|
The paradigm of marriage has been destroyed
Share
Email
Print
CommentThe paradigm of marriage has been destroyed. The Supreme Court of California in its current decision on marriage based its decision on the premise that there is no compelling interest on the part of the state in heterosexual unions.
Therefore, in order to confer equal dignity to all acts of sexual expression and equal respect to all citizens, the court has reduced conjugal intercourse and the term reserved to encourage it, marriage, to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Therefore, in order to confer equal dignity to all acts of sexual expression and equal respect to all citizens, the court has reduced conjugal intercourse and the term reserved to encourage it, marriage, to the level of the lowest common denominator.
Under the new decree, sexual activity is totally irrelevant to marriage and children are tangential. That is contrary to the common understanding of marriage. The decision disregards the expressed wishes of the majority that was demonstrated by the vote of the people of California. Three of the seven justices dissented from the majority opinion in support of these expressed wishes of the majority of the people.
This is an example of the dichotomy of legal philosophy in our courts as well as in understanding among our people.
This is an example of the dichotomy of legal philosophy in our courts as well as in understanding among our people.
By reducing the most significant act of human relations to the commonplace of a driver’s license, mutual respect among the people is diminished and the collective respect for the crucial institution is lost.
Marriage licenses will now be issued without reference to gender or procreative intentions. Considerations of health, sanity, and blood relationships will now be logically irrelevant. Since sexual preferences and practices are excluded from consideration, any combination of relationships will qualify for matrimony. On what basis might the privileges and benefits extended to two cohabitating people be denied to three cohabitating people? On what basis would the benefits available to individuals in cohabitation be denied to individuals who live alone?
Marriage licenses will now be issued without reference to gender or procreative intentions. Considerations of health, sanity, and blood relationships will now be logically irrelevant. Since sexual preferences and practices are excluded from consideration, any combination of relationships will qualify for matrimony. On what basis might the privileges and benefits extended to two cohabitating people be denied to three cohabitating people? On what basis would the benefits available to individuals in cohabitation be denied to individuals who live alone?
Matrimony and all of the privileges, entitlements, and social deference appurtenant thereto are equally available to homosexuals and heterosexuals. Are there any other kinds of “sexuals” that might be denied the benefits of matrimony?
Matrimony has been reduced to legal cohabitation. Its only social value is as a source of revenue for the municipality. Its lack of distinction will be a rather distasteful proposition for parents and prospective parents. A referendum will be on the November ballot designed to reverse the Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, the paradigm will probably not survive. In order to avoid the vulgarity of California style marriage, heterosexual couples will need to go out of state for their marriage licenses.
(Board lives in Napa.)
Matrimony has been reduced to legal cohabitation. Its only social value is as a source of revenue for the municipality. Its lack of distinction will be a rather distasteful proposition for parents and prospective parents. A referendum will be on the November ballot designed to reverse the Supreme Court decision. Unfortunately, the paradigm will probably not survive. In order to avoid the vulgarity of California style marriage, heterosexual couples will need to go out of state for their marriage licenses.
(Board lives in Napa.)
Join the conversation
Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
|
|
MarshaMarsha wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:13 AM:
After checking my dictionary to see if the word "tangential" has any sensable reference to this topic (nope), I'd have to agree with Richard that a decision to allow homosexuals the right to use the term "marriage" and all the legal accessories that come with it will definitely change society. No denial, things will not be the same. I'm just not in the position that the moral foundation of society will be destroyed. Society evolves, it changes. It's just not posible that every change will be to your liking.
I'm really curious as to which paradigm of marriage Richard is referring to. Does he mean the one from 2000 years ago where a woman was basically property? Or the one from 200 years ago where a woman was a domestic slave without equal human rights? Could he mean the current paradigm where women are not property and have equal rights, but corrosive divorce is at 50 percent? Maybe Richard's favorite TV show is "Leave It To Beaver" and that's the paradigm of marriage he's referring to. "
kevin wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:57 AM:
daveposner wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:39 AM:
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:07 AM:
Napa Mom wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:17 AM:
cathyodom wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:01 AM:
pat wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:04 AM:
Dwayne wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:15 AM:
Sandra wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:22 AM:
db76 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:51 AM:
Dwayne wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:21 AM:
Those who are trying to radically change it for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to inflict their values on the rest of the populace. Right-minded people did not pick this fight. They are not the antagonists. They are simply protecting the indispensable principles that have prolonged the culture for everyone against a radical assault
The minority of illegals is winning, and the minority of the gay agenda is winning. The social structure of this magnificent country is deteriorating rapidly. "
izzy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:41 AM:
db76 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:42 AM:
izzy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:27 AM:
Why should anyone who disagrees with you go anywhere.
