Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[eflatminor]

That's not true, in Virginia the Constitution was amended to specifically bar the state from recognizing personally contracts that attempt to recreate the same aspects of Civil Marriage. There are other states with the same provision, Wisconsin being one.



>>>>

A perfect example of why government should stay out of personal relationships. The problem is government meddling. The solution is not more government meddling.

But marriages have legal ramifications - ownership of property, child custody, rules of criminal evidence (spousal privilege)...the list goes on and on. As long as marriage has legal significance, the government has to be involved.

No offense, but posts like yours, while I think they are well-meant, are examples of the extremism that "anti-government" memes have gotten us to.

I see your point and I understand the courts must be involved but laws defining who is eligible to enter into a 'marriage' contract are unnecessary. For example, if two people want to enter into a business partnership, the government doesn't tell us who is eligible and who ins't to be a partner in a business. The courts are there to settle disputes and, based on precedent, who gets what if the partnership devolves. It should be no different for a personal partnership.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh! Well I'm totally on board with that specific idea. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Gadawg73]

Not too long ago gays were making fun of marriage because of the divorce rate but now they want it. Why?

Wanna' know why Prop 8 passed in California? Because Blacks and Hispanics voted for it in droves. Ask THEM why they oppose gay marriage.

Actually an analysis of voter Demographics for Prop 8 shows that Blacks and Hispanics were 7% and 14% respectively of the voting population for Prop 8 voting 58 & 59% respectively.

Interesting though is that the second largest demographic (behind white) was Weekly Religious Attendance (45%), and that demographic voted 70% in favor of the initiative.



So which had a bigger impact - 7 & 14% voting 58% OR 45% voting 70%?



http://www.ncsu.edu/stud_affairs/glbt/pdfs/Prop 8 Report.pdf

>>>>

Don't confuse them with facts that contain numbers and figures.
They only have ten toes and ten fingers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm glad were still discussing such serious topics. Forget the debt. Forget the spending. Forget the tax debate. Forget jobs. Forget wars. Forget regulations. Forget the economy is tanking. Forget gas prices are killing the poor.

Let's worry about a pointless piece of paper that has 0 impact on any of the above.

A conservative’s disdain for protection of Americans’ individual, civil rights is typical and very, very telling.

Gay couples are free to call themselves married.

It has nothing to do with semantics – it’s the actual authority and force of the law and equal access to that law. Merely calling it marriage doesn’t meet the Constitutional requirement.

The constitution does not protect fagginess(homosexuals) as a class of people, and the courts can be wrong. Fagginess is a choice, period!!!

Needless to say the Supreme Court disagrees with you, and its opinion is the law of the land.

Apples and oranges, but let's focus on the insinuation that I'm pulling statistics out of my ass.

We’ll concede that all the data you present are accurate. Then you concede that such data have no relevance whatsoever on the legality of the issue.

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

This makes no sense.

The Supreme Court s the final appellate court in the Federal system. It rules on decisions made by lower courts. In the case of Romer, for example, the Court upheld a ruling by the Colorado supreme court striking down Amendment 2 as a violation of homosexuals’ due process and equal protection rights.

As noted, the cases already mentioned, along with Romer and Lawrence, cite the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Hope this helps.

I understand that but it doesn't change the fact that the Federal government has no authority to define relationships. Nor should any state.

Neither are defining relationships. But the Constitution requires all jurisdictions to apply their laws equally and allow all citizens equal access to all laws, including laws regulating marriage.

The same argument that homosexuals, and yourself, are making for same-sex marriage can be made for bigamy and polygamy.

That is a lifestyle too. They are Americans too. Why is it okay to deny them fundamental rights?

Laws banning polygamy are Constitutional because they apply to all equally, no group is singled out. If laws banning polygamy applied only to Asian Americans, for example, such a law would be un-Constitutional.

Yes there is a compelling argument, and that is the F-ing 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

"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."

Yes, it is incumbent upon the citizens of the states to determine if they want to participate in this social experiment.

Incorrect.

The majority of a given state may not violate the Constitutional rights of the minority. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

 

[eflatminor]

Laws banning polygamy are Constitutional because they apply to all equally, no group is singled out.

I suspect some conservative Mormons would disagree with you.

 

[logical4u]

Homosexuals are not a "minority".
Homosexuals are not a "race".
Homosexuals are not a "religion"
Homosexuals are not a "gender"
Homosexuals are not a specific age

It has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with choice. If a known drug addict wants to "adopt" the court stops them. If a known alcoholic/gambler/sex addict/cleptomaniac/ etc wants to adopt, the court stops them. The reason they can get married is their condition is not known to the state. If there was an "easy" way to determine who was making these bad decisions, the state would pass laws to stop them. Homosexuals are making bad choices, it is easy for the state, to discourage that behavior by not rewarding it with same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court and Constitution recognize homosexuals as a protected, minority class, entitled to equal protection and due process:

Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.

Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991).

Romer v. Evans (1996)

It therefore has everything to do with rights, your argument has no basis in law.

The court also acknowledges that homosexuality, whether naturally occurring or choice, constitutes a class of persons entitled to their Constitutional right to privacy. Just as an adult may elect to join a given religion and enjoy First Amendment protection accordingly, so too may homosexuals enjoy 14th Amendment protections, the issue of 'choice or nature' is moot.

This is all bunk. Anyone can claim "class" as homosexual. It cannot be enforced.

 

[logical4u]

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

The key is that the Federal Government applies the same standard to all citizens. You can either have all marriage or all civil union

You can't have seperate but equal

I agree as long as the Federal Government is legally empowered to apply the standard. Is there anything in the Constitution that directs the Feds to define relationships?

That is why it is so important for homosexual activists to re-define "marriage".

 

[logical4u]

Are there obesity organizations attempting to indoctrinate school children that being, and I'll use the term indelicately, fat is a healthy lifestyle alternative?

It's not indoctrination, it's the truth. Living a lie is a lot more unhealthy than being gay. Just ask all the kids that kill themselves. Oh right...you can't.

A kid can't stop being gay, but they can stop being overweight.

There is a fundamental difference, and it is one that you are completely overlooking. The institution of marriage is one whose primary goal is to secure the family unit. Study after study has proven that children raised in a one parent households are drastically more likely to commit crimes, use drugs, ect, ect.

Agree 100%. So why would you want to deny the children of gay parents that stability and security?

Oh, and by the way, it is not REQUIRED that people have children to get married.

The left artfully employs propaganda to disavow these statistics. What you are championing is an assault on family--advocating instead that society embark on a grand experiment and in future generations we will determine the end result for children placed in the care of homosexual couples.

The results are already in...our kids are all right. In fact, all studies show that are children are at no disadvantage to those raised in heterosexual households. The key is what you cited above...kids do better in two parent households. Why is my family less deserving of this safety and security than YOUR family?

Let me ask you this, should my child be forced to be educated on the homosexual lifestyle in 2nd grade?

Should a 2nd grader know that gays exist and that there is nothing wrong with that? Yes, they should. I'm gonna clue you in on a little something...our kids are going to school with your kids. Gay kids are going to school with your kids. Schools should be teaching tolerance and that differences are accepted and respected.

What is the "homosexual lifestyle"?

Here's another little "FYI" for ya...the kids get it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBkQ8yww0Ho]‪Little Boy's 1st Gay Encounter With 2 Husbands‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

If you wanted the "truth" taught, you would teach Christianity makes the most secure, productive communities. You would teach that a male and female parent that raise children are more stable than when a male and female parent are not raising the child. It doesn't fit your "agenda" to support and validate your lifestyle, so you "demand" that millions of children are lied to about homosexuality being perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable. It is indoctrination of the vilest kind: targeting children that taxpayers are paying to have taught reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic for a perverse validation, that will cause society even more corruption. Or do you really think that other "groups" that are making worse choices than yours aren't taking notes, and will be coming for "your" children in the future.

 

[Gadawg73]

Are there obesity organizations attempting to indoctrinate school children that being, and I'll use the term indelicately, fat is a healthy lifestyle alternative?

It's not indoctrination, it's the truth. Living a lie is a lot more unhealthy than being gay. Just ask all the kids that kill themselves. Oh right...you can't.

A kid can't stop being gay, but they can stop being overweight.



Agree 100%. So why would you want to deny the children of gay parents that stability and security?

Oh, and by the way, it is not REQUIRED that people have children to get married.




The results are already in...our kids are all right. In fact, all studies show that are children are at no disadvantage to those raised in heterosexual households. The key is what you cited above...kids do better in two parent households. Why is my family less deserving of this safety and security than YOUR family?

Let me ask you this, should my child be forced to be educated on the homosexual lifestyle in 2nd grade?

Should a 2nd grader know that gays exist and that there is nothing wrong with that? Yes, they should. I'm gonna clue you in on a little something...our kids are going to school with your kids. Gay kids are going to school with your kids. Schools should be teaching tolerance and that differences are accepted and respected.

What is the "homosexual lifestyle"?

