IAP Political Forum

This will sounds nuts, but this right here is Great for McCain.  He can use this in the coming months to show how a federal Ban is needed. (ya know to bolster his conservative /puke base)

btw, I don't care if gays want to be together and have unions or whatever and I could care less if they even get married by some court.  You sexual preference is non of my business as long as you keep it in your bedroom and its a decision by two consenting adults.

On the other hand what I do have an issue with is if gays can get married in order to get access to health care, child custody and such then why cant two roomates who are not sleeping together?   Why cant two friends that don't live together and kissed once when they were 17 get "married" in order to get a break in taxes and buy a two family house together where they can share health care expenses?

Its a slippery slope....

I guess time will tell but if you get married and MA or CA and move to TX where gay marriage is banned you have no real right and cant get divorced heh you would have to BOTH move back to CA or MA for a period of 18 month to legally become resident of that state to be divorced "Legally"
---------------

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

The justices released the 4-3 decision Thursday, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest," the court said in a majority decision

Why can't an adult, who has accumulated wealth and benefits decide who those benefits go to?

"Marriage" or "civil union" is not to be entered into lightly......same rules apply for division of wealth upon dissolution....so it goes far beyond  "two roomates who are not sleeping together?   Why cant two friends that don't live together and kissed once when they were 17 get "married" in order to get a break in taxes and buy a two family house together where they can share health care expenses?

You get to pick who benefits from your death or illness....someone gay should have the same right.

And enforce the fact that he is a flip-flopper?

VOTING RECORD
- Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
- Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)

The Democrats would say he is pandering... and they would be right.


Why can't straight people do that? Why are only gay people going to abuse the benefits of marriage?

You know what? Why does government have to be in marriage at all?

 They call him flipper, flipper,
 no one that you see
can flip flop like he... (http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Ji5yuwkO8m2u9M:http://www.perfectduluthday.com/elleand%2520flipper.jpg)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw

What does it really matter if two people get married but don't have a relationship? I know some married couples who don't have much of a relationship anymore. Should we make them divorce if they're not having sex with each other?

My philosophy is that It's none of my business what goes on behind closed doors (even nothing is going on behind the doors). And as Patton points out, it does come down to an issue of property rights. We should not infringe on someone's right to share what's theirs with someone based on what that someone's gender is.



Abraxas, while I think it's likely that McCain was just pandering, it should be noted that support for a ban on gay marriage isn't necessarily the same thing as support for a constitutional amendment. I've met a few social conservatives that favor the idea of a ban, but would rather not amend the constitution for it.

The State of California backs Bart Simpson against Juliet Capulet, stenchblossoms smell worse than roses.

the idea of punishing singles with taxes goes against the core of liberalism. We soon shall be entering the era of the emancipation of single people. Imagine the day when a single person is elected the President. Imagine the time when single people will be able to openly practise their lifestyle. Singularly sitting in a restaurant without being booed. When it will be possible to wear the "I'm single and I'm pround of it" t-shirt. Single Pride Movement. Possibly even Single Power paramilitary. Nowadays, state discrimination of single people makes hatred possible. WHile it is signle who people are the prominent intellectuals and spirituals and blah. Look what they did with Ralph Nader. Bastards.

How does this at all apply? Why is the problem with the legality of marriage with SSM and not with the federal subsidizing of health care and other benefits through frivilous expenditures such as SS? I dont see a problem in the marriage aspect. Much moreso SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

Civil unions do not have the same legal rights as marriage.



The government ought not to be in the marriage business.

If the church will marry gays, that is their right - we have religious freedom in the USA.

If the church won't, that is also their right.

I can't see religions being forced to marry those outside their religion (despite the inevitable straw men that get brought up) and I don't see how this opens the door to marrying farm animals, etc - as animals can't sign contracts, can they? As far as polygamy, hey, if your religion allows it and you actually want more than one woman nagging you, be my guest.

It is the government that sets the rules on tax exemptions. It will be the government that will force health care companies to cover the 'significant other.' Government will force all states to recognize marriage.


Government is in the dead center of it.

Companies should offer incentives to whomever they want without federal pressure.

If a HC company only wants to take care of straight couples, let them. They will suffer or reap the benefits. And if a HC company wants to offer it to gay couples, let them. They will suffer or reap the benefits as well.

It's NOT a federal issue and it doesn't have to be one.

What do you do when the ACLU steps in, sues the company, and wins? The courts make it their business to write laws all the time. The courts wrote their own law in the subject title of this very thread.

Courts "writing" law is not a fact, it is political spin, standard issue, Republican opinion.

If you don't like the ruling, you say it is legislation from the bench, if you do, it is good solid Constitutional thinking. Standard partisan crapola.

The rejection of a gay marriage ban is based on the constitution.

Making companies respect marriage isn't.

