Equal marriage rights passed in NY

[Night Strike]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No, because the law didn't allow everyone to be on the same plane. Since a man could only marry some women, the amendment was being violated.

You wish to claim that is true because it matches your beliefs. There is, however no logical reason to deny homosexuals the same priviliages hetersexuals enjoy. The difference is just that you feel homosexuality violates your religion. Well, plenty in the south belief interracial marriage violates religion as well.

In order to prove a real distinction, you have to show how allowing these people to marry will cause you harm. So far, all you have said is "it changes the definition", along with some utterly irrelevant bit about how divorce is ruining the institution of marriage.

Oh.. by-the-way, by continuing to call this an "institution", you are actually violating your own arguments, because an institution is something established by the government.

That's fine if you believe that my overall position is illogical as I'm just arguing that denying homosexual marriage does not violate the Constitution as marriage is not a right. Once we stop these false claims about how every single desire is also a right, then we can actually debate whether or not homosexual marriages should be allowed.

[PLAYER57832]

That's fine if you believe that my overall position is illogical as I'm just arguing that denying homosexual marriage does not violate the Constitution as marriage is not a right.

Except, that when it was made illegal to say folks of different races could not marry, it was done under constitutional grounds.

Once we stop these false claims about how every single desire is also a right, then we can actually debate whether or not homosexual marriages should be allowed.

Cute... we know, anyone wanting anything with which you disagree is suddenly wanting the government to fulfill "every single desire". Trouble is, you seem to think its role is to fulfill YOUR desires. You only object when what other people want disagrees with your own desires.

You are not only hypocritical, but inconsistant in your views.

[Metsfanmax]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No, because the law didn't allow everyone to be on the same plane. Since a man could only marry some women, the amendment was being violated.

Everyone was on the same plane. Everyone had the same rule to follow regarding who they could marry: they could marry any woman with the same color skin. Textually, this is the same situation as the race question -- everyone follows the same law regarding who they can marry. The entire point of cases like Brown v. Board was that separate but equal is not a valid Constitutional defense regarding the 14th amendment even if both systems grant the same legal rights/privileges. If we ignore that precedent, then you'd have to conclude that the interracial marriage question is the same one -- everyone had the same protections under the law. That is, everyone had the same legal rules when deciding who to marry. It didn't matter that every woman was not a legal marriage choice for every man.

I know you're trying to say that because marriage is defined as a union between one woman and one man, and not as a union between any two people that love each other, the Constitution is being upheld. But in the time before interracial marriages were permitted, marriage was defined as a union between one woman and one man of the same race. We can change the legal definition of marriage to ensure that everyone has equal protections under the law. That is, in fact, what we must do and are Constitutionally bound to do.

[Night Strike]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No, because the law didn't allow everyone to be on the same plane. Since a man could only marry some women, the amendment was being violated.

Everyone was on the same plane. Everyone had the same rule to follow regarding who they could marry: they could marry any woman with the same color skin. Textually, this is the same situation as the race question -- everyone follows the same law regarding who they can marry. The entire point of cases like Brown v. Board was that separate but equal is not a valid Constitutional defense regarding the 14th amendment even if both systems grant the same legal rights/privileges. If we ignore that precedent, then you'd have to conclude that the interracial marriage question is the same one -- everyone had the same protections under the law. That is, everyone had the same legal rules when deciding who to marry. It didn't matter that every woman was not a legal marriage choice for every man.

I know you're trying to say that because marriage is defined as a union between one woman and one man, and not as a union between any two people that love each other, the Constitution is being upheld. But in the time before interracial marriages were permitted, marriage was defined as a union between one woman and one man of the same race. We can change the legal definition of marriage to ensure that everyone has equal protections under the law. That is, in fact, what we must do and are Constitutionally bound to do.

Because race is a Constitutionally protected state of being while sexual preference is not. That's why you can't equate race with homosexuality.

[thegreekdog]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No, because the law didn't allow everyone to be on the same plane. Since a man could only marry some women, the amendment was being violated.

