How Is It Legal????

[WorldWatcher]

Thanks for supporting my point.
Female is a gender. No female is barred from marrying any male she wants, with some exceptions.
Male is a gender. No male is barred from marrying any female he wants, with some exceptions.
There is no gender discrimination. There is no discrimination at all.

The point you appear to be trying to make, badly, is that the discrimination must be evaluated based on the individual. That is not the case. Colored people were allowed to marry other people, with some exceptions. Using your logic the SCOTUS would have found no discrimination occurred because colored people were allowed to marry

That logic failed then also.

So, from the following list please identify the characteristic which differentiates legally being able to Civilly Marriage:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

An honest answer is not hard to do.

[

An honest answer is that civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation.

So rights are evaluated on the individual?

That was proven wrong in Loving v. Virginia, colored people could marry as the State argued. Didn't fly, the law was struck down because of it's treatment of the couple.

Your statement that Civil Marriage is available only to members of the opposite sex (a biological condition) is structured the same as the States argument that colored people could marry in their own race (a biological condition).

I agree, technically speaking the laws are not written based on sexual orientation - however they are restrictive based on gender.

Thanks for again proving there is no discrimination based on sexual preference.

I didn't say it was, technically speaking the discriminating characteristic is gender.

Boy you guys are really failing badly here. Your arguments seem to come down to: 1) We will overcome as soon as enough unelected judges are pressured into seeing it our way, or 2) it is just like civil rights all over again.
Both are failures. The first because it is empowers a judicial tyranny, which is not what the country was founded on.

Let's review what I actually said that you snipped out:

The trend is toward equal recognition of Same-sex Civil Marriages, a trend likely to continue as the younger generation which does not hold the same bias as ours become more politically influential.

In 2000 and 2004 votes denying equal treatment of Same-sex Civil Marriage passed with 23%-76% margins of victory. The last two votes (CA Prop 8 and MA Question 1) were down to the point where a 2-3% shift in the vote would have changed the outcome and polls show a continued trend toward more acceptance. As a matter of fact the first successful "win" at the polls for equal treatment of same-sex couples, in terms of Civil Marriage, may happen this year in either Washington or Maine.

I don't see judges mentioned at all.


Also, there are 8 legal entities where Same-Sex Civil Marriage has been legalized (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington and Washington, D.C.). 62.5% of those entities approved Same-sex Civil Marriage as a function of Legislative action with no court order. If you believe gains in Same-sex Civil Marriage equality were achieve only by judical action...

........... You are wrong.

Second, because gays are not blacks and the parallels are simply not there.

Discrimination based on a biological condition has very close parallels, whether it be gender or race the similarities are there.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Sure, marriage is not a right defined by the federal Constitution. If you read the document, you'll see "marriage" is not an enumerated power. Therefore, it is left to the states to decide if any definition, regulation, or laws are needed with regard to marriage.

You changed "right" to "power" from the post to your response.

Right's need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist.

True. Neither is power. Actually:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So states clearly have the power to define marriage.

Of course they do, however they do not have the power to define marriage through the creation of capricious and invidious laws specifically to deny people their rights and all rights need not be enumerated for them to be held.

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 14
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.​

>>>>

 

[eflatminor]

Sure, marriage is not a right defined by the federal Constitution. If you read the document, you'll see "marriage" is not an enumerated power. Therefore, it is left to the states to decide if any definition, regulation, or laws are needed with regard to marriage.

You changed "right" to "power" from the post to your response.

Right's need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist.

True. Neither is power. Actually:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So states clearly have the power to define marriage.

You are correct, the states do have that power. I just happen to think we'd all be better off if states chose to NOT define marriage...and leave it up to the people.

 

[KevinWestern]

So states clearly have the power to define marriage.

Rabbi, what do you think about the idea of getting the government out of the "marriage" business completely, and simply perform only civil unions on couples straight and gay to cover all the standard legal bases like right to medical records, ect.

