Skip Nav
Netflix
17 Sex-Filled Films to Stream on Netflix
Women
17 Celebrities Get Real About When (and How) They Lost Their Virginity
Relationships
17 Reasons Steph and Ayesha Curry Are Your Ultimate Relationship Goals

Authorities in California and Egypt Refuse Marriages

Some of California's most conservative counties will not be holding marriage ceremonies — gay or straight — citing inadequate resources for the expected influx of couples seeking marriage once same-sex couples are permitted to marry on June 15. Many are crying foul, as a local newspaper published emails sent from the Kern County clerk asking a conservative group opposed to gay marriage for legal assistance.

The Campaign For Children and Families wants clerks to deny same-sex licenses in counties "where the man-woman marriage ethic is strongest in California," until voters have their say on a November ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage.

Far from California, Egyptian authorities refused to endorse a marriage between a 92-year-old man and a 17-year-old girl. To find out why,

.

According to Egyptian law, a husband and wife cannot be more than 25 years apart. Because the girl is not technically the man's wife, she cannot travel with him. But, in the last year, 173 marriages between couples with a greater than 25-year-age gap have been approved. The country allows exceptions for foreign men who pay the National Bank about $80,000 and shows up in person to the ministry of justice.

Should government officials, whether in Egypt or California, just butt out of marriage; or is it necessary to offer citizens a certain level of protection? In Egypt they say too large an age gap is not OK; in California some say same-sex marriage is not OK — do you see any differences between these interventions?
Source

Around The Web
Husband Orders Wife to Be Killed and She Crashes Her Funeral
Benefits to Marrying Your High School Sweetheart
Stages of Celebrating Valentine's Day
How to Keep the Spark Alive in Your Relationship

