Gay Marriage

[dewey316]

I think that's bull shit. Marriage is handled at the state level. Abortion should also be handled at the states level. Show me where in the constitution that Marriage is guaranteed as a civil liberty and I will eat my hat.

The supreme court seems to think the constitution guarantees marriage. From the Loving V. Virginia majority opinion:

Whoooo, woooo woooo. You can not use that quote from that, without the context of ruling that have come out based on that ruling, and what it does and does not extend to.

For example, in the ruling on Hernandez v. Robles by the NY Court of Appeals.

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation

On one last note, BK, your argument has no merit, it actualy makes any sound argument you make look bad. We can all discuss this topic, without resorting to straw-men and slippery-slopes.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Hmm... well, first of all, you misunderstand my motivations and you mislabel me as a conservative. On social issues, I'm as liberal as one gets. As long as you're not hurting someone else, do whatever the hell you want.

Second, there is nothing in the actual language of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing any of the rights to marriage, the rights to enter into contracts, or any of the other things that the Supreme Court has, since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, deemed to be rights under the 14th Amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

I never said there was. I said the SC said the constitution did, as a basic civil right, though I admit that's dubious. I suppose, theoretically, a state could ban marriage altogether; but any state offering it is compelled by the 14th amendment to offer it to all consenting, competent adults.

Based entirely on Supreme Court precedent and interpretation of the 14th Amendment, there are certain rights, such as those enumerated in Lawrence v. Texas, that are covered by the 14th Amendment. It is illogical, unreasonable, and inconsistent not to extend the 14th Amendment to polygamy when the Supreme Court has extended the 14th Amendment to the right to marriage. Similarly, it is illogical, unreasonable, and inconsistent not to extend the 14th Amendment to bestiality when the Supreme Court has extended the 14th Amendment to the right to anal sex between consenting males.

you are as dumb as half a bag of rocks. not even a full bag. just half a bag.

go back and re-read my post on this as many times as it takes to actually understand the words I said.

Finally, I don't know what a "canard" is, but I'm not using these propositions as an argument against the right to gay marriage. I'm saying, if one thinks there is a right to gay marriage somewhere in the Constitution, why is there not a right to polygamy in the Constitution? If you're against polygamy being a right, you're no better than someone who is against homosexual marriage being a right.

once again, read what I have said on this. polygamy is not a 14th amendment issue because marriage by definition limits the number of participants to 2. legalizing it requires an honest to god redefinition of marriage that would have absolutely nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

[b.k. barunt]

I think that's bull shit. Marriage is handled at the state level. Abortion should also be handled at the states level. Show me where in the constitution that Marriage is guaranteed as a civil liberty and I will eat my hat.

The supreme court seems to think the constitution guarantees marriage. From the Loving V. Virginia majority opinion:

Whoooo, woooo woooo. You can not use that quote from that, without the context of ruling that have come out based on that ruling, and what it does and does not extend to.

For example, in the ruling on Hernandez v. Robles by the NY Court of Appeals.

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation

On one last note, BK, your argument has no merit, it actualy makes any sound argument you make look bad. We can all discuss this topic, without resorting to straw-men and slippery-slopes.

I stand corrected. Your "Wooooooo wooooooo wooooooooo" obviously contains more meritous and substantive quality than anything i've said thus far.


Honibaz

[dewey316]

once again, read what I have said on this. polygamy is not a 14th amendment issue because marriage by definition limits the number of participants to 2. legalizing it requires an honest to god redefinition of marriage that would have absolutely nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

Same coin, different side. The SC has also upheld that the definition is for a limit of the number of 2, but also to two members of the opposite sex.

[dewey316]

I stand corrected. Your "Wooooooo wooooooo wooooooooo" obviously contains more meritous and substantive quality than anything i've said thus far.

I'm hold the same view as you do on this. I am pointing out that the slippery slope style argument, tends get people on the defensive, and is also a logical fallacy, I more than welcome anything you can add to the discussion.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I think that's bull shit. Marriage is handled at the state level. Abortion should also be handled at the states level. Show me where in the constitution that Marriage is guaranteed as a civil liberty and I will eat my hat.

The supreme court seems to think the constitution guarantees marriage. From the Loving V. Virginia majority opinion:

Whoooo, woooo woooo. You can not use that quote from that, without the context of ruling that have come out based on that ruling, and what it does and does not extend to.

For example, in the ruling on Hernandez v. Robles by the NY Court of Appeals.

Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation

On one last note, BK, your argument has no merit, it actualy makes any sound argument you make look bad. We can all discuss this topic, without resorting to straw-men and slippery-slopes.

if such a narrow view on the reason for marriage's existence is applied, then the infertile should be similarly banned from marrying.

rather, I think the spirit of the Loving decision is that marriage is not an institution that can be limited by biology, and that two consenting adults cannot be denied the right arbitrarily. There is no sound reason why two men or two women should not be allowed to marry each other, whereas denying them this right denies them equal protection under the law. Just because Earl Warren wasn't a member of Code Pink doesn't mean that the decision isn't applicable today. If marriage truly is inextricable from procreation under the eyes of the law, then as I said, it should only be a right extended to those who can and will bear children.

[SultanOfSurreal]

once again, read what I have said on this. polygamy is not a 14th amendment issue because marriage by definition limits the number of participants to 2. legalizing it requires an honest to god redefinition of marriage that would have absolutely nothing to do with the 14th amendment.

Same coin, different side. The SC has also upheld that the definition is for a limit of the number of 2, but also to two members of the opposite sex.

jesus christ

it is legal to limit the number of participants in a contract.

it is not legal to discriminate on the basis of sex.

this is the difference. read this until it sticks. I know it will, eventually.

[dewey316]

read this until it sticks. I know it will, eventually.

I can read it over and over, and realise that it still doesn't agree with current legal rulings. Did you read the the quote I posted? Maybe if you re-read the full text of the case ruling you tried to use, you would realise that the court rulings on this subject do not agree with your conclusion.

[jay_a2j]

This is not an issue in which the government should have it's nose in. (like that will stop them) Marriage is a religious issue.

That's ridiculous.

Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

[b.k. barunt]

I stand corrected. Your "Wooooooo wooooooo wooooooooo" obviously contains more meritous and substantive quality than anything i've said thus far.

I'm hold the same view as you do on this. I am pointing out that the slippery slope style argument, tends get people on the defensive, and is also a logical fallacy, I more than welcome anything you can add to the discussion.

Has anyone ever told you that you take yourself waaay too seriously? Well i'm not going to do that, but you obviously took my posts waaay too seriously. Do you actually think i'd want to marry myself? * * other self asserts dominance * * Don't listen to him - the bastard's been promising to leave his wife for years. He told me we were made for each other. * * sob * *


Bizarro Honibaz

[SultanOfSurreal]

This is not an issue in which the government should have it's nose in. (like that will stop them) Marriage is a religious issue.

That's ridiculous.

Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

fall off a bridge

tia

[Neoteny]

This is not an issue in which the government should have it's nose in. (like that will stop them) Marriage is a religious issue.

That's ridiculous.

Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

I'm not saying his faith his wrong, I'm saying the thought process is wrong for thinking a marriage is purely religious. At the moment, it is not.

[jay_a2j]

This is not an issue in which the government should have it's nose in. (like that will stop them) Marriage is a religious issue.

That's ridiculous.

Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

I'm not saying his faith his wrong, I'm saying the thought process is wrong for thinking a marriage is purely religious. At the moment, it is not.

If there is a law stating that same sex couple can marry, you know as well as I, the above scenario will be commonplace. The government is forcing it's will on the Church. (or any faith that is opposed to gay marriage)

fall off a bridge

You first.

[dewey316]

Has anyone ever told you that you take yourself waaay too seriously?

Its always good to know, that there is still one person takes me seriously.

[InkL0sed]

What if it's against a doctor's religion to treat black people? Would it be legal for that doctor to refuse to treat a black person?

The answer is no, we as a society have decided that is not acceptable.

[SultanOfSurreal]

fall off a bridge

You first.

ooooh, vicious burn dude

but seriously though, you are basically human detritus

[b.k. barunt]

Has anyone ever told you that you take yourself waaay too seriously?

Its always good to know, that there is still one person takes me seriously.

* * puts arm around Bizarro Honibaz * * I know exactly what you mean.


Honibaz

[jay_a2j]

What if it's against a doctor's religion to treat black people? Would it be legal for that doctor to refuse to treat a black person?

The answer is no, we as a society have decided that is not acceptable.

If there is such a religion.


Pro-life doctors getting jailed/sued for refusing to preform abortions.

Let's keep this in perspective. You as a society may have decided that God's laws are not acceptable. Well guess what? There are plenty of people in that same society who disagree with you. You can not run a country based on majority wins. (The bailouts are a good example except ass-backward. The majority were against them...but Uncle Sam went ahead and did it anyways) And it's not even a majority, its special interest groups lobbying the bajeeba's out of lawmakers. Give me a break. They have civil unions. Draw up a will with his/her name as the benefituary and stop shoving your lifestyle in our faces.

[SultanOfSurreal]

What if it's against a doctor's religion to treat black people? Would it be legal for that doctor to refuse to treat a black person?

