bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
No it should be left up to the state If the federal government had a constitutional amendment on marriage that would mean all those gay marriages would be void
North Carolina approves amendment banning gay marriage
- Thread starter WillowTree
- Start date
No it should be left up to the state If the federal government had a constitutional amendment on marriage that would mean all those gay marriages would be void
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
There is none and in fact there cannot be.
Marriage, as a legal entity, exists because the state created it, and exists so long as the laws that create it are in place - repeal those laws, and marriage as a legal institution, ceases to ecist.
As such, marriage can only be a privilege as the state cannot create rights and rights cannot be repealed.
KevinWestern
Hello
Perhaps Im missing your point (sorry if Im not answering your question)
Man/woman will not be recognized as together or as a couple until they apply for a civil union with the state.
PredFan
Diamond Member
Why are you "intrigued"?
The two are not mutually exclusive. The people of North Carolina are using the state to force people to live according to their views. I believe that the state should be out of it altogether, but since that is no longer an option then we work with what we have.
OldUSAFSniper
Conservative
KevinWestern and CandyCorn;
Let me first say that I am very pleased at such a civil discourse regarding an issue that is not an easy one. Make no mistake about it, the requirement to define marriage is one that I would certainly prefer was not within the purview of government. However, it is (we have already discussed why) and as such it requires the application of standards which ARE NOT universal, not even remotely 'the truth' for everyone, and as any such endeavor by its very nature, unable to satisfy everyone's desire. I absolutely DO understand your positions regarding same-sex marriages. I appreciate your stance and know that you believe it is a basic issue of rights. I have always felt that those who argue well for their point of view, is NOT my foe.
KevinWestern refers to the application of the 'slippery slope' argument. Perhaps those that would take advantage of such an opening are very small. However, there is nothing in this world that will allow me to wrap my head around such things as under-age marriages (perhaps even those that are forced), incestuous relationships, and other such affronts to a civilized society. In my very humble opinion, I find each of those to be beyond the pale and even one should be pursued and the aggressor found and prosecuted. An open definition of marriage, to be determined by those who are to engage in the institution, would permit these and I can assure you there would be those who would take advantage of a hole in the law to engage in one. For example, we have read instances where a mother has tried to 'sell' a child for drugs, etc. Imagine a society that allows that sort of ‘sale’ as they do in some Middle Eastern countries? But you are right, same-sex marriage can be just as dedicated and just as loving as a heterosexual relationship, is NOT in this same vein, it is just a reason WHY I believe that marriage must be specifically defined.
A man is homeless, living on the street and he hasn’t eaten for two days. He walks into a convenience store and he takes a loaf of bread. The law is clear. The man has committed theft, however, there probably isn’t very many of us here that would want that man prosecuted. I would imagine that most of us would pay the store for the loaf of bread and do something to ensure that the man receives the help that he needs. But we don’t codify the exception. Theft is theft, and the man has failed to do what he needs to do to get the help he needs. The reason for the exception to such a clear law is morality. As moral people, we don’t hold this man responsible for the possibly temporary issues that he has. If he does it every day for a month, then perhaps we would insist that the law be strictly applied. We might even demand that he be prosecuted for each of the thirty loaves he has stolen. Morality enters into almost everything we do in society, certainly the law. To allow something that offends my morality is no more acceptable than me passing a law against something that you find acceptable. Except in the case of a democratic process, the only way to settle diametrically opposing issues is for the side with the most people who feel a certain way to set the issue. North Carolina and Oklahoma as well as 30+ states, a majority of the population finds same-sex marriage immoral and therefore does not want it codified into law.
If you are waiting for me to tell you that this is the way it should be and that is final… then you will wait for a very long time. It is, at least for me, a very troubling issue and one that I wrestled with for quite a while before coming to a conclusion. But I feel as though the answer that I arrived at is correct. The very weight of the issue requires a certain introspection… and prayer… lots and lots of prayer.
Let me first say that I am very pleased at such a civil discourse regarding an issue that is not an easy one. Make no mistake about it, the requirement to define marriage is one that I would certainly prefer was not within the purview of government. However, it is (we have already discussed why) and as such it requires the application of standards which ARE NOT universal, not even remotely 'the truth' for everyone, and as any such endeavor by its very nature, unable to satisfy everyone's desire. I absolutely DO understand your positions regarding same-sex marriages. I appreciate your stance and know that you believe it is a basic issue of rights. I have always felt that those who argue well for their point of view, is NOT my foe.
