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).

All you have to do is look at that trend in those votes...it is simply a matter of time.

A matter of time before what?

 

[SGdsn]

Eh?

How is that "proof" of what the majority of Americans want?

Obama's health care plan passed, and was signed - do you think the majority of Americans want it?

Last I checked we didn't have a nationwide vote on Obamacare. Congress passed it.

And Congress was elected by who?

The people. What's your point? Millions of individuals voting directly on an issue versus electing representatives to take on issues in a broader, non-specific context aren't the same thing.

 

[TheBrain]

Eh?

How is that "proof" of what the majority of Americans want?

Obama's health care plan passed, and was signed - do you think the majority of Americans want it?

Eh what? Obama's health care plan was passed by Congress , so yes obviously the majority of Congresspersons wanted it. State constitutional amendments are voted on by citizens of the state so yes they were passed because the majority of voters in each state wanted it.

IOW apples and oranges.

My analogy was faulty.

But votes that took place 5-10 years ago aren't very reflective of current majority opinions.

Sure they are, if opinions have changed that radically we would see states repealing those amendments, but we don't.

 

[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.

Uh, no it didn't. The Supreme Court hasn't found sexual orientation to create a class of person. Lawrence was about the right to sodomy; it didn't have anything to do with creating an entitlement to gay marriage because some people want to frame opposition of gay marriage as gay discrimination.

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.

What does this have to do with anything?

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.

First off, no anti-miscegenation law was a categorical ban on interracial marriage. Second, most states overturned their anti-miscegenation laws legislatively (besides Loving, the only state to overturn it by judicial review was CA in the Perez v. Sharpe case). Third, it's actually the worst thing you can cite to support your argument.

All Loving did was allow more men to marry more women, and to put it in some context, Baker v. Nelson came five years after Loving. I could be wrong, but the very same court that found anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional also found no substantial federal question with regards to the notion of same-sex marriage.

You're ignoring the parts of the debate that directly contradict your argument. That's not a very good debate strategy.

He is doing that because he is a pretentious idiot.