Gay marriage: Tolerance at the cost of liberty

[SGdsn]

the majority of Americans now support gay marrige.

No civil unions but full on gay marriage.


You on the right are on the wrong side of history yet again.

I don't believe that. Polls are not proof of anything in and of themselves. We have over thirty public votes over the past ten years that say differently, and not only that, but the last three were in states that had a high Democrat turn-out (ME, FL, CA).

 

[SGdsn]

The judiciary does exist, in part, to right legislative wrongs. That is part of the constitutional checks and balances. When they go over the line is when they make policy instead of interpreting the law and telling the legislative branch that a law is simply not permitted under our Constitution. Some judges understand this, and some are activists. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

Righting legislative wrongs is a natural consequent of judicial review, it's not its primary function. Ideally, the court will only intervene when it's a matter of life, liberty (as in your literal freedom, not entitlement), and/or property at stake. For example, the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were imprisoned and fined and facing banishment from the state of Virginia for marrying outside their race. That would be a constitutional matter. Gay marriage isn't since states simply outline what is their legal definition of marriage. They're not throwing gay couples in jail for having a legal marriage elsewhere, nor are they fining them or confiscating their property because the people don't include same-sex couples in their understanding of marriage. It's simply not of the law. So for courts to more or less declare it law oversteps their role.

As far as same sex marriage goes, if to government steps on and issues licenses to regulate and guarantee certain legal rights to people in the guise of marriage, that right should be available to everyone. This will not stop the government from stepping in and taking away your rights when it has a mind to, but it will make it harder, and that alone is a good argument for allowing same sex marriage.

By the way, I should have responded to you first, but but Jones pissed me off when I read his post.

My apologies.

It is available to everyone. The problem is, it isn't available in more than one way to everyone. Because someone wants to marry a member of the same sex doesn't mean they don't still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have access to those benefits if they wanted to. It's not all or nothing. A man who wants three wives isn't being denied rights just because the law wont recognize three marriages.

You can say maybe our definition of marriage isn't inclusive or progressive enough. That's subject to debate. But it doesn't have to be more than what it already is.

 

[Toronado3800]

This one is going by the wayside just like them laws you referenced banning inter racial marriage.

Perhaps States and the IRS coukd just start giving tax breaks for civil unions and stop mentioning the word marriage. That way civil unions are a government matter and the "1st Baptist Church of Vidor Texas" can hold whatever marriage ceremonies they feel like.

Rather skirts the issue, then again we all presumably believe anal sex should be legal between consenting adults so who cares.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lawrence established homosexuals as a protected class entitled to 14th Amendment protection. Consequently, no law may be passed singling them out for exclusion, such as marriage, or creating laws that effect homosexuals only, such as sodomy laws. They are entitled to equal protection.

With regard to homosexuality being a ‘lifestyle choice,’ aside from being rendered moot by Lawrence, consider the First Amendment protection of religion. No one is born the religion he practices as it is with his race. Often individuals as adults will elect to leave one religion to follow another. They choose to follow another faith. One’s right to follow a given religion is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, regardless how one came to that faith. The same is true for homosexuals, whether one is born a homosexual or ‘chooses the lifestyle,’ it makes no difference from a Constitutional standpoint.

This one is going by the wayside just like them laws you referenced banning inter racial marriage.

True. And Loving v Virginia – the case that ended laws against interracial marriage – is further case law in support of the right of gays to marry.

Perhaps States and the IRS coukd just start giving tax breaks for civil unions and stop mentioning the word marriage. That way civil unions are a government matter and the "1st Baptist Church of Vidor Texas" can hold whatever marriage ceremonies they feel like.

At issue would be Full Faith and Credit among other states; provided also whatever the legal union was called, as long as the same rights and privileges are applied to same-sex marriage as that between a man and women, what name given is not important.

Rather skirts the issue, then again we all presumably believe anal sex should be legal between consenting adults so who cares.

