Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have that absolutely backwards.

As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage. States can only deny that right when it can provide a compelling reason to deny that right.

And people still have every right to 'traditional marriage'- no one will be preventing a 'man and a woman' from marrying- so their rights are not infringed on in anyway because Bob and Bill can also legally marry.

You are backwards. If it was a constitutional issue there would be no state decisions.

Wrong.

It is indeed a Constitutional issue because the states made the decision to ignore the law and enact measures hostile to gay Americans, decisions repugnant to the Constitution.

 

[Czernobog]

You want the government dictating that marriage is between "one man, one woman".

That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries. You can't grasp why, we get it. The rest of the world does.

By, "rest of the world", I presume you mean the third world, since almost every industrialized nation in the world - Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, even Uruguay, all recognize same sex partnerships (what many reasonable people even call marriages). You really should be careful not to over reach with your hyperbole.

In gay marriage states there's no reason now to prevent polygamy or anything else anyone wants. Who's to decide? The homosexual activists for everybody else? That would be stupid. So it is time for those states to get out of the marriage business.

I couldn't agree more. If polygamists, or anyone else show up looking to get married, it'll be fun watching the heads of you moralists explode. In the meantime, I'm happy celebrating the victories of actual people.

I understand that you are a retard so I'll post my comment again and you can read slower or have someone explain it: "That's the way is was in all 50 states and everywhere else with only polygamy as the exception in third world countries."

The only retard here is the one who claimed that "the whole world" opposes same sex marriage, and got schooled, and then expected everyone to just forget what he said, as he restated his false claim that same sex marriage was banned in "all 50 states". It wasn't banned in any state, until 1996. And why was that? Oh! that's right. That was because the moralists all started shitting themselves because those icky, icky gays were crashing their marriage gig, so they all ran off, and had the laws rewritten to exclude them.

 

[Syriusly]

As the courts have pointed out- we all have a right to marriage.

Courts have pointed out no such thing. If marriage is a right, there are literally millions and millions of people in America who are being denied their rights. It means that females are constitutionally obligated to date any male who wants to date them and not deny their right to marry on the basis of discrimination. Obviously, this is absurd.."

Here is what the courts have said:

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

You can pick as many nits as you want- Americans have the legal right to marry without unjustified government intereference- just like we have a right to own a gun.

Our right own a gun, like our right to marry, doesn't mean we are guaranteed either a gun or a marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future.

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution.

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out.

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment.

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going. Same gender marriage is legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia.

Absent a Supreme Court decision overturning those laws, or a Constitutional Amendment, those 31 states will continue to have marriage equality.

The possibility you have suggested has not even a glimmer of support by either side, whereas there is a greater likelihood of additional states having marriage equality.

 

[Syriusly]

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future.

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution.

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out.

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment.

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.

Great post. The other thing is that race and gender are not a choice or preference. Religion is but religious freedom is one of the primary driving factors to the US being founded.

Human sexuality is very complex, as complex as people are. Many gays led heterosexual lives at one point, some had kids. Some people can swing either way. Some at the same time! To categorize sexual orientation along with the others would be a huge departure and opens a Pandora's box that can't be closed.

It should be a state issue but the states should just get out of marriage. anyone can marry anyone. Oddly gays don't seem to be in favor of it, which leads me to believe the acceptance as an alternative lifestyle is the real reason.

I can't speak for gays, but oddly enough heterosexuals aren't in favor of it either. Which leads me to believe preventing equality for homosexuals is the real reason for the proposal.

 

[ShackledNation]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

Nope. I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer.

As a gay man myself I couldn't care more. Your post is a flaming load of horse crap. Allowing gay couples to marry has no effect on you or anyone else who hates gays whatsoever. The only people trying to cram anything down society's throat are people like you. You want everyone to fit into your own view of marriage and what it is.

You don't want to give people the freedom to be who they actually are and marry who they actually want to love. Sorry, but nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

Yet this is EXACTLY what you support! My solution REMOVES government from the issue entirely and allows PEOPLE to decide for themselves.

