Three Simple Questions No One Can Seem to Answer About Gay Marriage

[hortysir]

You seem to be pro civil union, so tell me, if a gay couple gets a legal civil union AND finds a church that will marry them in a religious ceremony (and some will do just that) are they then ALLOWED to claim they are married? Or will you still object?

I would not object to them being granted the same privileges and benefits as a married couple.

But just because a church that I don't follow calls them polka-dotted, that doesn't change my definition of Caucasian or Latino.

Thanks for the non answer.

Don't redefine the word 'marriage' or 'marry'.
Seems simple enough.

 

[M14 Shooter]

B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

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."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”

If a state repeals all of its laws regarding the legal institution of marriage, what happens?

 

[Katzndogz]

All marriages are civil unions. You can have ten clergymen "marry" you and your spouse and if none of them are empowered by the state to form civil unions you still aren't married. The entire controvesy is over whether the word "marriage" should apply to them. Is there anything stopping them from having a civil union and then the most elaborate reception they can afford? No nothing. Just like any couple can go to city hall, fill out a paper and a court clerk will sign it and they are married. No ceremony, no words, nothing but signing the paper.

What gays want is a social consideration. They belive if they are married Old Aunt Sally will finally invite them to sunday dinner. The children who live with them will be able to play with the kids next door. They want everyone else to consider them married as in a social convention and they won't get it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bolded, red, etc.

And I said

Invite his ass here

So?

I've dealt with defense lawyers before in actual court fuck'em.

 

[Cecilie1200]

either you believe in equality or you don't!
things don't get any more simple than that!

Exactly what I would expect from a simpleton.

 

[Cecilie1200]

B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

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."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”

If a state repeals all of its laws regarding the legal institution of marriage, what happens?

Liberals get the basic collapse and restructuring of human society that was the underlying motive of all of this in the first place. I don't think they care HOW they get to remodel society into their own image, as long as they get to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All marriages are civil unions. You can have ten clergymen "marry" you and your spouse and if none of them are empowered by the state to form civil unions you still aren't married. The entire controvesy is over whether the word "marriage" should apply to them. Is there anything stopping them from having a civil union and then the most elaborate reception they can afford? No nothing. Just like any couple can go to city hall, fill out a paper and a court clerk will sign it and they are married. No ceremony, no words, nothing but signing the paper.

What gays want is a social consideration. They belive if they are married Old Aunt Sally will finally invite them to sunday dinner. The children who live with them will be able to play with the kids next door. They want everyone else to consider them married as in a social convention and they won't get it.

Well, that's what the simpleminded tools are all about, some sort of fuzzy-wuzzy emotional validation. The leaders who are using them, on the other hand, are aiming for being able to bludgeon their political opponents into silence via the courts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.
...

...
...


1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

1) Some arguments say tradition. Is the tradition an overriding social interest that the courts should rule justifies discrimination?

2) Some conservatives favor granting marriage rights to gays. Conservative Christians, and many progressive Christians favor biblical arguments, or moral arguments, or even yet again, tradition.

3) A majority of liberals favor granting gays marriage rights. It is antithetic to liberalism to oppose that. Many leftists and progressives are moralistic and homophobic, no big surprise there --- human nature.

You are using the term liberals in place of the terms Democrats, and Progressives. Shame on you and your utter ignorance, you fucking imbecile. You're a bigger fool than you are a poor intellect, and that is saying much

now fuck off troll

Moderates too can support marriage equality Dante. Insult at your pleasure.

A liberal, a conservative, and a moderate walk into a barber shop....




...the barber says "Hello Governor"

 

[daws101]

either you believe in equality or you don't!
things don't get any more simple than that!

Exactly what I would expect from a simpleton.

yes dear ! now go back to torturing small animals like a good psycho ...

 

[BillyV]

I’m not a constitutional scholar (and I don’t play one on TV), but it seems based on the writings of the Court in the Lawrence case, they didn’t consider gay marriage to be settled case law.
Kennedy wrote for the majority in Lawrence:

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

“O'Connor's [concurring] opinion was broader than the majority's, for as Antonin Scalia noted in dissent it explicitly cast doubt on whether laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples could pass rational-basis scrutiny. O'Connor explicitly noted in her opinion that a law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would pass the rational scrutiny as long as it was designed to "preserv[e] the traditional institution of marriage" and not simply based on the state's dislike of homosexual persons.”

(yes, this is from Wikipedia; I said I wasn’t a legal eagle, right?)

Whenever there is a discussion of the “right” of gay marriage it’s at least in part about the benefits heterosexual couples receive (1,138 Federal benefits is the number I have seen), but do gay couples have a right to expect the same benefits as traditional heterosexual couples?

