Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[JakeStarkey]

Why does Sil not condemn the Cult of Hetero-Fascist Child Abuse that has enshrined Duggar as cult hero?

Condemn? He defends and excuses Duggar. Insisting that his sexual assault on his sisters (one as young as 5) and babysitters was merely 'sexual experimentation'. And insists that the entire Duggar scandal is a plot by Oprah to influence the Supreme Court.

Yes, Oprah.

I can link to the thread. Just make sure you've got your hip boots on before visiting. As that OP is just chock full of batshit.

Yeah, I have read. Sil is failing quickly.

 

[dcraelin]

The meaning of the term marriage wasnt in dispute..

I strongly disagree. 'Miscegenation' wasn't considered marriage. It was a felony. With interracial marriage bans in Virginia dating back to 1664. Literally predating our nation's existence by more than a century. And the fact that the definition of marriage changed is exactly my point: its a malleable term. It means what we says it means. And if we say it means same sex couples, it does.

There's no requirement of marriage that a same sex couple can't meet. As no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to marry. So why would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? As all the infertile and childless couples marrying or being allowed to remain married demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Which makes exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage pointless, unnecessary, and an abrogation of civil rights.

The definition of marriage did not change......and from what I've read allowing interracial marriage was more recent than that......

Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions......if they see this arrangement is illegally discriminatory then they need to throw out all state laws on marriage and make the states change the term to something less discriminatory. In the process they need to outline all the effects of the laws that they think need changing....I would think then that tax laws for example should not discriminate on the basis of relationship standing.

 

[Montrovant]

The meaning of the term marriage wasnt in dispute..

I strongly disagree. 'Miscegenation' wasn't considered marriage. It was a felony. With interracial marriage bans in Virginia dating back to 1664. Literally predating our nation's existence by more than a century. And the fact that the definition of marriage changed is exactly my point: its a malleable term. It means what we says it means. And if we say it means same sex couples, it does.

There's no requirement of marriage that a same sex couple can't meet. As no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to marry. So why would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? As all the infertile and childless couples marrying or being allowed to remain married demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Which makes exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage pointless, unnecessary, and an abrogation of civil rights.

The definition of marriage did not change......and from what I've read allowing interracial marriage was more recent than that......

Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions......if they see this arrangement is illegally discriminatory then they need to throw out all state laws on marriage and make the states change the term to something less discriminatory. In the process they need to outline all the effects of the laws that they think need changing....I would think then that tax laws for example should not discriminate on the basis of relationship standing.

You'd prefer the courts make broader rulings rather than deal with the specifics which may be unconstitutional? That would seem to put the courts even further into the business of changing definitions. Instead of minor changes you want them to force wholesale ones....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is only a social construct, has changed over the millennia, and will continue to change.

 

[Skylar]

The meaning of the term marriage wasnt in dispute..

I strongly disagree. 'Miscegenation' wasn't considered marriage. It was a felony. With interracial marriage bans in Virginia dating back to 1664. Literally predating our nation's existence by more than a century. And the fact that the definition of marriage changed is exactly my point: its a malleable term. It means what we says it means. And if we say it means same sex couples, it does.

There's no requirement of marriage that a same sex couple can't meet. As no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to marry. So why would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? As all the infertile and childless couples marrying or being allowed to remain married demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Which makes exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage pointless, unnecessary, and an abrogation of civil rights.

The definition of marriage did not change......and from what I've read allowing interracial marriage was more recent than that......

Sure it did. Before the USSC ruling miscegenation wasn't marriage in Virginia. After the ruling, it was. They changed the definition of marriage in Virginia. As the definition itself had to meet constitutional standards itself.

Gay marriage bans have a similar hurdle to clear. And they're the rotund asthmatic of the rhetorical world with a stunning inability to jump.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

 

[dcraelin]

The meaning of the term marriage wasnt in dispute..

I strongly disagree. 'Miscegenation' wasn't considered marriage. It was a felony. With interracial marriage bans in Virginia dating back to 1664. Literally predating our nation's existence by more than a century. And the fact that the definition of marriage changed is exactly my point: its a malleable term. It means what we says it means. And if we say it means same sex couples, it does.

