is it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage?

[Hugh Damright]

But Hugh, isn't that flying in the face of your own statement? If the majority of the people in Virginia said they wanted "gay marriage", you would still stand against it?

Hugh, it's not a very good way to debate to claim State's Rights for when the State agrees with you but then desire the State be trampled by the Federal gov't when the State doesn't agree with you. If you personally are just against homosexuality and want laws against it, fine, but don't make it into a State's Rights issue unless you are willing to be ok with homosexuality if the majority of your state is.

I think my position is consistent. Ideally, I think that homosexual marriage should be up to each State. However, I do not believe that is possible. I think that one or two States will have homosexual marriage, and then the SCOTUS will force it upon the other States. If 3/4 of the States ratify an amendment to clarify that marriage in the US is between a man and a woman, then that is not the federal government trampling States' rights. In the one case the feds legislate from the bench forcing unwanted values on the majority of States, in the other case the States amend the Constitution to stop the feds from forcing unwanted values on the majority of States.

I think the States' rights stuff came about because people keep asking what right Virginia has to define marriage to be what Virginians want it to be. The way it is right now, it is up to each State. I would like to see an amendment to put homosexual marriage beyond the States.

don't make it into a State's Rights issue unless you are willing to be ok with homosexuality if the majority of your state is.

I don't see what one thing has to do with the other ... there are lots of Virginia laws that I do not like, but I respect that Virginia had a right to legislate them.

[The Annoyed Man]

What I don't get is why some folks are so threatened by something other folks do that will not affect them in the slightest.  I even find gay folks a little creepy at times, but that is no excuse to deny them the same legal and social rights as a couple that regular folks get.

Reasonable line of thought and one I agree with. Who am I to judge others? No one, unless they represent a threat to me.

[The Annoyed Man]

and still, nobody answering my question...

[The Annoyed Man]

and still, nobody answering my question...

The Constitution is malleable and can be amended either way. If enough people decide gay people are as human as the rest of us, then no, it will not be unconstitutional. If enough people decide gay people should always be a different class when it comes to marriage then yes, it will become unconstitutional. Look at prohibition for an example of something that goes against common sense (as all bans do) but which was added in an amendment by popular sentiment despite the stupidity of the notion that a piece of paper would change what people wanted to drink, anymore than a piece of paper will ever change who people are attracted to.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

question was answered at least twice  now you didn't like what you heard so that obviously invalidates the answer

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"anymore than a piece of paper will ever change who people are attracted to."

was someone trying to make being gay illegal? :rolleyes
but that was a valiant albeit failed attempt at misdirection

[The Annoyed Man]

The leave it up to each State argument is the best compromise possible in a polyglot world where cultures are inevitably going to clash. We have 50 states! Should be places to go no matter what you believe. Why should we have to live in a homogeneous country? There is room to be different without killing one another.

[xavier fremboe]

As long as they don't define marriage as the union of one man and one live woman, I'm okay with it.

Seriously though, where does the slope stop?  I don't have a problem with civil unions, and I'm also not religious, so I don't have a dog in that fight.  Just because DSM IV changes the definition isn't really an unequivocal argument.  There are a host of other things that are currently considered deviant behavior which might be up for reconsideration for inclusion into the next DSM.  Where is the line drawn?  NAMBLA?

[The Annoyed Man]

>question was answered at least twice  now you didn't like what you heard so that obviously invalidates the answer<

Um, actually, I don't recall that question being answered. Least, not since I asked it, and I don't really have time to wade through 8 pages of thread to find the answer. So, let's try again:


>They should be asking your side to explain why the law should be changed, and why we should pretend that men and women are interchangeable, even in such a conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual institution.<   

 This may sound ignorant, but humor me: WHY is it "conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual"?

[Hugh Damright]

The leave it up to each State argument is the best

I do not think it is possible that the federal government would leave it up to each State ... I think it would take an amendment declaring that no State shall be forced or coerced into allowing or recognizing homosexual marriage or union.

[The Annoyed Man]

The leave it up to each State argument is the best

I do not think it is possible that the federal government would leave it up to each State ... I think it would take an amendment declaring that no State shall be forced or coerced into allowing or recognizing homosexual marriage or union.

Based on how the fed has looked at drug war enforcement, I would agree - we are moving towards fascism, not away from it. Rule of thumb moving forward is lowest common denominator will be forced on everyone.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

so why would a recognized civil union be bad? its got a chance. as it stands i see calif approving a constitutional amendmant. and if calif goes that way i don't see the less liberal states doing otherwise

[Perd Hapley]

This may sound ignorant, but humor me: WHY is it "conspicuously and necessarily heterosexual"?

No, I've already said I'm not going to play that game.  You tell me how you can deny that marriage is heterosexual, or how marriage can happen without at least one member of each sex. 

And if you could wrap your mind around such a silly concept as a same-sex marriage, why should our government entertain such a silly idea? 

[Perd Hapley]

something that goes against common sense (as all bans do)

All bans go against common sense?  How about the ban on murder? 

[The Annoyed Man]

Weird picture, aka fistful, aka scapegoat, aka josh:

Without 'gay marriage' how do you suggest 'gay' people obtain equal, legally recognized status, or at least equal rights, to heterosexual, married couples?

[Perd Hapley]

Why should the law be changed?  I have a reason.  With DSM IV, homosexuality is no longer a treatable mental illness or a deviant behavior, but is recognized as merely an alternative lifestyle.

mek, you have got to be kidding me.  That is hilarious.  You cannot rail against laws based on religious opinions on the one hand, then base law on the pronouncements of a bunch of psychologists on the other.  Nor can you seriously claim that all mentally healthy behavior must on that basis be legal. 