You know better than that. Laws were written and rewritten in the 2000 election. Remember the Florida courts changing dates that ballots were to be submitted? Remember the Florida Supreme Court?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/12/04/scotus.recount.ruling/index.html

Making it up as you go, I guess...


The ACLU is going to allow companies to offer certain benefits to one group and not another?

California earned 10 points from me for this: the "your life, your right to marry" principle kicked in finally.

Having read the first section of the decree I find it fairly interesting.

"separate but equal" does not appear. But the court considers civil unions as functionally the same as marriage. I'd think that phrase would be a powerful tool for making this ruling stand.

It holds the state has no vested interest in persevering traditional definitions. I'm not sure I agree, I would have thought the point of the court was to preserve the continuity of law, which I see as resting on traditional definitions.

And is citing cases from other states allowed in a state's courts? I'd think NH law would have no effect in CA. If there where federal courts citing other districts I could get behind it, but I thought states answered only to their people and the feds not other states.



I'm curious about a right to marry. Where does that come from as a specific right, why is it a fundamental right in CA, does that mean the government should have an arranged marriage service to provide for the unfortunate or imply the duty to say yes if someone proposes? What does it mean? They include the right to the word here and that makes me kinda nervous about whether that means it doesn't really include anything else. I never heard of this before, and I'm not sure I like it.

I think I may have to start Peisithanatos's movement.

I'm surprised to hear such a liberal sentiment from you.

I share Toaster's opinion on this one. Marriage is a very personal thing, possibly the the most personal thing one can do. To me it's the epitome of "behind closed doors", a place the state has no rightful business.

Additionally, I would asked why I should be penalized (relative to those who are married) for being single. Two people who combine funds, call it a corporation and produce useful goods and services get taxed more, while two people who combine funds, call it a marriage and produce dependents get taxed less. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I agree. We should take a good hard look at a flat tax or a consumption tax. The fact someone is married or not should not play into how the tax load is divied.

Indeed....cause yer next quote...


That's an excellent question that has an answer. Can I ask...what government are we speaking about here. Cause...the California Supreme Court is the government...is it not? The government being three branches...the Executive Branch the Legislative and the Judiciary...correct? And yet...government gets involved by the count of 4 justices to 3 and we suddenly have an issue after the California referendum soundly defeated same sex marriage(there is no such thing as gay marriage). In other words, 4 people shut up 30 million Californians and then we're getting asked why government must get involved.

You do think this ruling was correct?

Actually, I didn't say that. Reaganite did.


The court ruled that a state banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional.

That's not government interference. That's a reduction of state control that never should have existed in the first place.

Or am missing the point of your post?

A referendum by the public...passed by an overwhelming margin.....is "state control?"

No, I don't think you're missing my point at all, I'm stuggling however with yours. If the public takes this issue to the legislature(where this issue belongs in my opinion), and the issue is decided rather thoroughly, this is 'state control?' And yet when another equal branch of the government overrules 30 million Californians and decides by a count of 4-3...that's "reduction" of state control.....?

I don't follow that logic. The court is there to interpret, correct. Allow me to ask....if California rewrites, in other words, amends its state Constitution, does the High Court have precedence then, would they have trouble interprettting, who has final say here?

Like so many states have already done, Cal needs to amend its Constitution and settle the matter altogether.

Something tells me that a public referendum would pass in most states to make the US a Christian nation... but that doesn't mean it's constitutional.


Hence the appeals proccess.

First, I could list a thousand such examples. Something tells me a pr would pass denying gun ownership, that would be unconstitutional. Something tells me most would allow the UN to order US troops into battle..and out as well, don't mean it's constitutional. As the Constitution is written now. However, all of these endeavors would come from the legislature...where they belong. Secondly, I fail to understand where this mentality that government tells you what's Constitutional and what is not. All three branches of government serve the people...they are the final decider especially their own institutions. You seem to disagree.


Sorry, I don't see the reduction in state control. Bottom line, should judges be making these kind of decisions?

Yes, the law started in the legislature, was voted on by the public and was struck down by the courts.

The judicial branch of government didn't write law, they only said the laws that the legislature wrote were unconstitutional. What's the problem?

This isn't "judicial activism" - or whatever Bill O'Reilly will end up calling it.


No, I think the conflict between the 4 pieces of government (legislature, executive, judiciary and the people) are supposed to debate the lagality of a law until one side of the debate wins. It's a slow process were mistakes have to be made and the actual legality of the law has to come into question.

Just look at the D.C. gun ban... or Roe v. Wade...

I imagine both will be overturned in time.

Basically, the lagality of a law is not determined until it is questioned, reviewed and put on trial. It's a process, not a checklist.


Are you questioning the democratic system?

The judiciary branch reviews, interprets and assigns legitimacy to laws. What's not to get?


