quade 4 #26 November 12, 2008 Quote My argument in this thread is against your concern that there will be a problem identifying male from female in CA. There is no legal provision for doing so. If you're going to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, then you'd think there would be a way to make sure. Currently there isn't and (just like in my piece) it really is left up to the Clerk to make a judgement that; Quote For the purpose of ascertaining the facts mentioned or required in this part, if the clerk deems it necessary, the clerk may examine the applicants for a marriage license on oath at the time of the application. 354(b) Bet you didn't think THAT part of it had been researched! Quote Are you saying we need smaller government? Almost always!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #27 November 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteThat should be an AMERICAN freedom of choice-a federal law not just a state law, but the law period. Sometimes, the fed government has limited choices about what is legal in each state. I remember when they raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21 years. Colorado was one of the last two states to hold out, and finally the government threatened to take away millions of dollars in highway funds. That kinda made sense, considering drinking and driving among young people was one of the key issues. But I don't know how the Fed could pressure states to change their laws. Taking away highway funding doesn't make sense. I also see the entire issue from a revenue perspective. The states and churches opposed to gay marriage are losing money to be had from gay weddings. The lawyers should've been strongly opposed - think of the money they could be making from gay divorce. Insurance companies would probably do better, since some people would pay slightly more to have both spouses insured - many couples can't afford individual insurance for both parties. The only thing prop 8 does is get gay couples to fly to another state to get married, and lose income for California. Actually, i think it would be very easy in this case for the federal gov't, in the form of the supreme court, to rule that the state amendment is unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment to the US constitution. I am no lawyer and i don't really know the process or authority the US SC has over matters of state constitutions, but the 14th clearly says that no state will make a law abridging the rights of citizens.Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #28 November 12, 2008 I agree with you. Then again, I am no lawyer and no expert on the constitution, and I don't live in California. But I do not understand how after the California SC determined that it is unconstitutional to deny homsexuals the right to get married, any proposition could change that. The irony is that Prop 8 could very well force the issue to the US SC and open the door for legalizing gay marriage across the entire country. It really is just a matter of time anyway. I have yet to hear a rational, logical, intelligent argument against gay marriage. Marriage as it stands today is a legal institution, not a religious one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
windcatcher 0 #29 November 13, 2008 Hopefully it is determined by the body parts and gender-specific hormones each individual is born with. Mother to the cutest little thing in the world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #30 November 13, 2008 Quote Hopefully it is determined by the body parts and gender-specific hormones each individual is born with. Not legally under California state laws. That's the whole point here. There is no method to do it legally.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,913 #31 November 13, 2008 >Hopefully it is determined by the body parts and gender-specific >hormones each individual is born with. So a woman who has ambiguous body parts and male hormones/genome should not be allowed to marry a man? She would be forced to marry another woman? An odd opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #32 November 13, 2008 Quote Hopefully it is determined by the body parts and gender-specific hormones each individual is born with. What if you are a hermaphrodite? Can you marry yourself and get the extra tax deduction? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,935 #33 November 13, 2008 Quote Quote Hopefully it is determined by the body parts and gender-specific hormones each individual is born with. What if you are a hermaphrodite? Can you marry yourself and get the extra tax deduction? if you're a hermaphrodite, you probably need the extra tax deduction.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #34 November 13, 2008 QuoteHopefully it is determined by the body parts and gender-specific hormones each individual is born with. Heh. I have unambigous female "body parts" and a really unfortunately high level of testosterone. Which well defined "gender" am I?Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