The term "Marriage" could then be left up to the religious, spiritual, or non-spiritual organizations to define on their own without any government intervention.

Doing this would (a) limit the power of our government by putting the power back into the hands of the individual, and (b) save our government all the time we've been wasting debating about "marriage" so they can instead focus on more pertinent issues like the economy.

 

[The Rabbi]

You changed "right" to "power" from the post to your response.

Right's need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist.

True. Neither is power. Actually:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So states clearly have the power to define marriage.

You are correct, the states do have that power. I just happen to think we'd all be better off if states chose to NOT define marriage...and leave it up to the people.

California did exactly that. Several times. It wasn't good enough for the fags and they took it to court.

 

[The Rabbi]

The point you appear to be trying to make, badly, is that the discrimination must be evaluated based on the individual. That is not the case. Colored people were allowed to marry other people, with some exceptions. Using your logic the SCOTUS would have found no discrimination occurred because colored people were allowed to marry

That logic failed then also.

So, from the following list please identify the characteristic which differentiates legally being able to Civilly Marriage:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

An honest answer is not hard to do.

[

An honest answer is that civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation.

So rights are evaluated on the individual?

That was proven wrong in Loving v. Virginia, colored people could marry as the State argued. Didn't fly, the law was struck down because of it's treatment of the couple.

Your statement that Civil Marriage is available only to members of the opposite sex (a biological condition) is structured the same as the States argument that colored people could marry in their own race (a biological condition).

I agree, technically speaking the laws are not written based on sexual orientation - however they are restrictive based on gender.





I didn't say it was, technically speaking the discriminating characteristic is gender.

Wow, fallacy piled on putting words in my mouth piled on moving the goalposts.
Was the 19th amendment based on individual characteristics or applicable to a group? Obviously the latter. You have shown better than I can that marriage laws apply to groups, not individuals. You are clearly wrong here.
There is no prohibition on disciminating in marriage on the basis of gender. Please provide proof there is.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You changed "right" to "power" from the post to your response.

Right's need not be enumerated in the Constitution for them to exist.

True. Neither is power. Actually:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So states clearly have the power to define marriage.

You are correct, the states do have that power. I just happen to think we'd all be better off if states chose to NOT define marriage...and leave it up to the people.

Could you provide some specifics of how that would work, that "leave it up to the people" part. Nice sounding meme, but when it comes to the law specifics are required.


Here are some items that you could expand upon and how the government is supposed to recognize the establishment of a legal family/spousal status where one has not existed before:

1. Income tax law and joint filing.

2. Inheritance tax law and tax free property transfer to a spouse. (No recognition by the government and all that inheritance not becomes income.)

3. Sale of a home after a spouse dies. (Currently a spouse can claim the married exemption for up to two years after the sale of a home when a spouse dies instead the one based on their legal status - which is now single.)

4. Social Security Spousal Benefit. (When a spouse dies, the surviving spouse can draw their benefit based on the higher amount based on their earned income or that of the spouse.)

5. Family Medical Leave Act provides that a spouse can have job protected leave from work to care for an immediate family member (including a spouse). If there is no legal recognition of what "spouse" means how would employers apply that law?

6. Immigration law. (Currently spouses of US Citizen have priority status for obtaining legal immigration.)

7. Privileged communications between spouses in a criminal case. (In most States a spouse cannot be forced to testify against a spouse.)

8. Veteran's Burial. (An honorably discharged veteran can be buried in a National Veteran's Cemetery and their spouse can be buried with them.)

9. Taxation of employer benefits. (Currently, employer benefits provided to cover the spouse are not charged as income, and therefore not taxed, by the employee. Without a definition and recognition of a spouse, this would become income and taxable.)

10. Parentage of children. (Every state establishes that for a child born into a Civil Marriage, that the members of that Civil Marriage become the legal parents.)