Chances are, I've been here longer than you have on this earth! I remember when we had a good society with mostly hard working, God fearing citizens. Since the Sproul Hall sit ins and that goofball Mario Salvio and others....I have seen the decay of the USA....and I will not just bend over and drop my draws for folks who want to further the decay!!!
You don't like what Dwayne and I say...YOU move! "
daveposner wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:35 AM:
db76 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:37 AM:
antipc wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:58 AM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:14 AM:
Mr. Board reduces marriage to sex. "
db76 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:42 AM:
izzy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:17 PM:
Marriage is about One man and One woman.
Humans have found just about every way possible to pervert their existence ....as we "progress" we actually "regress."
If you people want to have a very small minority DICTATE how you live...I see sheep led to the eventual slaughter. Decay and decadence.... "
ADark1 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:22 PM:
Seeing some people claim I look like Randy Jackson...DAWG I give it a 9.6 as well!
Hmmmm my verification code is fbSAD has to be a sign from GOD! ( Add your own words to the first two letters)
I DO however see an award coming out on this thread.... "
Bill wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:37 PM:
Dichotomy is another fine word and just as useful as in defining A and not A. however in the nomics of law A and not A are always being defined and redefined it is a human condition.
Tangential appurtenances could also be a fun and related field of conjugal bliss.
However, I do find the paradigm of singular cohabitation a rather dismal device as marriage to oneself is a most un-enthralling choice. "
Bill wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:49 PM:
Just think about it. "
db76 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 12:55 PM:
pat wrote on Jun 27, 2008 1:38 PM:
Ah, the good ole days, good times. Back when tolerance and acceptance were looked down upon and racism, sexism, and discrimination reined supreme. Back when women had fewer rights than men and blacks could not vote. When the KKK was burning churches and gays and lesbians were never to come “out of the closet”. Civil liberties and freedom of speech? Not unless you were Christian, white, and male.
Keep the country from “further decaying”, what a joke. "
JustMy$.02 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 2:21 PM:
That depends on what your definition of is, is.
A Classic (joke that is)! "
db76 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:10 PM:
You forgot to mention native americans taken off their land and put onto reservations. Now they want to aquire more rights to build casinos. "
izzy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 3:53 PM:
Ah, the good ole days, good times. Back when tolerance and acceptance were looked down upon and racism, sexism, and discrimination reined supreme. Back when women had fewer rights than men and blacks could not vote. When the KKK was burning churches and gays and lesbians were never to come “out of the closet”. Civil liberties and freedom of speech? Not unless you were Christian, white, and male.
Well you are waaaay off base! I grew up on the Peninsula, I didn't see much discrimination, never saw or heard of any KKK action in the Bay Area, gays and lesbians should have stayed in the closet...or the Bay....but they didn't! We had civil liberty...and ...freedom of speech! We also had RESPECT! That's been trashed by liberals starting in the 60s!
We also had the militant Black Panthers and if you think that was a joy ride, you couldn't be more wrong...You are full of beans on most of this!
You too db76! "
pat wrote on Jun 27, 2008 4:14 PM:
It took brave individuals of all ethnicities to stand up, and demand equality under the law. They did so not because they wanted to be on the front page of the paper, but because it was simply wrong to not be treated equally.
Wow, that sound exactly like what the proponents of same sex marriage are doing…… "
Dwayne wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:06 PM:
The Bible does say that for a man to 'know' a man is the same as a man to 'know' an animal, and is an abomination.