The laws surrounding traditional marriage have evolved over hundreds (or probably thousands) of years (unlike the President’s “evolution” that took just over 3 years). This evolution has always been based on the understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman. Marriage in this sense is a supremely paternalistic institution, and assumes a union of unequals, or at least a union with specifically designed roles. Traditional marriage laws assume that the husband is the main provider, which allows the wife the flexibility to provide for the home and care of children, and therefore the financial wherewithal is assumed to be with the husband. Many (if not most) of the benefits afforded to traditional married couples are the result of this assumption, often to enhance the wife’s security. It would not be necessary, for instance, to allow for spousal health coverage if both spouses are expected to work outside the home. Since the wife relegates her option to pursue a career to being a caregiver, it would unfair if, when the husband dies, she was not able to access the same retirement benefits or the untaxed estate as if the husband were still alive, since she gave up her right to create her own estate for the good of the family unit. Even joint tax returns are only beneficial in situations where one spouse has significantly less income than the other and was really designed with the single support of two in mind; one of the recent problems of two-earner couples was the “marriage penalty” that resulted when the two earned a similar amount.

So, since there is no supposed “weaker sex” in a same-sex union, why would we provide the same protections that are provided to traditional couples? By extension, perhaps we should update the benefits afforded to traditional married couples to reflect the reality of the 21st century, where women often earn more than their husbands and require no such benefits.

I don’t care whether the federal government recognizes gay marriage or not; I have no religious or moral agenda. As a conservative I support less government interference in the right of individuals to free association in whatever way they choose. However, this issue isn’t about the rights of individuals, which as I see it have not been violated (marriage as it is currently defined is available to anyone); it’s about the right of the government to promote what it sees as the common good; whether rightly or wrongly is a matter of debate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

There has been no denying any of their rights. A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman....and that is according to the dictionary. A gay individual has the exact same rights as a single hetrosexual. Also, there is the fact that "gay marriage" is not "banned" anywhere in the United States....it is simply not recognized by most states. Just because society refuses to recognize and condone gay marriage, does not mean gays cannot get married.

For example, here is the actual text of the so-called "gay marriage ban" of North Carolina:

Sec. 6. Marriage.
Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State. This section does not prohibit a private party from entering into contracts with another private party; nor does this section prohibit courts from adjudicating the rights of private parties pursuant to such contracts

So as you can see, the state will only recognize marriages between a man and woman. It does not criminalize "gay marriages" at all.

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

It is answered satisfactorily.

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

Liberals lie about everything just so they can get re-elected. If they actually ran on what they believe in they would never get elected in the first place.

In addition to exhibiting your ignorance on the issue, you also failed to provide any objective evidence in support of denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage law.

You need to think in terms of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, where the state is justified in restricting your right to free speech accordingly.

That marriage was ‘traditionally’ between only men and women is neither compelling nor relevant.

If a state repeals all of its laws regarding the legal institution of marriage, what happens?

Then the issue ends, same-sex couples can’t claim equal access to a law that doesn’t exist. States have latitude to do as they see fit with their laws, provided those laws are applied equally to all.

 

[Ravi]

I would not object to them being granted the same privileges and benefits as a married couple.

But just because a church that I don't follow calls them polka-dotted, that doesn't change my definition of Caucasian or Latino.

Thanks for the non answer.

Don't redefine the word 'marriage' or 'marry'.
Seems simple enough.

You realize that what you are saying here is that only religion can define marriage unless it is a religion you disagree with.

That's pretty much against the 1st amendment as it can get.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

There has been no denying any of their rights. A marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman....and that is according to the dictionary. A gay individual has the exact same rights as a single hetrosexual. Also, there is the fact that "gay marriage" is not "banned" anywhere in the United States....it is simply not recognized by most states. Just because society refuses to recognize and condone gay marriage, does not mean gays cannot get married.

For example, here is the actual text of the so-called "gay marriage ban" of North Carolina:


So as you can see, the state will only recognize marriages between a man and woman. It does not criminalize "gay marriages" at all.



It is answered satisfactorily.



Liberals lie about everything just so they can get re-elected. If they actually ran on what they believe in they would never get elected in the first place.

In addition to exhibiting your ignorance on the issue, you also failed to provide any objective evidence in support of denying same-sex couples equal access to marriage law.

You need to think in terms of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, where the state is justified in restricting your right to free speech accordingly.

That marriage was ‘traditionally’ between only men and women is neither compelling nor relevant.

If a state repeals all of its laws regarding the legal institution of marriage, what happens?

Then the issue ends, same-sex couples can’t claim equal access to a law that doesn’t exist. States have latitude to do as they see fit with their laws, provided those laws are applied equally to all.

News flash, you don't have to provide objective evidence to justify settled law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

either you believe in equality or you don't!
things don't get any more simple than that!

Exactly what I would expect from a simpleton.

yes dear ! now go back to torturing small animals like a good psycho ...

Wow. I wouldn't have thought it possible for you to come up with a post even more random and meaningless than your previous one, but I now stand corrected.

