Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Dana7360]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

You seriously need to learn contract laws here in America.

You seem to be very ill informed about a lot of basic things everyone knows in America.

There are only 3 requirements for a legal contract in America.
1. The person must be 18 or over.
2. The person must be of sound mind.
3. The person must not sign the contract under duress.

That's it. Nothing more. There's nothing in those requirements that says a person must be of a certain sex to enter into the marriage contract. In fact we have specific laws that forbid discriminating against someone because of their sex.

The only reason you want to deny homosexuals that marriage contract is because one of them is of the wrong sex in your opinion. Well that's illegal and unconstitutional in America. I've read enough of your posts to see that you don't give a damn about our laws or our constitution.

As for the cake, then I must assume you believe that African Americans or any minority group shouldn't be serviced equally in public either.

If you want to open a business here in America you need a business license. In that license you sign and agree to serve the public. There's no exceptions. if you don't want to serve the public then don't go into business.

Bravo!!!

Thank you very much Carla.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

One of the many reasons why there's no marriage law written for three or more people.

 

[Iceweasel]

The only thing with a pox on it in this thread is opposition to gay rights. 25 states, soon to be 30, and counting.

Gays have the same rights and have had so since sodomy laws were dropped. No where in the Constitution does it pretend genders don't matter in state defined marriages.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Incorrect.

Marriage law is written to accommodate two equal adult partners who have made a commitment to build a life together recognized by the state, same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is violated when the state seeks to disallow same-sex couples from entering into a marriage contract they're eligible to participate in.

That's not the case with three or more persons, for whom there is no marriage law written to accommodate such a configuration. No Equal Protection Clause violation manifests because there's no 'marriage law' to 'disallow' three or more persons from entering into.

Consequently, bringing to the debate demagoguery such as 'polygamy' or 'plural marriage' does in fact fail as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in Windsor. Hardly.

It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in Windsor. Hardly.

It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.

Windsor wasn't a 14th Amendment case. The 14th Amendment applies to States, the case was decided based on the equal protection principals of the 5th Amendment which applies to Federal law.


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in Windsor. Hardly.

It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.

Windsor wasn't a 14th Amendment case. The 14th Amendment applies to States, the case was decided based on the equal protection principals of the 5th Amendment which applies to Federal law.


>>>>

It could have been settled with the 14th as the affirming protection.

Instead it was pure 10th baby. Purview of the State and the Feds cant deny benefits where the State says it is legal.

 

[bodecea]

If three people are married and one dies, are the remaining two still married? And if not, who gets custody of the kids?

If three people enter into an LLC, if one of the partners died does the LLC still exist, and who gets custody of the client list?

All you have to do is look at the LLC founding docs

It's boilerplate crap

Are you saying the boilerplate between three partners is the same as if there are only two partners?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, states cannot deny someone civil rights any more than the feds can.

And again, no, they aren't almost exactly the same (ssm & polygamy).

Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?

Right next to where straight marriage is enshrined as a civil right.

There is no "straight" marriage. There is marriage and there is what homosexuals call their union.

There is only marriage.

no there is not----there are different types of marriages now. You have to embrace the difference, liberal boy.

Listen to you, you non-mainstream far right freak.

Marriage is between two people. There is no other kind of marriage. Tough on that, freak boy.

 

[bodecea]

Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in Windsor. Hardly.

It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.

Windsor wasn't a 14th Amendment case. The 14th Amendment applies to States, the case was decided based on the equal protection principals of the 5th Amendment which applies to Federal law.


>>>>

It could have been settled with the 14th as the affirming protection.

Instead it was pure 10th baby. Purview of the State and the Feds cant deny benefits where the State says it is legal.

But can the State deny benefits if the Feds say it's legal?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in Windsor. Hardly.

It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.

It did no such thing. After DOMA, Utah said it would not do benefits for federal entitlees. The feds said that all government money would be cut off if Utah did not comply. The state fell over backward complying.

Don't post nonsense, froota loop, please.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Right SCOTUS was all over the 14th in Windsor. Hardly.

It affirmed it a State purview and where the State allows it the Feds cannot withhold benefits.

Windsor wasn't a 14th Amendment case. The 14th Amendment applies to States, the case was decided based on the equal protection principals of the 5th Amendment which applies to Federal law.


>>>>

It could have been settled with the 14th as the affirming protection.

No it couldn't, the case was about Federal law not State law.

Instead it was pure 10th baby. Purview of the State and the Feds cant deny benefits where the State says it is legal.

Maybe you should read the Windsor decision.

Question Before the Court:

"That result requires this Court now to address
whether the resulting injury and indignity is a deprivation
of an essential part of the liberty protected by the
Fifth Amendment"

<<SNIP>>

"The Act’s demonstrated purpose is to ensure that if any
State decides to recognize same-sex marriages, those
unions will be treated as second-class marriages for
purposes of federal law. This raises a most serious
question under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. "​

Basis of Ruling

"The power the Constitution grants it also restrains.
And though Congress has great authority to design laws to
fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot
deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment."

<<SNIP>>

"This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA
is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person
protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution."

<<SNIP>>

"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those
persons as living in marriages less respected than others,
the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful
marriages."​

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


>>>>

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Interesting article in the Federalist:

Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

Some quotes:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), an institution that has vigorously opposed gay marriage for some time now, conceded that the political battle over marriage is over. “As far as the civil law is concerned,” the Mormon Church admitted, “the courts have spoken.”

Personally, I don’t have any misgivings about same-sex marriage, mostly because I don’t believe it destabilizes society or family—although I suspect it will offer gay Americans far more stability. The policy debate is about over, anyway. These days, we should be more troubled by the persistent need to coerce and demean those who hold religious objections to gay unions into compliance. And if I were, say, a practicing Catholic, I could never accept that the sacrament of marriage could be redefined by judges, democracy, or anyone other than the Big Guy. This is neither homophobic nor does it undermine your happiness. In my small “l” libertarian utopia, people are free to enter into voluntary arrangements and others are free to believe that the participants of these arrangements may lead to eternal damnation.

The polygamy argument offends many gay-marriage advocates, who view it as an unfair and unnecessary distraction. But I’m not offering Santorum-style slippery slope arguments here. I don’t believe polygamy will be legalized. My sense is that the vast majority of Americans have little interest in shacking up with their sisters or entering into a ménage à trois (well, in its literal meaning, “a household of three,” at least). Rather, I’m asking on what logical grounds can a person argue that gay marriage is okay but polygamy is not—or any other type of marriage? If your answer is an arbitrary declaration like “the ideal union is between only two individuals” then all you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”

There's no such thing as "Homosexual Marriage". And this wholly without regard to the pretense to the contrary advanced by the intellectually less fortunate.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The only thing with a pox on it in this thread is opposition to gay rights. 25 states, soon to be 30, and counting.

Gays have the same rights and have had so since sodomy laws were dropped. No where in the Constitution does it pretend genders don't matter in state defined marriages.

Wowza!

 

[dilloduck]

Where is gay marriage enshrined as a civil right?

Right next to where straight marriage is enshrined as a civil right.

There is no "straight" marriage. There is marriage and there is what homosexuals call their union.

There is only marriage.

no there is not----there are different types of marriages now. You have to embrace the difference, liberal boy.

Listen to you, you non-mainstream far right freak.

Marriage is between two people. There is no other kind of marriage. Tough on that, freak boy.

The adult definition claims that it's between a consenting man and woman who are of legal age. Homosexuals would have a whole lot more respect if they had just gone for equal rights under the law instead of trying to pretend they were lexicons. The democrats got a lot of mileage out of their victimhood like they always do with blacks so I guess it's all good.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dilloduck, you and the freak far right have no respect with the great majority of America.

You lost. Get over it.

 

[JoeB131]

All you’ve done is redefine the parameters of marriage. You support gay marriage, not “marriage equality.”


In a nutshell

Not really. Polygamy and Incest, the underlying behaviors are already illegal.

Once Lawrence got rid of all the "sodomy" laws that no one was actually enforcing, there was no logical reason to prevent marriage equality.

 

[JoeB131]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

No, that's making sure that the public accommodations WE ALL SUPPORT are available to everyone.

Get it?

I may never use that baker, but I pay for his roads, his police protection, his utilities. Which means if I go to him for the gayest wedding cake* ever, I don't want to hear any shit from him about how his Invisible Friend in the Sky says it's wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

[
How is it wrong? Lets apply the logic used by Gay marriage supporters, but change only a few words.

If three or more consenting people choose to love each other, how are we to judge?
Why cant I/we marry the people I/we want to?
How does our marriage harm anyone else?
Where are my equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment?


Please counter any of those arguments, remembering that any successful counter argument would also work against gay marriage.

I eagerly await your reply.

Every state in the unions has an anti-bigamy law.

The underlying behavior is illegal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Some RWs are against nanny state type laws right up until they're for it.

Defining the marriage contract is not a "nanny state type law."

Fining a baker for not baking a cake? THAT'S a nanny state type law.

It is when the state seeks to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law for no other reason than some are frightened and offended by gay Americans.

And bakers aren't fined because they refuse to bake a cake, they're appropriately fined because they violated public accommodations law for refusing to serve a patron for no other reason than being frightened and offended by gay Americans.