Calif. Ponders Gay Marriage For Inmates

[OriginalWheelman]

First you asked me to prove Jefferson said it. I shut you down there. You then fall back to him not being involved in the constitution which is true. However I think quotes from a prominent man of the time carries great weight. You think it doesn't so let's just dispense with the foreplay, shall we?http://www.jmu.edu/madison/cen...s.htmHe wrote the damned thing!

You keep quoting the people on the liberal side of the Bill, and only letters they wrote. A letter Madison wrote 31 years later is not a legally binding argument either.

[szh]

I think the POINT of the matter is this:

With all else going on in our country, CA has the time and resources to dedicate to this?

Inmates can't vote, possess a firearm, hold elected office or go to the 3pm matinee... why is marriage even being discussed?

Someone with some hair on their balls needs to step up and say:

"NO. Next issue."

Simple.

Now, all of that I agree with!

Unfortunately, with one exception, CA officials do not have any hair on their balls.

Z

[audtatious]

But the quotes listed from Masison do not represent Seperation of Church and State as meaning Gov't will shrug off all religion. It again presses forth that Gov't will not select an individual religion as THE religion of the US Gov. He wrote it so you would think he would have worded it to state that there would be a complete seperation. He didn't.

[audtatious]

Surprisingly enough, I would be okay with that AS LONG AS the people involved were adults and made consenting decisions.

The problems stem from the fact that the girls (and, yes, it is usually one male - more than one female) are generally underage and not been given the proper information to make an adult consent. Without the benefit of understanding that it would be okay to say "No" too.

Z

Man marries a few women. Some of the women get married to other guys. Some are Bi and get married to other "manly" women. Some of those "manly" women marry other women. At what point does absolute drama unfold?

I'm not good at debating this issue, nor gay marriage itself, but I see too many problems coming out of it. From what I've seen via reports it is always better to raise children with one male and one female role model. This is not possible in any of the scenarios involving these forms of marriage. Why do you think polygamist societies constantly grow with the men having lots of wives but the wives not having lots of husbands? Because the males are dominating over the women and that teaches their male sons to do the same (and the daughters that it's OK for men to do it). Women end up being a trophy and female children don't know that that is not the role they are supposed to play.

[szh]

Man marries a few women. Some of the women get married to other guys. Some are Bi and get married to other "manly" women. Some of those "manly" women marry other women. At what point does absolute drama unfold?

I'm not good at debating this issue, nor gay marriage itself, but I see too many problems coming out of it. From what I've seen via reports it is always better to raise children with one male and one female role model. This is not possible in any of the scenarios involving these forms of marriage. Why do you think polygamist societies constantly grow with the men having lots of wives but the wives not having lots of husbands? Because the males are dominating over the women and that teaches their male sons to do the same (and the daughters that it's OK for men to do it). Women end up being a trophy and female children don't know that that is not the role they are supposed to play.

I understand your viewpoint and don't necessarily disagree with your comments either, by the way. My point was that, if it became law, and the adults were consenting, then I would not have a problem with it. I would not do it myself, but I would not be bothered by that law.

Remember where I am coming from: as a Muslim, when in a Muslim country, I am theoretically allowed to have up to four wives. However, there are very specific rules governing that process - most of which are tough to get around. And, even more importantly, it is not done anywhere near as often as you might think!

In my family and in most others too, taking even a second wife (while still married to the first) is simply not done. My great-great-grandfather was the last one to do so (only a second wife ... not a third or fourth) - over 125 years ago - and it is still talked about how he was so wrong to have done so.

But, we are really deviating from the original thread here!!

Z

[hannibal]

There shouldnt be anything to ponder. CA allows same sex marriage, and prisoners are allowed to marry. Gay prisoners should be allowed to marry...

[szh]

There shouldnt be anything to ponder. CA allows same sex marriage, and prisoners are allowed to marry. Gay prisoners should be allowed to marry...

I don't think it is that simple.

For example: Current marriages are such that one spouse is usually not within the prison walls. So, what if the gay marriage request was from two inmates? Perhaps in the same prison? Nay, in the same cell? Would you think that would be okay to allow?

Often, there are situations inside prison walls, where the "consent" part of the marriage equation isn't exactly crystal clear either!

