32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage

[g5000]

I would have to hear it from them

Are there any homosexuals on this board who do not think that marriage should apply to them?

Anyone? Anyone?

Whatever you call it, it should apply to our partnerships. If you change it to civil unions for everyone, great. I won't accept marriage for you and civil unions for gays though.

You have to. That's how a democracy works. Behaviors repugnant to the majority don't get to dictate to it. Didn't you take poli-sci?

If you had taken poli-sci, the term "separate but equal" should ring a bell.

Just because your cult wants really really REALLY! badly to change the 1,000s of years old definition of marriage doesn't mean you automatically get to.

Sorry, but your definition of marriage is not thousands of years old.

After all, many bible characters had hundreds of concubines.

And even in my own lifetime, the definition of marriage was the union between two people of the same race.

This "redefinition of marriage" thing is an invention created by bigots.

Just because that toddler really really REALLY! wants to play with that electrical cord, doesn't mean they get to.

Please show how two gay people getting married causes harm to them or to you.

 

[Skylar]

I stated from the get go that Lawrence v. Texas would be used to overturn state DOMA laws. Any one that claimed otherwise was clearly fooling themselves. Besides, the state has absolutely no business legislating the sexual acts of consenting adults. If you claim to be an advocate of small government then you would never support such a gross intrusion by the state. The state has absolutely no compelling interest to deny it's gay citizens access to marriage. The state's that support these discriminatory laws/amendments have failed miserably in front of the courts, often with no arguments even being presented before the courts.

Yeah, but you're kinda missing the point of the 'small government' rhetoric. When many conservatives say 'small government', they aren't talking about reducing government interference with the lives of citizens. They're speaking of limiting FEDERAL government interference with the lives of citizens. They very much want to increase State control over the lives of their people.

Take...abortion. Small government advocates like Ron Paul has proposed forbidding the USSC from ruling on issues of abortion rights, stripping US citizens of all federal protections regarding abortion rights and sending the issue to be decided by the States. He then proposes criminalizing abortion at the State level.

Many of these 'small government' conservatives oh-so want to use State government to control the lives of people in their States and strip them of existing rights. And resent the Federal government from preventing them from doing so.

In that light, a desire by said conservatives to impose strict controls on consensual sexual behavior of adults becomes perfectly predictable. As these conservatives are fighting for the very control over people's lives that such restrictions would demonstrate.

 

[g5000]

 

[Skylar]

For 200 years, it was understood that not all rights are intended to be applied equally. It's not realistic to think the founders thought men should marry men. To extend this to its logical conclusion using liberal think, a dog could marry a woman. Think that won't happen? Check the United Kingdom. That's precisely what happened.

[/quote]

Actually, no.....a dog couldn't marry a woman. As a dog lacks the capacity to offer consent. And without consent, no contract can be entered into. Social or otherwise.

And the founders didn't think women should vote. Or most black folks. Or those who weren't land owners. Depending on the State, only those of a certain religion could vote. The idea that we should impose their cultural perceptions onto our society is perhaps a little outdated.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage

Sigh. I feel like I'm living in a lunatic asylum any longer. Who's getting to these people? A few years ago, the American Lung Association came out with a policy statement regarding Hollywood's relentless "product placement" of tobacco in movies aimed at teenagers. They said it wasn't necessarily a bad thing, and that moderate smoking had no detrimental effect.

Alright, let's change the face of this argument. I understand why lesbians want a child. Next to self-preservation it's the strongest natural instinct a woman possesses. But a homosexual male?? Come on "daddy". Let's hear about all the self-sacrifice and nurturing it's going to take to raise a healthy, mentally well-adjusted child. What's your motivation? Oh, and you'd be perfectly willing to have an adoption agency give you a little girl rather than a little boy, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you?

 

[Skylar]

Rights of a minority should not be put up a popular vote.

Rights for any groups should not be put up a popular vote.

And the fundamental premise to your conclusion is false. Ergo your conclusion is false. Deviant sexual behaviors while in the minority are not "a minority" when it comes to the 14th. Otherwise compulsive theft & serial killing would be protected behaviors repugnant to the majority. After all, they would argue, "we are born this way"...

