Gay Marriage

[Moi]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Why is who can get married a constitutional matter? Laws have changed, and still vary from state to state, about marriage ages, rights, etc. In fact it seems quite constitutionally permissable to change or expand laws about marriage in our country's legislative bodies. Why would our Constitution suddenly have bearing in the case of gays, except in the case of federal vs. state jurisdictions?

I didn't claim the Constitution did or didn't. My question is to the first poster who claimed that the Constitution specifically permitted them. I'd like to know the factual basis for that assertion.

 

[Dan]

I'm gonna weigh in on this one...

Jim, you have a lot of medical evidence for homosexuals having more chances of cancer, etc. My question is, do you think that only married homosexuals are having sex? Also, I'm pretty sure most of us here aren't gay, so why should we care whether they get married and do potentially unhealthy things? Is it our (or the constitution's) place to stop people from doing potentially dangerous things? They should probably outlaw bungee jumping as well, or at the very least, cigarettes.

Janeen, I don't think a child would really realize that having 2 dads or moms is weird, at least not until he got to school. And to tell the truth, who here didn't get made fun of for something they had no control over in school? Kids are going to be cruel to each other for one reason or another.

 

[jimnyc]

Jim, you have a lot of medical evidence for homosexuals having more chances of cancer, etc. My question is, do you think that only married homosexuals are having sex?

Not at all. But married or not, the increase in possible transmission is there.

Also, I'm pretty sure most of us here aren't gay, so why should we care whether they get married and do potentially unhealthy things?

The spread of disease, we are all vulnerable in various different ways.

Is it our (or the constitution's) place to stop people from doing potentially dangerous things?

If it could transmit disease and endanger others, yes.

They should probably outlaw bungee jumping as well, or at the very least, cigarettes.

Does the possible harm from these activities make others vulnerable?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
I didn't claim the Constitution did or didn't. My question is to the first poster who claimed that the Constitution specifically permitted them. I'd like to know the factual basis for that assertion.

Does the Constituion specifically permit me to run down the street yelling "screw the world!". No, but I think I can saftely assert taht doing so is constitutuionally permissable. (It might not be municipally permissable if I'm breaking a noise violation, though.)

 

[Dan]

Does the possible harm from these activities make others vulnerable?

Second-hand smoke.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Dan
Second-hand smoke.

Are there any laws enacted to protect innocent people from second hand smoke?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Dan
I'm gonna weigh in on this one...

Jim, you have a lot of medical evidence for homosexuals having more chances of cancer, etc. My question is, do you think that only married homosexuals are having sex? Also, I'm pretty sure most of us here aren't gay, so why should we care whether they get married and do potentially unhealthy things? Is it our (or the constitution's) place to stop people from doing potentially dangerous things? They should probably outlaw bungee jumping as well, or at the very least, cigarettes.

An interesting question about whether laws are or should be enacted to protect society. Every single law ever enacted in this country is about morality and safety. It's easy to claim that morality has no place in politics and the law but the fact is that it does. It's just harder to swallow when a person doesn't agree with the particular moral stance behind a specific law.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Not at all. But married or not, the increase in possible transmission is there.

So then this is irrelevant to the issue of marriage.




"The spread of disease, we are all vulnerable in various different ways."

Which marriage would help to prevent.



"If it could transmit disease and endanger others, yes."

Which could imply outlawing homosexuality and even promiscuity in general. But monogamous married couples cannot spread disease to or endanger others.



"Does the possible harm from these activities make others vulnerable? "

No, not outside the boundaries of marriage.

I've seen some houses of cards before, but rarely one so ready to collapse as this.

 

[Dan]

An interesting question about whether laws are or should be enacted to protect society. Every single law ever enacted in this country is about morality and safety. It's easy to claim that morality has no place in politics and the law but the fact is that it does. It's just harder to swallow when a person doesn't agree with the particular moral stance behind a specific law.

True, but don't you think that realistically it would be more or less impossible to outlaw gay marriage on the basis of a higher rate of anal cancer?

 

[BleedingHeart]

Many of you have asked me WHERE in The Constitution it says that Gay Marriage is permissible. The fact is, The Constitution does not STATE "GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL." However, to understand the basis of the Constitutional basis of this argument, we must first understand what IS Constitutional Law. Constitutional Law is 1) Laws, guidelines, and freedoms granted and protected BY The Constitution, 2)Precedents by court cases and 3)Statute Law.

Coming from Amendment XIV, whether you call marriage a right (deserving equal protection under the law) or whether you call it a priviledge, the argument really does stop here:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. "

Following that, also in Amendment XIV, (especially concerning the numerous 'ban on same-sex marriage' proposals the Republicans in Congress have tried to pass:
"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "

However, since marriage is largely a State issue, the only thing that the Federal government CAN do is tell the states that they are not allowed to discriminate against gays. Again, the question here is not if gay marriage is RIGHT or WRONG, the question is whether discrimination is RIGHT or WRONG. Lets move on to the courts:

The Hawaii Supreme Court specifically stated that banning gay marriages is discrimination in 1993. Today most legislatures define marriage as a union "between one man and one woman," yet, about 30 years ago, most legislatures definitions of marriage excluded not only gays, but also interracial couples.

The Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws in certain states earlier this year, 2003, because the Constitution did not state that the government could regulate homosexual activity.


Now, I asked for LEGAL arguments people, yet, I haven't seen ONE yet. I've seen medical facts and I've seen bigotry. Legal. Legal. Legal.

OK, now, on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban thread, JimNYC is commenting against my friend KEEBS because now, she is blocked. We have both decided that this site is not made up of too many intelligent people, and have decided to move to another website where we are able to attain some valid legal arguments to back up what one's opinions are. Have a very good conservative life!