Finally, remember that it is a prison. Life inside them is not supposed to be "normal", is it? If the only remaining thing about prison is the inability to wander around outside the walls (whereas food, shelter, clothing, entertainment, etc. are freely provided), then I think the purpose of internment is lost. IMHO.

Z

[rn79870]

My opinion...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” (Quoting the constitution)

If the “no establishment only” interpretation were taken literally, then the federal government could enforce compliance with any rules or dogmas of any particular religions and, so long as there was no national church. Would it be permissible for the government to force all men to wear yarmulkes, long beards or to prohibit women from wearing jewelry? No, the government is prohibited from crossing the line and adopting religious dogma as law.

Those who believe that the clause only prohibits a national church (which it does, but not exclusively) If that were the case, you'd see the government adopting non exclusive religious doctrine and enforcing it, thusly violating the "free exercise" portion of the clause.

[audtatious]

There shouldnt be anything to ponder. CA allows same sex marriage, and prisoners are allowed to marry. Gay prisoners should be allowed to marry...

While in jail, do you get to pay for their marriage and their divorces? What about marriage activities, gonna pay to provide lube too?

People are in jail for punishment, not as a way to find a husband. If that is happening then it needs to be reformed.

[rn79870]

The answer to your question is yes and no. Inmates have access to items provided them, such as religious leaders, but they lack the financial wherewithal to afford things like marriage licenses and court services for divorces. So, yes, to some degree the taxpayers support them. That isn't any different that a heterosexual couple though if they were inmates.

I'm waiting for a gay inmate couple to sue the prisons for the right to live together in the same room while serving their sentence.

[C-Kwik]

A union is a legal arrangement, a marriage is socially recognized institution that for the length of its existence has been the formula of one man and one woman. Grantded by way of the european model but America was founded by predominantly people from that area with that paradigm. Certainly many civilizations and cultures have a different model.

If the aim is legal protection then that can be accomplished without the mainstream legitimizing title of "married". I beleive that this is less about the legal aspect with the foot soldiers of this movement as it is getting the title. Gay marriage is not mainstream, it is not normal, sorry about that. As such they don't get the title.

I do beleive though that if two dudes, two chicks, a dude and a mule, two chicks, a dude and a lawn chaair want to hook up that is their business and if they truly are some sort of couple and live together then they should be entitled to certain rights so give them some form of civil union.

Semantics. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is. Get over it. Its just a word. What is important is the relationship between the 2 people involved in a marriage. Not the definition of the word that describes it. You might as well petition for Websters to stop publishing definitions of the word marriage that have nothing to do with the union of a man and wonan as well.

[audtatious]

I'm waiting for a gay inmate couple to sue the prisons for the right to live together in the same room while serving their sentence.

Which is my point, at which time a non-gay inmate will sue due to descrimination. Way to further clog up the court system

[rn79870]

Yep, that's what going to happen until the public puts their foot down and changes it.

[themadscientist]

You keep quoting the people on the liberal side of the Bill, and only letters they wrote. A letter Madison wrote 31 years later is not a legally binding argument either.

You seem to miss the point. The problem with interpreting what the intent of a person was when they drafted the document personal letters, quotes etc reveal the thinking of the person which provides clues to intent. I have this info to support the interpretation that separation was implied. You have yet to provide any such support for your interpretation. When weighing what you think Madison was thinking against what Madison was thinking the answer is clear. The fact that evidence does not support your view puts the ball in your court; find some evidence that the founding fathers thought church and state should be intertwined and we can continue the debate otherwise we are done here.

[themadscientist]

Semantics. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is. Get over it. Its just a word. What is important is the relationship between the 2 people involved in a marriage. Not the definition of the word that describes it. You might as well petition for Websters to stop publishing definitions of the word marriage that have nothing to do with the union of a man and wonan as well.

semantics have weight. The sociological status of the union, the social acceptance of it is important. For a child growing up in a world with no logical consistent definition how are they to find a consistent understanding of the world. If some guy like d!ck and falls in love I don't care. If he enters into a domestic partnership based on respect and deep feelings with another dude, fine, I am all for them having the legal trappings of that. I am not going to play along though with the idea that they are married, they aren't. If you don't draw the line now there never will be a line. How can one logically argue against paligamy in a world where two guys can be "married". They should not be allowed to adopt children either. That is ridiculous.

