Question about all these gay marriages

[tlatchaw]

Re: Yep...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
...imagine the reaction if mayors just started handing out liscences to carry guns left and right to anyone who wanted one because they felt citizens had a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Imagine.

What if mayors just started handing out business liscences to anyone who wanted one because they felt they had a 14th amendment right to equal protection or that the commerce clause entitled them to one.

What if mayors just said "hey, Joe Millionaire, give all the money you want to the candidate of your choice because you and I both feel it's a 1st amendment right".

What if mayors just started passing out medical marijuana passes to anyone who wanted one because Roe v. Wade clearly gives a person the right to privacy?

What if mayors just said "Here, have your property taxes back" to anyone who wanted it back because they felt it was in violation to the Constitutions protections against search and seizure.

What if mayors just opened up the jail and said "You know what, George Washington owned slaves, so, who are we to judge you? Bye bye!".

What if mayors just say "Hey, kids are going to do it anyway! No more age limit on smokes and brewskis! The Constitution probably means, somewhere, that kids have rights to!"

How about we just start driving on the left side of the road? The other states will catch on!

We want our kids to drive at 12! The other states will catch on!

We've decided on our own new interpretaion of contract law.

Let's just say "screw it all! What do you want the law to mean today??? Stautory rape? She was ALMOST 18!! Put a billboard in your front yard? Sure! How about a ferris wheel too! I love the circus!"

People are not fighting for a seat in the front of the bus. People are not engaging in civil disobedience to get an education.

What if I said to my people "Here, I'm not collecting state and federal witholding anymore fro myour paychecks, nor SS/med. It's your money!!! Do as you please with it!!!"

What if...

Excellent point. When officials start taking the law into their own hands they are inviting societal chaos.

IMHO the only people who will benefit from this whole flap will be the lawyers. There will be LOTS more divorcesif all of this comes to pass, and until it does there are all the lawsuits and annulments and doubtless other legal wrnaglings involved with this mess. The lawyers always win.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by dems4me
Thanks Ken, but I have some gay friends that are also confused as to their rights. They would like legal benefits of spouses, etc... would the state civil union grant it to them...

That is what I thought the Civil Union was for.

...is the only difference for marriage being that their marriage is recognized by the eyes of the Lord in a church or something??

People still get married at the courthouse and by JPs, so I don't think marriage is an exclusively religious term, though many do.

Yes, I believe all of this is building up precedent to make it irrefutable to deny by the time it reaches the Supreme Court. I think that is why Bush has now declared proposing a constitutional amendment. I think they are all doing this legally.

The ability to obtain a same-sex union/marriage should be set by the states. How those union/marriages are treated beyond the issuing state borders might make it to the Supreme Court but it seems clear that they should be recognized as current marriages are.

I don't see Congress passing an ammendment and then having it ratified by the states. One thing for sure though, until something is done this will continue to be a hot topic.

 

[Tonio]

Good points, Ken. I'm not an expert, but I think that civil unions still lack some of the legal things that come with marriage licenses. One that's been cited many times has to do with medical decisions for severly ill partners. I've heard of many cases where the ill partner's estranged family took control of the care, because the other partner was "not a family member" even with a civil union.

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by Ken King
That is what I thought the Civil Union was for.

People still get married at the courthouse and by JPs, so I don't think marriage is an exclusively religious term, though many do.
The ability to obtain a same-sex union/marriage should be set by the states. How those union/marriages are treated beyond the issuing state borders might make it to the Supreme Court but it seems clear that they should be recognized as current marriages are.

I don't see Congress passing an ammendment and then having it ratified by the states. One thing for sure though, until something is done this will continue to be a hot topic.

not recognized as current marriages. Homo's can be homo's but not married.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by Tonio
Good points, Ken. I'm not an expert, but I think that civil unions still lack some of the legal things that come with marriage licenses. One that's been cited many times has to do with medical decisions for severly ill partners. I've heard of many cases where the ill partner's estranged family took control of the care, because the other partner was "not a family member" even with a civil union.

I haven't looked at the laws of the five or so states that have some form of recognition for same-sex unions, but I think that one of the goals of those seeking them is what you have stated above. You would think that since common-law marriages are recognized, even if all states do not allow them to take place in their state, that this would be a no-brainer.

 

[Penn]

Oookaaay, here's a slightly different slant.......should we legalise incest, as well as Gay Marriages?

What if two close family members love each other, shouldn't they have the right to a marriage or civil union under the equal protection clause?:shrug:

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by penncam
Oookaaay, here's a slightly different slant.......should we legalise incest, as well as Gay Marriages?

What if two close family members love each other, shouldn't they have the right to a marriage or civil union under the equal protection clause?:shrug:

Why not? They only produce hermaphrodites!

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by penncam
Oookaaay, here's a slightly different slant.......should we legalise incest, as well as Gay Marriages?

What if two close family members love each other, shouldn't they have the right to a marriage or civil union under the equal protection clause?:shrug:

Or again, is this a matter for each state to decide? Some states let you marry your first cousin, some second cousins, and so forth, haven't seen one where you can marry a parent or sibling yet.

