The Question NOManiacs cannot answer.

It’s simply: How does marriage equality directly affect YOUR marriage?

Try it out. They somehow cannot provide a reason why they are protecting their marriage and from what exactly. They will give you a basic answer of “1. it opens the doors for acceptance of incest, polygamy, bestiality, 2. it redefines marriage for all, 3. it teaches children that this abnormal lifestyle is acceptable”

Does this answer the question? NO. I asked specifically about THEIR marriage. Is someone going to knock on your door and demand your wedding rings if marriage equality is achieved? Are you automatically going to be divorced if marriage equality is achieved?

40 thoughts on “The Question NOManiacs cannot answer.

    1. Sapient

      Michael, how does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

      Reply
  1. Sapient

    The Davis vs. Beason case was in regards to polygamy. Quote:

    “We cannot look into any alleged errors in its rulings, on the trial of the defendant. The writ of habeas corpus cannot be turned into a writ of error to review the action of that court. Nor can we inquire whether the evidence established the fact alleged, that the defendant was a member of an order or organization known as the ‘Mormon Church,’ called the ‘Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,’ or the fact that the order of organization taught and counseled its members and devotees to commit the crimes of bigamy and polygamy, as duties arising from membership therein. On this hearing we can only consider whether, these allegations being taken as true, an offense was committed of which the territorial court had jurisdiction to try the defendant. And on this point there can be no serious discussion or difference of opinion. Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man.

    How does a case regarding polygamy and bigamy have anything to do with two consenting adults getting married?

    Misquoting Davis vs. Beason is nothing but hyperbole designed to misinform. Perhaps this scenario will help you to understand: If a couple in your general neighborhood files for a marriage license, you would have no knowledge of it unless they specifically told you. Therefore it is private, not public. If the state grants them a marriage license and they subsequently get married, perhaps by a Justice of the Peace, you would have no knowledge of it unless they specifically told you. Therefore it is private, not public. If you randomly encountered them both together and separate within your general neighborhood, you would still have no knowledge of their marriage unless they specifically told you. Therefore it is indeed, a private contract between two consenting adults and is not public. This is the difference between public and private.

    Again, no one would be forcing anyone to acknowledge anything. Two consenting adults who love one another marrying has no effect on another’s marriage, freedom of speech or freedom to worship, go to church, read the bible, pray, sing hymns, or whatever else they want to do. In contrast, religious people who use denigrating, hyperbolic rhetoric as a tool to enact legislation in order to force their belief system upon others—an act forbidden by the Constitution—does indeed destroy the freedoms of those whom they are oppressing, both religious and otherwise. I stand for marriage equality because two consenting adults getting married does absolutely nothing to threaten my marriage.

    And again, answer the questions:

    How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

    If your marriage is that fragile, perhaps you never should have gotten married in the first place.

    Reply
    1. Michael Ejercito

      How does a case regarding polygamy and bigamy have anything to do with two consenting adults getting married?

      Because the rationale used to uphold the law in question in Davis applies equally to upholding laws defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

      Reply
  2. Sapient

    Since 1888 the United States Supreme Court has 14 times decided and articulated that the right to marriage is a fundamental right. We’re not talking about a new right here. We’re talking about whether a fundamental right, something that the Supreme Court has characterized as the most fundamental relationship we have in this country, can be deprived of certain individuals because of the color of their skin or because of their sexual orientation.
    We do not permit discrimination or inequality. That’s why we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees equal rights to all citizens. It’s not judicial activism when judges do what the Constitution requires them to do, and they follow the precedent of previous decisions of the Supreme Court.

    Furthermore, the Davis vs. Beason case stated “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho.” Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality, is not a crime. Your interpretation of the Davis vs. Beason case is in direct contradiction with 14 of the Supreme Courts decisions, and fails to face the fact that two committed, consenting adults who love one another marrying, is not a crime.

    Reply
    1. Michael Ejercito

      So then in 1888, the right to marry was understood to encompass the right to marry of the same sex?

      The very same Davis decision I quoted also wrote this.

      [C]ertainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.