There's no requirement of marriage that a same sex couple can't meet. As no one is required to have kids or be able to have them in order to marry. So why would we exclude gays for failing to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one? As all the infertile and childless couples marrying or being allowed to remain married demonstrates, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Which makes exclusion of gays and lesbians from marriage pointless, unnecessary, and an abrogation of civil rights.

The definition of marriage did not change......and from what I've read allowing interracial marriage was more recent than that......

Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions......if they see this arrangement is illegally discriminatory then they need to throw out all state laws on marriage and make the states change the term to something less discriminatory. In the process they need to outline all the effects of the laws that they think need changing....I would think then that tax laws for example should not discriminate on the basis of relationship standing.

You'd prefer the courts make broader rulings rather than deal with the specifics which may be unconstitutional? That would seem to put the courts even further into the business of changing definitions. Instead of minor changes you want them to force wholesale ones....

Well.....any ruling in favor of gay "marriage" is inevitably a broad ruling......they need to get back to examining the specifics of the law........

........tax law, if it is ruled discriminatory is also discriminatory against singles and such differences should be outlawed.

and the word marriage is itself discriminatory............They cannot pretend to change the definition..they should change the word as used by state legal codes.

 

[dcraelin]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

 

[WorldWatcher]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasized part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's why they banned Civil Unions.

Please don't try to re-write history, some of us were around when gays were banned from the military, states were passing anti-gay relationship laws, and the Federal government passed DOMA so that even if a State passed SSCM the Federal government wouldn't recognize it equally.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Do you find that one of those things would be deciding fetish behaviors suddenly have rights and are no longer subject to local regulation as all other behaviors are? It seems that if I wanted the static status that race currently enjoys, being an inborn trait, I'd first have to prove that a sexual attraction of one woman to another woman who carries all the masculine traits of a man, (bulldyke) for example, was "an inborn trait, permanent and never waivered" in order to gain a static legal "class" distinction.

ie: there is nothing they can point to in order to create an entire class for "LGBT" that people could definitively hang their hat on as a fixed quality. How can we give class status to a behavior or limited group of them that we do not fully understand? There are many other fetish behaviors that can/will claim they are "inborn" and therefore legally as deserving as "LGBT" if the precedent is set without them meeting the burden of proof.

 

[dcraelin]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasized part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's why they banned Civil Unions.

Please don't try to re-write history, some of us were around when gays were banned from the military, states were passing anti-gay relationship laws, and the Federal government passed DOMA so that even if a State passed SSCM the Federal government wouldn't recognize it equally.



>>>>

Well what your talking about is the backlash against court rulings.....but the underlying laws are still there

I am not rewriting history

 

[WorldWatcher]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasised part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's whey they banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasized part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's why they banned Civil Unions.

Please don't try to re-write history, some of us were around when gays were banned from the military, states were passing anti-gay relationship laws, and the Federal government passed DOMA so that even if a State passed SSCM the Federal government wouldn't recognize it equally.



>>>>

Well what your talking about is the backlash against court rulings.....but the underlying laws are still there

I am not rewriting history

No I'm not talking about the "backlash" against court rulings, I'm talking about the underlying laws that denied any legal recogniztion to same-sex couples (i.e. Civil Unions) not just Civil Marriage.

Here is the State Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia (the State where I live):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Notice the denial of any legal recognition even if it's not Civil Marriage but something similar? Saying that amendments like this only denied Civil Marriage but not Civil Unions is attempting to rewrite history.


>>>>

 

[Faun]

Of course, every time you need to get your "I hate gays" fix is not sporadic.

So...any objection whatsoever to gay marriage and forcing people to participate in it automatically means that person "hates gays"..

...that actually sounds prejudiced. Has that ever occured to you? And I'm the bigot?

Who's forcing you to participate in a gay marriage? Participation is completely voluntary.

 

[dcraelin]

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Do you find that one of those things would be deciding fetish behaviors suddenly have rights and are no longer subject to local regulation as all other behaviors are? It seems that if I wanted the static status that race currently enjoys, being an inborn trait, I'd first have to prove that a sexual attraction of one woman to another woman who carries all the masculine traits of a man, (bulldyke) for example, was "an inborn trait, permanent and never waivered" in order to gain a static legal "class" distinction.

ie: there is nothing they can point to in order to create an entire class for "LGBT" that people could definitively hang their hat on as a fixed quality. How can we give class status to a behavior or limited group of them that we do not fully understand? There are many other fetish behaviors that can/will claim they are "inborn" and therefore legally as deserving as "LGBT" if the precedent is set without them meeting the burden of proof.