Everyone was on the same plane. Everyone had the same rule to follow regarding who they could marry: they could marry any woman with the same color skin. Textually, this is the same situation as the race question -- everyone follows the same law regarding who they can marry. The entire point of cases like Brown v. Board was that separate but equal is not a valid Constitutional defense regarding the 14th amendment even if both systems grant the same legal rights/privileges. If we ignore that precedent, then you'd have to conclude that the interracial marriage question is the same one -- everyone had the same protections under the law. That is, everyone had the same legal rules when deciding who to marry. It didn't matter that every woman was not a legal marriage choice for every man.

I know you're trying to say that because marriage is defined as a union between one woman and one man, and not as a union between any two people that love each other, the Constitution is being upheld. But in the time before interracial marriages were permitted, marriage was defined as a union between one woman and one man of the same race. We can change the legal definition of marriage to ensure that everyone has equal protections under the law. That is, in fact, what we must do and are Constitutionally bound to do.

I wonder if the abolition of marriage as a state-imposed/regulated institution was used during the civil rights movement.

[Metsfanmax]

Because race is a Constitutionally protected state of being while sexual preference is not. That's why you can't equate race with homosexuality.

Race is not a "Constitutionally protected state of being." Please use more precise arguments if you're going to argue about the Constitution; there is no language in the Constitution that says anything of the sort. The only part of the Constitution that even makes reference to race is the Fifteenth Amendment, which of course says that the government may not discriminate based on race when deciding who to grant suffrage to. So I'm not sure where you came upon this idea that the Constitution has any caveats or beliefs about race other than that specific rule, but it is surely a false belief; I cannot understand, based on a reading of the Constitution, why you would say that the Constitution cares any more about race than it does sexual preference.

In fact, it is the Fourteenth Amendment itself that protects against general discrimination in the application of laws by the federal government, and the text of this amendment does not make any reference to race or any other specific state of being. It simply says "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I simply cannot see, based on the reading of this text, how one could conclude that the government can discriminate based on sexual preference but not on race.

[Woodruff]

To be honest, I've never really understood the worship of the constitution in some parts of American politics. Don't misunderstand me- it's a brilliant document, and well worthy of respect, but for me its major achievement is that it can be amended, and even that those amendments can be reversed. It's a living document, and that's what makes it so great.

I consider myself to be a Constitutionalist. By that, I feel that our government should follow the Constitution precisely...of course that INCLUDES the capability to amend the Constitution when necessary.

[Woodruff]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No, because the law didn't allow everyone to be on the same plane. Since a man could only marry some women, the amendment was being violated.

I would suggest to you that the current stance on homosexual marriages falls under precisely that same argument. Instead of correlating "can only marry some women", it simply becomes "can only marry some individuals".

[natty dread]

Oh hey Nightstrike, you never answered this:

a) a man can only marry some women
b) a man can only marry women

How is a different from b?

[Night Strike]

Oh hey Nightstrike, you never answered this:

a) a man can only marry some women
b) a man can only marry women

How is a different from b?

Because it's not equal protection for all when you narrow down to only some women as opposed to any woman. But once it's that you can marry any woman, society is not forced to change it to become any one. Society has decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and since we aren't arbitrarily excluding some men or some women, equal protection is maintained and homosexuals do not have to be given that privilege of marriage.

[Woodruff]

Oh hey Nightstrike, you never answered this:

a) a man can only marry some women
b) a man can only marry women

How is a different from b?

Because it's not equal protection for all when you narrow down to only some women as opposed to any woman. But once it's that you can marry any woman, society is not forced to change it to become any one. Society has decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and since we aren't arbitrarily excluding some men or some women, equal protection is maintained and homosexuals do not have to be given that privilege of marriage.

Did you notice the point I made in my last post regarding this position of yours? How do you avoid that?

[Night Strike]

Oh hey Nightstrike, you never answered this:

a) a man can only marry some women
b) a man can only marry women

How is a different from b?

Because it's not equal protection for all when you narrow down to only some women as opposed to any woman. But once it's that you can marry any woman, society is not forced to change it to become any one. Society has decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and since we aren't arbitrarily excluding some men or some women, equal protection is maintained and homosexuals do not have to be given that privilege of marriage.

Did you notice the point I made in my last post regarding this position of yours? How do you avoid that?

Because as Phatscotty has frequently pointed out, there ARE (obvious) differences between male and female. But those differences do not translate to areas such as race, which is why those distinctions are not allowed.