Unfortunately and for some unknown, bizarre reason, there are those who care and wish to allow the state to interfere in our private matters and violate citizens’ civil rights for unjustified reasons. There are posts in this very thread that are evidence of that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The judiciary does exist, in part, to right legislative wrongs. That is part of the constitutional checks and balances. When they go over the line is when they make policy instead of interpreting the law and telling the legislative branch that a law is simply not permitted under our Constitution. Some judges understand this, and some are activists. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

Righting legislative wrongs is a natural consequent of judicial review, it's not its primary function. Ideally, the court will only intervene when it's a matter of life, liberty (as in your literal freedom, not entitlement), and/or property at stake. For example, the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were imprisoned and fined and facing banishment from the state of Virginia for marrying outside their race. That would be a constitutional matter. Gay marriage isn't since states simply outline what is their legal definition of marriage. They're not throwing gay couples in jail for having a legal marriage elsewhere, nor are they fining them or confiscating their property because the people don't include same-sex couples in their understanding of marriage. It's simply not of the law. So for courts to more or less declare it law oversteps their role.

As far as same sex marriage goes, if to government steps on and issues licenses to regulate and guarantee certain legal rights to people in the guise of marriage, that right should be available to everyone. This will not stop the government from stepping in and taking away your rights when it has a mind to, but it will make it harder, and that alone is a good argument for allowing same sex marriage.

By the way, I should have responded to you first, but but Jones pissed me off when I read his post.

My apologies.

It is available to everyone. The problem is, it isn't available in more than one way to everyone. Because someone wants to marry a member of the same sex doesn't mean they don't still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have access to those benefits if they wanted to. It's not all or nothing. A man who wants three wives isn't being denied rights just because the law wont recognize three marriages.

You can say maybe our definition of marriage isn't inclusive or progressive enough. That's subject to debate. But it doesn't have to be more than what it already is.

Which is why I am pointing out that allowing SSM expands our rights. That, for me, is enough reason to support it. If you personally need more reason I have no problem with that, I can point you to some well thought out arguments in support of SSM that might help change your mind. If you simply refuse to support it, that is also fine with me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Lawrence established homosexuals as a protected class entitled to 14th Amendment protection. Consequently, no law may be passed singling them out for exclusion, such as marriage, or creating laws that effect homosexuals only, such as sodomy laws. They are entitled to equal protection.

WTF? Where? How?

What it did was say that the state cannot intrude into anyone's bedroom. It did not establish anything but your right to privacy. The court held that the intimate, adult consensual conduct at issue here was part of the liberty protected by the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections. It also concluded that, since the case did not involve minors or persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused, or public conduct or prostitution, or even whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. In other words, it is simply none of the government's business what happens in a bedroom as long as both parties are consenting adults.

You will not that, since SSM actually does involve giving formal recognition to relationships between homosexuals, it is specifically not covered by Lawrence v Texas. The more often you mention that case to bolster your argument the more ignorant you look.

With regard to homosexuality being a ‘lifestyle choice,’ aside from being rendered moot by Lawrence, consider the First Amendment protection of religion. No one is born the religion he practices as it is with his race. Often individuals as adults will elect to leave one religion to follow another. They choose to follow another faith. One’s right to follow a given religion is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, regardless how one came to that faith. The same is true for homosexuals, whether one is born a homosexual or ‘chooses the lifestyle,’ it makes no difference from a Constitutional standpoint.

Are you trying to say that homosexuality is a religion? If not, you are making even less since than usual.

True. And Loving v Virginia – the case that ended laws against interracial marriage – is further case law in support of the right of gays to marry.

It is also further case law in support of the government objecting to SSM.

At issue would be Full Faith and Credit among other states; provided also whatever the legal union was called, as long as the same rights and privileges are applied to same-sex marriage as that between a man and women, what name given is not important.

That depends. I know many of those gay marriage advocates that you claim do not exist that would disagree with you.

Unfortunately and for some unknown, bizarre reason, there are those who care and wish to allow the state to interfere in our private matters and violate citizens’ civil rights for unjustified reasons. There are posts in this very thread that are evidence of that.

Like you? You are one of the people that are arguing that the state actually has the duty to define marriage.

 

[rdean]

I love reading the opinions of right wingers on gay marriage and gay rights.

To them, it's all about "sex" and how unimportant gay rights are. It's all driven by their mystical beliefs and their need to create a "target" for their hate. Right wing hate. The glue that holds them together.

 

[Toro]

the majority of Americans now support gay marrige.

