How is gay marriage a right? [Archive]

karl k

11-24-2003, 07:50 PM

You speak of a lack of reference in the constitution(s) to the right of gay marriage but there "might" be one in the "Declaration of Independence". Ya, the little remembered document that started it all and which has a little passage that most forget when approached with an uneasy choice to make pertaining to what others should be able to do. Let me refresh your memory...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

It seems to me that the "right to the pursuit of happiness" prevails here.(unless of course you mean that you have the right to pursue all you want but not the right to ever find said happiness)

What I don't get,:confused: is why do people "require" a law to allow the right of marriage or more to the point, gay marriage, before they consider it acceptable? Better yet, why require a lack of a law to validate their personal non-acceptance? I believe all homosexuals are asking for is acceptance in society which constitutes all the rights and priviledges(sp?) that any "man" is endowed with. Now IF you were to believe that ALL men are created equal, and that their creater put them here with the right to happiness, then who are you to deny them(homosexuals) the right to something that you yourself consider to be so important and necessary to the fulfillment of life and happiness?

Sounds to me like another case of you don't believe in the same thing I do so your not entitled to the same stuff.:(

Just a thought...

piece-it pete

11-25-2003, 06:17 AM

This is what I was getting at: Marriage is not mentioned in many (none that I know of) state constitutions, so according to those constitutions that decision is reserved for the people (the legislature).

However there is an increasing tendency in this country to allow judges to write laws from the bench. Sometimes elected & often appointed (state level) and appointed for life with no recourse (US Supreme court). They are supposed to protect these documents - not override them with their sense of morality! Is that the rule of law?

For me (as with the founding fathers) there is no room for personal beliefs in our dealings with the Constitution. No religion, hurt feelings, - no "justice". If not stated in the Federal constitution, it is reserved for the people (state gov't). This is *explicit* in the US constitution.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Mass. Constitution:

Article IV. The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, or may not hereafter, be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in Congress assembled.

Article V. All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.

It's easy to say we shouldn't be bound by these old documents. Debatable, as the founders had years & years of practical experience & study before the Constitution was written (and look at the success of their creation) - but Jefferson would agree - he said they should be rewritten by every generation.

They haven't been rewritten, and until they are they should be enforced as written.

Unless we want the Supreme Court to run the country - the U.S.A. as a dictatorship.

Pete

karl k

11-25-2003, 04:44 PM

as being accurate. The process of making laws and the power distribution of government is clearly documented in those constitutions as you sited. The difference between what your original question was and your latest is the difference between what is deserved and what is earned. Rights are considered to be automatic with birth,creation,citizenship(to a lesser degree), and existance. These are the basic things that are inherent life... life, freedom to choose, acnowledgement to exist by others, ability to grow physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. In your second post, you speak of what members of your community are ALLOWED to do based on laws that are set forth by the majority of the community. It is that structure that you mention that has come into question here. Is it a right to get married as a gay couple? I think it should be as much a right as it would be for a straight couple. They both stand for the same ideal IMHO. Should the Feds and the State acknowledge such a marriage? Based on the paragraph I sited from the Declaration of Independence, as well as the ideals that all discrimination laws are based on, I think so. Should the Church endorse such a thing? That's up to the church. Marriage is not just an institution for the Church as a couple can get married by the "justice of the peace" and retain nearly the same acknowledgement by society of being married as you would from the Church. As it is stated in the Preamble, it(the constitution) was drawn up to form a more perfect union, to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility. Now I believe that the same can be said about the individual states constitutions as far as the intent and that if people were to put there beliefs aside and concentrate on equality and fairness for all people and not just the ones that agree with their beliefs, you wouldn't have such a mess trying to convince others about the morality of a subject.(tranquility through fairness and equality)

It is interesting to watch how people try to construct laws prohibiting others from doing something that they themselves couldn't stomach. There are several examples of this in historic and modern society. Interracial relationships, masterbation, oral sex, sodomy, alcohol and drug use, prostitution, baligamy, incest(of any kind), and homosexuality just to name a few. Some of these have laws on the books to curtale or prevent such acts, some have just been made to be frowned on by the majority. 10 yrs ago, people would have loved to tell me I as a whitie can't marry a Philipino(Asian/Polynesian) because of her skin color. And why is that, they(some in society) just couldn't see themselves doing the same thing and therefore refused it as being acceptable to watch others doing it. How would that be fair to me if I don't have a problem with that? Ultimately, the issues with homosexuality WILL be resolved just as it was with slavery,sufferage and bigotry. It may take time for society to come around but after enough people put themselves in a homo's shoes(and not in his bed), the laws will be changed and they be treated as you or I would want to be... as equals.

Now, I'm going to engage in the pursuit of happiness, by committing acts of sodomy and copulation, with my common law married Philipino wife of 16yrs in the privacy of our home, in the middle of the Bible Belt! (while adhearing to the laws of the state of Kansas) LOL:D

piece-it pete

11-26-2003, 08:44 AM

And there is still no legal standing for these decisions, which means these judges are upsurping the will of the majority.

Consider the preamble. If you asked 10 people what it means you'll get ten different answers. Take Ken Lay. His pursuit of happiness includes bilking billions. Ahh, but stealing is wrong? That's a moral judgement!!

As such, and the fact it's not specific in the US Constitution, means that it's up to us. If we decide it's OK then, by law, there is nothing the court can do - but the courts now decide cases based on morality - so it's NOT up to us, and we are no longer a democracy.

So if "we the people" have come to a point where we believe homosexual "marriage" (btw, not a logical statement considering the definition of marriage) is morally right its' proper place is in the legislature, where it will pass. If it doesn't it is clearly the will of the people (and their perogative) to leave it alone.

Remember "disenfranchising voters" from the last election? That ain't nuttin compared to what's going on. And it's been going on for quite some time now. But I don't hear the ACLU braying about it.

So yet again the founding fathers were right for worrying thusly: We are not strong enough to keep a democracy.

Phew! Getting myself worked up! But I believe it's coming to crunch time. Jefferson also said that the tree of liberty must be fertilized by the blood of tyrants & patriots. Some stand ready.

And no, I'm not a kook :)!!

Pete

PS Have fun with the wife woofwoofwoof!! And when mine asks why so frisky, I'll tell her it's AudioReview LOL!

Pat D

11-26-2003, 03:31 PM

The bible is quite explicit with its position against homosexuality. I wonder how the gay churches (and there are quite a few these days) answer that

Well, now, this is something I have to point out to opposite poles in the debate:

The Bible has no general word for homosexuality and did not have the category, and apparently neither did any other ancient language. In English, homosexual activity refers to both males and females, and covers a variety of behaviours. Any translation using the term 'homosexual' or 'homosexuality' is incorrect, therefore, as there is no such word in Hebrew or Greek. Accordingly, there is no general condemnation of all homosexual behaviour in the Bible. There is no certain reference to lesbianism anywhere in the Bible (Rm. 1:26 can be plausibly interpreted quite otherwise). What specific behavior is meant in each text, under what circumstances does it occur, and how it is evaluated? Some scholars convincingly identify them with such things as sacred prostitution or exploitative sex, especially sex between adults and children.

I should point out that the same issue exists in Church history: homosexuality is a modern word, so when did the Church develop this concept? Apparently, no one has been able to find it in the early church.

I must say that when I first looked into these maybe 15 years ago, I had sort of assumed the fundamentalists were correct, and would have suggested simply that their beliefs were cultural limited and lacked modern knowledge.. Once I read the texts, I found I had numerous historical questions, and I soon found that the good scholars had the same sort of questions and a lot more.

