SCOTUS on Prop 8 Gay "Marriage"

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Tuck31, Mar 26, 2013.

  1. Tuck31

    Tuck31 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,079
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Location:
    California, unfortunately
    This about sums up the problem and the solution:

    Chief Justice Roberts:

    ?If you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend,? Roberts said, ?I suppose you can force the child to say ?this is my friend.? but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that?s, it seems to me, what (supporters?) of Proposition 8 are saying here. All you?re interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.?

    As I have said a million times, the word marriage already has a definition. The government cannot hijack the word to redefine it. Simply change the government sanctioned union to "civil union" for hetero and homosexuals. Problem solved, everyone has the same rights and no one is changing the definition of words to suit an agenda.

    And you avoid later problems with lawsuits charging churches, pastors or priests with discrimination because they won't "marry" same sex couples.
     
  2. Lowtide

    Lowtide Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,623
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Makes sense to me. :tu
     
  3. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,467
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    I'm still wondering the legitimacy of a constitutional issue of one of the several states being argued in front of the SCOTUS.
     
  4. muddyduck

    muddyduck Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    9,640
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Location:
    Centreville, Maryland
    But that would derail the liberal agenda of destroying faith in religon.

    Most people wouldn't accept or allow the government to outright attack a church. But if those same people can be convinced that their church is run by intolerant bigots they will stop attending, or lose faith in the morals of their religon, on their own volition.

    Do it legally through the court system is even better by making the progressive agenda appear more worthy of obedience than church doctrine.

    Liberals don't see lawsuits against churches, pastors, or priests as a problem. They see it as an opportunity.
     
  5. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,472
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    This has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards and yet people still cling to this "redefinition" issue as if it's completely unprecedented....it's a losing argument.

    Let's use Robert's logic and apply it to the early 1800s...

    You can apply the same argument to a multitude of other issues where something has been defined....or other instances of marriage (as had already been noted countless times here).

    I have yet to hear a solid rebuttal....
     
  6. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,472
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Also at issue here is the notion that the "who" defines the "what".

    Personally, I disagree with that notion....example:

    Baseball is baseball. The definition of the game did not change when Jackie Robinson started playing for the Dodgers. What changed was the "who", not the "what".

    Similarly, marriage IMO did not change when interracial couples were allowed to legally wed....what changed was the "who", not the "what".

    If you guys take the counter argument that the "who" is just as important to the definition of "what", well then your whole argument that we cannot/should not change the definition of traditional words goes out window.....'personhood', 'voter', and yes even 'marriage' (ignoring gay marriage).

    What about calls for changing natural born citizenship for people born in the US? That's been a long held tradition in this country. Certainly if the "redefinition aspect" and "tradition" arguments against gay marriage are valid , well then we should't redefine 'citizen' either right?

    Furthermore, I have yet to hear anyone arguing that religious institutions should be sued for refusing to marry a homosexual couple. Do I currently have the ability to sue a rabbi for refusing to marry me and my wife (we're not Jewish)? Do protestants currently have the right to sue the Catholic church for refusing to marry them?
     
  7. blinddog

    blinddog Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,260
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Easton, Maryland

    Or you could examine and discuss his actual words on their own merit instead of trying to use word substitution to prove something it does not prove.




    “If you tell a child that a cat is a person,” Roberts said, “I suppose you can force the child to say ‘the cat is a person.’ but it changes the definition of what it means to be a person. And that’s, it seems to me, what (supporters?) of animal rights are saying here. All you’re interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.”

    See how that works... Substituting words proves nothing.
     
  8. fishnfool

    fishnfool Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    4,472
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    I did...hence my follow up posts.

    And you could choose to examine and discuss his logic and the implications such a position would have on other issues, as I brought up, rather than merely dismiss it as word games. Like I said, I'd love to hear an actual rebuttal (hint...that's not what you gave).
     
  9. blinddog

    blinddog Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,260
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Easton, Maryland
    I did. His words stand on their own merit and need not be substituted or twisted to make an incongruent point.
     
  10. blinddog

    blinddog Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,260
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Easton, Maryland

    The who does not define the what, the who is the what.
     

Share This Page