"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority... between a state, or the citizens thereof..."
- US Constitution, Article III, Section 2

DC isn't a State and so immediately dismissed as an analogy..do we have a little confusion here? Are we seriously going to argue that the government defines our institutions..as a society? Are you saying that society itself through its elected representatives or flat out referendum doesn't or shouldn't define these issues?

And Roe V Wade is under assault, third term abortion excluded and that shot across the bow should wake many as well.

I'm sorry, I'm beginning to think many of you in here actually support government appointed judges defining marriage for you. Am I mistaken? And I'm being asked about my adherence to the democratic system? Hold on....

:laugh:

... so I guess the people there (and the consititutional right to own a firearm) doesn't matter?

I'm beginning to question what you consider relevant.


You're the one saying the court is defining our institutions. Many would say they're only upholding the constitution. Personally I don't think government should be involved in marriage at all and I don't think it should ever become an issue that even HAS to go before a judge.

That's what I've said since the beginning.


... which is what I said:

"... or Roe v. Wade...

I imagine [it] will be overturned in time."

Again, law is a process that is vetted by every part of government. Laws are not built on constitutionality (cause if they were the 18th ammendment would have NEVER made it to the constitution) but rather refined through the judiciary.

As for "society" - I'm the last one to say that government should define morality, but for a long time "society" thought slavery was alright. They also thought the Jim Crow laws were alright. "Society" can be wrong, especially when the document that governs us garuntees the equal rights of ALL people.

So why should straight couples enjoy benefits that homosexuals can't?


And I'm beginning to think you have a tough time understanding opinions that disagree with your own.

That is a quality you shouldn't laugh about.

No, I consider that statement blatantly disingenuous. I'm discussing same sex marriage and our state's influences and affects on that issue. I've been more than clear. I've discussed many states having an amendment defining same sex marriage. I've discussed from a perspective of the state's legislature being the government branch that should engage same sex marriage. DC is not a State. The Federal Government has gun laws that determine DC's politics. As far as I know, the Federal Government doesn't recognize same sex marriages across states, they've made that clear. I question your genuine concern for objective debate when you ask what I find relevant. First, why not merely ask me what I think it relevant. You analogy to DC isn't.


I'm the one saying the court is defining marriage? Aren't the 4 Justices saying the Courts are defining marriage, I'm merely commenting on California politics. You're telling me you don't think the government should be involved...however...they ARE involved. And that's because citizens like myself engage the government that represents me. I've given them power to protect marriage by making it illegal to marry your sister, aunt, first cousin, or brother. Illegal for you to enter into a marriage contract if you're already married...and illegal to marry someone of the same gender.


Society can be wrong....so can 4 Justices. And slavery and civil rights LEGISLATION is landmark in this nation. If there are social ills that need addresssing...such as those you mentioned and the one I'm focusing on being ssm, it is society that defines that morality or social definition. Many times society will use the government and that is exactly what they should do.


I'm sorry? No two persons of the same gender can enjoy marriage benefits regardless of orientation. The method upon which you engage in sex is irrelevant to the State, you're not being denied a marriage license because you're 'gay.'


Wow...I guess I'm not mistaken. Well...we'll agree to disagree. You'd like you societal institutions defined for you, I enjoy my freedoms. We move on.

OK, so the "ban gay marriages" thing seems to hinge on the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So, if it changes, why is that a problem again? Is it all about getting pissy when it comes to definitions? This seriously bugs me.


BTW, I haven't read to see if anybody is against this, and if there isn't, oh well.

I don't know anything about banning 'gay marriages.' This thread, I thought, was about same sex marriage.

I don't understand the distinction.


In case you check back. There is some contention here about who should have control of the definition, and I think it matters who has control of definitions as one can use that intelligently to substantially change rules.

Neither did I, reason I asked.

They are generally used interchangeably.

Read the thread title Einstein.

So, you and I walk into the town square and ask for a marriage license. We're turned down immediately. Is the State taking any legal issue with your orientation, is there a disctinction here you'd like to make, one you had trouble seeing before?

That's what I was thinking.


In what way?

I'm having a conversation within it, obviously, I've read the thread title.

You can, perhaps, answer my question then? You know...go beyond your usual troll level stuff and actually speak to the topic. I should be the one asking who has read the title of the thread, I don't see you speaking to it, rather......speaking to a forum member you've supposedly seen so many of before.

Yer a tad transparent frenchy.

I was thinking about coordinated micro changes making macro changes. As I understand it constitutional law is based heavily on definitions, and touches on daily life more than one would expect.



A distinction I'd like to make? No.

Riiiiiiigggghhhttt



I'm Really quite curious Char Mar, why does it make any difference to you whether or not gays can marry?
 Please explain your deep level of concern about the outcome of this issue.

I have a deep level of concern where anyone else has deep concern when their rights are stomped on. I happen to think we're in a cultural crisis. I see Presidential candidates calling for a nationalized health plan....socialized medicine. I see the State of Virginia's third term abortion law was just shot down by a 2-1 margin, I'll be just as vocal about that.