The following link has a useful discussion, although I would prefer other interpretations at times.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marj.htm

karl k

11-26-2003, 05:50 PM

I can't argue about the power distribution although I believe your assessment of the judicial actions recently is in error. I suppose it all comes down to what you believe is right and just and whether you are on the loosing end of the decision or not. You see, those judges you speak of do represent the people they serve. As you pointed out, they are either elected or appointed by us directly, or indirectly through those we do elect, based on their ability to follow OR interpret the laws and constitutions. That's why you hear the contraversy surrounding the picks from the President. It's about long term performance and how it will shape the future of our country. Ultimately, people picked Bush(dubuh) because of his convictions and while that may be good and all for the short term, I don't believe all his long term nominations should be given the green light just for that reason. The judicial system has its own checks and balances as well. If you don't like the descision, appeal it to a higher court. In the end, we ARE the ones who put these judges where they are, by popular vote, one way or the other by our action of voting or our in-action by not voting. I did a short search on marriage and it's place in law and it turns out that you're right... the supreme court has dictated that it is the place of the states to decide about the particulars of marriage EXCEPT when it contradicts the constitution at the federal level. Just like you said it should.

Now for my arguement again...

In doing this search, I ran across a site at Cornell law that pertained to the example I sited about interracial marriages and discrimination laws. Here's the links...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/equal_protection.html

Now you can spend the time if you wish to read all the contents, but I think you will get my "drift" by just skimming the highlights. In essence, interracial marriages were allowed by the supreme court because of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which basically states that laws should be applied equally to all people w/o discrimination. So interracial marriage couldn't be denied soley because of race or color. Seems only fair don't you think? If you make a law, it should apply to everyone reguardless of "trivial reason". What constitutes trivial? If it doesn't adversely affect the community in which the law is acted, it's trivial. Now those laws that pertain to race also pertain(maybe only in part to date) to creed, national origin, sex(sexual orientation), religious affiliation, and age. Once again, if you are to believe that ALL men are created EQUAL, this amendment is saying that laws should apply equally to all men(women). Check it out and tell me what you think.

Now as far as your example of the pursuit of happiness, that's why we have laws... to set limits on what kind of happiness you can have w/o adversely affecting the community. I'd say that bilking billions at the expense of others(hundreds of others) constitutes an aggressive misuse of the pursuit and therefore you have the law about stealing. Laws are put in place to prevent loss of life, loss of property, and loss of human rights from occurring... not to reinforce the religious or other beliefs without specific cause. Now how is gay marriage going to adversely affect anyone? How can you call it nondiscriminatory? How can you not call it a reasonable pursuit of happiness? How can you restrict marriage to heterosexual couples and consider it justice? The bottom line to me... Why should the states or the popular vote be what decides the fate of homosexual couples relative to heterosexual couples? Shouldn't they be free to determine their legal status (as heterosexuals are) since they were created as equal as you or I as it states in the Declaration of Independence? You see, the marriage laws were drawn up as they are(pertaining only to opposite sex) because of one of two things, either fear of homosexuality and it's status of rejection in the church, or out of ignorance of the fact that it(homosexuality) existed and simply wasn't accounted for in the laws. Well we can't claim ignorance any longer so now it must simply be the fear and rejection that is causing all the commotion in changing the laws of marriage to reflect two people instead of man and wife . And it just so happens that fear is one of the leading causes of predjudice and discrimination. Ya know there's an old saying... Live and let live. The institution of law is only suppose to be excersized when someone is(or will be with high probability) adversely affected while live and let live is going on.

I am sorry I couldn't keep this discussion w/o getting a little moral on ya, sometimes you can't discuss laws w/o morals. It has been refreshing though! Keep it commin' Pete!

And BTW... RELAX A LITTLE!!! It doesn't to a body good to get all worked up! You'll get so stressed, your wife won't be willing or able to relieve it!!! LOL :D

The sum of my legal arguement...

All men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights which include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...Declaration of Independence

All laws are to be excersized equally to all without reguard to race, color, creed, national origin, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or age... Equal Protection Clause, 14th amendment.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America... The Preamble.

Pat D

11-26-2003, 09:23 PM

One must interpret the Constitition as a whole, not just take parts of it. The 14th amendment change the interpretation of other, earlier parts of the Constitution, because that's the way the Constitution reads NOW. And, that sort of thing is the job of the Supreme Court, despite the protestations.

karl k

11-26-2003, 09:50 PM

I read in the link you provided to find it was VERY entertaining. I especially likes the "Focus on the Family" assessment on marriage and it's purpose! LOL To think that the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate is IMHO WWAAAAAAYYYYY outdated! If that were the case, one would have to assume that a womans sole purpose was to bear children, and that the only time to have sex was to have a child! HMMM, that might explain why I see so many couples in the "Bible Belt" with 4,5,6,...9 kids! LMAO!!!

I do believe I understand the root of the contraversy, and all I can say to one common arguement that marriage will somehow be diminished by allowing gays to wed is...

Take a long long look at what the institution of marriage has become today and tell me it can get worse!!!! Too many times have I seen what marriage has done to couples(and visa-versa) and their children. I think(based on the homosexuals I've known) that they stand as good or better chance of maintaining the standard of marriage or raising that standard and humiliating the heterosexual world.

Sorry man, didn't mean to babble on. :D

Good link though!

Pat D

11-27-2003, 07:28 AM

Thanks.

Yes, some do think that gay marriage somehow devalues heterosexual marriage. I can't figure out what the whole issue has to do with me and my wife, and neither can she.

But another argument is that marriage has not changed since time immemorial, existing in some Platonic heaven, perhaps. I suppose there is a lack of intellectual integrity in many controversies, but this involves some very easily verifiable facts which few bother to look up. Here's another OCRT link showing 8 types of marriages/families in the Bible, along with information on changes in US marriage laws:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bibl.htm

In the Bible, marriage is not contracted by the couple but by the family, represented of course by the fathers (of if the female' s father is dead, by her brothers). Read, or watch a DVD of, Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream to see a similar conception. Hebrew marriage was basically polygamous and allowed for concubines, as well. Solomon is said to have had 700 wives and 300 concubines in 1 Kings 11:3, and the only objection was that some of the 'foreign' wives worshipped other gods! Marriage It was not always voluntary as well. So, there have been some pretty significant changes.

Moreover, homosexual marriage is not unknown to history, although I have not found such detailed information on it..

I recently pointed all this out in letters to the local newspapers, including the Catholic diocesan weekly newspaper.

mtrycraft

11-27-2003, 07:21 PM

Moral issues aside, where in any of these state or federal constitutions does it say gay marriage is a right?

Pete

Why would the 'Equal Protection' law cover this contract?
After all, in civil law, isn't this a contract we are trying to define? With benefits of this contract to follow such as property rights, visitations in hospitals, next of kin, etc.?

alfbinet

11-27-2003, 07:23 PM

Yep...in common law IT SHOULD be. As long as it is not done in a religious context. The only argument against it is on a Religious (or one could say Moral) ground. Regliousity and Morality seem to go hand to hand. This is usually to the detriment to the folks who are the targeted "would be saved".

karl k

11-27-2003, 07:43 PM

Pat D

11-29-2003, 06:47 AM

Now some will argue that even w/o the change of definition, the law is still discriminatory since it is selective to opposite sex partners only and therefore it is justified to change the defination of marriage. I believe it is this interpretation of the law that some fear will be carried out by the judges instead of by popular vote at the state level.

Well, the 14th Amendment was passed legally and in accordance with the Constitution. The Supreme Court is supposed to apply it.