I take it you have a family reunion coming up and want to expand the eligibility pool a little?

 

[workin hard]

I'm jumping in without reading the entire forum but I believe that marriage was intended for a man and a woman and that it is something sacred between a man and a woman. Marriage between males and females has been around for centuries, I don't understand the need to change it now.

 

[dems4me]

Originally posted by ceo_pte
not recognized as current marriages. Homo's can be homo's but not married.

does this mean there is progress being made in your opinion of a gay person:shrug:

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by workin hard
I'm jumping in without reading the entire forum but I believe that marriage was intended for a man and a woman and that it is something sacred between a man and a woman. Marriage between males and females has been around for centuries, I don't understand the need to change it now.

Exactly. But some people have wishy-washy morals and the tend to sway with society. I firmly believe as you do.

 

[Penn]

Stanley Kurtz - Who's the Next State to Drop?

Another interesting article from the National Review.

It also contains some information about what different states are contemplating as solutions to the gay marriage question.

One of the issues is that most states' constitutions list marriage as between a husband and wife.

On the surface, that seems pretty cut and dry; but many fear our activist court system will find loopholes around such a time honored tradition.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by Ken King
Or again, is this a matter for each state to decide? Some states let you marry your first cousin, some second cousins, and so forth, haven't seen one where you can marry a parent or sibling yet.

I take it you have a family reunion coming up and want to expand the eligibility pool a little?

Funny you should mention that; I just got back from upstate NY, visiting the remaining (straight)relatives still hangin' around up there.

Sheesh! They're still digging out from the last snowstorm.

And no, my friend - while we both spent nearly the same amount of time in the Air Force, and experienced many of the same cultures around the country, I would not want to follow in your footsteps that far.

 

[ceo_pte]

Originally posted by penncam
Stanley Kurtz - Who's the Next State to Drop?

Another interesting article from the National Review.

It also contains some information about what different states are contemplating as solutions to the gay marriage question.

One of the issues is that most states' constitutions list marriage as between a husband and wife.

On the surface, that seems pretty cut and dry; but many fear our activist court system will find loopholes around such a time honored tradition.

I see a reap what you sow, moral experience in the states that allow it. It's clear, you sow corn seeds you get corn. If you sow impure & immoral seeds that's what you are going to reap. This is a bad move for Mass. and I bet it brings tons of legal, financial, & civil problems to a state that's not up to par. Heck they only went billions of dolllars and 10 years over on their tunnel project in Boston.

 

[ylexot]

Originally posted by Tonio
Good points, Ken. I'm not an expert, but I think that civil unions still lack some of the legal things that come with marriage licenses. One that's been cited many times has to do with medical decisions for severly ill partners. I've heard of many cases where the ill partner's estranged family took control of the care, because the other partner was "not a family member" even with a civil union.

Medical decisions can easily be handled by legal documentation. You don't even have to have a "civil union". However, I think the biggest legal benefit in marriage that can't be accomplished with the current civil union legal documents is social security benefits for the surviving partner.

 

[donbarzini]

One question:

Who gets the kids? Mommy or mommy?

 

[Larry Gude]

Utah, King size bed and you...

http://www.absalom.com/mormon/polygamy/faq.htm

Interesting reading.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by penncam
And no, my friend - while we both spent nearly the same amount of time in the Air Force, and experienced many of the same cultures around the country, I would not want to follow in your footsteps that far.

I never realized that you had given any thought of changing to a "straight" lyfestyle such as I lead. Do as you like, after all it is don't ask, don't tell.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by Ken King
Some states let you marry your first cousin, some second cousins, and so forth, haven't seen one where you can marry a parent or sibling yet.

However, if and when gay marriages are nationally legalized, how far behind it does the cause of incest-minded types become?

I don't have much of a beef about gay people entering into a civil union, either for their own legal protection, for the sake of their ill-health partners, or for any benefits.

I'm not comfortable with attaching the term "marriage" to any union they enter into, period.

To my way of thinking, it defaces, it debases, ridicules and makes a mockery of what I have believed to be the holy state of matrimony, as I've come to understand it.

Bill Bennett had some interesting thoughts about the subject on Fox News last night, where he made the case that as a society we've made a point of stretching the moral fiber of the ways and the hows of which we live.

We are so into "experimenting" with tradition, that merely wanting to "break" it is sound enough reason to change or alter what has been traditional for many centuries.

It's been said that "records were made to be broken", as in athletic limits, but for what honest cause are we racing ahead for
down this avenue?

Steve Kurtz, I think, in the NRO seems to think we are headed for millions of legal filings on behalf of gays, their spouses and lawyers, in the months and years to come.

THE LAWYERS: They are eyeballing these court suits with dollar signs- $$$$$ - in their their orbital sockets, salivating at the thought of all that income; and to be on center stage as well!!

Who pays for these trials, who "foots" the bills for these suits?

Any chance the monies will come out our collective pockets?-- Nah, not MY pocket right?