or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions. - Page 6

post #201 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Kirkland: Do you know the difference between something being of choice and being social? I could never choose to eat a dog. NEVER. but its still social.

That's nonsense. You could eat a dog. If you were starving, you could eat a dog. You would, in the end. And you would be choosing to do so. I could never find a woman sexually attractive. Never. Not for a microsecond. No matter how hard I wanted to.

Quote:
Why are you trying to put everyone into small little square boxes?

It's not a set of boxes, it's a spectrum. People vary from totally homosexual to mostly homosexual to bisexual to mostly heterosexual to totally heterosexual, with incalculable shades of variance between each of those goalposts. But they do not move along that spectrum. Just like the color spectrum, light at a blue wavelength can never be red.

Quote:
You believe you are hardwired the way you are and others believe they are not hardwired but have changed sexuality (NOT by choice). Why DO you have to insist that what they feel are wrong?

Because if sexuality were changeable, then it'd only be a matter of time before the gay-hating straight supremecists try to find ways to chemically or psychologically force everyone to be straight, just like their Demon God demands.

Quote:
Whats the difference in you saying that what people believe about themselves are wrong and someone saying you are wrong in believing you are gay?

Because I am gay. They only claim to not be gay because that's what some monster in a pulpit told them they had to be in order for God to love them, and because they have no sense of self-worth they go along with it, back into the closet Hell on Earth to escape the 'real' thing later on. Or they were bisexual all along, and were thus never gay in the first place.

But given the hatred and rage most of these "ex-Gays" have towards gays who continue to be honest, I'd say the former is far more likely than the latter.

Kirk
post #202 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
That's nonsense. You could eat a dog. If you were starving, you could eat a dog. You would, in the end. And you would be choosing to do so. I could never find a woman sexually attractive. Never. Not for a microsecond. No matter how hard I wanted to.

I could never eat a dog I say you. And anyone who could eat one if they starved liked to eat dogs and just didn´t know it.



Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
It's not a set of boxes, it's a spectrum. People vary from totally homosexual to mostly homosexual to bisexual to mostly heterosexual to totally heterosexual, with incalculable shades of variance between each of those goalposts. But they do not move along that spectrum. Just like the color spectrum, light at a blue wavelength can never be red.

How. Do. You. Know? And please tell me what you say to the people who actually feel that excatly what they did. "Well you just don´t know what you feel my dear. Oh yes by the way. Your really not straight. Thats just something you think you are"

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Because if sexuality were changeable, then it'd only be a matter of time before the gay-hating straight supremecists try to find ways to chemically or psychologically force everyone to be straight, just like their Demon God demands.

Again you confuse moral with science. Do I believe some people are smarter than others? Yes. Should they only be able to vote according to their IQ, get access to education according to their IQ, their voice be heard according to their IQ? No of course not!



Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Because I am gay. They only claim to not be gay because that's what some monster in a pulpit told them they had to be in order for God to love them, and because they have no sense of self-worth they go along with it, back into the closet Hell on Earth to escape the 'real' thing later on. Or they were bisexual all along, and were thus never gay in the first place.

So what is true for you are true for anyone else? I thought that was the mentality you were fighting.

You have used yourself as example. I could give you dozens of other that point in the opposite direction. One being one of my closest friends who was lesbian but found a boyfriend no church involved. She didn´t "think" she was lesbian and she doesn´t "think" she is straight. She was and is! Just like a lot of gay people she had a hard childhood in a very small town with a very small amount of acceptence and suffered from that. She found a very concious group here, rather hardcore on their beliefs and just as she got into a milieu that accepted her as homosexual she fell in love with a male! Thats your counter example. She is still very active in that borderline militant milieu and still fight, like a lot of us, for the rights of the non mainstreams. Please tell me she is wrong on her feelings because you and your friends feel something else
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #203 of 298
i guess i am jumping in midstream, but nothing is really hardwired. You can make someone sexually attracted to members of the same sex. You can also make someone sexually attracted to dogs.

