Originally posted by tonton
That's not the point. The truth is that this court trumps all others up to this point in time. So the decisions of other courts is moot except where it applies to this decision.
Actually I haven't researched this, but usually a court can only rule on a matter within its jurisdiction. The article linked even mentioned that several other cases and appeals at similar levels are making their way through the courts. It will obviously work its way up to the California Supreme Court.
I'm certainly not taking that right away from you, personally. Why are you so afraid of letting other people believe differently than you do? As far as the state goes, no, the state does not have the right to define words as they see fit, by ballot or otherwise, when such a definition would have the effect of being discriminatory. As long as there is language in the law that gives certain rights to people who marry, defining marriage in a discriminatory way is unconstitutional, and it is not the right of the state to do so.
You are an odd bird at times Ton. Why do you suggest that I am afraid of letting people believe differently than myself? I've never suggested that people aren't free to believe what they want. As for the state and definitions, you are quite simply wrong on that matter. The state defines words and phrases all the time. If anything we as a society suffer fom a sort of hyper-rationalization because we really do believe we can write it all down and squish even the spirit of understanding into a box called the written word.
The state medically emancipates twelve year olds on certain procedures. That means they discriminate against eleven year olds and also in that they do not allow all procedures, just select ones. In claiming they can't do this, you prove my point. In claiming that the state cannot define marriage you have made it impossible to govern because the state no longer has the right to even use common language and have it understood.
And if legal definitions lead to discrimination we are worse than in chaos, we are actually doing something that is actively harmful.
It depends on the situation. The state requires child molesters to register where they are living and report it to state authorities. They do not require this of me, nor would they of you. It is a very good form of discrimination.
You really should start thinking, and stop applying words as absolutes.
I ask again: Who is telling you what your definition is? Your definition can be different from the state's definition, and no one can stop you. Now, before you throw in another strawman, this does not compare to you say, redefining "murder" or "theft". You defining marriage as between a man and a woman and acting on that definition does not limit or affect anyone else but yourself. Go ahead, tiger. Act on your belief. I'm not stopping you.
What you have said quite plainly is that the state does not have the right to define words in ways that are discriminatory. When it defines theft, it does it in a manner that excludes other acts from being called theft. You claim that basically this can't happen. I've claimed that is nonsense. In defining marriage, the state excludes certain things from being called marriage. This is permissable regardless of what you want to declare or imagine.
Non-sequitur to the ultimate degree. What a ridiculous, and irrelevant argument.
It is very relevent because words have meaning. I mean if they didn't why not simply tell people applying for the license to call themselves a man and a woman. Gee I guess it has something to do with that definition of a man that excludes women from being called men, and likewise the definition of men which happens to exclude women from being called men.
But the state can't use those words because they obviously discriminate and exclude people.
I agree wholeheartedly. Let the law deal only with civil unions, remove any mention of the word "marriage" from the law, and allow individual churches and non-governmental ministers and justices of the peace the right to their own definition of the word "marriage", and the right to marry whomever they want (even polygamists, family members or children, since it wouldn't matter in terms of the law).
You can't possibly agree with this. I mean that would have to mean you hate gay people because any deviation from orthodoxy is only because of stupidity and hate.
Oh wait, I don't apply silly reasoning like that.
I would be happy to see more ways of forming legal unions.
That's a question of ethics, not law. As such, selective abortion for a non-disability, like gender, left-handedness, eye coloror sexual preferencewould never be accepted as ethical and such selective abortions would be illegal (just as gender selective abortions are illegal in many places around the world, where there would be a problem with gender skew). No question about it. This would not be allowed in a civilized country.
This is a nice thought, but the reality is that the practices occur and even if they passed a law claiming you couldn't do it, you can't have abortion on demand and then stop people from having them at the same time.
Are we suddenly going to start asking women WHY they are having an abortion now and stop them and their body from having one if they state an answer we don't agree with?
I disagree. And am I really to believe that you want homosexuality to become more widely accepted? Oh, please. How noble of you.
I'm a pretty accepting person. I mean I think I even said in another thread of this issue that I would be the flower girl for my homosexual uncle if he were to be civilly unioned. Regardless of what people here want to believe, my views are between libertarian and conservative on a number of issues. In fact I find the people here who most often make claims about others and their tolerances are those who should do some looking in the mirror themselves. There are a number of issues where my circle of acceptance has been cast wider than those who claim they are progressive and correct on all matters.