Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1321222324 LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 233

Thread: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

  1. #221
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    26,552

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    Read my posts before you ask silly questions. No, I would not be okay with it, as I said. It just wouldn't be unconstitutional (federally and depending upon the language of the bill).
    The vast majority of things ruled on today are unconstitutional because nobody writing the constitution had the slightest clue these things would ever exist.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  2. #222
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    That is not accurate. When most people believe an act is so immoral that it deserves to be punished, they make it a crime. Most of the criminal laws in the U.S., which are largely state laws, today are codified as statutes. And those criminal statutes almost always incorporate the principles and language of the common law. That common law developed through decisions by English judges that date back at least to the 1500's. Those decisions, in turn, reflect the views that most people in England, which was almost exclusively a Christian country, held about which actions are right or moral, and which are wrong or immoral.

    Christian teaching that murder, burglary, robbery, adultery, fraud, rape, and other acts are wrong is not the only reason those acts were crimes at common law and still are, but it is a very important one. Widely held moral convictions do not just spring out of thin air, but are taught. Most of our state criminal laws developed through accretion, and the moral values they affirm derive directly from the moral values Christian churches were instilling in Englishmen--including English judges--centuries ago. Contrary to what you are implying, they were not created one day by some secular committee sitting in a room studying the most utilitarian ways to regulate society by law.

    Whether religions other than Christianity consider some of the same acts wrong or immoral, or disagree with other religions about the morality of an act, it does not change the fact criminal prohibitions of those acts are largely based, in the end, on Christian teaching. As the Court noted in McGowan v. Maryland:

    "[F]or temporal purposes, murder is illegal. And the fact that this agrees with the dictates of the Judaeo-Christian religions while it may disagree with others does not invalidate the regulation. So too with the questions of adultery and polygamy. The same could be said of theft, fraud, etc., because those offenses were also proscribed in the Decalogue."
    What you fail to grasp is that Christianity developed its rules from other, earlier concepts of right or wrong, and just as they adapted from other beliefs, religions, with time, so too have they adapted since, as have our secular laws.

    Murder is always illegal. The definition of murder is unlawful killing. Adultery is not illegal (outside of the military), and polygamy is only not recognized under our laws. It is not technically illegal to be in a group relationship or a relationship of more than one spouse so long as they are not legally recognized spouses.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #223
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    01-19-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,270

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    What you fail to grasp is that Christianity developed its rules from other, earlier concepts of right or wrong, and just as they adapted from other beliefs, religions, with time, so too have they adapted since, as have our secular laws.
    I am sure the historical roots of Christianity make a fascinating subject, but they are irrelevant here. From the earliest days of America, our major criminal laws have derived directly from English common law. And that body of law was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Church of England about right and wrong. State criminal statutes have certainly modified the common law in some ways. At common law, for example, a burglary could only be committed at night and against another person's dwelling. I doubt if even one state today has not extended the definition of that crime by statute to include daytime acts against commercial buildings. But the reason for making burglary a crime has not changed, and it largely reflects the Christian teaching that it is a sin to steal. Whether Islam or some other religion shares that view is beside the point--judges in England and America were not consulting the Koran.

    Murder is always illegal. The definition of murder is unlawful killing. Adultery is not illegal (outside of the military), and polygamy is only not recognized under our laws. It is not technically illegal to be in a group relationship or a relationship of more than one spouse so long as they are not legally recognized spouses.
    Your definition is pretty lax--not every unlawful killing is murder, in any state. And your statement about adultery is false. It is a crime in most states, if not all, even if it the laws against it are seldom enforced. What you say about polygamy is not accurate, either. Polygamy, like bigamy and adult incest, is illegal in every state in this country, and it always has been. It refers to plural marriage, not to sex acts among a group of people who are not married to each other but choose to call themselves "spouses."

