Yes on 8

October 13, 2008 at 4:25 pm 7 comments

While doing more research on the historical context of marriage, comment from a post last week. I have found some other interesting information.

Here is some legal information regarding marriage: Taken from wikipedia.

In the United States, civil marriage is governed by state law. Each state is free to set the conditions for a valid marriage, subject to limits set by the state’s own constitution and the U.S. Constitution. In fact, “[T]he State . . . has absolute right to prescribe the conditions upon which the marriage relation between its own citizens shall be created, and the causes for which it may be dissolved,” Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1877). Traditionally, a marriage was considered valid if the requirements of the marriage law of the state where the marriage took place were fulfilled. (First Restatement of Conflicts on Marriage and Legitimacy s.121 (1934)). However, a state can refuse to recognize a marriage if the marriage violates a strong public policy of the state, even if the marriage was legal in the state where it was performed. (Restatement (Second) Of Conflict of Laws § 283(2) (1971).) States historically exercised this “public policy exception” by refusing to recognize out-of-state polygamous marriages, underage marriages, incestuous marriages, and interracial marriages. Following these precedents, nearly all courts that have addressed the issue have held that states with laws against same-sex marriage can refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were legally performed elsewhere.

So generally marriage is left to be defined by each state, except for this;

Although individual U.S. states have the primary regulatory power with regard to marriage, the United States Congress has occasionally regulated marriage. The 1862 Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, which made bigamy a punishable federal offense, was followed by a series of federal laws designed to end the practice of polygamy. In 1996 as a reaction to a state level judicial ruling prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying that may violate Hawaii’s constitutional equal protection clause (Baehr v. Miike, 80 Hawai`i 341), Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as a legal union of one man and one woman for the purpose of interpreting federal law. Under DOMA, the Federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions, even if those unions are recognized by state law. For example, members of a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts cannot file joint Federal income tax returns even if they file joint state income tax returns.

Federal courts have interpreted the U.S. Constitution to place some limits on states’ ability to restrict access to marriage. In Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court overturned state marriage laws that barred interracial marriages on the basis that marriage is a “basic civil right…” and that “…the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.” The Supreme Court struck down a 1992 Colorado constitutional amendment that barred legislative and judicial remedies to protect homosexuals from discrimination solely on the basis of their sexual orientation in Romer v. Evans.

Some circuit courts have upheld state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. Notable among these cases was the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmation of Nebraska’s constitutional amendment which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and states that unions of two people in a same-sex relationship as marriage or similar to marriage shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.[3]

The most important Federal decision on same-sex marriage to date was the 1972 summary decision of the United States Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson. When the issue of same-sex marriage came before the Court in 1972, it was dismissed for “want of a substantial federal question”. Unlike a denial of certiorari, a dismissal for “want of a substantial federal question” constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts. Baker has been cited as binding precedent in numerous lower court decisions since, and unless over-ruled, remains the law of the land in regard to this issue.

Based on what I have found marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman, not just in the bible. It is left to each state to decide for themselves.

In California currently there is a Proposition on the ballot to reverse the recent decision to allow same-sex marriage. In early 2008 a different Proposition (22) was overturned by the court. Proposition 22 had passed with an amazing 61% majority in California in 2000. With a majority passing the proposition it would seem that the will of the people was to place a definition on marriage. So now there is another Proposition (8) on the ballot to reverse the courts decision.

I am in support of Proposition 8. I do believe that the definition of marriage should be preserved.

I am not in favor of taking away anyones civil liberties. I do support civil rights. I just believe that marriage in the true definition is to be between one man and one woman, monogamous, for a lifetime.

Now here is another question. I got this email from the Yes on 8 campaign.

First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding

And this question goes beyond just asking if you believe in preserving the definition of marriage or not. But when has it ever been a school sponsored field trip to attend a teachers wedding during school hours? Especially for 5 & 6 year olds. Talk about some poor judegement with the administrators. And the No on 8 ad that ran the same week saying that what was taught in school would not be changing and they would not be teaching about same-sex marriage. Well, this just totally blows that one out of the water.

This No on 8 ad clearly says that this will NOT be taught in schools.

and here is the Yes on 8 ad warning that this could happen.

I want to be able to control what my children are exposed to. Not just to shelter them, but make sure that they learn in proper timing and context about these types of things. It is not the school’s place to indoctrinate our children with hot controversial topics. Where have the parent’s rights gone in having some say over family centered topics that are up for debate?

