How Is It Legal????

[The Rabbi]

California did exactly that. Several times. It wasn't good enough for the fags and they took it to court.

Just like the interracial couples did when states enacted ant-miscegenation laws. Gonna call them names too?

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

Shhhhh - some people refuse to recognize the structure of the arguments used to justify discrimination based on biological factors. Race and gender, which of course are both biological.


>>>>

There is no gender discrimination. Women have equal rigths with men. That by definition rules out any gender discrimination.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just like the interracial couples did when states enacted ant-miscegenation laws. Gonna call them names too?

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

Incorrect. Those laws actually criminalized interracial marriages.

There is no law criminalizing gay marriage anywhere in the US.

The right of equal treatment under the law is not limited to criminal statutes.


>>>>

They have equal treatment under the law. Name one thing a gay man cannot do that a straight man can do, or vice versa.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You seem unable to comprehend simple concepts.
1) Rights apply across the board. Every woman has the same right to marry as every other woman. Thus your constant harping on segregation is wrong, because there not every woman had the same rigth as every other woman.
2)You fail to show that not allowing men to marry men is prohibited anywhere. The prohibition applies regardless of gender. Therefore there can be no gender discrimination taking place. The rules apply equally.

I comprehend your arguments very well, they were tried before and failed.

"Coloreds had rights that were applied across the board. Every colored person has the same right to marry someone of the same race as everyone else."​

We look at that statement today (well most of us) and see it for what it was when presented during Loving, that is hogwash. Same with your trying to parse every woman has the same right to marry, as long as it's a man. The rules back then were defended as not being discriminatory because the rules were applied equally. Today we (well a growing number) laugh at that silly rationalization.

In addition, go back and read my posts I have not attempted to show that "not allowing men to marry men is prohibited anywhere". What is the basis of my argument is that for the government to discriminate against like situated individuals (in the case of individual rights) or couples (in the case of group rights (i.e. race or gender) that under the Grievance Clause of the First Amendment the government must show a compelling government interest to justify such discrimination. In this case, the two most like situated groups (or couples if you will) are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship who are allowed to Civilly Marry compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship who are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

To date, no justifiable government compelling reason has been presented to warrant such discrimination, and no - tradition, religion, and ick - are not compelling government reasons.


>>>>

You clearly do not understand the arguments. Black men were not allowed to marry just as white men were. That is the distinction.

Black men were allowed to marry just as white men were, each in their own race.

They were treated equally.

Which is the argument that the State of Virginia made in the case. Didn't fly then either. Now we look at it though and recognize how ridiculous it is.

You keep falling on back on inappropriate civil rigths era issues because you cannot argue this issue on its own merits. It has no merits, is probably why. All men can marry all women, given small exceptions. Similarly vice versa. There is no discrimination going on.

And all blacks could marry all blacks and white could marry only whites - they were treated the same. No discrimination right?


***************

So explain why it is acceptable to discriminate on one biological condition (gender) but yet on another (race)?

And don't just repeat "it's not discrimination", because it is discrimination. The discriminating characteristic (among the topic of discussion) is the gender composition of the couple. If race (which is biological) cannot be used as a characteristic, then why can gender (which is biological) be used as a characteristic in discriminating between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a same-sex relationship.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Just like the interracial couples did when states enacted ant-miscegenation laws. Gonna call them names too?

Civil rights should never be put to a majority vote.

Shhhhh - some people refuse to recognize the structure of the arguments used to justify discrimination based on biological factors. Race and gender, which of course are both biological.


>>>>

There is no gender discrimination. Women have equal rigths with men. That by definition rules out any gender discrimination.

Then there was no race discrimination. Colored had equal rights with whites. They could both Civilly Marry. That by definition rules out any racial discrimination.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

I comprehend your arguments very well, they were tried before and failed.

"Coloreds had rights that were applied across the board. Every colored person has the same right to marry someone of the same race as everyone else."​

We look at that statement today (well most of us) and see it for what it was when presented during Loving, that is hogwash. Same with your trying to parse every woman has the same right to marry, as long as it's a man. The rules back then were defended as not being discriminatory because the rules were applied equally. Today we (well a growing number) laugh at that silly rationalization.