Now, since marriage laws have changed quite drastically in the past. Foir example, in many states, people of different races weren't supposed to marry but the Supreme Court shot down the laws--funny how nobody much complains this was undemocratic. :D What's the difference?

karl k

11-29-2003, 09:49 AM

legally, the 14th isn't saying all people are supposed to be equal. All it was saying is that all laws are supposed to apply equally to all people within the context of the law. Here's the difference...

In the state laws, the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. So any laws about marriage are based on the idea that only a man and a woman can get married. In the discussion of interracial marriage, the 14th applied because it(interracial marriage) still fits the definition of marriage at the state level... a man and a woman. That's where same sex marriage differs and the 14th MAY not apply until the definition of marriage is changed to reflect two people instead of man and woman. Since the current laws pertain to opposite sex(by definition), one half of a homosexual couple would have to be determined medically(either physically or mentally) as female/male before the 14th could apply. If the 14th were it be applied without a change in the definition of marriage, the arguement will surely be that the 14th does not exist to make all people equal.

Here's another extreme example...

The laws say that you can have a drink if your over 18/21yrs. The 14th allows anyone over this age to have a drink without discrimination. It cannot allow anyone reguardless of age to have a drink because it would be implying all people as equal instead of implying the laws be equally applied.

These are just my opinions based on what I've read so far. Though I do agree with the idea of same sex marriage being allowed by law(if such a law is required for acceptance), and do believe the definition of marriage is discriminatory, I also believe we as a society will see a long battle before a conclusion is made and as some fear, the decission will probably be a judges interpretation of the law.

Just a note... Fundamentalist are argueing about same sex marriage being a bad thing that shouldn't be allowed by law and society while, in the state of Kansas, you can still by law get married at the age of 14!(which I find absurd since you are said to not have enough intelligence to vote or the responsibility to drink at that age) :p

mtrycraft

11-29-2003, 04:55 PM

From a legal standpoint, that is the root of the arguement. By default, the definition has always been a union between man and woman... not two people. It's this definition that is being challenged. How does the 14th come into play? Directly, it doesn't IMO so long as the definition of marriage stays as it is. But if it were to change, it would set a precidence for discrimination and would force the population to legally accept the ability for gays to marry. Now some will argue that even w/o the change of definition, the law is still discriminatory since it is selective to opposite sex partners only and therefore it is justified to change the defination of marriage. I believe it is this interpretation of the law that some fear will be carried out by the judges instead of by popular vote at the state level.

I think I made a small mistake:) It should have been 'why wouldn't the equal protection apply'
If state laws has a specific definition, then it is unconstitutional by excluding some sectors, regardless how they define it. And, they have excluded a large segment of th epopulation, or a small segment, doesn't matter.
This is not a popularity contest, what many like and hell with what the few want.
In the not too distant future, all this will be laughed at, how small minded some can be.
All this is because of religion, nothing else.

One only has to look around the palnet and see all the strife caused by it.

karl k

11-29-2003, 05:37 PM

Whether the definition of marriage is constitutional. That's what all opposed to the law are afraid of... the judges changing the definition on their own, against "public wish's".

Here's my take on the Equal Protection Act in the 14th amendment...

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?postid=2460#poststop

Look at the example on drinking and you'll understand how the EPA is applied and how it's not.

For what it's worth, I agree with your position on the core of the problem but don't believe it's exclusive to religion. There are alot of non religious people out there that just can't stomach the idea of watching such "abnormal" behavier let alone be able to explain the concept to their kids. I asked a long time male friend of mine who's position on gay's in general wasn't very pleasent...

"If a guy were to hit on you, would you kick his ass?"

The answer was yes because he would not want such a thing to happen to him and that he would find it so repulsive that it would deserve that action.

Then I asked...

Would you do the same to an old, fat, hooker?

He said no.

I asked what's the difference?

He couldn't answer.

Sometimes, people only know how they feel, not why they feel the way they do.

alfbinet

11-29-2003, 06:13 PM

Believe it or not...there are allot more bi guys out there than anyone would ever realize.

alfbinet

11-29-2003, 06:14 PM

Karl k at the same time your straight homophobe friend would probability boast at the bar the next night how this ***** came onto him and he beat the **** out of him...with much laughter...but his ego would still be enhanced. And he still would have loved the attention.

karl k

11-29-2003, 06:17 PM

consider it an act of self defense against a situation he would consider to be aggressive in nature. That's what was so funny to me, I've known the guy since he was like 12yrs or something(over 18yrs ago) and have never heard him talk about anything violent being done to anyone. I jokingly explained that he obviously was afraid that he himself might not be able to say no to such an advance! LOL

alfbinet

11-29-2003, 06:25 PM

An act of self defense? But would he still boast about it tne next night in the bar?

alfbinet

11-29-2003, 06:27 PM

Men have died by propositioning the wrong man.
Women, as a rule get propositioned all the time... i.e. wolf call as they walk down the street...they usually don't die because of it.

alfbinet

11-29-2003, 06:29 PM

Hence for the need for "Hate Crimes"

karl k

11-29-2003, 08:47 PM

take a little time to think about everything you want to say and put it in
ONE post. :) Now, no. He doesn't go to the bar. He might say something at work, but doubtful since his point of view isn't reflected in the majority of the people he works with of hangs with afterward. In fact, he doesn't much like talking about himself directly, instead about topics in general mostly from what he hears in the news. Last week to was religion. the week before, the government.

Sure, some are killed(usually beat to death) for propositioning the wrong guy. I've been propositioned before and I had no prob gently bringing him down. It would be interesting to see how a woman would handle being propositioned by another woman.

IMO, hate crime laws only deturr(sp?) if punishment is equal to the crime. It can be hard to deturr someone from committing a hate crime if he feels the recipient "deserves" what he gets.

Bi guy's? What's your point? So what if there are alot? What if I'm one of them? What if I'm not? Who cares if your gay, if I'm gay, if my neighbor, the mailman, the grocery clerk, Ellen, Liberacy, Elton. The point is what can be constructively done about it to change the perception of society to that these people belong and should be treated fairly... not that I have one friend that doesn't get it yet. BTW, I'm still working on him about why he thinks the way he does and trying to get him to see things from a different perspective.

Alf, RELAX buddy, is all good! :D

mtrycraft

11-29-2003, 09:47 PM

Whether the definition of marriage is constitutional. That's what all opposed to the law are afraid of... the judges changing the definition on their own, against "public wish's".

No, the judges would be ruling on the constitutionality of th ecurrent definition; unconstitutional. I also see an end to one spouse too.

Look at the example on drinking and you'll understand how the EPA is applied and how it's not.

But it applies equally to all under that age, males females, etc.

For what it's worth, I agree with your position on the core of the problem but don't believe it's exclusive to religion.

May not be exclusively but probably 95%.

He couldn't answer.

Figures.

karl k

11-29-2003, 10:29 PM

"No, the judges would be ruling on the constitutionality of th ecurrent definition; unconstitutional."

Yes, the current definition, and thereby "changing" it on their own by ruling it unconstitutional.

"I also see an end to one spouse too."

Good luck on that one! Not that I stand to gain from such a change! LOL :D

"But it applies equally to all under that age, males females, etc."

But it doesn't prevent the intended and written discrimination against those under 18/21yrs. That's what I'm saying in that the 14th is only good if the discrimination has no merit. Otherwise a 10yr old might try to claim that the laws against underage drinking are a form of age discrimination and site the 14th amendment as an arguement. As the 14th is written, he can't because the 14th doesn't claim all people are equal. In the case if interracial marriage, it had no merit for discrimination. In the case of drinking, the discrimination(age) HAS merit. In the case of same sex marriage, I don't believe the discrimination has merit, but I also don't believe the Supreme Court has enough pro members to get it done, and by leaving it up to the states(which is IMO what they will do) they won't have to. Remember, it's all about interpretation and they still have to have a majority.