We clearly disagree here you being 'curious' about an opinion from me I find disingenuous given your greeting to me on these forums. I'm jumping on every right taken from me and don't understand equal outrage from my fellow citizens. The judiciary does not define my rights, they're clearly responsible for interpretting law. These are now two stunning examples of grevious misreadings of judicial review and I take offense to it.

I'm asking who should be the final definition here? Should any state...and many already do...amend their Constitution to read exactly that marriage in this society of laws is defined by one man and one woman unrelated and unwed. Should ANY court receive this in appeal, it is clear what their interpretation should be. Is it not? Should a few men and women in robes or a man occupying a temporary executive seat define marriage...or should the legislature steered by its constituents either through referendum or representative vote rule the day? Frenchy?

It's a no brainer and the defense of such judicial actions as you happen to support that particular political position is no reason to get one of your every 28 day nose bleeds and hand over your basic rights as a human being. You can stand there and offer yours, I'll keep mine, but I will go get you a kleenex for that nose.

What right of yours is stomped on when the court allows gay people to marry?

The 9th ammendment comes before the 10th, so the court has a right to decide on the equal rights of citizens.

So again, what right is being stomped on?


We can actually agree on this. Well, on our mutual dissatisfaction with both points you mentioned.

Personally, I believe calling it a "cultural crisis" is a bit of hyperbole.


Could it be - now hold on for what might come as a shock to you - you're wrong?

Or maybe "everyone else's opinion" doesn't matter when it doesn't agree with yours?


No, the Constitution does. The Judiciary is tasked with interpreting the Constitution, which they did here.


Wait, what's the second?


No, it's not their right to do so seeing as it "disparages [the rights] retained by the people".

As a result, the right to define marriage is a power "prohibited to the states" the courts and federal government are allowed to participate.

The right to enter civil unions should not be denied to gay couples.


In this case, no.

Again, I bring you back to the hypothetical vote on making America a Christian nation. It would probably pass but it would violate the 1st ammendment.

It's no different then people voting to deny rights to gay people. It violates the 9th ammendment and is therefor NOT a choice they are allowed to make.


So why are you having so much trouble with it?


I support the Constitution.

I'm sorry you disagree with it, but tough toe nails.

Abraxas asks a very good question Car Mar Spell out exactly what right of yours is stomped on if a couple of fags now living together are granted  a document legitimizing their relationship? How does that hurt  you?? How did you hand over your rights if you allow this to take place?
 There is nothing "clear" about my position on this subject I have never offered an opinion on it
 BTW make a convincing argument and I might agree with you.

There is a document legitimizing their relationships, civil unions provide comparable duties and privileges as marriage in CA, according to this ruling.

I'm a little fuzzy on what is lost, considering a distinction between a government licensed status and a religious ceremony with the same name.

Could you walk me through how the 9th works to protect gay rights? I understand how it leaves room for gay rights, but I'm unclear how it provides a defense of any specific right in way way that does not give me a right to steal. And are the amendments in an order that you apply the first before the last? I thought they were independent of each other, and if order matters I'd think it'd go last to first so the most resent change applies to older changes.

Why the need to stand behind him with f'n poms poms in your hand cheerleading. I haven't even responded to his post yet...Frenchy.



And the "document legitimizing their relationship" is exactly right. The majority do not want marriage used to legitimize homosexuality and therefore vote against it. Overwhelmingly. It is the reason there is a federal statute, the reason many states have amended their Constitutions. For example...this ridiculous California ruling...doesn't now apply to other states. If you're married in California, that is not going to be recognized in my state, and it's not recognized by the federal government either, benefits such as ss will not be afforded. (Thank God).


Trolls don't normally take clear positions so, I don't find that odd.

 You still didn't answer the question...What specific "right " do you lose if gays can get married?
 You argument seems to be predicated on this loss of some right or rights you are outraged about. What is this "right" you speak of that would be stomped on ??

It has some bad language (okay, a lot), but this pretty much sums up the whole thing:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow

So your saying that straight couples are given MORE benefits then gay couples?

That doesn't sound very equal.

Tell me where the court doesn't have a right to intervene...

I'm still awaiting an answer Char Mar.
  Seriously if gays being allowed to get married somehow stomps on or takes away some of your rights , it will probably do the same to me. If my rights are being stomped on I want to know which ones they are.

You haven't beeen reading. And you misinterpret the issue.