KevinWestern refers to the application of the 'slippery slope' argument. Perhaps those that would take advantage of such an opening are very small. However, there is nothing in this world that will allow me to wrap my head around such things as under-age marriages (perhaps even those that are forced), incestuous relationships, and other such affronts to a civilized society. In my very humble opinion, I find each of those to be beyond the pale and even one should be pursued and the aggressor found and prosecuted. An open definition of marriage, to be determined by those who are to engage in the institution, would permit these and I can assure you there would be those who would take advantage of a hole in the law to engage in one. For example, we have read instances where a mother has tried to 'sell' a child for drugs, etc. Imagine a society that allows that sort of ‘sale’ as they do in some Middle Eastern countries? But you are right, same-sex marriage can be just as dedicated and just as loving as a heterosexual relationship, is NOT in this same vein, it is just a reason WHY I believe that marriage must be specifically defined.
A man is homeless, living on the street and he hasn’t eaten for two days. He walks into a convenience store and he takes a loaf of bread. The law is clear. The man has committed theft, however, there probably isn’t very many of us here that would want that man prosecuted. I would imagine that most of us would pay the store for the loaf of bread and do something to ensure that the man receives the help that he needs. But we don’t codify the exception. Theft is theft, and the man has failed to do what he needs to do to get the help he needs. The reason for the exception to such a clear law is morality. As moral people, we don’t hold this man responsible for the possibly temporary issues that he has. If he does it every day for a month, then perhaps we would insist that the law be strictly applied. We might even demand that he be prosecuted for each of the thirty loaves he has stolen. Morality enters into almost everything we do in society, certainly the law. To allow something that offends my morality is no more acceptable than me passing a law against something that you find acceptable. Except in the case of a democratic process, the only way to settle diametrically opposing issues is for the side with the most people who feel a certain way to set the issue. North Carolina and Oklahoma as well as 30+ states, a majority of the population finds same-sex marriage immoral and therefore does not want it codified into law.
If you are waiting for me to tell you that this is the way it should be and that is final… then you will wait for a very long time. It is, at least for me, a very troubling issue and one that I wrestled with for quite a while before coming to a conclusion. But I feel as though the answer that I arrived at is correct. The very weight of the issue requires a certain introspection… and prayer… lots and lots of prayer.
Dick Tuck
Board Troll
- Aug 29, 2009
- 8,511
- 505
- 48
Equal protection, moron.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #348
why shouldn't we argue that, we're arguing equal rights aren't we? why can't a sister and a brother marry if they love each other and are both consenting adults? You pig.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
But you stipulate tha marriage would still exist, withing progate institutions.
Thus, people can still be husband/wife, but without the benefits of same.
In effect, your proposal elminates marriage.
Dick Tuck
Board Troll
- Aug 29, 2009
- 8,511
- 505
- 48
Man you're dense. Several State Supreme Courts have already determined that your ignorance of what equal protection mean is based on your homophobia, I can't see why you don't get it. Are you a closet case?
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because of the laws that create it.
If the government removes itself from marriage, then it must repeal all of its laws to that effect.
Doing so eliminates all of the rights/privileges related to marriage.
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Who is being denied EP?
KevinWestern
Hello
Good question. Besides supporting various marriage equality groups and Libertarians politicians here and there with monetary donations, not much.
.
Dick Tuck
Board Troll
- Aug 29, 2009
- 8,511
- 505
- 48
Go ahead and start a thread, skank. Personally, I don't care if you get pleasured by donkeys. If you choose to leave your money to your poodle, go for it.
Are you really too ******* stupid to know what HUMAN rights mean?
I could give a counter argument about your clear inbreeding, based on science, but an idiot like yourself would claim science is a joke.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #355
No it shouldn't. It's not an issue for the federal government to be involved in. We have 50 states for a reason.
- Banned
- #356
Allowing some to marry, and others not to, and then giving preferential treatment to those people who are married, is clearly in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Whether marriage is a "right" or not, matters not. Giving benefits to one group of people and not allowing another group of people to enjoy said benefits is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
Therefore:
In any state where homosexual marriage is illegal, the law is clear:
All Federal rights, protections, and benefits normally applied to married couples must be nullified for ALL married couples, married in that state.
This is a no brainer. The Federal part can pretty much be enacted by the Executive Branch effective immediately.
This will of course include all tax breaks for families and married couples in these states.
PredFan
Diamond Member
You always hear liberals trying to spin the 10th into whatever they want.
KevinWestern
Hello
In effect, my proposal eliminates the governments use of the word marriage. The word marriage will still exist in the churches, and all of the other private institutions that we choose to be a part of. Marriage Privatization?
For the record too, Id be perfectly content with marriage equality at the government level (which essential what my proposal is only its called civil union), however I just dont think thats possible at this time due to the people who want to keep their monopoly hold on the term itself.
..
M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
THis is irrelevant in the discussionas to the "right" to marry.
But, to address your point - everyone is allowed to marry in exactly the same manner as everyone else, and as such, equal protection is satisfied.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Iran plans to charge ships for safe passage through Strait of Hormuz, report says- Started by Zincwarrior
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
