Author Topic: is it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage? (Read 62955 times)

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #75 on:** May 08, 2008, 04:54:37 PM »

jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #76 on:** May 08, 2008, 05:17:37 PM »

Quote

jfruser, I have to disagree. Most of those I know who are pushing for "gay marriage" simply want the same protections under the law that heterosexual couples can enjoy, and the same ease to receive them...

And I want the same free world class medical care that every member of Congress gets, but I'm not a member of that club, either. To be 'married', you must marry a member of the opposite sex. That's the definition of 'marriage'. Why is that so difficult to understand?

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #77 on:** May 08, 2008, 05:37:41 PM »

Hence my use of quotes, Paddy.

Yes, it's possible for a homosexual couple to get the same protections for themselves, via a large number of hoops and involving a fair lawyer's bill. For a heterosexual couple, it requires around $100 and a trip to the county courthouse. I do believe we can fix that without causing undo trauma to the fabric of society...

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #78 on:** May 08, 2008, 05:43:50 PM »

Oh, I agree in principle. But if the people of a community, or a state, don't want their representatives (government) to recognize the 'union' of a homosexual 'couple', who is fedgov to shove it down their throats, so to speak?

The bottom line is that the majority define the society in which they live.

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #79 on:** May 08, 2008, 05:49:46 PM »

Which, as I said, is called "tyranny of the majority".

If the practice has no impact on society at large (which, I submit, "gay marriage" wouldn't), then the majority needs to suck it up and deal.

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #80 on:** May 08, 2008, 06:01:48 PM »

Apparently, Strings, you're a statist. You want to use the power of government to force people to accept/do/live with things against their will. The majority be damned.

Is that right? What about democracy?

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #81 on:** May 08, 2008, 06:11:07 PM »

"You don't agree with me, so you're a statist". wow... great debate skills there!

Your take is that the majority CAN decide to make life more difficult for an unpopular majority then?

Myself, I'm of the opinion that the "rights and protections" of a married couple should be available (and just as readily so) for any group of 2 or more consenting adults, and "marriage" should be strictly the balliwick of your respective church. maximum freedom for everyone, without having to trouble over changing meaning of terms...

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #82 on:** May 08, 2008, 06:32:56 PM »

Quote

By that logic, anything that the citizens of a state decide they don't like, they can ban. I believe the phrase we're looking for is "tyranny of the majority": a situation where, because an unpopular group is in the minority, their rights are trampled...

I believe that the relevant phrase is "free government" or "free State". A free State has a popular government. It is not an absolute government, there are limits to what a free government can do, and there are also federal limits. But the idea that government can only legislate to prevent harm and not to establish cultural/societal values just goes to show what I have said for years - libertarianism precludes culture and society.

Quote

If the practice has no impact on society at large (which, I submit, "gay marriage" wouldn't), then the majority needs to suck it up and deal.

I don't see how you can say that forcing homosexual marriage on a State would not impact its society.

Quote

maximum freedom for everyone

Virginians don't want a libertarian hell hole.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #83 on:** May 08, 2008, 06:41:03 PM »

If the practice has no impact on society at large (which, I submit, "gay marriage" wouldn't), then the majority needs to suck it up and deal.

therein lies the rub
thats why a recognized civil union is both preferable and more likely to be accepted.

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #84 on:** May 08, 2008, 08:02:53 PM »

Quote from: Strings on May 08, 2008, 05:11:07 PM

"You don't agree with me, so you're a statist". wow... great debate skills there!

Your take is that the majority CAN decide to make life more difficult for an unpopular majority then?

No, you're a statist because you want to use the power of government to override the will of the people.
The majority did not force the 'unpopular' minority into homosexuality. That was a choice they made on their own. Whatever benefits marriage provides can otherwise be obtained by homosexual partners with Powers of Attorney, Revocable Living Trusts, Health Care Directives, and other legal instruments.

And while we're at it, I want to be in the next Miss America contest. Oh, wait, I have testicles, so I'm excluded? How freaking unfair is that?

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #85 on:** May 08, 2008, 08:13:05 PM »

Straw men.

And I honestly don't believe that anybody made a choice to "be homo". That would be like saying I made a choice to find slender redheads attractive: there's no explanation for why someone finds whatever shape, size, and equipment attractive. Hell: even fistful found someone!

If you can accept that it's not a concious choice, then the question comes up "What can we allow?". You say that "allowing" some form of civil union is "forcing the will of the minority on the majority", but I really don't think so. Heck, we can dispense with the term "marriage" here, and most folks on the gay side would be happy: they just want to have the protections others enjoy, without having to go to extreme measures. And it's silly that it should be necessary for them to have to.

41magsnub · « **Reply #86 on:** May 09, 2008, 07:27:30 AM »

I'm new here, but isn't arguing with Paddy sort of like competing in the Special Olympics? Even if you win...

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #87 on:** May 09, 2008, 07:41:02 AM »

The obvious solution is for the state to no longer recognize marriage. Assign benefits to whomever you see fit.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #88 on:** May 09, 2008, 12:54:33 PM »

Quote from: 41magsnub on May 09, 2008, 06:27:30 AM

I'm new here, but isn't arguing with Paddy sort of like competing in the Special Olympics? Even if you win...