I don't hate gay people. It's offensive to me for you to continue accusing me of hating gay people when you have presented absolutely NO evidence to support that allegation. I am the one who is presenting a reasonable solution to the problem which resolves it forever. My viewpoint comes from an actual gay couple who have been together 30 years and are close personal friends of mine.

YOU are the intolerant bigot who wants to use the courts and government to impose your will on society, and I reject that.

False. Same-sex marriage, which I support, does not force morals on anybody. Nobody is forced to enter into a same-sex marriage. Nobody is prohibited from practicing traditional marriage. With same-sex marriage legal, gay couples are free to marry and straight couples are also free to marry. Marriage rights are expanded, and traditional marriages are not effected one bit.

Same-sex marriage bans do force morality on people. Anybody who wants to get married is forced to enter into an opposite-sex marriage. Gay couples are prohibited from marrying each other. Gay couples are not free to marry, but straight couples. Marriage rights are restricted to straight couples, and same-sex marriages are illegal with same-sex couples stripped of rights and dignity.

In only one case are morals being forced on anyone. And that is with same-sex marriage bans, not marriage equality.


Now to your argument. If government was out of marriage, that would be great. But that is not where things are going, expanding marriage rights to same-sex couples is a far better alternative than the status quo. Your solution is impractical and unrealistic. I too would love government out of marriage, but I recognize the reality of politics today. Marriage licenses aren't going anywhere. My number one choice would be to get rid of the marriage license, but marriage equality is the next best option. Not to mention for all intensive purposes your solution is entirely semantic as I have said before.

Yes, you are forcing your morals on society via the courts and government, and I don't support that. I'm glad you agree my solution would be your number one choice, I'm just miffed at why you think it is "impractical and unrealistic"? You didn't expound.

You see.... I think it is very practical and realistic in context of the conservative philosophy of less government and more individual liberty. I think my solution would be wildly popular across party lines because, as I pointed out, it resolves the issue for all parties and ends the problem forever. There is truly not a better solution, and you agree with that.

So we both agree on an amicable solution, but you want to continue pushing for something I cannot and will not ever support. Which one of us is being intolerant?

Allowing gay couples to marry does not force morals on anyone. Prohibiting them from doing so does. Again, your solution is entirely semantic and the exact same practical result will come about with same-sex marriage bans overturned, as they should be.

The reality is that you do not want gay couples receiving any type of legal status for their relationships. You know that renaming marriage licenses to civil unions across the board is not going to happen, which is precisely why you use that as your argument.

There are three possible results:
1. Same-sex marriage licenses are issued, along with opposite-sex marriage licenses.
2. Same-sex marriages are prohibited, with only opposite-sex marriages legally recognized.
3. The marriage license is abolished and renamed (as per your argument).

Can you tell me which of the above three results you think is the worst? Why?

 

[Boss]

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future.

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution.

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out.

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment.

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going. Same gender marriage is legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia.

Absent a Supreme Court decision overturning those laws, or a Constitutional Amendment, those 31 states will continue to have marriage equality.

The possibility you have suggested has not even a glimmer of support by either side, whereas there is a greater likelihood of additional states having marriage equality.

Well, no... you actually CAN'T just keep doing what has been done. The people in those states have the right to undo what you've done, which is NOT marriage equality. My solution is the closest thing you'll ever have to what you want. It is actually the anti-gay-marriage people who have enough political influence to pass a congressional act, and they have already done so once. DOMA. Now, the courts took the teeth out of it, just as happened with many other Acts of Congress through the years... the Civil Rights movement saw more cases of this than anything. But the people just keep on and eventually they get something satisfactory to the vast majority.

 

[ShackledNation]

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future.

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution.

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out.

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment.

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going. Same gender marriage is legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia.

Absent a Supreme Court decision overturning those laws, or a Constitutional Amendment, those 31 states will continue to have marriage equality.

The possibility you have suggested has not even a glimmer of support by either side, whereas there is a greater likelihood of additional states having marriage equality.

