Gay Marriage.


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Gay Marriage.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 20 · Next
Author Message
Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1230566 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 16:02:34 UTC - in response to Message 1230527.

I think it may be fair to ask: doesn't the first amendment just actually guarantee that no religion will be imposed or put forward by governmental entities. Also are we given the right to have freedom from religion??

I don't think that it gives the right for anyone to practice anywhere at any time or in any place especially when others belong to that public place. What do you think about France banning the head scarf or the birka (Chador) ?

No it doesn't say that. Some foolish judge decided with some atheists that its "from" and not "of". Worship as you like without hindrance. Don't worship.. Eh whatever you please, is what it says.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,738,034
RAC: 2,981
United States
Message 1230575 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 16:27:15 UTC - in response to Message 1230528.
Last modified: 11 May 2012, 16:27:41 UTC

Bottom line is that a Federal Court has only one duty and that is to rule on established law only in a Constitutional issue. That does mean that they need to READ the Constitution and apply that law to the issue.

As I said, they cannot claim they are being discriminated against. Such a issue is life style. One can claim that they want to marry a anamial, or an object. The precedent has been since the start of this Country--one man, and one woman. One could claim that he/she wants more then one wife or husband, the precedent is one man and one woman.

The matter of the subject at hand here is that life style is curbed by law everyday of the week 24/7 hours of the day. Someone can say they like little kids--alot, to much, that life style is against the law. Someone could say they like whatever the masses find unacceptable, and that LIFE STYLE is curbed by the law.

This is the bottom line of said subject. The gay issues is a matter of life style, not a matter of people being discriminated against. And Constitutional law has only one direction and that is to rule on what is in the Constitution.


1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


14th amendment, section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Homosexuality is not illegal, unlike paedophilia, bestiality, bigamy, etc., so comparisons with such practices are not applicable. It seems to me that the most applicable comparison is to the anti-miscegenation laws that SCOTUS struck down in 1967.

There are civil practices that are modified after a couple is married, rights to a partner's pension can be contingent on marriage, hospital policies on gaining access to a dying loved one, granting consent for medical interventions, the list goes on. It appears to me that not being free to give your lawfully chosen partner such rights is discrimination, just as anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory.
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31401
Credit: 12,085,335
RAC: 29,040
United Kingdom
Message 1230581 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 17:05:34 UTC

There are civil practices that are modified after a couple is married, rights to a partner's pension can be contingent on marriage, hospital policies on gaining access to a dying loved one, granting consent for medical interventions, the list goes on. It appears to me that not being free to give your lawfully chosen partner such rights is discrimination, just as anti-miscegenation laws were discriminatory.


I agree with you Bobby, and you make good points. As far as I'm concerned if two people of the same gender choose to live together as a couple and wish to legalise that, for reasons you list above and others, I do not see anything wrong with that.

As a boring straight guy, that lifestyle wouldn't be for me, but I won't judge others who feel differently, what gives me the right to do that? I have met some same gender couples over the years, and if anything they seem to have a closer and more fulfilling relationship than many people do! It is just that even in the 21C the whole issue still seems to be seen as non PC.


Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1230585 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 17:19:18 UTC
Last modified: 11 May 2012, 17:28:12 UTC

What one thinks about gay marriage personally is of some matter. What the group thinks together is the matter at hand. Out was prop 8 was voted on and approved by the masses. They made up their minds on the issue as I have told you. One can't like a child to much. One cannot have more then one spouse. One cannot marry a dog. One who wishes to marry of the same sex is not allowed.

Then it went to court. The judge did not rule on what the masses wanted. The judge did not rule on a Constitutional matter.

If gay marriage can be shot down by vote in such a state as California it has no chance at all unless we get judges who rule from the bench and not on established law. Bottom Line. You all can banter all you want, it amounts to nothing at all. Any court ruling can and in this case will be overturned by the people themselves. In this Country the people make the law, we have no masters but ourselves.

Just because the last of the laws against gay marriage were struck down in 2003 by SCOTUS does not mean that they will not be reinstated at a later date by the people themselves, namely the right to marry.

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1230600 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 18:01:37 UTC

"It does not matter who we love, nor how we love. What matters is THAT we love."

I see no reason why two consenting adults should not be able to define their own relationship. That is a very basic freedom.

There is no attack on the "institution of marriage", since a marriage means as much or as little as those inside it believe it does.
____________

Janice

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,726,723
RAC: 1,109
United States
Message 1230604 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 18:06:31 UTC

I totally agree that the issues being discussed this election are a joke.