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 7 years
Steph?
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 7 years
Steph?
Great-Sommelier Great-Sommelier 7 years
So one person's rights trump another persons rights? Where does that end? Gay or straight, that isn't the issue for me. I could care less what people do in their bedrooms, just as a borderline libertarian I have issues with the government telling me what I can and can't do apart from obvious laws where my actions cause damage to another person or their property.
stephley stephley 7 years
Dave, I found a list of cases that already have come up because of peoples' objections to gay marriage - the objectors aren't faring well in court so far:A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business. A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company. A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
stephley stephley 7 years
Dave, I found a list of cases that already have come up because of peoples' objections to gay marriage - the objectors aren't faring well in court so far: A Christian gynecologist at North Coast Women's Care Medical Group in Vista, Calif., refused to give his patient in vitro fertilization treatment because she is in a lesbian relationship, and he claimed that doing so would violate his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to his partner, who agreed to do the treatment.) The woman sued under the state's civil rights act. The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May 2008, and legal experts believe that the woman's right to medical treatment will trump the doctor's religious beliefs. One justice suggested that the doctors take up a different line of business. A mental health counselor at North Mississippi Health Services refused therapy for a woman who wanted help in improving her lesbian relationship. The counselor said doing so would violate her religious beliefs. The counselor was fired. In March 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with the employer, ruling that the employee's religious beliefs could not be accommodated without causing undue hardship to the company. A clerk in Vermont refused to perform a civil union ceremony after the state legalized them. In 2001, in a decision that side-stepped the religious liberties issue, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that he did not need to perform the ceremony because there were other civil servants who would. However, the court did indicate that religious beliefs do not allow employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
On to the second part of this topic.WTF is a 17yr old doind marrying a 92yr old?!?! Can he even consumate the marriage? "Hello, Viagra?"
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
On to the second part of this topic. WTF is a 17yr old doind marrying a 92yr old?!?! Can he even consumate the marriage? "Hello, Viagra?"
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
On to the second half of this topic...WTF is a 17 yr old doing marrying a 92yr old?!!? Can he even consumate the marriage? (Hello Viagra)
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
On to the second half of this topic... WTF is a 17 yr old doing marrying a 92yr old?!!? Can he even consumate the marriage? (Hello Viagra)
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
yes thats me a crazy civil rights denying racist!! :D
stephley stephley 7 years
I am SO glad for your second post - my mouth was literally hanging open as I read the first one for the third time, trying to much sure I understood what you said!
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
um should not be voting on civil rights, that is a should not!!!
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
um im not sure if your talking to me steph but i will answer anyway :D. the court should follow the constitution, which clearly states that the state cannot discriminate based on sex when dealing with a public contract. on a personal note, i truly believe that voters should be voting on civil rights. in the 60's, if we left the issue of blacks marrying whites up to the voters, the refrendum would of surely lost.
stephley stephley 7 years
How would you define what the court should do?
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
if you think about marriage in terms of law it most certainly is a contract. you have joint duties to your children, joint assets and joint responsibilities. if we failed to define marriage as a contract in the eyes of the law, it would throw the whole system into chaos. every single word uttered in the heat of passion could be used as a promise, an emotional judge could throw a guy/gal in jail for cheating on their spouse. looking at it as a contract gives judges an outline to go on when deciding who gets and what goes where in a divorce and if every judge was allowed to inject their morals into the law, then what is the point of having a judicial system?
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
Thanks flutterpie. I disagree with their definition of marriage as just a civil contract, but I see how they would use that.Stephley - I've never liked it when a court is used to change or reinforce public policy. Separate but equal was bad policy, and the court of the day was wrong to lend it constitutional credence. I was merely wondering what the court was using as their basis for their decision.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
Thanks flutterpie. I disagree with their definition of marriage as just a civil contract, but I see how they would use that. Stephley - I've never liked it when a court is used to change or reinforce public policy. Separate but equal was bad policy, and the court of the day was wrong to lend it constitutional credence. I was merely wondering what the court was using as their basis for their decision.
stephley stephley 7 years
You majored in Constitutional law when? 'Equal protection' of your rights IS guaranteed under the Constitution, the judges determined that marriage comes under equal protection. Whenever a ruling goes against what a person wants, the court oversteps its authority. When they like what the court says, the judges acted prudently. The Court once ruled that 'separate but equal' was acceptable then 80 years or so later reversed that and said no it isn't. Would you like to see people divided by race on public transportation or schools?
stephley stephley 7 years
You majored in Constitutional law when? 'Equal protection' of your rights IS guaranteed under the Constitution, the judges determined that marriage comes under equal protection. Whenever a ruling goes against what a person wants, the court oversteps its authority. When they like what the court says, the judges acted prudently. The Court once ruled that 'separate but equal' was acceptable then 80 years or so later reversed that and said no it isn't. Would you like to see people divided by race on public transportation or schools?
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
when the code in the 1970's defined marriage a civil contract between two people the change to the code was marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman it directly conflicts with Article 1 Sect 31 :(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.Emphasis on public contracting. The wording of the law defines marriage as a "contract" therefore it conflicts with the Constitution.
flutterpie flutterpie 7 years
when the code in the 1970's defined marriage a civil contract between two people the change to the code was marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman it directly conflicts with Article 1 Sect 31 :(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Emphasis on public contracting. The wording of the law defines marriage as a "contract" therefore it conflicts with the Constitution.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
To deem the "gay marriage ban" unconstitutional, there needs to be something contrary in constitution. Otherwise, the bench is going from ruling on the constitution, to interpreting the constitution, which isn't in their scope.
stephley stephley 7 years
'Gay marriage' or even 'marriage' don't have to specifically be stated in the bill of rights... It is the right to enjoy any civil right allowed everyone, regardless of sex, creed, color or sexual orientation. Marriage is the basic right. If everything was spelled out in the Constitution, there'd be little need for judges to interpret, but the constitution would be longer than the IRS code.
UnDave35 UnDave35 7 years
That's all well and good, but where is that in the constitution?
stephley stephley 7 years
Chief Justice Ronald George found that marriage is a basic civil right that applies equally to everyone, including same-sex couples. It is mentioned in the decision that just like race and gender, sexual orientation is a protected class...The California Supreme Court has recognized the right to marry as a (1) right to privacy in marrying the person of your choice, (2) right to free speech/fundamental right to marry, and (3) equal protection.
Latest Love
X