He couldn't answer.

Figures.

Ya that question really messed him up for awhile! :p
He really hates it when I do that!

piece-it pete

12-01-2003, 08:53 AM

If the definition of marriage is unconstitutional, how could it be enforced by the people who wrote that document?

And, interracial marriages ARE protected under the Constitution - the 14th amendment section 1 - equal protection.

But there are no rules specifically about marriage, so in theory Congress could abolish it completely! But the Supreme Court has nothing to do with it (unless they exceed their lawful authority - but they would NEVER do that:).

Pete

Pat D

12-01-2003, 10:14 AM

And, interracial marriages ARE protected under the Constitution - the 14th amendment section 1 - equal protection.

But this didn't happen automatically, Pete. When did the Supreme Court get around to applying the 14th Amendment to laws against interracial marriages? It's on the OCRT site, the one you probably don't like, and elsewhere.

piece-it pete

12-01-2003, 12:29 PM

when they did it - it's still what they were supposed to do!

It's actually a good example of what happens when the Judges move outside the law. If the Judges were true to their oaths, racial marriage restrictions would have been 100% overturned at the first opportunity.

Over & over, when you look at the "bad" court decisions throughout our history, it was generally the judiciary overstepping their constitutional authority.

But there are always those willing to damage the (proven) system to force their will on the majority.

BTW, I've checked out the link you mentioned and, though they may mean well, there is a definite slant. For starters, they don't talk about how men use religion for their own ends (power) - they say it's the religions themselves. In some (but not many) instances this is true. But mostly it's men manipulating religion. To say as some have said get rid of religion and the world will be wonderful shows an astonishing lack of understanding human nature. Abolish religion & something else, say, absolute equality will become their prop.

They also inaccurately state the main commandment of Jesus. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is His second most important commandment. The first is of course "Love your God with all your mind, all your heart, all your soul". One mistake, yes, but a very important, large mistake (and an obvious one), as it leads me to believe they are pushing their agenda.

And somehow every time tolerance is mentioned I'VE got to change my beliefs. In order for me to be PC I've got to agree that no one goes to hell, and that Jesus is not the only way. Ha! Thank God I've got the freedom (as of yet) to think & say what I want. Until it's a hate crime : )!

Pete

karl k

12-01-2003, 06:25 PM

"Over & over, when you look at the "bad" court decisions throughout our history, it was generally the judiciary overstepping their constitutional authority."

Make me a list(spare me the details) of some cases where the judges overstepped thier bounds against the wish's of the majority. I honestly can't think of many that held up through the Supreme Court. Sure, some could argue about abortion being one of them, but is that one a clear majority? What are some others? Maybe prayer in school? Maybe the 10 commandments in the courthouse? Maybe one nation under God in the anthem? Maybe the death penalty?

"But there are always those willing to damage the (proven) system to force their will on the majority."

I'm sure that someone said that same thing durring the time of slavery, the womens movement, and the civil rights movement.

"And somehow every time tolerance is mentioned I'VE got to change my beliefs."

Dude, no ones asking you to change your beliefs! All their asking is that you respect that they have beliefs also and not make laws that impose your beliefs on them. After all, if getting married as a gay couple gets you a ticket to hell, maybe it's worth it to those who would do it. I don't believe one needs to go to church to worship God, but I also respect those who believe otherwise. Why is it the majority always has to win as opposed to everyone winning? Does the idea of everyone winning somehow diminish the meaning of winning?

"In order for me to be PC I've got to agree that no one goes to hell, and that Jesus is not the only way."

No, you don't have to agree, just understand that there are others that do agree and that they have as much right as you do. Let them practice what they believe(as long as it doesn't adversely affect you) and they will leave you to continue to practice your beliefs(as long as it doesn't adversely affect them).

"To say as some have said get rid of religion and the world will be wonderful shows an astonishing lack of understanding human nature."

I would agree with that statement. IMHO, I do believe there is a place for God/Religion in the world. I just wished some would not be so obscessed to make it the only place in the world. God(to me) is all about salvation from your darkest times... Religion(especially organized religion) is all about being the one who's right(based on volume). The two do not always go hand in hand.

And no, I don't think you're a kook! :D

Chris

12-02-2003, 09:36 AM

Great discussion guys. Good points all around. I think the issue is very similar to race discrimination. I also believe that the argument of homosexual marriages "devaluing" heterosexual marriages is a weak one. The same argument could have been made for interracial marriage back when it was being challenged (and it likely was made). That is the only argument left on the table, as it's the only thing that can be sited as "negatively affecting" or "taking away" the rights of others. Otherwise, there would be no argument, and this would be a no-brainer for the courts.

It comes down to acceptance. The argument is heavily based on religious beliefs. Homosexuals are being denied their right to a happy life in many ways - not just marriage. They are not treated fairly, and are likely treated badly in many respects all over the country. The fact that they are not accepted by society or recognized by the state means that they do not have equal treatment as human beings. We boast about how people can practice any religion in our country, yet their religious beliefs about marriage must be in line with those of our State or they won't be recognized? Is it written in any law that marriage must be between a man and woman, OR is it just assumed that because of the religion our State was born under?

Personally, my wife and I do not feel we are affected by homosexual marriage. Our rights are not being taken away, nor is our pursuit of happiness affected. We are secure enough to know that our marriage will not lose strength or value just because two men or two women will be able to be legally married and recognized as such under US laws. Not sure why people are so intent on making the lives of those who do not have the same beliefs as they do, so miserable and less important.

piece-it pete

12-02-2003, 09:59 AM

Hey Karl!

Not the court going against the majority, but overstepping their constitutional bounds.

Dred Scott, Roe, or Plessy. Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. Lochner, Korematsu. All good examples. All Supreme Court. The lesser courts are far worse, and very few get overturned.

Yes, the GOP is also guilty of judical activism, occasionally. It's still legislating from the bench. And if (when) this is publicly excepted, and the worm turns, the Dems will be screaming bloody murder at the system they created (perverted). And woe be to us, 'cause it doesn't matter if you're being kicked by jack-booted Commies or jack-booted Facists!

The religion comments where based on the religious website (religioustolerance.org) refered to by Pat, and others. But what I said is very true vis-a-vis what most liberals believe.

And, according to the Consititution, if the majority of American citizens don't want gay marriage they don't have to allow it - it doesn't matter what their reasons are. And it shouldn't. Because then someone decides what reasons are acceptable and which ones aren't. Who? Usually, the judges. Hate crimes/speech certainly falls into this catagory.

I haven't been able to find the Constitutional restriction on hate speech. Many would think because I say (and believe) that one who does not believe Jesus is the way is going to hell - is hate speech. Karl, they'd better prepare the cell now :)!

I agree with you about most organized religion. It seem almost every organization gets creaky? when it hits a certain size. But they have their place.

Pete

piece-it pete

12-02-2003, 10:31 AM

Hello Chris!

It's much more pleasant without the trolls. I sure wish I was more computer-oriented, though - I'm still fumbling with the new setup :)!

The founding fathers certainly would've considered that gay marriage devalues real marriage. I realize most people think that's quaint. But it's tough to ignore because of their success. They clearly understood human nature.

And, though there is some residual discrimination against gays, for the most part they are accepted, almost fawned over in the cities, at least! Can anyone here honestly say they don't have gays in their larger family circle, and/or at work? How are they discriminated against? And ask them (know any closely?) - they know gay marriage is a phony - they just want it for some sort of symbol.