You go opening that legal pandora's box and you might as well declare anarchy as the ruling principle of this country.

I am not sure if you could possibly get any more dramatic. Theft and serial killing denies the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consenting adults engaging in homosexual sex does none of those things.

Silo is the same farm hand that insisted that allowing a doctor with Ebola to receive treatment in the US would lead to an extinction level event and exploding nuclear reactors. And California removing wording of Prop 8 from its constitution after the federal judiciary ruled it unconstitutional was an act of sedition and treason.

So melodrama is kind of his stock in trade.

 

[Skylar]

American Academy of Pediatrics Supports Same Gender Civil Marriage

Sigh. I feel like I'm living in a lunatic asylum any longer. Who's getting to these people?

Perhaps they simply don't agree with you. You seem hamstrung by the perception that the only way someone could see things differently than you is if someone 'got to them'. That's not necessarily true.

Alright, let's change the face of this argument.

I'm quite happy with the discussion of rights, thank you. Most of your 'changing the face' attempts have been forays into subjective irrelevance.

 

[LiberalMedia]

And without a very, very good reason, you can't deny someone a fundamental right.

Stop right there, criminal scum. Are you saying that it is acceptable to deny someone their ryghts?

With a good reason, absolutely. Else criminal fines and imprisonment would be strictly unconstitutional.

Incorrect. The citizens of any country have entered into a social contract, in which they consent to cede certain rights at various times (e.g.: in some instances, only after having broken the law). We Americans have all agreed, for example, to be bound by the laws crafted by our legislators upon the joint approval by both houses of Congress and passage by the president, regardless of what rights such laws may or may not violate if we were not under contract. Entry into such a contract is voluntary, and because we have all entered into it either implicitly or explicitly, it is not by any means a denial of someone's rights to be subject to fines or imprisonment, but rather a fulfillment of the social contract they entered into with their fellow U.S. citizens and their collective government.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

How about gay-basher's rights? I'm sure if we performed enough back flips of logic like the ones we're seeing in this thread, then it'll be perfectly apparent that an unconstitutional prejudice against gay-basher's rights is as obvious as the nose on your face.

 

[LiberalMedia]

An issue like marriage equality was bound to be referred to the Supreme Court eventually. When it does, they will overrule not only state laws against gay marriage, but also state constitutions.

They'll overrule a part of the State constitution, rendering it unenforceable. As that part strips citizens of rights. And the States lack the authority to strip citizens of fundamental rights without very good reason. Without such a reason, that portion of the constitution can't be legally enforced.

They could keep the wording in the state constitution, I suppose. But it would be legally meaningless.

Your sources for these claims, please.

The eventual legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court will set a strong modern precedent for other instances where the federal government wishes to overrule state governments and repeal state laws, including their constitutions.

The precedent of the Federal Government overruling state constitutions when they violate the rights of citizens is already set. Segregation was written into the constitutions of some southern States. Alabama for example mandated segregation in education as part of their constitution. Some Southern State constitutions had poll taxes written into them.

And the federal government overruled educational segregation in 1954 and poll taxes in 1937. Nixing the idea that precedent would by set by gay marriage on the feds authority to overrule portions of State constitutions incompatible with the rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

That precedent is at least several generations old.

Correct! I'm glad you agree with me on this. To others in the thread who might view our posts as opposed to one another, I specifically referred to it--the SC's eventual overruling of state constitutions on the issue of gay marriage--as a modern precedent; we now have multiple generations of Americans that lived under neither of the issues cited by Skylar, thus a more modern precedent is needed before the federal government repeals state constitutions in their entirety. Doing so without said precedent would merely precipitate unnecessary dissent and rebelliousness.

 

[Skylar]

And without a very, very good reason, you can't deny someone a fundamental right.

Stop right there, criminal scum. Are you saying that it is acceptable to deny someone their ryghts?

With a good reason, absolutely. Else criminal fines and imprisonment would be strictly unconstitutional.