      Davis , 133 U.S. at 344-345, quoting Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885)

      Reply
  3. Sapient

    So once again, answer the questions:

    How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

    Reply
      1. Sapient

        Where’s your proof? “The supreme court said so” isn’t proof, it’s an answer that a 5 year old would give.

        Again, answer the questions:

        How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

  4. Sapient

    Ejercito, what you conveniently left out was:

    “And in Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, referring to the act of congress excluding POLYGAMISTS and BIGAMISTS from voting or holding office, the court, speaking by Mr. Justice MATTHEWS, said:…”

    And following your carefully edited quotation is:

    “And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.”

    Clearly, they were referring to the act of congress excluding POLYGAMISTS and BIGAMISTS from voting or holding office.

    POLYGAMISTS and BIGAMISTS. Not Two consenting committed adults, but polygamists and bigamists. The court clearly didn’t have a problem with two people entering into marriage, they only had a problem regarding plural marriages, which is what the case was about. Your selectively edited argument is “apples and oranges,” and completely absurd regarding the topic and questions at hand.

    So again, answer the questions:

    How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

    If you were to reply that you personally just don’t like it, that at least would be an honest answer.

    Reply
  5. Michael Ejercito

    POLYGAMISTS and BIGAMISTS. Not Two consenting committed adults, but polygamists and bigamists. The court clearly didn’t have a problem with two people entering into marriage, they only had a problem regarding plural marriages, which is what the case was about. Your selectively edited argument is “apples and oranges,” and completely absurd regarding the topic and questions at hand.

    Do you honestly believe that Stephen Field or Thomas Stanley Matthews would have believed that same-sex “marriage” was a right under the U.S. Constitution, let alone desirable by society?

    Reply
    1. Sapient

      Who’s to say they wouldn’t? They’re both long dead, and to pretend to know what they would think is beyond hubris. The Declaration of Independence clearly states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

      Regarding the U.S. Constitution, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point. That the Constitution says nothing about marriage is incontrovertibly true. But the judges have said something about marriage. The Supreme Court this in Lawrence v. Texas ruled that, for the first time in history, states are from from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. What does this say about marriage? The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question: relying on Lawrence, the Massachusetts court ordered marriage equality. By proxy, the Constitution now says a lot about marriage. Why do states issue marriage licenses not recognized by federal law? Because the courts have ruled that the Constitution demands it.

      The first proposed Constitutional amendment regarding marriage was in 1912. From the Congressional Record, 62nd Cong., 3rd sess., Dec. 11, 1912. Vol 49, p. 502:

      ‘Mr. RODDENBERY. The resolution to which I make reference is one already introduced by me, providing for an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, with the usual resolving clause, and the article is as follows:

      That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term “negro or person of color,” as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood.

      Nothing will contribute more to the popular development and wise administration of a republican government than for the people in their legislatures to have an opportunity, by the adoption of this resolution, to provide that forever hereafter it shall be contrary to the fundamental law of the Republic for a negro or a part negro or an African or a part African to intermarry with a white person, a Caucasian, or any person of like description. The object of this resolution is to submit to the States a constitutional amendment for this purpose….’

      We all know how that failed miserably.

      This all brings us back to the questions you’ve been avoiding:

      How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

      Reply
  6. Michael Ejercito

    Simple.

    By equating such unions with marriages, it devalues marriage. Marriage is distinct from other types of partnerships of different sex and numerical compositions.

    Similar as to how giving a Medal of Honor to everyone devalues the Medal of Honor.

    Reply
    1. Sapient

      “Similar as to how giving a Medal of Honor to everyone devalues the Medal of Honor.”

      So what you’re saying here is that by allowing inter-racial marriages, marriage has been devalued? That’s unbelievably racist and offensive to every inter-racial couple in America. Congratulations on that stellar display of bigotry.

      You say, “Marriage is distinct from other types of partnerships of different sex and numerical compositions.” I’ve already pointed out that Lawrence v. Texas ruled states are prohibited from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality, so please explain how you have been given the authority to define what is and is not marriage?

      Yes, marriage is distinct, but only in the sense that it is a legally binding civil contract between two people. That is the only difference.

      So under what authority do you believe that you, Michael Ejercito, gets to decide that two consenting adults who are legally married in any of the six states and the District of Columbia where these marriages are legally recognized, are not married at all? How do these marriages that obviously strengthen family units “devalue” anyone else’s marriage?

      Since you’re single, it appears that you know nothing of marriage. I’m 49 years old and have been married for the past 19 years—I think I know something about marriage. And as I’ve stated previously, I stand for marriage equality because two consenting adults getting married does absolutely nothing to threaten my marriage.

      Which once again, brings us back to the questions you’ve clearly been avoiding. Regardless of your lack of knowledge about marriage, stop dodging and answer the questions.

      How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

      Reply
      1. Michael Ejercito

        FAIL. You did NOT answer the questions.

        I directly asked YOU the following PERSONAL questions pertaining to YOUR life:

        How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”/blockquote>
        I did answer the question .

        Think about it. If the Department of Defense relaxed the standards for the Medal of Honor, such that merely showing up on time would entitle servicemen to the Medal, it would diminish the value of the Medal because such a thing would change the social understanding of the Medal of Honor. The same principle applies to marriage.

  7. Michael Ejercito

    So what you’re saying here is that by allowing inter-racial marriages, marriage has been devalued? That’s unbelievably racist and offensive to every inter-racial couple in America. Congratulations on that stellar display of bigotry.

    Interracial marriages no more devalues marriage than marriage between persons under 18 years of age.

    I find it odd that you think interracial marriages are comparable to same-sex “marriages”, but polygamy is not.

    I’ve already pointed out that Lawrence v. Texas ruled states are prohibited from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality

    You have pointed out something that is not true.

    Were your argument true, Standhardt v. Superior Court , 206 Ariz. 276 ,
    77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003), Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of of the Department of Children and Family Services , 358 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2004), Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning , 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006), Cook v. Gates , 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008), Milligan-Hitt v. Board of Trustees of Sheridan County School District No. 2, 523 F.3d
    1219 (10th Cir. 2008), and In Re Marriage of J.B. and H.B. , 326 S.W.3d 654 (Texas 5th Cir. Ct. of Appeal 2010) would have been decided differently.

    Reply
    1. Sapient

      Mu argument is true, unlike yours. DADT has been repealed. The Mathew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Act signed into law in 2009 provides legal protection to gays and lesbians.

      Most important here is your demonstrably false claims regarding marriage equality. So again, stop dodging and answer the questions:

      How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

      We all know you can’t answer them but at least show us you’re man enough to try. It’s te to man up, Ejercito….. Continually dodging the questions just makes you look even more foolish and bigoted.

      Reply
    2. Sapient

      You wrote: “I find it odd that you think interracial marriages are comparable to same-sex “marriages”, but polygamy is not.”

      I find it odd that you can’t seem to comprehend that inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage are between only TWO consenting adults, not numerous women and nonconsenting minor girls.

      You also wrote: “Interracial marriages no more devalues marriage than marriage between persons under 18 years of age.”

      Do you know what devalues marriage? Divorce. Stupid people like Britney Spears who get married on a whim and have it annulled in just 55 hours, and people that carelessly go in and out of numerous marriages like a turnstyle. THAT devalues marriage. Two gay or lesbian people who have been together for 30 years marrying does nothing to devalue marriage. In fact, the effect is quite the opposite.

      Since you like to copy and paste old court cases, here’s a quick rundown of cases that challenged some popular yet discriminatory laws:

      Loving v. Virginia
      In 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving, an interracial couple that married in Washington DC, were arrested when they returned home to Virginia. Their crime: violating the state’s ban on interracial marriage. Their one-year jail sentence was suspended on the condition that they leave the state and not return for 25 years. The Lovings left, but took their case to multiple courts, including Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals (now called the Virginia Court of Appeals), which ruled in favor of the state’s right to ban and penalize interracial marriages. In 1967, SCOTUS overturned the decision, ruling that the interracial marriage ban violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of individual liberties.

      Wait…. Why couldn’t they get married? The law’s supporters said it was “God’s will” that people of different races not be married—which sounds familiar. At the Lovings trial, a judge actually said: “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” What’s this got to do with marriage equality? Swap gender for race, and the injustice is evident. SCOTUS also noted that “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.” Nowhere in the ruling does it say, “This applies only to heterosexuals.”

      Romer v. Evans
      In 1992, Colorado voters barred state and local governments from protecting people’s civil rights based on their sexual orientation. But SCOTUS ruled that this voter-approved amendment to the state constitution sneakily violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which promises that no person shall be denied equal protection under the laws. What’s it got to do with gay marriage? Prop. 8 denies people’s civil rights based on sexual orientation.

      Lawrence v. Texas
      In 1998, Houston police officers entered John Lawrence’s apartment after gettting a disturbance call from his neighbor, and found him having sex with another man—a crime in Texas. The men were arrested and convicted of “deviate sexual intercourse.” Five years later, SCOTUS overturned this state’s anti-sodomy law.

      What’s this got to do with marriage equality? From the Supreme Court’s ruling: “Our laws and our tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationship, child rearing, and education. Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes just as heterosexual persons do.” As Olson argued during the Prop. 8 trial, “It takes away the fundamental right to marry from a class of persons based upon their practice of something that’s been decided to be a fundamental constitutional right of liberty, privacy, association.”

      Sweatt v. Painter
      Heman Marion Sweatt was denied admission to the University of Texas Law School, the Supreme Court noted, “solely because he is a Negro and state law forbids the admission of Negroes to that Law School.” During the trial, Texas created a separate law school for blacks and offered Sweatt admission, but we all know how the “separate-but-equal” thing played out. In 1950, SCOTUS ruled in Sweatt’s favor, again based on the Fourteenth Amendment.

      What’s this got to do with marriage equality? Separate is not equal. And domestic partnerships aren’t equal to marriage. You may approve of religiously motivated bigotry, but if a public poll were taken in the 1800s, or even the 1950s to decide the fate of interracial marriage, a decidedly unjust outcome would have been predictable.

      So again, stop dodging and have the integrity to honestly answer the questions:

      How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

      Reply
      1. Michael Ejercito

        Do you know what devalues marriage? Divorce. Stupid people like Britney Spears who get married on a whim and have it annulled in just 55 hours, and people that carelessly go in and out of numerous marriages like a turnstyle. THAT devalues marriage.

        Non-sequitir.

        SCOTUS also noted that “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.” Nowhere in the ruling does it say, “This applies only to heterosexuals.”

        Five years after Loving was decided, the Supreme Court did rule that it applied only to heterosexuals in Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct 37 (1972)

        California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard can explain the binding force of Baker .

        “[I]ndeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal “for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision… Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise, which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex couples the right to marry.”

        Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco, 95 P.3d 459 at 503-504 (Cal. Sup. Ct) (Kennard, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)

        Furthermore, since the jurisdictional statement in Baker cited Loving eight times in sixteen pages of argument, the Court necessarily held that Loving does not apply to this issue.

  8. Sapient

    What you conveniently left out is the fact that Lockyer v. San Francisco (2004) VIOLATES the California Constitution. You do love selective editing, rather than just bare facts, don’t you? Almost as much as you like avoiding questions that have been posed to you now eight separate times.

    In 2009, The U.S. District Court wrote in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger:

    “The court does not agree that Baker is either settled law, or that it addresses the issues the plaintiffs have raised here. The jurisdictional statement in Baker dealt with constitutional allegations similar to the challenges in this case, but based on a different set of underlying facts. In Baker, plaintiffs challenged a statute which was interpreted to prohibit same sex-marriage, but was neutral on its face. That is, as stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Minnesota statute at issue in Baker did not contain an express statutory prohibition against –sex marriage.

    In addition, there appear to have been significant doctrinal developments on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds since Baker was summarily dismissed in 1972. Supreme court cases decided since Baker show that the court does not consider “insubstantial a constitutional challenge brought by homosexual individuals” on Equal Protection and Due Process grounds.

    Lockyer v. San Francisco (2004):

    33 C.4th 1055, 95 P.3d 459, 17 C.R.3d 225, 7 Summary (10th), Constitutional Law, §142, held that approximately 4,000 same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco were void because public officials acted unlawfully in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the absence of a judicial determination that California statutes limiting marriage to the union between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. The decision did not determine whether a statutory scheme that gives same-sex domestic partners virtually all the “substantive benefits and privileges” of married persons, but limits marriage to opposite-sex couples, violates the state’s Constitution. While Lockyer was still pending, a number of same-sex couples and the City and County of San Francisco filed a lawsuit alleging that Family C. 308.5, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, applied only to marriages solemnized outside of California and that, in any event, California statutes limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman were unconstitutional. These cases were coordinated, together with two cases seeking an immediate stay to stop the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco, into a single proceeding. The trial court determined that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the Equal Protection Clause of the California Constitution. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court. In re Marriage Cases (2008) C.4th 757, 76 C.R.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384, reversing the Court of Appeal, holds that, in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, the California statutory scheme violates both the fundamental right to marry protected by the due process (Cal. Const., Art. I, §7(a)) and privacy (Cal. Const., Art. I, §1) provisions of the California Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause (Cal. Const., Art. I, §7(a)).

    This ruling was because Marriage is fundamental right under California Constitution.

    Fundamental nature of right to marry. Under California case law, the right to marry is “beyond question” a fundamental right protected by the California Constitution. (43 C.4th 809.) Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed. 1042, 8 Summary (10th), Constitutional Law, §1071, discussed the right to marry as an aspect of the fundamental substantive “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. In Griswold v.Connecticut (1965) 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510, 7 Summary (10th), Constitutional Law, §558, that right was identified as a component of the “right to privacy” protected by the United States Constitution. Since the 1972 addition of privacy to the inalienable rights protected by Cal. Const. Art. I, §1 (7 Summary (10th), Constitutional Law, §178), the state constitutional right to marry is both a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause and an interest in personal autonomy protected by the Privacy Clause of the state constitution. (43 C.4th 810.)

    In view of the societal importance given to the designation of marriage, extending the designation of marriage to same-sex couples, rather than denying it to all couples, is the remedy most consistent with the state’s general legislative policy. (43 C.4th 856.) The language in Family C. 300 limiting marriage to a union “between a man and a woman” must be stricken from the statute, making marriage available to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Family C. 308.5, not being capable of any constitutional interpretation, cannot stand. (43 C.4th 857.)

    But this was never about court cases—a glaring fact you have doggedly avoided like a rat on a sinking ship. This has always been about The Question NOManiacs cannot answer.

    So once and for all, answer the questions:

    How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

    If you once again avoid these questions, we will all come to the conclusion that you do not have any answers, and that you refuse to answer them, because your answers will expose you to the entire world to be a hate-filled bigot.

    Man up and answer the damn questions.

    Reply
  9. Michael Ejercito

    “The court does not agree that Baker is either settled law, or that it addresses the issues the plaintiffs have raised here. The jurisdictional statement in Baker dealt with constitutional allegations similar to the challenges in this case, but based on a different set of underlying facts. In Baker, plaintiffs challenged a statute which was interpreted to prohibit same sex-marriage, but was neutral on its face. That is, as stated by the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Minnesota statute at issue in Baker did not contain an express statutory prohibition against –sex marriage.

    In addition, there appear to have been significant doctrinal developments on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds since Baker was summarily dismissed in 1972. Supreme court cases decided since Baker show that the court does not consider “insubstantial a constitutional challenge brought by homosexual individuals” on Equal Protection and Due Process grounds.

    The U.S. district court defied binding precedent.

    Kennard was right about Baker . Moreoever, nowhere did Lockyer violate the California Constitution.

    How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

    Marriage is harmed by anything that diminishes its privileged status. Just like relaxing the standards for the Medal of Honor devalues the Medal of Honor, so does relaxing the definition of marriage. By equating unions “for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony”, Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), quoted in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) and United States v. Bitty, 208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908), with sodomous same-sex unions or other forms of partnerships, it diminishes its privileged status in society.

    Reply
  10. Sapient

    You keep rehashing out of context information which has nothing to do with the questions posed, in a ridiculous effort to avoid answering them. You DID NOT answer the questions.

    You brought up Davis vs. Beason yet again, even thought the facts have shown that it was entirely about polygamy and an effort to keep polygamists from holding elected office. Same-sex mnarriage was NEVER MENTIONED:

    “And to this end no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.”

    Clearly, they were referring to the act of congress excluding POLYGAMISTS and BIGAMISTS from voting or holding office.

    POLYGAMISTS and BIGAMISTS. Not Two consenting committed adults, but polygamists and bigamists. The court clearly didn’t have a problem with two people entering into marriage, they only had a problem regarding plural marriages, which is what the case was about.

    Your puerile effort to ignore facts and avoid answering the questions makes you look like a a small child with his fingers in his ears saying, “Lalalalalalaaaa… I can’t hear you!”

    You said “Marriage is harmed by anything that diminishes its privileged status. Just like relaxing the standards for the Medal of Honor devalues the Medal of Honor, so does relaxing the definition of marriage.”

    As I have already pointed out, martriage is harmed by stupid people like Britney Spears who get married on a whim and have it annulled in just 55 hours, and people that carelessly go in and out of numerous marriages like a turnstyle. THAT devalues and harms marriage.

    Perhaps you weren’t born in this country and In case you haven’t noticed, this is America. We don’t discriminate agianst anyone here for “privilege.” Furthermore, you have yet again FAILED to answer the questions. I didn’t ask you about what diminishes the privileged status of marriage, I directly asked YOU the following peronal questions:

    How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

    If you once again avoid these questions, you leave me no choice but to declare you a religiously motivated bigot. This is your last chance.

    Man up and answer the damn questions.

    Reply
  11. Michael Ejercito

    How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

    I already answered that question in my comment above.

    ust like relaxing the standards for the Medal of Honor devalues the Medal of Honor, so does relaxing the definition of marriage.

    Think about it. If the Department of Defense relaxed the standards for the Medal of Honor, such that merely showing up on time would entitle servicemen to the Medal, it would diminish the value of the Medal because such a thing would change the social understanding of the Medal of Honor. The same principle applies to marriage.

    GLAD revealed their core motivation for supporting the redefinition of marriage. They claimed that civil unions denied the “social recognition” that comes with marriage. GLAD Brief in Opinions of the Justices to the Senate , 440 Mass. 1201, 802 N.E.2d 565 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2004) The fallacy of their argument is that they assume that monogamous heteroseuxal unions are valued by society because they are called marriages, instead of marriage having its social recognition because it exclusively describes the monogamous heterosexual union.

    As I have already pointed out, martriage is harmed by stupid people like Britney Spears who get married on a whim and have it annulled in just 55 hours, and people that carelessly go in and out of numerous marriages like a turnstyle. THAT devalues and harms marriage.

    What the fuck does that have to do with anything . Maybe you should try that line of argument with someone who did defend such actions.

    POLYGAMISTS and BIGAMISTS. Not Two consenting committed adults, but polygamists and bigamists. The court clearly didn’t have a problem with two people entering into marriage, they only had a problem regarding plural marriages, which is what the case was about.

    Why so angry about the comparison to polygamists and bigamists. You do not think that they have a right to marry? You do not think that equal protection applies to them?

    Reply
    1. Sapient

      The fallacy of YOUR argument is that you think gays and lesbians assume that monogamous heteroseuxal unions are valued by society because they are called marriages, instead of marriage having its social recognition because it exclusively describes the monogamous heterosexual union.

      That is so abjectly wrong it’s laughable.

      Marriage provides LEGAL protection for couples and families. That’s why people fight for marriage equality. There are 400 state benefits and over 1,100+ federal benefits granted to married couples. Here are just a few:

      Access to employer-provided health and retirement benefits for partner and nonbiological/adoptive children.
      Access to partner’s coverage under Medicare and Social Security.
      Ability to visit or make medical decisions for an ill or incapacitated partner.
      Right to sue for wrongful death of partner.
      Ability to sponsor one’s partner for immigration.
      Marital children gain family stability and economic security because of their parents’ legal marriage that is inaccessible to nonmarital children, including the enhanced approval of marital children in society and streamlined adoption processes.
      Access to health benefits and inheritance from both parents.
      Right to maintain a relationship with the non-biological/adoptive parent in the event of the death of one parent (in states without same-sex second-parent adoptions).
      Joint insurance policies for home, auto and health.
      Joint parenting and Joint adoption.
      Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child.

