• 11-24-2003, 01:39 PM
    piece-it pete
    How is gay marriage a right?
    Moral issues aside, where in any of these state or federal constitutions does it say gay marriage is a right?

  • 11-24-2003, 01:48 PM
    Does it say straight marraige is a right? Honestly, just curious. It may well, for all I know.
  • 11-24-2003, 04:14 PM

    Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Moral issues aside, where in any of these state or federal constitutions does it say gay marriage is a right?


    Where does the Constitution say it isn't a right?
    Where does the Constitution say that marriage (straight or gay ) is a right?

    Seems to me that this all boils down to ones religious beliefs. When I asked a question about why is gay marriage wrong; overwhelmingly the people who oppsed it did so because of their religioue beliefs. So lets call it a union, just give them all the rights and benefits that straight couples get when they get married, and I think then this will stop being a issue.

    It's seems to people that if states allow gay marriages, we as a society will accept homosexuality , which I do. This I feel is where the real problem lies. People of faith are not willing to do so! They will never see homosexuality as anything more than a sinful lifestyle choice. As if any of us have a choice in regards to our sexuality. I don't remember making a conscience choice to be a heterosexual. I didn't flip a coin, or do eany meany miney moe, I just like women not men.
  • 11-24-2003, 06:02 PM
    I'm beginning to wonder if the researchers aren't onto something with the theory that homosexuality is genetic. If that's true, it isn't a conscious choice, obviously.

    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.

    At any rate, if we are going to reject homosexuals, we should also reject Methodists, conservatives, cancer victims and rap music fans. :)

    To answer your question, it's a right because it isn't breaking any laws and people have the freedom in this country to pursue that which they prefer so long as it doesn't interfere with the freedoms of others.
  • 11-24-2003, 07:50 PM
    karl k
    Hey Pete! Here's my curve ball(no puhn)
    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...
  • 11-25-2003, 06:17 AM
    piece-it pete
    Who writes the laws?
    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.

  • 11-25-2003, 04:44 PM
    karl k
    I'll give you the one on the lawmaking...
    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
  • 11-26-2003, 08:44 AM
    piece-it pete
    But all law is based in morality.
    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 :)!!


    PS Have fun with the wife woofwoofwoof!! And when mine asks why so frisky, I'll tell her it's AudioReview LOL!
  • 11-26-2003, 03:31 PM
    Pat D
    No word in Hebrew or Greek in the Bible which means homosexuality in general.

    Originally Posted by DMK
    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.

  • 11-26-2003, 05:50 PM
    karl k
    Well Pete, once again...
    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...



    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.
  • 11-26-2003, 09:23 PM
    Pat D
    Good post. Yes, the 14th Amendment is very relevant.
    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.
  • 11-26-2003, 09:50 PM
    karl k
    Thanks Pat! I appreciate the observation.
    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!
  • 11-27-2003, 07:28 AM
    Pat D
    Various historical types of marriage

    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:


    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.
  • 11-27-2003, 07:21 PM

    Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    Moral issues aside, where in any of these state or federal constitutions does it say gay marriage is a right?


    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.?
  • 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".
  • 11-27-2003, 07:43 PM
    karl k
    Mtry, you hit the nail on the head!
    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.
  • 11-29-2003, 06:47 AM
    Pat D

    Originally Posted by karl k
    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?
  • 11-29-2003, 09:49 AM
    karl k
    While I agree with your assessment morally...
    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
  • 11-29-2003, 04:55 PM

    Originally Posted by karl k
    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.
  • 11-29-2003, 05:37 PM
    karl k
    That's the arguement you hear on the news...
    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...


    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.
  • 11-29-2003, 06:13 PM
    Believe it or not...there are allot more bi guys out there than anyone would ever realize.
  • 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.
  • 11-29-2003, 06:17 PM
    karl k
    Actually, he would more likely...
    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
  • 11-29-2003, 06:25 PM
    An act of self defense? But would he still boast about it tne next night in the bar?
  • 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.