More or less. A lot of us do it from time to time, though. It passes the time.

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #89 on:** May 09, 2008, 01:22:46 PM »

What fistful said. Kinda like watching a sitcom on TV...

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #90 on:** May 09, 2008, 01:26:08 PM »

Strings, that was a nasty personal remark that contributes to an armed, UNPOLITE society. In penance, you must read The Gospel of St. Matthew 7:5. And then PM that verse to Paddy 777 times.

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #91 on:** May 09, 2008, 01:31:23 PM »

Which I would be happy to do, if my faith included the idea of penance... Tongue

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #92 on:** May 09, 2008, 02:15:48 PM »

My faith doesn't offer much in the way of penance, either. But no one asked you for your opinion of the matter. Now get cracking. And I really, really mean it. angry

The Annoyed Man · « **Reply #93 on:** May 09, 2008, 05:21:40 PM »

Or you'll what: scold me? Tongue

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #94 on:** May 09, 2008, 07:14:24 PM »

I'll pray for you. Good and hard. Might even fast. Tongue

And thee-enuh we'll-uh have an exorcism-uh. And cay-ast ay-OUT the DEEEEEE-mon of-uh wee-itch-cray-aft.

mek42 · « **Reply #95 on:** May 11, 2008, 03:32:35 AM »

It was recently decided that current NY State law requires same-sex marriages from outside of the state to be recognized as legal and binding. Specifically, this applies to employer (public and private) benefits distributions.

Apparently the court that made this decision stated that the legislature could pass laws to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages from outside of NY. Would this be a violation of the 14th Amendment?

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #96 on:** May 11, 2008, 03:35:24 PM »

If we pretend that the 14th was ratified, and we assume that it's current meaning is based upon its original intent and purpose, and I try to put the best spin on it ...

I'd say that the spirit of the 14th is that any citizen can move to any State and have certain rights, such as the right to own property there, the right to reside there, the right to protection and due process of the law ... I do not think that homosexual marriage is one of the privileges and immunities that the 14th was intended to regard ... and if NY legislates that they won't recognize/allow homosexual marriage, then that seems like due process to me. I do not believe that the State law in question would violate a conservative construction of the 14th.

On the other hand, the 14th passed because they said it passed, and it means whatever they fancy ... so sure, they might use the 14th to force homosexual marriage upon every State. That is what we're still talking about ... except in this new scenario homosexual couples would have to go to CA or MA and get married and then come to VA and we'd be forced to accept the marriage.

Some of these posts make me think of Jefferson's warning about how New Englanders "support principles which go directly to a change of the federal constitution, to sink the state governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchize that". I think that pretty much sums up today's view of the 14th "Amendment".

BlueStarLizzard · « **Reply #97 on:** May 11, 2008, 05:13:18 PM »

alright, i'm gonna state first and foremost, the LBGTT folk should be able to reap the same advantages as the hetro folk. if that means that they get to have legal marrigies in the eyes of the gov', fine. basically, its non of my business and non of yours either. because IT DOESN'T EFFECT YOU. if you have issues with folks reaping those awards then you better start going after those benifits rather then the folks getting them.

now to blow one arguement to outer space.

lesbians have wombs and gays have semen, and there are plenty of ways to get semen into wombs without doing the nasty. basically, if they so choose, they can have kids through Artificial insemination and adoption.

if you have a moral problem with LBGTT, i don't care. if you don't want to associate with LBGTT folks, then don't associate with them. but making or continuing laws that force the LBGTT crowd to limit their personal choices is not really in the spirt of this country. not to mention, its just another aspect of letting the state control people.

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #98 on:** May 12, 2008, 04:35:39 AM »

Quote

making or continuing laws that force the LBGTT crowd to limit their personal choices is not really in the spirt of this country

It seems to me that there are a lot of States, they have existed for a long time, and they generally and historically have laws against sodomy and homosexual marriage. It seems completely removed from reality, just "play pretend", to say that such laws are not in the spirit of the Country.

Quote

IT DOESN'T EFFECT YOU

Why do y'all keep repeating this? First off, if it effects my society and culture, then it effects me. Secondly, it seems incredibly naive to think that we must strike down all laws which regard things that "don't effect me". It "doesn't effect me" if the federal government says we must allow prostitution, or legalize heroin, or most any such facet of society. The simply truth is that the people of each State have a right to define their own society and culture within certain federal limits, the federal government has no proper jurisdiction over the matters in question, and that is the spirit of this country.

SteveS · « **Reply #99 on:** May 12, 2008, 08:15:38 AM »

Quote from: Hugh Damright on May 11, 2008, 02:35:24 PM

If we pretend that the 14th was ratified.

Why do we have to pretend? There were 37 states at that time and 28 were needed for ratification (per Art. V). It was eventually ratified by every state.

News:

Author Topic: is it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage? (Read 62955 times)