And throughout history when the traditional family unit crumbles that society is just about finished as a vibrant culture. Now that is one heck of a sobering thought, seeing that marriage in most of the western world is almost ignored.

If I want to marry my dog, and it's not allowed, does that mean I'm not receiving equal treatment from the state? How about a kid?

It may sound facetious, but legal precedent + the ACLU + oblivious public adds up to a lot worst than that.

There is no Constitutional basis for the courts to be involved. As a democracy, this is for the majority to decide, unless we are a democracy in name only.

And I didn't make their lives miserable - they're doing a fine job on their own :).

Pete

mtrycraft

12-02-2003, 10:44 AM

. It comes down to acceptance. The argument is heavily based on religious beliefs. Homosexuals are being denied their right to a happy life in many ways - not just marriage. They are not treated fairly, and are likely treated badly in many respects all over the country. The fact that they are not accepted by society or recognized by the state means that they do not have equal treatment as human beings. We boast about how people can practice any religion in our country, yet their religious beliefs about marriage must be in line with those of our State or they won't be recognized? Is it written in any law that marriage must be between a man and woman, OR is it just assumed that because of the religion our State was born under?

Personally, my wife and I do not feel we are affected by homosexual marriage. Our rights are not being taken away, nor is our pursuit of happiness affected. We are secure enough to know that our marriage will not lose strength or value just because two men or two women will be able to be legally married and recognized as such under US laws. Not sure why people are so intent on making the lives of those who do not have the same beliefs as they do, so miserable and less important.

Right on the money :)
This whole issue is the outcropping of religious beliefs, not what has been done for 1000s of years. Yes, the human race has been doing much dispicable acts for 1000s of years, doesn't mean they are in concrete and cannot be changed and must be changed.

Evolution at work. :)

Chris

12-02-2003, 11:25 AM

If I want to marry my dog, and it's not allowed, does that mean I'm not receiving equal treatment from the state? How about a kid?
PeteAhh Pete, come on now. I was hoping nobody would stoop to that level, but I knew someone would probably use such sarcasm. It sounds like you're set in your beliefs, so there's probably not much I can say that will change your thinking. I urge you to compare it to the racial integration this country went through (and continues to go through) 20-40 years ago. It looks very similar to me. Just because some people don't understand homosexuality, doesn't mean they should see homosexuals as lesser people. And by denying them the benefits that millions of married couples enjoy, you are in effect, stating that they are not equals, and they do not deserve equal treatment. Very similar to the laws against interracial marriages, which most people now agree were a bit ridiculous.

I think as a whole, our society is fairly open minded. I'm sure that we'll continue on down that path of evolution. And 30 years from now, people will be looking back at this point in time wondering what all the opposition was about. As people become more secure about themselves and their own sexuality, they'll likely learn that there is nothing to fear and that someone elses' sexuality does not threaten their own lifestyle, or the value of their marriage. We, as a society, would simply be allowing homosexuals the freedom to enjoy their lives and the same opportunities given to any heterosexual. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to think of it that way.

People who are offended by gay marriage sound like those who don't like things to change, because "that's the way it's always been". That's a pretty old way of thinking in my opinion. Things always need to change and evolve. If they didn't, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.

piece-it pete

12-02-2003, 12:32 PM

It wasn't sarcasm.

What worries me the most is that, on the whole, we don't realize how much worse it can be. Reading history, things like having to prostitute your fiance' before being allowed to marry, offering little boys to curry favor, having to offer your wife to your houseguests, etc, are more the norm than the exception. I personally don't think this is the norm we wish to create. But it is the path of least resistance & will be the future (our childrens future!) if WE don't draw the line.

But hey, at least we're sensitive.

Now, THAT'S sarcasm :)!!

Pete

nobody

12-02-2003, 12:42 PM

Saying we can't let grown, concenting adults marry if they are the same sex because then there's nothing stopping people from marrying animals is pretty much like saying we have to keep from slaughtering animals for food because there's nothing stopping people from doing it to humans.

piece-it pete

12-02-2003, 12:49 PM

I don't follow you.

If we are discriminating against a man (or woman) by not allowing him to marry his spouse of choice - what difference does it make what that spouse is?

Pete

nobody

12-02-2003, 01:01 PM

I find it absolutely unbelievable that you could possibly fail to understand the difference between marrying a human and an animal, but you have been quite civil throughout this discussion as everyone else has, so I will try to be as serious as possible with my answer.

I think it is quite readily appearent that we give different rights to humans and animals in this country. So, allowing an animal to enter into a legal agreement like marriage as we do humans would be most unusual and far from the next logical step from gay marriage.

And, to be honest, if that doesn't make sense, I'm just gonna leave this alone. There's just nothing more to say to that.

Chris

12-02-2003, 01:08 PM

But it is the path of least resistance & will be the future (our childrens future!) if WE don't draw the line.

But hey, at least we're sensitive.

Now, THAT'S sarcasm :)!!

Pete
"We" being heterosexuals I assume.... the majority... the ones who decide what is right and wrong, what is natural, and where to draw the line?

Civil liberties are a result of sensitivity toward human beings. You're right, we should draw the line between which humans to be sensitive toward and which ones to ignore. Why should gays deserve the same compassion and understanding we've given other human beings? They're just not natural. They're not like "us". They shouldn't be able to have the same opportunities as "us". They'd make a laughing stock out of "our" way of life. (A little sarcasm of my own) :)

As I said before, these arguments sound eerily similar to the ones made for racial segregation. Back at that time, I'm sure many people thought things would go down hill if "we didn't draw the line", and that it just wasn't "natural". I'm sure our children will be okay.

piece-it pete

12-02-2003, 01:26 PM

To both Karl & Pat. I'm still trying to figure out this board! and didn't "see" your posts.

Don't worry, I'm not raising my blood pressure :).

Karl, I don't see the same words in the 14th amendment. Here's what I've got:

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.

The other sections do not apply.

The definition of marriage (Merriam Webster):

shotgun marriage
Function: noun
Date: 1929
1 : a marriage forced or required because of pregnancy -- called also shotgun wedding
2 : a forced union <a spate of brokerage mergers... hastily arranged shotgun marriages -- John Brooks>

hahaha.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

Therefore, marriage is exclusively between men & women and does not apply to gay couples, whether they like it or not. So, it is not discrimination, though it doesn't matter if it is, because it wouldn't be un-Constitutional discrimination.

No matter how you slice it, the court has no legal place in this matter, which is the basis of my original post :).

Pete

piece-it pete

12-02-2003, 01:31 PM

the difference between people & animals - but that doesn't effect the discussion - and others won't. I'm just following the logic of this argument to it's conclusion.

After the Supreme Court passes gay "marriage" legislation we'll see the next steps.

Don't think NAMBLA isn't watching this closely.

We agree :) that it's nice the trolls are gone - now we can argue & still have a beer later !!!

Pete

nobody

12-02-2003, 01:46 PM

At least I think we agree on one other thing. Those ****ers in NAMBLA should be shot.

And, I do see what you are saying about having to draw a line somewhere. I guess to me, logic quite easily draws that line at what can be undertaken by 2 consenting adults. Sorry, I just cannot understand the arguement that you, and many others, make that allowing a union between two consenting adults of the same sex inevitably leads down the road to child abuse and beastiality.

piece-it pete

12-02-2003, 02:07 PM

it feels a lot like you're painting me as a bigot. But I understand that words on a computer screen look and sound harsher than they are intended. I'm at least as guilty of this as anyone.

"We" is the people. Not any particular group - all of them.