#1 gays have always been able to wed, many have children, many are fathers and mothers...isn't that correct?
#2 if ssm were permitted by a court....overruling a legislative endeavor...I consider my rights being violated no matter the issue. I tried to add another issue and an example. Virginia's supreme court just struck down Virginia's ban on third term abortions...that also came from a legislative endeavor. I see these constituents dismissed as if their intent isn't clear.
#3 The issue arises in Massachusetts as well. This time the legislature approved same sex marriage or voted to not amend their Constitution. I don't think the voters in Massachusetts were denied their rights, the issue was handeled in the Legislature and the people's voices heard. Similiar to Vermont...that approved civil unions rather than marriage. Coming from the Legislature and supported by the voter either through referedum or representative voice, I'd accept same sex marriage in my state or any other. Coming from a judiciary...no way and I see a clear reduction in rights here and stand confused as to how you don't see that. It IS government intervening in your life. It is a government branch giving orders to those it is supposed to derive its' power from.
#4 The question answered. Same sex marriage in itself does not take my rights away. The inability to decide how societal institutions are defined clearly reduces my rights.
#5 It is time for you to answer a question
#6 If a state amends its Constitution...and in black and white in its Constitution is the definition of marriage...like so many states have done already...should this be the final word? Should a lawsuit arise and make it to the State Supreme Court.....with absolute black and white definition written into it...does the judiciary interpret that law correctly or legislate from the bench? The Judiciary does not make laws, Gentlemen, and this is a clear violation of exactlt that. How you all can cheer this merely given your political position on the matter is telling. Now...my question stands. Who should have final word on the issue. Government involvement needed at all? ANd if so...what branch of government has the final word given there is a disagreement?

This is all stupid. Just let gays marry. Let it be done. There's no bigger issue here.

 So the problem you have is not with Gays being able to get married but instead your problem is the way that institution was granted. I see.
 I agree that the judiciary should not "legislate from the bench"  but what has taken place here is not that.
 The judiciary is not simply a tool of the legislative branch used to implement or execute the laws they pass like some police force in robes. A large part of their job is to determine if a given law is legal under a law with a higher authority.
  The constitution provides for a system of checks and balances against the legislature writing bad law however popular it may be. The executive branch has the power of veto and the judiciary has the power to overturn. If you have a problem with this judicial power you have a problem with the constitution itself.
 For examle; prior to 1954 many state constitutions had laws for de jure, or enforceable segregation. These laws were populist and could easily have passed referendum they were in the constitutions in "black and white". Segregation was law.
 Then came Brown vs the Board of Education and these segregation laws were held to scrutiny to see if they worked under the higher law of the U S constitution and the Bill of rights. They did not not and they were overturned. This was similar to what happened in the California ssm case. This was not "legislating from the bench". This was a judiciary executing their duty and applying the fundamentals of the constitutional mechanism of checks and balances. More accurately it could be called stopping legislature from the bench.  not writing legislation from the bench. They did their duty within their authority.
 A smart and careful legislature would be self policing in not writing or passing bills that conflict with a higher order of law. When they do the judiciary should, and does correct the situation. 
 This is how the constitution was meant to work.

Would you consider SS benefits to be a property right for those who've paid into the system?

... if they marry someone of the opposite sex.

That's like asking a straight person to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Kinda awkward, no?


The judicial has a right to strike down legislation (even if it's by public referendum) if it violates the US Constitution - much like the Jim Crow laws.

Banning gay marriage cheats citizens out of the same benefits of straight couple, essentially creating an unequal populace. This is not allowed because of the 9th ammendment, which comes before the 10th which means this decision is NOT up to the states.


No, it is the stopping of unequal treatment.

There is NO reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed the benefits of marriage while straight couples can. Either remove government from marriage or give equal treatment to those who should qualify. Again, the public doesn't get to change the "Bill of Rights".


You don't get to treat people unequaly because you voted for it.

Again, it's not your choice and it is the judical branch's obligation to make sure laws don't disenfranchise any group for any reason.


You're welcome to ask me.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- The 9th Ammendment

This allows the court to intervene because the original defenition would deny homosexuals of particular rights, namely the benefits that straight couples get to enjoy.

This is why Affirmitive Action is unconstitutional - another law that should be challenged in court but never will.


They're saying that banning people the right to enjoy federal rights is unconstitutional... AND IT IS.

It's NOT legislating from the bench. It's serving US law on the basis of equality - the concept this country is based on.


Actually, you ignored the constitutional argument the court and I have given you. Why don't you actually address the issue? Or are you content with headlines and surface details?


And I knocked it down.


The Constitution has the last word.

YES!

Another posterchild example. Bbw gives a clear and outright opinion here on exactly how marriage should be defined. Bbw claims there is no issue and we merely move on. This vote counts as one. So does mine. So do each of yours. We all influence our definition of marriage..We being the People of the United States.

Bbw, makes it very clear, it's also painfully obvious in many arenas where ssm is submitted to each and every opinion...it gets stomped on.