Incorrect.

Absolutely correct. With good reason, we can deny the rights of our citizens. Things like the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to certain property, even the right to life. And such denials of rights are met out as punishments upon conviction in many criminal cases.

The citizens of any country have entered into a social contract, in which they consent to cede certain rights at various times (e.g.: in some instances, only after having broken the law). We Americans have all agreed, for example, to be bound by the laws crafted by our legislators upon the joint approval by both houses of Congress and passage by the president, regardless of what rights such laws may or may not violate if we were not under contract. Entry into such a contract is voluntary, and because we have all entered into it either implicitly or explicitly, it is not by any means a denial of someone's rights to be subject to fines or imprisonment, but rather a fulfillment of the social contract they entered into with their fellow U.S. citizens and their collective government.

You can't 'consent' to something if you don't have the right to say no to it. And no citizen can say no to the enforcement of our laws. The laws apply regardless of whether or not they agree with them.

Thus, the rights aren't ceded. They're taken. And its perfectly constitutional if there is good enough reason. Like say, violation of our laws, as long as the law itself doesn't violate rights.

 

[LiberalMedia]

And without a very, very good reason, you can't deny someone a fundamental right.

Stop right there, criminal scum. Are you saying that it is acceptable to deny someone their ryghts?

With a good reason, absolutely. Else criminal fines and imprisonment would be strictly unconstitutional.

Incorrect.

Absolutely correct. With good reason, we can deny the rights of our citizens. Things like the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to certain property, even the right to life. And such denials of rights are met out as punishments upon conviction in many criminal cases.

That is discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal. Your argument is invalid.

The citizens of any country have entered into a social contract, in which they consent to cede certain rights at various times (e.g.: in some instances, only after having broken the law). We Americans have all agreed, for example, to be bound by the laws crafted by our legislators upon the joint approval by both houses of Congress and passage by the president, regardless of what rights such laws may or may not violate if we were not under contract. Entry into such a contract is voluntary, and because we have all entered into it either implicitly or explicitly, it is not by any means a denial of someone's rights to be subject to fines or imprisonment, but rather a fulfillment of the social contract they entered into with their fellow U.S. citizens and their collective government.

You can't 'consent' to something if you don't have the right to say no to it. And no citizen can say no to the enforcement of our laws. The laws apply regardless of whether or not they agree with them.

Again, incorrect. By becoming a citizen of a country, you consent to follow its laws. By remaining a citizen, you issue continuous consent to follow your country's laws. Laws apply only to citizens of a country; if you wish to no longer be bound by a country's laws, revoke your citizenship and leave. It really is that simple.

Thus, the rights aren't ceded. They're taken. And its perfectly constitutional if there is good enough reason. Like say, violation of our laws, as long as the law itself doesn't violate rights.

This is the best example of circular conservatard logic I've seen in a long time. It's legal to violate someone's rights if they break the law, but not if the law violates their rights, which the "It's legal to violate someone's rights if..." law doesn't do.

Is this the best you have?

 

[LiberalMedia]

How about gay-basher's rights? I'm sure if we performed enough back flips of logic like the ones we're seeing in this thread, then it'll be perfectly apparent that an unconstitutional prejudice against gay-basher's rights is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Discrimination, incitement, and hate crimes are not Constitutionally-protected rights, conservatard.

 

[Skylar]

The eventual legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court will set a strong modern precedent for other instances where the federal government wishes to overrule state governments and repeal state laws, including their constitutions.

The precedent of the Federal Government overruling state constitutions when they violate the rights of citizens is already set. Segregation was written into the constitutions of some southern States. Alabama for example mandated segregation in education as part of their constitution. Some Southern State constitutions had poll taxes written into them.

And the federal government overruled educational segregation in 1954 and poll taxes in 1937. Nixing the idea that precedent would by set by gay marriage on the feds authority to overrule portions of State constitutions incompatible with the rights protected by the Federal Constitution.

That precedent is at least several generations old.

Correct! I'm glad you agree with me on this.
[/quote]

Perhaps you should reread what you posted....