Tell me the truth: if I put my ear up next to yours, will I be able to hear the ocean?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a state repeals all of its laws regarding the legal institution of marriage, what happens?

Then the issue ends, same-sex couples can’t claim equal access to a law that doesn’t exist. States have latitude to do as they see fit with their laws, provided those laws are applied equally to all.

If a state can dissolve the legal institution of marriage by simply repealing its laws to that effect, why doesn't that negate the argument that there is a -right- to the institution of marriage?

 

[eflatminor]

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

Marriage is not a right protected by the Constitution and the feds should not be defining it for anyone, gay or straight. Now, I agree we should not be denying anyone anything under the law but the other problem with enshrining gay marriage as a federal law is that it would leave many with UNEQUAL access and protection. For instance, unmarried couples that choose to partner and whose sexual orientation is not relevant would continue to be denied equal access if only gay and straight marriages were given special treatment. Therefore, the answer is not to allow gays marriage rights, but to remove any special rights to anyone that chooses to get married. The government need not provide tax breaks and other benefits to married people. The government need not know your personal relationships at all outside of perhaps the military and immigration. The institution of marriage has been around a lot longer than our government. We don't need the nanny staters to protect it, define it, or give special treatment to anyone that marries.

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

No, because as I argued above, NO ONE should be getting special treatment under the law, as straight married couples currently do. Get the government out of the marriage business and anyone can marry anyone they like. If the local "Church of Sacred Beaver" likes marrying lesbian couples, have at it. Even if you don't have a church that will marry you, we still have the 1st amendment. Feel free to call yourself married. This is only an issue because government meddles where it should not.

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

You got me there. I can't say why any central planners do what they do. Power and control is my guess.

 

[daws101]

Exactly what I would expect from a simpleton.

yes dear ! now go back to torturing small animals like a good psycho ...

Wow. I wouldn't have thought it possible for you to come up with a post even more random and meaningless than your previous one, but I now stand corrected.

Tell me the truth: if I put my ear up next to yours, will I be able to hear the ocean?

your posts are the definition of random and meaningless..
so anything I would post could not match the standard you've set...
you must be very proud!

 

[George Costanza]

Just for further evidence on question #3 it's worth noting that the guy making this argument and asking these questions has a Romney icon in his signature.

California is "ultra liberal" with a Republican governor? This a JOKE right?

California Governor Jerry Brown is a Democrat, my dear. Sorry to inform you of this. California has not gone to a GOP candidate since Reagan's re-election 24 years ago and the state legislature is 64% Democrat. Yeah...California is ultra-liberal. Good fucking Christ Peach.

Not California's judiciary, which is very conservative. Decades of Republican judicial appointments have reduced the California bench to nothing more than rubber-stampers for the prosecution. The Cal Supremes are a joke as well - for the same reason: Republican stacking of the supreme court bench.

 

[George Costanza]

I don't think they care HOW they get to remodel society into their own image, as long as they get to.

I'm not so sure that liberals are so much trying to "remodel society into their own image" as they are more concerned with simply trying to rescuing society from what the conservatives would like to turn it into.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Don't redefine the word 'marriage' or 'marry'.
Seems simple enough.

No one is seeking to ‘redefine’ anything, marriage remains the same and unchanged: a contractual obligation between two equal parties:

The marital bargain in California (along with otherstates) traditionally required that a woman’s legal and economic identity be subsumed by her husband’s upon marriage under the doctrine of coverture; this once-unquestioned aspect of marriage now is regarded as antithetical to the notion of marriage as a union of equals. FF 26-27, 32. As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices like coverture that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage. FF 26-27, 32. Marriage was thus transformed from a male-dominated institution into an institution recognizing men and women as equals.

Perry v. Brown

Because marriage is a union of equals, there is no logical, legal reason for same-sex couples to be excluded from entering into such a contract.

Again, the issue has never been about ‘redefining’ marriage, or ‘forcing’ anything on anyone, it’s merely a matter of equal access to marriage laws for everyone.

I’m not a constitutional scholar (and I don’t play one on TV), but it seems based on the writings of the Court in the Lawrence case, they didn’t consider gay marriage to be settled case law.
Kennedy wrote for the majority in Lawrence:

See Romer for the on-point case law.

I don’t care whether the federal government recognizes gay marriage or not; I have no religious or moral agenda. As a conservative I support less government interference in the right of individuals to free association in whatever way they choose. However, this issue isn’t about the rights of individuals, which as I see it have not been violated (marriage as it is currently defined is available to anyone); it’s about the right of the government to promote what it sees as the common good; whether rightly or wrongly is a matter of debate.

Marriage is not available to same-sex couples, which violates equal access doctrine, whether one construes that as an ‘individual right’ or not is immaterial.

The fact remains that restricting same-sex couples from marriage represents government excess, is a violation of the rule of law, and undermines the republican form of government guaranteed to the states by the Constitution. Strangely, one would think conservatives very much in support of equal access to marriage law accordingly.