Time for some homework. Why not venture into ss bennies and see if they're 'considered' anything like property rights afore blasting in with this question. For the love of God. Property rights? See when and how and what happens when spouses pass and so on, let me know what your research exposes. And oh by the way...this President actually tried to privitize this 'considered like property right' and allow me to actually..on a voluntary basis mind you...control my own f'n money. The Democratic Party went catatonic. Don't be makin no analogies to those that have paid into this system and property rights. And then try to make some far reaching grasp and bring ssm into the mix. Cause then, I'm gonna ask what they hell you're talking about.

Please ask a more intelligent question and I'll attempt a response.

I don't know if it's awkward or not, I've never wed out of gender. One, its not recognized in my state. Two...I'm not asking anyone to marry anyone else. Where do you get this "asking" from? Are you going to submit to me that no gay people are married? That hundreds of thousands of them have children as well? Many children? Is that awkward as well, I don't know that either? You're acting as if this doesn't happen all the time, like it's "awkward" or abnormal that gay people are getting married to the opposite gender and having children. Secondly, it's a trick question. You must fram your question as follows...."That's like asking persons of opposite gender to marry someone of the same gender. Kinda awkward, no? And my answer would be exactly the same. I don't know. I married the opposite gender, what can I say?


What say the US Constitution has it written into its Constitution then...like it does now? What say the ban on same sex marriage is both prohibited by the State Constitution and the US Constitution?


The opinion that behavior warrants equal protection clearly isn't agreed to by law. You have an interesting opinion here, however, that is all it is.


As is this. Mere opinion.


No...but it does get to decide what falls under that bill of rights. It can define its own institutions as it sees fit. And your Bill of Rights is an excellent example here, what body of Government does this Bill derive? Who underwrites those first two? Would any Court finding any one of the Bill of Rights unconstitutional be spared my wrath? Of course not. The Legislative Branch is where these institutions are historically and absolutely defined. The Civil Rights Act was civil rights legislation as an example. Courts rule on the interpretation of written law, if the intent of the framer's is clear(You and I are framers here, we all do carry power to change the living document that is the Constitution, both state and u.s.)....and in the case of ssm, it is VERY clear.


I'm sorry, gender discrimination is a reality as enlightened humanity realizes differences in men and women. Women are going to be given leave to have children for example written into both state and federal statutes. You may not by law...as a man...leave your post for 6 weeks as you've fathered a child. Obvious and clear distinctions such as these are made while writing our laws and it is the definition of people being treated differently based on votes. Happens everyday.


Excuse me. So that the judicial branch is then checked....and balanced....the Legislature defines 'reason.' Gender reasons in this particular case.


This was challenged in court, was it not?


The overwhelming majority seems to disagree. So much that they chose to amend their Constitutions based on definitions that are impossible to confuse or misinterpret by any court.


You've given me mere opinion and claim its addressing the issue? ;D. Ok. I'm giving you the argument from the Legislative side. I'm telling you it's amended in two dozen states, that's the argument I'm giving you. I understand the argument you're making, I mereley disagree and point you to the law. The legislative branch has made this clear, the court does not get to make up its own decisions, it must read the law as it was intended and rule. A no brainer.


It's towering 12 feet over your head, your opinions cut nothing. Still here. :)


And not an interpretation of it by a few lawyers promoted to a Bench, I'm glad we finally agree. The Constitution DOES have the final and last word and that's why so many states chose to word it quite specifically. One man and one woman. They must not be related, there are age restrictions, there are nationality restrictions and ramifications, and..you must not be currently married. You will be treated differently if you're already married.

I'm sure at one point, each and every vote would have kept slavery in place as well. The question here is what will change - the answer is nothing. Sure, maybe a new dictionary is in order, but other than that, you'll wake up in the morning unable to feel any different. That's because same sex marriage doesn't affect you, or anybody else that for that matter except the gays who can't get married.

If people are pissed because their archaic beliefs aren't being heard, well, so be it. Sometimes a child's hand needs to be forced.

 Lets say a state's congress writes a law that even Char Mar would agree is unconstitutional. Its put to a referendum and the populace backs it up. The governor of the state chooses not to veto it and the law passes. By what mechanism political or legal would the law be stopped if not by the judiciaries power to overturn? The function of the Judaical branch as an overseer of the compatibility of higher laws to more local is essential to keep the entire country on the same constitutionaly legal page.
 

The reason gay people enter into heterosexual relationships is because it's unlikely they could ever be successful and openly gay at the same time. Society has such a stigma over this it's insane. Also, it IS awkward and abnormal for a gay man to marry a woman... FOR THEM.

Again, imagine yourself in a relationship that doesn't suit you. How do you think it would feel to sleep next to someone you don't really love?

And why do they do this? Cause, like I said, it's tought to be openly homosexual and successful at the same time.

So if you think, "oh, well, they could always marry the oppisite gender to have the benefits," think hard about how you would feel if the roles were reversed.


They tried that with alcohol.

It was repeeled.

Guess why? Cause it was unconstitutional.

