How Is It Legal????

[The Rabbi]

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.

.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

You seem to be arguing two points. Or you don't understand mine. Or something.
First point: if states want to vote in gay marriage, that's their business. It was put to a vote and gay marriage won or lost or whatever but that's the will of the people, so fine. But I dont want unelected unaccountable judges making decisions that thwart elections.
Second point: no one is being denied any access that anyone else has. Gay men have the same rights to marry that straight men do. A nd vice versa. No one has shown a single right that can apply to one and not the other.
Probably because there is no definition of gay. Leonard Bernstein was married for many years and had children. As his wife was dying he decided to divorce her and run off with his gay lover. Is he now suddenly gay? Was he gay before and just pretending? Could he have married his gay lover even if he was really straight? Would he have to prove that he enjoyed butt-seks to get a license?
Gays seek special treatment, not equal treatment.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Lets examine this lame attempt at ad hominem.

Over 50 years old and registered as a Republican in 1978 and kept the same party affiliation for all these years. People mostly describe me as a Goldwater Conservative based on fiscal responsibility and promoting true smaller government in the promotion of individual liberties. Like Goldwater, I reject the social authoritarianism promoted by faux conservatives on the religious right.

So lets look at some views:

Abortion:
Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, "murder" has always been within the purview of the states unless it was conducted on federal property. I think states should be able to set their own abortion laws and I think if they decide to make abortion illegal it should carry the same penalties as other cases of murder for both the woman and the "doctor".

Public Accommodation Laws:
Like Goldwater I disagree with many of today's "Civil Rights" laws, and I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as they apply to private entities and the conduct of private business. Not just on sexual orientation, but including repeal of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, national origin, etc...

Voter ID Laws:
Fully support them, the idea that someone voting within our representative form of government doesn't have to prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote seems quite silly to me.

Flat Tax:
The current tax system is totally ridiculous. Go to a flat tax system where everyone pays their fair share and income it taxed only once. When almost 50% of the population pays not federal income tax then there is no incentive to elect representatives that are fiscally responsible.

Eliminate the Embedded Taxes:
These specialty taxes used for social engineering are counter productive. Three taxes: one federal, one state, and one local. Let people see what the true cost of their government is.

Illegal Aliens:
The clue ought to be "illegal", they broke our laws coming here in the first place. The first step in any plan MUST be to first go home.

Gun Control:
Owning a firearm is actually one of the enumerated rights written into the Constitution. Every citizen should be able to own a gun if they choose, unless that right is removed through due process because the individual has demonstrated they cannot handle the responsibility of owning a firearm. In addition it should be perfectly legal in ever state to use a firearm to protect yourself, your family, or others to preserve life, liberty or property.

National Defense:
20-years in the military spent protecting our country and the liberties of her citizens.

ObamaCare:
Repeal it, it is not the function of the federal government to provide cradle to grave health care paying for each bandaid.

Contraception:
I don't agree with Santorum and many on the extreme right that contraception is a bad thing, but then again I don't agree with members on the left that contraceptives should be a mandatory factor in employer health insurance. What is in an insurance plan is between the policy holder and the insurance company. The government should butt out.

Same Sex Marriage:
Personally I think discrimination against same-sex couples should be ended and that they should have the same options to enter Civil Marriage as different-sex couples. Personally I'd like to see it remain a state issue and that the federal DOMA is repealed and replaced with a law that allows individual States to honor or not Civil Marriages from another state. The federal government should recognize as valid and valid legal Civil Marriage entered into under State law.​

So no, just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a "liberal".


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Now that really is funny, I'm supporting individual rights - the right of people to choose their own partner to enter into Civil Marriage when there is no compelling reason for the government to prevent such a Civil Marriage.

On the other hand you are promoting the social authoritarian "collective" view that because a group is despised it should be just fine to write invidious laws to discriminate against them.

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.

No "Opps" at all.

Very consistent with what I've said. Laws discriminating against a group or class of people must have a compelling government interest to be valid and not unconstitutional.

The liberties exercised are by individuals, you realize that one person cannot get married right? You can't marry yourself, you kind of have to have a partner. In that case it should be the decision of the couple and not something infringed upon by the government.

Individuals exercise their rights, governments write laws based on groups. Just as in the Loving case, the government didn't say an individual black man couldn't get Civilly Married, they wrote a law that said coloreds cannot marry whites. The law (not rights, but the law) was evaluated by the manner it impacted the couple.