But I think it's simply because the republicans have nothing good to say about themselves, so instead they get behind "issues" that aren't even issues. I'm not worried. Dems win this one.
____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8295
Credit: 54,986,359
RAC: 74,982
United Kingdom
Message 1230639 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 19:55:44 UTC

For me the concept of "gay marriage" is rather alien as I see marriage as partnership in which one of the objectives is procreation. Now obviously, without some form of "external assistance" procreation is highly improbable within a monogamous, purely homosexual relationship.
I then come up against two more questions, is it legal in the country the couple find themselves in, and is it moral.
The answer to the first question is, in many (most?) "western" countries well defined, the legal code within the country either says "yes it is legal that two consenting adults of the same sex may live together", or it says they can't, and that's the end of that debate.
The moral debate is far less clear to many people, be they hetro-, or homo-, sexual. In my mind this debate has long been settled in favour of the "no its not morally acceptable".
This stance now raises an interesting debate within me - one of freedom of expression. I may disagree with someone, but I will uphold their right to express their views SO LONG as those views are legal, and they do not break the law in the manner of their expression of those views I do struggle with those who would have the law changed in a manner that I find unacceptable on moral grounds, but they have the right to express those views..... A conundrum if ever there was one!
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

bobby
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 1962
Credit: 14,738,034
RAC: 2,981
United States
Message 1230646 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 20:14:05 UTC - in response to Message 1230639.

For me the concept of "gay marriage" is rather alien as I see marriage as partnership in which one of the objectives is procreation. Now obviously, without some form of "external assistance" procreation is highly improbable within a monogamous, purely homosexual relationship.


What of heterosexual couples where one or both are infertile, should they be barred from marriage as a result of this objective?
____________
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31401
Credit: 12,085,335
RAC: 29,040
United Kingdom
Message 1230647 - Posted: 11 May 2012, 20:17:41 UTC

A conundrum if ever there was one!


I think that you put it quite well Rob!

I also think that it matters which generation you are from as well. Anyone over 50 is likely to view lesbianism, homosexuality, same gender relationships, civil partnerships, or gay marriage, as being generally unacceptable. Probably because that was what they were taught when they grew up, and that is what the bible taught them.

These days most people under 30 have a much more liberal mindset regarding this issue, and we have in Lynne Featherstone, the Government Minister for Equalities, someone who is dedicated to changing perceptions. I've met her, she is feisty and forthright about what she wants to achieve, and I bet she will as well!

But, and it is a big but, 90% of the world is heterosexual, and the other 10% are always going to be in the minority. But there is no reason why they shouldn't be accorded as much respect, tolerance, and legality as anyone else.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1230789 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:25:07 UTC - in response to Message 1230528.

Kafkatrapping...

I don't hate Gay people. I don't agree with the life style they have 'chosen' for themselves.

They cannot claim that they are being discriminated against. We have rule of law for a reason. In that law at the federal level we have the 14 and 15 amendments. For both it isn't a life choice we are talking about. In both cases you are born this way and have no control over this matter.

Kafkatrapping...


If you want wiggle room, go to the state and ask. However, remember that if 2/3rds of the states tell you no then at the federal level you have no wiggle room.

In California the most liberial state in the Union voted for prop 8. This was the consensus of the people. However, this was not allowed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took a vote of the people themselves and said it was unconstitutional. The Hollywood elite backed the effort in cash and didn't have a hard time finding Judges who would Rule from the Bench in place of ruling on established law, first and foremost---precedent.


Indeed, Kafkatrapping...



Bottom line is that a Federal Court has only one duty and that is to rule on established law only in a Constitutional issue. That does mean that they need to READ the Constitution and apply that law to the issue.

As I said, they cannot claim they are being discriminated against. Such a issue is life style. One can claim that they want to marry a anamial, or an object. The precedent has been since the start of this Country--one man, and one woman. One could claim that he/she wants more then one wife or husband, the precedent is one man and one woman.

The matter of the subject at hand here is that life style is curbed by law everyday of the week 24/7 hours of the day. Someone can say they like little kids--alot, to much, that life style is against the law. Someone could say they like whatever the masses find unacceptable, and that LIFE STYLE is curbed by the law.

This is the bottom line of said subject. The gay issues is a matter of life style, not a matter of people being discriminated against. And Constitutional law has only one direction and that is to rule on what is in the Constitution.




38 of the states in the Union have rejected gay marriage. Time for an amendment rejecting it in all states.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1230794 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:35:56 UTC - in response to Message 1230789.

and yet if one state allows it then it is law in all the others.