11. Then there are those things the impact the military: increased allowance for quarters when there is a spouse, spousal medical coverage, increased weight allowance to transfer on PCS orders with a spouse, government paid travel for a spouse on PCS order, life insurance and death benefit qualification, etc...​

So, if there is no government defined Civil Marriage and therefore no recognition under the law (because as soon as you define recognition, then you have defined the entity) - how well do you think us heterosexuals in a Civil Marriage are going to react to the idea of taking away tax free property inheritance, social security benefits, FMLA to care for the sick or injured, spousal immigration, child parentage, military spousal recognition and then tell us we have to pay even more in taxes to cover the employers portion of insurance that is now treated as income.

Ya, I think that will be real popular.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

An honest answer is that civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation.

So rights are evaluated on the individual?

That was proven wrong in Loving v. Virginia, colored people could marry as the State argued. Didn't fly, the law was struck down because of it's treatment of the couple.

Your statement that Civil Marriage is available only to members of the opposite sex (a biological condition) is structured the same as the States argument that colored people could marry in their own race (a biological condition).

I agree, technically speaking the laws are not written based on sexual orientation - however they are restrictive based on gender.





I didn't say it was, technically speaking the discriminating characteristic is gender.

Wow, fallacy piled on putting words in my mouth piled on moving the goalposts.

What fallacy and where did I put words in your mouth?

Was the 19th amendment based on individual characteristics or applicable to a group? Obviously the latter. You have shown better than I can that marriage laws apply to groups, not individuals. You are clearly wrong here.

Yet you appear to be the one that tries to imply that gender based discrimination is not discrimination because the individual is allowed to marry.

For example you recently said "civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation." That means that if an individual woman can marry - it matters not if who she agrees to marry is limited by gender since she as an individual can marry. Just as a colored person was free to marry in the Loving case, as long as the person was of the same race.

So let's be clear, are you saying the right to Civilly Marry is measured based on the individual (a man can marry, so it's OK to limit it to opposite gender or a colored can marry, so it's OK to limit it to the same race) OR are you saying that the right is representative by the couple (man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman similar to colored and colored and colored and white)?

There is no prohibition on disciminating in marriage on the basis of gender. Please provide proof there is.

I already did, the characteristic the differentiates between legal and illegal in the case of Civil Marriage is:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

Gender.


>>>>

 

[eflatminor]

True. Neither is power. Actually:

So states clearly have the power to define marriage.

You are correct, the states do have that power. I just happen to think we'd all be better off if states chose to NOT define marriage...and leave it up to the people.

Could you provide some specifics of how that would work, that "leave it up to the people" part. Nice sounding meme, but when it comes to the law specifics are required.


Here are some items that you could expand upon and how the government is supposed to recognize the establishment of a legal family/spousal status where one has not existed before:

1. Income tax law and joint filing.

2. Inheritance tax law and tax free property transfer to a spouse. (No recognition by the government and all that inheritance not becomes income.)

3. Sale of a home after a spouse dies. (Currently a spouse can claim the married exemption for up to two years after the sale of a home when a spouse dies instead the one based on their legal status - which is now single.)

4. Social Security Spousal Benefit. (When a spouse dies, the surviving spouse can draw their benefit based on the higher amount based on their earned income or that of the spouse.)

5. Family Medical Leave Act provides that a spouse can have job protected leave from work to care for an immediate family member (including a spouse). If there is no legal recognition of what "spouse" means how would employers apply that law?

6. Immigration law. (Currently spouses of US Citizen have priority status for obtaining legal immigration.)

7. Privileged communications between spouses in a criminal case. (In most States a spouse cannot be forced to testify against a spouse.)

8. Veteran's Burial. (An honorably discharged veteran can be buried in a National Veteran's Cemetery and their spouse can be buried with them.)

9. Taxation of employer benefits. (Currently, employer benefits provided to cover the spouse are not charged as income, and therefore not taxed, by the employee. Without a definition and recognition of a spouse, this would become income and taxable.)

10. Parentage of children. (Every state establishes that for a child born into a Civil Marriage, that the members of that Civil Marriage become the legal parents.)

