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?

Pete

Does it say straight marraige is a right? Honestly, just curious. It may well, for all I know.

Quote:

---

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?

Pete

---

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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!

Quote:

---

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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.?

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".

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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

Quote:

---

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.

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/showth...=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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Hence for the need for "Hate Crimes"

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

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.

"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!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by piece-it pete

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.

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

"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

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris

. 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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by piece-it pete

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?
Pete

---

Ahh 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.

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

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.