Prop 8 is to get a ruling today

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

No, though it provides a baseline. If couples wish to modify those standards they can through additional paperwork. Honestly it makes sense to have a standard contract that can be modified as the couples see fit. But because it's so intertwined into law - for example requiring insurance companies to cover spouses, requiring hospitals allow spouses to visit, allowing spouses to obtain citizenship) spouses lose a lot of protection as well as responsibility without it.

Agreed.

But plausiblity and morality have nothing to do with each other. I don't think I understand your use of morality there.

That's why I said not with the weird "Christian assumptions." Government intervention is immoral as it slow the dynamism of cultural interaction. Depending on where you set your moral compass, government intervention is definitely immoral. (And by government intervention I'm defining as any time the government does more than its two obligations of protecting citizens within the state from each other and protecting the citizens of its own state from citizens of another state)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Agreed.



That's why I said not with the weird "Christian assumptions." Government intervention is immoral as it slow the dynamism of cultural interaction. Depending on where you set your moral compass, government intervention is definitely immoral. (And by government intervention I'm defining as any time the government does more than its two obligations of protecting citizens within the state from each other and protecting the citizens of its own state from citizens of another state)

Eh, we'll have to agree to disagree on that point
But otherwise, thanks for the discussion

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

Loving vs. Virginia was a correct decision and a relatively easy one to make in hindsight. This was more about race and not a definition of marriage as it relates to man and woman. It did not address gay marriage nor was it considered to have done such.

No. of course it didn't. What it did do was was determine that laws prohibiting marriage between people of different races violate the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I agree that an argument can be made that this case is different because it can be seen as redefining marriage. But I can also see how the current case is the direct descendant of Loving.

The 14th Amendment was primarily concerned with apportioning 1 man/woman 1 vote. It overturned the Dred Scott decision. Again it does not address the claim for gay marriage unless one wants to cite the equal protection clause which I believe is more of an equal protection of a persons voting rights. Using due process is a huge stretch in my opinion.

I don't know of any court anywhere that would agree that the equal protection clause has to do only, or mainly, with voting rights. Aside from Loving, see Brown vs. Board of Education. Even Plessy v Furgeson (1896) held that the equal protection clause was designed to guarantee equality in civil rights. The idea that it has to only, or mainly, with voting rights is a dog that just won't hunt.

So yes, I believe that states rights were infringed by the Federal judge in this decision as the state simply defined their definition of marriage.

And I can see that point of view.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

^^ While that would be ideal, it will never happen because of all the legal aspects of marriage.

There is the model followed in some other countres where the legal union and religious aspects are separated. Legally, you appear before a government official (registrar, justice of the peace, etc.) to basically sign, seal and register the civil union contract. Then, if you want to, you head off to church (or temple, or wherever) for the religious ceremony.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

There is the model followed in some other countres where the legal union and religious aspects are separated. Legally, you appear before a government official (registrar, justice of the peace, etc.) to basically sign, seal and register the civil union contract. Then, if you want to, you head off to church (or temple, or wherever) for the religious ceremony.

We have that as well. There is nothing saying you need to have a religious ceremony.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

We have that as well. There is nothing saying you need to have a religious ceremony.

*But*, in the USA a religious official can do it all. In certain other countries (France and I think Brazil), there *must* be a civil official performing the wedding. What else you have done is irrelevant to the Civil Government.

I'd love to see that in the USA.

Randy

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by naraht

*But*, in the USA a religious official can do it all. In certain other countries (France and I think Brazil), there *must* be a civil official performing the wedding. What else you have done is irrelevant to the Civil Government.

I'd love to see that in the USA.

Randy

I was under the impression that the religious aspect was purely ceremonial, and that a marriage wasn't official until it was performed in front of a JOP. Was I mistaken?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I was under the impression that the religious aspect was purely ceremonial, and that a marriage wasn't official until it was performed in front of a JOP. Was I mistaken?

Here? No, in the US any clergy member can be the officiant of a legal marriage. Hence the people who go online and get registered as a clergy member to perform their friends' marriages