Next question, please.


Are you one of those people who think gay people are just acting gay? That homosexuality isn't a natrual occurence?

Also, to your other point, isn't religion (and the practices of it) a particular behavior? Are you saying I don't have a right to behave like a Christian? Or a Muslim? Or an Atheist? My right to behave differently (provided it doesn't endanger anyone else's rights) is not a Constitutional right?

Are you really saying that?

Like, really?

Have you read the Constitution... like, ever?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
- Amendment I

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Amendment IX


Actually, it's backed up by a sound constitutional argument.

Your choice to routinely ignore it is not surprising.


A statement of idocy, if I ever saw it.

The Bill of Rights grants EVERYONE unalienable rights. Are you saying there are actually people who don't deserve them?

Do you really wanna be on that side of the fence?


No, it's not.

Straight couples are given federal benefits when married.

Meanwhile, homosexuals are completely prohibited from enjoying those benefits unless the enter a lawful (and unfulfilling) heterosexual relationship - and they shouldn't have to do it. Either stop federal benefits to straight couples or let homosexuals in.

It's really quite simple.


Ever heard of PAternity leave? Some Companies even pay dads who take off to care for a new born. California has even made it state law, in fact LINK (http://www.itsallpolitics.com/forum/index.php?topic=2242.new;topicseen#new).

I'm not disagreeing that there are glaring equality issues, some of them actually written into law, but they can't be changed until they are challenged in court and the court gets a chance to rule on their legitimacy.

THAT'S the purpose of the judiciary.

THAT'S democracy in action.


Legislation branch writes laws.

Executive branch approves them.

Judiciary branch enforces their legitimacy or proves it to be illigitmate.

The Judiciary "defines" nothing. They REfine it.


In recent years, I don't believe so.

I know public support for it is waining, though.


In this case, the overwhleming majority doesn't know better.

I've brought up slavery, the Jim Crow laws and the hypothetical possibility of legally defining the US as a "Christian Nation". There was massive public support for the first 2 and no doubt there would be massive public support for the 3rd - but that doesn't make them right.

The court used the US Constitution to prove its point, not personal bias.

Take their argument and prove them wrong.


Bull. Shit. Charles. Martel.

I've said (20 or 30 times):

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Amendment IX[/b]

Heterosexual couples are entitled to certain rights that homosexual couples are not.

A law banning homosexual marriage IS unconstitutional.


Equal rights are NOT something states can right out of their constitution. Because equal rights falls in the 9th amemdnment, the 10th amendment...

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.
- Amendment X

... does not apply.

This is NOT a decision that the states are entiteled to make.


Your argument doesn't cut mustard.


The US Constitution, with regards to the first 9 amenments (namely the 9th that ensures equal rights) trumps a state's populace and their constitution EVERY time.

The US Constitution has the last word here, NOT the state's.


This isn't about marriage.

This is about equal rights.

The 9th is generally accepted to exclusively limit the scope of government. Promoting equality is intervention in my view. At best it leaves room for a right, it doesn't grant any. As far as I know all other rights that have been successfully defended using it have drawn from several other amendments and historical records to support the tradition of the right. I understand these are just opinions, but from my limited reading they seem to be fairly popular with the people who have been making these kind of decisions.

Prohibition was not unconstitutional. It was found after 13 years to be unacceptable, and a new amendment changed us back. I don't think an amendment can be ruled unconstitutional, as they're part of the constitution. Is there precedent I'm not aware of?

No one is forced to smoke or drink, but of those who do some of them like it, and some can't stop, and there is some suggestion that this is genetically influenced. Your religion argument is interesting, but you'll forgive me for having trouble reading from the unlisted rights. Also Religion and the practice there of are listed separately, which might mean something.

I think it is bad to enter a marriage under false pretenses, feigned love or as a scam on the government.

I disagree.

Equality is given to all people under the constitution, and I would hope after desegregation we'd all would have learned how much worse government intervantion can get.

Allowing gay people to marry isn't intervention. Using the National Guard to enforce it is.

I think calling this "intervention" is historically innacurate.


The 9th ammendment doesn't garuntee ANY rights.

It garuntees equality.

Since heterosexual couples have the right to benefits, homosexual couples should too. So either take away the benefits or give them to homosexuals couples as well.


I stand corrected.

Though I doubt such laws amendments would make it to the constitution today on the very basis of their illegitimacy.


Specifically, yes, it is protected under the Constitution - but I could have just as easily said the behavior of a certain gender, not something explicitly defended, though I doubt anyone would think a law banning masturbation would be legitimate.

Such acts are based on male behavior, right? And any law attempting to curb that right would never make it to the books because human behavior would stop it from happening.

A poor example, I admit, but I think the idea that equality doesn't apply to harmless human behavior (like homosexuality [though it's not a behavior any more than heterosexuality is]) is unsupported by reality.