All that aside, no one here (well, maybe Hugh Damright, I haven't read his posts) is trying to stop homosexuals from homosexualing, living together, or having weddings.  I am simply saying that homosexual relationships offer nothing that would merit government recognition. 

[Perd Hapley]

Weird picture, aka fistful, aka scapegoat, aka josh:

Without 'gay marriage' how do you suggest 'gay' people obtain equal, legally recognized status, or at least equal rights, to heterosexual, married couples?

Why should they?  A homosexual marriage and a real marriage are demonstrably not the same thing, simply as a matter of fact.  Why should one union be treated equally with another, when they are not the same? 

[The Annoyed Man]

Weird picture, aka fistful, aka scapegoat, aka josh:

Without 'gay marriage' how do you suggest 'gay' people obtain equal, legally recognized status, or at least equal rights, to heterosexual, married couples?

Why should they?  A homosexual marriage and a real marriage are demonstrably not the same thing, simply as a matter of fact.  Why should one union be treated equally with another, when they are not the same? 

Oddly, I agree.  Maybe because I view the purpose of marriage to be very different from the purpose of the 'union' of two homosexuals.  But then, I think 'gay' is a choice, also.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, there you go.  We may all disagree on whether "gay is OK."  But we should all be able to agree on whether a same-sex relationship is the same as a heterosexual relationship, and should merit the same legal recognition.  I remember when homosexuals used to claim that what they did in their bedrooms was their business.  And I agree with them.  I just wish they would go back to that mindset, instead of asking govt. to recognize what they're doing in there as a marriage. 

I think homosexuals may have some good points about power of attorney not being strong enough, or about visiting their loved ones in the hospital.  (I'm not rendering a judgment on those things, I'm just saying that I don't know.)  So they should pursue those goals for EVERYONE who lives in a non-traditional home, not just for people who have gay sex.  I'm thinking of people who live with parents or adult children, or same-sex room-mates who don't have a sexual/romantic relationship. 

[MechAg94]

One other possibility is to get the govt out of the marriage definition business completely.  Define civil unions in law and take marriage out of it.  Let people define marriage as they see fit.  I kind of doubt anyone would accept that though.

I heard one pastor speak on the subject and he was concerned that if same sex marriage is made legal, someone may attempt to legally force him and others to marry same sex couples on discrimination grounds or similar.  He said he would refuse, but it is an interesting line of thought. 

[Perd Hapley]

One other possibility is to get the govt out of the marriage definition business completely.  Define civil unions in law and take marriage out of it.  Let people define marriage as they see fit.  I kind of doubt anyone would accept that though. 

A solution in search of a problem.  Marriage is not just a "religious institution" as both sides seem to think.  It is just as much a secular, social institution as a religious one. 

[MicroBalrog]

What is not "fair" is one group imposing their religion's morality onto another group.

Do you believe in ritual sacrifice? 

Ritual sacrifice of animals is a Constitutionally protected practice according to SCOTUS.

[taurusowner]

Well, there you go.  We may all disagree on whether "gay is OK."  But we should all be able to agree on whether a same-sex relationship is the same as a heterosexual relationship, and should merit the same legal recognition.  I remnember when homosexuals used to claim that what they did in their bedrooms was their business.  And I agree with them.  I just wish they would go back to that mindset, instead of asking govt. to recognize what they're doing in there as a marriage.

I don't agree.  As I have already stated, I believe that the natural "1 mom 1 dad" parent group is the ideal way to raise a family, and while warpings of that can be tolerated(divorce, etc) after the fact, they should not be encouraged from the start; ie gay marriage.  Divorce or the death of a parent might not be ideal.  But they started out correctly, and went wrong later.  A homosexual couple raising children is defective from the start.  IMO, all of the tax and property issues are irrelevant and can be take care of with civil unions and what not.  But I think the raising of children by a natural male/female parent group is the only pairing that should be actively encouraged.

[Az-at-hoth]

Why should they?  A homosexual marriage and a real marriage are demonstrably not the same thing, simply as a matter of fact.  Why should one union be treated equally with another, when they are not the same? 

For the simple fact that both hetero- and homosexual unions involve adult human beings, and, in this country at least, all adult human beings have equal protection under the law. If heterosexual unions are  treated differently than homosexual ones, there's a problem. Think of it this way, what if the debate was about interracial unions, which were once against religious laws. Seperate but equal was found to be wrong on May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

[Hugh Damright]

For the simple fact that both hetero- and homosexual unions involve adult human beings, and, in this country at least, all adult human beings have equal protection under the law.

I don't see how you construe equal protection of the law to mean that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. I don't think that equal protection has ever meant that before. I think we are back to the assertion that the 14th "Amendment" means that every State must have homosexual marriage, even though the 14th had no such intent or purpose.

If heterosexual unions are treated differently than homosexual ones, there's a problem.

Heterosexual relationships have been treated differently than homosexual ones since time began, what has been the problem?

Think of it this way, what if the debate was about interracial unions, which were once against religious laws. Seperate but equal was found to be wrong on May 17, 1954, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.

Yes, these are good examples of how the US spins the 14th "Amendment" to mean whatever they fancy. The 14th was not intended to force black/white marriage upon the States or to integrate the schools, and for the feds to come along a century after the amendment took effect and make up such new constructions seems like a poor attempt to cover up despotism.