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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The reciprication is key. It acts like a domino effect.
You're afraid gay marriage will spread. What I don't understand is, if that's the legally correct thing to do, why would you fight it? I mean, it will only spread IF there is already a legal foundation to support it. So, it doesn't spread because Mass. thinks it should, it spreads because legally it can't be fought.
What is there to be upset about? If the Constitution allows for it, why wouldn't you embrace it?
The arguments you're making while possible correct, have nothing to do with gay marriage per se. They have to do with legalities, not gay marriage. You're essentially arguing against how laws work from state to state, or Federally, not about gay marriage.
Comments
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
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
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
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
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.
This is your official warning. Do not patronize any group on this board.
Thanks.
Fellows
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".
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"?
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
Originally posted by trumptman
The reciprication is key. It acts like a domino effect.
You're afraid gay marriage will spread. What I don't understand is, if that's the legally correct thing to do, why would you fight it? I mean, it will only spread IF there is already a legal foundation to support it. So, it doesn't spread because Mass. thinks it should, it spreads because legally it can't be fought.
What is there to be upset about? If the Constitution allows for it, why wouldn't you embrace it?
The arguments you're making while possible correct, have nothing to do with gay marriage per se. They have to do with legalities, not gay marriage. You're essentially arguing against how laws work from state to state, or Federally, not about gay marriage.