Looking at segregation - it was a hard time for America. But segregation absolutely pales in comparision to much of the rest of human history in misery & degradement.

Many believe that we're somehow outside of history, that human nature has changed. And another woman is trampled at a holiday sale.

Would you define moral as one's sense of right? Every time you are arguing your points you are pushing your version of morality - you want to be fair to all - a noble thing, to be sure, but still what you think is right. Is that wrong :)? Then why is it a problem if a Christian does it?

All that aside :)), I still don't see where in the Constitution it gives the court authority to change the definition of marriage, and without it, the court is upsurping the will of "we" - the people.

Pete

Chris

12-02-2003, 02:16 PM

Sorry, I just cannot understand the arguement that you, and many others, make that allowing a union between two consenting adults of the same sex inevitably leads down the road to child abuse and beastiality.That's what I'm saying. It's like some are afraid that recognizing gay marriages will turn more people gay or something... or even more ridiculous, will encourage more sex crimes or despicable acts. As if being gay has anything to do with that. :rolleyes:

And Pete, even the dictionary gets updated sometimes. If the only argument against allowing gays to marry is the dictionary definition, then it will likely be updated. A dictionary definition will likely not prove to be as strong as a written law (there isn't a law which defines marriage that I'm aware of). I don't see it holding up in court when people challenge it. Though you don't think it belongs in court, it will end up there as long as corporations continue to refuse to give medical benefits to people because of the dictionary's (and society's) definition of the word marriage - or if they are denied any other opportunity because of it.

So to answer your original question - it probably doesn't say anywhere, in any state legislation, that gay marriage is a right. But the equally important point is, it also isn't written in any of that same legislation that gays do not have the right to marry. Equal opportunity is something that will win out here. Heterosexuals do not have the right to more opportunities than homosexuals in our society. That's probably what it will come down to. It's the benefits afforded to married couples that will give homosexuals their winning arguments.

Hey, I know we won't agree on this and that's fine. At least the trolls are gone for now :) and I don't think you're a bigot. I enjoy debating this stuff and hearing opposing opinions and why people have those opinions.

karl k

12-02-2003, 06:11 PM

The founding fathers certainly would've considered that gay marriage devalues real marriage. I realize most people think that's quaint. But it's tough to ignore because of their success. They clearly understood human nature.

Kinda like they considered allowing women rights would devalue man's superiority? Like they considered abolishing slavery would devalue white supremecy? Like they considered interracial marriage would devalue"real" marriage?

And, though there is some residual discrimination against gays, for the most part they are accepted, almost fawned over in the cities, at least! Can anyone here honestly say they don't have gays in their larger family circle, and/or at work? How are they discriminated against? And ask them (know any closely?) - they know gay marriage is a phony - they just want it for some sort of symbol.

Yes, as a matter of fact, a couple. Two from marriage, one at work(maybe). How are they(gays) discriminated against? Ask the mom of the serviceman that got kicked out of the service back in the Clinton days when all he did was admit his preference to his buddies. Remember the don't ask, don't tell rule? Ask the mother of the man who was beat to death outside a gay bar in Texas a few years back by a bunch of yips who obviously believed he didn't have the right to live. Don't kid yourself about marriage just being a symbol. Society has provided lots of benefits for being married. Cheaper health insurance for your spouse, cheaper car insurance for both you and your spouse, life insurance benefits, ect. You are correct that marriage is a symbol... a "right" of passage(one of many) from boyhood to manhood, a sign you have matured enough to be able to incoorperate your life with another at the most intimate level and I believe every human deserves this "right".

If I want to marry my dog, and it's not allowed, does that mean I'm not receiving equal treatment from the state? How about a kid?

Well, first of all, you would have to establish the dogs ability to understand what it means to get married. Then you would have to establish the dogs consent to marriage. If you can do those, then why not? If that's your thing. How 'bout a kid? As I stated before, to some extent, you CAN marry a kid! LEGALLY!!!!! In the state of Kansas, as well as others, a "kid" whose 14yrs of age can get married legally. Granted, there may be limitations. Used to be that way alot more often than now but is still legal even now. Now you might have a battle doing so since some(myself included) would consider a 14yr olds decission to get married a result of cohersion.

There is no Constitutional basis for the courts to be involved. As a democracy, this is for the majority to decide, unless we are a democracy in name only.

If you look up the definition of democracy in the dictionary(the dreaded liberals bible), and skim past the ones that talk about power of the people, you'll see at the bottom a definition that states...

"the absence hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"

Translation... the absense of in-equality.

karl k

12-02-2003, 06:28 PM

the difference between people & animals - but that doesn't effect the discussion - and others won't. I'm just following the logic of this argument to it's conclusion.You don't want gays to marry so you can prevent someone from marrying their dog?

OR...

Are you saying that you let gays marry, you won't be able to prevent someone from marrying their dog?

Is it alright for a dog to marry another dog?(Psst., they're already doing that in California!)

If a dog humps my leg, does this me he's saying "I do"?

Just trying to lighten things up a bit Pete, no disrespect intended!

karl k

12-02-2003, 08:06 PM

it feels a lot like you're painting me as a bigot. But I understand that words on a computer screen look and sound harsher than they are intended. I'm at least as guilty of this as anyone.

Webster defines Bigot as..."one intolerantly devoted to his or her own predjuces or opinions. Synonyms... fanatic, enthusiast, zealot."

It is what it is. By that definition, we are ALL bigots. Not inherently bad or good.

Would you define moral as one's sense of right? Every time you are arguing your points you are pushing your version of morality - you want to be fair to all - a noble thing, to be sure, but still what you think is right. Is that wrong :)? Then why is it a problem if a Christian does it?

Do Christians morally believe equality is right?

Now for my frustration time...

Maybe your right, maybe the whole do unto others thing is over rated.

Maybe when my parents taught that I was no better that anyone else, they were lying like about Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Maybe the Constitution did imply you had the right to practice the religion of the majority.

Maybe evolution is nothing more that a dillusional mans vision after being on an island with a bunch of guys to long.

Maybe Harry Potter is the devil(will have to wait til the last episode to find out).

Maybe child molestation in the church really is a big scandal to diminish the value the words of God and the of church.

Maybe all music(except gospel and classical) does go against what God would want.

Maybe living with the opposite sex for yrs and yrs with all the intent and respect that goes with marriage really is sinful and actually getting married for a yr or two and getting divorced is acceptable.

Maybe time out in a corner is more effective that corporal punishment.

Maybe you should trust your wife and the rhythm method of birth control(while resisting your instinctual temptations) instead of manmade contraceptives.

Maybe marriage is only about reproduction.

Maybe sex is only allowed if God wants a baby.

Maybe all the cable channels should only broadcast the 700 Club.

Maybe the Looney Tunes are less violent than the Terminator.

Maybe God is blessing America by keeping gay's from marrying.

That's just a taste of the Christian values that I'm bombarded with everyday I go to work.

I suppose keeping gays from marrying will help keep the divorce rate down to acceptable levels and by living in sin, assure their place in hell and your place in heaven for following Gods law and the moral majorities.(just incase there's any question at the gates). Strength in numbers, right?

Sorry man, I'll not do that again.

Chris

12-03-2003, 11:19 AM

Wow Karl, that was a mouthful. You can't blame everything here on religion though. It's the people who use religion as a weapon, just like guns, who can be dangerous.

