How Is It Legal????

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about this;

Instead of the government overstretching its arms and defining marriage for us, how about the government will only be in the business of granting two consenting adults (straight or gay) who want to be recognized legally as "a couple" a civil union. This union will grant the couple all of the traditional legal benefits a married couple today enjoys under the law - ie allowing them to file taxes together, access to one another's health care records, access to employment benefits, access to one another's wills, ability to make medical decisions for each other - it just will no longer be called a "marriage" from a legal standpoint.

Next, the term "marriage" will be solely be left up to the church or religion or spiritual group of the couple to define. If the couple is Catholic, and the Catholic church will not perform a marriage on the couple because they're gay, then too bad - the couple is SOL. Go to a new church.

I think this would work perfectly fine. Problem solved?

No, it’s not a semantics shell game.

Marriage laws exist however written by a given state. All citizens must be given access to those laws, unless the state can provide a compelling reason as to why not supported by evidence, which is not the case with same sex couples. Members of the clergy are not subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, they can not be compelled to marry same sex couples, which was never at issue in the first place.

Indeed, this entire subject is a non-issue, states need only obey the 14th Amendment and allow all their citizens equal access to all their laws.

Now the ‘problem’ is solved.

 

[sfcalifornia]

There is no given right for two same sex people to marry. That seems to be what you're missing here.

If the Federal Government extends benefits to straight married couples who get married in a Mormon church then they also need to extend benefits to gay couples married by the Episcopalian church. That's what you're missing here.

No, they do not have to. Any more than they have to extend benefits to people who are also married to other people, or people who are consangueneous with other people. Or people who are under age of consent.
The law is not a free for all. If a state decides to vote democratically, that is one thing. But having an unelected fag judge rule is not rule of law anymore. Or rule by the people. It is a dictatorship of judiciary.

Polygamy is currently not recognized by federal and state governments but that could change over time. I personally do not have a problem with polygamy, if that is what consenting adults want to do. There are certain states which allow cousins to marry and when that is the case, the federal government also recognizes those marriages. If both people are underage and they have consent from their parents to marry, the federal and state government recognizes those marriages and extends benefits to those couples.

How can you consider it a fag judge rule when it was initially proposed by unelected straight (Republican for that matter) judges on the California Supreme Court, only to be upheld by the straight judges on the Ninth Circuit Court? I think you just wanted to throw the word fag in there.

 

[Intense]

Just a thought, when you are trying to accomplish something that has Never been the Norm, and you are trying to win over support, sugar works better than vinegar. We are not Idiots. Misinformation tends to do more harm than good, when exposed. I'd personally support Civil Unions, as an equivalent to Marriage, giving you Equal footing, legally. My only problem is with you using the word Marriage, which to Me means One Man, One Woman. I view the use of it that way, a corruption of the meaning. Pick Any Other word you want, have a National Contest, make one up.

How about this;

Instead of the government overstretching its arms and defining marriage for us, how about the government will only be in the business of granting two consenting adults (straight or gay) who want to be recognized legally as "a couple" a civil union. This union will grant the couple all of the traditional legal benefits a married couple today enjoys under the law - ie allowing them to file taxes together, access to one another's health care records, access to employment benefits, access to one another's wills, ability to make medical decisions for each other - it just will no longer be called a "marriage" from a legal standpoint.

Next, the term "marriage" will be solely be left up to the church or religion or spiritual group of the couple to define. If the couple is Catholic, and the Catholic church will not perform a marriage on the couple because they're gay, then too bad - the couple is SOL. Go to a new church.

I think this would work perfectly fine. Problem solved?

You put some good thought into it. States each have the Authority at this point to define what is Legal Marriage, you would be redefining it for them. Just as easy to create your own Label, if you are not comfortable with Civil Union, and go from there. I personally would not oppose that. I do believe that Committed Partners should have the same legal rights and privileges as Married Couples. Be it access to Hospital Rooms as Immediate Family, Insurance Benefits, Leases, housing, business, Utilities, I know these issues can leave people in a bad way.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Constitution based on Christian principals. Your argument fails.

The Constitution allows for any and all religions to exist. Including the ones which marry gay people.

You have to show any right to marriage in the constitution. If there is one, it is under the 10th A that reserves it to the states. Which is why states have set their own criteria.

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution. The Federal Government extends marriage benefits to married couples. The Federal Government needs to extend benefits to all married couples, gay and straight.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Really?

I thought the only "sins" were those laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or the 10 Commandments.

Neither of them say "thou shalt not be gay".

Try again.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Only 2, ABS.....only 2.

How can one love God with all their heart and honor Him by going against His plan...His creation??
That's why it's said that lying with another man as you would a woman is an 'abomination'. It goes against creation.

All of that is why I am against gay sex.
It has nothing to do with why I am against gay marriage.

