Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-05-10 at 01:59 PM.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
One might argue that any consenting adults can marry anyone of their choosing, and as such any type of marriage arrangement is fundamental, yet, all throughout historical record, we see only one type of marriage, which raises the question, is marriage that, by presumption alone, inalienable; why then have we ever only seen one type of marriage? between a man, and a woman? Notwithstanding the odd exception, this has been the rule, so, if it is reasonably presumed to be a fundamental right of all humans, why has no one else exercised this right? If the answer is glaring you in the face as it is me, then one must conclude logically, and with this test, that, marriage is not fundamental to human kind, and only fundamental, if any reading is to be extracted, to one man, and one woman.
Last edited by Hicup; 08-05-10 at 02:06 PM. Reason: typo
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For several weeks in 2004, the mayor of San Francisco issued marriage licenses regardless of gender. The consolidated lawsuits which resulted eventually reached the Supreme Court of California. On May 15, 2008, it overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage with the ruling In re Marriage Cases. The four-to-three decision took effect on June 16, 2008. Two weeks earlier, the initiative to override this result of the court decision qualified for the November election ballot. The Court declined to stay its decision until after the November elections. Some reports suggested that out-of-state same-sex couples would marry in California prior to the 2008 elections because California does not require the marriage to be valid in the couple's home state.
The ballot initiative, Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment titled Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act, appeared on the California general election ballot in November 2008 and passed with a 52% majority. The California Supreme Court heard several challenges to Proposition 8 in March 2009, but ultimately upheld the amendment.
California continues to allow domestic-partner registration, a right similar to civil unions found in other states. This grants same-sex couples almost all state-level rights and obligations of marriage but does not apply to "federal-level rights of marriage that cannot be granted by states." UCLA’s Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy projected in June 2008 that about half of California’s more than 100,000 same-sex couples would wed during the next three years and 68,000 out-of-state couples would travel to California to exchange vows.
Taylor versus Safely (1987): "the decision to marry is a fundamental right" and "marriage is an expression of emotional support and public committment."
Zablocki versus Redhail (1978): "The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals."
Cleveland Board of Education versus LaFleur (1974): "This court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected buy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Loving versus Virginia (1967): The "freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-05-10 at 02:17 PM.