  4. #224
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I am sure the historical roots of Christianity make a fascinating subject, but they are irrelevant here. From the earliest days of America, our major criminal laws have derived directly from English common law. And that body of law was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Church of England about right and wrong. State criminal statutes have certainly modified the common law in some ways. At common law, for example, a burglary could only be committed at night and against another person's dwelling. I doubt if even one state today has not extended the definition of that crime by statute to include daytime acts against commercial buildings. But the reason for making burglary a crime has not changed, and it largely reflects the Christian teaching that it is a sin to steal. Whether Islam or some other religion shares that view is beside the point--judges in England and America were not consulting the Koran.



    Your definition is pretty lax--not every unlawful killing is murder, in any state. And your statement about adultery is false. It is a crime in most states, if not all, even if it the laws against it are seldom enforced. What you say about polygamy is not accurate, either. Polygamy, like bigamy and adult incest, is illegal in every state in this country, and it always has been. It refers to plural marriage, not to sex acts among a group of people who are not married to each other but choose to call themselves "spouses."
    You can't ignore though where those English laws came from.

    Marrying multiple people legally is not allowed. But you can get into personal marriages with as many as you wish so long as not more than two people are tied legally to each other as spouses. That is what I said. Nothing about sexual activities.

    There are only a few states with adultery still in the criminal statutes. They haven't been enforced in those states in at least a decade, and this is mainly because prosecutors do not want to face a constitutional challenge that is likely to end like Lawrence. Either way it goes, it would look bad.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #225
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    01-19-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,270

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    But you can get into personal marriages with as many as you wish so long as not more than two people are tied legally to each other as spouses.
    You can call relationships of whatever nature among several people "personal marriages" if you want. You could just as easily say the people in a Toastmasters' group or a bird watching club are in personal marriages with each other, and if they chose to, they could call each other spouses. After all, as you just emphasized, personal marriages do not necessarily involve sex. But calling amorphous personal relationships "marriages," when they are not legally recognized, does not make them that.

    There are only a few states with adultery still in the criminal statutes. They haven't been enforced in those states in at least a decade, and this is mainly because prosecutors do not want to face a constitutional challenge that is likely to end like Lawrence. Either way it goes, it would look bad.
    Once again, you are misstating the facts. According to a 2012 New York Times article, adultery was a crime in twenty-three states--nearly half--and a felony in five of them. I doubt most people would describe twenty-three states as "only a few." And your speculation about why adultery is seldom prosecuted aside, the fact remains that your statement that it is not a crime, except in the military, was false.

  6. #226
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    46,927

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    You can call relationships of whatever nature among several people "personal marriages" if you want. You could just as easily say the people in a Toastmasters' group or a bird watching club are in personal marriages with each other, and if they chose to, they could call each other spouses. After all, as you just emphasized, personal marriages do not necessarily involve sex. But calling amorphous personal relationships "marriages," when they are not legally recognized, does not make them that.



    Once again, you are misstating the facts. According to a 2012 New York Times article, adultery was a crime in twenty-three states--nearly half--and a felony in five of them. I doubt most people would describe twenty-three states as "only a few." And your speculation about why adultery is seldom prosecuted aside, the fact remains that your statement that it is not a crime, except in the military, was false.
    When was the last conviction, in any state?
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Well, certainly the customer is not an N-word.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    You know her?

  7. #227
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    You can call relationships of whatever nature among several people "personal marriages" if you want. You could just as easily say the people in a Toastmasters' group or a bird watching club are in personal marriages with each other, and if they chose to, they could call each other spouses. After all, as you just emphasized, personal marriages do not necessarily involve sex. But calling amorphous personal relationships "marriages," when they are not legally recognized, does not make them that.

    Once again, you are misstating the facts. According to a 2012 New York Times article, adultery was a crime in twenty-three states--nearly half--and a felony in five of them. I doubt most people would describe twenty-three states as "only a few." And your speculation about why adultery is seldom prosecuted aside, the fact remains that your statement that it is not a crime, except in the military, was false.
    It hasn't been prosecuted since 1983. This is like pointing out that not taking a bath except one day a week is technically a "crime" in at least one state. However, that "crime" has not been punished in so long that any court it showed up in would seriously question the use of such an outdated law. So yes, although it is still a "crime" on the books for several states (it is actually 21 now), it is not a crime that is prosecuted nor is it likely that it legitimately could be prosecuted now, given the length of time its been since the last prosecution.