I guess your moral compass has been eroded.... "
izzy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:26 PM:
a teacher wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:52 PM:
db76 wrote on Jun 27, 2008 6:59 PM:
Dwayne wrote on Jun 27, 2008 7:30 PM:
Are all homosexuals atheists...??? "
Sandra wrote on Jun 27, 2008 8:40 PM:
Dwayne wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:01 PM:
sandra wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:25 PM:
izzy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:36 PM:
db, the Bible is hardly a piece of fiction and is recognized the world over as the word of God, and it's not just christians, it's the Jews as well, just like the Koran is in the Muslim world.
Furthermore, the Separation of Church and State via the Constitution was not designed to keep the church out of govt., it was designed to keep the govt. out of the church! Learn it, live it!
Sandra, the Bible aside, the citizens of this country still have a moral code to live by, all our laws are based on that code....our Constitution is based on that code, our individual lives are based on that code. Homosexuals all get equal protection under the laws of this land, what they are seeking is more than they have a right to ask for and it's not based on Love...it's based on Greed!
To me, Greed violates everyone's code in some way.
I'd say since you are throwing stones at the Bible, you are no different than Dwayne or I at all......your morals are just convoluted! "
a teacher wrote on Jun 27, 2008 9:45 PM:
"Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’
He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’
He answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.’
And he said to him, ‘You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.’
The Golden Rule...Do unto others as you would do unto yourself. "
izzy wrote on Jun 27, 2008 10:08 PM:
It appears to me that they were all looking for more than they deserved, special treatment as it were!
Nothing more than the homos are doing with the marriage issue! "
a teacher wrote on Jun 27, 2008 11:14 PM:
Sounds like you're angry at a lot of people. "
Sandra wrote on Jun 28, 2008 6:50 AM:
izzy wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:03 AM:
Freeloaders make me angry, those that want something from our govt. or myself that don't deserve it or haven't earned it and violate our moral code.
BTW....that wasn't gossip....those were facts ...maybe not the best examples "
a teacher wrote on Jun 28, 2008 9:59 AM:
You mean YOUR moral code, don't you? Because it's not mine and it is not the majority of Californians opinion on this issue. "
db76 wrote on Jun 28, 2008 12:51 PM:
Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jun 28, 2008 3:20 PM:
barefoot wrote on Jun 28, 2008 8:21 PM:
tomauglop wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:07 PM:
You essentially said that gay sex is perverted sexual behavior. Sure, you could say that, but only by your narrow definitions based on the society in which you grew up.
“I grew up on the Peninsula, I didn't see much discrimination, never saw or heard of any KKK action in the Bay Area, gays and lesbians should have stayed in the closet...or the Bay....but they didn't! We had civil liberty...and ...freedom of speech!" Izzy, just because you didn’t see any of the action doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening and doesn’t mean it was right to ignore it simply because it wasn’t affecting you. Yes, you had civil liberty and freedom, and still do, despite the fact that African Americans have them too.
I hardly think that attacking liberal politicians’ actions proves anything. It’s just as easy to attack indiscreet actions of conservative politicians. People on all sides of the issue have erred and gotten special treatment. It’s irrelevant
As for homosexuals pushing their beliefs on others, I doubt that they are trying to get everyone to marry people of the same sex. They impose anything on anyone. I don’t see how their marriage affects yours. If the meaning of your marriage relationship with your partner is somehow devalued by someone else’s actions, perhaps you should reevaluate your relationship.
As for the author’s assertion that the state should go with the majority opinion, there was a time when the majority of U.S. citizens believed black people were animals, and the majority of Christians that Protestants should burn. Perhaps the majority isn’t always right when it comes to civil liberties of the minority. "
pharper wrote on Jun 28, 2008 10:22 PM:
This letter sounds a lot to me like a lot of big words and no substance or evidence... again. "
daveposner wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:10 AM:
I'm trying to make sense of interesting comment:
" Hypothetical scenario if I may. There are 3 islands on Earth. One for homosexual males, one for homosexual females, one for heterosexual humans. Need I say more? "
Are you suggesting this as a solution? OK, but what are you going to do with all the homosexuals that are born on the hetero island. And what are you going to do with the heteros born on the homo islands. (If you don't know that the latter is possible you're hopelessly out of date.) "
MarshaMarsha wrote on Jun 29, 2008 8:51 AM:
bloodagar wrote on Jun 29, 2008 10:53 AM:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
It goes on to Articles/Sections and then Amendments.