Not that it is known how to do it, but given all of our experiences this idea shouldnt be a surprise.

What the question should be is if there is a predisposition for a particular sexuality at birth. I really cant answer that either because my experiences dictate the way i percieve the world, and what in that world i desire. In this case, I dont consider men or dogs sexually attractive (but sheep on the otherhand ). I do believe that it is possible that there are genes correspond to behavioral aspects of sexuality and hence possibly both "gay" and "straight" genes. But what that means in actual social terms is up for debate and very much a part of society as opposed to biology.
post #204 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I could never eat a dog I say you. And anyone who could eat one if they starved liked to eat dogs and just didn´t know it.

So if a homosexual had sex with someone from the opposite sex, then that person likes to do so and just didn't know it.

<-- You can't roll your eyes at people with logic like that.
post #205 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
You have used yourself as example. I could give you dozens of other that point in the opposite direction. One being one of my closest friends who was lesbian but found a boyfriend no church involved. She didn´t "think" she was lesbian and she doesn´t "think" she is straight. She was and is! Just like a lot of gay people she had a hard childhood in a very small town with a very small amount of acceptence and suffered from that. She found a very concious group here, rather hardcore on their beliefs and just as she got into a milieu that accepted her as homosexual she fell in love with a male! Thats your counter example. She is still very active in that borderline militant milieu and still fight, like a lot of us, for the rights of the non mainstreams. Please tell me she is wrong on her feelings because you and your friends feel something else

Congratulations, you have a bisexual friend.

Anyone who can be attracted sexually to members of both genders is bisexual. Bisexuals are not gay. Nor are they straight.

Most people are probably bisexual to some degree, though I am certain that I am not.

Kirk
post #206 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
So if a homosexual had sex with someone from the opposite sex, then that person likes to do so and just didn't know it.

<-- You can't roll your eyes at people with logic like that.

I didn´t mean that sentence. I´ll use more emoticons in the future if that helps my message getting through.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #207 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Congratulations, you have a bisexual friend.

Anyone who can be attracted sexually to members of both genders is bisexual. Bisexuals are not gay. Nor are they straight.

Most people are probably bisexual to some degree, though I am certain that I am not.

Kirk

She is not bi. She wasn´t attracted to men before and she is not attracted to women now. And now you are gonna come and say "Well she were and is to some degre afterall." No she isn´t/wasn´t
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #208 of 298
Let me turn this around: Why is it so hard for you to accept that other people can change sexuality?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #209 of 298
I'll never forget the day I decided to be straight. It was a Tuesday. I think. I'm still waiting on my laminated straight card to come in the mail, though.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #210 of 298
post #211 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I'll never forget the day I decided to be straight. It was a Tuesday. I think. I'm still waiting on my laminated straight card to come in the mail, though.

Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Do you know the difference between something being of choice and being social?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #212 of 298
I jus' wanna know when those damn God-hatin' homersexuals started eatin' dogs!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #213 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Obviously all state laws don't have to agree. However there are laws that do have to agree.

So your money example was wrong. What laws have to agree and why? And how does gay marriage fit in? It's already been established that contracts like this don't follow you from state to state.

What's the problem then?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #214 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders

Anders, I'm not even sure I understand the question.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #215 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Let me turn this around: Why is it so hard for you to accept that other people can change sexuality?

Because I have direct experience with the issue, and I know it can't be done.
post #216 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Because I have direct experience with the issue, and I know it can't be done.

Well I have experienced it can be done. And if a thing both can´t be done and can be done, then it can be done.

If I can hit a hole in one one time but can´t hit a hole in one a thousand times then its doable.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #217 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Anders, I'm not even sure I understand the question.

People often confuse something that is social to be something they can choose. Thats not the case. Social facts are often as hard hitting as physical laws.

Another way of explaining the same is to divide the world in the objective subjective and intersubjective dimensions. Often the subjective (what I think) and intersubjective (what is given socially) is seen as the same and thats not the case,
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #218 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Well I have experienced it can be done.

