"In 2000, prop 22 passed with 61% of the vote. In 8 years, public opinion has changed drastically, and the 60% claim isn't true any longer."Wrong. In 2000 61.4% of Californians said no to homosexual marriage. We haven't voted on the issue since, so there is no basis for you to say the stats have changed.
@Iconoclast,No, it's not the job of a judge to enforce societal norms. Judges enforce laws. If existing law goes against societal norms, then it's up to the legislative branch and the voters to change it. If the federal or state constitution makes the desired law unconstitutional, then, again, it's up to the legislative branch and the voters to change it.What you're advocating is legislating from the bench. I thought judicial activism was supposed to be a conservative talking point. Are you saying you're okay with it so long as you like the result?
Minarchian, that's completely misleading and has nothing to do with freedom of religious practice. First of all, telling your congregation how to vote is not a religious ceremony, and second, if a church starts telling their followers how to vote, the government does not stop them, they simply loose their 501c3 status.
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise,as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but that everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3: 9
It is impossible for a group of people to have a right, including government. People may claim a right on behalf of a group they identify with, and jointly fight or use force to get their way, but that doesn't mean they're actually fighting for a right, particularly if gained at the expense of others, since these things cannot be rights. Only individuals can make choices. Every _individual_ should be free to discriminate.From a nationalistic perspective, dissent is the greater form of patriotism.
Zort...you stated that "There's no reason outside of your religious traditions for why the state should give my same-sex union some different kind of recognition and status than what is given to a straight couple."Even you call it a "union". This is my point...marriage by longstanding religious and social acceptance IS between a man and a woman. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever you want to call them...but don't call it marriage! If the state mandates that this type of "marriage" must be carried out by clergy who believe it is against God's will...then the state is taking away the religious freedom of those ministers. So my reasoning goes... God bless you
Closed AccountMay 16, 2008
"In 2000, prop 22 passed with 61% of the vote. In 8 years, public opinion has changed drastically, and the 60% claim isn't true any longer."Wrong. In 2000 61.4% of Californians said no to homosexual marriage. We haven't voted on the issue since, so there is no basis for you to say the stats have changed.
mediablitzMay 17, 2008
"Everybody should be free to discriminate."Including the government? I am curious to understand how for your "everybody" carries.
eir574May 18, 2008
@Iconoclast,No, it's not the job of a judge to enforce societal norms. Judges enforce laws. If existing law goes against societal norms, then it's up to the legislative branch and the voters to change it. If the federal or state constitution makes the desired law unconstitutional, then, again, it's up to the legislative branch and the voters to change it.What you're advocating is legislating from the bench. I thought judicial activism was supposed to be a conservative talking point. Are you saying you're okay with it so long as you like the result?
zortnacMay 18, 2008
Minarchian, that's completely misleading and has nothing to do with freedom of religious practice. First of all, telling your congregation how to vote is not a religious ceremony, and second, if a church starts telling their followers how to vote, the government does not stop them, they simply loose their 501c3 status.
tyronebr549May 19, 2008
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise,as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but that everyone to come to repentance. 2 Peter 3: 9
peppermintpigMay 19, 2008
It is impossible for a group of people to have a right, including government. People may claim a right on behalf of a group they identify with, and jointly fight or use force to get their way, but that doesn't mean they're actually fighting for a right, particularly if gained at the expense of others, since these things cannot be rights. Only individuals can make choices. Every _individual_ should be free to discriminate.From a nationalistic perspective, dissent is the greater form of patriotism.
shanson13May 21, 2008
Zort...you stated that "There's no reason outside of your religious traditions for why the state should give my same-sex union some different kind of recognition and status than what is given to a straight couple."Even you call it a "union". This is my point...marriage by longstanding religious and social acceptance IS between a man and a woman. Civil unions, domestic partnerships, whatever you want to call them...but don't call it marriage! If the state mandates that this type of "marriage" must be carried out by clergy who believe it is against God's will...then the state is taking away the religious freedom of those ministers. So my reasoning goes... God bless you