What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

I was beard bashing. I'll try to be less of a ******.

I don't understand where equality is in the 9th. Do you say that because that's how you read it or because of a ruling you've read. Either way I'd like some help understanding.

I'm not following you then. I'm getting a little confused between inclinations or desires and actions. Thinking or wanting anything is fine, but acting on that is sometimes frowned on. Right?

This forces Californians to recognize gay marriages. Presumably that means something or no one would bother to make it happen. More work for cops or civil servants is more intervention.

I agree it is unlikely a federal amendment will be made on this. I can't see congressmen from NY or CA voting to ban gays, and I can't see the bible belt ratifying sexual orientation equality. So I think it will come down to the reasoning of people picked for the job.

Excuse me. Marriage and the definition of affects me both directly and indirectly. And despite whether you disagree or not doesn't change the fact that it is an institution that our society, not our justices, need to define. And many States Constitutionally have done just that.

Secondly, I'm not sure slavery was ever a majority vote. And was coming to an end whether we went to war or not. It was already an emotional and divisive issue within the legislature resulting in actual fisticuffs. We as a society decided it was immoral....our motives to change slavery as a states rights issue was secondary. I don't think the majority of Europeans approved of slavery, indeed, many considered it wrong.

Last...a dictionary is in order. It's called the United States House of Representatives. I believe the Gay Rights Hero Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law. As well, as many as two dozen or more states have written or amended their state Constitution to specifically define marriage clearly discriminating on the grounds of gender. We the People are the dictionary.


Which one of your favorite anarchists said that?

Explain to me how gay marriage affects you.

That the function of the Judiciary? To oversee the compatibility of "higher laws" to more "local" ones?

Oh my God.

Oh no, you weren't being a ******. I just didn't know if there was something I missed or a quote that was supposed to be connected to it.


No particular ruling, but I think any reading of it would lead anyone to that conclusion.


If acting on something causes no harm to you or anyone else and doesn't impact on your rights, then there is no reason why it should be banned.

But all this is under the assumption that homosexuality is some sort of "behavior", which is an inherently flawed concept.


And racists have to recognize that all races are created equal.

What's your point?

Forcing people to recognize equality isn't really forcing them to do anything at all.


I think, in time, everyone will start to reach a moderate, mature view point.

We'll be long dead, but I think it's possible.


A) That does't answer his question or any of the other dozen I brought up in my post.

B) Read your Constitution lately?

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority... between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting... those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.
- Article III, Section 2

These posts are too long, can we start here? Don't sit here and pretend you know why anyone enters into matrimony. Can we be a tad fair minded and objective? Don't sit here and tell me why anyone gets married or that gays are in the "it's unlikely they could ever be successful and openly gay at the same time." What crap. They also cannot have children with a person of same gender, can that be considered?

And relationship that doesn't suit you??!! Hello. You seen the divorce rate lately? There is seriious issues and many many couples are in all sorts of relationships that may or may not include marriage that are not suited for one or the other person. Good grief, c'mon! And I am a man....there is no way on this God given earth you are to tell me that a man is trapped in a marriage with a woman he already is married and has childen with. I don't care if his desires for men or woman match every other married man's...his responsibility now is to that wife and family. You say vows promising to another, your own sexuality...I know this may seem tough...becomes secondary.

Next question then is...repealed by....the Judiciary, the Executive, or Legislative branch of government?


I believe the Constitution definitely covers this one and would assume any horse's arse could differentiate between acts of homosexuality and that of religious practice.


That's exactly what I'm f'n saying.


Does your grammer rise above like third grade?


Called the Defense of Marriage Act, passed quite overwhelmingly. 85-14, something like that?


Everyone who is a citizen of the US and these are certainly not based on behavior.


Yes.


Yes, it is. :)


Opposite gendered couples are given federal benefits, I'm unaware they ask you for orientation upon submittal.


No, you wouldn't have several dozen states with their own laws and the DMA if it was that simple. It's not. ;)


Some companies. And California made it state law by...what source of government. Judicial, Executive, or Legislative?


Kinda like the repeal of the 18th amendment...by the 21st.


Looks like most referedums and Legislative endeavoirs to properly remove the judicaiary from these matters disagree with you. We'll agree to disagree then?


No, they don't define anything.


Don't pretend to concern yourself with public support now, you'll wait for the judiciaries ruling on this correct?


You let me know then whenever this occurs.......okay? Mister man behind the curtain. What a f'n joke.


I addressed and dismisssed your apples and oranges analogy, sorry.


Gender discrimination is what you mean, yes?


No, it ain't.


Why the federal government passed the DMA. Gave states the right to not recognize the lunacy happening in other states. Clinton signed it I believe.


We just did.


Sorry. States rights issue.


About marriage being used to legitimize behavior in my opinion.


Alas, too many don't see it that way. I find it appropriate most