I think morals stem a little from comfort. Forty years ago, the majority of America didn't feel it was morally right for a white person to marry a black person. It didn't seem natural, mostly because it just wasn't common. Hell, they didn't want to share their bathrooms, let alone their marriage traditions. We, as Americans, had a great deal of racial hatred still embedded in our mindset we needed to grow out of. It wasn't until all the dust had cleared from the Civil Rights movement that more and more people became used to seeing interracial friendships and relationships that they began feeling comfortable with it. White people realized that black people were humans and deserved the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. When you see it more often, and it becomes more normal, and doesn't seem so unnatural.

The same thing that happened 40 years ago is happening now. Peoples' ideals and beliefs will be tested again. A good portion of America is still homophobic. What we all need to realize, is that these are human beings we're talking about here. And they deserve to be treated with fairness, even if you don't understand them. I think it's a little selfish and unfair to think we're better than them, and that our traditions as heterosexuals cannot be shared with them. If America can't give them equality and equal opportunity, then what the hell are our troops fighting for? Freedom and opportunities for heterosexuals? This is America isn't it guys?

piece-it pete

12-03-2003, 01:39 PM

Kinda like they considered allowing women rights would devalue man's superiority? Like they considered abolishing slavery would devalue white supremecy? Like they considered interracial marriage would devalue"real" marriage?

One thing all these have in common - they are all set in stone. A white man is (somewhat) white. A black man is (somewhat) black. I can choose to stick my ____ where ever I wish.

Yes, as a matter of fact, a couple. Two from marriage, one at work(maybe). How are they(gays) discriminated against? Ask the mom of the serviceman that got kicked out of the service back in the Clinton days when all he did was admit his preference to his buddies. Remember the don't ask, don't tell rule? Ask the mother of the man who was beat to death outside a gay bar in Texas a few years back by a bunch of yips who obviously believed he didn't have the right to live. Don't kid yourself about marriage just being a symbol. Society has provided lots of benefits for being married. Cheaper health insurance for your spouse, cheaper car insurance for both you and your spouse, life insurance benefits, ect. You are correct that marriage is a symbol... a "right" of passage(one of many) from boyhood to manhood, a sign you have matured enough to be able to incoorperate your life with another at the most intimate level and I believe every human deserves this "right".

Gays in the service? For starters, I think the military is a bad place to practice social enginneering, and second, I would not shower with a gay man, and would not FORCE anyone else to do so - that would infringe upon their rights?

And gay "marriage" would stop gay discrimination how? Interracial marriages have been allowed for some time now - it doesn't stop rednecks from dragging them to death.

If marriage confers benifits then following the same reasoning in many posts here it should be ruled unconstitutional - it is unfair to single people.

And be careful - with many gov'ts paying for sex change operations saying "boyhood to manhood" could be insensitive lol!!

Well, first of all, you would have to establish the dogs ability to understand what it means to get married. Then you would have to establish the dogs consent to marriage. If you can do those, then why not? If that's your thing. How 'bout a kid? As I stated before, to some extent, you CAN marry a kid! LEGALLY!!!!! In the state of Kansas, as well as others, a "kid" whose 14yrs of age can get married legally. Granted, there may be limitations. Used to be that way alot more often than now but is still legal even now. Now you might have a battle doing so since some(myself included) would consider a 14yr olds decission to get married a result of cohersion.

What I'm saying is that, if it's unfair to not let a man marry who he wants, what difference does it make what he wants? Your problem is that you're thinking like a normal person :). I'll save this for the told-you-so file 3-5 years (if that long) down the road.

I've heard in some states it was as low as 12, with parents' consent. I think that's a topic for another post ;), but those laws was made at a time when people married MUCH younger, including the boys, and it was cohersed - arranged marriages. It's much different than a 35 year old man "marrying" a 14 yr. old boy. I believe this in the short term is unlikely to happen. The judges would be lynched by me & you - but maybe not by the next one or two generations. Look back that far - how much more do we allow?

If you look up the definition of democracy in the dictionary(the dreaded liberals bible), and skim past the ones that talk about power of the people, you'll see at the bottom a definition that states...

"the absence hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"

Translation... the absense of in-equality.

Well, see the singles vs married above. Also communism claims absolute equality. And I once heard that the latin root of the word democracy is mob-rule. So again, where is the line?

We need a beer :). and BTW, back in some hollers that dog-humping thing may just be enough lol!

Pete

karl k

12-03-2003, 04:53 PM

I would not shower with a gay man, and would not FORCE anyone else to do so-

Why not? What would be the difference between showering with a gay man vs straight man? What if the man was gay and you didn't know it? Does it still matter as long as they conduct themselves accordingly in the shower? Answer honestly please.

karl k

12-03-2003, 06:46 PM

BTW, thanks for the off topic site, good place to go IMO.

You can't blame everything here on religion though. It's the people who use religion as a weapon, just like guns, who can be dangerous.

You might be right... but shouldn't those in the church that aren't using it as a weapon be held accountable just as an accessory to murder would be? I'm not religious so I can't attest to the specifics of the Bible or the followers and their opinions. I lost most of my respect for religion do to its conflicts with what I was taught about being fair and doing for yourself. But I can say that it(religion) is a driving force in how people in my acre of the wheat fields treat others. I myself face discrimination and prejudice everyday for my open and fair nature. The sad truth to the matter is that everybody wants to be on a winning team and therefore there have to be losers. Here, the winners(the moral majority) grew up with God, Beer, and country music. They have had no real exposure to any other life until such time they went to college or the big city to find work. By then they are set in there beliefs and prejudices and are not subject to discussion. Myself, I grew up with black's, gays, and women with attitudes and was better prepaired because I was forced to understand they are people too. Now, having to work around these people(farmers, ranchers, country boys, ect.) I find myself having to carefully watch what I say or face the decent from my peers. So even though I'm not gay, I can sympathize with their cause as well as other causes based on lack of understanding and acceptance. Hell, I don't understand what being gay is all about but that doesn't stop me from treating them with the same respect that I would want. IMO, there's nothing that a gay man/woman will be able to do that will diminish in value anything that I practice. The big difference between those intrenched with God and myself is that my beliefs promote equality between humans reguardless of religious beliefs and don't restrict freedoms without physical cause. They on the other hand(and keep in mind that I agree on your assessment on non religious) seek to limit your freedoms based on non physical causes. In my continuing search to answer Pete's question, I dove into the 14th... DEEP, and while I didn't find what I was looking for, I did see cases which went before the supreme court that really turned my stomach(and that's saying something). Pete talks about judges and their morality, how 'bout the government! Back in the 70's, State of Conneticutt passed a law that made birth control illegal. Why? To attempt to control or eliminate adultery. Now to me, that was like killing 2 birds... first, SOME in the church are against any man made means of preventing Gods will... ie birth. Second, since adultery is/was illegal, the ends justified the means(if you commit adultery, your more likely to get pregnant and therefore act as a derurrant). Ultimately it was struck down but the implication that a system that I don't believe in would attempt to restrict my sexual/paternal freedom with a consenting aduly based on their beliefs was extremely dissatisfying. There are lots more but I won't go into detail. I don't know how it is in the 5th largest economy in the world,(congradulations BTW) but here, most liberties of pleasure are sinful and subject to the chopping block. And it isn't just pleasure, it's also education. My beliefs and oppurtunities are slowly being pushed out(in the form of laws) by those who go to church. State schools can no longer teach evolution in the state of Kansas because it is contrary to what the majority believe in... Creationism. No proof in evolution was sited and therefore since creationism can't be taught, neither should be taught. Sex is a 4 letter word that can't be discussed because the majority can't stomach the idea that sex exists outside their own bedroom. It's just to gross. To them, it doesn't matter what I believe, if it doesn't fall within their guidelines, it should be illegal. In this state, most sex acts are illegal UNLESS you're married(look up your states sodomy laws and see what falls under the definition of sodomy, you'll be amazed!) Why does this law exist to the extent that it does, RELIGION!!! And what physical harm do these acts have on society?Very little with the exception of child molestation which is obviously tollerated by some of the highest in the church. It simply goes against what the majority wish to accept.

I just wish people wouldn't be so quick to make laws restricting liberties without first considering the possibility that said liberties are acceptable to others even if they aren't aligned with the core beliefs of the majority or those in power. No harm... no foul... no law!

It's kinda ironic that we claim to live in the land of the free, the home of the brave, and the leader of the free world, yet Denmark and Belgium have already recognized same sex marriage and Canada, as well as other countries, is on it's way to doing the same while we lack the bravery to overcome our fears and prejucies to allow the same freedoms. Once again, I'm not here to form laws that restrict peoples beliefs, just to prevent laws that restrict people from enjoying the same freedoms that I already enjoy and at the same time, ALLOWING you to believe what you want and living YOUR LIFE as YOU choose. Thanks for the space and time Chris... and Pete, if your reading, I LUV YA MAN! just not that way! LMAO :D

piece-it pete

12-04-2003, 10:25 AM

Well, you're right, we are both obviously set in our ways & can agree to disagree.

If it's an issue of fairness then marriage will have to be done away with completely, as it's unfair to singles!!

And a parting thought - if definitions are fluid then the rule of law is finished - 'cause the powers that be can say they mean whatever suits them.

Good talking to you - stop back again :).

Pete

Pat D

12-04-2003, 11:01 AM

when they did it - it's still what they were supposed to do!

It's actually a good example of what happens when the Judges move outside the law. If the Judges were true to their oaths, racial marriage restrictions would have been 100% overturned at the first opportunity.

Over & over, when you look at the "bad" court decisions throughout our history, it was generally the judiciary overstepping their constitutional authority.

But there are always those willing to damage the (proven) system to force their will on the majority.

Pete

I thought you were putting moral issues aside, Pete!

Anyway, to implement a Constitutional Amendment can take time, especially one which affects all sorts of laws and which runs up against ingrained prejudices. I am not up on the legal history, but the Supreme Court has to have cases brought before it.

As well, we have government and courts run by human beings. They don't always make the right decisions. Even democracy can't guarantee that. However, as for being outside the Constitution, the Constitution means pretty well what the Supreme Court says it does. The same sort of problems can arise no matter who interprets the laws.

Anyway, here we have the courts implementing laws, in this case, the Constitution, and you complain about it. It's their job to interpret the Constitution and judge less laws by it. Yet you complain about that! It's just not a sensible argument. It would be better that you simply stuck to arguing that they made some bad decisions.

Then Karl and Chris and I, among others, can show just how baseless those arguments are! :cool:

nobody

12-04-2003, 11:31 AM

piece-it pete

12-04-2003, 12:25 PM

I thought you were putting moral issues aside, Pete! :

There is no moral issues in the previous post that I know of.

Anyway, to implement a Constitutional Amendment can take time, especially one which affects all sorts of laws and which runs up against ingrained prejudices. I am not up on the legal history, but the Supreme Court has to have cases brought before it. :

You're absolutely right, the Supreme Court cannot go hunting for cases. The time it takes to pass an amendment is part of the check & balance system, and is a sorry excuse for subverting it.

As well, we have government and courts run by human beings. They don't always make the right decisions. Even democracy can't guarantee that. :

Yes, I love Churchills' statement that democracy is the worst form of gov't, except for every other kind that's been tried from time to time:)!

However, as for being outside the Constitution, the Constitution means pretty well what the Supreme Court says it does. The same sort of problems can arise no matter who interprets the laws.:

The Supreme Court was supposed to be the minor third in the triumverate of executive/legislative/judical. If the S.C. says white is black, does that make it so? Check/balance = no enforcement. They can be ignored.

Anyway, here we have the courts implementing laws, in this case, the Constitution, and you complain about it. It's their job to interpret the Constitution and judge less laws by it. Yet you complain about that! It's just not a sensible argument. It would be better that you simply stuck to arguing that they made some bad decisions.:

??? There is no convicing evidence the Constitution says our topic is under gov't power unless we wish it to be so. We have not. This strikes me as not just a sensible argument, but a duty (to protect our freedom). The Constitution does NOT guarentee fairness, and it would be an empty guarentee if it did. Not only the founding fathers but also our own fathers knew this - life isn't fair.

Then Karl and Chris and I, among others, can show just how baseless those arguments are! :cool:

Thanks, I'm glad to hear it:)!

Pete

BTW, I like your tag line!

piece-it pete

12-04-2003, 01:28 PM

Going in a different direction, I think it's really funny how here this discussion is weighted heavily in the direction of people who favor the right to gay marriage, where I must admit that in my real world experience, mostly in blue collar and below circles, it is strongly the opposite.

Personally, I think this points out how this issue is going to be huge in the next election and keep Georgie in office. Democrats are going to further alienate working class democrats in middle America when they are forced to take a stance on this issue that is going to offend many in that group, losing voters who would otherwise have an economic interest in voting Democrat.

This sort of thing is really problamatic for the Democratic Party, especially in small-town America and in the South.

Impressive! I believe you're dead-on accurate. Most here will be sad about it - I'm dancing a jig lol!

I've said it before - this election is Georges' to lose. Some silly (in the publics' eye) platforms & weak candidates plague the Dems. Of course, the same was somewhat true for George Sr.(92% popularity during the gulf war), and he lost (well, there was "the economy, stupid", but that doesn't look like an option this time around. Tax cuts!!). But that was before 9-11, and although he's not as refined as his father Jr. connects better with "the masses", and a strong challenger has yet to step forward.

Believe it or not, I'd rather have a close race. It's good for us, helps keep both parties on their toes.

Reagan Democrats? Bush Democrats? Let me dance again - it looks like it! And again perhaps a majority in both houses!

"Moral" issues do more than just alienate blue collar & southerners (how could the Dems lose the south? Where is their heads?! If I was Dem I'd be pissed!) - it also energizes the Christian voters into a greater turnout, and with races running so close a 5% increase among these voters can (and will) decide many races.

Even potentially more interesting: if the Dems really blow it this cycle we may see the start of a new party.

Pete

Chris

12-05-2003, 12:31 PM

Going in a different direction, I think it's really funny how here this discussion is weighted heavily in the direction of people who favor the right to gay marriage, where I must admit that in my real world experience, mostly in blue collar and below circles, it is strongly the opposite.

Personally, I think this points out how this issue is going to be huge in the next election and keep Georgie in office. Democrats are going to further alienate working class democrats in middle America when they are forced to take a stance on this issue that is going to offend many in that group, losing voters who would otherwise have an economic interest in voting Democrat.

This sort of thing is really problamatic for the Democratic Party, especially in small-town America and in the South.
Well, that may very well be the case. I'd bet money though, that they're doing their research to see if America is ready for this yet before they take a hard stance on it. They want power back too much to take a stance on something that would hurt their chances.

I'm not sure that the working class as a whole is strongly against this issue though. Maybe in some circles the majority is against it, and some maybe even will not speak their true feelings for fear of being outcast as a "sissy" (as tends to happen in the heavy-labor sectors of the blue collar industries), but when it comes down to it, what people say out loud and how they feel about it maybe different. One thing's for sure, this is shaping up to be an interesting time in history and politics. I can't wait to see how it unfolds.

Hey, did you guys hear about the threat letters sent to the black football players? It's crap like that which makes me uneasy when issues like this come up for such open public debate. I fear some people are going to get hurt because others believe so much in their own cause. Some wackos always need to make "statements".