Well, no... you actually CAN'T just keep doing what has been done. The people in those states have the right to undo what you've done, which is NOT marriage equality. My solution is the closest thing you'll ever have to what you want. It is actually the anti-gay-marriage people who have enough political influence to pass a congressional act, and they have already done so once. DOMA. Now, the courts took the teeth out of it, just as happened with many other Acts of Congress through the years... the Civil Rights movement saw more cases of this than anything. But the people just keep on and eventually they get something satisfactory to the vast majority.

No they don't. When a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot just pass the law again. Perhaps you do not understand. When something is unconstitutional, the people and the states have no right to do it. Ever. Period.

 

[Syriusly]

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future.

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution.

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out.

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment.

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going. Same gender marriage is legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia.

Absent a Supreme Court decision overturning those laws, or a Constitutional Amendment, those 31 states will continue to have marriage equality.

The possibility you have suggested has not even a glimmer of support by either side, whereas there is a greater likelihood of additional states having marriage equality.

Well, no... you actually CAN'T just keep doing what has been done. The people in those states have the right to undo what you've done, which is NOT marriage equality..

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

 

[Boss]

No they don't. When a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot just pass the law again. Perhaps you do not understand. When something is unconstitutional, the people and the states have no right to do it. Ever. Period.

Oh, but they DO and I can cite numerous examples of it. The same exact law can't be passed again, that makes no sense and isn't what I said. Whatever the court found to be the problem for why the law wasn't constitutional will be changed by Act of Congress, and we go at it again. And again, if needed.

This was the case with civil rights, as we'd been passing civil rights acts since 1865 in America. It took numerous attempts before one stuck. Congress would pass them, courts would neuter them, people would petition for redress, congress would act. This happened over and over again. The SCOTUS simply doesn't have final say on Law-of-the-Land, nor does their interpretation of the Constitution.

Remember this... it's Boss' lesson of the day in U.S. Government... The People ultimately have final say. Period.

 

[Czernobog]

In summarizing what has been posted so far, we seem to have two distinct sides in this issue; Those who believe it should be the right of same-sex partners to marry and those who don't consider same-sex partnerships to be marriage. Most people would feel comfortable agreeing they fit into one of those two viewpoints. There is no actual 'middling' here.

Now, what the gay marriage advocate believes is, this 'movement' is going in the direction which favors their view. The infamous March of Progressivism. They boast of same-sex marriage law in numerous states and growing, and this is true. However, this only brings to a head, the defining moment at which something has to be codified as part of the Constitution and ultimate law of the land. Whether that is like Women's Suffrage and through the Amendment process, or whether through an Act of Congress like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 'defining moment' is yet on the horizon... but it's coming.

Because this appears to be on it's way and nothing anyone can do about it, we see an often insulting level of smug confidence from gay marriage advocates. What they completely fail to realize is, this is an issue where the sheer numbers don't fall in their favor. They simply don't have the numbers needed to ensconce gay marriage into our constitutional lexicon at this time, and are not likely to have those numbers in the future.

It can be more closely identified with the ERA movement from the 70s, where the same smug confidence existed in progressives who burned their bras and cheered on Women's Rights. Now... where has that gone since it failed in the 70s? We've passed a series of law reforms and bills to ensure gender equality and fair treatment, but without having to radically change the constitution.

The most grim aspect of the details as to why Gay Marriage will not prevail, is the way our process works and the sheer number of evangelical voters there are. What you need first, is 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I doubt you can get 2/3 of EITHER house. You have very high support in very liberal areas of the country. Otherwise, you only have moderate support where you need 2/3 and in some places you have virtually NO support. So the House will likely never forsake the evangelicals and go for a Gay Marriage Act, and the Senate is completely impossible because your liberal states only have 2 votes each, same as everyone else. Look at that popular RED/BLUE map to see how that will work out.

Okay... so now IF you manged to somehow get the Congressional requirement, the Amendment then moves to the ratification process. There, you'll need 2/3 of the states holding specific balloted initiatives to ratify. Gay marriage has struggled to even get majority votes in any ballot initiative, and that is in the most liberal states. In MANY of those states you crow about same-sex marriage now being legal, it was done by courts or legislatures and not by the people. Many of those people are quite pissed off about that. The states where this has been crammed down their throat are not likely going to ratify your Amendment.

This leaves us with the only possibility you have, which is something along the lines of what I have suggested and you have rejected. A Congressional Act to slip the ring off the finger of government and "marriage" where it can be returned intact to the people and churches where it belongs. Such an Act would also be problematic for the same reasons mentioned previously, but it is much more likely than a Gay Marriage Amendment or Act.

Or we just keep going in the direction that we are going. Same gender marriage is legal in 31 states and the District of Columbia.

Absent a Supreme Court decision overturning those laws, or a Constitutional Amendment, those 31 states will continue to have marriage equality.

The possibility you have suggested has not even a glimmer of support by either side, whereas there is a greater likelihood of additional states having marriage equality.

Well, no... you actually CAN'T just keep doing what has been done. The people in those states have the right to undo what you've done, which is NOT marriage equality. My solution is the closest thing you'll ever have to what you want. It is actually the anti-gay-marriage people who have enough political influence to pass a congressional act, and they have already done so once. DOMA. Now, the courts took the teeth out of it, just as happened with many other Acts of Congress through the years... the Civil Rights movement saw more cases of this than anything. But the people just keep on and eventually they get something satisfactory to the vast majority.

No they don't. When a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, the legislature cannot just pass the law again. Perhaps you do not understand. When something is unconstitutional, the people and the states have no right to do it. Ever. Period.

Oh, but they DO and I can cite numerous examples of it. The same exact law can't be passed again, that makes no sense and isn't what I said. Whatever the court found to be the problem for why the law wasn't constitutional will be changed by Act of Congress, and we go at it again. And again, if needed.

This was the case with civil rights, as we'd been passing civil rights acts since 1865 in America. It took numerous attempts before one stuck. Congress would pass them, courts would neuter them, people would petition for redress, congress would act. This happened over and over again. The SCOTUS simply doesn't have final say on Law-of-the-Land, nor does their interpretation of the Constitution.

Remember this... it's Boss' lesson of the day in U.S. Government... The People ultimately have final say. Period.

yeah...that presumes that there is a will to "keep trying". I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar. I dunno, Boss. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to deny a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.

 

[Boss]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere.

Marriage is a certain thing, and you wish for marriage to be something different. We do not redefine things simply by claiming a right to them. I have the right to live, but I can't claim I have the right to kill every person who comes in my proximity because I believe that is within my right to live. I have a right to be secure in my property, but I can't put up a wall and build a nuclear weapons plant. I have the right to be an electrician, but I don't have the right to be an electrician with a plumbers license I'm not qualified for. I may have the right to marry, but I don't have the right to marry my mailbox.

I can overlook the fact that you continue misspelling "undo" but Loving had nothing to do with gay marriage. The court's decision was based on the understanding of what marriage is, the union of a man and woman... not what marriage is not.

As I correctly stated, there are two ways the laws can be changed. Congressional Acts and Constitutional Amendments. Those opposed to gay marriage have already passed the first Act. They are considerably closer in numbers to being able to pass an Amendment. The gay marriage lobby can't even get a majority vote in either house of Congress.

 

[Syriusly]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere.
.

Correct- its marriage equality when people of the same gender can marry just like people of the opposite gender.

 

[Boss]

yeah...that presumes that there is a will to "keep trying". I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar. I dunno, Boss. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to deny a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.

Well you can be as smug and arrogant as you please right now. I expect nothing more. There hasn't been a replacement for DOMA because it has only been a couple years, people haven't had time to elect the ones who will do that. I see no signs of the evangelicals abandoning their defense of traditional marriage. I think that may be wishful thinking on your part.

You have about 100 million evangelical voters out there to contend with, and an election looming.

 

[Syriusly]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere.

Marriage is a certain thing, and you wish for marriage to be something different. We do not redefine things simply by claiming a right to them. I have the right to live, but I can't claim I have the right to kill every person who comes in my proximity because I believe that is within my right to live. I have a right to be secure in my property, but I can't put up a wall and build a nuclear weapons plant. I have the right to be an electrician, but I don't have the right to be an electrician with a plumbers license I'm not qualified for. I may have the right to marry, but I don't have the right to marry my mailbox.

Sigh.

How is allowing two people of the same gender the same rights to marriage as two people of the opposite gender the same as you killing every person in your vicinity?

It isn't.

You don't have a right to be an Electrician at all.

But we all have the right to marry, free from unwarranted government interference.

 

[Syriusly]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

I can overlook the fact that you continue misspelling "undo" but Loving had nothing to do with gay marriage. The court's decision was based on the understanding of what marriage is, the union of a man and woman... not what marriage is not.
.

I don't know whether you are ignoring the point, or just don't understand it. The point is not what the courts decision was based upon- the point is that the Federal Court told the people of Virginia no you cannot prevent two people of the opposite race that they cannot marry. The people of Virginia have no more the right to change that court ruling than they do to change the rulings of courts that found that laws against same gender marriage are unconstitutional.

States cannot undue Federal court decisions.

 

[Syriusly]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

As I correctly stated, there are two ways the laws can be changed. Congressional Acts and Constitutional Amendments. Those opposed to gay marriage have already passed the first Act. They are considerably closer in numbers to being able to pass an Amendment. The gay marriage lobby can't even get a majority vote in either house of Congress.

The Supreme Court has already said that Congress cannot tell States how to regulate marriage.

They are further and further away from ever being able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban same gender marriage.

Same gender marriage proponents don't need a majority vote in Congress- any more than the proponents of marriage of mixed race couples need a majority vote in Congress- 31 states its legal. Likely to be 10 more within a year.

 

[AntiParty]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

As I correctly stated, there are two ways the laws can be changed. Congressional Acts and Constitutional Amendments. Those opposed to gay marriage have already passed the first Act. They are considerably closer in numbers to being able to pass an Amendment. The gay marriage lobby can't even get a majority vote in either house of Congress.

The Supreme Court has already said that Congress cannot tell States how to regulate marriage.

They are further and further away from ever being able to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban same gender marriage.

Same gender marriage proponents don't need a majority vote in Congress- any more than the proponents of marriage of mixed race couples need a majority vote in Congress- 31 states its legal. Likely to be 10 more within a year.

Why can't states force slavery and control onto others? You are such a political bummer.

 

[Boss]

a) yes it is marriage equality and
b) the people in those states have no more 'right' to undo the court's decision than the people of Virginia had the right to undue Loving V. Virginia- the only way for the 'people' to undue' the courts decision would be a Constitutional Amendment.
c) yes we can keep doing what has been done.

No, it's NOT marriage inequality. That would be if when you went to get a marriage license, they ask if you were a homo and denied you one on that basis... that isn't happening anywhere.
.

Correct- its marriage equality when people of the same gender can marry just like people of the opposite gender.

No it's not, because I can't marry my mailbox.

We have marriage equality now, you just want to redefine the parameters of marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

yeah...that presumes that there is a will to "keep trying". I notice I haven't seen any replacements for DOMA on the federal calendar. I dunno, Boss. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in revising, and attempting to pass a new DOMA. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Boss, but you, and your mellow moralists (or anti-marriage equality activists, Gay marriage haters, whatever you wanna call yourselves) rather seem to be losing momentum.

I do have to say that I think its funny that you keep bringing up the Civil Rights Act, as if to imply that your attempts to deny a whole cross-section of Americans their basic liberty is, somehow, the modern equivalent of the CRA.

Well you can be as smug and arrogant as you please right now. I expect nothing more. There hasn't been a replacement for DOMA because it has only been a couple years, people haven't had time to elect the ones who will do that. I see no signs of the evangelicals abandoning their defense of traditional marriage. I think that may be wishful thinking on your part.

You have about 100 million evangelical voters out there to contend with, and an election looming.

Hmmm I think your math is slightly off.

There are about 146 million registered voters in the United States- do you think evangelicals are 2/3 of the registered voters?

Best numbers I can come up with is that Evangelicals represent 28% of the vote......certainly not enough to pass an amendment.

Meanwhile- latest polls show that the majority of Americans support gay marriage- 52%- up from 35% in 2001.

Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage Pew Research Center s Religion Public Life Project