11. Then there are those things the impact the military: increased allowance for quarters when there is a spouse, spousal medical coverage, increased weight allowance to transfer on PCS orders with a spouse, government paid travel for a spouse on PCS order, life insurance and death benefit qualification, etc...​

So, if there is no government defined Civil Marriage and therefore no recognition under the law (because as soon as you define recognition, then you have defined the entity) - how well do you think us heterosexuals in a Civil Marriage are going to react to the idea of taking away tax free property inheritance, social security benefits, FMLA to care for the sick or injured, spousal immigration, child parentage, military spousal recognition and then tell us we have to pay even more in taxes to cover the employers portion of insurance that is now treated as income.

Ya, I think that will be real popular.



>>>>

All of these are obstacles put into place by laws and tax code that need not, and should not, exist. There need be no rules for 'joint filing' nor an inheritance tax. All of these tax issues go away with a simple, flat, across the board tax. Or better yet, get the government to live within the confines of the Constitution and you don't need an income tax...but I digress.

If there is a reason for the government to know who a person has appointed as the recipient or caretaker of their personal business, as in the case of immigration or a veteran, the government only needs a name, not a definition of the relationship.

This is far easier fix than you think but I must ask, how is the current way of doing it working out?

 

[The Rabbi]

So rights are evaluated on the individual?

That was proven wrong in Loving v. Virginia, colored people could marry as the State argued. Didn't fly, the law was struck down because of it's treatment of the couple.

Your statement that Civil Marriage is available only to members of the opposite sex (a biological condition) is structured the same as the States argument that colored people could marry in their own race (a biological condition).

I agree, technically speaking the laws are not written based on sexual orientation - however they are restrictive based on gender.





I didn't say it was, technically speaking the discriminating characteristic is gender.

Wow, fallacy piled on putting words in my mouth piled on moving the goalposts.

What fallacy and where did I put words in your mouth?

Was the 19th amendment based on individual characteristics or applicable to a group? Obviously the latter. You have shown better than I can that marriage laws apply to groups, not individuals. You are clearly wrong here.

Yet you appear to be the one that tries to imply that gender based discrimination is not discrimination because the individual is allowed to marry.

For example you recently said "civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation." That means that if an individual woman can marry - it matters not if who she agrees to marry is limited by gender since she as an individual can marry. Just as a colored person was free to marry in the Loving case, as long as the person was of the same race.

So let's be clear, are you saying the right to Civilly Marry is measured based on the individual (a man can marry, so it's OK to limit it to opposite gender or a colored can marry, so it's OK to limit it to the same race) OR are you saying that the right is representative by the couple (man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman similar to colored and colored and colored and white)?

There is no prohibition on disciminating in marriage on the basis of gender. Please provide proof there is.

I already did, the characteristic the differentiates between legal and illegal in the case of Civil Marriage is:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

Gender.


>>>>

You seem unable to comprehend simple concepts.
1) Rights apply across the board. Every woman has the same right to marry as every other woman. Thus your constant harping on segregation is wrong, because there not every woman had the same rigth as every other woman.
2)You fail to show that not allowing men to marry men is prohibited anywhere. The prohibition applies regardless of gender. Therefore there can be no gender discrimination taking place. The rules apply equally.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are correct, the states do have that power. I just happen to think we'd all be better off if states chose to NOT define marriage...and leave it up to the people.

Could you provide some specifics of how that would work, that "leave it up to the people" part. Nice sounding meme, but when it comes to the law specifics are required.


Here are some items that you could expand upon and how the government is supposed to recognize the establishment of a legal family/spousal status where one has not existed before:

1. Income tax law and joint filing.

2. Inheritance tax law and tax free property transfer to a spouse. (No recognition by the government and all that inheritance not becomes income.)

3. Sale of a home after a spouse dies. (Currently a spouse can claim the married exemption for up to two years after the sale of a home when a spouse dies instead the one based on their legal status - which is now single.)

4. Social Security Spousal Benefit. (When a spouse dies, the surviving spouse can draw their benefit based on the higher amount based on their earned income or that of the spouse.)

5. Family Medical Leave Act provides that a spouse can have job protected leave from work to care for an immediate family member (including a spouse). If there is no legal recognition of what "spouse" means how would employers apply that law?

6. Immigration law. (Currently spouses of US Citizen have priority status for obtaining legal immigration.)

7. Privileged communications between spouses in a criminal case. (In most States a spouse cannot be forced to testify against a spouse.)

8. Veteran's Burial. (An honorably discharged veteran can be buried in a National Veteran's Cemetery and their spouse can be buried with them.)

9. Taxation of employer benefits. (Currently, employer benefits provided to cover the spouse are not charged as income, and therefore not taxed, by the employee. Without a definition and recognition of a spouse, this would become income and taxable.)

10. Parentage of children. (Every state establishes that for a child born into a Civil Marriage, that the members of that Civil Marriage become the legal parents.)

11. Then there are those things the impact the military: increased allowance for quarters when there is a spouse, spousal medical coverage, increased weight allowance to transfer on PCS orders with a spouse, government paid travel for a spouse on PCS order, life insurance and death benefit qualification, etc...​

So, if there is no government defined Civil Marriage and therefore no recognition under the law (because as soon as you define recognition, then you have defined the entity) - how well do you think us heterosexuals in a Civil Marriage are going to react to the idea of taking away tax free property inheritance, social security benefits, FMLA to care for the sick or injured, spousal immigration, child parentage, military spousal recognition and then tell us we have to pay even more in taxes to cover the employers portion of insurance that is now treated as income.

Ya, I think that will be real popular.



>>>>

All of these are obstacles put into place by laws and tax code that need not, and should not, exist. There need be no rules for 'joint filing' nor an inheritance tax. All of these tax issues go away with a simple, flat, across the board tax. Or better yet, get the government to live within the confines of the Constitution and you don't need an income tax...but I digress.

Well in general I can't agree more. Do away with all the tax schemes (sales, property, income, etc.) and embedded taxes and reduce everything down to three: Federal, State, and Local. Here's the single percentage, this is your share.

If there is a reason for the government to know who a person has appointed as the recipient or caretaker of their personal business, as in the case of immigration or a veteran, the government only needs a name, not a definition of the relationship.

Recipients and caretakers are two different things to begin with. A recipient of an inheritance is much different then the Executor of the Estate (caretaker).

The government isn't just recognizing a name of a person identified, they are verifying that a legal family relationship has been established by two consenting adults where no family relationship has existed before.

The items show above are not just available to anyone whose name is submitted, they exist as part of a formal legal entity (Civil Marriage) created to combine the existence of two strangers.

This is far easier fix than you think but I must ask, how is the current way of doing it working out?

Well, I've been married to my wife going on 25-years now, and all in all I must say pretty good. During my 20-years in the United States Navy I was able to deploy and know that the medical needs of my wife would be taken care of while I was away from home, which included two pregnancies where she had preeclampsia where she needed monitoring. We met in Japan then moved to Tennessee then to Guam and finally to Virginia when I changed stations and we did not have to worry about the 10's of thousands of dollars in costs it would have taken for her to follow me as a result of permanent reassignments.

I've been paying into Social Security since I was 18-years old, we as a family have made choices which allowed me to excel in my career and even though she is a working Mom she at times has had to put her career on the back burner to because we've moved or she had to be there for the kids. As a result I've always been the higher wage earner then her. It's good to know that, given her sacrifices, that she would be able to draw Social Security based on my income since she was instrumental in the process. Because she is my wife, I also have to option to ensure that she would receive part of my military retirement in the event I pass before she does. If I die, because she is my spouse, she will be able to inherit the full title to our home without being taxed and will be able to sell it if needed (within 2-years) and still claim the married exemption.

So ya, it's worked out pretty well over the last 25-years. When people say they don't want government recognizing marriage at all, very few have thought out what that really means based on an honest evaluation of the close interrelationship of Civil Marriage to the realities of today.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wow, fallacy piled on putting words in my mouth piled on moving the goalposts.

What fallacy and where did I put words in your mouth?



Yet you appear to be the one that tries to imply that gender based discrimination is not discrimination because the individual is allowed to marry.

For example you recently said "civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation." That means that if an individual woman can marry - it matters not if who she agrees to marry is limited by gender since she as an individual can marry. Just as a colored person was free to marry in the Loving case, as long as the person was of the same race.

So let's be clear, are you saying the right to Civilly Marry is measured based on the individual (a man can marry, so it's OK to limit it to opposite gender or a colored can marry, so it's OK to limit it to the same race) OR are you saying that the right is representative by the couple (man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman similar to colored and colored and colored and white)?

There is no prohibition on disciminating in marriage on the basis of gender. Please provide proof there is.

I already did, the characteristic the differentiates between legal and illegal in the case of Civil Marriage is:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

Gender.


>>>>

You seem unable to comprehend simple concepts.
1) Rights apply across the board. Every woman has the same right to marry as every other woman. Thus your constant harping on segregation is wrong, because there not every woman had the same rigth as every other woman.
2)You fail to show that not allowing men to marry men is prohibited anywhere. The prohibition applies regardless of gender. Therefore there can be no gender discrimination taking place. The rules apply equally.

I comprehend your arguments very well, they were tried before and failed.

"Coloreds had rights that were applied across the board. Every colored person has the same right to marry someone of the same race as everyone else."​

We look at that statement today (well most of us) and see it for what it was when presented during Loving, that is hogwash. Same with your trying to parse every woman has the same right to marry, as long as it's a man. The rules back then were defended as not being discriminatory because the rules were applied equally. Today we (well a growing number) laugh at that silly rationalization.

In addition, go back and read my posts I have not attempted to show that "not allowing men to marry men is prohibited anywhere". What is the basis of my argument is that for the government to discriminate against like situated individuals (in the case of individual rights) or couples (in the case of group rights (i.e. race or gender) that under the Grievance Clause of the First Amendment the government must show a compelling government interest to justify such discrimination. In this case, the two most like situated groups (or couples if you will) are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship who are allowed to Civilly Marry compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship who are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

To date, no justifiable government compelling reason has been presented to warrant such discrimination, and no - tradition, religion, and ick - are not compelling government reasons.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

True. Neither is power. Actually:

So states clearly have the power to define marriage.

You are correct, the states do have that power. I just happen to think we'd all be better off if states chose to NOT define marriage...and leave it up to the people.

California did exactly that. Several times. It wasn't good enough for the fags and they took it to court.

Just like the interracial couples did when states enacted ant-miscegenation laws. Gonna call them names too?

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are correct, the states do have that power. I just happen to think we'd all be better off if states chose to NOT define marriage...and leave it up to the people.

California did exactly that. Several times. It wasn't good enough for the fags and they took it to court.

Just like the interracial couples did when states enacted ant-miscegenation laws. Gonna call them names too?

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

Shhhhh - some people refuse to recognize the structure of the arguments used to justify discrimination based on biological factors. Race and gender, which of course are both biological.


>>>>

 

[theHawk]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

None of the so called "ban on gay marriages" actually forbid, ban, or criminalize people for gay marriages. So no one is voting on people's rights. All they are voting on is what the state recognizes as a marriage.

No one's rights are being "put to vote".

Try reading actual text of legislation for once instead of listening to what the media calls it.

 

[theHawk]

You are correct, the states do have that power. I just happen to think we'd all be better off if states chose to NOT define marriage...and leave it up to the people.

California did exactly that. Several times. It wasn't good enough for the fags and they took it to court.

Just like the interracial couples did when states enacted ant-miscegenation laws. Gonna call them names too?

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

Incorrect. Those laws actually criminalized interracial marriages.

