce as straight people. But don't call it marriage.

That's not true. A marriage license is in effect when completed, whether or not clergy is involved. Someone does not need state permission for a religious marriage, or religious permission for a civil marriage.They are legally separate things, though a religious marriage greases the wheels for a civil marriage. No change in terminlogy would be necessary.

Either divorce or a fight to the death, winner gets the HBO special proceeds. ;)

Question- Is a marriage license, a license to get married, or a license to be married?

I'm thinking get ... because you still have to have someone authorized by the state, be it clergy or judge, JP, mayor, or ship's captain pronounce some words over the couple to seal the deal.

That's the way I see it. The county clerk gave(sold) me the license at "The $2 window, where everybody loses", but I had to get a Justice of the Peace to do the actual deed. :)

It's a license to get certain legal benefits. Al you need to be married is to believe you are, but you gotta do the paperwork to get the rights associated.

This is what I am thinking too. The "ceremony" is just that..a ceremony. You will be married, ceremony or not. As far as I'm concerned, the ceremony is a lot of fuss that is more than likely be diminished with the couple getting divorced in a matter of years (isn't the divorce rate like 51% or something? No one seems to mention that when it comes down to respecting the institution of marriage...isn't it 'till death do you part?)

At any rate, I'm getting quite sick and tired of this, "Well, these people over here can have all these rights, but those over there can not". At least, that's how I see it.

:mad2: :mad:

Not anymore. Even in traditional catholic ceremonies the statement has become "as long as your love shall last" or some such bullshit. I think that escape hatch has made divorce a whole lot easier ...

"Till love or life shall leave" is one formulation I've heard. Maybe it does make divorce easier; I don't think that's bad thing.

Not in PA or MA (I haven't gotten married in any other states yet). The license just means you've cleared the hurtle of convincing the state(county?) that you can legally marry, such as you bothered to get a divorce after the last one and had your rabies tests.
Then with license in hand you have to have a clergy, Justice of the Peace, Judge or some other person with the power vested by the state, actually do the deed. Otherwise your not legally entitled to all those wonderful benefits, like the marriage tax penalty and divorce court
No matter what they tell you, bellhops, bartenders and river ferry captains, can't. ;)