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?
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.
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?
They tried that with alcohol.
It was repeeled.
Guess why? Cause it was unconstitutional.
Next question, please.
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.
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 IThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
- Amendment IXAs is this. Mere opinion.
Actually, it's backed up by a sound constitutional argument.
Your choice to routinely ignore it is not surprising.
No...but it does get to decide what falls under that bill of rights.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Excuse me. So that the judicial branch is then checked....and balanced....the Legislature defines 'reason.' Gender reasons in this particular case.
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.
This was challenged in court, was it not?
In recent years, I don't believe so.
I know public support for it is waining, though.
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.
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.
You've given me mere opinion and claim its addressing the issue?
.
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.
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.
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.
It's towering 12 feet over your head, your opinions cut nothing. Still here.
Your argument doesn't cut mustard.
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.
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.
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.
This isn't about marriage.
This is about equal rights.