      Polygamy? Yes, they have a right to get married, just not to underage children who are too young to consent. Furthermore, what you have failed to point out—and failing seems to be your strength—is that the Federal Marriage Amendment doesn’t actually ban incest, that laws pertaining to marriage and divorce could not be adapted to include polygamous unions, and that in cases of bestiality, one of the parties involved isn’t human and therefore isn’t covered by the Bill of Rights. And if the courts ever decide that dogs, cats, squirrels, and so forth are covered by the Bill of Rights, cross-species marriage will be the least of our worries. In any case, the way to ban incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages is not by passing a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages. It’s by passing a constitutional amendment banning incestuous, polygamous, and half-bestial marriages. And unlike the Federal Marriage Amendment, that constitutional amendment would receive enough votes to actually pass.

      Reply
  12. Sapient

    FAIL. You did NOT answer the questions.

    I directly asked YOU the following PERSONAL questions pertaining to YOUR life:

    How does two consenting adults of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of YOUR marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of YOUR family? How does it “degrade” YOUR wife, or “debase YOU?”

    Man up and answer the damn questions, little boy.

    Reply
    1. Michael Ejercito

      You did NOT answer the questions.

      I did answer the question .

      Think about it. If the Department of Defense relaxed the standards for the Medal of Honor, such that merely showing up on time would entitle servicemen to the Medal, it would diminish the value of the Medal because such a thing would change the social understanding of the Medal of Honor. The same principle applies to marriage.

      Reply
      1. Sapient

        FAIL! Once again, you did NOT answer the questions. To use your words, “what the fuck has that got to do with anything?” That is quite simply, the stupidest excuse I’ve ever heard.

        The Medal of Honor is the highest military decoration awarded by the United States government. It is bestowed by the President, in the name of Congress, upon members of the United States Armed Forces who distinguish themselves through “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.”

        Again, what the fuck has that got to do with marriage? Comparing that to marriage is not only insensitive to every American who has ever lost a loved one to war, it is unbelievably offensive to all soldiers everywhere. You actually dare to compare two hetersosexuals getting married to an award—usually awarded posthumously—to someone who has given their life for this country? Kim Kardashian was married for 72 days. Do you think she deserves a medal of honor? She made a mockery out of marriage, dragged it through the dirt and most certainly diminished the value of marriage, while simultaneously changing the social understanding of it. Where is the honor or sanctity in that? Do you think she deserves a medal by virtue of merely being heterosexual?

        Let me tell you something, silly boy; even after 19 years of marriage and raising two kids, neither I nor my wife deserve a medal. No one does. Your fantasy of what marriage is, is so warped, so twisted, so pathologicaly insane, I must agree with my 16 year-old daughter, who after reading your egregiously inane arguments said, “stupid little boy… what woman in her right mind would marrry THAT?”

        So congratulations! You’re the recipient of the religiously motivated bigot award! I hope you wear that scarlet letter with pride. Oh… and congratulations on shattering the myth that all asians are intelligent. You, are as dumb as a box of rocks and I pity the foolish woman who stupidly marries you. Chances are, you should get used to being single. For the rest of your life.

        One last chance to redeem yourself:

        How does two people of any sexual orientation getting married “destroy the purity” of MIchael Ejercito’s marriage? How does it “disturb the peace” of Michael Ejercito’s family? How does it “degrade” MIchael Ejercito’s wife, or “debase” Michael Ejercito?

        Grow a set of balls and answer the questions, tiny bigot. If you don’t have a clue—which you clearly don’t—at least be man enough to admit it.

      2. Michael Ejercito

        It is bestowed by the President, in the name of Congress, upon members of the United States Armed Forces who distinguish themselves through “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.”

        And if it was changed so that it was bestowed upon members of the United States Armed Forces who merely “show up for duty on time”, it would not diminish the value of the medal?

      3. culturecheck Post author

        Experienced Real Estate Agent and Accounts Receivable Clerk (Michael Ejercito) ≠ Lawyer/Attorney

      4. Michael Ejercito

        Kim Kardashian was married for 72 days. Do you think she deserves a medal of honor? She made a mockery out of marriage, dragged it through the dirt and most certainly diminished the value of marriage, while simultaneously changing the social understanding of it. Where is the honor or sanctity in that? Do you think she deserves a medal by virtue of merely being heterosexual?