*Oh, and this may not seem like alot of arguments for legalized gay marriage, but it is alot more than any of you can come up with against it. LOL, haaaaaave fun!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Dan
True, but don't you think that realistically it would be more or less impossible to outlaw gay marriage on the basis of a higher rate of anal cancer?

How many states permit gay marriages now? I wouldn't say it's impossible.

And you cite one problem when there are an abundance of STD's that exist at a MUCH higher rate amongst gays.

Having them get married to alleviate the problem is like giving intravenous drug users fresh needles to solve theirs.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BleedingHeart
Oh, and this may not seem like alot of arguments for legalized gay marriage, but it is alot more than any of you can come up with against it. LOL, haaaaaave fun!

Why do I need to? Is it currently legal and accepted everywhere?

I have no need to defend it until it is protected by law, which it's not.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc

Having them get married to alleviate the problem is like giving intravenous drug users fresh needles to solve theirs.

If intravenous drug users didn't share needles it wouldn't solve all their problems, but it certainly would prevent a big one, for both them and us. Unlike intravenous drugs, however, homosexuality is legal.

 

[eric]

Look, personally I detest homosexuality, as does Jim and many other men, but I do say "live and let live". I hold no animosity toward gay people, as long as it is not thrown in my face or forced upon me in any way. You want to be gay, your choice, its cool, but don't stand in my road with a sign "Were gay, get used to it". Bullshit, I don't have to get used to anything, if you think this furthers their cause you are gravely mistaken, and please never try and claim that it is normal. Normalicy is an abstract idea, very hard to define, but I think nature sets an example we can look to. There is no homosexuality in nature, period. A male dog does not mount another male dog because he is gay, it is for the purpose of social dominance. Homosexuality serves no purpose in nature at all, so to me it is not normal.

You want to give gay couples the legal rights that hetrosexuals enjoy, fine, no argument here, but there is no need to redefine Marriage. It is once again a situation where if we change its definition for homosexuals then we have to change it for every other group. The next thing you know we will have men wedding sheep, you say this is silly, well I think marriage between two men is silly, so we can't go there. Marriage should remain the way it is, everything else we can call a civil union. One final thought that I do not have time for right now, but will address latter, I do not think that for the most part, children should be raised in gay households. This has nothing to do with gay or straight, I just believe children need a balance of male and female influences.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jimnyc
How many states permit gay marriages now? I wouldn't say it's impossible.

And you cite one problem when there are an abundance of STD's that exist at a MUCH higher rate amongst gays.

Having them get married to alleviate the problem is like giving intravenous drug users fresh needles to solve theirs.

I'm sorry i don't quite see the angle between high rate of STD's in gays and gay marriage. The reason for such high rate of STD's in homosexuals was in all honesty the over the top homosexual liberation during the 80's. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have a high chance of getting STD's from a lifestyle of excessive random sexual encounters.

Marriage for gays would use the tried and true tradition of heterosexual marriage to promote monogamy. What's so wrong with that? It can't be like "giving intravenous drug users a fresh needle" because that is exactly what we already do in heterosexual marriage.

 

[Moi]

I had a feeling that Article 14 would come into play some where.

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 don’t think banning same-sex marriages in any way deprives a person of life – we’re not suggesting killing them (at least not by banning marriage between them); depriving them of liberty- again, banning marriage does not deprive them of their liberty; so that leaves only property- again, a ban on marriage itself doesn't’t deny them their property.

As far as the equal protection clause, marriage doesn’t protect nor fail to protect anyone. Therefore barring someone from marriage doesn’t contravene this either.

On a more global scale, however, it’s pretty clear through out time that the way the supreme court and lawmakers handle things is tied to public opinion. How else can you explain prohibition, slavery and a whole host of other flip flops? And the fact that the supreme court is currently interpreting this issue one way in no way determines what will always be the case.

Lastly, I just don’t see that Article 14 is as absolute as you think it is. There are instances when life, liberty and property and privileges can be withheld and not everyone is given the equal protection of the laws. There are certainly laws being upheld every day which deny people their rights or privileges: seatbelt laws, child pornography laws, anti-smoking bans, age limits, etc.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BleedingHeart
OK, now, on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban thread, JimNYC is commenting against my friend KEEBS because now, she is blocked. We have both decided that this site is not made up of too many intelligent people, and have decided to move to another website where we are able to attain some valid legal arguments to back up what one's opinions are. Have a very good conservative life!

Yes, she was banned. Abuse of the forums will not be tolerated here. Posting long winded messages over and over in various threads condemning the moderators of this board is unacceptable.

Enjoy the intelligence you find elsewhere.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Does the Constituion specifically permit me to run down the street yelling "screw the world!". No, but I think I can saftely assert taht doing so is constitutuionally permissable. (It might not be municipally permissable if I'm breaking a noise violation, though.)

Oh, and yes, the Constitution specifically states that the "Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech..." That is only one of the only three specific freedoms mentioned in the document.

 

[BleedingHeart]

I'm really sorry if you define "abuse of the forums" as stating intelligent points, and actually reading people's responses fully, quoting them, and responding to them in a clear coherent way.

Intelligence that I find elsewhere? No, that would mean that there is intelligence here, and the only intelligence I found here was a few people: SLClemens, Dan and Issac Brock.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by BleedingHeart
I'm really sorry if you define "abuse of the forums" as stating intelligent points, and actually reading people's responses fully, quoting them, and responding to them in a clear coherent way.

It's abuse when the post made has absolutely nothing to do with the thread it's posted in, and the poster constantly calls the moderators "assholes". It was meant to be disruptive. She was warned not to do it again after it was edited out. She posted the same thing again in another thread that had absolutely nothing to do with what she was posting.

Bottom line - she was both warned and edited a few times before being banned. Simply put, she couldn't follow rules.