Notice the paragraph preceeding your quote...

"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."​

Notice the court was evaluating the law and stating that it deprived the couple (i.e. the Lovings) of liberty.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

It's not a gender either.

However, technically speaking, the laws aren't based on sexual orientation, they are written based on gender.



>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

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

It's not a gender either.

However, technically speaking, the laws aren't based on sexual orientation, they are written based on gender.



>>>>

And both genders have equal rights.
End of argument.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gay men have the same rights to marry that straight men do. A nd vice versa.

And coloreds could marry in the same way whites could and vice versa.

No one has shown a single right that can apply to one and not the other.

Because the laws don't mention sexual orientation, they are written based on gender.

When evaluating the law then it would be more correct to ask what can a man do that a woman can't. The answer is then obvious, a man can marry a woman but a woman cannot.

Gays seek special treatment, not equal treatment.

OK, if homosexuals are asking for special treatment under the law, then give us some examples of these "special" things that will only be available to same-sex couples and that would not be available to different-sex couples.

Currently we are the ones getting "special" treatment because we've written them into the laws.

Since I asked you for specifics, let me give you one as an example. Currently employer benefits for spousal insurance premiums paid by the employer are not considered as income for the employee and therefore the employee does not pay taxes on that benefit. Now we take two legally Civilly Married couples one different-sex from Virginia and one same-sex from New Hampshire. The Virginia couple has no additional tax, however the New Hampshire couple has an additional federal tax to pay because of spousal insurance.

See how that works? Specifics.

Your turn, give us some examples of these "special" things under that law that will be available to same-sex couples and not different-sex couples.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

It's not a gender either.

However, technically speaking, the laws aren't based on sexual orientation, they are written based on gender.



>>>>

And both genders have equal rights.
End of argument.

No they don't.

A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman. If they had equal rights then a man or a woman could then Civilly Marry a woman (who agreed of course).

Your argument failed when it was used for race and the logic fails when you try to use it for gender.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion:
Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, "murder" has always been within the purview of the states unless it was conducted on federal property. I think states should be able to set their own abortion laws and I think if they decide to make abortion illegal it should carry the same penalties as other cases of murder for both the woman and the "doctor".

From a purely Constitutional and legal standpoint, Roe was a relatively unimportant ruling, a political and social ‘landmark’, if you will – the true landmark case was Griswold and the recognition of the Constitutional right to privacy. Roe is but Griswold’s progeny, merely acknowledging a Constitutional fact in the context of Griswold.

The right to privacy with regard to abortion was reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Public Accommodation Laws:
Like Goldwater I disagree with many of today's "Civil Rights" laws, and I think Public Accommodation laws should be repealed as they apply to private entities and the conduct of private business. Not just on sexual orientation, but including repeal of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, national origin, etc...

Congress is authorized by the Commerce Clause to address the issue of discrimination concerning public accommodation, such laws are consequently Constitutional and should not be repealed. See: Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

Illegal Aliens:
The clue ought to be "illegal", they broke our laws coming here in the first place. The first step in any plan MUST be to first go home.

Provided it’s understood undocumented persons are indeed persons as established by the 14th Amendment, and are entitled to due process, including presumption of innocence and the right to habeas, accordingly. See: Plyler v. Doe

Gun Control:
Owning a firearm is actually one of the enumerated rights written into the Constitution. Every citizen should be able to own a gun if they choose, unless that right is removed through due process because the individual has demonstrated they cannot handle the responsibility of owning a firearm. In addition it should be perfectly legal in ever state to use a firearm to protect yourself, your family, or others to preserve life, liberty or property.

An individual right to own a firearm wasn’t acknowledged until Heller, however. Prior to that the collective right was accepted as the correct interpretation.

ObamaCare:
Repeal it, it is not the function of the federal government to provide cradle to grave health care paying for each bandaid.

Perhaps, but that’s not what the ACA does. And given the Act affords no criminal or civil penalty with regard to the IM, it’s clearly Constitutional as Lopez/Morrison do not come into play.

Contraception:
I don't agree with Santorum and many on the extreme right that contraception is a bad thing, but then again I don't agree with members on the left that contraceptives should be a mandatory factor in employer health insurance. What is in an insurance plan is between the policy holder and the insurance company. The government should butt out.