The separation of Church and State is NOT in the constitution. This is the thought process of enlightened politicians. See Danbury Letters from Jefferson.
We do have: "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" as our 1st Amendment.
The Constitution is perfect...less is more...free to bear arms, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and....
Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution , of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" This is the constitutional safety net to maintain all fundamental rights not covered in I-VII.
The Declaration of Independence is another story...we were declaring that the divine rights of the monarchy would not be carried over to America because we would be independent of England.
The Federal Constitution will undo any State Constitution...every time.
Next time I am going to cut and paste from the internet...this truly took forever to write.
p.s. wikipedia is full of discrepancies. check your references carefully. "
db76 wrote on Jun 29, 2008 7:32 PM:
Sandra wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:35 AM:
Sandra wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:37 AM:
NValleygirl wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:44 AM:
bloodagar wrote on Jun 30, 2008 9:53 AM:
Be well. "
coigue wrote on Jun 30, 2008 8:10 PM:
If you don't like it people, don't do it. Otherwise, please mind your own business. "
Oldschoolnapan wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:49 AM:
It is sad to see that we have come to the point where Judges have decided that we no longer need them. We can simply destroy "Marriage" and rely on Immigration.... mostly illegal for our population growth. Too bad they are not even learning our language or culture like those evil Cristian "Families".
This is not about homosexuals being given equal rights. This is to discourage heterosexual marriages and stable families. See Karl Marx.
All praise the State and Country.
OL School Napa. "
NValleygirl wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:26 PM:
freeport56 wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:15 PM:
John Richards wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:21 PM:
But when it comes to hijacking and usurping an institution that has always belonged to heterosexuals, it is no longer a matter of minding one's own business.
I was glad to see McCain and Obama come out on opposite sites of this issue. It will make my voting choice that much easier in November. "
Paddy wrote on Jul 4, 2008 9:05 AM:
This is what Obama said: "
"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage, but I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them"
I'm not sure McCain and Obama are that far apart at all. Sorry to burst your bubble. "
areyouserious wrote on Jul 5, 2008 5:42 AM:
get over your self righteousness! You are no better than me or the homosexual standing in line next to me. we are all people with different likes and dislikes. and right now, I dislike the both of you!
you are so un-AMERICAN! "
John Richards wrote on Jul 5, 2008 11:51 AM:
Libertarian wrote on Jul 9, 2008 8:12 PM:
I have been married for over 43 years and for the life of me can’t understand why any person’s marriage is threatened by the choice of a spouse by another.
I am a Christian and my marriage was licensed by the state and performed in a church but by law is a contract between two people not by law a religious joining. Our individual beliefs or lack there of should have nothing to do with our laws and government. If your intent is to impose your faith and beliefs onto everyone else than you should search for a place and society that believes the same as you and join them. In America and California we separate our religious beliefs from our government and our laws should not follow any religious beliefs or discriminate against any person or segment of society for any reason.
As a lib·er·tar·i·an: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
-- American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
I embrace the Supreme Courts decision to extend the rights of the individual against the constraints of society. "
John Richards wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:32 PM:
Libertarian wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:17 PM:
Unless the people of California are willing to remove or substantially alter Article I of our Constitution I am right.
Article I of the California Constitution deals with the rights of all citizens and if the voters amend the Constitution without changing our and your rights to equal protection under the law the amendment will be ruled unconstitutional.
The California Supreme Court decision as recorded is viewable at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
The decision is based on many issues including prior CSC (California Supreme Court) decisions, USSC (United States Supreme Court) decisions, and especially on Article I of the California State Constitution viewable at:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
I do not believe the voters will be willing to remove the sections giving us the right to privacy, the right to equal justice, and the right to marry from Article I of our Constitution in order to make same sex marriage illegal or unconstitutional based on religious fanaticism and/or homophobia. "