        You must be confusing me for someone who defends Kim Kardashian’s actions.

        Try again.

      5. culturecheck Post author

        She was allowed to be married. Should marriage rights be taken away from people who divorce? Should divorce be banned?

        Michael, you are not a lawyer. You’re merely stating opinion.

      6. Michael Ejercito

        She was allowed to be married. Should marriage rights be taken away from people who divorce? Should divorce be banned?

        Absolutely.

        But who is it that pushes divorce on society? Here is a hint. Compare the list of legislators who voted in favor of instituting no-fault divorce in New York to the list of legislators who voted to institute same-sex “marriage” in New York.

      7. culturecheck Post author

        So you think divorce should be banned? Why isn’t the organization you support, NOM, going after divorce then? By the way, it isn’t “same sex ‘marriage'”. It’s marriage. It’s the same exact license a straight couple would receive. Once again, you are not a lawyer. Stick to accounts receivable.

  13. Sapient

    And you must be confusing me with someone who believes you to be sane.

    You lose, tiny bigot. You have repeatedly proved you cannot answer the questions, therefore proving the owner of this blog to be correct. It truly is the question NOManiacs CANNOT answer.

    By the way…. Even Jesus thinks you’re an asshole, tiny bigot.

    Reply
    1. Michael Ejercito

      You lose, tiny bigot. You have repeatedly proved you cannot answer the questions, therefore proving the owner of this blog to be correct. It truly is the question NOManiacs CANNOT answer.

      There you go again with bigot. It does not make for any more of an effective argument than calling me a gook.

      You keep claiming that the definition of marriage is bigoted.

      However, the plaintiffs’ own expert in Pedersen v. OPM (a court case claiming that DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff) admitted that “[a]lthough . . . antigay discrimination is
      popularly thought to have ancient roots, in fact it is a unique and relatively short-lived product of the twentieth century.” George Chauncey, Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today’s Debate Over Gay Equality 14 (2004) and “all of the [discrimination] was put in place between the 1920s and
      1950s, and most [was] dismantled between the 1960s and the 1990s.”
      Owen Keehnen, The Case for Gay Marriage: Talking with Why Marriage? Author George Chauncey (2004), GLBTQ.com,
      http://www.glbtq.com/sfeatures/interviewgchauncey.html; see also id.
      (“It’s really dangerous—and it hurts us—that we are so unfamiliar with this history because the opponents of gay rights and certainly same-sex marriage like to
      claim that history is on their side and that discrimination and hostility against gay people is age old.”). In fact, in striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the Supreme Court noted that “according to some scholars the concept of the homosexual as a distinct category of person did not emerge until the late 19th century”. See, e.g., J. Katz, The Invention of Heterosexuality 10 (1995); J. D’Emilio & E. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America 121 (2d ed. 1997) (“ The modern terms homosexuality and heterosexuality do not apply to an era that had not yet articulated these distinctions”), quoted in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 at 568-569 (2003)

      This is important because the concept of marriage as a union of one man and one woman clearly predates the 19th century. See 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410. ” The relationship of
      “husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil
      society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species,
      the other prescribing the manner in which that natural impulse must be
      confined and regulated.””, John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil
      Government
      § 78 (1690) “Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact
      between man and woman.””.

      Therefore, the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman can not be traced to a purpose of discrimination against homosexuals, and as such is not born of bigotry.

      Reply
      1. culturecheck Post author

        Michael, you ARE a bigot. Demeaning fellow human beings because you have a creepy preoccupation with them is bigoted. You’ve earned the title.

  14. Sapient

    FAIL!

    This coming from a person who calls black people “nigger” (yes, we all know about that) and gay people “sodomites?” What do think the definition of bigot is?

    Main Entry: big·ot
    Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
    Date: 1660
    : a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

    It appears “bigot” is a fitting descriptor for you. Telling yourself you aren’t doesn’t change the facts. Again, you lose and can’t answer the question NOManiacs cannot answer. Just give up before you dig yourself deeper.

    Reply

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