Here's another little "FYI" for ya...the kids get it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBkQ8yww0Ho]‪Little Boy's 1st Gay Encounter With 2 Husbands‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

If you wanted the "truth" taught, you would teach Christianity makes the most secure, productive communities. You would teach that a male and female parent that raise children are more stable than when a male and female parent are not raising the child. It doesn't fit your "agenda" to support and validate your lifestyle, so you "demand" that millions of children are lied to about homosexuality being perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable. It is indoctrination of the vilest kind: targeting children that taxpayers are paying to have taught reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic for a perverse validation, that will cause society even more corruption. Or do you really think that other "groups" that are making worse choices than yours aren't taking notes, and will be coming for "your" children in the future.

Jewish communities make the most secure, productive communities.
Get your facts straight next time before you tie your shoes.

 

[Oddball]

A perfect example of why government should stay out of personal relationships. The problem is government meddling. The solution is not more government meddling.

But marriages have legal ramifications - ownership of property, child custody, rules of criminal evidence (spousal privilege)...the list goes on and on. As long as marriage has legal significance, the government has to be involved.

No offense, but posts like yours, while I think they are well-meant, are examples of the extremism that "anti-government" memes have gotten us to.

I see your point and I understand the courts must be involved but laws defining who is eligible to enter into a 'marriage' contract are unnecessary. For example, if two people want to enter into a business partnership, the government doesn't tell us who is eligible and who ins't to be a partner in a business. The courts are there to settle disputes and, based on precedent, who gets what if the partnership devolves. It should be no different for a personal partnership.

Exactly why the best place to fight this is on the contract law side, rather than statutory law.

Article 1, Section 10 is very specific and right to contract is one of the most basic of liberties.

 

[Oddball]

The majority of a given state may not violate the Constitutional rights of the minority. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

There's no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a license...By the very nature of the word.

 

[Oddball]

They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people.

That's not true, in Virginia the Constitution was amended to specifically bar the state from recognizing personally contracts that attempt to recreate the same aspects of Civil Marriage. There are other states with the same provision, Wisconsin being one.



>>>>

Then that statute violates Article 1, Section 10, and should be taken to court to be deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Gadawg73]

But marriages have legal ramifications - ownership of property, child custody, rules of criminal evidence (spousal privilege)...the list goes on and on. As long as marriage has legal significance, the government has to be involved.

No offense, but posts like yours, while I think they are well-meant, are examples of the extremism that "anti-government" memes have gotten us to.

I see your point and I understand the courts must be involved but laws defining who is eligible to enter into a 'marriage' contract are unnecessary. For example, if two people want to enter into a business partnership, the government doesn't tell us who is eligible and who ins't to be a partner in a business. The courts are there to settle disputes and, based on precedent, who gets what if the partnership devolves. It should be no different for a personal partnership.

Exactly why the best place to fight this is on the contract law side, rather than statutory law.

Article 1, Section 10 is very specific and right to contract is one of the most basic of liberties.

Marriage has a long history as a social contract with the monarchies in Europe.
Good point.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The majority of a given state may not violate the Constitutional rights of the minority. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

There's no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a license...By the very nature of the word.

However there is a Constitutional right not to have privileges denied in a capricious and invidious manner, that the denial of privileges under the law, due process under the law, and equal protection under the law must be based on a compelling government interest.


>>>>

 

[Oddball]

The majority of a given state may not violate the Constitutional rights of the minority. See: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).

There's no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a license...By the very nature of the word.

However there is a Constitutional right not to have privileges denied in a capricious and invidious manner, that the denial of privileges under the law, due process under the law, and equal protection under the law must be based on a compelling government interest.


>>>>

The equal protection clause angle has already been covered....Any couple of opposite sexes may get married, no matter their sexual behavior.

Privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious manner the grantor of said privileges sees fit...That's the nature of a privilege.

The constitutional right to contract is clear and unambiguous....Article 1, Section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people.

That's not true, in Virginia the Constitution was amended to specifically bar the state from recognizing personally contracts that attempt to recreate the same aspects of Civil Marriage. There are other states with the same provision, Wisconsin being one.



>>>>

Then that statute violates Article 1, Section 10, and should be taken to court to be deemed unconstitutional.

Possibly, but there are many aspects of Civil Marriage that cannot be reproduced via contract law.

For example:

A contract cannot establish parenthood of a child born to members of a Civil Marriage, the Civil Marriage does that automatically. Without that recognition every spouse who is not the birth mother would have to pay thousands of dollars in lawyers and adoption fees.

A contract cannot establish a family relationship that qualifies for accelerated immigration processing.

A contract cannot establish the tax free transfer of joint property to a surviving spouse, only Civil Marriage can do that.