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

The Bill of Rights was pushed by the founding generation because they feared overreach by elitist unresponsive government. That, I believe, is also why the burden of proof doctrine developed in the courts

The irony here is that the courts are pushing their own agenda by twisting the burden of proof against the people.

 

[dcraelin]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasised part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's whey they banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasized part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's why they banned Civil Unions.

Please don't try to re-write history, some of us were around when gays were banned from the military, states were passing anti-gay relationship laws, and the Federal government passed DOMA so that even if a State passed SSCM the Federal government wouldn't recognize it equally.



>>>>

Well what your talking about is the backlash against court rulings.....but the underlying laws are still there

I am not rewriting history

No I'm not talking about the "backlash" against court rulings, I'm talking about the underlying laws that denied any legal recogniztion to same-sex couples (i.e. Civil Unions) not just Civil Marriage.

Here is the State Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia (the State where I live):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Notice the denial of any legal recognition even if it's not Civil Marriage but something similar? Saying that amendments like this only denied Civil Marriage but not Civil Unions is attempting to rewrite history.


>>>>

that IS one of the backlash laws

It was passed due to people fearing the courts would impose their will over the will of the people. I would say the same thing of DOMA.

Whether or not it outlawed civil unions is irrelevant to the point at hand.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The BSA is a cult by Sil's definitions.

Let Sil have a banner and then we have the Cult of Sil.

Sil will you wear rainbow underwear for us?

 

[WorldWatcher]

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasised part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's whey they banned Civil Unions.


>>>>

DCRAELIN SAID:

“Like I said tho, the courts should not be the business of changing definitions....”

And they're not – the definition of marriage is not being 'changed.'

Marriage remains the union of two equal and consenting adult partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex; indeed, the courts have no authority to 'change' state law, including marriage law.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution, however, including the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to afford American citizens residing in the states the right to due process and equal protection of the law, where denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court rule to reverse the Sixth Circuit later this month, having the effect of allowing same-sex couples access to existing marriage law in each of the 50 states, marriage will in no way be 'changed, 'altered,' or 'redefined.'

no one honestly believes the definition of marriage you give is correct....that is why the word marriage is always prefaced by "gay" when talking on this subject. The word marriage itself is discriminatory.

I realize your position regarding the 14th, but the word marriage is the problem with the states laws.....if you think the 14th addresses this then they need to change that word within their laws.

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Emphasized part.

That's incorrect, because many of those states not only banned Civil Marriage for same-sex couples they also banned Civil Unions at the same time.

So the problem wasn't just legal recognition for same sex couples and the word marriage. It was ANY legal recognition for same sex couples. That's why they banned Civil Unions.

Please don't try to re-write history, some of us were around when gays were banned from the military, states were passing anti-gay relationship laws, and the Federal government passed DOMA so that even if a State passed SSCM the Federal government wouldn't recognize it equally.



>>>>

Well what your talking about is the backlash against court rulings.....but the underlying laws are still there

I am not rewriting history

No I'm not talking about the "backlash" against court rulings, I'm talking about the underlying laws that denied any legal recogniztion to same-sex couples (i.e. Civil Unions) not just Civil Marriage.

Here is the State Constitutional Amendment passed in Virginia (the State where I live):

Section 15-A. Marriage.

That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.​

Notice the denial of any legal recognition even if it's not Civil Marriage but something similar? Saying that amendments like this only denied Civil Marriage but not Civil Unions is attempting to rewrite history.


>>>>

that IS one of the backlash laws

It was passed due to people fearing the courts would impose their will over the will of the people. I would say the same thing of DOMA.

Whether or not it outlawed civil unions is irrelevant to the point at hand.

Whether it outlawed Civl Unions is very relevant to what I responded to which was to imply the laws passed did not preclude Civil Unions only Civil Marriages and that it was only about the use of the word "marriage".

As the text of the law I posted showed, it wasn't about just the use of the word "marriage" it was about any legal recognition for same-sex couples.