Since an insurance plan is between the policy holder and the insurance company, the employer who is paying the premium as a form of compensation should butt out as well as the government. If the employer is going to offer the compensation of insurance premiums, then it should do so with no strings attached.

Congress is also authorized by the Commerce Clause to regulate the insurance industry. See: United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (1944).

Same Sex Marriage:
Personally I think discrimination against same-sex couples should be ended and that they should have the same options to enter Civil Marriage as different-sex couples. Personally I'd like to see it remain a state issue and that the federal DOMA is repealed and replaced with a law that allows individual States to honor or not Civil Marriages from another state. The federal government should recognize as valid and valid legal Civil Marriage entered into under State law.

The states may configure their marriage laws as they see fit – or do away with them altogether, provided states afford same-sex couples the same access to whatever constitutes marriage as that of opposite-sex couples, in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

So no, just because someone disagrees with you does not make them a "liberal".

Correct.

Or a ‘conservative,’ for that matter.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not a gender either.

However, technically speaking, the laws aren't based on sexual orientation, they are written based on gender.



>>>>

And both genders have equal rights.
End of argument.

No they don't.

A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman. If they had equal rights then a man or a woman could then Civilly Marry a woman (who agreed of course).

Your argument failed when it was used for race and the logic fails when you try to use it for gender.


>>>>

But all men are the same in this, as are all women.
You might as well start arguing species discrimination, that men can't marry sheep or goats.
And again you must resort to the discredited civil rights paradigm. This has nothing to do with civil rights.
Loving involved the right of black men to be equal to white men. This issue presents no such thing. There is no such thing as gender discrimination in marriage. All women have an equal right to marry. All men have an equal right to marry. Thus no discrimination.
Again, you fail. And since it is for all the same reasons you've failed at failing.

 

[Dick Tuck]

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.

Will of the people? We don't live in a democracy. This is a republic and what others think about that right is irrelevant. Mind your own busness.

Shut up and vote liberal, is what you're saying? I beg to differ. You are sadly misinformed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So what exactly does the John Adams part of the Declaration of Independence have to do with our Constitution? In case you were home schooled, the simple answer is "Nothing".

 

[The Rabbi]

Will of the people? We don't live in a democracy. This is a republic and what others think about that right is irrelevant. Mind your own busness.

Shut up and vote liberal, is what you're saying? I beg to differ. You are sadly misinformed.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So what exactly does the John Adams part of the Declaration of Independence have to do with our Constitution? In case you were home schooled, the simple answer is "Nothing".

I thought you had up and quit. Too bad.
It shows that the government is based ultimately on the will of the people for its legitimacy. This is why elections here are so important, and in part why we see so much in the way of referenda and ballot initiatives. It is the bedrock of this government and our culture.
Being illiterate you probably think the Federal Gov't is the basis of all law.

 

[konradv]

both genders have equal rights. End of argument.

You seem to be misinformed. It's not a gender issue. It's an equal protection question. The state has no vested interest in who someone marries, so it should take a hands off approach in the interest of treating its citizens equally. Gender is a red-herring.

 

[The Rabbi]

both genders have equal rights. End of argument.

You seem to be misinformed. It's not a gender issue. It's an equal protection question. The state has no vested interest in who someone marries, so it should take a hands off approach in the interest of treating its citizens equally. Gender is a red-herring.

If it isn't a gender issue then what is it?
The state definitely has a vested interest in who someone marries. This is why we have laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships.
All citizens are treated equally in this regard.

Your post is a fail on so many bases.

 

[konradv]

both genders have equal rights. End of argument.

You seem to be misinformed. It's not a gender issue. It's an equal protection question. The state has no vested interest in who someone marries, so it should take a hands off approach in the interest of treating its citizens equally. Gender is a red-herring.

If it isn't a gender issue then what is it?
The state definitely has a vested interest in who someone marries. This is why we have laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships.
All citizens are treated equally in this regard.

Your post is a fail on so many bases.

They don't have a vested interest in the gender of the person you marry. Try again. I'm afraid you fail on equal protection grounds.

 

[The Rabbi]

You seem to be misinformed. It's not a gender issue. It's an equal protection question. The state has no vested interest in who someone marries, so it should take a hands off approach in the interest of treating its citizens equally. Gender is a red-herring.

If it isn't a gender issue then what is it?
The state definitely has a vested interest in who someone marries. This is why we have laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships.
All citizens are treated equally in this regard.