In addition, go back and read my posts I have not attempted to show that "not allowing men to marry men is prohibited anywhere". What is the basis of my argument is that for the government to discriminate against like situated individuals (in the case of individual rights) or couples (in the case of group rights (i.e. race or gender) that under the Grievance Clause of the First Amendment the government must show a compelling government interest to justify such discrimination. In this case, the two most like situated groups (or couples if you will) are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship who are allowed to Civilly Marry compared to law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship who are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

To date, no justifiable government compelling reason has been presented to warrant such discrimination, and no - tradition, religion, and ick - are not compelling government reasons.


>>>>

You clearly do not understand the arguments. Black men were not allowed to marry just as white men were. That is the distinction.

Black men were allowed to marry just as white men were, each in their own race.

They were treated equally.

Which is the argument that the State of Virginia made in the case. Didn't fly then either. Now we look at it though and recognize how ridiculous it is.

You keep falling on back on inappropriate civil rigths era issues because you cannot argue this issue on its own merits. It has no merits, is probably why. All men can marry all women, given small exceptions. Similarly vice versa. There is no discrimination going on.

And all blacks could marry all blacks and white could marry only whites - they were treated the same. No discrimination right?


***************

So explain why it is acceptable to discriminate on one biological condition (gender) but yet on another (race)?

And don't just repeat "it's not discrimination", because it is discrimination. The discriminating characteristic (among the topic of discussion) is the gender composition of the couple. If race (which is biological) cannot be used as a characteristic, then why can gender (which is biological) be used as a characteristic in discriminating between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a same-sex relationship.



>>>>

Blacks could not marry white women while white men could. There is your discrimination.
Name someone that straight men can marry that gay men cannot. Otherwise you have not made your case.
Again, your insistence on drawing unwarranted parallels with civil rights shows the poverty of your arguments here.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Incorrect. Those laws actually criminalized interracial marriages.

There is no law criminalizing gay marriage anywhere in the US.

The right of equal treatment under the law is not limited to criminal statutes.


>>>>

They have equal treatment under the law. Name one thing a gay man cannot do that a straight man can do, or vice versa.

So you've flopped back to the individual argument again.

Civil Marriage is a function of a couple entering into a legal family relationship where one did not exist before, it is not an issue of the individual by themselves.

Based on the flawed individual argument, the court would not have struck down the Virginia law because a colored man was allowed to marry (just not that the resulting couple could be interracial).


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

The right of equal treatment under the law is not limited to criminal statutes.


>>>>

They have equal treatment under the law. Name one thing a gay man cannot do that a straight man can do, or vice versa.

So you've flopped back to the individual argument again.

Civil Marriage is a function of a couple entering into a legal family relationship where one did not exist before, it is not an issue of the individual by themselves.

Based on the flawed individual argument, the court would not have struck down the Virginia law because a colored man was allowed to marry (just not that the resulting couple could be interracial).


>>>>

You are backtracking and avoiding.
Name one thing a straight man can do that a gay man cannot do.
Otherwise STFU because you are out of arguments.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You clearly do not understand the arguments. Black men were not allowed to marry just as white men were. That is the distinction.

Black men were allowed to marry just as white men were, each in their own race.

They were treated equally.

Which is the argument that the State of Virginia made in the case. Didn't fly then either. Now we look at it though and recognize how ridiculous it is.

You keep falling on back on inappropriate civil rigths era issues because you cannot argue this issue on its own merits. It has no merits, is probably why. All men can marry all women, given small exceptions. Similarly vice versa. There is no discrimination going on.

And all blacks could marry all blacks and white could marry only whites - they were treated the same. No discrimination right?


***************

So explain why it is acceptable to discriminate on one biological condition (gender) but yet on another (race)?

And don't just repeat "it's not discrimination", because it is discrimination. The discriminating characteristic (among the topic of discussion) is the gender composition of the couple. If race (which is biological) cannot be used as a characteristic, then why can gender (which is biological) be used as a characteristic in discriminating between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a different-sex relationship and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, consenting, non-related, adults in a same-sex relationship.



>>>>

Blacks could not marry white women while white men could. There is your discrimination.

Using your logic of the individual, there is no discrimination. Blacks could marry, whites could marry. There was no discrimination.

(Of course this seems silly now, but the structure of the arguement you make now was the same one used by Virginia.)

Name someone that straight men can marry that gay men cannot. Otherwise you have not made your case.

So you've flopped back to the individual argument again.

Civil Marriage is a function of a couple entering into a legal family relationship where one did not exist before, it is not an issue of the individual by themselves.

Based on the flawed individual argument, the court would not have struck down the Virginia law because a colored man was allowed to marry (just not that the resulting couple could be interracial).