The word "marriage" is why I am against it.
I am all for Civil Unions or Legal Partnerships.
Gay people should have just as much right to lose half their shit in a break-up as the rest of us.
Just find your own word.

Why should a small minority be allowed to redefine a word for the majority for the sake of a word?

Because your church does not own the copyright on the word.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then they are not a church of God.

Again, according to whom? You?

No, they do not have to. Any more than they have to extend benefits to people who are also married to other people, or people who are consangueneous with other people. Or people who are under age of consent.
The law is not a free for all. If a state decides to vote democratically, that is one thing. But having an unelected fag judge rule is not rule of law anymore. Or rule by the people. It is a dictatorship of judiciary.

Telling, your ignorance and hate clearly render you incapable of reasonable discourse.

Polygamy is currently not recognized by federal and state governments but that could change over time.

Not likely.

Laws prohibiting polygamy are Constitutional because they are applied equally to all, there is no single class of persons excluded from ‘plural marriage.’

Remember: the issue has nothing to do with marriage, it as to do with equal access to the law.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Not likely.

Laws prohibiting polygamy are Constitutional because they are applied equally to all, there is no single class of persons excluded from ‘plural marriage.’

Remember: the issue has nothing to do with marriage, it as to do with equal access to the law.

True, but on the other hand, what is the compelling reason to deny individuals a plural marriage?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The laws in most states for one.



No "they gays" didn't get their civil unions. A few states have civil unions which, by the way, do not provide anywhere near the benefits and protections that are associated with legal civil marriage, but most do not.

Also, could you please point out where "the gays" have turned down civil unions?

Finally, the catholic church and any other church is free to NOT perform same sex ceremonies and nobody is advocating for forcing them to. See, "they gays" already have equal access to religious marriage. A church can say "no" to any couple for any reason. Many of them say "yes" to our unions.

You need to learn the difference between religious and civil marriage. We don't give a shit about the religious aspect, we want equal access to the civil one.



A BMW isn't a fundamental right, marriage is.

Any gay couple can have whatever ceremony they want and be married. I know of no state that bans that. If someone can produce a law that bans gay marriage then do it.

You, too, seem to be confused about the difference between religious and civil marriage. I've already stated that gays already have equal access to religious marriage, it's the legal, civil marriage we are prevented equal access to.

In other words, you want other people to sanction and approve the relationships. Sorry, you don't have a right to that, nor is there any "discrimination" involved.

 

[hortysir]

Really?

I thought the only "sins" were those laid out in the 7 Noahide Commandments or the 10 Commandments.

Neither of them say "thou shalt not be gay".

Try again.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Only 2, ABS.....only 2.

How can one love God with all their heart and honor Him by going against His plan...His creation??
That's why it's said that lying with another man as you would a woman is an 'abomination'. It goes against creation.

All of that is why I am against gay sex.
It has nothing to do with why I am against gay marriage.

The word "marriage" is why I am against it.
I am all for Civil Unions or Legal Partnerships.
Gay people should have just as much right to lose half their shit in a break-up as the rest of us.
Just find your own word.

Why should a small minority be allowed to redefine a word for the majority for the sake of a word?

Because your church does not own the copyright on the word.

Put an eraser on a magic marker. It's still not a pencil.

 

[sfcalifornia]

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

Only 2, ABS.....only 2.

How can one love God with all their heart and honor Him by going against His plan...His creation??
That's why it's said that lying with another man as you would a woman is an 'abomination'. It goes against creation.

All of that is why I am against gay sex.
It has nothing to do with why I am against gay marriage.

The word "marriage" is why I am against it.
I am all for Civil Unions or Legal Partnerships.
Gay people should have just as much right to lose half their shit in a break-up as the rest of us.
Just find your own word.

Why should a small minority be allowed to redefine a word for the majority for the sake of a word?

Because your church does not own the copyright on the word.

Put an eraser on a magic marker. It's still not a pencil.

Spellings, pronunciations and definitions evolve over time. It's been going on for millenia.

 

[Steelplate]

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?

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.

The "will of the people"? Conservatives don't seem to give a fuck about the "will of the people" when it comes to shit that they disagree with. When something they disagree with gets voted on and passed... they shout nonsense about two wolves and sheep voting what's for dinner and bawl that "WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!"

But when a vote goes in your favor...like if a state votes down gay marriage? oh...then it's the "will of the people".

The hypocrisy of the right is fucking astounding.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Constitution allows for any and all religions to exist. Including the ones which marry gay people.

You have to show any right to marriage in the constitution. If there is one, it is under the 10th A that reserves it to the states. Which is why states have set their own criteria.

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution. The Federal Government extends marriage benefits to married couples. The Federal Government needs to extend benefits to all married couples, gay and straight.

The fedgov defers to the states. THey need to continue to do so. The states need to defer to the will of the people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Also, since some have commented on my statement about people using their religion to decide their vote, I'll explain.

