Are you born gay?

[jillian]

My intent is not to argue; but don't they already? I mean they have the same rights as you or I.

If you're speaking as a married couple, they can't have the same rights because we as a people have deemd that a "marriage" is one man & one woman. Therefore they cannot have the same rights because they aren't legally married.
Same goes for any couple that lives together. Most states do not recognize common law marriage anymore. A couple can be together all their lives but they can't share in the same rights as a legally married couple.

Oh... I don't want to argue with you, either, and I hope I didn't appear argumentative with you. But I'm happy to discuss the subject with you if you wish.

The difference between your example of a couple that chooses to live together instead of getting married and a gay couple is one of choice. The heterosexual couple living together can choose to get married. The gay couple who have lived together for years and formed a family unit, don't have tht option. The moment you marry, you have certain rights... rights to their pensions, rights to their social security benefits, etc. Those rights don't apply and can't be contracted in the context of a homosexual relationship, even if they've treated their relationship as "til death do we part".

I guess I don't think that's fair on a civil level, though different religions should certainly not be forced to participate in those ceremonies should they choose not to.

 

[nt250]

Wow, that makes me feel all warm & fuzzy.

Care to explain, why?

Because religion is stupid.

Anything else I can help clear up for you?

 

[Joz]

Oh... I don't want to argue with you, either, and I hope I didn't appear argumentative with you. But I'm happy to discuss the subject with you if you wish.

Works for me.

The difference between your example of a couple that chooses to live together instead of getting married and a gay couple is one of choice. The heterosexual couple living together can choose to get married. The gay couple who have lived together for years and formed a family unit, don't have tht option. The moment you marry, you have certain rights... rights to their pensions, rights to their social security benefits, etc. Those rights don't apply and can't be contracted in the context of a homosexual relationship, even if they've treated their relationship as "til death do we part".

I guess I don't think that's fair on a civil level, though different religions should certainly not be forced to participate in those ceremonies should they choose not to.

If I understand you right, you don't like the idea of gays not having the choice to be married?

There are many "family units" where the two reigning adults are not married. They accept the fact that they do not get the same benefits as they would being 'legal'. And too, even a heterosexual couple must be together for enough years in order for the wife to get any of the husband's social security. It used to be 20 years but it's been lowered to only 10 years, now, I believe. And too, if any couple wants to make that 'til-death-us-do-part commitment, and many do before a officiant/celebrant but not actually contractual, they can go to a lawyer and have a will or other papers drawn up that allows their life-partner to inherit their earthly belongings.

This still goes back to what the majority wants. They don't want gays to be "married"; this is how the people want their cities/states/country to be.

 

[Joz]

Because religion is stupid.

Anything else I can help clear up for you?

No, thank you; that about does it.

 

[nt250]

Works for me.

If I understand you right, you don't like the idea of gays not having the choice to be married?

There are many "family units" where the two reigning adults are not married. They accept the fact that they do not get the same benefits as they would being 'legal'. And too, even a heterosexual couple must be together for enough years in order for the wife to get any of the husband's social security. It used to be 20 years but it's been lowered to only 10 years, now, I believe. And too, if any couple wants to make that 'til-death-us-do-part commitment, and many do before a officiant/celebrant but not actually contractual, they can go to a lawyer and have a will or other papers drawn up that allows their life-partner to inherit their earthly belongings.

This still goes back to what the majority wants. They don't want gays to be "married"; this is how the people want their cities/states/country to be.

We don't have majority rule in this country.

 

[Joz]

We don't have majority rule in this country.

Apparently we do. Gay "marriage" is not legal.

 

[nt250]

Apparently we do. Gay "marriage" is not legal.

What does gay marriage have to do with the concept of majority rule? Every place that has legalized it did so through court decisions.

 

[Joz]

What does gay marriage have to do with the concept of majority rule? Every place that has legalized it did so through court decisions.

Which isn't the way it's suppose to be.

 

[nt250]

Which isn't the way it's suppose to be.

Sure it is. It's called separation of powers and we have it for a reason. The legislature, or the people through ballot initiatives, can't just pass any law they want to.

The fact that judges sometimes make the wrong decisions doesn't make the process wrong. It just means we need better judges.

And there is the rub. The only time people complain about "activist" judges is when they decide against them. When they decide in their favor, they're brilliant legal minds at work.

 

[Dr Grump]

Every place that has legalized it did so through court decisions.

Really? what countries?

 

[nt250]

Really? what countries?

I don't know about countries, but Massachusetts allowed same sex marriage because of a court decision. There was some city where the mayor used that to decide to allow same sex marriage there. San Fransico maybe?

I'm not sure what the current status is today, but in Gerry Studds obituary his partner was referred to as his "husband" so I assume it's either still legal here, or those marriages that took place are still considered legal.

The Vermont civil union law was a direct result of a court decision that declared the prohibition on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional. I can't remember the grounds though. Might have been equal protection. I forget.

And wasn't there some town in New York that was allowing it for awhile?

Oh, and I do know that Canada allows same sex marriage. I was a big fan of the TV show Queer As Folk. I'm not sure if that law was the result of a court decision though or not.

 

[jillian]

Which isn't the way it's suppose to be.