[AndyDufresne]

Because it's not equal protection for all when you narrow down to only some women as opposed to any woman. But once it's that you can marry any woman, society is not forced to change it to become any one. Society has decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and since we aren't arbitrarily excluding some men or some women, equal protection is maintained and homosexuals do not have to be given that privilege of marriage.

By the logic you mention, can't Society also decide that marriage should be further defined to allow same-sex marriages?


--Andy

[Night Strike]

Because it's not equal protection for all when you narrow down to only some women as opposed to any woman. But once it's that you can marry any woman, society is not forced to change it to become any one. Society has decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and since we aren't arbitrarily excluding some men or some women, equal protection is maintained and homosexuals do not have to be given that privilege of marriage.

By the logic you mention, can't Society also decide that marriage should be further defined to allow same-sex marriages?


--Andy

Yes they can, which is what I've said before. But it cannot be claimed to be a right that is being violated via the 14th Amendment protections, which is what is always argued. If society wants to change their definitions, then so be it (although I will continue to oppose the change). But we cannot be wasting time and arguments saying that marriage is a right and that homosexuals are having their rights violated when there is no violation.

[Woodruff]

Oh hey Nightstrike, you never answered this:

a) a man can only marry some women
b) a man can only marry women

How is a different from b?

Because it's not equal protection for all when you narrow down to only some women as opposed to any woman. But once it's that you can marry any woman, society is not forced to change it to become any one. Society has decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and since we aren't arbitrarily excluding some men or some women, equal protection is maintained and homosexuals do not have to be given that privilege of marriage.

Did you notice the point I made in my last post regarding this position of yours? How do you avoid that?

Because as Phatscotty has frequently pointed out, there ARE (obvious) differences between male and female. But those differences do not translate to areas such as race, which is why those distinctions are not allowed.

You actually believe that is a good reason why the 14th Amendment should apply only to "women" and not to "individuals" even though the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything at all about the sex of individuals being relevant? As I said then, I would suggest to you that the current stance on homosexual marriages falls under precisely that same argument. Instead of correlating "can only marry some women", it simply becomes "can only marry some individuals". This seems to fall under the spirit of the 14th Amendment much more appropriately.

Because it's not equal protection for all when you narrow down to only some women as opposed to any woman. But once it's that you can marry any woman, society is not forced to change it to become any one. Society has decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and since we aren't arbitrarily excluding some men or some women, equal protection is maintained and homosexuals do not have to be given that privilege of marriage.

By the logic you mention, can't Society also decide that marriage should be further defined to allow same-sex marriages?

Yes they can, which is what I've said before. But it cannot be claimed to be a right that is being violated via the 14th Amendment protections, which is what is always argued. If society wants to change their definitions, then so be it (although I will continue to oppose the change). But we cannot be wasting time and arguments saying that marriage is a right and that homosexuals are having their rights violated when there is no violation.

While it's true that homosexual marriage isn't necessarily a "right", it is also true that rights are being violated DUE to the lack of capability for homosexuals to enter into the same sort of a legal contract that marriage is for heterosexuals. For instance, the right to make legal medical decisions for your "life partner" that are afforded to married couples.

[PLAYER57832]

Because it's not equal protection for all when you narrow down to only some women as opposed to any woman. But once it's that you can marry any woman, society is not forced to change it to become any one. Society has decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and since we aren't arbitrarily excluding some men or some women, equal protection is maintained and homosexuals do not have to be given that privilege of marriage.

By the logic you mention, can't Society also decide that marriage should be further defined to allow same-sex marriages?


--Andy

Yes they can, which is what I've said before. But it cannot be claimed to be a right that is being violated via the 14th Amendment protections, which is what is always argued. If society wants to change their definitions, then so be it (although I will continue to oppose the change). But we cannot be wasting time and arguments saying that marriage is a right and that homosexuals are having their rights violated when there is no violation.

The problem is that these are EXACTLY the arguments used to oppose mixed race marriage. They failed then. Why do you feel they should succeed now?

and.. you have yet to answer my earlier question. What is so terrible for society about having homosexuals marry that merely recognizing them will cause anyone else a problem?

[BigBallinStalin]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No- it's different. I'm against marrying a person of another race- it's not a right granted by the constitution.

I'm now in favour of people marrying a person of a different race- it's in the constitution.