BTW - I'm not worried about making my case to you. I post mostly for the lurkers that read your words who don't respond. To let people see how silly your arguments are, like you repeating "there is no discrimination" when everyone knows there is. In 2004 there was not one legal entity in this country that sanctioned Same-sex Civil Marriage, now there are 8 and the majority of those passed it through legislation and not judicial action. In 2004 votes for against same-sex Civil Marriage passed by 23%-76%, buy 2009 only a 2-3% change would have changed the outcome. Society is changing, homosexuality is seen as less morally offensive, and equal treatment under the law for same-sex couples will eventually be a reality.

Again, your insistence on drawing unwarranted parallels with civil rights shows the poverty of your arguments here.

Race = Biological
Gender = Biological

The same arguments used against interracial marriage are the ones used against same-gender marriages.

Didn't work then either.



>>>>

 

[sfcalifornia]

They have equal treatment under the law. Name one thing a gay man cannot do that a straight man can do, or vice versa.

So you've flopped back to the individual argument again.

Civil Marriage is a function of a couple entering into a legal family relationship where one did not exist before, it is not an issue of the individual by themselves.

Based on the flawed individual argument, the court would not have struck down the Virginia law because a colored man was allowed to marry (just not that the resulting couple could be interracial).


>>>>

You are backtracking and avoiding.
Name one thing a straight man can do that a gay man cannot do.
Otherwise STFU because you are out of arguments.

Screw a woman without thinking about David Beckham in an underwear ad?

 

[WorldWatcher]

They have equal treatment under the law. Name one thing a gay man cannot do that a straight man can do, or vice versa.

So you've flopped back to the individual argument again.

Civil Marriage is a function of a couple entering into a legal family relationship where one did not exist before, it is not an issue of the individual by themselves.

Based on the flawed individual argument, the court would not have struck down the Virginia law because a colored man was allowed to marry (just not that the resulting couple could be interracial).


>>>>

You are backtracking and avoiding.
Name one thing a straight man can do that a gay man cannot do.
Otherwise STFU because you are out of arguments.

I've never made the distinction about an individual, so I'm not compelled to make your argument for you.

As we saw with Loving v. Virginia, the individual argument was rejected in favor of evaluated the violation of the rights of the couple. Your attempt at an individual argument has no merit when it is the availability of the couple to equal treatment under the law.


Telling me to STFU - isn't that cute.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

Black men could not marry the same women white men could. There is discrimination.
Gay men can marry the same women that straight men can.
Straight men cannot marry other men, just like gay men cannot.
There is no discrimination here.

You fail. Many times over.

 

[theHawk]

So you've flopped back to the individual argument again.

Civil Marriage is a function of a couple entering into a legal family relationship where one did not exist before, it is not an issue of the individual by themselves.

Based on the flawed individual argument, the court would not have struck down the Virginia law because a colored man was allowed to marry (just not that the resulting couple could be interracial).


>>>>

You are backtracking and avoiding.
Name one thing a straight man can do that a gay man cannot do.
Otherwise STFU because you are out of arguments.

I've never made the distinction about an individual, so I'm not compelled to make your argument for you.

As we saw with Loving v. Virginia, the individual argument was rejected in favor of evaluated the violation of the rights of the couple. Your attempt at an individual argument has no merit when it is the availability of the couple to equal treatment under the law.


Telling me to STFU - isn't that cute.


>>>>

Thats because you liberals don't believe in individual rights. You believe in collective rights.

As for the case you sited:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Opps.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

First off marriage is NOT A RIGHT, secondly it doesn't violate the First Amendment considering the church has absolutely nothing to do with this issue as an organization.

Using your logic a politician would have to renounce their religion in order to hold public office because their morals and ethics, hence their position on issues are influenced by their religion.

BTW, your rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights..

Learn it dummy...

 

[Mr.Nick]

You are backtracking and avoiding.
Name one thing a straight man can do that a gay man cannot do.
Otherwise STFU because you are out of arguments.

I've never made the distinction about an individual, so I'm not compelled to make your argument for you.

As we saw with Loving v. Virginia, the individual argument was rejected in favor of evaluated the violation of the rights of the couple. Your attempt at an individual argument has no merit when it is the availability of the couple to equal treatment under the law.


Telling me to STFU - isn't that cute.


>>>>

Thats because you liberals don't believe in individual rights. You believe in collective rights.