For the most part, I have not heard people argue against gay marriage with much other than their religion as their reason for opposing it, and homosexuality in general. So, if that's their reason for opposing it, they really shouldn't be voting on laws and rights. Now, I realize that there is no way to enforce that, and certainly people are entitled to their opinions, it just strikes me as very wrong.

Again, thanks to Dragon for simply giving a straight answer.

Mind telling us who you've been listening to? Never mind, the fact that the only post you thought worth thanking was Dragon's tells us everything we need to know about how "open" your mind is and how much time you spend listening to people who don't agree with you.

I hope you spend a lot of time congratulating yourself on how openminded and tolerant you are, since no one else is ever going to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, because it's not. Both struggles were cases of a minority being subject to second-class status, discrimination, and improperly unequal treatment. There really is no significant difference at all.

Gays aren't a minority. Any more than people with 6 toes are a minority. Actually less.

People with 6 toes ARE a minority. And given that gay people exist, which they do, the only way they could NOT be a minority is if they were a majority, which they aren't.

Big difference between being a minority and being a protected minority. Near as I can tell, that difference consists of how much time and money you've spent kissing the asses of halfwitted libs and making them feel like they're good people instead of morons.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And yet we still have laws that prohibit people from certain activities. Go figure!

The thing that completely and utterly baffles my mind is: why is it the main party that professes "Small Government" the same party that wants to use government to tell two consenting adults that they can't get married, because a certain form of bedroom activity is immoral and incorrect. Using the government to define what is proper and improper bedroom activity when it comes to the realm of sex between two consenting adults is highly intrusive, HUGE government, as in the government's so big it's in my bedroom.

As a proponent of small government, wouldn't you want the individual to have the freedom to decide whether or not they should be allowed to spend their life with another consenting adult, instead of having to use the government to nanny-sit you and make sure you're living a "good Christian life"?

It just completely baffles me.

Really? It baffles you why the government feels the need to set boundaries on what it does and doesn't recognize and sanction? THAT baffles you? Then you should shut the fuck up and take your flatliner, I-dont'-understand-how-the-world-works ass somewhere else, because this isn't a kindergarten and you're wasting everyone's fucking time, you halfwitted loser.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That isn't in the Constitution, turd.
Does that mean I can rob you because it would make me happy?

Nope. That would infringe on the other rights to property. Nor can you kill or rape others for any reason.

There are no property rights in the constitution. That's why there's eminent domain.
The only item that specifically is accorded a right is a firearm.

Oh, my freaking God. Are you kidding me?! No property rights in the Constitution?!

Article I - the Founding Fathers establish copyright and patent laws to protect intellectual property.

Article I - the Founding Fathers establish piracy laws, also to protect property.

Article IV - the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to honor property records from other states.

Article IV - the Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens doing business and owning land in other states.

And I haven't even GOTTEN to the Amendments.

Amendment III - Protects citizens from being forced to quarter troops in their homes.

Amendment IV - Protects property from unreasonable search and seizure.

Amendment VIII - Protects against excessive fines.

And this is in a document designed to deal with the FEDERAL government, which was never envisioned by our Founders as having much to do with personal property at all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They are a minority and if you tried to keep six toed people from marrying, we would be having the same discussion.

They are a minority only in the sense that having 6 toes is an aberration. Like gays I guess. But I wouldn't know it just looking at them.
No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it all the time.
Why do gay marriage supporters feel the need to lie like this and distort the truth?

Why do those who wish to discriminate against gays have to lie about gay's being allowed to marry when everyone understand the discussion is about government recognized Civil Marriage.


>>>>

My question is, why do YOU have to lie about gays having equal recognition under the laws?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Well, worked well for recognition of interracial marriage.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

They are a minority only in the sense that having 6 toes is an aberration. Like gays I guess. But I wouldn't know it just looking at them.
No one is stopping gays from marrying. They do it all the time.
Why do gay marriage supporters feel the need to lie like this and distort the truth?

Why do those who wish to discriminate against gays have to lie about gay's being allowed to marry when everyone understand the discussion is about government recognized Civil Marriage.


>>>>

My question is, why do YOU have to lie about gays having equal recognition under the laws?

A same-sex couple that enters into a legal Civil Marriage under the laws of New Hampshire are not-recognized equally under federal law as a different-sex couple that enters into a legal Civil Marriage in Virginia.


Two couples, both legally Civilly Married, yet only one is recognized by the federal government.



No lie, check it out.


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

ETA:

While it doesn't bother me to see this handled at the State level in accordance with State constitutions, I do support the repeal of the present gender based DOMA and it's replacement with federal law that provides that no State need recognize ANY Civil Marriage entered into outside their jurisdiction that conflicts with their own State laws (but that they are free to make their own determination) and that the federal government will recognize ALL Civil Marriages in accordance with State law.



>>>>