The answer is no, we as a society have decided that is not acceptable.

If there is such a religion.


Pro-life doctors getting jailed/sued for refusing to preform abortions.

Let's keep this in perspective. You as a society may have decided that God's laws are not acceptable. Well guess what? There are plenty of people in that same society who disagree with you. You can not run a country based on majority wins. (The bailouts are a good example except ass-backward. The majority were against them...but Uncle Sam went ahead and did it anyways) And it's not even a majority, its special interest groups lobbying the bajeeba's out of lawmakers. Give me a break. They have civil unions. Draw up a will with his/her name as the benefituary and stop shoving your lifestyle in our faces.

I am extremely disheartened to see that you're not taking my advice, it was genuine and the best you are likely to receive from anyone else

[nique]

Can I start of by saying how awesome it is to see so much support for gays like me on CC!

I think it's brilliant that Patterson has come out in favour of gay marriage and really important too. With Prop 8 failing in California due, in part, to its wide support within the African America community, I think it's really really critical that an accomplished African American Democrat Gov like Patterson is showing his support for the legislation. Hopefully that will make its way into African American communities who will start to see the similarities between the former bans on interracial marriage and the current bans on same-sex marriage. The whole point of a representative democracy is that a minority cannot have its rights taken away by the majority! Unfortunately, this seems to happen rather a lot anyway. "Majority rules" can lead to bad bad things...

Anyway, as a gay New Yorker living abroad (where I have most of the same rights - god bless the UK) I'm really looking forward to the day when I can pass through security at JFK with my WIFE (who's British) and hand in a single family immigration form and not have to tick 'Single' on my tax returns.

If anyone's really really interested, there's an act going through congress at the moment: Uniting American Families Act, which would change life for people like me (ex-pat homos with non-American partners). Please lend you support. For more information go here:
Senate:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S424:
House: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.1024:

Down with DOMA!

[nique]

One more thing that really bugs me - being gay has as much to do with sex and what people do with their genitals as much as being straight does!

Put it this way - gay marriage is as much about sex as hetero marriage is. I really wish people would stop fetishizing and distilling homosexuality to sexual acts. It's really degrading.

It's not about specifics acts. It's about the commitment, the love and the relationship.

Why don't people get that?

[Dancing Mustard]

You as a society may have decided that God's laws are not acceptable. Well guess what? There are plenty of people in that same society who disagree with you.

But not enough of them to win an election, or to successfully lobby the legislature.

You know, just like that group of religious people who ardently believe that we ought to legalise non-voluntary female-genital-mutilation and who are pro marital rape. We as a society have decided that their God's laws are unacceptable, and we happily prohibit them from following them... why do you think your particular fairy-tale ought to get any special treatment?

You can not run a country based on majority wins.

Oh I see... that's only acceptable when your guy wins. Makes perfect sense.

Seriously, get over it already. You lost the election (Vote Ron Paul!!!1). The majority has spoken, and you are not one of them. Quit whining that the process didn't do exactly what you wanted, your odd little minority can't have its way all the time.

stop shoving your lifestyle in our faces.

...and the same to you. Stop shoving your rigidly heterosexual lifestyle doctrine in theirs.

Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean that you're not 'shoving it in peoples faces'. You're guilty of all the things that you're complaining about. Just let people live their lives the way that they want to (or have your libertarian urges deserted you now that people aren't just doing exactly what you tell them to?)

[captain.crazy]

This is not an issue in which the government should have it's nose in. (like that will stop them) Marriage is a religious issue.

That's ridiculous.

Is it now? Lets say you and your gay lover want to be married. So you go to a Baptist minister to be married. The minister says, "I can not marry you, it is against the teachings of my faith." The minister is then jailed for refusing to marry you (because it's now law) and/or you and your lover sue him. Must he violate his faith in order to not violate the law?

fall off a bridge

tia

Actually, unless I am mistaken, a minister can refuse to marry anyone they do not believe is getting married for the right reason. To their digression, they can interview a couple (human... bestiality candidates excluded ) and determine if they are getting married for the right reasons. If he believes that they are not, he can simply say, sorry, I will not marry you. No law is broken.

[Dancing Mustard]

That's ridiculous. If a minister refuses to marry somebody, then he ought to be dragged naked through the streets and beaten with birch-rods until he relents.

[captain.crazy]

That's ridiculous. If a minister refuses to marry somebody, then he ought to be dragged naked through the streets and beaten with birch-rods until he relents.

yeah, that'll teach em'

Its funny to me when "liberals" jack up "red necks" for their lynch mob mentality, but boy a lot of liberals are really looking like a lynch mob these days...