There is no law criminalizing gay marriage anywhere in the US.

 

[eflatminor]

The government isn't just recognizing a name of a person identified, they are verifying that a legal family relationship has been established by two consenting adults where no family relationship has existed before.

Exactly, which is what I'm saying need NOT be done. All the government HAS to do (in the case of immigration, military, etc), is to know WHO that person is, regardless of the relationship. The government need not "verify that a legal family relationship has been established", only that two consenting adults have agreed.

In other words, that formal legal entity need not be defined by anything other than the names on paper...and then only in cases where the government has a legitimate reason to know who your caretaker, recipient, etc is.

 

[eflatminor]

California did exactly that. Several times. It wasn't good enough for the fags and they took it to court.

Just like the interracial couples did when states enacted ant-miscegenation laws. Gonna call them names too?

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

Incorrect. Those laws actually criminalized interracial marriages.

There is no law criminalizing gay marriage anywhere in the US.

This ^ is correct.

 

[The Rabbi]

What fallacy and where did I put words in your mouth?



Yet you appear to be the one that tries to imply that gender based discrimination is not discrimination because the individual is allowed to marry.

For example you recently said "civil marriage is available to anyone marrying the opposite gender regardless of their sexual orientation." That means that if an individual woman can marry - it matters not if who she agrees to marry is limited by gender since she as an individual can marry. Just as a colored person was free to marry in the Loving case, as long as the person was of the same race.

So let's be clear, are you saying the right to Civilly Marry is measured based on the individual (a man can marry, so it's OK to limit it to opposite gender or a colored can marry, so it's OK to limit it to the same race) OR are you saying that the right is representative by the couple (man and woman, man and man, or woman and woman similar to colored and colored and colored and white)?



I already did, the characteristic the differentiates between legal and illegal in the case of Civil Marriage is:

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal​

Gender.


>>>>

You seem unable to comprehend simple concepts.
1) Rights apply across the board. Every woman has the same right to marry as every other woman. Thus your constant harping on segregation is wrong, because there not every woman had the same rigth as every other woman.
2)You fail to show that not allowing men to marry men is prohibited anywhere. The prohibition applies regardless of gender. Therefore there can be no gender discrimination taking place. The rules apply equally.

I comprehend your arguments very well, they were tried before and failed.

"Coloreds had rights that were applied across the board. Every colored person has the same right to marry someone of the same race as everyone else."​

We look at that statement today (well most of us) and see it for what it was when presented during Loving, that is hogwash. Same with your trying to parse every woman has the same right to marry, as long as it's a man. The rules back then were defended as not being discriminatory because the rules were applied equally. Today we (well a growing number) laugh at that silly rationalization.

In addition, go back and read my posts I have not attempted to show that "not allowing men to marry men is prohibited anywhere". What is the basis of my argument is that for the government to discriminate against like situated individuals (in the case of individual rights) or couples (in the case of group rights (i.e. race or gender) that under the Grievance Clause of the First Amendment the government must show a compelling government interest to justify such discrimination. In this case, the two most like situated groups (or couples if you will) are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship who are allowed to Civilly Marry compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship who are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

To date, no justifiable government compelling reason has been presented to warrant such discrimination, and no - tradition, religion, and ick - are not compelling government reasons.


>>>>

You clearly do not understand the arguments. Black men were not allowed to marry just as white men were. That is the distinction.
You keep falling on back on inappropriate civil rigths era issues because you cannot argue this issue on its own merits. It has no merits, is probably why. All men can marry all women, given small exceptions. Similarly vice versa. There is no discrimination going on.

 

[WorldWatcher]

California did exactly that. Several times. It wasn't good enough for the fags and they took it to court.

Just like the interracial couples did when states enacted ant-miscegenation laws. Gonna call them names too?

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

Incorrect. Those laws actually criminalized interracial marriages.

There is no law criminalizing gay marriage anywhere in the US.

The right of equal treatment under the law is not limited to criminal statutes.


>>>>