[OriginalWheelman]

You seem to miss the point. The problem with interpreting what the intent of a person was when they drafted the document personal letters, quotes etc reveal the thinking of the person which provides clues to intent. I have this info to support the interpretation that separation was implied. You have yet to provide any such support for your interpretation. When weighing what you think Madison was thinking against what Madison was thinking the answer is clear. The fact that evidence does not support your view puts the ball in your court; find some evidence that the founding fathers thought church and state should be intertwined and we can continue the debate otherwise we are done here.

We don't need to interpret their intent. We have what they wrote and agreed on. How many bills put into congress come out they way the drafter intended them? Regardless of what Madison wanted, or what Jefferson wanted, those did not make it into the bill. The way it is written is the way it was agreed upon.

[themadscientist]

The way it was written is open to interpretation. Interpretation even scholars contend. In that climate one must consult the statements of the people involved to try to gain an understanding of their thinking and thus apply that to their writings.

[OriginalWheelman]

The way it was written is open to interpretation. Interpretation even scholars contend. In that climate one must consult the statements of the people involved to try to gain an understanding of their thinking and thus apply that to their writings.

This is why we have the Supreme Court. 303 million Americans, and 9 of them get to sit in that court. The other 302,999,991 of us can interpret all we want, but it is up to those elite few to make the ultimate decision.

[themadscientist]

And they struggle with it. You want to talk Constitution and WTF let's look at how they glossed over the guidelines for establishing the judicial branch. Talk about phoning it in!

[Qwerty1942]

Why do Neocons think their version of America is all there is? Funny for a bunch of people who whine so much about independence and individualism...no i don't live in ca.

[themadscientist]

who is a neocon? Where they at?

[audtatious]

Why do Neocons think their version of America is all there is? Funny for a bunch of people who whine so much about independence and individualism...no i don't live in ca.

Why do people like to associate all conservatives as neocon's? Make you sleep better at night?

[skylndrftr]

Why do people like to associate all conservatives as neocon's? Make you sleep better at night?

I'm gonna just leave it at...you made your own bed.

[dusred]

I just read all comments an arguments on this thread. Here is my .02:

First off I almost puke when I even think of 2 guys getting married. In Prison we all know that people have buttsecks and get raped all day everyday. There are 2 ways that this could go, First, the gay rapers would maybe keep it to one person if they are married to him and have be at each others side every all the time. Or, it would create an appetite for buttsecks and there would be more rapists and sexual violence going in the prision.

Prisoners don't have any rights, when they committed that crime that landed them in prison they forfeited those rights (the right to vote, ect.). Why should murders, rapists, child molesters, etc. have any of the privileges (I consider marriage a privilege) that us law abiding people have?

If they don't have the right to vote they shouldn't have the right to marry, gay or otherwise.

If it is made legal for prisoners to marry wait til male and female inmates want to marry, and if gay's can why can't normal couples?

On the issue of legalizing Polygamy: If people have the right to be gay why can't they have more then one wife/husband? I find it odd that people can be gay but they can't have more then one wife/husband. And of course if young girls are forced into marriage or raped in a Polygamist marriage the hand of the law should be upon them. Abuse can't be tolerated.

[Qwerty1942]

Why do people like to associate all conservatives as neocon's? Make you sleep better at night?

please, for once, would you make a post that doesn't have the syntactic errors a five year old would make?

[HashiriyaS14]

Why do people like to associate all conservatives as neocon's? Make you sleep better at night?

I will admit that this is a generalization that gets made WAY too often.

Most people who are throwing the term "neocon" around probably can't define it. It is a fairly complex concept from an ideological perspective and actually has it's roots in the liberal establishment.

Just because someone is a social conservative it doesn't necessarily make them a neoconservative. Additionally, both are just ideologies, points of view, and it isn't somehow objectively evil for someone to be either one.

[Qwerty1942]

If republicans get to throw around terms like liberal, then democrats can throw around terms like neocon.

[audtatious]

please, for once, would you make a post that doesn't have the syntactic errors a five year old would make?

You sure are a smart one. I guess you were officer material, huh?

[audtatious]

I'm gonna just leave it at...you made your own bed.

Your party has done it's fair share. Snuggle in deeply, cupcake.

[audtatious]

If republicans get to throw around terms like liberal, then democrats can throw around terms like neocon.

Because not all Republicans are neocons but Democrats all have liberal views? If I was being disrespectful I would call you a left-wing nut job instead of a liberal.