As for the case you sited:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Opps.

Not to mention gay isn't a race...

 

[sfcalifornia]

Black men could not marry the same women white men could. There is discrimination.
Gay men can marry the same women that straight men can.
Straight men cannot marry other men, just like gay men cannot.
There is no discrimination here.

You fail. Many times over.

Why would a gay man want to marry a women? Why would a straight man want to marry another man? Would you want to marry someone you weren't sexually attracted to in the slightest?

Your argument here failed before you even started.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

Got some stuff to do.

Not to worry, I'll be back in a couple of hours.


>>>>

 

[GHook93]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

First off your 1st amendment interpretation is well off base! It's called freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Weak attempt. Don't go to the 5th amendment, because it most covers rights of criminals, such Double Jeopardy, Pleading the 5th, Right to an Indictment, Due Process Clause (but has been limited to criminal cases) and the taking clause. Nearly as weak as your 1st amendment.

Where to go to,and where I go to, when supporting gay marriage is the SOLELY the equal protection clause of 14th amendment. Case law supports the decision. Take the Loving v. VA case that allowed interracial marriage and to a lesser extent, Lawrence v. TX, which disallowed antisodomy laws. I personally prefer an amendment defining marriage (allowing for gay marriage).

 

[The Rabbi]

Black men could not marry the same women white men could. There is discrimination.
Gay men can marry the same women that straight men can.
Straight men cannot marry other men, just like gay men cannot.
There is no discrimination here.

You fail. Many times over.

Why would a gay man want to marry a women? Why would a straight man want to marry another man? Would you want to marry someone you weren't sexually attracted to in the slightest?

Your argument here failed before you even started.

Why would I want to marry you?
Totally irrelevant. You're the failure here.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm still puzzled as to how, once it's signed into law by a Governor, that the people can then LEGALLY have someone's rights put to a vote. I mean, this concept tramples all over the Constitution.

Let's face it, most every person who would vote against same-sex marriage would do so based on their own personal religion. So, right there, it violates the 1st Amendment by allowing laws to be passed based on the establishment or religion

The 5th Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the 14th prohibits the states from doing it. However, here they are, trying to take away the rights of gay couples without giving them their day in court to defend themselves in an attempt to preserve their rights.

So, can anyone explain how they get away with this?

First off your 1st amendment interpretation is well off base! It's called freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Weak attempt. Don't go to the 5th amendment, because it most covers rights of criminals, such Double Jeopardy, Pleading the 5th, Right to an Indictment, Due Process Clause (but has been limited to criminal cases) and the taking clause. Nearly as weak as your 1st amendment.

Where to go to,and where I go to, when supporting gay marriage is the SOLELY the equal protection clause of 14th amendment. Case law supports the decision. Take the Loving v. VA case that allowed interracial marriage and to a lesser extent, Lawrence v. TX, which disallowed antisodomy laws. I personally prefer an amendment defining marriage (allowing for gay marriage).

But even Loving is talking about equality between two men, one black and one white. It is a stretch to apply that to homosexuals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no right to same sex marriage. If there are any rights involved they would fall under the 10thA of "rights not explicitly delegated belong to the states or the people." The people vote. And that is policy.
I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals, who know better for us. But that is the basis for this government.

If you are going to cite the Constitution, at least trey to get it right. The 9th Amendment concerns rights and specifically says they need not be enumerated to be held by people. The 10th Amendment says nothing about rights, but about powers.


>>>>

Yup, including the power of the states to pass laws restricting those rights not enumerated in the Constitution. You know, on subjects like marriage recognition.

This is gibberish, it makes no sense.

You seem to be making some inane, ignorant, irrelevant ‘states’ rights’ argument, where states have the ‘right’ to restrict a class of persons from its laws, which has time and again been documented to be un-Constitutional.

I realize that "will of the people" is threatening to liberals…

It should be threatening to every American.

But that is the basis for this government.

Incorrect.

We are a Republic, not a democracy – each citizen is subject only to the rule of law, not men. The rule of law states that every citizen will be allowed equal access to all his state’s laws, regardless the majority opinion. And that includes marriage laws.

In other words, you want other people to sanction and approve the relationships.

Also incorrect.

This has nothing to do with ‘other people,’ majorities do not determine who will or will not have his rights.

Sorry, you don't have a right to that, nor is there any "discrimination" involved.

There is discrimination involved when a class of persons are excluded from their state’s laws absent a compelling reason.