The eventual legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Court will set a strong modern precedent for other instances where the federal government wishes to overrule state governments and repeal state laws, including their constitutions.

....as we clearly don't agree. The precedent you insist that the eventual legalization of gay marriage will set was set generations ago.

To others in the thread who might view our posts as opposed to one another, I specifically referred to it--the SC's eventual overruling of state constitutions on the issue of gay marriage--as a modern precedent; we now have multiple generations of Americans that lived under neither of the issues cited by Skylar, thus a more modern precedent is needed before the federal government repeals state constitutions in their entirety.

Who is proposing repealing state constitutions in their entirety? There's no such precedent, nor would overruling gay marriage bans create one. Nor is there any plausible attempt to do so. Robbing you of both legal justification and a mechanism to do so.

I think you may be climbing down a bit of a conspiracy rabbit hole on this one.

Doing so without said precedent would merely precipitate unnecessary dissent and rebelliousness.

The obvious problems with your reasoning would be;

1) Gay marriage bans being deemed unconstitutional doesn't establish precedent for repealing state constitutions in their entirety. As they wouldn't repeal any state constitution in its entirety.

2) There are no plausible proposals for the federal governments to repeal the state constitutions in their entirety. You seem to be the originator of the very concept.

 

[Skylar]

That is discriminatory, and discrimination is illegal. Your argument is invalid.

Nope. You're again misinformed about the nation of discrimination. Discrimination is quite legal depending on the circumstances, and in fact vital to the application of any law. How then could we apply speeding tickets only to those who exceeded the speeding tickets rather than to all drivers? We discriminate, fining only those who have exceeded the statutory limits. We use a valid criteria for discrimination and apply the law accordingly.

On the civil side, a landlord can discriminate against renting to those who don't have enough money to pay the rent. While entering into leases with those who do. Not having enough money to pay is a perfectly legitimate basis of discrimination.

Illegal discrimination is the application of an illegitimate basis of discrimination. Like race, gender or sexual orientation. If you gave someone a ticket because they're black....that's illegal discrimination. If your refused to rent to someone because they are gay, that's illegal discrimination.

You fallaciously lump legal and illegal discrimination together. Which the law doesn't. Rendering your claim of 'invalidity' itself uselessly invalid.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The voters of California crushed the gay marriage referendum 54%-48%. Millions of people voted. A margin that large is a mandate by any other name. Yet one homosexual alcoholic circuit judge rules the democratic will of the people as being "unconstitutional". This is the opinion of one queer drunk. So hey, I have an idea. Let's get some conservative circuit court judges, hardcore Christians...or better still, Muslims, to overturn all laws making homosexuality legal, as unconstitutional. Then we'll arrest all the queers. It'll be perfectly legal, right? I mean some circuit court judge said so...so it must be legal.

Crushed?

And....are you saying if an anti-gun measure passed 54%-48%...it's a mandate that no judge is permitted to overturn?

The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment. The right to homosexual marriage, or marriage, period, is ambiguous and determined solely in interpretation of various amendments.

And the right for all Americans to be treated equally under the law is clearly stated in the 14th Amendment. Check mate.

Yes, If they interpret it to extend to marriage, which I imagine they will. I happen to support gay marriage; I was simply responding to your juxtaposition.

 

[Skylar]

Again, incorrect. By becoming a citizen of a country, you consent to follow its laws. By remaining a citizen, you issue continuous consent to follow your country's laws. Laws apply only to citizens of a country; if you wish to no longer be bound by a country's laws, revoke your citizenship and leave. It really is that simple.

Obviously false.

Almost all of us are born into citizenship. An infant can't legally enter into any contract as they can't offer consent. Or consistent bowel control for that matter. Yet they are a citizens none the less.

Eliminating 'becoming a citizen' as the basis of consent. Almost none of us choose to become citizens. We simply are. Nor do we have the option of picking and choosing which laws apply to us and which don't. They laws apply regardless of our consent or agreement.