A contract cannot allow the surviving spouse the ability to claim the married Estate Tax Exemption for the sale of property for 2-years after the death of the spouse, only a Civil Marriage can do that.

A contract cannot allow for a significant other to be treated as a dependent of members of the Armed Forces serving in CONUS and OUTCONUS so that (when authorized) they can accompany their spouse, have base access priviliges, and access to military medical facilities, only a Civil Marriage can do that.

A contract cannot allow for a significant other to be buried with their loved one in a military cemetery, only a Civil Marriage allows for that.

A contract cannot allow for a couple that has spent a life together where one spouse has invested in maintaining the family while supporting the others career and can draw Social Security based on the spouses earnings if that spouse dies, only a Civil Marriage can do that.​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

There's no right, constitutional or otherwise, to a license...By the very nature of the word.

However there is a Constitutional right not to have privileges denied in a capricious and invidious manner, that the denial of privileges under the law, due process under the law, and equal protection under the law must be based on a compelling government interest.


>>>>

The equal protection clause angle has already been covered....Any couple of opposite sexes may get married, no matter their sexual behavior.

The same logic was used in Loving v. Virginia, any couple of the same race may get married to members of the same race, no matter their race.

Bad argument then, bad argument now.

Privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious manner the grantor of said privileges sees fit...That's the nature of a privilege.

Really? That didn't work out to well for the anti-miscegenationist didn't it.

If Civil Marriage is a "privilege" and privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious reason the granter of said privileges sees fit ... then the Loving v. Virginia case would not have happened.

Bottom line is it did and the idea that States do not have to function under the 14th Amendment lost.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

I suspect at one time folks said government would always support slavery. Frankly, I don't care what you think might or might not happen.

I strongly disagree that the state should define relationships. That's the point of the contract. Let it define the relationship, its benefits and privileges. Divorce is no different than breaking up a Partnership. Court precedents and the wording of the contract will determine the equitable division of property. No laws defining who can and who cannot enter into a partnership need exist.

Not legally married.

Allow me to suggest a gentleperson's wager then. I bet that not only will marriage equality be universal across all 50 states within the next 10 years, the libertarians will also not have been successful in "getting government hands off" legal, civil marriage.

I cannot deny a gentleperson! Shall we say a beer, cocktail or other libation?

It's a deal! {cyber handshake}

 

[Seawytch]

If you wanted the "truth" taught, you would teach Christianity makes the most secure, productive communities. You would teach that a male and female parent that raise children are more stable than when a male and female parent are not raising the child. It doesn't fit your "agenda" to support and validate your lifestyle, so you "demand" that millions of children are lied to about homosexuality being perfectly normal and perfectly acceptable. It is indoctrination of the vilest kind: targeting children that taxpayers are paying to have taught reading, 'riting, and 'rithmatic for a perverse validation, that will cause society even more corruption. Or do you really think that other "groups" that are making worse choices than yours aren't taking notes, and will be coming for "your" children in the future.

Christianity is faith, not facts.

Homes with gay parents are just as stable as homes with heterosexual parents and the children of gay are at no disadvantage to children of heterosexuals. (my statement is actually supported by studies and mainstream medical organizations)

Gays and lesbians ARE perfectly normal and ARE perfectly acceptable. Telling a gay child THAT is far better than telling them that they are "vile" or "perverse".

I'm sorry, who is taking notes about what? Once again we are at that "what the fuck are you babbling about" part of the conversation...

 

[Oddball]

However there is a Constitutional right not to have privileges denied in a capricious and invidious manner, that the denial of privileges under the law, due process under the law, and equal protection under the law must be based on a compelling government interest.


>>>>

The equal protection clause angle has already been covered....Any couple of opposite sexes may get married, no matter their sexual behavior.

The same logic was used in Loving v. Virginia, any couple of the same race may get married to members of the same race, no matter their race.

Bad argument then, bad argument now.

Race/ethnicity and behavior are two different bases....Moreover, gender can be objectively quantified, whereas homosexuality is a behavior.

After that, do we now have same-sex statutory marriages between straight couples, who merely wish to get in on the horn o' plenty of special gubmint benefits and dispensations carved out for married couples?...If not, how do you objectively test for gayness?

Privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious manner the grantor of said privileges sees fit...That's the nature of a privilege.

Really? That didn't work out to well for the anti-miscegenationist didn't it.

If Civil Marriage is a "privilege" and privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious reason the granter of said privileges sees fit ... then the Loving v. Virginia case would not have happened.

Bottom line is it did and the idea that States do not have to function under the 14th Amendment lost.


>>>>

Civil marriage, not statutory marriage....Two different legal worlds.

Besides that, the Loving case involved male and female litigants.