proposition 8 Options

[*Janette*]

By a vote of 6-1 (with Justice Carlos Moreno dissenting), the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 -- while preserving the marriage licenses of 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in the months prior to the November election. Paul Hogarth is reading the 185-page Court decision as we speak, and will be reporting later today with his legal analysis of the Court's reasoning.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/BREAKI...rop_8_6962.html

discuss.

[hi-C]

^ I'm not saying that marriage did or didn't come out of religion, but if it did, why can atheists marry and religious gays cannot?

1) So then you agree with Proposition 8, as it protects religious people from unfair prosecution, right? After all, that's why prop 8 was made in the first place, wasn't it?

2) Maybe it didn't. But the problem is, gays think they can sue religious organizations for not allowing them to marry... and they're having success at it. The people of California decided that the free exercise of religion needed to be protected from activist homosexuals.

But if marriage is a civil institution and marriage licenses are granted by the state, then how is it religious prosecution? Those against Prop 8 aren't suing the church, they're suing the state.

[kryogenix]

^ I'm not saying that marriage did or didn't come out of religion, but if it did, why can atheists marry and religious gays cannot?
But if marriage is a civil institution and marriage licenses are granted by the state, then how is it religious prosecution? Those against Prop 8 aren't suing the church, they're suing the state.

I'm talking about the homosexuals that are suing churches that refuse to marry them, like the lesbians that sued that methodist group in NJ.

I don't consider marriage a civil institution (like I said, I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage whatsoever), but for the sake of argument, let's say I do. If marriage is now a legal contract, the government has the power to decide who can and cannot participate. That means, it would be within the scope of the government's power to decide that homosexuals cannot marry, especially if this decision is arrived at through democratic means, right?

We need to move towards a more constitutional form of government. That way, gays are free to pretend to themselves that they are married, and I am free to ignore them.