Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage Law - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/03/gay-marriage-vote-close-maine/)

31 states where gay marriage has been voted on it has been rejected!

:yahoo:

Too bad the United States Supreme Court didn't leave this to the states nearly 40 years ago with Roe v. Wade.

It doesn't matter what you think about abortion or gay marriage. If it is imposed by a judge, it will ALWAYS been a sore spot. If it is left to the people, to the states, to candidates the people can directly address, the, the issue has been put to a vote.

:buddies:

Looks like Maine finally used good sense, Now if they could just find a couple of Republicans to replace their RINO's.

I think they need to vote on some sort of contractual agreement that would allow gays to shack up and be awarded all the same "legal" differences that marriage brings over being single.

I have a feeling it would pass.

If I were to vote.
NO to marriage
YES to a contract that provided the gays with the same GOVERNMENT treatment as a married couple.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

So much for that pesky little Constitution crap.

So much for that pesky little Constitution crap.
until you realize that they are not being denied something that someone else can have, there really is no sense in arguing the point.

until you realize that they are not being denied something that someone else can have, there really is no sense in arguing the point.

Would you like to discuss the state laws that forbid miscegenation back in the day?

an ex of mine is probably pissed off right about now. She is very active in supporting the gay community up in Maine. She's a lil fruitcake nutjob, though. :lol:

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

So sayeth the Supreme Court.

So much for that pesky little Constitution crap.
Apparently the Constitution apparently only means something when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights.

**Not that I do not support 2nd Amendment rights, because I do. I would never let my personal opinion on guns interfere with how I would vote if rights were ever on the verge of being violated. **

until you realize that they are not being denied something that someone else can have, there really is no sense in arguing the point.

That's not true. It does not matter what you think of gay marriage, the fact of the matter is that gay marriage prohibitions deny and limit certain privileges and rights that are conferred under 'regular' marriage. It discriminates, it infringes and you can spend all the time you like arguing otherwise but, it is discriminatory, no different than certain limits and/or prohibitions on a drivers license or a building permit or any other social contract, based on sexual preference.

You social conservatives need to wake the hell up and smell the coffee; yesterday was about TARP and the stimulus and jobs, and spending and entitlements and corruption and George Bush didn't lose over social issues. McCain didn't fail because of social issues. And the one big social conservative race was lost yesterday. In a district, NY 23, that hasn't sent a Dem to Dc in over 100 years.

You wanna go to the barricades over the word marriage or what a woman does with her pregnancy above anything else then you're no different than the Dems and the left and their boutiques, personal pet peeve issues.

You don't have to be pro abortion or for special rights for gays. You might want to look at your priorities.

People can't afford to worry about Bruce and Chips sex life or one less baby birthed to one more crappy 'mother' when they don't even have a job.

:buddies:

Apparently the Constitution apparently only means something when it comes to 2nd Amendment rights.

**Not that I do not support 2nd Amendment rights, because I do. I would never let my personal opinion on guns interfere with how I would vote if rights were ever on the verge of being violated. **
yeah I find it amusing...both parties only feel like part of the Constitution applies. Neither one truly supports the entire body of work.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

So sayeth the Supreme Court.

Of man? So, you're saying, specifically, no marriage for women???


You know, you could win on that one issue... :lol:

yeah I find it amusing...both parties only feel like part of the Constitution applies. Neither one truly supports the entire body of work.

I do, goddamn it. :tap:

I do, goddamn it. :tap:

you are a Republican that's not as socially conservative as your party. I was talking about party platforms. :razz:

Maine Voters Reject Gay Marriage Law - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/03/gay-marriage-vote-close-maine/)

31 states where gay marriage has been voted on it has been rejected!

:yahoo:

Why is that so important to you?

So much for that pesky little Constitution crap.

They didn't say there will be a sexual orientation prohibition on who is allowed to marry - just a continued definition on what marriage is.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

So sayeth the Supreme Court.

That's why gays are allowed to marry. But, "marry" means a man and a woman. Not two men, not a mother and son, not Three Men and a Little Lady, etc., etc.

They didn't say there will be a sexual orientation prohibition on who is allowed to marry - just a continued definition on what marriage is.


Right, and that definition denys gays an equal footing when it comes to marriage.

you are a Republican that's not as socially conservative as your party. I was talking about party platforms. :razz:

It is NOT conservative to support a constitutional amendment to LIMIT individual rights. Far from it. It is not conservative to tell someone what they can do with their body.

:buddies:

That's why gays are allowed to marry. But, "marry" means a man and a woman. Not two men, not a mother and son, not Three Men and a Little Lady, etc., etc.

That's a ridiculous pretzel logic argument. And while it may work on the lesser minds, it will not work on me.

You want to discriminate based on your own bigotries. Admit it and make your case based on that, not on some twisted excuse you came up with to hide behind.

That's not true. It does not matter what you think of gay marriage, the fact of the matter is that gay marriage prohibitions deny and limit certain privileges and rights that are conferred under 'regular' marriage. It discriminates, it infringes and you can spend all the time you like arguing otherwise but, it is discriminatory, no different than certain limits and/or prohibitions on a drivers license or a building permit or any other social contract, based on sexual preference. And, where does it demand a sexual preference test to marry? It just doesn't. You can find discrimination anywhere if you look hard enough, but gays are not stopped from marrying. Two people of the same gender are stopped from entering into a union that is not defined by the word marriage, but being married - actually married - does not have a sexual preference test.

"Marriage" fits a certain definition. I truly think if you ask most people against same-gendered marriage, you'd be surprised to find that they are for some form of civil union.You social conservatives need to wake the hell up and smell the coffee; yesterday was about TARP and the stimulus and jobs, and spending and entitlements and corruption and George Bush didn't lose over social issues. McCain didn't fail because of social issues. And the one big social conservative race was lost yesterday. In a district, NY 23, that hasn't sent a Dem to Dc in over 100 years.Wait, the actual social issue that was on the table won in a "conservative" fashion. NY 23 was over a lot of things, but I don't see how you could say it was strictly over social issues.

And, George Bush didn't lose. He won every race he could win nationally. I know this will come as a surprise to many, but Obama didn't defeat Bush - Bush wasn't on the ticket.You wanna go to the barricades over the word marriage or what a woman does with her pregnancy above anything else then you're no different than the Dems and the left and their boutiques, personal pet peeve issues.

You don't have to be pro abortion or for special rights for gays. You might want to look at your priorities.

People can't afford to worry about Bruce and Chips sex life or one less baby birthed to one more crappy 'mother' when they don't even have a job.

:buddies:I don't much care what a woman does with her pregnancy, provided she doesn't murder (or commission murder for) her child. That's just wrong.

I don't think gays should have any special rights. I think we should all have the same rights.

I couldn't care less about Bruce and Chip's sex life, or if a mother without a job gives up her baby to one of the millions of couples seeking said baby.

:buddies:

It is NOT conservative to support a constitutional amendment to LIMIT individual rights. Far from it. It is not conservative to tell someone what they can do with their body.

Actually it's quite conservative. It's just not constitutional.

So all these right wing flag-wavers insisting on following the Constitution and not reinterpreting it to suit politics - smell your own hole, pal, because your hypocrisy stinks.

Actually it's quite conservative. It's just not constitutional.

So all these right wing flag-wavers insisting on following the Constitution and not reinterpreting it to suit politics - smell your own hole, pal, because your hypocrisy stinks.

Maybe not quite how I would word it but :yeahthat:

Why is that so important to you?

Gay bashers and/or overzealous religious people that like to impose their beliefs on others. :yay:

That's a ridiculous pretzel logic argument. And while it may work on the lesser minds, it will not work on me.

You want to discriminate based on your own bigotries. Admit it and make your case based on that, not on some twisted excuse you came up with to hide behind.You want me to argue a point I don't believe in, because you have good arguments against that point?

No.

The point is, "marriage" is one thing, and a civil union is something else. You can't make a marriage without two genders - it's really that simple. You don't give a motorcycle license to someone for driving a semi, and you don't give a marriage license to a pair of same gendered individuals. You give a motorcycle license to someone riding a motorcycle, and a commercial license to someone driving a semi. You give a marriage license to opposite gendered people who fit the rest of the definition, and a civil union license to people who fit that definition. All without a sexual orientation test.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival....

So sayeth the Supreme Court.
look up Reynolds VS the United states.


On January 6, 1879, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision. The Court based its decision on historic American cultural values, namely that from the earliest times polygamy was considered an offense against society. Most civilized countries considered marriage a "sacred obligation," and a civil contract usually regulated by law. Therefore, the Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect polygamy.


The same argument could be used against homosexual marriage in regards to it being considered an offense against society from the earliest times.

Indirectly, the Supreme Court did rule on non traditional marriage. And as of today, that ruling stands.

Loving VS Virgina was as much a ruling that blacks were human as anything else.

Right, and that definition denys gays an equal footing when it comes to marriage.

How? Because they may not want to marry someone of the opposite sex? That's kinda a silly argument - does that mean I'm less constutionally protected because Hollywood starlets don't want to marry me?

"Marriage" fits a certain definition.

So let's discuss why the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws?

Actually it's quite conservative. It's just not constitutional.

So all these right wing flag-wavers insisting on following the Constitution and not reinterpreting it to suit politics - smell your own hole, pal, because your hypocrisy stinks.

You twist it around any way you want, but "marriage" fits a certain definition, and there is not a sexual orientation requirement to enter into that contract, just fitting the definition.

So let's discuss why the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws?

Go for it - then tell me how it fits, so you can get it out of your system.

Then, we'll discuss the actual issue at hand.

If you all want the state to dictate your marriage rights and thwart the US Constitution in doing so, knock yourself out. I'm already married and have no personal dog in this fight.

But don't say you support our Constitution when you don't. It's pretty clear that you just want to pick and choose like every other hypocrite.

If you all want the state to dictate your marriage rights and thwart the US Constitution in doing so, knock yourself out. I'm already married and have no personal dog in this fight.

But don't say you support our Constitution when you don't. It's pretty clear that you just want to pick and choose like every other hypocrite.

It's not in any way hypocritical to suggest that the states have the rights to define marriage laws.

Marriage, defined as only between man and woman, is an arbitrary definition created in an archaic time when religion was the word and the law. Simple as that.

Guess what people? F your religion when it comes to making laws. Ever heard of separation between church and state? If it's a sin in your religion then DONT DO IT. But that doesn't mean it should be a law. There is no concrete legitimate argument other than your stupid ass archaic religious rules or because you hate gays.

I don't really care one way or the other, but it's not my decision to make. It's amazing how blinding people's religions can be on them.

It's not in any way hypocritical to suggest that the states have the rights to define marriage laws.

Sure, if you want to toss out those silly amendments that you don't agree with. :yay:

Marriage, defined as only between man and woman, is an arbitrary definition created in an archaic time when religion was the word and the law. Simple as that.

Guess what people? F your religion when it comes to making laws. Ever heard of separation between church and state? If it's a sin in your religion then DONT DO IT. But that doesn't mean it should be a law. There is no concrete legitimate argument other than your stupid ass archaic religious rules or because you hate gays.

I don't really care one way or the other, but it's not my decision to make. It's amazing how blinding people's religions can be on them.
:yay:
Then tell them to quit praying before our Commissioner's Meetings, and change that sign before leaving Calvert Co. ....:shrug:

It's not in any way hypocritical to suggest that the states have the rights to define marriage laws.

Your argument lives and dies on one and only one thing; your personal view that marriage is between one man one women ONLY.

Except if they are related. Too closely.

Or they are of the 'wrong' age.

Or, to some, if they are of the 'wrong' races or back grounds.

It may be the law and that is fine but, to argue that marriage is some sort of tablet thrown forth from the bowels of the earth or even the hand of a god with exacting, inviolable specificity is silly and, not true. It's been change and modified many times.

Marriage, defined as only between man and woman, is an arbitrary definition

It is NOT arbitrary. There is logic and reason behind that, same as the biological limitations and age and race considerations.

The same kind of logic and argument can, CAN be used to say marriage is between two, TWO consenting adults.

:yay:
Then tell them to quit praying before our Commissioner's Meetings, and change that sign before leaving Calvert Co. ....:shrug:

You tell them. Praying and having a sign doesn't infringe legally on anyone's rights or privileges.

You tell them. Praying and having a sign doesn't infringe legally on anyone's rights or privileges.

It does if the Constitution says it does....:shrug:...I have the flu, be gentle...:lol:

It does if the Constitution says it does....

Where does the Constitution say no praying or signs?

Where does the Constitution say no praying or signs?

Says separation of church and state...I don't want any religious practices or signs of it on any gov't. functions or properties of it...jmo........except the dollar bill...:lol:.....

:yay:
Then tell them to quit praying before our Commissioner's Meetings, and change that sign before leaving Calvert Co. ....:shrug:
Hmm they should probably do all of that too, then? I am not a fan of the idea of the government having that kind of stuff, but whatever...as long as it doesn't affect their laws.

It is NOT arbitrary. There is logic and reason behind that, same as the biological limitations and age and race considerations.

The same kind of logic and argument can, CAN be used to say marriage is between two, TWO consenting adults.

so marriage should only be between two people of the same race as well? wait, maybe it should be different races, since different sexes is also required. Or is this based on the whole procreation thing? Isn't that concept a religious ideal as well, that marriage is intended for procreation? Yep, it is, since it's not a specific intent of marriage anymore...people procreate outside of marriage, while others don't procreate within marriage. Should a male and female not be allowed to wed unless they have intentions of procreating? Should they not be allowed to live together or have sex prior to marriage because it's a sin? Should every pregnant woman that is unmarried be arrested? :tap:

Sure there is some form of "logic", but given that everything else that should follow that same flow of logic is legal, then why pick on this specific topic?

Says separation of church and state...

Where?

Where?

First amendment says law cannot impede on religion.

6th article says "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

continuing the search...

Says separation of church and state...I don't want any religious practices or signs of it on any gov't. functions or properties of it...jmo........except the dollar bill...:lol:.....
I dont think that anywhere in the Constitution does it specifically say "Separation of Church and State"

I dont think that anywhere in the Constitution does it specifically say "Separation of Church and State"

It should be pretty easy to check.

Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net (http://www.usconstitution.net)

so marriage should only be between two people of the same race as well? wait, maybe it should be different races, since different sexes is also required. Or is this based on the whole procreation thing? Isn't that concept a religious ideal as well, that marriage is intended for procreation? Yep, it is, since it's not a specific intent of marriage anymore...people procreate outside of marriage, while others don't procreate within marriage. Should a male and female not be allowed to wed unless they have intentions of procreating? Should they not be allowed to live together or have sex prior to marriage because it's a sin? Should every pregnant woman that is unmarried be arrested? :tap:

Sure there is some form of "logic", but given that everything else that should follow that same flow of logic is legal, then why pick on this specific topic?


I'd be happy with marriage as being defined as between two consenting adults.

it's referred to in the First Amendment, but doesn't say it verbatim...I believe.
The reference is only an interpretation.
the original wording was meant to keep the government from telling you that you had to be of a certain religion, and that you had to tithe, and that you had to show up at church etc...
It was written in because the english laws did dictate those things.

It was not actually meant to strip any reference to religion from the government.

I dont think that anywhere in the Constitution does it specifically say "Separation of Church and State"

Nope. In a letter from Thomas Jefferson. NOWHERE in the constitution. I thought everyone knew that :)

How? Because they may not want to marry someone of the opposite sex? That's kinda a silly argument - does that mean I'm less constutionally protected because Hollywood starlets don't want to marry me?


A person should be able to marry who they want. No special rights are needed. Just equal rights. As was already mentioned, it used to be illegal to marry someone of a different race but that was corrected. No special rights were added. Just equal rights.

It should be pretty easy to check.

Index Page - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net (http://www.usconstitution.net)

actually, I dont need to check. its not there.

I think it comes from a letter from TJ to the Dansbury Baptist Church.
but Im not sure enough about that to put money on it.

actually, I dont need to check. its not there.

I think it comes from a letter from TJ to the Dansbury Baptist Church.
but Im not sure enough about that to put money on it.

bingo.

A person should be able to marry who they want. No special rights are needed. Just equal rights. As was already mentioned, it used to be illegal to marry someone of a different race but that was corrected. No special rights were added. Just equal rights.

Seems so simple.

I'd be happy with marriage as being defined as between two consenting adults.

I'd be happy with the government minding their own damn business with regard to personal issues.

Government should only protect those who cannot protect themselves. Any citizen who can give legitimate consent should be able to marry whoever they want, as many people as they want.

If you all want the state to dictate your marriage rights and thwart the US Constitution in doing so, knock yourself out. I'm already married and have no personal dog in this fight.

But don't say you support our Constitution when you don't. It's pretty clear that you just want to pick and choose like every other hypocrite.

Bottom line.. Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the Governement.. It was, and should be a church rite.

The government shouldn't give special priviledges or tax breaks for marriage, and the gov't and courts shouldn't recognize a married couple as a couple at all, but as two individuals.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and turn it back over to the churches...

Why is that so important to you?

For three reasons.

1) I don't believe that they will not try to force churches to perform same sex marriages. Catholic Charities in MA had to stop facilitating adoptions because they would not adopt out to gay couples. If/when FOCA passes, Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform abortions or shut down. So therefore, if you look beyond the "we only want equality" rhetoric, gays will work to force churches into marrying them. You don't have to agree, but that's what I think.

2) I'm no lawyer, but seeing the way laws are stretched to accomodate every perceived injustice or "undue burden", I believe that redefining marriage will open up marriage to multiple husbands/wives, some gay, some straight. Transgenders, transexuals and everything else anyone can think of.

3) The children. Maine papers featured a lesbian couple who decided to have children. First, partner #1 "took a turn" being pregnant, then partner #2. Who was the biological father? And if the couple splits up, to whom do the kids belong? We've seen big problems with custody when the natural order of things is disrupted, from fighting over frozen embryos to surrogate mothers to sperm donors. It's legal mess, and who loses? The children, as they are shuttled back and forth and all over the map.

That's why it matters to me.

A person should be able to marry who they want. No special rights are needed. Just equal rights. As was already mentioned, it used to be illegal to marry someone of a different race but that was corrected. No special rights were added. Just equal rights.
Unless you consider blacks and whites as different animals, then it was wrong, that was man marrying woman, based on race. Since blacks and whites are of the same spieces, it is easy to show where discrimination took place when one male/female union was allowed, but another male/female union was not based on race.

Bottom line.. Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the Governement.. It was, and should be a church rite.

The government shouldn't give special priviledges or tax breaks for marriage, and the gov't and courts shouldn't recognize a married couple as a couple at all, but as two individuals.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and turn it back over to the churches...
and then we can continue the fight based on our religious belief, or lack thereof.
after all, why would a church be willing to marry atheists?

I'd be happy with marriage as being defined as between two consenting adults.


Exactly. Simple, basic, to the point.

Bottom line.. Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the Governement.. It was, and should be a church rite.

The government shouldn't give special priviledges or tax breaks for marriage, and the gov't and courts shouldn't recognize a married couple as a couple at all, but as two individuals.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and turn it back over to the churches...

Disagree, totally.

The society is not a church centric society nor a monarchy. That is what we came from. And rejected. The society, our society, is predicated on certain inalienable rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and to that end we built a government of, by and for the people.

It is thus the societies sole purpose to serve those ends. A marriage license addresses this through giving legal, enforceable form to those rights responsibilities in that union.

I have ZERO problem with a religious ceremony. It simply has no power or authority that the society, through the government, our government, doesn't allow it to have. If not, anarchy that way lies.

The reference is only an interpretation.
the original wording was meant to keep the government from telling you that you had to be of a certain religion, and that you had to tithe, and that you had to show up at church etc...
It was written in because the english laws did dictate those things.

It was not actually meant to strip any reference to religion from the government.

you may wanna check that. While the text itself may say one thing, the founding fathers were all about a separation between church and state. There are plenty of references and documents they wrote, quotes, etc.

I'd be happy with marriage as being defined as between two consenting adults.
I would be happy going along with what the people voted for.
and in this case, it just happens to be not to recognize gay marriage.

Unless you consider blacks and whites as different animals,

You, the individual, are free to consider race, sex, height, weight, money, religion and anything else YOU choose to consider.

The constitution protects your right to do so. And everyone else's.

you may wanna check that. While the text itself may say one thing, the founding fathers were all about a separation between church and state. There are plenty of references and documents they wrote, quotes, etc.
I have.

Bottom line.. Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the Governement.. It was, and should be a church rite.

The government shouldn't give special priviledges or tax breaks for marriage, and the gov't and courts shouldn't recognize a married couple as a couple at all, but as two individuals.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and turn it back over to the churches...

That'd work well. People of two different religions or the same sex would never again be able to wed. The more power we hand back to the church, the further we go back to the Dark Ages.

I would be happy going along with what the people voted for.
and in this case, it just happens to be not to recognize gay marriage.

From post #2;

Too bad the United States Supreme Court didn't leave this to the states nearly 40 years ago with Roe v. Wade.

It doesn't matter what you think about abortion or gay marriage. If it is imposed by a judge, it will ALWAYS been a sore spot. If it is left to the people, to the states, to candidates the people can directly address, the, the issue has been put to a vote.




I said that.

For three reasons.

1) I don't believe that they will not try to force churches to perform same sex marriages. Catholic Charities in MA had to stop facilitating adoptions because they would not adopt out to gay couples. If/when FOCA passes, Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform abortions or shut down. So therefore, if you look beyond the "we only want equality" rhetoric, gays will work to force churches into marrying them. You don't have to agree, but that's what I think.

That's why it matters to me.I don't see how. You can't "force" a church into marrying anyone, gay or not.

For three reasons.

1) I don't believe that they will not try to force churches to perform same sex marriages. Catholic Charities in MA had to stop facilitating adoptions because they would not adopt out to gay couples. If/when FOCA passes, Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform abortions or shut down. So therefore, if you look beyond the "we only want equality" rhetoric, gays will work to force churches into marrying them. You don't have to agree, but that's what I think.

And that would be wrong. Churches have their own rules, and that is their right as a non-government institution. If they don't want to marry gays, they don't have to. But a JOP cannot discriminate because they are a government employee and must abide by the law. So gays can simply be married by a JOP and no problem.

Catholic hospitals are typically not the only hospital in an area, so abortions could be performed at a non-religious medical facility.

You are correct that some will try to push the envelope and demand that a private institution cater to them. But they will be wrong and ideally a court will tell them to pack sand.

2) I'm no lawyer, but seeing the way laws are stretched to accomodate every perceived injustice or "undue burden", I believe that redefining marriage will open up marriage to multiple husbands/wives, some gay, some straight. Transgenders, transexuals and everything else anyone can think of.

So what?

3) The children. Maine papers featured a lesbian couple who decided to have children. First, partner #1 "took a turn" being pregnant, then partner #2. Who was the biological father? And if the couple splits up, to whom do the kids belong? We've seen big problems with custody when the natural order of things is disrupted, from fighting over frozen embryos to surrogate mothers to sperm donors. It's legal mess, and who loses? The children, as they are shuttled back and forth and all over the map.

Children are already shuttled back and forth by their hetero parents. What's the difference?

That's why it matters to me.

....

and then we can continue the fight based on our religious belief, or lack thereof.
after all, why would a church be willing to marry atheists?

Why do atheists, of that matter, ANYONE NEED to get married?

If you're in love, and want to have a family and want to cohabitate which one of those REQUIRES a couple to be married

The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and turn it back over to the churches...


Not everyone gets married through a church. Some go to the court house or a justice of the peace. Marriage is a legal contract issued by the govt. Even the bible recognizes the law.

The First Ammedment protects churches from performing marriages the church doesn't approve of.

I would be happy going along with what the people voted for.

So you are for pure democracy and mob rule?

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

So much for that pesky little Constitution crap.

If that's the way you feel, why did you change your affiliation to a party that does not believe that our Constitution limits protecting traditional marriage?

If that's the way you feel, why did you change your affiliation to a party that does not believe that our Constitution limits protecting traditional marriage?

I am an unaffiliated voter, not a member of any particular party. I choose to refer to that as "independent", which does not translate to me being a member of the Independent Party.

I belong to no political group.

I'd be happy with marriage as being defined as between two consenting adults.

Why only two? Why not three or four? Why not as many as you can afford?

Why is it anybody's business how many wives or husbands a marriage consists of.

If we are going to change the rules and description of marriage, Let's go whole hog.

Why draw the line anywhere?

You have already said you would be happy if marriage were defined as between two consenting adults, so if a man and his daughter are consenting you are willing to call that a marriage.

Let the guy marry his two daughters and his son too.

Hell ---let it all hang out.

Ridiculous??? No more ridiculous than gay marriage.

One step leads to the next. Lets get it all done at one time and save any arguments later down the line

Why only two? Why not three or four? Why not as many as you can afford?

Why minimum ages? Why consider race? Why consider biology?

Your are claiming marriage is some sort of written in stone thing and it is not. All the arguments over sexuality, in favor of man/woman only marriage, like arguments about age and biology and race, have fallen to the way side.

If you want to argue in favor of marrying your daughter, having numerous wives, it's going to face the same argument, the interests of the society in supporting individual rights and freedoms.

I am opposed to you being able to marry your daughter. I am not in favor of multiple spouses. I am IN favor of marriage as being between two consenting adults.

:buddies:

One step leads to the next. Lets get it all done at one time and save any arguments later down the line

You know Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister, right?

You know Abraham and Sarah were brother and sister, right?

But, THAT'S different! They weren't no queers!

But, THAT'S different! They weren't no queers!

Well, maybe we could look at David and Jonathan instead. But David did all sorts of bad things and got away with it because he was favored by God.

So I guess it just depends on who you are, whether incest or homosexuality is a sin or not.

I don't see how. You can't "force" a church into marrying anyone, gay or not.

They will file suit and the churches will be compelled to perform gay marriages or risk being disabled, either through penalties or losing tax exempt status (let's not start debating this).
Catholic bishops have already said that they will close their hospitals rather than perform abortions. This will be true of the Catholic Churches, too. So then, in my case, I lose my church in the United States.
That's the way I see it.

Well, maybe we could look at David and Jonathan instead. But David did all sorts of bad things and got away with it because he was favored by God.

So I guess it just depends on who you are, whether incest or homosexuality is a sin or not.

To all; As a matter of full disclosure, I used to be opposed to gay marriage, firmly. My argument was based on what was in the practical interests of the society and a personal bias that gay marriage is....ghey.

Through debate and argument, Vrail changed my mind. She set the stage. The tipping point was when I saw conservatives start to argue for what should be outrageous and unthinkable to conservatives, a constitutional prohibition against the individual.

She, and that tipping issue, changed my mind to see the my objections were not well reasoned or rationally defensible.

They will file suit and the churches will be compelled to perform gay marriages or risk being disabled, either through penalties or losing tax exempt status (let's not start debating this).
Catholic bishops have already said that they will close their hospitals rather than perform abortions. This will be true of the Catholic Churches, too. So then, in my case, I lose my church in the United States.
That's the way I see it.

WOW, with the tithing the gov't could take providing government religious services in the absence of the Catholic Church, they could resolve the national debt, pay for healthcare AND buy ALL of Al Gore's carbon credits.

You may be on to something..

Screw Government Health Care, the money is in Government Religion!!

Children are already shuttled back and forth by their hetero parents. What's the difference?

Doesn't make it right, or ideal for the children. Gay marriage, which, biologically speaking, cannot produce children except through the intervention of a third party, is a recipe for custodial disaster.

WOW, with the tithing the gov't could take providing government religious services in the absence of the Catholic Church, they could resolve the national debt, pay for healthcare AND buy ALL of Al Gore's carbon credits.

You may be on to something..

Screw Government Health Care, the money is in Government Religion!!

Tithing is time, talent or treasure. Time and talent are not going to cure what ails you.

Tithing is time, talent or treasure. Time and talent are not going to cure what ails you.

Yeah right..

Ever tried to pay your tithing with a piano recital??

Sure, if you want to toss out those silly amendments that you don't agree with. :yay:I'm working on applicability here, not fantasy.

To all; As a matter of full disclosure, I used to be opposed to gay marriage, firmly. My argument was based on what was in the practical interests of the society and a personal bias that gay marriage is....ghey.

Through debate and argument, Vrail changed my mind. She set the stage. The tipping point was when I saw conservatives start to argue for what should be outrageous and unthinkable to conservatives, a constitutional prohibition against the individual.

She, and that tipping issue, changed my mind to see the my objections were not well reasoned or rationally defensible.


I was the same way. I used to be firmly against gay marriage..on religious reasons..and because of the slippery slope I fear. I still fear that slippery slope (NAMBLA backs gay marriage. thats scary enough)..but as I get older..I get more libertarian...and realize that more intrusion on private lives..is no good for anyone...I cannot complain about intrusion into my own life..and at the same time advocate intrusion on someone elses...So my tune has changed a bit.

Doesn't make it right, or ideal for the children. Gay marriage, which, biologically speaking, cannot produce children except through the intervention of a third party, is a recipe for custodial disaster.

How is this even an argument? How would custody between two same-sex parents be ANY different from custody between hetero parents?

And are you also saying people should only have children if they're physically capable of it? No adoptions, no fertility treatments, no surrogates?

Your argument lives and dies on one and only one thing; your personal view that marriage is between one man one women ONLY. Well, me and whole societies for centuries.....Except if they are related. Too closely.

Or they are of the 'wrong' age. Right, more reasonable definitions....Or, to some, if they are of the 'wrong' races or back grounds. No, that would be discriminatory to put restrictions like that on there
It may be the law and that is fine but, to argue that marriage is some sort of tablet thrown forth from the bowels of the earth or even the hand of a god with exacting, inviolable specificity is silly and, not true. It's been change and modified many times.Right. But, never who is involved. 16 vs 13 vs 18 years old.... 3rd vs 4th cousin.... the specifics of the rules may have changed, but not the idea of them.

I was the same way. I used to be firmly against gay marriage..on religious reasons..and because of the slippery slope I fear. I still fear that slippery slope (NAMBLA backs gay marriage. thats scary enough)..but as I get older..I get more libertarian...and realize that more intrusion on private lives..is no good for anyone...I cannot complain about intrusion into my own life..and at the same time advocate intrusion on someone elses...So my tune has changed a bit.

Consider; How do we, the people, make decisions? For are free! We can do and think and feel whatever we want!

Well, we can feel and think whatever we want but, we can't DO whatever we want. We, the people, have chose to limit majority rule and set down basic rights that we agree can not be violated. We can changed them and we have a process for that.

In the mean time, we are obligated to consider our basic rules and ask if an idea or a proposal is constitutional.

I'd be happy with marriage as being defined as between two consenting adults.You mean "re-defined"

Why not three or more?

Consentual adult incest okay?

A person should be able to marry who they want. No special rights are needed. Just equal rights. As was already mentioned, it used to be illegal to marry someone of a different race but that was corrected. No special rights were added. Just equal rights.

When was a sexual preference test added to be required to marry?

look up Reynolds VS the United states.



The same argument could be used against homosexual marriage in regards to it being considered an offense against society from the earliest times.

Indirectly, the Supreme Court did rule on non traditional marriage. And as of today, that ruling stands.

Loving VS Virgina was as much a ruling that blacks were human as anything else.

Do you know why it was necessary for Loving VS Virginia to take place?

You do know the Definition of Marriage was different, and neccesitated Loving VS Virginia in order to redefine it?

Despite what some will mistakenly state, Marriage has been redefined in the (recent) past. By both the Government (for secular reasons) and by Religious instititutions (Catholic church) to recognize the legitimacy of contraception in a marriage.

When was a sexual preference test added to be required to marry?

The argument you're trying to make is that gays can in fact marry - as long as they marry who YOU want them to marry.

And that is a crap argument.

You mean "re-defined"

Why not three or more?

Consentual adult incest okay?

I'm not saying I think marriage should be allowed between more than 2 adults, but I'm curious what REAL harm would become from a marriage like that? And what REAL harm would come from consenting adults marriage relatives? Are you worried about them breeding? Because there are stupid people breeding every day.

I don't want to hear more BS about it "redefining" marriage. What real harm would it cause?

You mean "re-defined"

Why not three or more?

Consentual adult incest okay?

Just like it was redefined in the US, under our constitution, to address age and race and biology.

I am in favor of marriage licenses and all the rights and protections of them being available to two consenting adults. I accept your amendment to state they must be unrelated by blood. I disagree with you that it should be available to three and more.

:buddies:

What real harm would it cause?

I would like to hear the answer to this as well.

Says separation of church and state...I don't want any religious practices or signs of it on any gov't. functions or properties of it...jmo........except the dollar bill...:lol:.....

Sadly you misunderstand the argument, probably because its easier to argue non-sequitors than to grasp a simple concept.

It has nothing to do with a persons personal belief in whatever (since i get in trouble with pixies), who happens to be in the Government or representation of Government.

A teacher saying a prayer to get through the day is not the discussion. A Teacher leading a class to pray for Obama is the problem (and not because he's a democrat).

The argument you're trying to make is that gays can in fact marry - as long as they marry who YOU want them to marry.

And that is a crap argument.No, THEY have to be willing to marry the person, not what I want.

We all have to be willing to marry to be able to marry. Equal rights.

The reference is only an interpretation.
the original wording was meant to keep the government from telling you that you had to be of a certain religion, and that you had to tithe, and that you had to show up at church etc...
It was written in because the english laws did dictate those things.

It was not actually meant to strip any reference to religion from the government.

Not exactly, the intention was to keep the Government from recognizing one religion over another. Which was the practice of the Governments of other countries at the time.

Same as the post to Toppick, the intention has nothing to do with Personal beliefs of people who are in or represent the Government. It has to do with Government (either personal official, Govt body, or representitive) giving/lending/displaying/showing preference for one belief over that of all others.

In our Government all beliefs are equally valid. The concept maynot make sense to those of Faith, but our Government and its actions, have to be sescular, in order to show equality for all beliefs.

No, THEY have to be willing to marry the person, not what I want.

We all have to be willing to marry to be able to marry. Equal rights.

Gay people ARE willing to marry. Where have you been and what the hell do you think we're talking about??

How is this even an argument? How would custody between two same-sex parents be ANY different from custody between hetero parents?

And are you also saying people should only have children if they're physically capable of it? No adoptions, no fertility treatments, no surrogates?

I am all for aiding fertility in ways that keep the biology between the two that intend to raise the children. In the earlier post I did say that involving a third party opens Pandora's box.
Do you think that the custodial issues (and the children involved) that have been raised as a result are not worth keeping in mind as we consider the long term ramifications of this?

Not everyone gets married through a church. Some go to the court house or a justice of the peace. Marriage is a legal contract issued by the govt. Even the bible recognizes the law.

The First Ammedment protects churches from performing marriages the church doesn't approve of.

See I do not understand why we cannot just have state civil union office, like the DMV. You go there, get you license, stand before some government official and boom you are in a state recognized legal contract (marriage, civil union, whatever it is all semantics to me).
If you would like to take that one step further and have the big wedding ceremony in a church or wherever that is up to you.

Gay people ARE willing to marry. Where have you been and what the hell do you think we're talking about??

No they are not. Some gay people are willing to get married. Some gay partners are saying "yes, dear" and going along hoping like hell social conservatives will save their ass. Figuratively.


:lol:

What real harm would it cause?
What real harm would it cause for me to go shopping naked?

Bottom line.. Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the Governement.. It was, and should be a church rite.

The government shouldn't give special priviledges or tax breaks for marriage, and the gov't and courts shouldn't recognize a married couple as a couple at all, but as two individuals.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and turn it back over to the churches...

umm....I was married to my husband in a civil ceremony. Please be a bit more careful on making generalized comments.

and then we can continue the fight based on our religious belief, or lack thereof.
after all, why would a church be willing to marry atheists?

Why not? It happens now (unfortunately :killingme).

A better question will be if this ever occurs (Marriage being a religious institution) what will the argument when Gays go to the Anglican church to get hitched?

You mean "re-defined"

Why not three or more?

Consentual adult incest okay?
My issue with incest is that in the overwhelming majority of cases is it true consent or is there some underlying abuse going on?

Bottom line.. Marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the Governement.. It was, and should be a church rite.

The government shouldn't give special priviledges or tax breaks for marriage, and the gov't and courts shouldn't recognize a married couple as a couple at all, but as two individuals.

The government needs to get out of the marriage business, and turn it back over to the churches...

And thats where the hypocrisy of the argument against Gay Marriage comes in. They dont want Gays to have the same recognition they themselves enjoy, and claim any benefits can be obtained by completing additional hurdles.

Get the Government out of the recognition, and Hetero's will be forced to jump through the same hurdles they want to burden Gays with.

I am all for aiding fertility in ways that keep the biology between the two that intend to raise the children.

Don't you think that two gay people who decide to have children intend to raise them? I don't really think anyone who gets married ever intends to get divorced.

In the earlier post I did say that involving a third party opens Pandora's box.
Do you think that the custodial issues (and the children involved) that have been raised as a result are not worth keeping in mind as we consider the long term ramifications of this?

I think anyone who has sex, especially with the intent of creating a child, should keep in mind the impact it will have on their life and the life of the child.

Saying that the gays shouldn't get married because of the possibility of divorce and custody battles is a pretty far reach, in my opinion. It's no more of a problem than it is with hetero couples.

I am all for aiding fertility in ways that keep the biology between the two that intend to raise the children. In the earlier post I did say that involving a third party opens Pandora's box.
Do you think that the custodial issues (and the children involved) that have been raised as a result are not worth keeping in mind as we consider the long term ramifications of this?

So how does adoption, meaning involving a third party, if not a forth, NOT open up Pandora's box to you?

I'm not saying I think marriage should be allowed between more than 2 adults, but I'm curious what REAL harm would become from a marriage like that? And what REAL harm would come from consenting adults marriage relatives? Are you worried about them breeding? Because there are stupid people breeding every day.

I don't want to hear more BS about it "redefining" marriage. What real harm would it cause?

Well close incest..(you can marry second cousins anywhere..and first cousins in some states) as between a brother and sister..or mother and child..is disgusting. Thats not a good argument. I know that ...:killingme still though. Harm? well breeding that close..does indeed cause a myriad of health problems for the offspring..but harm from the actual marriage? nothing i can think of other than making acceptable something that is just...shouldnt happen..

For marrying multiple partners..I can see it being done for tax purposes..or some such..but real harm? Not really.

But I have a lot of questions I keep thinking about.....
what about the "traditional" family unit? By allowing these others are we indeed harming this institution? Isnt it the best way? will it become something to be made fun of..a relic..."uncool" ? Is that bad? Should anything go? Is there harm to our culture that we can't forsee? Will allowing what most people see as deviant..to become "ok" what other deviant acts will become ok in the future? where is the line? I really don't know..I think it is a more complex issue than simply looking for who it harms. Perhaps its an issue that cannot be resolved. I honestly don't know.

I'd be happy with the government minding their own damn business with regard to personal issues.

Government should only protect those who cannot protect themselves. Any citizen who can give legitimate consent should be able to marry whoever they want, as many people as they want.

Exactly! Protection is the role of the government, yet you still disagree that people who cannot afford to protect them selves from sickness and injury don't deserve protection from the government?

See I do not understand why we cannot just have state civil union office, like the DMV. You go there, get you license, stand before some government official and boom you are in a state recognized legal contract (marriage, civil union, whatever it is all semantics to me).
If you would like to take that one step further and have the big wedding ceremony in a church or wherever that is up to you.

We do, in a manner of speaking. It's called the court house. You go there, get a license, then it's up to you who officiates the marraige. You can have it done at the court house or you can have done in a church.

Exactly! Protection is the role of the government, yet you still disagree that people who cannot afford to protect them selves from sickness and injury don't deserve protection from the government?

Okay.

Exactly! Protection is the role of the government, yet you still disagree that people who cannot afford to protect them selves from sickness and injury don't deserve protection from the government?

I know this was not directed to me but sometimes, and not always I know, people make a choice at some time in their lives that lead to not being able to afford certain things.
Some people I feel sorry for and have no problems helping, others not so much.

What real harm would it cause for me to go shopping naked?

The obvious answer is that your being naked affects others.

So you are for pure democracy and mob rule?

When its an issue they support, Mob Rule

When its an issue they dont, Republic (Democracy is mob rule)

Well close incest..(you can marry second cousins anywhere..and first cousins in some states) as between a brother and sister..or mother and child..is disgusting. Thats not a good argument. I know that ...:killingme still though. Harm? well breeding that close..does indeed cause a myriad of health problems for the offspring..but harm from the actual marriage? nothing i can think of other than making acceptable something that is just...shouldnt happen..

For marrying multiple partners..I can see it being done for tax purposes..or some such..but real harm? Not really.

But I have a lot of questions I keep thinking about.....
what about the "traditional" family unit? By allowing these others are we indeed harming this institution? Isnt it the best way? will it become something to be made fun of..a relic..."uncool" ? Is that bad? Should anything go? Is there harm to our culture that we can't forsee? Will allowing what most people see as deviant..to become "ok" what other deviant acts will become ok in the future? where is the line? I really don't know..I think it is a more complex issue than simply looking for who it harms. Perhaps its an issue that cannot be resolved. I honestly don't know.


Honestly, I don't really think the "normal" family unit would chance. There might be a small number of people who would actually marry a close relative, or marry multiple people, but I think the majority of society would stick with "normal" marriages.

When its an issue they support, Mob Rule

When its an issue they dont, Republic (Democracy is mob rule)

That's why (supposedly) we have a constitution, so that our opinions end where inalienable rights begin.

:buddies:

We do, in a manner of speaking. It's called the court house. You go there, get a license, then it's up to you who officiates the marraige. You can have it done at the court house or you can have done in a church.

Yeah I know but this is how it should be done for ALL marriages/civil unions (again semantics). If you want your union recognized by the state this is how it is done.
This takes churches completely out of the argument so they will not be forced to marry people since unions is no longer done by anyone but that state office.
IF a person wants their union blessed by a church or to have the big wedding that is up to them but it in no way means anything to the state.

I know this was not directed to me but sometimes, and not always I know, people make a choice at some time in their lives that lead to not being able to afford certain things.
Some people I feel sorry for and have no problems helping, others not so much.

So we should not afford protection to certain people just because we don't agree with their decision making?

Do you know why it was necessary for Loving VS Virginia to take place?

You do know the Definition of Marriage was different, and neccesitated Loving VS Virginia in order to redefine it?

Despite what some will mistakenly state, Marriage has been redefined in the (recent) past. By both the Government (for secular reasons) and by Religious instititutions (Catholic church) to recognize the legitimacy of contraception in a marriage.


I corrected you on this a week or two ago. The Catholic Church does not recognize contraception as having any part in a sacramental marriage. Every other Christian denomination as far as I am aware believes it okay, but not the Catholic Church.

So we should not afford protection to certain people just because we don't agree with their decision making?

What protections? Something that is offered to every citizen of this country? Of course not.
Something that is only offered to certain people? Yes personal decision making should affect that.

Gay people ARE willing to marry. Where have you been and what the hell do you think we're talking about??If they're willing to marry, they can marry now.

Of course, they have to marry someone that fits the definition of marriage - age, relationship status, opposite gender, etc., etc.

So we should not afford protection to certain people just because we don't agree with their decision making?

Did you want to start your own thread to debate health care? Or just hijack this one so that I'll put you on ignore and can follow the conversation without your off-topic interruptions?

Don't you think that two gay people who decide to have children intend to raise them? I don't really think anyone who gets married ever intends to get divorced.



I think anyone who has sex, especially with the intent of creating a child, should keep in mind the impact it will have on their life and the life of the child.

Saying that the gays shouldn't get married because of the possibility of divorce and custody battles is a pretty far reach, in my opinion. It's no more of a problem than it is with hetero couples.

I did not say they shouldn't get married because of the possibility of divorce. That would negate marriage everywhere. I said, originally...oh forget it, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

If they're willing to marry, they can marry now.

Of course, they have to marry someone that fits the definition of marriage - age, relationship status, opposite gender, etc., etc.

You are being intentionally obtuse because you know you're wrong.

You are being intentionally obtuse because you know you're wrong.No, I'm making the issue the definition of marriage - because that's what I perceive the issue to be.

So how does adoption, meaning involving a third party, if not a forth, NOT open up Pandora's box to you?

The two who made the child have relinquished custody. The two who intend to raise him/her agree that they want to adopt.
If you cannot see the difference between that and the other scientifically engineered treatments, there is no point in arguing the issue.

Rather than responding individually to a bunch of posts, I'm just gonna make a post that VERY basically describes some of the legal issues here. Hopefully it provides a little insight that helps to inform the conversation. It is important to know that these are very involved, very nuanced legal issues with many possible permutations and intertwined variables. So, rather than trying to be perfectly and technically accurate (which would be beyond my capability anyway, and would take 20 pages which no one would read), I'm just gonna describe a very basic model and try to paint the general legal landscape. It won't be precisely technically accurate, and it would be easy to point out where it isn't - so I just want to acknowledge that up front - the general idea is what I'm trying to convey here.

First, when it comes to deciding which government policies are acceptable, which are 'Constitutional', the crux of the issue is determining which judicial review standard is to be applied. There are basically three, though they are referred to by different names, and sometimes hybrids of these are applied, and to some extent they overlap:

(1) Strict scrutiny - if this standard is applied, then the law or policy in question must be 'narrowly tailored' to serve a 'compelling' government interest. Furthermore, there can't have been a less intrusive way to pursue that compelling government interest. Strict scrutiny presents a very high legal standard, and it will usually mean that a law is Unconstitutional. Under it, basically there is a presumption that the policy doesn't pass muster, and it is up to the state to demonstrate why it does.

(2) Rational basis review, sometimes called ordinary scrutiny - if this standard is applied, the law or policy in question need only 'reasonably' relate to a 'legitimate' government interest. The standard basically presumes that a policy does past muster, and it is up to the challenger to demonstrate why it doesn't. It presents a very low standard, and usually means that a law is Constitutional.

(3) Intermediate scrutiny, sometimes called heightened scrutiny - this standard is somewhere between the other two. When this standard is applied, the law or policy in question must 'substantially' relate to an 'important' government interest.

Now obviously, some vagueness still remains. But, I think it is fair to say that, if strict scrutiny were to be applied, then most laws that unconditionally prohibit same-sex marriages would fall. I think it is also fair to say that, if ordinary scrutiny were to be applied, those laws would be upheld. So, the question really becomes, how is the level or scrutiny that is to be applied determined?

Well, rational basis review would be the base level that is applied by default. However, there are conditions which have legally been found to dictate higher levels of scrutiny.

If a law impinges a fundamental right, as identified by the Supreme Court, then generally, strict scrutiny is to be applied. For instance, if the government were to make a law that limited the right to free speech, then that law would be subject to strict scrutiny - and the government would have to have a very good reason to have the law, it would have to be narrowly written so that it only restricted activity to the extent that it had to, and there would have to have been no other, less restrictive, way to accomplish the same goal. As such, there are some laws which abridge free speech that are Constitutional, but most such hypothetical laws would not be.

It is important to note that, per the Loving case which Vrai cited earlier, and others that preceded it, the right to marry is considered a fundamental right by the U.S. Supreme Court. The question is, does that just mean heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right, or is homosexual marriage also a fundamental right? As it stands now, I would say it is only the former - and I don't think that is likely to change anytime soon. I believe that for various reasons relating to the standards the high Court has established for determining whether or not something is a fundamental right, which I won't get lost in here.

Now, if a 'right' is protected for this reason - that is to say, because it is a fundamental right, then we refer to that as 'substantive due process' - which follows from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, if someone was using this avenue to seek relief from a court, we might say they are making a substantive due process claim. It would also be possible to make a procedural due process claim, but I don't think that would be as relevant to this conversation, and I'm not going to explore it for now.

Additionally, a law can be subject to a higher scrutiny standard because it classifies people - that is to say, it treats different people differently on the basis of some immutable characteristic. Within the law, we have the concept of 'suspect class' - basis on which people might be classified, and discriminated against. The courts have identified certain suspect classifications, where the use of those classifications within a law, subjects that law to a higher level of scrutiny. This too is not an exact science, as there can be different degrees of suspect classes, and consequently, different implications for which level of scrutiny is applied. Race and religion for instance, are very clear suspect classifications. Laws which discriminate on those basis are generally going to be subject to strict scrutiny, and as such, are going to be Unconstitutional. To some extent, sex is considered a suspect classification, and legal classifications based on it are subjected to higher scrutiny.

As it is, sexual orientation - or as Justice Scalia likes to refer to it, sexual proclivity - has not generally been regarded as a suspect classification. Though, I believe Justice O'Connor almost started to make the argument for treating it as such in her concurring (not majority) opinion in Lawrence v Texas (2003). It should also be noted that, legislatures can define a suspect class should they choose to - or, courts can define a suspect class in contravention with legislative measures.

Basically, regardless of whether or not there is a fundamental right in play, a law can not discriminate for invidious, arbitrary or irrational reasons. When the basis for discrimination is a recognized suspect classification, then the law is generally presumed to discriminate for those reasons (though there are obviously exceptions, and it is still possible that the law is Constitutional). Now, challenges made under this rational are generally referred to as equal protection challenges. They are made pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Very often, challengers make both arguments - that there is a substantive due process violation, and an equal protection violation - that a fundamental right is implicated and that there is discrimination which doesn't comport with legitimate reasons. Just to complete the circle, the Privileges and Immunities Clause is mostly irrelevant - as I've explained at length in other places.

There are also other reasons that a law might be subject to a higher scrutiny standard, but I don't think they are relevant to this conversation.

It is my belief that the more relevant legal issue here is equal protection, at least that is the one that will matter legally in the near term. So, the real question is, is homosexuality a suspect class? As of now, it generally is not. Legislatures can start to it as such (which some may have), or courts can start to consider it as such. As far as the Supreme Court goes, I have little doubt that it will eventually start considering sexual orientation a suspect classification, but I don't think that will happen tomorrow.

On another note, the Constitution does create a separation of church and state, because the Supreme Court said that it did in Everson v Board of Education (1947).

I'm not saying I think marriage should be allowed between more than 2 adults, but I'm curious what REAL harm would become from a marriage like that? And what REAL harm would come from consenting adults marriage relatives? Are you worried about them breeding? Because there are stupid people breeding every day.

I don't want to hear more BS about it "redefining" marriage. What real harm would it cause?

:shrug:

Well close incest..(you can marry second cousins anywhere..and first cousins in some states) as between a brother and sister..or mother and child..is disgusting. Thats not a good argument. I know that ...:killingme still though. Harm? well breeding that close..does indeed cause a myriad of health problems for the offspring..but harm from the actual marriage? nothing i can think of other than making acceptable something that is just...shouldnt happen..

For marrying multiple partners..I can see it being done for tax purposes..or some such..but real harm? Not really.

But I have a lot of questions I keep thinking about.....
what about the "traditional" family unit? By allowing these others are we indeed harming this institution? Isnt it the best way? will it become something to be made fun of..a relic..."uncool" ? Is that bad? Should anything go? Is there harm to our culture that we can't forsee? Will allowing what most people see as deviant..to become "ok" what other deviant acts will become ok in the future? where is the line? I really don't know..I think it is a more complex issue than simply looking for who it harms. Perhaps its an issue that cannot be resolved. I honestly don't know.

It's a non-answer...:killingme still..it is in response..

:shrug:

This is all allowed now. What's not allowed is state recognition of those situations for the purpose of gaining benefits.

Lots of people are in polyamorous relationships. Many people have children with more than one other parent. None of this is illegal, or in any manner stopped.

Marriage, as defined for centuries, is given a special role in tax and other benefits because of the additional good it does to society. None of the rest are prohibited.

The two who made the child have relinquished custody. The two who intend to raise him/her agree that they want to adopt.
If you cannot see the difference between that and the other scientifically engineered treatments, there is no point in arguing the issue.

Honestly I cannot see the difference between that and a person who consents to her eggs being used for someone else to get pregnant so I guess we are at an impasse on this.

This is all allowed now. What's not allowed is state recognition of those situations for the purpose of gaining benefits.

Lots of people are in polyamorous relationships. Many people have children with more than one other parent. None of this is illegal, or in any manner stopped.

Marriage, as defined for centuries, is given a special role in tax and other benefits because of the additional good it does to society. None of the rest are prohibited.

I'm asking you what harm it would do to ALLOW these people to get married? Why can't the definition of marriage be re-written? What harm would it do?

On another note, the Constitution does create a separation of church and state, because the Supreme Court said that it did in Everson v Board of Education (1947).

Supreme Court decisions are not constitutional amendments. Until the US Constitution is amended to contain the phrase "separation of church and state," I'll stick with the original.

Marriage, as defined for centuries, is given a special role in tax and other benefits because of the additional good it does to society. None of the rest are prohibited.

Like what?

The obvious answer is that your being naked affects others.
other than offending them (and trust me, it would :killingme) how is it negatively affecting them?

other than offending them (and trust me, it would :killingme) how is it negatively affecting them?

I'm assuming most NORMAL people do not want to see strangers naked. :shrug:

I'm asking you what harm it would do to ALLOW these people to get married? Why can't the definition of marriage be re-written? What harm would it do?

That is not the question. There is potentially 'no harm' in you limiting my free speech. I may not have anything to say. There is 'no harm' in a an illegal search of my home. I have nothing to hide.

However, in both cases, a right is being violated even if there is no practical harm. The harm is to the right, the idea, the principle.

I'm assuming most NORMAL people do not want to see strangers naked. :shrug:
What they want to see is not the question, they can turn their head
what actual harm, other than repulsion could it possibly cause?

Although, as I type this my mind wanders to a scene in a wal-mart,, gotta go hurl.

What they want to see is not the question, they can turn their head
what actual harm, other than repulsion could it possibly cause?

Although, as I type this my mind wanders to a scene in a wal-mart,, gotta go hurl.

So are you trying to compare walking around naked to gay marriage? :confused:

Bottom line here is that, even with voting on these changes, the question is not IF but WHEN will Gay Marriage be recognized by the states and the federal government.
There is no question that the day will get here. only when.

Then the next fight will be when some hotel or resturant etc... advertises as a Straight only establishment.

What they want to see is not the question, they can turn their head
what actual harm, other than repulsion could it possibly cause?

Although, as I type this my mind wanders to a scene in a wal-mart,, gotta go hurl.

This conversation immediately made me think of peopleofwalmart.com!!:killingme

So are you trying to compare walking around naked to gay marriage? :confused:
I am trying to point out that there is really no reason for people to be forced to wear clothing other than society has determined that it is not acceptable.

It certainly can not physically harm you to simply see my fat ass walking down the street naked.

Not all laws, or functions of society are created based on harm.

Not all laws, or functions of society are created based on harm.

I'm trying to figure out why one wouldn't want marriage to be open to gay people. :shrug: If it's not harmful, then why not allow it?

I'm trying to figure out why one wouldn't want marriage to be open to gay people. :shrug: If it's not harmful, then why not allow it?
Im trying to figure out why I cant run around naked.

I guess we both have questions.

umm....I was married to my husband in a civil ceremony. Please be a bit more careful on making generalized comments.

yeah??

So was I.


What's your point?

I'm trying to figure out why one wouldn't want marriage to be open to gay people. :shrug: If it's not harmful, then why not allow it?

I think there are 2 schools of thought.

1. Some people think homosexuality is icky and perverse, thus legalizing gay marriage legitimizes that which they think is icky and perverse.

2. It is all about money. It burdens society with more costs, tax breaks, medical policy coverage, social security benefits, and so on.

umm....I was married to my husband in a civil ceremony. Please be a bit more careful on making generalized comments.

yeah??

So was I.


What's your point?
You were married to Aerogal's husband in a civil ceremony?

did she know this prior to your post?

They will file suit and the churches will be compelled to perform gay marriages or risk being disabled, either through penalties or losing tax exempt status (let's not start debating this).
Catholic bishops have already said that they will close their hospitals rather than perform abortions. This will be true of the Catholic Churches, too. So then, in my case, I lose my church in the United States.
That's the way I see it. If the gov't forced the closure of Catholic Churches in the US, you would see more than just protests. It would ignite a revolution, and for what, a small percentage of the community that's gay? I don't see the gov't forcing this issue on the churches. The government shouldn't even be involved with the church. It would be someone forcing their beliefs on a church that is against those beliefs.

Im trying to figure out why I cant run around naked.

Because your rights end where my nose begins. I do not want to see you naked, and you have no right to force me to do so. And you also have no right to run me out of a public place to avoid your nakedness.

Very similar to the guy who wants to sit in the McDonald's and scream obscenities. He gets kicked out or arrested for disorderly conduct because it interferes with the rights of other patrons.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with you. You won't see it unless you specifically seek it out. And you won't even know a person is gay unless they decide to inform you. Not nearly the same as you showing up naked at the Wal-Mart.

Because your rights end where my nose begins. I do not want to see you naked, and you have no right to force me to do so. And you also have no right to run me out of a public place to avoid your nakedness.

Very similar to the guy who wants to sit in the McDonald's and scream obscenities. He gets kicked out or arrested for disorderly conduct because it interferes with the rights of other patrons.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with you. You won't see it unless you specifically seek it out. And you won't even know a person is gay unless they decide to inform you. Not nearly the same as you showing up naked at the Wal-Mart.
And when I happen to see them kissing, or holding hands etc...

they should be run out of stores for that too?

Because your rights end where my nose begins. I do not want to see you naked, and you have no right to force me to do so. And you also have no right to run me out of a public place to avoid your nakedness.

Very similar to the guy who wants to sit in the McDonald's and scream obscenities. He gets kicked out or arrested for disorderly conduct because it interferes with the rights of other patrons.

Gay marriage has nothing to do with you. You won't see it unless you specifically seek it out. And you won't even know a person is gay unless they decide to inform you. Not nearly the same as you showing up naked at the Wal-Mart.

I think that argument goes a little bit deeper though. Why is it that it is infringing on your rights to see someone naked in walmart? Because you don't like it? We can't let our likes and dislikes dicatate what is infringing on rights..because then..people who dislike gay marriage can say the same thing...

So the argument is not that he can't do it..but why that is infringing on your rights to see something you think is wrong..but NOT infringing on someone else's rights because they see something THEY think is wrong. Its a silly example..of course..but raises good questions.

And when I happen to see them kissing, or holding hands etc...

When was the last time you saw two gay people kissing and holding hands in public?

And when I happen to see them kissing, or holding hands etc...

they should be run out of stores for that too?

What about hetero couples that do that?

I think that argument goes a little bit deeper though. Why is it that it is infringing on your rights to see someone naked in walmart? Because you don't like it? We can't let our likes and dislikes dicatate what is infringing on rights..because then..people who dislike gay marriage can say the same thing...

So the argument is not that he can't do it..but why that is infringing on your rights to see something you think is wrong..but NOT infringing on someone else's rights because they see something THEY think is wrong. Its a silly example..of course..but raises good questions.

It's the level of offensiveness and community standards. We've all pretty much agreed that public nudity is against the law - and it *is* against the law. If you want to run around naked, go to a nudist camp and have at it.

You can look at someone and tell if they're naked or not.

You cannot look at someone and tell if they're married, or even gay.

This is a silly argument. Come up with a better one.

What about hetero couples that do that?

Anyone making out in a store would probably be asked to leave, I would guess.

Let's forget about stores because that's a private place of business. What about a public park? Should you be able to run around naked at a public park? Show up in court naked? Walk naked down the highway?

Is private behavior the same as public behavior, and should be regulated by the government?

It would be a great country if the lunatic fringe from both sides of the isle would just stfu and quit worrying bout color, sexual preference and religion.

Anyone making out in a store would probably be asked to leave, I would guess.



BCP wants to be offended when he sees same sex couples showing PDA. Hetero couples do that all the time, and it can be offensive. Haven't you ever seen someone do something and you just want them to get a room?

It's the level of offensiveness and community standards. We've all pretty much agreed that public nudity is against the law - and it *is* against the law. If you want to run around naked, go to a nudist camp and have at it.

You can look at someone and tell if they're naked or not.

You cannot look at someone and tell if they're married, or even gay.

This is a silly argument. Come up with a better one.

not my argument, just an argument... kissin doesn't bother me...unless its full on tongue swishing makeing out..and I dont like that out of heteros or anyone. yuck.


I wouldn't want to restrict gay people from showing love or holding hands in public..simply not to piss off people who are against it...so if things were truely equal..they would be able to stroll the mall arm and arm like I do with my SO...and in that case....people may figure it out.

Plus..ever been to woodburns? not a straight male in sight when I go in there. I have seen a couple or two holding hands and everything. In other places in the US it is normal to see gay couples out and about..it may be places like here..that think that is a rare occurance. So your rebuttal only really works if gays are restricted from showing affection..and here in st marys.

for the record..I could care less if someone is walking around nekkid. Maybe because I have worked in the hospital so long that I have seen more dicks and hairy asses than paris Hilton.:killingme

BCP wants to be offended when he sees same sex couples showing PDA. Hetero couples do that all the time, and it can be offensive. Haven't you ever seen someone do something and you just want them to get a room?
simply holding hands or a quick kiss is not offensive, sucking face and looking like you are going to make babies any moment is.
however, it would be offensive to me to have to watch two guys kissing,

so the argument that it is not ok because it is offensive concerning me running around in the buff should equally cover it being offensive to witness PDAs involving homosexuals.

so the argument that it is not ok because it is offensive concerning me running around in the buff should equally cover it being offensive to witness PDAs involving homosexuals.

Well, run around naked if you want. See if I care. :shrug:

Well, run around naked if you want. See if I care. :shrug:
well, going to have to fight to make it legal first.

and yes, you would care.

well, going to have to fight to make it legal first.

Then do it. :shrug:

I agrea with the law. Gays should not be allowed to get married.

well, going to have to fight to make it legal first.

and yes, you would care.

I wouldn't care. I don't have a problem with people running around naked.

Then do it. :shrug:
Then pass the law to let gays marry.

see how easy it was when we really just get down to it.

I'm trying to figure out why one wouldn't want marriage to be open to gay people. :shrug: If it's not harmful, then why not allow it?

I have no problem with marraige being open to gay people. I just don't think it is any of the governments, on any level, business. It should be between the couple and their church. Anything outside of a church is a civil union (going before a magestrate, etc...). Both should be recognized as legal and open to all (although churches can make their own policies on who they marry).

I have no problem with marraige being open to gay people. I just don't think it is any of the governments, on any level, business. It should be between the couple and their church. Anything outside of a church is a civil union (going before a magestrate, etc...). Both should be recognized as legal and open to all (although churches can make their own policies on who they marry).

Nope. If a couple is married at the court house, it's a marraige, not a civil union. Having a wedding at a church is not a requirement for entering into marraige.

Too bad the United States Supreme Court didn't leave this to the states nearly 40 years ago with Roe v. Wade.

It doesn't matter what you think about abortion or gay marriage. If it is imposed by a judge, it will ALWAYS been a sore spot. If it is left to the people, to the states, to candidates the people can directly address, the, the issue has been put to a vote.

:buddies:


Hmmm. Gosh, maybe we should have left the right for women and black people: to vote, own property, drink out of universal water fountains, serve in the military, eat in restaurants of your own choosing, drive cars, and be politicians - to the voters! Wonder what our culture would be like today?! Think back to 100 years, or in some cases, just a few decades. Maybe we should leave voting on cultural issues up to non-religious women and minorities (including gays). And Larry, until you or any other man can carry a child and can guarantee that women will not be raped by family members or other deranged, possessive males, or whose lives are not medically threatened, or if you can guarantee that men will shoulder their responsibilities financially or as a parent - then, and only then, do you have a potential opportunity to be involved with a woman's choice. Abortion will always take place, whether legalized or not. And because of this fact, in part, abortion with limits was legalized. Evolve people!!!

I'm trying to figure out why one wouldn't want marriage to be open to gay people. :shrug: If it's not harmful, then why not allow it?

The answer is simple and obvious, and it's the same answer that applies to so many situations in which people wish to limit the freedoms of others without substantial, legitimate, and justifiable reason to do so. Nobody wants to admit the truth, but it is the truth nonetheless.

You ready? Insecurity. Most people are fundamentally insecure for one reason or another (or more like many reasons). Pursuant to that, they need affirmation that they are 'good' or that the things they do and the way they do them is 'right'. They need their beliefs, their lifestyle, the essence of who they are, to be recognized as good or better than. Sometimes they seek this affirmation through the government - the authority - the official sanction-er. That makes the goodness seems less arbitrary. They need the government to say that something else is wrong, or to not sanction it in the same way, because somehow that means what they do is right. For some people, the default way of affirming themselves is by de-elavating others, as opposed to by elevating themselves.

It is all about insecurity - and the resulting need to have someone else or something else say or recognize that we are good or right. We see this in so many aspects of life. The argument that same sex marriage would somehow degrade or demean the institution of marriage is laughable. It's preposterous, and it is used because it is one of the few notions that anyone can come up with which can create a facade of legitimate objection. The legitmacy thereof is superfical at best - and one need only pull back a very thin layer to see that.

Just look at the record for heterosexual marriage in our society. It's very impressive, isn't it? How many end in divorce? How many are characterized by perpetual dishonesty, anxiety, or resentment? How many are manifest embodiments of faithlessness and insincerity? I'm sorry, but same sex marriages aren't going to discredit, demean, or in any way diminish the institution of marriage more so than it already has been. If anything, it might redeem it a tiny bit.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say it did demean the institution of marriage. So what? What has that to do with each individual's marriage? How does that harm individual marriages? How is the importance, the sacredness, the specialness, the beauty, of a specific couple's marriage in any way reduced or compromised by the state of someone else's marriage or the state of the instiution itself? It isn't. Fundamentally, what people have is between themselves - what is shared between them is the essence - it's what matters. If what you have is special, if it is true, if it is everlasting, if it is honest - then it is so, and those conditions don't depend on the actions or sanctions of others. If the condition and nature of your relationship does depend on those outside factors, then it probably isn't all that special to begin with.

I've been in a loving, devoted, intensely intimate and connected relationship - and I can tell you this, nothing that anyone else did or thought about that relationship had the power to change the nature of the bound we had. That power rested with us. That bound was all about us and what we shared - it was ours - and depended on nothing and no one else. I've also been in long term relationships where that bound didn't exist to the same degree - and nothing, no label, no sanction, no outside acknowledgement or factor, could have ever made them comparable to the other one. So, if someone honestly thinks that someone else's marriage - inappropriate, unnatural, disgusting, sinful though it might be in your eyes - somehow demeans or discredits or marginalizes or reduces their own marriage, then I say that probably has more to do with their own relationship than it does others.

If part of the basis for the sacredness someone feels about their marriage is some sort of faith - some sort of religion - then fine. They may well want the sanction of that faith on the institution, as that is part of what makes it dear to them. They have every right to that, and they have the right to feel that their faith sanctioning a different kind of marriage would somehow change the nature of the sanction of their own. That's entirely reasonable, and is between themselves and their faith - but it has nothing to do with our government, nor its sanctioning of others marriages.

I think many, many people have great, fulfilling marriages that are truly special - and that reality is not conditioned on the nature and character of other relationships. I have enough to concern myself with, with my own relationships, and I sure as heck am not going to be concerned with the nature of relationships between other consenting adults. The truth is, I don't care to care about them much at all. I like to think of my relationships as unique and special of their own right - part of what has made them special is the notion that they were completely different than anyone else's (something that was obviously not true, but that is how I perceived them). To me, the notion that the nature of other people's marriages was quite different than my own, would only serve to make me feel that my marriage was more special.

Now, one could argue that my statements make the case that same sex partners shouldn't need the government sanction. Fair enough. But, to the extent that that is true, it is much more legimate for someone to want something when there is no real reason to have it, than it is for someone else to deny it to them when there is no real reason to deny it to them. The former is about the right to be who you are, even if it doesn't make sense to others, the latter is about telling others who they can be, because it doesn't make sense to you. The former may be silly and vain, but the latter is arrogant, presumptuous and oppressive.

The arguments advanced against allowing same sex marriage fall apart under the slightest bit of deliberate scrutiny. And what's left is the truth - people, all of us, are fundamentally insecure about all manner of things. And, some of us deal with that by seeking affirmation of ourselves and our ways from outside sources and forces. That's all fine and dandy, until we try to use the power of the collective political body as the tool through which we provide ourselves that affirmation.

Supreme Court decisions are not constitutional amendments. Until the US Constitution is amended to contain the phrase "separation of church and state," I'll stick with the original.

That's why I phrased it the way I did. No, the actual text in the Constitution does not say 'a wall of separation between church and state'. But legally, that is part of what the words of the First Amendment mean - because that is what the Supreme Court says they mean - and they are the body that has the authority to say what the words of the Constitution mean.

A Supreme Court decision is not a Constitutional amendment, but unless and until it is reversed or changed, it has the same legal force. Legally speaking, the First Amendment might as well say 'there is a wall of separation between church and state'. The issue is then, well, what does that mean? What exactly it means can be argued, and often is - but whether or not there is a legal wall of separation between church and state in this country is clear - there is.

Nope. If a couple is married at the court house, it's a marraige, not a civil union. Having a wedding at a church is not a requirement for entering into marraige.

You need to read better. I said it should be in my opinion!

You need to read better. I said it should be in my opinion!

No, I read just fine. You said,
Anything outside of a church is a civil union (going before a magestrate, etc...). You said IS not SHOULD!

Geez! It was your own posting.

so the argument that it is not ok because it is offensive concerning me running around in the buff should equally cover it being offensive to witness PDAs involving homosexuals.

There are two different aspects of the notion of rights here. There are rights by virtue of the fact that they are fundamental rights, and there are rights by virtue of the fact that someone else has the same or a similar right.

The first is substantive due process. A law saying that you can't run around naked might be perfectly legal, because it doesn't violate a fundamental right - you don't have a substantive due process claim against it.

However, if the law said that Muslims can not run around naked, while Christians are allowed to, then their 'rights' might be being violated on equal protection grounds. They might not have an inherent right to run around naked, but generally speaking, the law can't discriminate on the basis of religion and say that Christians can while Muslims can't. They might have an equal protection claim against the law.

The most compelling legal argument against a law banning homosexual PDAs, while allowing heterosexual PDAs, would be based on equal protection. So, the proper comparison would be between having laws that ban homosexual PDAs while allowing heterosexual PDAs, and having laws that ban running around naked for homosexuals while allowing it for heterosexuals. The underlying right (PDAs or public nakedness) is of little importance with regard to the acceptability of the law - the issue is the law treating different people differently.

I'm not making the case either way about the legal soundness of either hypothetical law, just pointing out what a fair comparison would be.

If and when laws prohibiting same sex marriage are overturned, it will almost surely be through equal protection challenges, not substantive due process challenges. (Though, under some circumstances, it might also be possible that some actions are successfully challenged through procedural due process claims.)

Hmmm. Gosh, maybe we should have left the right for women and black people: to vote, own property, drink out of universal water fountains, serve in the military, eat in restaurants of your own choosing, drive cars, and be politicians - to the voters! Wonder what our culture would be like today?! Think back to 100 years, or in some cases, just a few decades. Maybe we should leave voting on cultural issues up to non-religious women and minorities (including gays). And Larry, until you or any other man can carry a child and can guarantee that women will not be raped by family members or other deranged, possessive males, or whose lives are not medically threatened, or if you can guarantee that men will shoulder their responsibilities financially or as a parent - then, and only then, do you have a potential opportunity to be involved with a woman's choice. Abortion will always take place, whether legalized or not. And because of this fact, in part, abortion with limits was legalized. Evolve people!!!

It always troubles me when the right to have your baby sucked out with a vacuum cleaner and dumped in the trash is equated with chains on ones wrists and a whip across the back or female suffrage.

You'll note I took no position on abortion other than it would be better to have had it voted on. Same with gay marriage.

Men built this country. White heterosexual men. And, however much time it has taken, however unjust or roughly it was done, it was done and, as of the year 2009, we hetero white men have seen to it that all other races and women have pretty much exactly the same rights as us. In some cases, more rights.

Not a bad record in this world. How's that for evolution?

When was the last time you saw two gay people kissing and holding hands in public?

Boston. About a month ago. Lot's 'o queers.

It always troubles me when the right to have your baby sucked out with a vacuum cleaner and dumped in the trash is equated with chains on ones wrists and a whip across the back or female suffrage.

You'll note I took no position on abortion other than it would be better to have had it voted on. Same with gay marriage.

Men built this country. White heterosexual men. And, however much time it has taken, however unjust or roughly it was done, it was done and, as of the year 2009, we hetero white men have seen to it that all other races and women have pretty much exactly the same rights as us. In some cases, more rights.

Not a bad record in this world. How's that for evolution?


OMG! Where on earth did you slither from? As a white male, even I can be objective and wise enough to know, that this country was built by women, men, slaves, heterosexuals, homosexuals, and everyone in between. Your ignorance to evidential history and sheer arrogance is astonishing Larry! You are wrong Larry, it was through the blood, sweat, and tears (and in some cases the sacrifice of life), of women and people of color who went before us, that enabled themselves to rise above the white male fist of injustice. Please, please go read historical accounts, diaries, etc. written by women and minorities. Sadly, you were apparently brain-washed like most of us who learned only the male view of history, written about and by white males. Guess what Larry? The white, male "founders" did not live in a bubble.

Sorry you are troubled by abortion, but really, there is nothing you can do about it.

OMG! Where on earth did you slither from? As a white male, even I can be objective and wise enough to know, that this country was built by women, men, slaves, heterosexuals, homosexuals, and everyone in between. Your ignorance to evidential history and sheer arrogance is astonishing Larry! You are wrong Larry, it was through the blood, sweat, and tears (and in some cases the sacrifice of life), of women and people of color who went before us, that enabled themselves to rise above the white male fist of injustice. Please, please go read historical accounts, diaries, etc. written by women and minorities. Sadly, you were apparently brain-washed like most of us who learned only the male view of history, written about and by white males. Guess what Larry? The white, male "founders" did not live in a bubble.

Sorry you are troubled by abortion, but really, there is nothing you can do about it.

That's right! And we made 'em do it! That is fact. That is history.

That's right! And we made 'em do it! That is fact. That is history.
I personally didnt make anyone do anything, however, I will agree that those before us did make them do it. And they prospered from it.
We on the other hand, have been paying for it ever since we were born.

I'm asking you what harm it would do to ALLOW these people to get married? Why can't the definition of marriage be re-written? What harm would it do?They can get married now.

Why SHOULD the definition be re-written? What GOOD would it do?

Like what?Unimportant to the discussion, really. The determination has already been made.

Reason needs to be there to create the same benefits for other situations, unless we change the discussion to getting rid of the state recognition of current marriages.

that enabled themselves to rise above the white male fist of injustice.

Good lord.

The answer is simple and obvious, and it's the same answer that applies to so many situations in which people wish to limit the freedoms of others without substantial, legitimate, and justifiable reason to do so. Nobody wants to admit the truth, but it is the truth nonetheless.

You ready? Insecurity.Not even close. Sorry.

From the point of view of the law, what is the purpose in the change? To change the law to make beneficial another form of union, there must be recognizable gain to the people.

I see no gain, no reason to change centuries old standards on a whim.

No, I read just fine. You said,
You said IS not SHOULD!

Geez! It was your own posting.

No Mr. aWPitt, your picking the sentence out of context. The paragraph started with "It should be" and then the next three sentences described what is should be. You fail. Go back to swilling your Dem koolaid!

Not even close. Sorry.

From the point of view of the law, what is the purpose in the change?

Equal protection. There are certain and numerous benefits, legal, financial, etc, for a straight marriage that those who want to spend their life committed with someone of the same sex think they should have.

I see no gain, no reason to change centuries old standards on a whim.

Oh bull####. We do it all the time as we become a more enlightened society.

Nor is it a whim because gay rights have been brewing since I was a young child.

You just don't like gay people and don't think they should be considered equal citizens. And let me tell you, *I* don't like uptight moralist busybody hypocrites and if I were going to make the government control anybody, it would be you folks so you can't impose your personal beliefs on others.

This is supposed to be America and you're not supposed to be able to rob someone of their rights and privileges just because you have a personal issue. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran and get out of our country.

Oh bull####. We do it all the time as we become a more enlightened society.

Nor is it a whim because gay rights have been brewing since I was a young child.

You just don't like gay people and don't think they should be considered equal citizens. And let me tell you, *I* don't like uptight moralist busybody hypocrites and if I were going to make the government control anybody, it would be you folks so you can't impose your personal beliefs on others.

This is supposed to be America and you're not supposed to be able to rob someone of their rights and privileges just because you have a personal issue. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran and get out of our country.


A little early for post of the day but, there it is.

If they're willing to marry, they can marry now.

Of course, they have to marry someone that fits the definition of marriage - age, relationship status, opposite gender, etc., etc.

Ok now. Lets not kid ourselves here. Do you feel that every law is absolutely perfect and that no law should be added, removed, or changed? If so then OK, if you want to make the above argument then you can. But you'd be lying through your teeth, so lets try to make a legit argument about why you agree with this specific law, shall we?

You talk about the definition of marriage as it currently stands in most states (since lets face it -- the definition of marriage varies state to state) and likely the law dictated by your religion. So I ask a simple question. Why should the definition of marriage stay as you define it above and not be changed to better suit the times we live in? What's wrong with people choosing their partners for themselves if they are two consenting adults?

Also for the gender confused (ie people who have gotten sex changes, hermaphrodites, etc), what of them? When gender is confused, what should they do? Who do you think should be legal for them to marry?


Oh bull####. We do it all the time as we become a more enlightened society.

Nor is it a whim because gay rights have been brewing since I was a young child.

You just don't like gay people and don't think they should be considered equal citizens. And let me tell you, *I* don't like uptight moralist busybody hypocrites and if I were going to make the government control anybody, it would be you folks so you can't impose your personal beliefs on others.

This is supposed to be America and you're not supposed to be able to rob someone of their rights and privileges just because you have a personal issue. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran and get out of our country.

ding ding ####ing ding. :clap:

No Mr. aWPitt, your picking the sentence out of context. The paragraph started with "It should be" and then the next three sentences described what is should be. You fail. Go back to swilling your Dem koolaid!


No failure here.

Your first thought was an opinion because you said, "It should be between the couple and their church."

Then you went on to declare (as fact) that, "Anything outside of a church is a civil union (going before a magestrate, etc...)."

After that you stated a second opnion that "Both should be recognized as legal and open to all (although churches can make their own policies on who they marry)."

When you said, "Anything outside of a church is a civil union....", you stated that as a fact in support of the opinion you stated. That was the statement I responded to because it was incorrect.

If you had said , "Anything outside of a church should be (or would be) a civil union....", then you would be stating it as an opinion of how you think it should be. Well, you didn't write it that way as an opinion. You stated it as a fact, which it isn't.

Basic 8th grade grammar.



.

Why SHOULD the definition be re-written? What GOOD would it do?

Are you married? If so, why did you get married?

Basic 8th grade grammer.

First grade spelling

First grade spelling

:lol:

First grade spelling

Thanks. It's fixed.

But I have a lot of questions I keep thinking about.....
what about the "traditional" family unit? By allowing these others are we indeed harming this institution? Isnt it the best way? will it become something to be made fun of..a relic..."uncool" ? Is that bad? Should anything go? Is there harm to our culture that we can't forsee? Will allowing what most people see as deviant..to become "ok" what other deviant acts will become ok in the future? where is the line? I really don't know..I think it is a more complex issue than simply looking for who it harms. Perhaps its an issue that cannot be resolved. I honestly don't know.

How does it affect YOUR marriage? How does it affect YOUR "traditional" family unit?

At no time, are Gays asking to invalidate YOUR marriage, nor are they asking to prevent new hetero couples from getting married. YOUR marriage and/or future marriage has no bearing on whether Gays get married.

The rest of your post is asking to ban something based on the potential what if, with no constitutional justification to back it up.

How does it affect YOUR marriage? How does it affect YOUR "traditional" family unit?

At no time, are Gays asking to invalidate YOUR marriage, nor are they asking to prevent new hetero couples from getting married. YOUR marriage and/or future marriage has no bearing on whether Gays get married.

The rest of your post is asking to ban something based on the potential what if, with no constitutional justification to back it up.

umm I don't want to ban anything. pay attention. If gays wanna marry..go for it. If you read my earlier post you would have seen that..I said as much. These are merely questions I have when I consider what it could mean to others. I don't have any answers..they are questions. Questions..if you notice..I said may be unanswerable. I think they are valid concerns..concerns many people have..not because they "hate gay people" but because they don't know what the impact to our culture and future will be...many grew up thinking it was devient and wrong..making it difficult not to have so many questions... You can answer "nothing" to these concerns all day long..but that doesn't make it so. Nor will it dispel the questions of many.

anyway..I didn't mean that it would affect *my* marriage or family. I meant for the institution as a whole...and the future of it's place in America. If I thought it would affect *MY* family or marriage..I would be against it.

[/B]


I corrected you on this a week or two ago. The Catholic Church does not recognize contraception as having any part in a sacramental marriage. Every other Christian denomination as far as I am aware believes it okay, but not the Catholic Church.

And you were shown the correct the next day.. you might want to go back and reread

Are you married? If so, why did you get married?

Hubby promised me lots of doggies and kitties. :smile:

This is all allowed now. What's not allowed is state recognition of those situations for the purpose of gaining benefits.

Lots of people are in polyamorous relationships. Many people have children with more than one other parent. None of this is illegal, or in any manner stopped.

Marriage, as defined for centuries, is given a special role in tax and other benefits because of the additional good it does to society. None of the rest are prohibited.

What benefits? Do people lose their "special roles" if they do not meet the benefits? why not?

And when I happen to see them kissing, or holding hands etc...

they should be run out of stores for that too?

Do you think non-gay couples that perform PDA should be run out?

Do you think non-gay couples that perform PDA should be run out?
I certainly have seen PDA from non-gay couples that was unacceptable in a public setting.

Do you think non-gay couples that perform PDA should be run out?

Gay men should not be allowed to touch in public, especially kissing and holding hands. And no leashes and collars either.

This tread made me want a lobster roll. Not in a gay way, just some lobster, mayo and dash of celery salt on a roll.

Equal protection. There are certain and numerous benefits, legal, financial, etc, for a straight marriage that those who want to spend their life committed with someone of the same sex think they should have.Just because they think they should have the exact same status doesn't make it true.

Target thinks they should pay the same taxes Goodwill does. Doesn't mean it's true.

The value needs to be demonstrated to have the same status as another situation that's similar, but not the same.

Oh bull####. We do it all the time as we become a more enlightened society.When reason is shown, yesNor is it a whim because gay rights have been brewing since I was a young child.Unless you were a child centuries ago, it's a whim
You just don't like gay people and don't think they should be considered equal citizens. Absolutely falseAnd let me tell you, *I* don't like uptight moralist busybody hypocrites and if I were going to make the government control anybody, it would be you folks so you can't impose your personal beliefs on others.Then, you would be as wrong as you (falsely and baselessly) accuse me of beingThis is supposed to be America and you're not supposed to be able to rob someone of their rights and privileges just because you have a personal issue. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran and get out of our country.I don't want a theocracy, nor is it my religious views that drive my secular opinions.

Again, since they have the right to marry, but just have to meet the definition of "marry", there are no rights being denied. There is no sexual preference test to marry someone. Many gay people have been married.

Sorry, you're wrong in all aspects of this post.

Ok now. Lets not kid ourselves here. Do you feel that every law is absolutely perfect and that no law should be added, removed, or changed? No, but to change it would require a valid reason.You talk about the definition of marriage as it currently stands in most states (since lets face it -- the definition of marriage varies state to state) and likely the law dictated by your religion.You clearly haven't read my reasoning. My religion has nothing to do with anything.So I ask a simple question. Why should the definition of marriage stay as you define it above and not be changed to better suit the times we live in? What's wrong with people choosing their partners for themselves if they are two consenting adults?Who's asking anyone to choose different partners? Your arguments against me have nothing to do with what I've posted.Also for the gender confused (ie people who have gotten sex changes, hermaphrodites, etc), what of them? When gender is confused, what should they do? Who do you think should be legal for them to marry?Based on their actual, physical gender, yes.
ding ding ####ing ding. :clap:Not at all, sorry.

Are you married? If so, why did you get married?Which part, the religious or the secular part?

What benefits? Do people lose their "special roles" if they do not meet the benefits? why not?Please elaborate, your questions make no sense.

No, but to change it would require a valid reason.You clearly haven't read my reasoning. My religion has nothing to do with anything.Who's asking anyone to choose different partners? Your arguments against me have nothing to do with what I've posted.Based on their actual, physical gender, yes.Not at all, sorry.

Valid reason? People should be able to marry who they want. I threw in the argument about the gender confused and you basically tried to shoot it down by arguing their "physical gender". That's a bunch of crap. If not for only situations like these, but also for people to have the right to marry who they want and not be limited by the law -- there's your reason.

How can you defend the law that's currently in place? Explain the valid reason for why it ever existed in the first place and why it is still valid reasoning in society today. You're hiding behind the "that's in place so that's how it should be" garbage. That's not a good excuse.

Valid reason? People should be able to marry who they want. I threw in the argument about the gender confused and you basically tried to shoot it down by arguing their "physical gender". That's a bunch of crap. If not for only situations like these, but also for people to have the right to marry who they want and not be limited by the law -- there's your reason.People can marry whomever they want.

However, if they want state recognition of that marriage, they need to fit the state definition of what the marriage is, to get the benefits.

No one is stopping anyone from loving who they want, or being with who they want, or "marrying" who they want, etc., etc. The law restricts who gets certain tax benefits based on a narrow, centuries old, established view of marriage and the inherent understandings of the benefits to society that brings.

To change from that requires a reason.How can you defend the law that's currently in place? Explain the valid reason for why it ever existed in the first place and why it is still valid reasoning in society today. You're hiding behind the "that's in place so that's how it should be" garbage. That's not a good excuse.I've never tried to defend the law as written. If you disagree, feel free. Then, demonstrate a reason why it should be changed. A reason to society, not to you personally, or your emotional views. Actual, factual reason

Which part, the religious or the secular part?

It wasn't a hard question.

People can marry whomever they want.

NO THEY CAN'T.

If I want to marry Cowgirl, I CAN'T.

If I want to marry Christy, I CAN'T.

What freaking part of this is so incomprehensible to you, JPC???

People can marry whomever they want.

However, if they want state recognition of that marriage, they need to fit the state definition of what the marriage is, to get the benefits.

No one is stopping anyone from loving who they want, or being with who they want, or "marrying" who they want, etc., etc. The law restricts who gets certain tax benefits based on a narrow, centuries old, established view of marriage and the inherent understandings of the benefits to society that brings.

To change from that requires a reason.I've never tried to defend the law as written. If you disagree, feel free. Then, demonstrate a reason why it should be changed. A reason to society, not to you personally, or your emotional views. Actual, factual reason

People can't marry whoever they want. Are you that dense? You can love whoever you want and "be with" whoever you want as you said, but you CANT MARRY THEM. Maybe if they go to Vermont they can get married but they can't do that wherever they choose, as a heterosexual couple can. That's why the law needs to be changed. It is a limitation on peoples rights. If you wanted to get married at a courthouse (as is your right), you could do so. Say that reason was because you're low on funds. Your courthouse isn't too far, so not a problem. On the other hand, a homosexual couple would need to find a way to drag their ass all the way out to Vermont if they were low on funds, just so they could wed. That's just stupid.

On top of that, why should the law restrict benefits to people if they are making the same decision a heterosexual couple is making? You're sitting there saying it's a narrow view that is centuries old, yet you're defending that law tooth and nail by saying you feel like there's no need to change it. You're merely hiding behind the fact that it's a preexisting law, since it doesn't sound like you'd be in favor of it even if there was no law either way.

NO THEY CAN'T.

If I want to marry Cowgirl, I CAN'T.

If I want to marry Christy, I CAN'T.



This inspires a question. If we don't allow gay marriage, does that automatically preclude polygamy?

This inspires a question. If we don't allow gay marriage, does that automatically preclude polygamy?
The courts decision on polygamy is what can be used to deny gay marriage.
if the court allows gay marriage, it could be used to reinstate polygamy.

The courts decision on polygamy is what can be used to deny gay marriage.
if the court allows gay marriage, it could be used to reinstate polygamy.

This isn't even close to being true. The grounds on which courts are most likely to eventually strike down laws prohibiting gay marriage would not meaningfully open the legal door for striking down laws that prohibit polygamy. By the same token, the high Court's prior stance on polygamy doesn't meaningfully weigh on the legal finding that it would most likely have made, were it to strike down laws prohibiting gay marriage. Those things are apples and oranges in the legal sense that is relevant.

EDIT: I meant to add that I think polygamy should be allowed, as long as all involved are consenting adults - meaning that, legally speaking, they didn't enter into the arrangement under duress, and that they entered into it of their own free will.

This inspires a question. If we don't allow gay marriage, does that automatically preclude polygamy?

Ahh, some much needed levity is injected. :lol:

This isn't even close to being true. The grounds on which courts are most likely to eventually strike down laws prohibiting gay marriage would not meaningfully open the legal door for striking down laws that prohibit polygamy. By the same token, the high Court's prior stance on polygamy doesn't meaningfully weigh on the legal finding that it would most likely have made, were it to strike down laws prohibiting gay marriage. Those things are apples and oranges in the legal sense that is relevant.
Polygamy was struck down because it was considered a marriage that did not fit the long standing social image of marriage.
same with gay marriage.

hmmm would that mean you are marrying just the man..or the other wives too? that's weird to think about. I kind of thought of it as seperate marriages..but it makes more sense that it is ONE marriage..

and technically people can "marry" whoever they want..churches do ceremonies for gay couples all the time..a transgender woman visited my human sexuality class..and talked about her marriage. It isn't recognized by her state..or the gov't ( she didnt have the genital change yet)...but that doesn't make them feel any less married. ....what was stupid/funny...is that her transgendered friend also was married..but hers was legit..because he married a woman...when he was a "man"..then got his sex change....the other one..she got a sex change...then married a man..so technically they are gay marriages but legit. Its so weird and confusing to think about...

on a completely unrelated side note..one brought in her set of the vagina dialators they use after sex change....it was an awkward moment. At least she didn't pass them around.:killingme

Polygamy was struck down because it was considered a marriage that did not fit the long standing social image of marriage.
same with gay marriage.

Polygamy was a long standing, traditional and widely accepted practice. Still is in some places.

hmmm would that mean you are marrying just the man..or the other wives too? that's weird to think about. I kind of thought of it as seperate marriages..but it makes more sense that it is ONE marriage..


See? Interesting to think about. :buddies:

Polygamy was a long standing, traditional and widely accepted practice. Still is in some places.
The courts decision was based on the U.S.
read up on it.

The courts decision was based on the U.S.
read up on it.

No.



:lol:

Polygamy was struck down because it was considered a marriage that did not fit the long standing social image of marriage.
same with gay marriage.

Legally, there is a whole lot more to it than that, and a lot more potential considerations to be undertaken.

We have our own feelings about whether or not same sex marriage should be allowed - those feelings don't necessarily have anything to do with how things actually work legally. That is one conversation - how we all feel things should be, irrespective of the law.

Then there is a very different conversation, which relates to (1) what is the current state of law with regard to same sex marriage, and (2) whether or not that law will or should change, based on how changes in the law work.

The natures of those two conversations are very different, but both are meaningful. Depending on which one you are having, different factors come into play.

Here is the difference between the courts finding that polygamy is protected and finding that same sex marriage is protected. IF same sex marriage is eventually protected by the courts, it most likely will not be on substantive due process grounds. It will likely be done on equal protection grounds. In order for that to happen, a judicial review of the laws would be undertaken based on strict scrutiny, ordinary scrutiny or some hybrid scrutiny standard. If strict scrutiny is applied, I can tell you without equivocation that the laws would generally be struck down. So, the legal question is what scrutiny standard would be applied. That depends in large part on whether or not the courts consider sexual orientation a basis for a legal suspect class. That is the consideration that ultimately matters here, and that is the determination that will tell most of the story.

So, therein lies the disconnect between polygamy and same sex marriage. A hypothetical judicial determination that homosexuality is a suspect class has nothing at all to do with a hypothetical judicial determination that 'wanting to marry multiple people' or 'having religious beliefs that dictate you are allowed to marry multiple people' is a suspect class. Those hypothetical determinations are wholly separate, and a finding in one regard is specific to that potential suspect class. This is a determination that the high Court can make with regard to any potential classification basis. There is almost no chance that the latter hypothetical classes I referred to would ever be legally deemed 'suspect' by the high Court. On the other hand, I think it is very likely that homosexuality will eventually be deemed a suspect class by the high Court. At any rate, those two findings would have nothing to do with each other. The reasoning for finding homosexuality to be a suspect class would not help a hypothetical argument that the other thing was a suspect class. Apples and oranges.

If and when same sex marriage finds legal protection in the courts, I do not believe that the basis for that protection will have much to do with the 'right' of marriage. It will have to do with the 'right' to not be discriminated against on the basis of a particular characteristic - that characteristic being sexual orientation. It is more likely to be an equal protection issue, not a substantive due process issue. IF the protection were to be granted based on a fundamental right to marriage (i.e. same sex marriage), then that might weigh on the polygamy issue - but even then, not to a great degree - and in any case, that weighing would certainly not be definitive. Point being though, that is not the basis on which same sex marriage is likely to find protection.

Simply stated - the argument for same sex marriage rights which might be slightly affected by the prior stance on polygamy, is not the argument on which same sex marriage rights are likely to win anyway.

Even more simply stated - the common link between these things is marriage, but the 'right' to marry, per se, is not the basis on which same sex marriage is likely to be protected. 'Illegal(?)' discrimination is - regardless of what the 'right' in question is.

Please elaborate, your questions make no sense.

Maybe because your original statement didnt make any?
Marriage, as defined for centuries (while being redefined numerous times during the same period of time, weird how you keep skipping past that), is given a special role in tax and other benefits because of the additional good it does to society. None of the rest are prohibited.
What other benefits?

If the participants of the marriage do not produce the "good it does to a society" are the benefits removed?

Legally, there is a whole lot more to it than that, and a lot more potential considerations to be undertaken.

We have our own feelings about whether or not same sex marriage should be allowed - those feelings don't necessarily have anything to do with how things actually work legally. That is one conversation - how we all feel things should be, irrespective of the law.

Then there is a very different conversation, which relates to (1) what is the current state of law with regard to same sex marriage, and (2) whether or not that law will or should change, based on how changes in the law work.

The natures of those two conversations are very different, but both are meaningful. Depending on which one you are having, different factors come into play.

Here is the difference between the courts finding that polygamy is protected and finding that same sex marriage is protected. IF same sex marriage is eventually protected by the courts, it most likely will not be on substantive due process grounds. It will likely be done on equal protection grounds. In order for that to happen, a judicial review of the laws would be undertaken based on strict scrutiny, ordinary scrutiny or some hybrid scrutiny standard. If strict scrutiny is applied, I can tell you without equivocation that the laws would generally be struck down. So, the legal question is what scrutiny standard would be applied. That depends in large part on whether or not the courts consider sexual orientation a basis for a legal suspect class. That is the consideration that ultimately matters here, and that is the determination that will tell most of the story.

So, therein lies the disconnect between polygamy and same sex marriage. A hypothetical judicial determination that homosexuality is a suspect class has nothing at all to do with a hypothetical judicial determination that 'wanting to marry multiple people' or 'having religious beliefs that dictate you are allowed to marry multiple people' is a suspect class. Those hypothetical determinations are wholly separate, and a finding in one regard is specific to that potential suspect class. This is a determination that the high Court can make with regard to any potential classification basis. There is almost no chance that the latter hypothetical classes I referred to would ever be legally deemed 'suspect' by the high Court. On the other hand, I think it is very likely that homosexuality will eventually be deemed a suspect class by the high Court. At any rate, those two findings would have nothing to do with each other. The reasoning for finding homosexuality to be a suspect class would not help a hypothetical argument that the other thing was a suspect class. Apples and oranges.

If and when same sex marriage finds legal protection in the courts, I do not believe that the basis for that protection will have much to do with the 'right' of marriage. It will have to do with the 'right' to not be discriminated against on the basis of a particular characteristic - that characteristic being sexual orientation. It is more likely to be an equal protection issue, not a substantive due process issue. IF the protection were to be granted based on a fundamental right to marriage (i.e. same sex marriage), then that might weigh on the polygamy issue - but even then, not to a great degree - and in any case, that weighing would certainly not be definitive. Point being though, that is not the basis on which same sex marriage is likely to find protection.

Simply stated - the argument for same sex marriage rights which might be slightly affected by the prior stance on polygamy, is not the argument on which same sex marriage rights are likely to win anyway.

Even more simply stated - the common link between these things is marriage, but the 'right' to marry, per se, is not the basis on which same sex marriage is likely to be protected. 'Illegal(?)' discrimination is - regardless of what the 'right' in question is.

OK but, to look at this from the moral standpoint, which is where, I think, most opponents of SSM and polygamy come from, there can be no equal protection because, in their argument, ssm simply can not be; apples and oranges, thus, no equal protection argument because there is no standing.

As for due process, isn't it fair to say, broadly, that a due process argument is more a protection FROM something as opposed to entre', or a right TO something? In other words, equal protection eliminates slavery because of the rights as a citizen, citizens can't be slaves because slavery violates all your rights as a citizen, whereas you can't argue slavery is disallowed on due process arguments because no one was denied due process in the first place because a citizen can't be a slave IN THE first place.

Conversely, if you were forced into something, a fine, a sentence of some form, forced into slavery without an examination of your status, or an incorrect one as the case may be, absent due process, then that argument, that line of reasoning applies. Right?

If so, ssm, the desire FOR it, excludes a due process argument. So, the entire ssm argument, in my view, must rest on equal protection because plaintiff, those claiming a denial of a right, ssm, as opposed to seeking protection from something, or am I missing the the way a due process claim works?

If not, then that is the grounds, as I see it, anti ssm's stand on; you aren't being denied anything because you aren't entitled to what you claim BECAUSE of your same sex reality.

Which then, to me, is the same as saying Dred Scott was not citizen entitled to rights because he was a slave, ergo, property, ergo, not a man, ergo, not a citizen.

Just imagine how far we can go with that. Say you are straight in a failed marriage and about to get reamed, figuratively speaking. All you have to do is claim the anti ssm argument, declare your homosexuality thus the original marriage as simply not allowable, is null and void and you don't owe her nuthin. :lol:

OK but, to look at this from the moral standpoint, which is where, I think, most opponents of SSM and polygamy come from, there can be no equal protection because, in their argument, ssm simply can not be; apples and oranges, thus, no equal protection argument because there is no standing. With equal protection, the merits of the 'what' (i.e. marriage) isn't contemplated as much as whether or not the law treats people the same with regard to that 'what'.

As for due process, isn't it fair to say, broadly, that a due process argument is more a protection FROM something as opposed to entre', or a right TO something? In other words, equal protection eliminates slavery because of the rights as a citizen, citizens can't be slaves because slavery violates all your rights as a citizen, whereas you can't argue slavery is disallowed on due process arguments because no one was denied due process in the first place because a citizen can't be a slave IN THE first place. No, I'd say substantive due process does indeed contemplate a right TO something (as well as from something). Slavery could easily be eliminated on due process and equal protection grounds - because it deprives the slaves of a fundamental right (liberty) and it discriminates against them on the basis of race, creating different rules for different people.

Conversely, if you were forced into something, a fine, a sentence of some form, forced into slavery without an examination of your status, or an incorrect one as the case may be, absent due process, then that argument, that line of reasoning applies. Right? It sounds like you are mistakenly limiting the concept of due process to the implications of procedural due process - which is only part of what due process is.

If so, ssm, the desire FOR it, excludes a due process argument. So, the entire ssm argument, in my view, must rest on equal protection because plaintiff, those claiming a denial of a right, ssm, as opposed to seeking protection from something, or am I missing the the way a due process claim works? I think you are missing something - that being, substantive due process as opposed to procedural due process. Procedural due process is probably what most people think of, notionally, when they think of due process - and that leaves out a HUGE portion of the relevance of the concept.

That said, I don't think substantive due process is likely to be the avenue by which SSM first finds protection - I think EP is. But, I wouldn't agree that a SDP argument is excluded - it just isn't likely to get too far right now.

If not, then that is the grounds, as I see it, anti ssm's stand on; you aren't being denied anything because you aren't entitled to what you claim BECAUSE of your same sex reality.

Which then, to me, is the same as saying Dred Scott was not citizen entitled to rights because he was a slave, ergo, property, ergo, not a man, ergo, not a citizen.

Just imagine how far we can go with that. Say you are straight in a failed marriage and about to get reamed, figuratively speaking. All you have to do is claim the anti ssm argument, declare your homosexuality thus the original marriage as simply not allowable, is null and void and you don't owe her nuthin. :lol:


This - exploring the differences and commonalities between due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and even equal protection - is a somewhat difficult conversation, as there are various overlapping considerations. Any concise conversation is bound to contain numerous conditional inaccuracies. And, any conversation that attempts to maximize accuracy is bound to be long-winded and convoluted. So, how best to convey the essence of the situation?

Due process, in general, requires fairness. It's the notion that the government is subordinate to the law - that it can't act arbitrarily, or capriciously, or without restraints. Substantive due process entertains the notion that people have fundamental rights, even though they may not be specifically referred to in our Constitution, which the government is not free to violate. They stem from the general rights of life, liberty and property. Pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, our Courts have recognized some of these fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to marriage (though, I suspect, the current interpretation would only recognize the fundamental right to heterosexual marriage). In this context, due process does implicate a right TO something. However, it isn't that government can't violate these rights, it's just that it has to have a good reason to do so - and how good that reason has to be depends on a number of factors.

Procedural due process is more about the application or enforcement of laws. They can't be enforced arbitrarily. I guess in simple terms, one might think of substantive due process as placing limits on the legislative exercise of government authority, while procedural due process places limits on the executive and judicial exercise of government authority - though that model isn't entirely accurate. You could also look at it like this - substantive due process considers the government's justification for depriving people of a certain right, while procedural due process considers the method used to do so.

On the other hand, equal protection isn't as much concerned with the specific rights being violated, but rather with making sure that laws don't unnecessarily discriminate between different people. It's not that laws can't discriminate, but that the discrimination can't have an invidious, arbitrary or irrational purpose. To this end, the courts have recognized certain 'suspect' classifications (e.g. race, religion, sex). When those classes are implicated by a law (i.e. the law classifies people based upon differences therein, and accordingly treats them differently), the law is subject to a higher level of scrutiny - the government must have greater justification for the discrimination.

Now, as I indicated, you might see where there is overlap between these different 'rights protections basis', and sometimes it is hard to resolve them clearly. But, trying to put a point on it - substantive due process contemplates our right to something based on the nature of the something (as being fundamental to the notion of liberty), while equal protection contemplates our right to be treated the same as everyone else. Substantive due process entitles everyone to enjoy certain liberties (with those specific liberties taking center stage), while equal protection entitles everyone to enjoy the same liberties (with the sameness of enjoyment taking center stage). Still, there are circumstances under which the government is entitled to infringe liberties, no matter which of those basis the liberties derive through.

My whole point is this - I don't think it is likely that the Supreme Court, in any near term, will find that the right to homosexual marriage is a fundamental right which is protected through substantive due process. I think it more likely that the Supreme Court will find that prohibiting homosexual marriage is a violation of equal protection because it unjustifiably discriminates against homosexuals. Those two possibilities might sound like the same thing, but legally, they are very different animals - and they would have different legal implications, and would be arrived at through different legal considerations. The first would relate almost entirely to the act in question (marriage). The second would relate much more incidentally to that act. The second possibility wouldn't be protecting the right to marriage as much as it would be admonishing discrimination against people based on sexual orientation (with regard to anything, not just marriage).

With regard to polygamy, which bcp was referring to, the common link between it and same sex marriage is, well, marriage. My whole point is that, the strength of that right would not be the primary legal consideration, but rather the propriety of discriminating against homosexuals, in any respect, would be. So, protecting same sex marriage on an equal protection basis would impact laws prohibiting homosexuals from chewing bubble gum far more than it would impact laws prohibiting some other group from marrying. The reasoning by which homosexuals might be treated as a suspect class would have almost no relation to the hypothetical reasoning by which would-be polygamists might be treated as a suspect class (not to mention that the 'compelling' or 'important' government interests involved in prohibiting them might be very different). Protecting a Muslim woman's right to wear a veil in a bank would help the polygamy argument more than protecting same sex marriage, based on equal protection, would - even though the underlying acts are entirely different (wearing a veil versus getting married). And by the way, that probably wouldn't help the polygamy argument much either.

One last point, in my mind the real issue here isn't so much the name 'marriage'. While it may matter a great deal to some, the real issue is the underlying differences in treatment that exist on the basis of that name. That said, I won't dismiss the importance of the name to those who, for whatever reason, care about it.

This - exploring the differences and commonalities between due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and even equal protection - is a somewhat difficult conversation, as there are various overlapping considerations. Any concise conversation is bound to contain numerous conditional inaccuracies. And, any conversation that attempts to maximize accuracy is bound to be long-winded and convoluted. So, how best to convey the essence of the situation? .



No, no. I think I need to be more familiar with the actual terms first and then the conversation becomes much simpler. You're stuck, at the moment, trying to make a point while also trying to explain the terms. I've over simplified due process and equal protection, and it seems, incorrectly. That's bound to make it...somewhat difficult. :lol:

That's on me. :buddies:

No, no. I think I need to be more familiar with the actual terms first and then the conversation becomes much simpler. You're stuck, at the moment, trying to make a point while also trying to explain the terms. I've over simplified due process and equal protection, and it seems, incorrectly. That's bound to make it...somewhat difficult. :lol:

That's on me. :buddies:

No, trust me, it's a difficult conversation. You could have read every Supreme Court decision ever made that relates to the issues, and have an open legal dictionary in front of you, and it would still be a difficult conversation - for both of us.

Just know that due process isn't only about procedure, it also refers to actual specific and general rights which the government is not allowed to violate - unless it has a damn good reason to. There are rules which the government is supposed to obey, regardless of whether or not it specifically agreed to do so.

:buddies:

No, trust me, it's a difficult conversation. You could have read every Supreme Court decision ever made that relates to the issues, and have an open legal dictionary in front of you, and it would still be a difficult conversation - for both of us.

Just know that due process isn't only about procedure, it also refers to actual specific and general rights which the government is not allowed to violate - unless it has a damn good reason to. There are rules which the government is supposed to obey, regardless of whether or not it specifically agreed to do so.

:buddies:

OK, then discuss this; what is the due process violation to a slave, circa 1889, substantive or procedural, absent equal protection? (which also didn't exist at the time! :lol: )

My point being that equal protection obviates, I think, any need of a discussion of due process. No need to cook the steak with gas when the charcoal already did the job. :shrug:

It wasn't a hard question.Well, the religious part was about my relationship with my wife. The secular part was about my relationship with the government.

NO THEY CAN'T.

If I want to marry Cowgirl, I CAN'T.

If I want to marry Christy, I CAN'T.

What freaking part of this is so incomprehensible to you, JPC???Yes, you really can.

But, if you want that to be sanctioned by the state, you need to fit the state definition.

OK, then discuss this; what is the due process violation to a slave, circa 1889, substantive or procedural, absent equal protection? (which also didn't exist at the time! :lol: )

My point being that equal protection obviates, I think, any need of a discussion of due process. No need to cook the steak with gas when the charcoal already did the job. :shrug:

Are you talking about just with regard to slavery, or with regard to other things?

People can't marry whoever they want. Are you that dense? You can love whoever you want and "be with" whoever you want as you said, but you CANT MARRY THEM. Maybe if they go to Vermont they can get married but they can't do that wherever they choose, as a heterosexual couple can. That's why the law needs to be changed. It is a limitation on peoples rights. Yes, you can. You just can't get a marriage license from the state unless you meet that definition. Much like you can't get a motorcycle license for driving a semi.If you wanted to get married at a courthouse (as is your right), you could do so. Say that reason was because you're low on funds. Your courthouse isn't too far, so not a problem. On the other hand, a homosexual couple would need to find a way to drag their ass all the way out to Vermont if they were low on funds, just so they could wed. That's just stupid.Well, if they want that state recognition of marriage, currently they'd pretty much have to stay there, too.On top of that, why should the law restrict benefits to people if they are making the same decision a heterosexual couple is making? You're sitting there saying it's a narrow view that is centuries old, yet you're defending that law tooth and nail by saying you feel like there's no need to change it. You're merely hiding behind the fact that it's a preexisting law, since it doesn't sound like you'd be in favor of it even if there was no law either way.They restrict benefits to those who fit the purpose of the benefits :shrug: I don't see what's hard to comprehend about that.

Where is the benefit for other forms of relationships? Provide the study, I'll follow you to change the law.

Polygamy was a long standing, traditional and widely accepted practice. Still is in some places.yep, people are allowed to live however they want up to hurting others.

But, to get state recognition.....

Maybe because your original statement didnt make any?No, I don't think so :lol:
What other benefits?All those you've previously described
If the participants of the marriage do not produce the "good it does to a society" are the benefits removed?No, this is a statistical, big picture, 50,000 foot view kind of thing, not a case by case basis.

Are you talking about just with regard to slavery, or with regard to other things?

Well, we started with gay marriage and the idea, my argument, that equal protection says that ssm is not prohibited by the constitution, not a due process argument.

So, slavery, I meant 1789 not 1889, right after ratification, making the argument that 'all created equal' applied to slaves which I would go to the non existent, at the time, argument of equal protection. I mean, I don't care about a specific issue, choose a different one if it helps make the point.

Well, we started with gay marriage and the idea, my argument, that equal protection says that ssm is not prohibited by the constitution, not a due process argument. Knowing that there is no sexual orientation clause regarding who may be married, what are you talking about?

By the way, THIS (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/washington-state-voters-approve-gay-partnership-measure/) is a GOOD thing

Well, we started with gay marriage and the idea, my argument, that equal protection says that ssm is not prohibited by the constitution, not a due process argument.

So, slavery, I meant 1789 not 1889, right after ratification, making the argument that 'all created equal' applied to slaves which I would go to the non existent, at the time, argument of equal protection. I mean, I don't care about a specific issue, choose a different one if it helps make the point.

That's just it, I'm not sure what point I'm supposed to be making. But, I'll give it a try. If I'm not on the right train track, let me know.

It is very true that an equal protection argument might remove a need for a (substantive) due process argument, and vice versa. They might both apply to a particular instance, or only one might. With regard to SSM, I think they both could, but I think EP would have a better chance sooner.


Let's take 3 hypothetical laws.

(1) Law says black people can't chew bubble gum, but white people can.

(2) Law says black people can't have babies, but white people can.

(3) Law says nobody can have babies.


(1) fails on EP grounds because the law can't treat people differently on the basis of race. (1) doesn't fail on SDP grounds because chewing bubble gum is not a fundamental right.

(2) fails on EP grounds because the law can't treat people differently on the basis of race. (2) also fails on SDP grounds because the right to procreate is a fundamental right which the government can't violate.

(3) doesn't fail on EP grounds because it doesn't treat people differently. (3) does fail on SDP grounds because the right to procreate is a fundamental right which the government can't violate.


So, both rights protections matter and either one may be needed, depending on the situation.

And, just to be clear, it is possible that a law can violate a fundamental right or treat people differently on the basis of race, and still be legal - but there is an elevated standard under which it would be reviewed - most of the time, it wouldn't' be allowed.


Just for giggles, let's throw this in.

(4) Law says that anyone who has a baby and is impoverished can apply for public assistance and will receive a $100 check each week to help with expenses. However, when Julie went and applied for the assistance, her claim was rejected even though her situation was basically the same as a lot of other people that did get assistance. It might be because the person working in the assistance office just didn't like her because she heard she's been dating her ex-boyfriend.

Julie may have a procedural due process claim against the government. Or not. Non-impoverished people probably don't have an EP claim because 'non-impoverished' isn't regarded as a suspect class. Even if it was, it may be that the state could justify discriminating on that basis in this particular case. Lastly, non-impoverished people probably don't have a SDP claim, because getting $100 per week for having a baby isn't a fundamental right.

By the way, THIS (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/washington-state-voters-approve-gay-partnership-measure/) is a GOOD thingNo one else thinks this is a good thing?