No civil unions but full on gay marriage.


You on the right are on the wrong side of history yet again.

First of all, you are wrong. The majority of Americans are obviously against gay marriage as witnessed by the fact that most states have in fact passed laws clarifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

Second off all, the majority does NOT get to run roughshod over the COTUS.

Recent polls show Americans now supportive of gay marriage, Con. I'll post the link later.

 

[uscitizen]

Why should gays be deprived of the joys of divorce?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why should gays be deprived of the joys of divorce?

My personal opinion is they’re nuts, as well – but they’re entitled to their civil rights whether they like it or not.

 

[Toro]

Why should gays be deprived of the joys of divorce?

"I support gay marriage. Gay people should have the right to be miserable like the rest of us."

I can't remember who said that.

 

[uscitizen]

Seems like it may have been that crazy Texican running for office. I forget his name but wish he had won.

 

[TheBrain]

Why should gays be deprived of the joys of divorce?

Exactly if gays want to be unhappy and lose half of their shit like the rest of us I say go for it.

actually I'm VERY happy in my current marriage, that's just a funny joke.

As an aside, RDean needs his ass whipped. His partisan bullshit is ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All Americans equally possess their naturally derived rights. The issue is the un-Constitutional preemption of equal protection rights to a specific class, in this case homosexuals.

 

[TheBrain]

All Americans equally possess their naturally derived rights. The issue is the un-Constitutional preemption of equal protection rights to a specific class, in this case homosexuals.

Are you just stupid?

You have NO right to a government issued marriage license. None, nada. It doesn't exist.

 

[Toronado3800]

All Americans equally possess their naturally derived rights. The issue is the un-Constitutional preemption of equal protection rights to a specific class, in this case homosexuals.

Are you just stupid?

You have NO right to a government issued marriage license. None, nada. It doesn't exist.

I believe the problem is they are giving out tax deduction and benefit licenses to one type of couple and not another type.

If it is different race couples that is illegal.

If they give out no recognition of couple marriage/deductions/health insurance then it is legal.

They just can not give me a tax deduction and not you because you are taller, shorter, lighter, darker or prefer your intercourse differently.

 

[Jazmine]

The republicans have tampered with elections for decades.

There is unrefutable court documented facts that proove this.

That's odd because I hear much more about how the Democrats have tampered with elections. I mean, ACORN, SEIU are almost always in favor of Democrat candidates.

 

[Jazmine]

I don't get what the problem is. Homosexuals already have the right to marriage. There is no ban anywhere in the U.S. on gays marrying. How would we even check if they were gay? There is no test for that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All Americans equally possess their naturally derived rights. The issue is the un-Constitutional preemption of equal protection rights to a specific class, in this case homosexuals.

Are you just stupid?

You have NO right to a government issued marriage license. None, nada. It doesn't exist.

I believe the problem is they are giving out tax deduction and benefit licenses to one type of couple and not another type.

If it is different race couples that is illegal.

If they give out no recognition of couple marriage/deductions/health insurance then it is legal.

They just can not give me a tax deduction and not you because you are taller, shorter, lighter, darker or prefer your intercourse differently.

Why not? They give them out because they like the car you bought better than the one I bought, or the fact that I have solar panels on my roof and you don't, or myriads of other stupid reasons, including membership in federally recognized Indian tribes. Why can't they give tax deductions to unmarried couples that they do not give to married couples.

Oh wait, they do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

Come back and talk to me when they do not use taxes to influence social policy and you might have a point.

 

[TheBrain]

All Americans equally possess their naturally derived rights. The issue is the un-Constitutional preemption of equal protection rights to a specific class, in this case homosexuals.

Are you just stupid?

You have NO right to a government issued marriage license. None, nada. It doesn't exist.

I believe the problem is they are giving out tax deduction and benefit licenses to one type of couple and not another type.

If it is different race couples that is illegal.

If they give out no recognition of couple marriage/deductions/health insurance then it is legal.

They just can not give me a tax deduction and not you because you are taller, shorter, lighter, darker or prefer your intercourse differently.

which is why I'd do away with civil marriage PERIOD. just let anyone who wants to sign a contract agreeing to share benefits and such .