>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level? You've heard of the penal, civil and family code laws of any given state, yes? If we grant a group of de facto behaviors (and hence the discussion about those behaviors necessary in order to demonstrate their flawed premise) that are repugnant to the majority "special class status", especially when we do not fully understand those behaviors as yet; or have reason to believe they are learned and adopted socially, how is it then that later down the line other behaviors won't want their day in court using the brand new precedent "not-fully-understood behaviors repugnant to the majority now enjoy protection from regulation by the majority"?

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

As it turns out, one of the most potent cruxes of this entire discussion is how allowing this flawed premise to slip under the rug without inspection, could mean a legal quagmire at best in the future for subsequent "we want our rights!" behavioral groups, to worst case scenario of the demise of our system of self-regulation.

Either way I'd say the topic of these behaviors is compulsory. We need to be definitively-certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are innate, not learned and not the result of social pressures....and...most especially....not a cult...

 

[Skylar]

There are many things wrong with gay marriage being decided by the courts, from the corruption behind ex-parti Young, to the questionable legitimacy of the 14th amendment (the only amendment that was "reconsidered" by a state under coercive threat), to the twisting of the normal court burden of proof.

Do you find that one of those things would be deciding fetish behaviors suddenly have rights and are no longer subject to local regulation as all other behaviors are? It seems that if I wanted the static status that race currently enjoys, being an inborn trait, I'd first have to prove that a sexual attraction of one woman to another woman who carries all the masculine traits of a man, (bulldyke) for example, was "an inborn trait, permanent and never waivered" in order to gain a static legal "class" distinction.

If you don't believe gays are protected from discrimination, read Romer v. Evans.

This is the part you don't seem to get. You keep arguing that if you ignore any given legal precedent, that the courts can't use it. But the court doesn't give a shit what you ignore. You insist that gays aren't protected from discrimination. Romer v. Evans says differently. You say that race based discrimination has no relevance to gays and lesbians. Between Romer v. Evans and Windsor v. US, the court cited 4 different race based cases when describing why discrimination against same sex couples was invalid.

You can ignore the court. The court is unlikely to ignore itself.

ie: there is nothing they can point to in order to create an entire class for "LGBT" that people could definitively hang their hat on as a fixed quality.

How can we give class status to a behavior or limited group of them that we do not fully understand? There are many other fetish behaviors that can/will claim they are "inborn" and therefore legally as deserving as "LGBT" if the precedent is set without them meeting the burden of proof.

Nope. You've made up a 'legal standard' that gays have to meet that doesn't exist. And then insisted that the 'burden of proof' is on gays to meet your made up standard.

Um, no. It isn't. Your pseudo-legal gibberish is legally meaningless. And it obligates no one to do anything.

Get used to the idea.

 

[Skylar]

well ...I prefer to steer away from talk of fetishes etc. .....

.

Why? Don't you think the question of the original premise of the entire LGBT argument is fair game to examine? Legally speaking? Think about it. Aren't behaviors always regulated at the local level?

And once again you ignore legal precedent. If you're curious about 'local regulation' of homosexual behavior....read Lawerence v. Texas. Where the Court just obliterated the entire idea by overturning sodomy laws.

Again, Sil.......ignoring legal precedent doesn't mean the court has to ignore it too. Or any of us do. Your willful ignorance blinds only you. Its irrelevant to anyone else.

ie: setting this unwieldy precedent by using the flawed premise (you don't want to discuss) means the essential dissolution of American law at its foundation (regulation of behaviors at the local level by the majority of the governed).

Nope. Remember, you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about regarding the law. You ignore any legal precedent you don't like. And omit any portions of legal rulings you will cite that contradict you. That's classic Confirmation Bias. And its one of the least reliable ways of viewing the world.

Constitutional guarantees trump local regulation of behavior by the majority. Rights trump powers. Your ilk HATE this idea. But it doesn't change the fact that it exists, and should exist. Otherwise we'd have nothing more than the tyranny of the majority where any minority could have any right stripped away by a simple 50% plus 1 vote.

The tyranny of the majority is not our legal foundation. Nor does protecting rights and freedoms of individuals 'destroy American law at its foundations'.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And are replacing any semblance of research on the topic with melodramatic declarations of woe and over the top hyperbole.