Same Sex Marriage from Conservative buddy thread... (Page 3)

OK, sorry. I should have been clearer as well.

Our unalienable rights flow from and are found in the natural law.  

One could argue that Natural Law has changed over time.  In the world of science and human psychology, homosexuality is considered a kind of "normal." It is no longer considered "un-natural."

There are other entities involved here beyond the people within the marriage itself.

For example, can an institution base policy on serving only persons in a marriage of one man and one woman, or can they be sued for discrimination if they do that.

Those types of lawsuits have already occurred.

Can you link to them?  I read about the one, I believe it was in Massachusetts, but the issue there was that they were receiving government money and therefore would have lost that money had they continued to so discriminate.  ETA - and I believe that was a commitment ceremony (wasn;t in Mass then) which had nothing to do with marriage....  but going by a taper addled memory here

Natural law does not derive from specific human activity. Rather, they are principles that human persons "ought" to adhere to. They remain static. For example, it was always wrong to murder, it will always be wrong to murder.

One I'm thinking of is a photography studio that was sued because they would not provide service for a gay commitment ceremony. I think it was in New Mexico. As with you're example, it was a commitment ceremony. Going from memory here.

I disagree.  Our interpretation changes as we as a society changes.  As was pointed out earlier, Natural Law was used to argue against women's sufferage, interracial marriage, and a myriad of other now-shameful beliefs and actions done in the past.

That's a great question.

I'd say that marriage is an inalienable right. The state does not have the right to prohibit marriage, however it does have the right to restrict it. (and again I'm assuming here that so called gay marriage is not in actuality marriage but rather some other form of relationship.)

Can you cite those instances?

Keep in mind that natural law is a disctinct notion from the idea for example that certain races are inferior.

In fact, it was a natural law argument itself that fueled the abolitionist movement and led to emancipation, as well as a natural law argument that Martin Luther King used to defend his civil disobedience actions.

Did they win?  I myself think that lawsuit is silly...and have heard that as a defense against prop 8 in CA....that churchs will be sued for not performing Gay marriage...my sister wanted a church wedding...and could not find one that would marry her because her husband is an athiest and would not go through the marriage courses required...she finally found a pastor that would perform the ceremony.  I now know of several churches that do gay marriages and commitment ceremonies...so a church wedding is not out of the question...A photographer gets onto shakey ground...A friend in the hospitality industry had a political discussion with a conservative restraunt owner...he was conflicted...he didn't believe in gay marriage, but he sure liked the extra money coming in from all the receptions that followed the supreme court rulings.

I have to think about that more, but I'd say that I agree with you. It doesn't require the state for a marriage to take place.

Again, I would disagree here. If marriage between one man and one woman can indeed be shown to be a separate class then no discrimination occurs.

So, this fella boils down what makes a marriage to the ability to copulate? I have the proper equipment to have conventional, heterosexual, potentially reproductive sexual intercourse with approximately half the population of the planet. However, I chose to marry one of those men because of so much more than my ability to have sex and reproduce with him. Having kids is important to me (good thing, since I'm due to have one in 3 months!), but if we weren't able to have them, he'd still be the man I want to be married to. If his junk fell off and we could never have sex that is reproductive in type or effect, I'd still be married to him.

I think that idea that marriage can be boiled down to f---ing is debasing marriage more than the marriage of any homosexual couple who truly love each other ever could.

Additionally, I'd like to point out that while homosexual couples cannot reproduce without a little helping hand from technology or adoption, their ability to lovingly and successfully rear children as well as any straight couple remains unaffected.

No, that's not what he's doing. Look for the beauty in the midst of the dry language. 

I don't know. I didn't follow the case.

Don, that's what I see as well.... see my quote above as to how he handles sterility.  That's a beautiful phrase you wrote, but it doesn't mean anything (to me...)  Maybe quote for us, since at least two of us aren't seeing that beauty

Because (natural law or not) or system was set up so that none of the three branches of government - including courts - has power over the populace without checks and balances.  Just because a court says something - or a legislature - doesn't mean that they are right.

The current vote in California goes directly to constitutional law, and is actually an appropriate way to treat the issue from a legal standpoint.

As to your last question, no, it will not be found unconstitutional because the vote is to amend the Cal. constitution (which hopefully doesnt' happen)

Actually, I think the exact opposite.  If the state is going to grant marriage licenses, it doesn't get to discriminate to whom they are granted.  If the church doesn't want to marry a couple, that is their right to discriminate.

Why do you say that the state has a right to restrict? 

Considering the proposition would alter the state constitution, the only way to oppose it would be to take it to the federal supreme court, which would be a states' rights issue.

The other way would be to re-amend the state constitution again some time in the future.