Your post is a fail on so many bases.

They don't have a vested interest in the gender of the person you marry. Try again. I'm afraid you fail on equal protection grounds.

Well yeah atually they do because only male=female unions will produce children.
You haven't made a single cogent point.
Total fail.

 

[konradv]

If it isn't a gender issue then what is it?
The state definitely has a vested interest in who someone marries. This is why we have laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships.
All citizens are treated equally in this regard.

Your post is a fail on so many bases.

They don't have a vested interest in the gender of the person you marry. Try again. I'm afraid you fail on equal protection grounds.

Well yeah atually they do because only male=female unions will produce children.
You haven't made a single cogent point.
Total fail.

Since when is children a prerequisite for marriage? I'm afraid you're the one failing. That's just one irrelevancy after another.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If it isn't a gender issue then what is it?
The state definitely has a vested interest in who someone marries. This is why we have laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships.
All citizens are treated equally in this regard.

Laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships are applied to everyone equally, there is no specific class of persons excluded, and they are consequently Constitutional.

On the other hand, if laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, allowing all others to engage in plural marriage or to marry a sister, then such a measure would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The issue isn’t a state’s right to prohibit or otherwise regulate a thing per se, but that the prohibition or regulation is executed in a consistent and equal manner, with no specific class of persons alone adversely effected.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And both genders have equal rights.
End of argument.

No they don't.

A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry a woman. If they had equal rights then a man or a woman could then Civilly Marry a woman (who agreed of course).

Your argument failed when it was used for race and the logic fails when you try to use it for gender.


>>>>

But all men are the same in this, as are all women.

No their not. A man can marry a woman, but a woman cannot marry another woman. Different treatment based on gender.

You might as well start arguing species discrimination, that men can't marry sheep or goats.

Let us know when sheep and goats can give informed consent and enter into legal contracts.

And again you must resort to the discredited civil rights paradigm. This has nothing to do with civil rights.

Not discredited at all. Women deserve the same rights as men. A man can Civilly Marry a woman and that is denied to women.

Loving involved the right of black men to be equal to white men. This issue presents no such thing.

Loving established that the government must have a compelling government interest when attempting to discriminate against someone based on a biological condition and that invidious laws were unconstitutional. Last I checked gender was a biological condition.

There is no such thing as gender discrimination in marriage.

Sure there is.

Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Heterosexual Woman = Legal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Woman = Legal
Heterosexual Man + Heterosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Homosexual Man + Homosexual Man = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Heterosexual Woman = Illegal
Heterosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal
Homosexual Woman + Homosexual Woman = Illegal

The discriminating condition in the above is gender.

All women have an equal right to marry. All men have an equal right to marry. Thus no discrimination.

Same logic presented in Loving. A colored can marry a colored and a white can marry a white.

Didn't hold water then either.

Again, you fail. And since it is for all the same reasons you've failed at failing.

Prior to 2004 there were zero legal entities in the United States that provided for Same-sex Civil Marriage and polls showed it was well supported.

In 2012 there are now 8 legal entities authorizing same-sex Civil Marriage and polls show that now a majority of Americans support equal treatment under Civil Marriage laws for same-sex couples.

No fail here.


>>>>

 

[The Rabbi]

They don't have a vested interest in the gender of the person you marry. Try again. I'm afraid you fail on equal protection grounds.

Well yeah atually they do because only male=female unions will produce children.
You haven't made a single cogent point.
Total fail.

Since when is children a prerequisite for marriage? I'm afraid you're the one failing. That's just one irrelevancy after another.

No one said it was a prerequesitge for marriage.
You fail yet again.

 

[The Rabbi]

If it isn't a gender issue then what is it?
The state definitely has a vested interest in who someone marries. This is why we have laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships.
All citizens are treated equally in this regard.

Laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships are applied to everyone equally, there is no specific class of persons excluded, and they are consequently Constitutional.

On the other hand, if laws against polygamy and consanguineous relationships were applied only to Asian-Americans, for example, allowing all others to engage in plural marriage or to marry a sister, then such a measure would be in violation of the 14th Amendment.

The issue isn’t a state’s right to prohibit or otherwise regulate a thing per se, but that the prohibition or regulation is executed in a consistent and equal manner, with no specific class of persons alone adversely effected.

Laws against marrying someone of your sex are also applied equally, if that's the standard you want to propose.
Fail.