The laws are imposed upon us. Meaning that upon the conviction of a violation of those laws, rights are taken away. Not voluntarily 'ceded'. Ask a prisoner if they choose to leave prison....and they'll almost universally tell you yes. Yet they still can't leave. Demonstrating elegantly that consent has nothing to do with it.

Denial of rights by the government does. And this denial of rights is perfectly constitutional, as they have a solid basis and good reason. Denial of recognition of gay marriage doesn't. Its an arbitrary denial of fundamental rights for no particular reason. And that's obviously not good enough.

 

[Skylar]

The right to bear arms is clearly stated in the Second Amendment. The right to homosexual marriage, or marriage, period, is ambiguous and determined solely in interpretation of various amendments.

The right to self defense with a fire arm isn't mentioned anywhere in the constitution. Yet the USSC recognized and protected it in McDonald V. Chicago. The right to marriage is already recognized as a fundamental right. And the 14th amendment already protects the rights of our citizens and mandates equal protection under the law.

If you're going to deny gays a fundamental right, you're going to need a very good reason. And 'tradition' isn't good enough.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Well hey, history's most infamous queer, Adolph Hitler, was "married" way before the war, wasn't he? To Rudolph Hess, in Landesberg prison, whom their fellow Nazi inmates dubbed "Mrs. Hitler" or "Frau Hitler". Hitler and his 300,000 SA officer corps of militant queers. Lots of them were "married"...to one another. Or wait a minute, what am I talking about? They were Germany's most debauched legion of pederasts. They were "married" to little boys, a never ending stream of whom were dragged in and out of Berlin's SA barracks complex. It got so disgusting that hundreds of complaints were filed with Berlin's police by civilian witnesses. But I don't want to get present company sexually aroused with all this queer "marriage" history. You can read about it yourself in any of Peter Padfield's three biographies of Heinrich Himmler, especially the 1991 edition:

Amazon.com peter padfield himmler

Is this for real? I've never heard such a thing. Why did nazis require non-Jew gays to wear pink triangles and have them gassed?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

just a couple of points in summary.

1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.

“gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.”


Incorrect.


'Separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the Constitution as seeking to deny gay Americans access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in. When a couple enters into a marriage contract, they are in fact married; same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.


Indeed, to advocate segregating gay Americans into some sort of 'special marriage' is motivated solely by animus toward same-sex couples, and a desire to make them different from everyone else – in violation of the 14th Amendment.


“the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).”


Wrong.


There is no 'gay agenda,' as to seek to realize one's comprehensive civil liberties does not constitute an 'agenda,' nor is it 'forcing' anything on anyone – the notion is ridiculous.


Gay Americans are the injured parties in this dispute, forced to seek relief in Federal court from the states' effort to violate their equal protection rights. All the states need to do is follow the Constitution and allow same-sex couples access to the marriage law they're eligible to participate in and there will be no need for further litigation or rulings from the Supreme Court. The states brought this on themselves, and they have only themselves to blame.


“if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.”


Nonsense.


This fails as a slippery slope fallacy, as well as being ignorant fear-mongering and demagoguery.


There is no such thing as 'gay marriage,' there is only one marriage law in each of the states, marriage law that two persons and only two persons are legally allowed to enter into – same- or opposite-sex. Unions of three or more people cannot now enter into a marriage contract and they will remain ineligible to enter into a marriage contract once same-sex couples are allowed access to marriage law. We know this to be a fact because in the 19 states that follow the Constitution and allow same-sex couples to marry, marriage of three or more persons remain illegal. No 'precedent' will be 'set.'


“interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.”


Also incorrect.


The states are subject to the same 14th Amendment jurisprudence with regard to both interracial couples and same-sex couples, where to deny either access to marriage law violates their protected liberty as individuals and as couples. There is no rational basis to deny either couple access to marriage law, there is no objective, documented evidence in support of such measures, and to deny either access to marriage law pursues no proper legislative end.


All of your 'arguments' in support of violating same-sex couples' civil liberties fail – they fail as fallacies, they fail because they're predicated on lies and ignorance, and they fail because they're based on an unwarranted fear of change, diversity, and of gay Americans themselves.