Why? Sometimes people need the Court to lead. Same as what happened vis a vis segregation.

 

[mattskramer]

Why? Sometimes people need the Court to lead. Same as what happened vis a vis segregation.

The title of this thread is “Are you born gay?” The latest few posts on this thread have to do with what degree the courts, citizens, or legislature should set the rules for society. It is interesting that threads can practically mutate and branch off in many different directions.

Anyway, I’ll put my comment in as it relates to the latest direction of this thread. First of all, the courts should avoid “legislating from the bench as much as possible. The courts are to interpret the constitution with respect to certain cases. It is the legislature’s duty to legislate. Secondly, something is not right merely because the majority of the public thinks that something is right. Likewise something is not wrong (such as gay marriage) just because most people think that it is wrong. That having been said, I like and respect our representative system of government where, at least indirectly and to a strong degree, majority rules. Just keep in mind that the majority can be wrong.

 

[mattskramer]

It is well documented that the AIDS epidemic started in the homosexual population. How else did it get to the normal population?

Who had the first case of AIDS and how did he get it? What does it matter? What about other venereal diseases? Did Heterosexuals pass them to homosexuals? Again, what does it matter?

 

[Gunny]

Sure it is. It's called separation of powers and we have it for a reason. The legislature, or the people through ballot initiatives, can't just pass any law they want to.

The fact that judges sometimes make the wrong decisions doesn't make the process wrong. It just means we need better judges.

And there is the rub. The only time people complain about "activist" judges is when they decide against them. When they decide in their favor, they're brilliant legal minds at work.

I have to strongly disagree with this.

Yes, the people through their government representatives DO make the laws.

It is NOT a justice's job to legislate from the bench. It is to enfore the law as written; regardless, that justice's personal feelings on the matter.

An activist judge is an activist judge. Doesn't matter who they are "for" or "against." It matters that they interpret and carry out the law as it is written.

 

[Gunny]

Who had the first case of AIDS and how did he get it? What does it matter? What about other venereal diseases? Did Heterosexuals pass them to homosexuals? Again, what does it matter?

It matters because it is FACT that homosexuals have a higher risk of carrying and passing on STDs because of their unclean sexual behavior. Of course, by your attitude it's pretty clear you choose to ingore it, or even worse, have another of your irrelevant, relativist analogies to go with it.

 

[nt250]

I have to strongly disagree with this.

Yes, the people through their government representatives DO make the laws.

It is NOT a justice's job to legislate from the bench. It is to enfore the law as written; regardless, that justice's personal feelings on the matter.

An activist judge is an activist judge. Doesn't matter who they are "for" or "against." It matters that they interpret and carry out the law as it is written.

So if I manage to get a law passed that outlaws all public displays of religion, you think no judge has the right to interpret that law as unconstitutional?

Thanks. I'll get started right now.

Of course I'm being facetious. But how about this one:

When I first moved to New Hampshire in 1983 they had what is commonly referred to as a "pole tax". Anybody who wanted to register to vote had to pay $10. I'm originally from Rhode Island, and for most of Rhode Islands early history, only land owners could vote. From what I remember from high school history, many Southern states required that people pass a literacy test before they could vote.

All those laws were struck down by the courts on constititional grounds. And rightly so, don't you think?

 

[Gunny]

So if I manage to get a law passed that outlaws all public displays of religion, you think no judge has the right to interpret that law as unconstitutional?

Thanks. I'll get started right now.

Of course I'm being facetious. But how about this one:

When I first moved to New Hampshire in 1983 they had what is commonly referred to as a "pole tax". Anybody who wanted to register to vote had to pay $10. I'm originally from Rhode Island, and for most of Rhode Islands early history, only land owners could vote. From what I remember from high school history, many Southern states required that people pass a literacy test before they could vote.

All those laws were struck down by the courts on constititional grounds. And rightly so, don't you think?

We're talking two different things. Ruling against a law that is unconstitutional is within the court's bounds, if it truly does violate the Constitution. A justice upholding the tenets of the US Constitution is not legislating from the bench, he/she is upholding the law.

That isn't the same thing as purposefully misinterpreting law based on political ideology and making a clearly biased decision. That is the judiciary circumventing the legislature.

It is the job of the legislature to make law based on the desires of their constituents, WITHOUT violating Constitutional law.

 

[nt250]

We're talking two different things. Ruling against a law that is unconstitutional is within the court's bounds, if it truly does violate the Constitution. A justice upholding the tenets of the US Constitution is not legislating from the bench, he/she is upholding the law.

That isn't the same thing as purposefully misinterpreting law based on political ideology and making a clearly biased decision. That is the judiciary circumventing the legislature.

It is the job of the legislature to make law based on the desires of their constituents, WITHOUT violating Constitutional law.

So we're back to the right to privacy which is the basis of the Roe v Wade decision.

Name one other private medical procedure anywhere in this country that has a law that even mentions it.

 

[Gunny]

So we're back to the right to privacy which is the basis of the Roe v Wade decision.

Name one other private medical procedure anywhere in this country that has a law that even mentions it.

The Roe v Wade decision is BS. The right to privacy does not supercede the taking of human life. That is unless you define an unborn human being as all manner of things EXCEPT what it is ... an unborn human being.