It wasn't so long ago that interracial marriages were illegal in many states.
The last of the laws preventing interracial marriage were struck down in 1967. I think it will take time but the court system will eventually be forced to strike down those 38 states laws on the topic.

Again I don't care one way or another but it seems an inevitable outcome
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

msattlerProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 38850
Credit: 576,944,867
RAC: 523,341
United States
Message 1230796 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:39:49 UTC
Last modified: 12 May 2012, 4:45:10 UTC

I am a little over 55yo.
So, you should know where I come from.
Gay or lesbian relationships were verrrry shunned in my youth.
Some still do now.

I have come to relax 'some' of my views as I grow older and realize that the mores of old shall change, me with them or not.

Here comes Dick......

Sigh.

I think the way my generation expressed it was through the Beatles' song.
All you need is Love.

Or some various Queen songs.
____________
*********************************************
Embrace your inner kitty...ya know ya wanna!

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1230799 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:44:48 UTC - in response to Message 1230796.

I am a little over 55yo.
So, you should know where I come from.
Gay or lesbian relationships were verrrry shunned in my youth.
Some still do now.

I have come to relax 'some' of my views as I grow older and realize that the mores of old shall change, me with them or not.

Here comes Dick......

Same here. Though it still creeps me out when a guy flirts with me.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1230800 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:45:03 UTC

A few years ago it was only permitted in a couple of states.

So 12 down, 38 to go!!

If your church/temple/mosque/circle does not agree with them then they are certainly not required to perform them.

This is about basic rights and human dignity. Honestly I would advise any of them NOT to get married.. but that is only because I am old and cynical.

____________

Janice

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1230802 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:47:59 UTC - in response to Message 1230800.

A few years ago it was only permitted in a couple of states.

So 12 down, 38 to go!!

If your church/temple/mosque/circle does not agree with them then they are certainly not required to perform them.

This is about basic rights and human dignity. Honestly I would advise any of them NOT to get married.. but that is only because I am old and cynical.

I think everyone should get the chance to be married and find out what a soul crushing experience it can be. I hardly like being around me. why would I want someone else to suffer through that.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

msattlerProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 38850
Credit: 576,944,867
RAC: 523,341
United States
Message 1230803 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:50:59 UTC - in response to Message 1230799.

I am a little over 55yo.
So, you should know where I come from.
Gay or lesbian relationships were verrrry shunned in my youth.
Some still do now.

I have come to relax 'some' of my views as I grow older and realize that the mores of old shall change, me with them or not.

Here comes Dick......

Same here. Though it still creeps me out when a guy flirts with me.

LOL..
A friend and I went to a Packer game 25 years ago or more.
Got trashed.
Got back to town and he thought we should have another drink or two before going home.

Went to a bar on the main drag (no pun intended) once we got back to our home town.
Sat down and ordered up shots and beers. Little did we know.
A couple of fancy guys started buying us drinks, we thought is was just the usual 'I buy you one, you buy me one' bar routine.

Until one of them came over and asked us if we should like to have a bit of 'knob'.....
And he was not talking about Knob Creek bourbon.

We fled out the door screaming.
____________
*********************************************
Embrace your inner kitty...ya know ya wanna!

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

msattlerProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 38850
Credit: 576,944,867
RAC: 523,341
United States
Message 1230805 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:53:43 UTC
Last modified: 12 May 2012, 4:54:08 UTC

The real knot in the tendon is when we, the majority of taxpayers, are asked to pay for these unions which are not in line with our beliefs.

There, I think, becomes the crux of the matter.
____________
*********************************************
Embrace your inner kitty...ya know ya wanna!

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1230808 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:56:16 UTC

Barry's second 4 years are shot due to this issue.

And so is the issue.



msattlerProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 38850
Credit: 576,944,867
RAC: 523,341
United States
Message 1230809 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 4:57:43 UTC - in response to Message 1230808.

Barry's second 4 years are shot due to this issue.

And so is the issue.




I dunno who it will come back to shoot in the foot.
Could be the opportunist Obama.
____________
*********************************************
Embrace your inner kitty...ya know ya wanna!

I have met a few friends in my life.
Most were cats.

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 94
United States
Message 1230824 - Posted: 12 May 2012, 5:30:17 UTC
Last modified: 12 May 2012, 5:32:38 UTC

Temporary Locked: 24 hour cooldown.

Discussions have gotten too heated and are resorting to personal attacks.
Disagreeing politically is fine, Personal/religious insults are not.

Since this is not being followed..

TIME OUT!!
____________

Janice

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 20 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Gay Marriage.

Copyright © 2014 University of California