Of course, now, in the present day, I think that the constitution is pretty changeable and basing moral opinions on what should or shouldn't be allowed solely based on it seems a little ridiculous to me.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this.

It's another patrickaa317 hiding his dislike for homosexuals behind a process which just so happens to align with his own bias.

[Metsfanmax]

Because race is a Constitutionally protected state of being while sexual preference is not. That's why you can't equate race with homosexuality.

Race is not a "Constitutionally protected state of being." Please use more precise arguments if you're going to argue about the Constitution; there is no language in the Constitution that says anything of the sort. The only part of the Constitution that even makes reference to race is the Fifteenth Amendment, which of course says that the government may not discriminate based on race when deciding who to grant suffrage to. So I'm not sure where you came upon this idea that the Constitution has any caveats or beliefs about race other than that specific rule, but it is surely a false belief; I cannot understand, based on a reading of the Constitution, why you would say that the Constitution cares any more about race than it does sexual preference.

In fact, it is the Fourteenth Amendment itself that protects against general discrimination in the application of laws by the federal government, and the text of this amendment does not make any reference to race or any other specific state of being. It simply says "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I simply cannot see, based on the reading of this text, how one could conclude that the government can discriminate based on sexual preference but not on race.

Reposting this because it's important. I'm not talking about rights. Neither should anyone else. The Fourteenth Amendment isn't about rights. It simply says that you cannot write a law that only applies to some subset of the population, that discriminates against others due to some arbitrary standard. It may be convenient for you to paint our position as defending marriage as a right because that is easier to attack, but I'm not doing that. I would be just as happy if no one was allowed to enter into a state-sanctioned marriage. As long as everyone follows the same rules, it's constitutional.

[Symmetry]

The 14th Amendment IS being upheld with the current definition: all men can marry one woman at one time. Conversely, All women may marry one man at one time. That is why laws against interracial marriages violated the Constitution: Some men could only marry some women, therefore there was no equal protection. Because it's impossible for the law to state that marriage is between people that like/love each other, then there is no issue for equal protection for homosexuals.

Laws against interracial marriage said that any man could marry any woman with the same color skin. That is, everyone had the same requirement: you can only marry one woman/man whose skin color is the same as yours. That sounds pretty equal to me, no? Everyone has the same rule to follow.

No- it's different. I'm against marrying a person of another race- it's not a right granted by the constitution.

I'm now in favour of people marrying a person of a different race- it's in the constitution.

Of course, now, in the present day, I think that the constitution is pretty changeable and basing moral opinions on what should or shouldn't be allowed solely based on it seems a little ridiculous to me.

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on this.

It's another patrickaa317 hiding his dislike for homosexuals behind a process which just so happens to align with his own bias.

"It's not in the constitution", to clarify, really has no weight with me as an argument. It may as well be "I just think it's right", or "that's just my opinion" for all the weight it carries as an argument. It may well be correct that that's a person's opinion, but it's massively weak as an argument.

[Woodruff]

Dear Tea Partiers:

[john9blue]

Dear Tea Partiers:

you think tea partiers are against gay marriage? wtf lol... f*ck fox news, they're the reason people think this stuff.

[Woodruff]

you think tea partiers are against gay marriage? wtf lol... f*ck fox news, they're the reason people think this stuff.

I'm sorry you are unable to laugh. I don't watch Fox News other than when Jon Stewart is making fun of them.

[john9blue]

you think tea partiers are against gay marriage? wtf lol... f*ck fox news, they're the reason people think this stuff.

I'm sorry you are unable to laugh. I don't watch Fox News other than when Jon Stewart is making fun of them.

not saying you did. i'm about to puke from all these words you're stuffing in my mouth!

fox news helped publicize the tea party, and in doing so inserted a more socially conservative agenda, presumably to pander more to their viewers. this neo-tea party is the one that is hated on by the left (for good reason). you don't need to watch fox news to be influenced by them.

[Woodruff]

you think tea partiers are against gay marriage? wtf lol... f*ck fox news, they're the reason people think this stuff.

I'm sorry you are unable to laugh. I don't watch Fox News other than when Jon Stewart is making fun of them.

not saying you did. i'm about to puke from all these words you're stuffing in my mouth!

I guess you've decided that this defense has worked so well for Phatscotty that you're going to start using it yourself?

[john9blue]

what defense? i explained what i meant in my post. come on man.