I don't believe that.

If gay people could change into straight people, we all would have long ago, because we all try to "fix ourselves" at some point. Logically, your friend must be bisexual, whether she acknowledges that fact before or now or not.
post #219 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
People often confuse something that is social to be something they can choose. Thats not the case. Social facts are often as hard hitting as physical laws.

Another way of explaining the same is to divide the world in the objective subjective and intersubjective dimensions. Often the subjective (what I think) and intersubjective (what is given socially) is seen as the same and thats not the case,

OK. I think I understand what you're getting at.

The problem is that social conventions are completely arbitrary and change over time.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #220 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
I don't believe that.

Again someone other than you is suffering from false consciousness a la Marx when they feel what they feel.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
If gay people could change into straight people, we all would have long ago, because we all try to "fix ourselves" at some point. Logically, your friend must be bisexual, whether she acknowledges that fact before or now or not.

Again you speak on behalf of every homosexual. The world is not like that. Different people have different experiences with homosexuality. Accept that. The arrogance in your argument is not different than that in the claim that homosexuals are just confused and if only they really knew who they were they would fall back into the true nature of their sex
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #221 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
OK. I think I understand what you're getting at.

The problem is that social conventions are completely arbitrary and change over time.

Abitrary yes. Chancing over time only very slowly but just as important forms the bagground from which we create our view of the world.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #222 of 298
Anders,

This is going nowhere. This is the fifth circular exchange in a row. You're not going to change my mind, nor vice versa. I have no personal animosity against you and don't care to develop any, which will happen, since what you're claiming impugns the most basic and core facet of my being.

I'll drop it if you will.

Kirk
post #223 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Abitrary yes. Chancing over time only very slowly but just as important forms the bagground from which we create our view of the world.

Actually, sometimes they change very quickly. This moral indignation over homosexuality pops up from time to time. Late c18 in England. Mid-c19 in England. c19 in America. Just go peruse the the proceedings of the Old Bailey and look for buggery or sodomy. And yet for most of those two centuries such things went on with no one really caring all that much. They only became issues during the various religious revivals.

My point is that, for many cultures throughout the history of the world, homosexuality has been a non-issue. And our current fascination with it will fade away once the Christian churches in the West don't feel threatened by dwindling numbers anymore.

I *think* (and I may be misunderstanding you) that you're trying to suggest that homosexuality is a social behavior. The moment you say that, you must allow for the possibility that heterosexuality is equally social, and that, in effect, both are learned. And if they are both learned, then they cannot be innate, and thus are ultimately arbitrary.

Even your objection to them, I would argue, is arbitrary. Indeed, everything about notions of sex and sexuality are socially determined. Ages of consent change over time. What constitutes "legitimate" sexuality (oral? anal? masturbation?) changes.

For much of the West, "homosexuality" has become little more than another iteration of demonic influence from the old days.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #224 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
So your money example was wrong. What laws have to agree and why? And how does gay marriage fit in? It's already been established that contracts like this don't follow you from state to state.

What's the problem then?

bunge, I've addressed through at least half a dozen posts with Kirkland. I'm going to have to ask you to read those.

No hard feelings,
Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #225 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Actually, sometimes they change very quickly. This moral indignation over homosexuality pops up from time to time. Late c18 in England. Mid-c19 in England. c19 in America. Just go peruse the the proceedings of the Old Bailey and look for buggery or sodomy. And yet for most of those two centuries such things went on with no one really caring all that much. They only became issues during the various religious revivals.

My point is that, for many cultures throughout the history of the world, homosexuality has been a non-issue. And our current fascination with it will fade away once the Christian churches in the West don't feel threatened by dwindling numbers anymore.

I *think* (and I may be misunderstanding you) that you're trying to suggest that homosexuality is a social behavior. The moment you say that, you must allow for the possibility that heterosexuality is equally social, and that, in effect, both are learned. And if they are both learned, then they cannot be innate, and thus are ultimately arbitrary.

Even your objection to them, I would argue, is arbitrary. Indeed, everything about notions of sex and sexuality are socially determined. Ages of consent change over time. What constitutes "legitimate" sexuality (oral? anal? masturbation?) changes.

For much of the West, "homosexuality" has become little more than another iteration of demonic influence from the old days.

Cheers
Scott

Holy crap! We're back on page one talking about what is legitimate sex and legitimate marriage?



Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #226 of 298
Strange.


Most on this thread want to pretend that they exclusively hold the keys to ideas of "freedom" and "equality" while implicitly denying others the same right---at the very least intellectually dishonest, and at the very worst, intellectually challenged.

A lot of talk about hatred and bigotry here. Quite frankly, the only hatred I've seen starts with the "pagans" (and I use that term loosly) on these forums---pontificating on the meaning of the universe while sneering at Christians, Muslims and others who subscribe to an established religion.

(Of course, the "pagans" have no "religion" so that makes them superior---especially since they have a lock on the origin and meaning of terms such as "freedom" and "equality".)


When I come up here and tell you that you are intellectually deranged, think of it as tough love---the anger you are "sensing" is of your own generation. I am simply diagnosing a problem that will, in the end, claim your eternal soul.

Homosexuals are violating the "law of nature and nature's God."


This has nothing to do with some redneck, yee-haa sentiment. It comes from the same sentiment that a person has for an alcoholic friend who needs his keys taken away from him in front of the bar at 1AM.

Anger you feel is your own.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #227 of 298
dmz I am sure you mean no harm.

This is your official warning. Do not patronize any group on this board.

Thanks.


Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #228 of 298
Pagans believe in unsanctioned gods. Atheists believe in no god. Agnostics aren't sure either way.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #229 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Most on this thread want to pretend that they exclusively hold the keys to ideas of "freedom" and "equality" while implicitly denying others the same right---at the very least intellectually dishonest, and at the very worst, intellectually challenged.

A lot of talk about hatred and bigotry here. Quite frankly, the only hatred I've seen starts with the "pagans" (and I use that term loosly) on these forums---pontificating on the meaning of the universe while sneering at Christians, Muslims and others who subscribe to an established religion.

Forgive me if this sounds like I'm putting myself on a pedestal about understanding "freedom" better than someone else, but here it goes...

You seem to be confusing hatred (your word, not mine) with denial of freedom. It's quite possible to hate a person yet do nothing to deny that person's freedom.

There aren't too many people here that I've noticed demanding laws, for example, to ban hetero marriages and make gay marriages mandatory. Some people might indeed hate those who wish to deny marriage to gays, some may merely have strong distaste for an attitude they consider narrow minded or discriminatory. In any event, there is no associated desire to deny their opponents any particular freedom.

Unless, of course, you consider limiting someone else's freedom, by making them conform to religious standards they themselves to not ascribe to, an important freedom of your own that you don't want to give up.

My view of what a free society is about (and yes, I think it's a darn good view) is pretty much summed up by the idea of allowing each person the maximum amount of freedom that permits everyone the same degree of freedom. To get the idea where that degree of freedom ends, there's an old saying that goes "Your freedom to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose".
Quote:
This has nothing to do with some redneck, yee-haa sentiment. It comes from the same sentiment that a person has for an alcoholic friend who needs his keys taken away from him in front of the bar at 1AM.

So, for instance, some of the old laws (still on books in some places, although not enforced, or now invalidated by those darned uppity "activist" judges) that would throw someone in jail for a few years for gay sex were just "tough love"? Sincere, concerned citizens attempting to use the laws of a land where Church and State are supposed to be separate to "save" these poor misguided homosexual "souls" from "eternal damnation"?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #230 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
bunge, I've addressed through at least half a dozen posts with Kirkland. I'm going to have to ask you to read those.

No hard feelings,
Nick

Don't worry, I've read them. They just haven't lived up to your claims.

You single out this law for no good reason. If you're against ALL laws from spreading like you're afraid this law will spread, then make that argument. If you're simply against THIS law spreading, but don't care if other laws spread, then you're bigoted.

If I'm misreading, please clarify.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #231 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Don't worry, I've read them. They just haven't lived up to your claims.

You single out this law for no good reason. If you're against ALL laws from spreading like you're afraid this law will spread, then make that argument. If you're simply against THIS law spreading, but don't care if other laws spread, then you're bigoted.

If I'm misreading, please clarify.

I said any law where a state must recognize it reciprically should be evaluated before it is changed. The examples I mentioned were money and licenses.

You said the money example was "wrong" but gave no reason why it was wrong. I said that Massachussetts use to have its own currency but gave it over to the federal system. Drivers licenses are another example of how you need to consider other states if you want their recognition returned.

I also mentioned how even though states can pass different laws with regard to pollution standards, if that pollution some how crosses the state borders, you had better believe that it would become a federal issue quickly, regardless of their "rights."

Hell you can't even buy beef without the feds approving, yet people will suggest that a legal licensing issue that effects estates, medical benefits, custody, division of possessions when a split occurs, etc. somehow wouldn't get appealed to the Supreme Court to be tested.

Nonsense, and on top of that, I'm tired.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #232 of 298
Thread Starter 
And I still haven't heard a reason why Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Lots of arguments about sexuality... and choice... and state's rights...

But nothing about the reasoning behind BANNING gay marriage.

If civil union is the same thing and alot are ok with it...

what's the fricking difference? It's marriage. All the core traditions are linked to it. You don't want gay people to have the same thing you have??? You're offended? what???

Let them get married and see what happens.

I'm sure you'll be surprised by how little things would change.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #233 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I also mentioned how even though states can pass different laws with regard to pollution standards, if that pollution some how crosses the state borders, you had better believe that it would become a federal issue quickly, regardless of their "rights."

The pollution of a gay marriage doesn't cross borders with gay people. I thought that was established. Just as 18 being the legal drinking age in some places doesn't mean an 18 year old from that state can drink everywhere. Fishing licenses don't cross borders.

We established that not all contracts cross borders and that's OK.

So, if this law doesn't require other states to do anything, what's the big deal? How would this differ from a neighboring state like Ohio outlawing gay marriage? Should Ohio have to check with Vermont before they can do that?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #234 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
The pollution of a gay marriage doesn't cross borders with gay people. I thought that was established. Just as 18 being the legal drinking age in some places doesn't mean an 18 year old from that state can drink everywhere. Fishing licenses don't cross borders.

We established that not all contracts cross borders and that's OK.

So, if this law doesn't require other states to do anything, what's the big deal? How would this differ from a neighboring state like Ohio outlawing gay marriage? Should Ohio have to check with Vermont before they can do that?

Good morning!

The issue, which I discussed with Kirk is that the legal issues associated with this law do cross state lines. The page from the ACLU made several mentions of items the states wouldn't recognize and then basically said the solution is to sue and had a means of solicitating those lawsuits.

Now when they sue, it isn't for the right to get married. They already are married. The lawsuit will be about whether the state has the right not to reciprically recognize the marriage. Those lawsuits have always come down to being federal lawsuits tried under equal protection clauses.

So in the end it will require the states to do something. All the other examples you keep bringing up don't have reciprication agreements. So being 18 and drinking does lead to lawsuits because the states don't have drinking reciprication laws in place. The reciprication is key. It acts like a domino effect.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #235 of 298
The Defense of Marriage Act says that no state can be required to recognize a gay marriage from another state.
post #236 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
The Defense of Marriage Act says that no state can be required to recognize a gay marriage from another state.

The Constitutional test would be whether the Defense of Marriage Act goes against the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #237 of 298
Here, I took it a step further. BTW, some big kudo's to Kirk for actually knowing which case I was referring to. Even if we don't agree (and in many ways I think we do agree about the final outcome, just disagree about the word definitions and path of getting there) he is well read in his background. Just goes a bit extreme on the rhetoric.

This site mentions the case decision I have been referring to with regard to federalizing homosexual marriage. It is Loving vs. Virginia.


Loving vs. Virginia

I'll do the find and replace for the last paragraph. You tell me if it sounds outlandish or reasonable to believe.

All I did was replace race with sexual orientation.

Quote:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the sexual orientation classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious sexual orientation discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another orientation resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

Now it could possible be argued that race is a societal construct vs. a scientific construct and thus tossing it away with regard to miscegenation is proper because there is no blood mixing crime as the state had contended. The decision even goes on to mention if the state has a rational basis for treating interracial marriages different from same race marriages. (Is this starting to sound familiar?)

I dont know if Love was cited in Massachussetts, but the arguments are familiar even if the case wasn't cited.

There may be some "rational" basis for treating homosexual marriage differently from heterosexual marriage because obviously there are gender differences which science can prove, while race is total nonsense. I would guess that is what the Massachussetts legislature is searching for right now. But to suggest that this law couldn't follow Love vs. Virginia at the federal level is, in my opinion, a bit naive.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #238 of 298
OK trumptman, so you're saying that barring gays from marriage may be federally unconstitutional. It may be. And then you would support a Constitutional Amendment banning gays from getting married?

To be honest, and with all due respect to Kirkland and you and others who have strong feelings about the issue, I find it hard to get worked up about it too much. I suppose it's because a) I wouldn't mind if gay marriage was legal but b) I wouldn't feel bad if it didn't happen either, maybe because I don't know any gay couples closely enough for it to be that personal to me.

However, I think this will be an issue in the upcoming election, and I think it goes Kerry's way unless the Supreme Court allowed gay marriage throughout the country. If that happened (yeah right) I could see a huge backlash and I could see a federal constitutional amendment going through like a hot knife. But as it stands now, with only individual states doing it and no requirement to recognize other states' gay marriages, I think Bush would be on the wrong side of the issue to push for it. It would just seem gratuitous at this point, since right now, this is purely a state matter.

And BTW, although Bush has suggested he would push for an amendment, I'm not at all sure he really will, given the present circumstances.
post #239 of 298
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
OK trumptman, so you're saying that barring gays from marriage may be federally unconstitutional. It may be. And then you would support a Constitutional Amendment banning gays from getting married?

To be honest, and with all due respect to Kirkland and you and others who have strong feelings about the issue, I find it hard to get worked up about it too much. I suppose it's because a) I wouldn't mind if gay marriage was legal but b) I wouldn't feel bad if it didn't happen either, maybe because I don't know any gay couples closely enough for it to be that personal to me.

However, I think this will be an issue in the upcoming election, and I think it goes Kerry's way unless the Supreme Court allowed gay marriage throughout the country. If that happened (yeah right) I could see a huge backlash and I could see a federal constitutional amendment going through like a hot knife. But as it stands now, with only individual states doing it and no requirement to recognize other states' gay marriages, I think Bush would be on the wrong side of the issue to push for it. It would just seem gratuitous at this point, since right now, this is purely a state matter.

And BTW, although Bush has suggested he would push for an amendment, I'm not at all sure he really will, given the present circumstances.

Actually I don't recall expressing support for an amendment to the Constitution. I said Bush has said that he would do what is legally necessary and it appears all other options short of that are going to be exhausted.

I've argued repeatedly this is about people being able to define their own words, and not really even about rights.

Newsweek Poll

Drudge linked to this Newsweeek poll and it is very interesting in that while the public does not support gay marriage, it support giving homosexuals all the rights that they would gain from marriage.

What I've contended is that people, myself included are not comfortable with having words redefined from a common understanding. This is why I said creating new words at times and switching is even more powerful in a debate. I gave the example undocumented worker vs. illegal immigrant.

People are uncomfortable having "marriage" redefined as they would be having love, birth, death or other such concepts redefined.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #240 of 298
If we all agree that the Constitution supports gay marriage, what's the problem them?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Mass. Supreme Court says "No" to Civil Unions.