    As for the first part, I'm not talking about just a group of people together. I'm talking about people living together, considering themselves as married, as in a group marriage or polygamous marriage. It is about the relationships between the people.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  8. #228
    Sage
    JumpinJack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,000

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by Tetron View Post
    The issue with gay marriage is the word marriage. Marriage originated as a religious institution, it was meant to be the joining of a reproductive group into a religiously blessed union (this hopefully will cover poly, and monogamous for everyone). The point being that said religion was giving you the thumbs up to make babies and not feel bad about it. The point of this is that marriage is a concept that stems from a religious institution that was recognized by the state. As such the state lacks the power to create gay marriage because marriage is not created by the state, only recognized. If this is an issue of rights then options exist such as civil unions. While there would be some who would oppose them it would be trivial effort if the homosexual rights groups refocused to equalize the rights available under said unions.

    Gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state because it is the state attempting to define a religious institution and force them to comply. Civil unions are on the other hand totally within the rights of the state to create and manage as they see fit. The question then becomes if equality is the goal why is the word marriage so important to homosexual couples. They could easily obtain equality with a civil union.
    No, that's not true. Marriage originated eons ago, when men wanted to be sure their women could have sex only with them, thereby being sure the offspring were theirs. It was a form of ownership, property rights, and such. Ironic, since as it evolved, men became apt to have commitment issues and want to avoid marriage. When it was their idea, to begin with.
    ________________________________

  9. #229
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    01-19-17 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,270

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    it is still a "crime" on the books for several states (it is actually 21 now)
    You made a statement that is factually false. No quotation marks apply--adultery is a crime, period, in twenty-plus states. In several of them, it is a felony crime. First you characterized that twenty-plus as a "few," and now it is "several."

    As for the first part, I'm not talking about just a group of people together. I'm talking about people living together, considering themselves as married, as in a group marriage or polygamous marriage. It is about the relationships between the people.
    If one of the persons in that group is legally married and cohabits with the other persons in it as husband and wife, that married person is engaged in polygamy. Polygamy is a crime in at least 49 states--and in some of them, a felony. If three or more people, none of whom is legally married, want to cohabit and consider themselves married to each other in some way, their cohabitation will not be a crime in most states.

    How often laws against adultery, polygamy, and other acts relating to sex are enforced does not affect whether those acts are crimes. The state sodomy laws the Supreme Court was considering in Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas had seldom been enforced, either, but that fact did not determine the law's validity in either case.

  10. #230
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,030

    Re: Tex. bill would bar local officials from issuing same-sex-marriage licenses

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    If one of the persons in that group is legally married and cohabits with the other persons in it as husband and wife, that married person is engaged in polygamy.
    Not quite.

    If that person attempts to legally marry another while currently legally married that is bigamy - an illegal act.

    Simply fornicating or cohabitation with another is not bigamy. The key is attempting to legally marry more than one person at a time.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Polygamy is a crime in at least 49 states--and in some of them, a felony.
    Bigamy and polygamy are two different things. Terms commonly used interchangeably in layman discussions, but two distinct things under the law since persons can be in only one Civil Marriage at a time, but can (it varies by state) be in additional non-civil marriages at the same time.

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    If three or more people, none of whom is legally married, want to cohabit and consider themselves married to each other in some way, their cohabitation will not be a crime in most states.
    In many states one can be legally married to one spouse and cohabitate with that spouse and another and as long as there is no attempt to legally marry both at the same time it legal.

    Being grounds for divorce and being a criminal act are two different things and again vary by state.



    Variations in state laws -->> Polygamy Laws > State Statutes > Against Bigamy > Bigamist

    Dec 2013, Federal Court strikes down Utah limitation on cohabitation restrictions -->> http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner...-in#.fy2BL900Y



    >>>>

Page 23 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1321222324 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •