If Gay Marriage is ok, why is polygamy a crime?

[Nucklesack]

Really the only true protected class is religion and sex according to the constitution. I agree with you, gays are a protected class already ...see previous post. I really do not think they deserve that level and I do not think they need that level of protection. I consider a crime against a gay the same as a crime against a straight person ... no need to call it a special hate crime. It is a crime. If you want to make the distinction about the level of a crime, is should be based on the force behind the motivation - like in murder 1st degree, 2nd degree, not on who the crime was committed on. If someone is old an attacked, they are assaulted. It someone is gay, it is a hate crime.

I disagree with you about ensuring that we all have the same rights.

Affirmative action gives minorities additional rights that others do not have. Race is a temporary class, if you read some of the SC ruling like the University of Michigan case on affirmative action. Defining race is getting more complex everyday. Pretty soon everyone will be a special class according to race. Age discrimination is a policy issue that the federal government has taken on.

I really fail to see where gays have been denied their rights like separate but equal blacks and women with property ownership and rights to vote and job promotions.

Then you (and many others on here) should understand the framework of what the Constitution recognizes and the judge in this case ruled on.

The Constitution doesnt give anyone rights, its a red herring used by those arguing against gay marriage without understanding of the document and the Founding Fathers. The Constitution is a limit for the Government on what it can "do" to its Law Abiding, Tax Paying Citizenry.

A Gay Marriage "ban" is unconstitutional, not because it gives Gays some nebulous additional rights, but because the Government is refusing to bestow "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) onto a group of Tax Paying, Law Abiding Citizens, without a legal and Constitutional justification.

The Anti-Gay Marriage argument, has to be twisted into "It gives Gays a right" because they dont understand the fundamental Constitutional problem with the Government arbitrarily limiting "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) it offers to some Law Abiding, Tax Paying Citizens while not offering those same "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) uniformally.

 

[This_person]

Then you (and many others on here) should understand the framework of what the Constitution recognizes and the judge in this case ruled on.

The Constitution doesnt give anyone rights, its a red herring used by those arguing against gay marriage without understanding of the document and the Founding Fathers. The Constitution is a limit for the Government on what it can "do" to its Law Abiding, Tax Paying Citizenry.

A Gay Marriage "ban" is unconstitutional, not because it gives Gays some nebulous additional rights, but because the Government is refusing to bestow "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) onto a group of Tax Paying, Law Abiding Citizens, without a legal and Constitutional justification.

The Anti-Gay Marriage argument, has to be twisted into "It gives Gays a right" because they dont understand the fundamental Constitutional problem with the Government arbitrarily limiting "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) it offers to some Law Abiding, Tax Paying Citizens while not offering those same "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) uniformally.

If the question is whether DOMA is appropriate, we agree insofar as to say it is not.

However, granting same gendered relationships the status of "married" grants no one any more rights than anyone else. Denying same-gendered relationships the title of "married" denies no one any rights.

Until there is a sexual orientation requirement for a union between one man, one woman, who are old enough, willing, not too closely related already, and not already in another "marriage" the title of "marriage, there are no rights being granted nor denied anyone.

 

[philibusters]

Define gay for me. It is subjective. Sex is not (except in some cases). Race is not (at least in most cases). Science can determine Sex. Science can determine Race. Science can not determine gayness.

Gay people are people who are naturally attracted to people of the same sex.

I am not sure what you mean when you say its subjective. If the person is naturally attacted to people of the opposite sex they are not gay, if they are attracted to people of the same sex they are gay. Nothing subjective there, that is objective criteria. Perhaps you are referring to that you can't tell a gay person by their appearance, but you can't tell the religous belief of a perosn by their appearance either.

 

[foodcritic]

Gay people are people who are naturally attracted to people of the same sex.

So what if they are BI, transgendered, confused, hermaphrodites, transvestites, reformed or nambla members?

According to Fraud I mean Freud were all bi-sexual anyway....

Innate bisexuality, or predisposition to bisexuality, is an idea introduced by Sigmund Freud, based on work by his associate Wilhelm Fliess. According to this theory, all humans are born bisexual but through psychological development, which includes both external and internal factors, become monosexual while the bisexuality remains in a latent state

Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bcp]

So what if they are BI, transgendered, confused, hermaphrodites, transvestites, reformed or nambla members?

According to Fraud I mean Freud were all bi-sexual anyway....



Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

true hermaphrodites are scientifically proven. They out of the rest are the only ones that should be able to choose if they are male or female, and be allowed to marry whatever sex they dont consider themselves.
I would not include what I consider a birth defect into the same group that as far as science goes, is a choice.

 

[philibusters]

So what if they are BI, transgendered, confused, hermaphrodites, transvestites, reformed or nambla members?

Are we talking about marriage? If we are talking about marriage as long as they are both consenting adults I think they are good to. If you are talking about the discrimination with housing that JoeRider brought up earlier, I don't support laws against private discrimination but as for how to apply them, I would say that if he can be shown that discrimination against a particular person's sexual orientation (regardless of wether its straights discriminating against gays or vice versa) is the cause of the event, then it falls under the statute.

Remember the definition of marriage is being changed to accomodate gays, gays are not getting any special rights when it comes to the marriage issue. Everybody has the same rights, just the definition of marriage is changed. Therefore nobody has to prove they are gay or straight or anything, they just need to show they fall under the new marriage statute. It wouldn't matter if a gay person lied about being straight or vice versa they both have the right to enter into any marriage with one other consenting adult.

According to Fraud I mean Freud were all bi-sexual anyway....


Sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freud is dated so you need to read him for what he is dated, the same way you would read a medieval chemistry book where they were trying to turn some random worthless metal into gold, but fraud is too strong of a word. As for what Freud said about people's sexuality I don't know. I have read a few of his works in college, but never one that dealt with sexuality.

 

[JoeRider]

Then you (and many others on here) should understand the framework of what the Constitution recognizes and the judge in this case ruled on.

The Constitution doesnt give anyone rights, its a red herring used by those arguing against gay marriage without understanding of the document and the Founding Fathers. The Constitution is a limit for the Government on what it can "do" to its Law Abiding, Tax Paying Citizenry.

A Gay Marriage "ban" is unconstitutional, not because it gives Gays some nebulous additional rights, but because the Government is refusing to bestow "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) onto a group of Tax Paying, Law Abiding Citizens, without a legal and Constitutional justification.

The Anti-Gay Marriage argument, has to be twisted into "It gives Gays a right" because they dont understand the fundamental Constitutional problem with the Government arbitrarily limiting "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) it offers to some Law Abiding, Tax Paying Citizens while not offering those same "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) uniformally.

I disagree with you. The Constitution does give Rights. It does not give marriage rights, either way. When the Constitution does not address it, then State, local and Common Law applies. Tell me where in history Common law addresses gays before the 1960's and how does it address it. An after 200+ posts there is still not a good legal, measurable way to tell what someone's sexual orientation is. Bottom line is it is a lifestyle choice. No reason for the State to sanction that, just like there is no reason for the State to sanction people who like the taste of meat. There are people that are straight and chose not to marry;the State and Private sector treats them differently. It's really not about anti-gay, it really is about the state sanctioning a lifestyle choice that it actually should take no position on. It should be up to the voters to decide and they have. The problem is, the gay community does not agree with it. In 10 years when nobody gives a fly rats ass about it, it can come to a vote and you got your law. I think law history gives the State the right to sanction marriage between man and women. If gay want equality, then they should just get the State to stop sanctioning marriage between man and women, not the other way around.

 

[JoeRider]

Hey, I want to give everyone credit for not making blant personal attacks and have a good discussion. 200+ posts is pretty darn good.

 

[JoeRider]

Gay people are people who are naturally attracted to people of the same sex.

I am attracted to people who like to drink beer. So should I be able to marry them? What gays are looking for, they already have. The law allows partnerships and other legal arrangements. I can actually form a beer drinking organization that has legal standing and we could all share property and benefit from that relationship.

 

[philibusters]

I am attracted to people who like to drink beer. So should I be able to marry them? What gays are looking for, they already have. The law allows partnerships and other legal arrangements. I can actually form a beer drinking organization that has legal standing and we could all share property and benefit from that relationship.

Depends on the situation, but assuming you are not already marrried, Yes. Mutual interests is often how a Husband meets Wife or vice versa. If you meet somebody who shares your interest in beer go for it.

Marriage is more than such legal rights. Plus you cannot contract for all the legal rights marriage entails--some of it only marriage laws can bestow.

 

[Pushrod]

Then you (and many others on here) should understand the framework of what the Constitution recognizes and the judge in this case ruled on.

The Constitution doesnt give anyone rights, its a red herring used by those arguing against gay marriage without understanding of the document and the Founding Fathers. The Constitution is a limit for the Government on what it can "do" to its Law Abiding, Tax Paying Citizenry.

A Gay Marriage "ban" is unconstitutional, not because it gives Gays some nebulous additional rights, but because the Government is refusing to bestow "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) onto a group of Tax Paying, Law Abiding Citizens, without a legal and Constitutional justification.

The Anti-Gay Marriage argument, has to be twisted into "It gives Gays a right" because they dont understand the fundamental Constitutional problem with the Government arbitrarily limiting "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) it offers to some Law Abiding, Tax Paying Citizens while not offering those same "Rights and Benefits" (per the DOMA) uniformally.

That merits repeating because your one of the few that GET IT!!!

 

[Tilted]

Ughh, I'll never catch up to this thread. That's usually the case with these same-sex marriage threads (and threads on a few other topics) - they scatter in so many directions that it's hard to find the time to keep up (if you're giving substantive responses, that is).

 

[Tilted]

No, I am not the one that claimed it was a right.
it is up to those people that are wrongly saying that the gays are not getting equal rights to prove that they are not getting equal rights.
so far, nobody has been able to do that.

That marriage is a right has been established (Meyer, Loving, Griswold, Zablocki, etc.), but what has that to do with equal rights?

You appear to misapprehend the notion of equal protections - it doesn't depend on the character of a particular 'right' (i.e. whether it even is a right, per se), it depends on the character of the equality with which that 'right' is afforded.

None of us may have a right to chew bubble gum, but females almost certainly have a right to chew bubble gum to the extent that the government allows men to chew bubble gum. They have an equal protection right to chew bubble gum, not a substantive due process right to do so.

 

[Pushrod]

I disagree with you. The Constitution does give Rights. It does not give marriage rights, either way. When the Constitution does not address it, then State, local and Common Law applies.

That statement is so wrong from any viewpoint. The Constitution only enumerates inherent Rights that we have by birth. The BoR enumerates those Rights, as Nucklesack stated, as a barrier to the Federal Government that our Fundamental Rights are not infringeable. The Constitution does not GRANT or GIVE us any Rights, we are born with those Rights and they would exist whether or not there was a Constitution to protect them!

 

[Larry Gude]

Ughh, I'll never catch up to this thread. That's usually the case with these same-sex marriage threads (and threads on a few other topics) - they scatter in so many directions that it's hard to find the time to keep up (if you're giving substantive responses, that is).

Gay marriage, Tiki bar, anything about sex, page after page after page. If you want some peace and quiet and an easy to navigate and keep up with conversation you have to get into things that don't affect our day to day lives.

Like taxes. Fanny Mae. The takeover of GM. Deflation. You know, 'out there', unimportant, niche stuff.

 

[Tilted]

Marriage is a basic right as defined by the supreme court in Loving v. Virginia.

Really? This case was about RACE. Leftists like to equate sexual deviance with race but this is a red herring argument. One in which many in this forum dabble...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure if you were saying this to refute Merlin's point or not - but, it doesn't do so. Loving does say that marriage is a fundamental right. It doesn't just say that interracial marriage is a fundamental right. Whether the fundamental right it refers to includes the right to marry someone of the same-sex is yet to be authoritatively answered. As I've said many times, I suspect the Supreme Court will rule that it does not - but that will represent the Supreme Court distinguishing its prior decisions and further refining the scope of the marriage right. (It's worth noting that Loving was not the first, and it certainly isn't the only, Supreme Court case to acknowledge that marriage is a right.)

Loving was 'about' Virginia miscegenation laws, but it 'means' more than just that those laws were unConstitutional. That's usually the case with Supreme Court decisions. What the actual case was about can be fairly specific, but what the rulings mean can be quite broad - sometimes part of what they mean is essentially unrelated to the original controversy or question which was to be resolved. Those rulings contain reasoning and findings (and dicta) that go beyond the actual specific decision. For instance, in addition to invalidating the Virginia laws in question (and, effectively, similar laws in other states) and affirming that marriage is a fundamental right, the Loving opinion soundly rejects the 'equal application' line of reasoning as regards equal protection law. It tells us that equal application doesn't necessarily equate to equal protection. That supports the legal argument that same sex marriage restrictions are a classification on the basis of sex.

 

[Nucklesack]

Remember the definition of marriage is being changed to accomodate gays,

The Definition of Marriage, throughout history, has been changed numerous times by both Secular and Religious entities. This is not a new occurrence

• Marriage used to allow marriages in-family, it was redefined.
• Marriage used to allow kids to be married, it was redefined.
• Marriage used to prevent interracial marriages, it was redefined.
• Marriage is still arranged (in other societies) and was in the US, it was redefined in the US.
• Marriage used to be for the purpose of procreation, it was redefined.

The definition of Marriage is in no means a static definition

 

[Larry Gude]

The Definition of Marriage, throughout history, has been changed numerous times by both Secular and Religious entities. This is not a new occurrence

• Marriage used to allow marriages in-family, it was redefined.
• Marriage used to allow kids to be married, it was redefined.
• Marriage used to prevent interracial marriages, it was redefined.
• Marriage is still arranged (in other societies) and was in the US, it was redefined in the US.
• Marriage used to be for the purpose of procreation, it was redefined.

The definition of Marriage is in no means a static definition

Subversive! Insurgent! Enemy of the state! Shatter-er-er of cherished illusions!!!

Stone him!!!

 

[JoeRider]

The Definition of Marriage, throughout history, has been changed numerous times by both Secular and Religious entities. This is not a new occurrence

• Marriage used to allow marriages in-family, it was redefined.
• Marriage used to allow kids to be married, it was redefined.
• Marriage used to prevent interracial marriages, it was redefined.
• Marriage is still arranged (in other societies) and was in the US, it was redefined in the US.
• Marriage used to be for the purpose of procreation, it was redefined.

The definition of Marriage is in no means a static definition

Based on all the cases, the change was not from man and women. The basic premise still stands.

 

[JoeRider]

Depends on the situation, but assuming you are not already marrried, Yes. Mutual interests is often how a Husband meets Wife or vice versa. If you meet somebody who shares your interest in beer go for it.

Marriage is more than such legal rights. Plus you cannot contract for all the legal rights marriage entails--some of it only marriage laws can bestow.

Like what?