Advertisements

Entry filed under: General, Social Policy. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , .

Lies, Slander, Libel – Oh My! Jesus, Republicans & The Religious Right

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Yes on 8 | jdTVu  |  October 13, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    […] think2speak wrote an interesting post today on […]

  • 2. Mike Harmon  |  October 13, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Nice writing style. I look forward to reading more in the future.

  • 3. Ken  |  October 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    If the state’s official policy is that there is no difference between bride-groom marriage and “Party A and Party B” marriage, than that is how the public schools will have to operate and what they will teach.

    It is interesting that the judges overrode the voted will of the people, since it is the people who are issuing marriage licenses in the first place, and we should have our say.

  • 4. Preston K. Gamble  |  October 15, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    If Proposition 8 passes, the law will change to designate an entire class of people as unequal to, as less than, every other class of people. In the eyes of the law, gay people will be seen as inferior to everyone else. And when opponents of gay rights see the idea that gays are inferior validated by the government, it will allow them to continue on their path of dehumanizing gays and lesbians. That’s what denying a class of people an equal right does. It dehumanizes them, and it is dangerous. It is the dehumanization of a group that creates a culture in which people feel that it is okay to yell epithets at others in public; that it is okay for kids to be bullied and beaten at school; that it is okay for a jeering mob to incite a gay 17-year-old to commit suicide by jumping off a building. (Read the news.) These things happen because gays are demonized. And gays are demonized when they’re made out to be an inferior class of people. And they are made out to be an inferior class of people when they are not allowed the same rights as everyone else.

    IN ADDITION, PROPONENTS OF PROP 8 CONTINUE TO LIE IN THEIR TELEVISION ADS:

    Fiction: Teaching children about same-sex marriage will happen here unless we pass Prop 8.

    Fact: Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”

    Fiction: Churches could lose their tax-exemption status.

    Fact: Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

    Fiction: A Massachusetts case about a parent’s objection to the school curriculum will happen here.

    Fact: Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

    Fiction: Four Activist Judges in San Francisco…

    Fact: Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right–the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

    Fiction: Unless Prop 8 passes, CA parents won’t have the right to object to what their children are taught in school.

    Fact: California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

    AND, ADDITIONALLY:

    Fiction: Civil unions and domestic partnerships give gay couples the same rights as married couples.

    Fact: In the few states in which civil unions or similar domestic partnerships exist, same-sex couples are granted the same rights as married couples but only on the state level. There are hundreds upon hundreds of federal benefits that do not apply to those couples in civil unions or domestic partnerships.

    PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROP 8. Please do not allow blatant discrimination to be written into the law. California is better, smarter, and more humane than that.

  • 5. rightwingchicky  |  October 15, 2008 at 11:01 pm

    I appreciate your post. I am certainly not advocating murder, abuse, or dehumanizing anyone. People can be ostracized for a myriad of choices and beliefs.

    I will however, Vote Yes on 8 because it is what I believe. I appreciate your fact check points. The only one I even had mentioned was the mention of teaching in schools.

    I do not want to get into a debate over you are wrong/i am right type things. The Yes/No’s have reasons on each side why it should or should not be passed. You are entitled to your opinion just like I am!

  • 6. Robert  |  October 16, 2008 at 6:58 am

    I’m a CHRISTIAN and I’m voting NO on 8!

    Why? Because the funding comes primarily from two out-of-state IDOLATRY groups: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (who worship Mary) and the “MORMONS” who worship MEN.

    Since I DO NOT SUPPORT IDOLATRY IN ANY FORM, I’m VOTING NO ON 8.

    Don’t be fooled by IDOL WORSHIPPERS!. Tell all Christians to vote NO on 8.

  • 7. rightwingchicky  |  October 16, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Ok. I just want to point out I do listen to opposing views, but this one just does not make any sense.

    So you are choosing to vote against a bill — only because you don’t like who is funding it?

    The Catholic & Mormon churches are legitimate sources of funding. They are not “radical” or unethical groups. There will not be a scandal caused by their involvement.

    Why not defend your choice to vote No on the Proposition to be about content of the proposition itself. In this case where there is no financing scandal, what the bill does should matter to you more than who is funding it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Blog Stats

  • 63,298 hits

%d bloggers like this: