Federal Judge strikes down Nebraska gay marriage ban

[DenverChief]

WASHINGTON - In the first time that a federal judge has struck down a state constitutional provision limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon on Thursday declared void a provision of the Nebraska constitution that defined marriage as only between a man and a woman and that banned same-sex civil unions, domestic partnerships and other similar relationships.

Bataillon declared in his ruling that under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Nebraska cannot ban same-sex marriages and civil unions.

The ruling may call into question similar provisions in other states’ constitutions.

Nebraska voters enacted the provision five years ago, with 70 percent approving it.

Will rekindle debate in Congress
The ruling is sure to rekindle debate in Congress over judicial power and may re-energize the forces backing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage to man-woman couples.

In a statement, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning said the state would appeal Bataillon’s ruling.

“Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit,” Bruning said.

Bataillon, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1997 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate, based his ruling on two Supreme Court decisions, Romer v. Evans in 1996 and Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, with the majority opinion in both written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.


Nebraska could not limit the rights of gays and lesbians “to obtain legal protections for themselves or their children in a ‘same-sex’ relationship ‘similar to’ marriage,” said Bataillon.

The Nebraska constitutional provision, he said, “attempts to impose a broad disability on a single group” and the Romer decision bans such disabilities, he said.

The Nebraska provision “is at once too broad and too narrow to satisfy its purported purpose of defining marriage, preserving marriage, or fostering procreation and family life,” Bataillon wrote.

He called it “too narrow” because “it does not address other potential threats to the institution of marriage, such as divorce.”

And it is “too broad in that it reaches not only same-sex ‘marriages,’ but many other legitimate associations, arrangements, contracts, benefits and policies.”

The judge said the amendment’s “broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals and people inclined to align with them to promote changes in legislation.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, an advocate of a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage, reacted to Bataillon’s ruling by noting that, when the Senate debated the proposed federal marriage amendment last year, “opponents claimed that no state laws were threatened, that no judge had ever ruled against state marriage laws. They claimed that the states and their voter-approved laws defending marriage were under no threat. After today’s ruling, they can no longer make that claim.”

Matt Daniels, president of Alliance for Marriage (AFM), a group that has urged Congress to approve a federal constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexuals, said the debate over marriage “is going to come down to a race between AFM’s marriage protection amendment and the federal courts.”

He predicted that "all of these state marriage amendments are going to be struck down in federal court, they are all going to go the way of Nebraska. The folks filing these lawsuits are taking this to the level of the Constitution, and we have to meet them at that level if the values of most Americans — and the common-sense understanding of marriage as the union of male and female — are going to be protected under our laws.”

More limited interpretation
But Amy Miller of the Nebraska American Civil Liberties Union had a far more limited interpretation of the ruling.

“This decision doesn't mean that gay people can marry, get a civil union or a domestic partnership, but it guarantees gay people the right to lobby their state lawmakers for those protections," she said.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a group that advocates legal recognition of marriages between gay couples, praised Thursday’s ruling.

“The court was right to do what courts are supposed to do — guarantee each of us our right to equal justice under law and equal citizenship in our country and home state,” Wolfson said.

“Government has no business putting obstacles in the path of people seeking to care for one another under law, and the court correctly found that Nebraska's sweeping anti-gay constitutional amendment offended basic American values of fairness, equality, family protection and access to the government,” he added.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/page/2/

[Mr. Kotter]

Another battle in the war.....

[Cochise]

So much for the will of the people.

Sad that the constitutional amendment can't happen, only because those in Congress do not carry out that same will. After these amendments pass with overwhelming majorities everywhere they are proposed it seems pretty clear.

[Baby Lee]

All I can muster is a chuckle.

[Boozer]

Isn't this the same guy who held that electrocution was cruel and unusual punishment?

[the Talking Can]

Nebraska is the new Terry Schiavo!

[Amnorix]

Yes sir, your express ticket to the Supreme Court is about to be punched. Right this way...

[DenverChief]

Isn't this the same guy who held that electrocution was cruel and unusual punishment?

:shrug:

[DenverChief]

So much for the will of the people.

Sad that the constitutional amendment can't happen, only because those in Congress do not carry out that same will. After these amendments pass with overwhelming majorities everywhere they are proposed it seems pretty clear.


The will of the people also was segregation and jim crowe laws...get over the will of the people

[Brock]

Eh. I'm pretty much resigned to the notion that the Feds are eventually going to allow gay marriage in the end, regardless of what states want. I don't care.

[DenverChief]

Yes sir, your express ticket to the Supreme Court is about to be punched. Right this way...


I like his rationale it is what I thought it woiuld be the whole time ...14th's equal protection and following the precedent of Romer and Lawrence

[Donger]

The will of the people also was segregation and jim crowe laws...get over the will of the people

You're not comparing those to this issue, are you? By that, I mean with regards to importance and injustice?

[Cochise]

get over the will of the people

Thank you for your input Mr. Mussolini. ROFL

[Boozer]

Yes sir, your express ticket to the Supreme Court is about to be punched. Right this way...

I'll take that bet...Derailment in the Eighth Circuit, Senior Circuit Judge C. Arlen Beam, presiding.

[DenverChief]

You're not comparing those to this issue, are you? By that, I mean with regards to importance and injustice?


I'm saying the "will of the people" is not right all of the time and we can view this by the "will of the people" in the past...what the majority wants isn't always right just becasue they are the majority...thats what I'm saying

[DenverChief]

I'll take that bet...Derailment in the Eighth Circuit, Senior Circuit Judge C. Arlen Beam, presiding.


:LOL: dork ;)

[CHIEF4EVER]

“This decision doesn't mean that gay people can marry, get a civil union or a domestic partnership, but it guarantees gay people the right to lobby their state lawmakers for those protections,"

And hopefully get denied. The union of 2 homos would be an absolute disaster for the moral fibre of this wonderful country.

[DenverChief]

Thank you for your input Mr. Mussolini. ROFL


it's Deputy Mussolini to you....punk ;)

[Mr. Kotter]

Yes sir, your express ticket to the Supreme Court is about to be punched. Right this way...

Not a bad idea; let's solve the issue here...:thumb:

to decide whether or not the push for a Constitutional amendment is really necessary. :)

[DenverChief]

And hopefully get denied. The union of 2 homos would be an absolute disaster for the moral fibre of this wonderful country.


:rolleyes:

[Cochise]

it's Deputy Mussolini to you....punk ;)

Quit winking at me, I'm not moving to Omaha with you no matter how much you beg. :thailor: :p

[DenverChief]

Constitutional amendment


it will never happen

[Boozer]

And hopefully get denied. The union of 2 homos would be an absolute disaster for the moral fibre of this wonderful country.

It couldn't be any worse than British English spellings creeping into our written language.

[DenverChief]

Quit winking at me, I'm not moving to Omaha with you no matter how much you beg. :thailor: :p
ROFL

[CHIEF4EVER]

I'm saying the "will of the people" is not right all of the time and we can view this by the "will of the people" in the past...what the majority wants isn't always right just becasue they are the majority...thats what I'm saying

So you are proposing that the majority of Americans have to dance to the flute of a minority of Americans? Is that your take? Bullcrap!!!!!!

[Donger]

It couldn't be any worse than British English spellings creeping into our written language.

Colour me so surprised.

[DenverChief]

It couldn't be any worse than British English spellings creeping into our written language.

Good eye
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[go bowe]

Another battle in the war.....hmmmmm...

did i hear somebody say that under the rationale of romer and lawrence, state constitutional bans on gay marriage would be found unconstitutional?

and did somebody else say that wasn't going to happen, or something like that?

hmmmmmm...

[DenverChief]

So you are proposing that the majority of Americans have to dance to the flute of a minority of Americans? Is that your take? Bullcrap!!!!!!


in some instances yes...it's not an always/everytime kinda thing but there are times when the minority has rights that the majority must respect...if you don't like it I hear North Korea is taking applications

[CHIEF4EVER]

It couldn't be any worse than British English spellings creeping into our written language.

Poor deflection and even poorer rationale.

[DenverChief]

hmmmmm...

did i hear somebody say that under the rationale of romer and lawrence, state constitutional bans on gay marriage would be found unconstitutional?

and did somebody else say that wasn't going to happen, or something like that?

hmmmmmm...

can it be that go bo actually knows something about the law?

nah... of course not...


I even got the equal protection part right :)

[CHIEF4EVER]

in some instances yes...it's not an always/everytime kinda thing but there are times when the minority has rights that the majority must respect...if you don't like it I hear North Korea is taking applications

It is NEVER acceptable for the majority mass of a Democracy to have to submit to the will of a minority of same said mass. If YOU don't like it there are PLENTY of countries that allow fags to make policy decisions. Try France.

[Boozer]

It is NEVER acceptable for the majority mass of a Democracy to have to submit to the will of a minority of same said mass. If YOU don't like it there are PLENTY of countries that allow fags to make policy decisions. Try France.

I'll disagree.

[Donger]

I'll disagree.

Greece?

[Boozer]

Greece?

I was referring more to the first sentence. That's just really bad policy. "Never???" ROFL

[DenverChief]

I'll disagree.


I think somebody didn't pay attention in civics class did they? Tell us Boozer why do you disagree? *pulls up chair*

[CHIEF4EVER]

I'll disagree.

On which part? The Rump Ranger part? The majority v. minority part or the France part? :p

[Donger]

I was referring more to the first sentence.

I know.

[Mr. Kotter]

hmmmmm...

did i hear somebody say that under the rationale of romer and lawrence, state constitutional bans on gay marriage would be found unconstitutional?

and did somebody else say that wasn't going to happen, or something like that?

hmmmmmm...

The Fat Lady ain't nowhere near singing....this is one court one judge. And if you are right and the SC buys it, then the amendment route becomes all the more likely....

[Donger]

It is NEVER acceptable for the majority mass of a Democracy to have to submit to the will of a minority of same said mass. If YOU don't like it there are PLENTY of countries that allow fags to make policy decisions. Try France.

Like was mentioned earlier, how about segregation and Jim Crowe? IIRC, the majority of the US population supported both.

[siberian khatru]

I'm not interested in debating this, because frankly I can't muster a lot of passion one way or the other. But I thought this was a pretty comprehensive response to the opinion by a libertarian-leaning law professor who has supported gay rights.

:)

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_08-2005_05_14.shtml#1115938636

[Eugene Volokh, May 12, 2005 at 6:57pm] 12 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Federal Court Strikes Down Ban on Same-Sex Marriage:

The decision, from a federal trial judge in Nebraska, is here. I think it's quite mistaken, and will be reversed on appeal. A few thoughts:

1. The judge doesn't hold that there's a constitutional right to same-sex marriage as such. Rather, he holds that the recently enacted Nebraska constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage — "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." — is unconstitutional. (See footnote 1 of the decision.) But as I'll discuss below, the logic of the opinion suggests otherwise; if the judge is right, then states would indeed be required to recognize same-sex marriage.

2. First Amendment: The judge reasons that the amendment is unconstitutional because it interferes with people's First Amendment rights to advocate, and to association in order to advocate, for legislation protecting same-sex relationships: "The knowledge that any such proposed legislation violates the Nebraska Constitution chills or inhibits advocacy of that legislation, as well as impinging on freedom to join together in pursuit of those ends."

That, I think, can't be right. Most state constitutional provisions make it harder for people to enact certain laws — a state constitutional right to privacy, for instance, makes "chills or inhibits advocacy of [privacy-restricting] legislation" in precisely the same way as the Nebraska same-sex amendment does: People become less willing to advocate the legislation since they know it will be futile, so long as the amendment remains on the book. Likewise, federal laws "chill[] or inhibit[] advocacy of [state] legislation" that would be preempted by those laws. State laws "chill[] or inhibit[] advocacy of [local] legislation" that would be preempted by those laws. (For instance, state marriage laws, which to my knowledge always set forth rules that apply throughout the state and leave no room for contrary local decisions, equally chill or inhibit advocacy of city- or county-level marriage laws.)

Of course, none of these laws or constitutional provisions violate the First Amendment; they don't keep people from expressing their ideas — they just make it harder for people to turn those ideas into law. That is the very purpose of constitutional constraints on legislation, and the purpose doesn't violate the First Amendment. But precisely the same is true about the Nebraska same-sex marriage amendment.

3. Intimate association: The Supreme Court has recognized that people have an unenumerated right to engage in intimate association — to make friends, to rear children, to live with relatives, and the like. The judge in this case argued that the Nebraska provision interfered with this right:

The amendment goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman. By its terms, Section 29 mandates that Nebraska will not recognize or give effect to “the uniting of two persons” in a same-sex relationship “similar to” marriage. This language, especially given the expansive reading it has been afforded in Nebraska, potentially prohibits or at least inhibits people, regardless of sexual preference, from entering into numerous relationships or living arrangements that could be interpreted as a same-sex relationship “similar to” marriage.

Many social or associational arrangements run the risk of running afoul of the broad prohibitions of Section 29. Among the threatened relationships would be those of roommates, co-tenants, foster parents, and related people who share living arrangements, expenses, custody of children, or ownership of property.

I'm not sure that the court is reading the amendment properly: Living together and sharing expenses (or even ownership of property) is not necessarily "the uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship" — the only legal relationships there are those of co-owners, which have never been seen as "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," or "same-sex relationships." (The matter might be somewhat different as to shared custody of children.)

But in any event, the amendment does not prohibit any cohabitation relationships — at most, it bars the government from giving them legal recognition as a "civil union," "domestic partnership," or "same-sex relationship." The right to intimate association does not include the right to have the government specially subsidize or recognize your intimate association. That's why, for instance, the law can give married people special benefits that single people lack. Your intimate association rights doubtless give you the constitutional right not to get married, but that doesn't mean the government has to give you as a single person the same subsidies and special legal privileges that it gives married people. (I will deal with the equality argument below, but for now my point is simply that there's no violation of intimate association rights here.)

The amendment might conceivably bar same-sex couples, as couples, from adopting children or having foster children. But the constitutional right to intimate association does not include the right to adopt or to have foster children.

4. Equal protection: The court holds that the Nebraska amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause, citing Romer v. Evans (1996). Here, it's argument is at least plausible: Romer struck down a Colorado amendment that prohibited all state and local bans on sexual orientation discrimination. I think Romer is wrong, badly reasoned, and vague in its implications; but, while it's impossible to tell for sure given Romer's vagueness, I think that Nebraska amendment is constitutional even under Romer.

Romer rested in large part on the conclusion that the Colorado amendment's "sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." The Colorado amendment's defenders urged that the amendment was needed to protect "other citizens' freedom of association, and in particular the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality"; and the Court did not condemn this interest. Rather, it concluded that "The breadth of the Amendment is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them," chiefly because the Colorado courts interpreted the amendment as being extremely broad, covering many situations where no private landlords or employers were involved (for instance, when the government created a nondiscrimination policy governing its own operations).

Here, the law leaves state and local government free to enact bans on sexual orientation discrimination in lots of contexts. The government only mandates that marriage and similar institutions be reserved for opposite-sex couples; and this mandate is closely tied to the government's desire to reserve the special benefits of marriage for that sort of relationship — a union of one man and one woman — that Nebraskans think is particularly valuable to society, and thus particularly worth fostering.

The test that Romer set forth was that the law must have a rational relationship to legitimate state interests, not the very demanding "strict scrutiny" test (which requires narrow tailoring to compelling state interests). This "rational basis" test is traditionally pretty deferential to the government; and while in Romer it wasn't applied with the normal deference, the Court's stress in Romer was simply that the law was so overinclusive relative to the interest in protecting associational freedom that it was irrationally broad. Here, the law is a much better fit with the government interest. And it seems to me (and, I'd wager, to the Supreme Court) that the government interest in promoting opposite-sex relationships as the best for society is indeed a legitimate interest, even if it's one that reasonable minds may differ about.

Nor is it right to argue, as the court does, that the law "goes so far beyond defining marriage that the court can only conclude that the intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus against [the] class [it affects]." First, the law doesn't go at all far beyond defining marriage; it clearly covers marriage and its modern equivalents and near-equivalents. It makes perfect sense that as new quasi-marriage statuses are set up to avoid the legal restrictions on marriage, voters would cover these quasi-marriages as well as traditional marriages.

Second, while the law does reflect a sense that same-sex unions are less worthy of public support than opposite-sex unions, the Court has never held that this view is impermissible. Most laws reflect the notion that some conduct is better than other conduct. Unless (and I'll get to this below) the court really is saying that it's unconstitutional "animus" to have marriage be opposite-sex-only — that is to say, unless the court believes that Nebraska has to recognize same-sex marriages — there's no unconstitutional animus in Nebraska voters' insisting that marriage be opposite-sex-only, rather than just leaving the matter to their representatives in the legislature.

Finally, note that the standard canon of interpreting statutes is that they must be interpreted to avoid constitutional problems, when such an interpretation is consistent with the language. For instance, if the court fears that reading the amendment broadly — for instance, covering co-tenancy contracts, or co-ownership arrangements, among romantically linked same-sex couples — would violate the Equal Protection Clause under Romer, then the court should read the amendment (quite plausibly) as not being that broad, and only covering marriages, statutory civil unions, or statutory domestic partnerships, not centuries-old generally applicable rules of contract and property law.

Judges should not choose the broadest interpretation of a statute and then strike the statute down because the interpretation they themselves chose was unconstitutionally broad. Thus, the judge's argument that "a domestic limited partnership" — a business entity — "composed of same-sex partners as defined in the Partnership Act could run afoul of [the Nebraska amendment] as it is written" is quite wrong. Reading the amendment as covering business partnerships that just happen to have partners of the same sex isn't even a particularly plausible reading of the amendment; and it certainly isn't the only or most plausible reading of the amendment. The judge must therefore choose the reading that is constitutionally permissible under Romer, rather than choosing an unnecessarily broad reading that would then lead him to strike the statute down.

5. Bill of Attainder Clause: The court also reasons that the law is an unconstitutional bill of attainder because it "inflict[s] punishment" on same-sex couples, because it's "directed at gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people and is intended to prohibit their political ability to effectuate changes opposed by the majority." That's quite mistaken, I think, for the reasons I mentioned as to the First Amendment — all state constitutional provisions, as well as federal laws that preempt state laws and state laws that preempt local laws, block some groups from enacting laws that they like.

State constitutional bans on polygamy block polygamists from enacting laws that they like. State bans on lotteries block lottery operators from enacting laws that they like. Some state criminal rights provisions block some tough-on-crime folks from enacting laws that they like.

Moreover, it's the nature of a democracy that the majority blocks "changes opposed by the majority." It may not block advocacy for such changes; but it can surely block such changes. And if the majority sufficiently opposes certain changes, it can block them at the state constitutional level rather than just at a state statutory level, or at a state statutory level rather than the local level. The whole point of state constitutions is for the statewide majority to prevent its representatives in the legislature (or voters or legislators in the state's political subunits) from enacting changes opposed by that statewide majority.

The prohibition on Bills of Attainder provision has never been read remotely as broadly as the court suggests; nor would it make any sense for it to be read this broadly.

6. But in any event — and here I return to what I said in point 1 — if the court is right about the Romer analysis, then it must be because there is no legitimate government interest in favoring opposite-sex long-term relationships over same-sex ones. Likewise, if the court is right about the intimate association analysis, then it must be because the right to intimate association guarantees same-sex couples the right to equal government benefits with opposite-sex married couples, rather than just a right to live together. And if the court is right about bills of attainder, then its analysis equally applies to state law rules that preempt contrary marriage provisions at the city level. (Imagine Portland or San Francisco trying to set up its own marriage rules, over the objections of the rest of Oregon or California.) And if that's so, then despite the court's protestations, its reasoning necessarily means that states are constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage (or, under the bill of attainder analysis, at least are required to let any locality recognize same-sex marriage).

So this isn't just a battle over state constitutional amendments, and what voters can do and what they must leave to the state legislature. The court's decision, if upheld, would be a Massachusetts Goodridge (or at least its Vermont civil-union cousin, Baker) for the whole nation. I don't think this is at all required by Romer, Lawrence v. Texas, or any other Supreme Court decision. I'm pretty sure that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse the decision; and if it doesn't, I'm pretty sure that the U.S. Supreme Court will — and should.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Like was mentioned earlier, how about segregation and Jim Crowe? IIRC, the majority of the US population supported both.

Unfortunately, your knowledge of history is lacking. The majority of the US population DID NOT support Jim Crow and it died of natural causes. Thank God.

[DenverChief]

On which part? The Rump Ranger part? The majority v. minority part or the France part? :p


All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Can ya guess who said it?

[Mr. Kotter]

it will never happen

You could be right--I sure wouldn't bet the farm on it happening; but we shall see....but the politics of the fight would condemn the Democratic party to a status as a long-standing minority party for a long, long time. For Republicans, that wouldn't be a bad consolation prize.

Race and taxes are beginning to wane as 'wedge' issues; they needed another anyway. Welcome to American politics.

[mlyonsd]

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Can ya guess who said it?

So, then it's ok for a guy to marry his sister, right? They are of course in the minority, lord knows I fought with my sister like cats and dogs. But who's to say they shouldn't be allowed to be married?

[DenverChief]

4. Equal protection: The court holds that the Nebraska amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause, citing Romer v. Evans (1996). Here, it's argument is at least plausible: Romer struck down a Colorado amendment that prohibited all state and local bans on sexual orientation discrimination. I think Romer is wrong, badly reasoned, and vague in its implications; but, while it's impossible to tell for sure given Romer's vagueness, I think that Nebraska amendment is constitutional even under Romer.


:spock:

[go bowe]

The Fat Lady ain't nowhere near singing....this is one court one judge. And if you are right and the SC buys it, then the amendment route becomes all the more likely....fat lady, huh?

one court, then another, then another, until the supremes rule on it (and don't forget, it was the supremes who decided romer and lawrence)...

and while the push for a federal constitutional amendment may gain some steam, i don't believe that it will ever be ratified, even if it gets passed in congress, which i seriously doubt will happen...

the fat lady may not be singing, but she's in her dressing room getting ready to sing... :p :p :p

[Donger]

Unfortunately, your knowledge of history is lacking. The majority of the US population DID NOT support Jim Crow and it died of natural causes. Thank God.

My apologies. I meant to say "in the South" by Jim Crow.

[DenverChief]

So, then it's ok for a guy to marry his sister, right? They are of course in the minority, lord knows I fought with my sister like cats and dogs. But who's to say they shouldn't be allowed to be married?


in some instances yes...it's not an always/everytime kinda thing but there are times when the minority has rights that the majority must respect...

[CHIEF4EVER]

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable

The will of the majority is in this case both reasonable and to be prevailed. The majority of Americans have spoken on this issue. Either get over it or move to France.

[Mr. Kotter]

...the fat lady may not be singing, but she's in her dressing room getting ready to sing... :p :p :p

Remember the consolation prize I pointed out to DC: Democrat support for gay rights in the fight that will ensue, will become the new wedge issue. It may relegate Democrats to a permanent minority party status--at least for years to come....used much the way race and taxes have been used for nearly 40 years by Republicans. They needed a new issue anyway; they are having it handed to them by the courts....

Nice consolation prize, for them....eh? :hmmm:

[Taco John]

It is NEVER acceptable for the majority mass of a Democracy to have to submit to the will of a minority of same said mass. If YOU don't like it there are PLENTY of countries that allow Rump Rangers to make policy decisions. Try France.


You have zero clue what your talking about.

[DenverChief]

The will of the majority is in this case both reasonable and to be prevailed. The majority of Americans have spoken on this issue. Either get over it or move to France.


Nah I'd rather stay here and make your life a living hell by living with my legally married homosexual partner whilst writing you speeding tickets because your in a hurry to get mexico to get away from me

[Taco John]

The Fat Lady ain't nowhere near singing....this is one court one judge. And if you are right and the SC buys it, then the amendment route becomes all the more likely....



Dude, it's going to happen. There's no way to stop it FROM happening. There is nothing in the Constitution that is going to allow for the prevention of two people to legally commit themselves to eachother and call it what they want to call it. There never will be.

[CHIEF4EVER]

You have zero clue what your talking about.

So you say; but you have no evidence to the contrary. Just your cockamamie opinion which has been proven time and again to be nonsense.

[Boozer]

On which part? The Rump Ranger part? The majority v. minority part or the France part? :p

You described a government of unlimited power. Wanna hold on to that farm of yours, that food, or that gun? Too bad, 51% of the population decided you shouldn't have any of that without sharing.

[mlyonsd]

in some instances yes...it's not an always/everytime kinda thing but there are times when the minority has rights that the majority must respect...

Well at least you're consistent, I'll give you that.

[DenverChief]

So you say; but you have no evidence to the contrary. Just your cockamamie opinion which has been proven time and again to be nonsense.


you really should invest in some college civics classes you are looking the fool today

[Taco John]

So you say; but you have no evidence to the contrary. Just your cockamamie opinion which has been proven time and again to be nonsense.



Dude, it's your cockamamie opinion here that is being blasted because you're working in absolutes. To say that the majority is always right over the minority, and it's NEVER a good idea to subvert the will of the majority is just plain stupid.

Look at the majority's music tastes for an example of why. The majority usually has it wrong.

[DenverChief]

Well at least you're consistent, I'll give you that.


heh ...it wasn't a yes answer to your question it was a yes answer to that sometimes the minority has rights that the majority must bend to...but not always ...as in the case of you marrying your sister.....people try to paint it as a black and white picture but there are shades of gray for sure

[CHIEF4EVER]

Nah I'd rather stay here and make your life a living hell by living with my legally married homosexual partner whilst writing you speeding tickets because your in a hurry to get mexico to get away from me

Let's see....I don't speed in my rig and I don't really care whether or nor not you suck cox....as long as you don't do it in front of my son. Give it your best shot champ.

[Taco John]

but you have no evidence to the contrary.


Every post in this thread (and others you've made on the topic) is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about with regards to politics... It's clear you hate gays. What's not clear is whether or not you understand how the constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority. Actually, I take that back. It's clear that you don't understand even the basics...

[DenverChief]

I don't really care whether or nor not you suck cox....

then why are you posting on this thread?

[CHIEF4EVER]

You described a government of unlimited power. Wanna hold on to that farm of yours, that food, or that gun? Too bad, 51% of the population decided you shouldn't have any of that without sharing.

Really? Please educate me oh wise and studious one how my farm and guns are endangered. I still have both and always will.

[go bowe]

then why are you posting on this thread?oh sure, make it all about you... :p :p :p

[DenverChief]

Really? Please educate me oh wise and studious one how my farm and guns are endangered. I still have both and always will.


ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

[DenverChief]

oh sure, make it all about you... :p :p :p

:)

[stevieray]

Dude, it's your cockamamie opinion here that is being blasted because you're working in absolutes. To say that the majority is always right over the minority, and it's NEVER a good idea to subvert the will of the majority is just plain stupid.

Look at the majority's music tastes for an example of why. The majority usually has it wrong.

so, the majority is wrong about murder? and rape? and child molesters?

DC stated in some instances, it's ok to marry your sister, does that mean incest is ok?

alot of people who commit major crimes don't feel remorse...as shown by the return to prison numbers.... some even enjoy it...who are we to tell them that what they are doing is wrong?

[CHIEF4EVER]

Every post in this thread (and others you've made on the topic) is evidence that you don't know what you're talking about with regards to politics... It's clear you hate gays. What's not clear is whether or not you understand how the constitution was written to protect the minority from the majority. Actually, I take that back. It's clear that you don't understand even the basics...
Actually, I know a great deal about politics and that drives you nuts. I don't hate gays (another misnomer) I hate the sin but love the sinner. A Homosexual is no less a person than I am but it is the conduct of the person which I dislike. If a homo desires to be a homo, nothing against that...just don't expect me to be understanding where it affects my family.

[Amnorix]

Not a bad idea; let's solve the issue here...:thumb:

to decide whether or not the push for a Constitutional amendment is really necessary. :)

Actually, the SC can't overturn the Massachusetts SC ruling as that was bsaed on STATE constitutional grounds, and the SC has no jurisidiction ro authority with respect to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Here, a FEDERAL judge is saying that the FEDERAL Constitution prohibits a state from banning gay marriage. That is absolutely within the SC's purview to overturn (8th Circuit may beat them to it, of course).

[Mr. Kotter]

Actually, the SC can't overturn the Massachusetts SC ruling as that was bsaed on STATE constitutional grounds, and the SC has no jurisidiction ro authority with respect to the Massachusetts Constitution.

Here, a FEDERAL judge is saying that the FEDERAL Constitution prohibits a state from banning gay marriage. That is absolutely within the SC's purview to overturn (8th Circuit may beat them to it, of course).

Roe vs. Wade overturned state abortion laws.... :hmmm:

[Baby Lee]

So, then it's ok for a guy to marry his sister, right? They are of course in the minority, lord knows I fought with my sister like cats and dogs. But who's to say they shouldn't be allowed to be married?
Denver Chief's standard is known. Two or more living homo sapiens can announce their unity for whatever purpose they wish, and the state must recognize that announcement.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Roe vs. Wade overturned state abortion laws.... :hmmm:

Whatever you do, don't bring logic into this discussion..........:shake:

[Amnorix]

It is NEVER acceptable for the majority mass of a Democracy to have to submit to the will of a minority of same said mass.

This is both factually and conceptually inaccurate in the United States, both on the day the Constitution was ratified and today.

I'll give you one perfect example: The KKK marching in certain parades. Although damn near everybody objects to it, the First Amendment grants freedom of speech rights to the KKK, and so whether the majority likes it or not, they have the right to go out there and march and say whatever stupid-ass ridiculous things they plan to babble about

[DenverChief]

DC stated in some instances, it's ok to marry your sister, does that mean incest is ok?



I knew that would be taken out of context...in some instances the majority must bend to the will/rights of the minority...but not always

[mlyonsd]

heh ...it wasn't a yes answer to your question it was a yes answer to that sometimes the minority has rights that the majority must bend to...but not always ...as in the case of you marrying your sister.....people try to paint it as a black and white picture but there are shades of gray for sure

All I'm saying is I don't see marrying your sister and different then marrying someone of the same sex.

[CHIEF4EVER]

This is both factually and conceptually inaccurate in the United States, both on the day the Constitution was ratified and today.

I'll give you one perfect example: The KKK marching in certain parades. Although damn near everybody objects to it, the First Amendment grants freedom of speech rights to the KKK, and so whether the majority likes it or not, they have the right to go out there and march and say whatever stupid-ass ridiculous things they plan to babble about

Except that the morons parading such tripe have the right to do so. However, they DON'T have the right to impose their views on the majority.

[Amnorix]

Dude, it's going to happen. There's no way to stop it FROM happening. There is nothing in the Constitution that is going to allow for the prevention of two people to legally commit themselves to eachother and call it what they want to call it. There never will be.

I'm not too worked about this either way, but you're flat wrong on this. The SC could rule that there is no Constitutional protection for this, and that the 10th Amendment (which is but a truism, until lately anyway) reserves to the states the right to determine what is/isn't marriage under local laws.

I know Romer and other cases may make that a more difficult decision to reach, but all it takes is 5....

[Amnorix]

Roe vs. Wade overturned state abortion laws.... :hmmm:


The Constitution establishes a floor, not a ceiling, on rights.

[DenverChief]

Roe vs. Wade overturned state abortion laws.... :hmmm:


Based upon the federal constitution and the right to privacy ...the mass ruling was based upon the mass constitution to which the supreme court has no authority to rule on unless some issue within the federal constitution is brought against that ruling

[DenverChief]

The Constitution establishes a floor, not a ceiling, on rights.
:) :thumb:

[Amnorix]

Whatever you do, don't bring logic into this discussion..........:shake:


I welcome logic, when it's correct. In this case you guys don't understand one of hte fundamental tenets of the federalist system we have.

A state can declare that capital punishment is unconstitutional in THAT state only, based on its own state's constitution. The feds could NOT overturn that decision.

The SC could declare that capital punishment is unconstitutional in EVERY state.

The SC could **NOT** declare that capital punishment IS constitutional in every state.

The Constitution establishes a floor of rights for individuals, not a ceiling. The SC tells us where the floor is. It cannot tell us where the ceiling is.

[DenverChief]

All I'm saying is I don't see marrying your sister and different then marrying someone of the same sex.


then we disagree

[Mr. Kotter]

The Constitution establishes a floor, not a ceiling, on rights.

So the ceiling they've begun placing on abortion (state imposed restrictions permissable,) and on affirmative action (can't be overly broad) are then unconstitutional in your view?

[DenverChief]

Except that the morons parading such tripe have the right to do so. However, they DON'T have the right to impose their views on the majority.


that makes absolutly no sense...you sure you don't want to amend that statement?

[Baby Lee]

then we disagree
That;
1. Runs counter to your prior statements
2. Needs explanation.

[Mr. Kotter]

Based upon the federal constitution and the right to privacy ...the mass ruling was based upon the mass constitution to which the supreme court has no authority to rule on unless some issue within the federal constitution is brought against that ruling

And you don't think creative lawyering can make a federal case out of this? :hmmm:

[Donger]

then we disagree

Care to elaborate?

[DenverChief]

That;
1. Runs counter to your prior statements
2. Needs explanation.

it has never run counter to any of my prior statements...I don't think marrying a blood relative is in the same vein as marrying a non blood relative

[alnorth]

There's one important detail that has been left out of this discussion.

The main reason the Nebraska Constitutional amendment was tossed was because it did not stop at gay marriage, which probably would have been fine. It also forbade domestic partnerships, civil unions, EVERYTHING.

Very few states go so far as to forbid civil unions, most states just say you cant have a gay marriage, but will define a few legal parameters for a civil union to give most of the same rights as a marriage.

This is a very clear case of equal protection here. If you want to forbid gay marriage, fine. But you have to give them most of the same legal benefits of marriage, and any benifit you dont want to give has to be justified. For example, you need to give gay couples the ability to see each other in hospital situations like regular married couples can in those cases when everyone else but the spouse is shut out. You need to give them the same tax benifits, the same inheritance benifits, etc.

If you want to forbid gay couples from adopting you can probably make a legal arguement for that by saying a kid needs a man and a woman to be raised in a healthy home, etc etc etc, but the rest of the benefits I outlined above, if you give them to married couples and forbid them to gay couples, thats a very clear equal protection violation in the constitution.

Most gay marriage bans DO NOT violate this equal protection clause because they allow for civil unions or some other legal construct. Nebraska decided to forbid even this, and that was illegal according to the constitution. If you dont like it, you need to amend the constitution to say that the equal protection clause applies in all the normal situations it applies now, except for gay marriage being the only exception.

[CHIEF4EVER]

I welcome logic, when it's correct. In this case you guys don't understand one of hte fundamental tenets of the federalist system we have.

A state can declare that capital punishment is unconstitutional in THAT state only, based on its own state's constitution. The feds could NOT overturn that decision.

The SC could declare that capital punishment is unconstitutional in EVERY state.

The SC could **NOT** declare that capital punishment IS constitutional in every state.

The Constitution establishes a floor of rights for individuals, not a ceiling. The SC tells us where the floor is. It cannot tell us where the ceiling is.

The feds, however, can declare that Capital punishment IS constitutional in every state but it is up to the state to decide if it is constitutional for THEM.

[DenverChief]

And you don't think creative lawyering can make a federal case out of this? :hmmm:

They already tried and the feds rejected it remember?

[Mr. Kotter]

then we disagree

If we allow this as a Constitutional matter to proceed on this road, it is FOOLISHNESS to deny that on at least several other issues ....
prostitution, polygamy, and incest among the most innocuous, there will be significant debate.

[Donger]

it has never run counter to any of my prior statements...I don't think marrying a blood relative is in the same vein as marrying a non blood relative

So, some deviant behavior is less palatable for you than others?

[DenverChief]

incest

I disagree on this...prostitution...eh who cares...same with polygammy....incest is a whole nother animal

[mlyonsd]

I knew that would be taken out of context...in some instances the majority must bend to the will/rights of the minority...but not always

Well if you don't think a guy should be able to marry his sister then you have no basis for your argument.

[Mr. Kotter]

They already tried and the feds rejected it remember?

So it can't be done? Federalism? Full-Faith-and-credit, and exceptions to it.....I'm no lawyer, but I guarantee the wheels will be turning. Guess we'll see.

[CHIEF4EVER]

that makes absolutly no sense...you sure you don't want to amend that statement?

Read it again genius. It simply says that the KKK or the LMNOP or whoever has the right to spout tripe whenever they wish to do so. However, this does NOT give them the right to IMPOSE their WILL on the majority if they feel like it. Clear that up a bit did I?

[Mr. Kotter]

I disagree on this...prostitution...eh who cares...same with polygammy....incest is a whole nother animal

In YOUR opinion.

Incest (fine, sterilized first to avoid the argument) is right down this alley.

[DenverChief]

So, some deviant behavior is less palatable for you than others?


yes of course but I'm not advocating a constitutional ban on brother/sister realtionships either......

[DenverChief]

Well if you don't think a guy should be able to marry his sister then you have no basis for your argument.



how so?

[Mr. Kotter]

it has never run counter to any of my prior statements...I don't think marrying a blood relative is in the same vein as marrying a non blood relative

So now you are the self-righteous one who gets to establish the NEW standard for deviancy?

[Donger]

yes of course but I'm not advocating a constitutional ban on brother/sister realtionships either......

Would you be if those loving fraternal couples pushed for legal marriage?

[alnorth]

The feds, however, can declare that Capital punishment IS constitutional in every state but it is up to the state to decide if it is constitutional for THEM.

Your confused.

The issue in your example is the prisoner's right to not be executed. The feds could say that this right exists, which gets rid of the death penalty. Or the feds could say this right doesnt necessarily exist, and the states would then have to decide if they want to give a right to not be executed.

The feds can not tell the states that they must deny this right.

Likewise, the feds could say that gay couples have a right to be married. OR, they could say that this right doesnt necessarily exist and the states have to decide to give this right or not. The feds CANT order states to ban gay marriage. (unless its in the constitution.)

In this case, the feds have not given a right to gay marriage, but they HAVE given a right to a lesser form of marriage, which is civil unions that can contain some or all of the legal benifits of marriage without actually being marriage. The feds have said this lesser right does exist, so the states cant deny it.

[DenverChief]

In YOUR opinion. Incest (fine, sterilized first to avoid the argument) is right down this alley.


no becasue incest involves a child....I don't think relations between adult blood relatives is against the law (*warning* may vary from state to state)

[Baby Lee]

it has never run counter to any of my prior statements...I don't think marrying a blood relative is in the same vein as marrying a non blood relative
Im' not going to track it down, but you know I posed this question in a structured manner, and you said you couldn't think of any other constraints than two or more human individuals and a pulse for each of them.

[DenverChief]

Have fun fellas I have to git to werk :)

[ENDelt260]

Does DenverChief believe Psicosis can go f*ck himself?

[alnorth]

However, this does NOT give them the right to IMPOSE their WILL on the majority if they feel like it.

What the hell are you talking about?

Dude, "imposeing" your beliefs doesnt legally exist as a possibility. Even if we wanted to give them the right to "impose" their beliefs, how would this be done? Have the government force everyone to watch a KKK TV program once a month? In that case, its not the KKK its the government, and we are forced to dip into the realm of the rediculous to find any way your counterexample makes any sence. How do you "impose" you opinion on someone, you either listen or ignore it.

Your attempt at a counter-example utterly fails to support your arguement.

[mlyonsd]

how so?

Because the same protections you feel the constitution affords gays, equality, pursuit of happiness, etc. then have to be true for everyone.

Regardless of who they want to marry. I'm serious about this. If states are not allowed to write their own laws on what marriage is then any two people, doesn't matter what their relationship is, will have the same right.

Unless of course you want to discriminate. See what I mean?

[Mr. Kotter]

no becasue incest involves a child....I don't think relations between adult blood relatives is against the law (*warning* may vary from state to state)

How about if they agree to sterilization?

The state had better stay the hell out of the way, no.....right? To be consistent you would have to consent. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

[Donger]

Does DenverChief believe Psicosis can go f*ck himself?

"Herself," you insensitive prick.

[Amnorix]

So the ceiling they've begun placing on abortion (state imposed restrictions permissable,) and on affirmative action (can't be overly broad) are then unconstitutional in your view?

Those aren't ceilings. Saying a state can lower the floor isn't establishing a ceiling.

It's also possible, of course, for a constitutional right to be limited or qualified in some way for some reason, most usually because it conflicts with another right, or is subject to an overriding public policy concern.

The right to freedom of speech doesn't permit one to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. The right to freedom of assembly doesn't permit 100 people to shut down traffic on an expressway by lying down across it as a human roadblock. etc. etc.

[alnorth]

Because the same protections you feel the constitution affords gays, equality, pursuit of happiness, etc. then have to be true for everyone.

Regardless of who they want to marry. I'm serious about this. If states are not allowed to write their own laws on what marriage is then any two people, doesn't matter what their relationship is, will have the same right.

Unless of course you want to discriminate. See what I mean?

Theoretically yes, we could allow the right to incestuous marriage, etc. We could allow the right to murder if we wanted.

The fed court can not BAN this right unless they pass a law, this is nothing new. The feds have said these rights do not exist, and its up to the states to give or deny this right.

In gay marriage, the feds have said that the right to gay marriage doesnt exist (as of now). However, the feds have said that the right to a lesser form of "marriage" such as civil unions does exist, so if a state wants to ban gay marriage, they must at a minimum allow a lesser unequal form of marriage that give3s most of the legal benefits of marriage.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Your confused.

The issue in your example is the prisoner's right to not be executed. The feds could say that this right exists, which gets rid of the death penalty. Or the feds could say this right doesnt necessarily exist, and the states would then have to decide if they want to give a right to not be executed.

The feds can not tell the states that they must deny this right.

Likewise, the feds could say that gay couples have a right to be married. OR, they could say that this right doesnt necessarily exist and the states have to decide to give this right or not. The feds CANT order states to ban gay marriage. (unless its in the constitution.)

In this case, the feds have not given a right to gay marriage, but they HAVE given a right to a lesser form of marriage, which is civil unions that can contain some or all of the legal benifits of marriage without actually being marriage. The feds have said this lesser right does exist, so the states cant deny it.

Horseshite. The feds say simply that it is not aginst the federal law to execute prisoners. They are not saying it is MANDANTORY.

[mlyonsd]

Would you be if those loving fraternal couples pushed for legal marriage?

Exactly, you get my point. Once it's determined a state can't make up their own laws regarding the definition of marriage Katie bar the door, you're going to see some really wierd chit happen.

[Amnorix]

Except that the morons parading such tripe have the right to do so. However, they DON'T have the right to impose their views on the majority.

Again, I'm somewhat ambivalent about the final outcome in THIS case, but your rationale is wrong. Striking down a a state law is ALWAYS going to "impose" the minority's views on a majority's if you look at it that way.

Permitting gays to marry doesn't "impose their views on the majority" any more than permitting blacks to enter a food establishment or sit in the front of the bus, or permitting the KKK to walk in the parade.

It's not like because gays can marry, heterosexuals can't.

[alnorth]

So the ceiling they've begun placing on abortion (state imposed restrictions permissable,) and on affirmative action (can't be overly broad) are then unconstitutional in your view?

In your example, its the right of an individual to have an abortion thats the issue, not the "state's right to ban abortion". You have to define right in a way that enhances someone's ability to do something. In this case the feds say this right exists so states cant remove it. However, the feds could set this right anywhere they want, to either be absolute (its legal in any circumstances and methods, period end of discussion) or the feds can set the right to be conditional (parental notification is fine, partial birth abortion is bad if that law passes). Wherever the feds set it, the states cant lower the floor.

On affirmative action, again you define it as the individual's right to have racial and gender preferences, not a "state's right to limit affirmative action." The feds set the floor, the states can place the right on that floor, or raise it.

[Amnorix]

The feds, however, can declare that Capital punishment IS constitutional in every state but it is up to the state to decide if it is constitutional for THEM.


errr...sort of right, but phrased poorly. Again, the Federal Constitution establishes a floor of rights below which the states may not go below. It does not establish a ceiling, and the states are allowed to GIVE ADDITIONAL rights.

That is why the federal courts could not strike down the Massachusetts gay marriage ruling by the Mass. SC.

[stevieray]

no becasue incest involves a child....

not limited to children, incest is sexuial relations with a relative.

wouldn't just children be molestation?

[alnorth]

Horseshite. The feds say simply that it is not aginst the federal law to execute prisoners. They are not saying it is MANDANTORY.

No sh*t, Sherlock. What did you think I said?

[Amnorix]

Read it again genius. It simply says that the KKK or the LMNOP or whoever has the right to spout tripe whenever they wish to do so. However, this does NOT give them the right to IMPOSE their WILL on the majority if they feel like it. Clear that up a bit did I?

Actually, no.

You need to clarify what the heck you mean by "impose their will". Either it doesn't mean what you think it means, or you're just throwing it around because it sounds impressive or something. Please clarify exactly what you mean, and tell me what the diffierence is between this case and the cases involving striking down separate but equal laws, or the right of the KKK to march.

[alnorth]

Exactly, you get my point. Once it's determined a state can't make up their own laws regarding the definition of marriage Katie bar the door, you're going to see some really wierd chit happen.

Again, the feds set the floor of where our rights must be at a bare minimum, and the states can then follow that minimum, or give extra rights.

This isnt a new concept. If the feds decide to allow brother-sister marriage, then it would be up to the states to set the right at the fed-defined floor and expand on it if they wish to give more rights. Thats obviously never going to happen, but it theoretically could.

[Donger]

DenverChief has already admitted that some deviant behavior (such as incest) is less palatable to him than others, so we at least know that he ain't banging his brother.

[Amnorix]

How about if they agree to sterilization?

The state had better stay the hell out of the way, no.....right? To be consistent you would have to consent. Otherwise, you are being hypocritical.

Actually, I have no problem with incestuous marriage if sterilization is required before-hand. :shrug:

And I also favor legalizing prostitution (legalize and tax it), and most other morality laws, for the record.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Likewise, the feds could say that gay couples have a right to be married. OR, they could say that this right doesnt necessarily exist and the states have to decide to give this right or not. The feds CANT order states to ban gay marriage. (unless its in the constitution.)

In this case, the feds have not given a right to gay marriage, but they HAVE given a right to a lesser form of marriage, which is civil unions that can contain some or all of the legal benifits of marriage without actually being marriage. The feds have said this lesser right does exist, so the states cant deny it.


Really? How so? Has the fed given an ultimatum that civil unions among fags is acceptable or are you reading into it a bit?

[Amnorix]

Horseshite. The feds say simply that it is not aginst the federal law to execute prisoners. They are not saying it is MANDANTORY.

What Al North said is precisely correct. What you just said in response is pretty much nonsensical since, whether you know it or not, you're pretty much agreeing with him.

[Baby Lee]

I wonder how this'll effect the legality of Peyote consumption in the future. Some religions get to do it because it's a religious rite. Under the reasoning I'm seeing, I should get equal protection to puff up with inpugnity even if I don't hold those religious views.

[Donger]

Actually, I have no problem with incestuous marriage if sterilization is required before-hand.

What about homosexual incestous marriage? Huh!?

[alnorth]

Really? How so? Has the fed given an ultimatum that civil unions among fags is acceptable or are you reading into it a bit?

I got a simple question.

If we had civil unions where gay couples got tax benefits, emergency benefits, and inheritance benefits similar to traditional marriage, how would that hurt anyone else?

Adopting kids I'll give you, well assume thats a negotiable issue from state to state or whatever to get it off the table, but the rest is just a bunch of paperwork and a small insignificant amount of money changing hands.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Actually, no.

You need to clarify what the heck you mean by "impose their will". Either it doesn't mean what you think it means, or you're just throwing it around because it sounds impressive or something. Please clarify exactly what you mean, and tell me what the diffierence is between this case and the cases involving striking down separate but equal laws, or the right of the KKK to march.

OK, for the New Englanders lacking in comprehension....I can go public and say I hate Red Balloons. I have the right to march against Red Balloons but when voting time comes the MAJORITY will decide if Red Balloons are acceptable to the masses or not. I have to live with that decision.

[stevieray]

Actually, I have no problem with incestuous marriage if sterilization is required before-hand. :shrug:



:shake:

once again, sex is more important than the design or responsibility.

next up, beastiality.

[Baby Lee]

What about homosexual incestous marriage? Huh!?
I asked this in a more structured setting before, but the search Fx isn't picking it up.

Why not two buddies getting married for the civil benefits, simply because they're greedy buggers.

Why not two total strangers, perhaps in different towns or states, getting married for the same reason?

Do we have any right to pry into the legitimacy of marriages entered into for citizenship purposes?

How about scouring the rolls of those who died intestate, and marrying them after death?

I'm not making value judgements on any of this. I'm simply stymied by a lack of coherent thought on what markers we expect to signify a legitimate union.

Love, cohabitation, respect, a pulse, gender, reproductive capacity, commitment?


What do we expect of a legitimate union.

[alnorth]

OK, for the New Englanders lacking in comprehension....I can go public and say I hate Red Balloons. I have the right to march against Red Balloons but when voting time comes the MAJORITY will decide if Red Balloons are acceptable to the masses or not. I have to live with that decision.

Great. So how does this have ANYTHING to do with your point in any way, shape, or fashion?

This has utterly nothing to do with the feds setting the floor for our rights, but not setting a ceiling (unless its specifically their in the constitution or allowed by the constitution.)

You brought this silly impose your will thing up as a counter-arguement to say that the feds could set ceiling rights but choose not to in some cases.

How is this setting a ceiling on rights?

We asked you "whats imposing your will". In other words, lets pretend that tomorrow imposing your will were made legal. What exactly would the KKK do with their new right that they arent doing now? After we find out what you mean by "imposing your will", then we can talk about whether it makes any sence to your arguement or not.

[mlyonsd]

Again, the feds set the floor of where our rights must be at a bare minimum, and the states can then follow that minimum, or give extra rights.

This isnt a new concept. If the feds decide to allow brother-sister marriage, then it would be up to the states to set the right at the fed-defined floor and expand on it if they wish to give more rights. Thats obviously never going to happen, but it theoretically could.

I agree with all of that. I was just trying to point out to DC that he was being hypocritical in his thinking.

[Saggysack]

I wonder how this'll effect the legality of Peyote consumption in the future. Some religions get to do it because it's a religious rite. Under the reasoning I'm seeing, I should get equal protection to puff up with inpugnity even if I don't hold those religious views.

Peyotism. Now that would be fun....not. I don't want to have to sit around and wait for a cactus to mature in 10yrs.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, don't Rastafarians fall under the 'religious rite' dealio with marijuana?

[Donger]

I got a simple question.

If we had civil unions where gay couples got tax benefits, emergency benefits, and inheritance benefits similar to traditional marriage, how would that hurt anyone else?

Personally, I think that allowing homosexuals to marry raises their unions to a level equal to heterosexual couples.

[CHIEF4EVER]

What Al North said is precisely correct. What you just said in response is pretty much nonsensical since, whether you know it or not, you're pretty much agreeing with him.Wait, wait. What Al North said is CORRECT but because I AGREED with him what I said is nonsensical because I AGREED with him? ROFL

[alnorth]

Why not two total strangers, perhaps in different towns or states, getting married for the same reason?

Actually, according to my brother from the army, this happens all the time with traditional marriage because the army gives a disproportionately HUGE benifit and pay increase to married soldiers. So a male and female soldier who may or may not have even ever had sex and never intend to get romantic, and are just friends can get married for the monetary benefit, live together or not, and promptly divorce when one of them leaves the service. This apparently happens a lot.

[alnorth]

Wait, wait. What Al North said is CORRECT but because I AGREED with him what I said is nonsensical because I AGREED with him? ROFL

no, he was basically mocking you because you thought you were disagreeing with me and somehow damaging my arguement, when you actually did neither.

[CHIEF4EVER]

no, he was basically mocking you because you thought you were disagreeing with me and somehow damaging my arguement, when you actually did neither.
Whatever champ. Bottom line is this....you can bidge about whatever you want but when it is voting time the will of the masses will prevail. Get used to it or find another country to live in.

[Amnorix]

Again, the feds set the floor of where our rights must be at a bare minimum, and the states can then follow that minimum, or give extra rights.

This isnt a new concept. If the feds decide to allow brother-sister marriage, then it would be up to the states to set the right at the fed-defined floor and expand on it if they wish to give more rights. Thats obviously never going to happen, but it theoretically could.

Actually, so far as I know, incestuous marriage isn't unconstitutional, either under federal or state constutitons or any constitutional ruling ever passed. It's "just" illegal in every state.

[CHIEF4EVER]

Actually, so far as I know, incestuous marriage isn't unconstitutional, either under federal or state constutitons or any constitutional ruling ever passed. It's "just" illegal in every state.

Maybe because every state still has morals to some degree and the masses find it unacceptable.

[alnorth]

Whatever champ. Bottom line is this....you can bidge about whatever you want but when it is voting time the will of the masses will prevail. Get used to it or find another country to live in.

I dont have a dog in this fight. I am not gay. Actually, I am very leery about allowing gay couples to adopt kids, and if the courts told me that gay couples must be allowed to adopt, I would strongly support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Remove that sticking point, and I really dont care one way or another.

What I do care about, very deeply, is the rule of law and how our legal system works. Regardless of my personal beliefs, even if I find myself reluctantly argueing in a way that is contrary to my personal beliefs, I still support the constitution and the requirement that if you want to change the law of the land, you must go through a set procedure.

We probably arent that far apart on the issue at hand. However, the law is the law, this is a very crystal-clear equal protection violation, and the only way around it is a constitutional ban, unless you want to accept a compromise allowing civil unions, from which we could possibly remove those rights we are uncomfortable with legal justification, like adoption.

[Hydrae]

I will never understand what is so scary about affording rights to a small subset of society that the rest of society enjoys. Or rather, why it is so important to deny those rights based on an arbitrary "moral" line.

And yes, I have no problem with relatives having a relationship either. I don't approve on a personal basis but that does not give me the right to tell others how to live their lives. Sure doesn't have any affect on me and my life.

[alnorth]

Actually, so far as I know, incestuous marriage isn't unconstitutional, either under federal or state constutitons or any constitutional ruling ever passed. It's "just" illegal in every state.

Yep, your right, I just caught this.

The feds cant outlaw incestuous marriage unless the constitution allows for the ban.

The states however can say that the right to a brother-sister relationship doesnt exist, UNLESS the feds require the right to exist.

[Donger]

I will never understand what is so scary about affording equal rights to a small, unnatural subset of society that the rest of natural society enjoys.

Fixed your post, which should answer your question.

[go bowe]

I wonder how this'll effect the legality of Peyote consumption in the future. Some religions get to do it because it's a religious rite. Under the reasoning I'm seeing, I should get equal protection to puff up with inpugnity even if I don't hold those religious views.unless i'm mistaken, one does not puff peyote...

but, personally i would be in favor of legalizing peyote and all other drugs, with regulation akin to prescriptions or at least the way alcohol is handled in utah (if it hasn't changed since i was there in '84)...

but i don't view it as an equal protection issue...

more of a "privacy" right perhaps, in the sense that what consenting adults do in terms of their sexual life and personal life is pretty much their own business as long as it doesn't harm another person's life or property...

jmo, of course...

[ENDelt260]

I wonder how this'll effect the legality of Peyote consumption in the future. Some religions get to do it because it's a religious rite. Under the reasoning I'm seeing, I should get equal protection to puff up with inpugnity even if I don't hold those religious views.
You're hired.

[ENDelt260]

:shake:

once again, sex is more important than the design or responsibility.

next up, beastiality.
Fido can't consent.

[alnorth]

Fixed your post, which should answer your question.

If you want to deny a right that another person enjoys, thats not automatically illegal, we have unequal rights all over the law books.

However, you must have a legal justification for it. Like maybe a small business gets a big tax break, and the big business gets none. Justification: the benifits of encouraging competition has a large impact to our society and outweighs the infringed rights of the big business to have an equal tax break.

Example 2: ensuring that children do not grow up in a gay household is required for their own good or whatever. (youll need to be able to justify this to a court's satisfaction) and the benifit to the child outweighs the infringed rights of the gay couple.

You CANT say "we give the right to marriage to male-female couples and ban it for gay couples" Justification: just because. If your justification for infringing a right is arbitrary, then it invokes equal protection. (I may not have gotten this 100% correct, any lawyers are welcome to correct me)

[Amnorix]

Wait, wait. What Al North said is CORRECT but because I AGREED with him what but what I said is nonsensical because I AGREED with him? ROFL


It's nonsensical when you say "Horseshite, [I completely agree with you]."

[Hydrae]

Fixed your post, which should answer your question.


Maybe we need to revisit the thread about the pheremone testing to determine what is natural and what is not.

Homosexuality has been with humans at least as long as we have had written history. How can it not be "natural"? Perhaps a mutation or whatever but that doesn't make it unnatural.

[stevieray]

I will never understand what is so scary about affording rights to a small subset of society that the rest of society enjoys. Or rather, why it is so important to deny those rights based on an arbitrary "moral" line.

And yes, I have no problem with relatives having a relationship either. I don't approve on a personal basis but that does not give me the right to tell others how to live their lives. Sure doesn't have any affect on me and my life.

is it fair to say that somewhere, someone is being raped or murdered and it's not affecting my life? does that mean it's ok?

[RaiderH8r]

I will never understand what is so scary about affording rights to a small subset of society that the rest of society enjoys. Or rather, why it is so important to deny those rights based on an arbitrary "moral" line.

And yes, I have no problem with relatives having a relationship either. I don't approve on a personal basis but that does not give me the right to tell others how to live their lives. Sure doesn't have any affect on me and my life.
NAMBLA mean anything to you? And of course you don't have a problem with inbreeding..... :rolleyes:

[|Zach|]

Nah I'd rather stay here and make your life a living hell by living with my legally married homosexual partner whilst writing you speeding tickets because your in a hurry to get mexico to get away from me

ha

[CHIEF4EVER]

is it fair to say that somewhere, someone is being raped or murdered and it's not affecting my life? does that mean it's ok?


Exactly SR. :thumb:

[stevieray]

Fido can't consent.

Prove it.

[Saggysack]

Prove it.


take a poll

[stevieray]

take a poll

I'd bet there are dogs with people on film.

.

[KCN]

is it fair to say that somewhere, someone is being raped or murdered and it's not affecting my life? does that mean it's ok?

It affects somebody. The person being raped.

Gay marriage has a negative effect on no one. Pretty simple.

[stevieray]

It affects somebody. The person being raped.

Gay marriage has a negative effect on no one. Pretty simple.

he didn't say somebody, he said himself.

does a son getting married to man affect a mother wanting granchildren? have relationships been hurt or destroyed over a son being homosexual...just like drugs would? would gay divorce have a negative impact on anyone?

Be careful for what you wish for....Gays getting married aren't immune from affecting others, just like everyone else.

[1punkyQB]

Fido can't consent.
One could argue that if the dog isn't running away, that qualifies as consent. Non-consent would be a bite on a sensitive area. You could also train the dog to nod its head up and down to certain questions and get consent that way.

[Hydrae]

It affects somebody. The person being raped.

Gay marriage has a negative effect on no one. Pretty simple.

Thank you. Like you said, pretty simple.

[KCN]

he didn't say sombody, he said himself.

Still, you get the point.

[|Zach|]

Amazing, C4E makes it sound like letting two consenting adults share the same beneftis he has that love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together is somehow having his will imposed upon.

I fail to see how this could affect the day to day life of anyone unless you choose to make it change you.

How insecure would you have to be in your way of life to think that way. You are not being forced into a homosexual relationship. You can still hold to your belief that homosexuality is wrong. Thats your right to believe what you like and teach your family as you see fit.

You make it sound like you are going to be forced into a homosexual relationship.

It is incredible.

This is a great country I live in where people are free to do and live their lives as they wish. If (and I believe when) more widespread gay marriage or civil unions are allowed this will still be a great country where people are free to live their lives as they please.

[stevieray]

Still, you get the point.
reread my post.

[KCN]

does a son getting married to man affect a mother wanting granchildren?would gay divorce have a negative impact on anyone?

Be careful for what you wish for....Gays getting married aren't immune from affecting others, just like everyone else.

As if the son would be having children if gay marriage were not legal?

If your only concern is to provide couples with grandchildren, keep gay adoption legal and problem solved.

Gay divorce affects people worse than straight divorce how?

EDITED out putting words in your mouth.

[stevieray]

As if the son would be having children if gay marriage were not legal?

By this logic, it should be illegal to marry a barren woman.

If your only concern is to provide couples with grandchildren, keep gay adoption legal and problem solved.

Gay divorce affects people worse than straight divorce how?

You are playing semantics..Can a relationship with parents be affected or not?

I never stated worse ( victim card?)

Is anyone affected by a gay divorce?

[RaiderH8r]

How does this play with those that believe in polygamy? Should that too be considered as a viable option?

[Hydrae]

NAMBLA mean anything to you? And of course you don't have a problem with inbreeding..... :rolleyes:


I believe it is called a marriage contract. I also believe that children under the age of 18 (in most states) can not legally enter into a contract. I can not legally have sex with someone under the age of consent regardless of the sex of the child in question.

Inbreeding is counterproductive but then again, from a procreation perspective, so is homsexuality.

[Hydrae]

How does this play with those that believe in polygamy? Should that too be considered as a viable option?


Honestly, why not? If some guy really wants to come home from work to having multiple women nagging him, that is his problem.

[KCN]

Can a relationship with parents be affected or not?

No.

Please explain if you see it differently.

[1punkyQB]

Prostitution and polygamy don't hurt anyone either. Besides, if you allow that, I'd say we owe the Mormons an apology. Whatever their religious beliefs, the US gov't said no dice to polygamy.

[stevieray]

No.


I'd think it's fair to say people around you or close to you are effected by your actions.

not once did I say it was wrong, just that it exists.

Gay divorce?

[RaiderH8r]

I believe it is called a marriage contract. I also believe that children under the age of 18 (in most states) can not legally enter into a contract. I can not legally have sex with someone under the age of consent regardless of the sex of the child in question.

Inbreeding is counterproductive but then again, from a procreation perspective, so is homsexuality.
The NAMBLA comment was in response to the statement that if it didn't effect you than who are you to say what people should do with their lives. I think you're already working to address that with other posters so I'll leave it.

Since you have recognized the counterproductive nature of both inbreeding and homosexuality are you willing to accept the premise that sexual intercourse, in it's most basic function, is designed for procreation? And if that is the case is there not some standing in taking the position that procreation is different from recreation? Meaning that heterosexual intercourse, while enjoyable, also serves a distinct purpose rather than homosexual intercourse which serves only to feed the desires of those who engage in it.

[RaiderH8r]

Honestly, why not? If some guy really wants to come home from work to having multiple women nagging him, that is his problem.
I would submit that women are more likely to nag at each other than the man in that situation. Women generally bitch to men, not usually about them. And when you get that many hens clucking you can find a foxhole and watch your game in peace. :thumb:

[Hydrae]

The NAMBLA comment was in response to the statement that if it didn't effect you than who are you to say what people should do with their lives. I think you're already working to address that with other posters so I'll leave it.

Since you have recognized the counterproductive nature of both inbreeding and homosexuality are you willing to accept the premise that sexual intercourse, in it's most basic function, is designed for procreation? And if that is the case is there not some standing in taking the position that procreation is different from recreation? Meaning that heterosexual intercourse, while enjoyable, also serves a distinct purpose rather than homosexual intercourse which serves only to feed the desires of those who engage in it.


So do you contend that the purpose of marriage is procreation? I believe this thread is not about the rights and wrongs of homosexual sexual relationships but whether they should be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals in a marital state.

[Amnorix]

Maybe because every state still has morals to some degree and the masses find it unacceptable.

You really are a master of nonsequiturs. Your response has nothing at all to do with what I said. You're arguing with a simple statement of fact. I'm not even arguing about anything.

[Donger]

Maybe we need to revisit the thread about the pheremone testing to determine what is natural and what is not.

Homosexuality has been with humans at least as long as we have had written history. How can it not be "natural"? Perhaps a mutation or whatever but that doesn't make it unnatural.

I've said this time and again...

There's one, and only one, reason we have male and female: procreation. That's nature. Homosexuals can't procreate.

Simple.

[alnorth]

Theoretically, congress could say that incestuous marriage is legal, why is this a surprise? The legal justification for not allowing it is probahbly genetic harm to possible children.

However, polygamy is not as clear-cut as gay marriage, in that youd have to create a brand-new right that straight couples (and gay couples) wouldnt have: the ability to extend the legal benefits of marriage to three people.

The states could make polygamy legal if they wanted, but the courts CAN NOT force the states to accept polygamy because there is no equal protection issue here. The right to extend the benefits of marriage to 3 people doesnt exist at all. Thats different from having the benefit of marriage between a couple and forbidding some couples from having that right for utterly arbitrary reasons. (again, aside from the whole adoption issue)

[Hydrae]

I've said this time and again...

There's one, and only one, reason we have male and female: procreation. That's nature. Homosexuals can't procreate.

Simple.


Procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

You would think that homosexuality would have died out many generations ago since it can't procreate. That leads us back to the question of what causes homosexuality. But does that give us the right to discriminate against their right to a committed relationship?

[Donger]

Theoretically, congress could say that incestuous marriage is legal, why is this a surprise? The legal justification for not allowing it is probahbly genetic harm to possible children.

However, polygamy is not as clear-cut as gay marriage, in that youd have to create a brand-new right that straight couples (and gay couples) wouldnt have: the ability to extend the legal benefits of marriage to three people.

The states could make polygamy legal if they wanted, but the courts CAN NOT force the states to accept polygamy because there is no equal protection issue here. The right to extend the benefits of marriage to 3 people doesnt exist at all. Thats different from having the benefit of marriage between a couple and forbidding some couples from having that right for utterly arbitrary reasons. (again, aside from the whole adoption issue)

Not to mention the fact that anyone who would want more than one spouse is obviously insane.

[KCN]

I'd think it's fair to say people around you or close to you are effected by your actions.


By a legal recognition of a union? I still fail to see it.

Gay divorce: Of course it has a negative impact on some people, as all divorces do.

Now my question to you: Your point?

[Mr. Kotter]

Fido can't consent.

I understand there are movies available on the internet that prove otherwise.

[KCN]

I've said this time and again...

There's one, and only one, reason we have male and female: procreation. That's nature. Homosexuals can't procreate.

Simple.

Is infertility unnatural?

[RaiderH8r]

So do you contend that the purpose of marriage is procreation? I believe this thread is not about the rights and wrongs of homosexual sexual relationships but whether they should be allowed the same rights as heterosexuals in a marital state.
I think marriage serves an evolutionary purpose in raising of children. Study after study demonstrates the value of the 2 parent house. I think each sex brings to a relationship certain assets and liabilities that come to bear on the upbringing of a child. I think this is the result of eons of evolution. I think some attention should be paid to the value of the two parent household and that it should be an encouraged institution. Which brings us to the general disposition of the yahoos who are breeding out there. Unfortunately I don't know how to legislatively stop dipshits from having children.

[alnorth]

I've said this time and again...

There's one, and only one, reason we have male and female: procreation. That's nature. Homosexuals can't procreate.

Simple.

That is a good starters for arguing that gay couples shouldnt adopt.

Now, could you please explain why gay couples should be barred from being able to file a joint return, or visit one another in a hospital when spouses can, or have the same inheritance rights as married couples?

We dont want all the benefits of marriage because we are afraid of the well-being of adopted children? Fine. Why is a compromise that allows civil unions with all the rights of marriage except adoption unacceptable?

[1punkyQB]

Gay marriage would not be a new right? So if Jefferson and Madison had wanted to get hitched it would've been legal? When even liberal states like Oregon and California are voting this down, you'd think hard leftists would take a hint.

[Donger]

Procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

You would think that homosexuality would have died out many generations ago since it can't procreate. That leads us back to the question of what causes homosexuality. But does that give us the right to discriminate against their right to a committed relationship?

Actually, historically and socially, it does. Where do you think the term "child out of wedlock" came from?

But, that's somewhat beside the point. My point is that I believe that this is yet another step in the agenda to "normalize" homosexuality and bring it to an equal plain with heterosexuality. If not, why are those pushing for homosexual marriage not satisfied with unions? Why the push for "marriage?"

[Hydrae]

I think marriage serves an evolutionary purpose in raising of children. Study after study demonstrates the value of the 2 parent house. I think each sex brings to a relationship certain assets and liabilities that come to bear on the upbringing of a child. I think this is the result of eons of evolution. I think some attention should be paid to the value of the two parent household and that it should be an encouraged institution. Which brings us to the general disposition of the yahoos who are breeding out there. Unfortunately I don't know how to legislatively stop dipshits from having children.


Which is why the divorce rate the last half century is one of the biggest social issues that we don't seem to be addressing.

I would also contend that some of those same problems are seen in a lot of two income families as well. I am constantly thankful that my wife is able to stay home and be available to my children when they come home from school.

[RaiderH8r]

Is infertility unnatural?
It is a biological abnormality.

[Donger]

Is infertility unnatural?

Nope. It's a medical abnormality.

[Amnorix]

The NAMBLA comment was in response to the statement that if it didn't effect you than who are you to say what people should do with their lives. I think you're already working to address that with other posters so I'll leave it.


This doesn't hold up because we have molestation / statutory rape laws that deal with minors and the concept that whether they want to or not, they are simply too young to knowingly consent to sexual relations.

This would hold true for homosexual relations with minors just as much as hetero, of course.

[alnorth]

Gay marriage would not be a new right? So if Jefferson and Madison had wanted to get hitched it would've been legal? When even liberal states like Oregon and California are voting this down, you'd think hard leftists would take a hint.

I dont care how many people are opposed to gay civil unions, it is unconstitutional. If we have such a huge amount of support for a gay civil union ban, then change the constitution. (again this is gay civil union bans that were struck down, NOT gay marriage. Gay marriage bans that allow for civil unions are still alive and well. Very very few states ban civil unions, Nebraska was one of the very few extreme cases that tried to do so.)

[Donger]

You would think that homosexuality would have died out many generations ago since it can't procreate.

Leads me back to when someone on this board asked, "What's wrong with homosexuality?"

I responded that if nothing is, let's all "turn" gay and see how well the next generation does.

[Mr. Kotter]

It is a biological abnormality.

Good point....

[RaiderH8r]

Which is why the divorce rate the last half century is one of the biggest social issues that we don't seem to be addressing.

I would also contend that some of those same problems are seen in a lot of two income families as well. I am constantly thankful that my wife is able to stay home and be available to my children when they come home from school.
I think you have a valid point here. I think the moral relatavism of our age has devalued the institution of marriage.

[KCN]

It is a biological abnormality.

And homosexuality is what?

[Hydrae]

Actually, historically and socially, it does. Where do you think the term "child out of wedlock" came from?

But, that's somewhat beside the point. My point is that I believe that this is yet another step in the agenda to "normalize" homosexuality and bring it to an equal plain with heterosexuality. If not, why are those pushing for homosexual marriage not satisfied with unions? Why the push for "marriage?"


So if we allow homosexuals access to the same marriage rights you and I enjoy, this will change how we will raise our children and the values we instill in them?

Just curious, how would you deal with this issue if one of your children turned out to be gay and in love with someone? Would you seriously tell them that they did not have the right to that form of happiness?

[Mr. Kotter]

This doesn't hold up because we have molestation / statutory rape laws that deal with minors and the concept that whether they want to or not, they are simply too young to knowingly consent to sexual relations.

This would hold true for homosexual relations with minors just as much as hetero, of course.

There are many, many people who dispute the whole idea of age of consent: is it 18, 16, 14 or 12. Different people have different ideas...

That we are allowing 13 yr olds access to abortion (without parental knowledge or consent) tells me the debate over "consent" is not far away; NAMBLA will not be far knocking at the door....

[Amnorix]

I've said this time and again...

There's one, and only one, reason we have male and female: procreation. That's nature. Homosexuals can't procreate.

Simple.

And yet relationships exist, and sex occurs, without any interest or desire in actually procreating. Hell, oral sex is unnatural, based on your limited view.

Congrats, you've adopted the Catholic Church's views with respect to relationships: 1 man and 1 woman for the purpose of procreating. ANYTHING else is unnatural and not condoned. Oral sex, anal sex, homosexual sex, use of contraceptives, etc.

I seriously disagree. Whether one was given these things by God, "mother nature" or whatever, to me it's much more elemental -- people have sexual desires. Some are simple and some are kinky. So long as no one is harmed (i.e. rape or sex with minors), there is no benefit or purpose in the state interfering with these relationships, including the ultimate consummation/recognition of a relationship in the form of a legal marriage.

[Donger]

And homosexuality is what?

With regards to procreation? Homosexuality is totally incompatible with procreation. Nothing needs be medically wrong with the two homosexuals for them not to be able to procreate.

See the difference?

[stevieray]

Is infertility unnatural?

being sterile is not the same as incompatibility.

[1punkyQB]

Unconstitutional? If there's this much opposition to gay marriage now, how much would there have been in 1787? No document allowing gay marriage would've been ratified. You're honestly saying that we've finally found a loophole in 2005 that has existed for centuries? I'd say it's more likely social values have changed and liberals want to alter the law accordingly.

[Amnorix]

Gay marriage would not be a new right? So if Jefferson and Madison had wanted to get hitched it would've been legal? When even liberal states like Oregon and California are voting this down, you'd think hard leftists would take a hint.

It's definitely a "new" right. I'm not sure anyone has said otherwise.

[Mr. Kotter]

And homosexuality is what?

Depends on who you ask.

[Donger]

And yet relationships exist, and sex occurs, without any interest or desire in actually procreating. Hell, oral sex is unnatural, based on your limited view.

Congrats, you've adopted the Catholic Church's views with respect to relationships: 1 man and 1 woman for the purpose of procreating. ANYTHING else is unnatural and not condoned. Oral sex, anal sex, homosexual sex, use of contraceptives, etc.

I seriously disagree. Whether one was given these things by God, "mother nature" or whatever, to me it's much more elemental -- people have sexual desires. Some are simple and some are kinky. So long as no one is harmed (i.e. rape or sex with minors), there is no benefit or purpose in the state interfering with these relationships, including the ultimate consummation/recognition of a relationship in the form of a legal marriage.

As I believe you and I've discussed, I'm admittedly guilty of using my sex organs unnaturally, although not as often as I'd like.

Marriage sucks (or not) sometimes...

[KCN]

With regards to procreation? Homosexuality is totally incompatible with procreation. Nothing needs be medically wrong with the two homosexuals for them not to be able to procreate.

See the difference?

No, I don't see the difference. The end result is the same. No children. Which is according to you the sole purpose of a marriage.

[Amnorix]

Actually, historically and socially, it does. Where do you think the term "child out of wedlock" came from?

But, that's somewhat beside the point. My point is that I believe that this is yet another step in the agenda to "normalize" homosexuality and bring it to an equal plain with heterosexuality. If not, why are those pushing for homosexual marriage not satisfied with unions? Why the push for "marriage?"

I'd have no problem with "civil unions" if no church will sanction a homosexual union as a "marriage." There is a concept of a difference between civil unions/marriage and divorce/annulments. I have no problem whatsoever retaining that distinction.

[1punkyQB]

However, polygamy is not as clear-cut as gay marriage, in that youd have to create a brand-new right that straight couples (and gay couples) wouldnt have: the ability to extend the legal benefits of marriage to three people.
I'd say that's arguing that gay marriage wouldn't be a new right.

[Mr. Kotter]

There are many, many people who dispute the whole idea of age of consent: is it 18, 16, 14 or 12. Different people have different ideas...

That we are allowing 13 yr olds access to abortion (without parental knowledge or consent) tells me the debate over "consent" is not far away; NAMBLA will not be far knocking at the door....

Serious question:

How can the legal system allow 13 yr olds to elect to have an abortion (without parental consent), yet deny the same consent to have sexual relations?

[alnorth]

With regards to procreation? Homosexuality is totally incompatible with procreation. Nothing needs be medically wrong with the two homosexuals for them not to be able to procreate.

See the difference?

Thats all well and good, but to avoid violating our constitution's ancient tradition of equal protection, you need to justify why we should ban gay marriage and/or gay civil unions. You could make an arguement for banning gay marriage, substituting gay civil unions with different rights for adoption, but I dont think you can defend banning all the legal benefits of marriage period.

You need to be able to argue to a court that society's benefit from having no gay civil unions outweighs the infringed rights of the gay couples from having any of the tax, inheritance, etc benefits. I really dont think you can do it.

[KCN]

Depends on who you ask.

Exactly.

[Amnorix]

Leads me back to when someone on this board asked, "What's wrong with homosexuality?"

I responded that if nothing is, let's all "turn" gay and see how well the next generation does.

Not a winning argument. The same would be true if we all became Catholic priests or nuns. I wouldn't refer to that as deviant or abnormal. Ditto for entering into a consensual hetero relationship in which both partners agree not to have children.

[Donger]

So if we allow homosexuals access to the same marriage rights you and I enjoy, this will change how we will raise our children and the values we instill in them?

Just curious, how would you deal with this issue if one of your children turned out to be gay and in love with someone? Would you seriously tell them that they did not have the right to that form of happiness?

1. Yes, I believe so. Our society has been based on marriage. I see no reason to change that. I'm not a big believer in social engineering.

2. I would tell them exactly what I've said here.

[stevieray]

And homosexuality is what?

is it possible it is a biological abnormalty?

[alnorth]

I'd say that's arguing that gay marriage wouldn't be a new right.

polygamy is a brand-new right because allowing 3 people into the contract legally alters the contract in a variety of ways, allowing more people to have tax benefits, inheritance benefits, etc. This right could be created if the states wish, but it cant be imposed because it doesnt exist.

You want to ban gay couples from having any legal benefits of marriage for a reason thats utterly arbitrary. Its not a new right at all. The sex of the couple is not legally relevant. (exception: you could make an arguement on adoption, in which case you still have to argue why you are banning gay joint tax returns.)

[Amnorix]

There are many, many people who dispute the whole idea of age of consent: is it 18, 16, 14 or 12. Different people have different ideas...

That we are allowing 13 yr olds access to abortion (without parental knowledge or consent) tells me the debate over "consent" is not far away; NAMBLA will not be far knocking at the door....

Isn't the age of consent like 10 or something ridiculous in Tennessee. It's for states to decide waht the age of consent is.

If NAMBLA wants to agitate for 10 in every state, that's fine, but I don't think they'll convince too many states to drop the age of consent.

[1punkyQB]

It's a right no gay couple has enjoyed in over 2 centuries in this country, but it's not new?

[KCN]

is it possible it is a biological abnormalty?

Certainly. I wish to not get into the cause of homosexuality, since that's been done on this forum time and time again, spinning us in so many circles we all get dizzy and quit.

And when I post an article on that subject, it turns into a 20-page debate on religion and scienctific procedure ;)

[Donger]

No, I don't see the difference. The end result is the same. No children. Which is according to you the sole purpose of a marriage.

Okay, I'll try again: it is impossible for two homosexuals to breed. Take all of them, and not one couple can do it. That's nature. They are incompatible on a very basic level, although nothing is medically wrong with them.

The opposite is true for heterosexual couples who can't breed.

And, BTW, I never said that the sole purpose is marriage is to to hav children.

[Mr. Kotter]

Isn't the age of consent like 10 or something ridiculous in Tennessee. It's for states to decide waht the age of consent is.

If NAMBLA wants to agitate for 10 in every state, that's fine, but I don't think they'll convince too many states to drop the age of consent.

I agree with you. But there are those that support the gay rights movement that argue this idea is a straw man....a red herring.

It is not. I don't know legally, how one allows 13 yr olds an abortion, but denies them the ability to consent to sex in the first place. THAT is illogical.

And that opens a big door to NAMBLA and like-minded freaks. Good luck closing it... :shake:

[alnorth]

Yes, I believe so. Our society has been based on marriage. I see no reason to change that. I'm not a big believer in social engineering.

You dont have to call it marriage.

Whatever rights that straight couples have that your uncomfortable with extending to gay couples, create a new institution thats different from marriage, and give that institution the same rights as marriage except those you dont like.

The courts have not struck down gay marriage bans that are combined with the civil union compromise. They have only struck down the very rare bans that also ban civil unions. This ban is utterly indefensible absent a constitutional amendment because of the equal protection violation.

[Donger]

Not a winning argument. The same would be true if we all became Catholic priests or nuns. I wouldn't refer to that as deviant or abnormal. Ditto for entering into a consensual hetero relationship in which both partners agree not to have children.

Well, I do think that Catholic priests and nuns are abnormal. Then again, they've CHOOSEN to be so. I personally don't believe that homosexuals choose to be homosexual; they simply are. Just my opinion.

[Mr. Kotter]

Ah to HELL with it, let's just declare everyone bisexual....and eliminate marriage entirely.

That's the spirit of the free-market system anyway.

[Donger]

You dont have to call it marriage.

Whatever rights that straight couples have that your uncomfortable with extending to gay couples, create a new institution thats different from marriage, and give that institution the same rights as marriage except those you dont like.

The courts have not struck down gay marriage bans that are combined with the civil union compromise. They have only struck down the very rare bans that also ban civil unions. This ban is utterly indefensible absent a constitutional amendment because of the equal protection violation.

I have no problem with civil unions.

[Amnorix]

1. Yes, I believe so. Our society has been based on marriage. I see no reason to change that. I'm not a big believer in social engineering.

2. I would tell them exactly what I've said here.

Whatever you're do in this arena, you're doing social engineering. That was true when the SC said sodomy (including oral sex) could constitutionally be made illegal by a state.

What we're talking about here, to me, is a narrow segment of society getting to enjoy certain rights and benefits that there is no particularly logical reason to deny them, except (1) our Judeo-Christian roots (and associated prejudices) and (2) the general disgust most males (including myself, I admit) feel when confronted with (or thinking about, for whatever reason) acts of homosexuality, especially between men (I personally appluad acts of homosexuality between women of exceptional attractiveness, but that's just me :) ).

[alnorth]

I agree with you. But there are those that support the gay rights movement that argue this idea is a straw man....a red herring.

It is not. I don't know legally, how one allows 13 yr olds an abortion, but denies them the ability to consent to sex in the first place. THAT is illogical.

And that opens a big door to NAMBLA and like-minded freaks. Good luck closing it... :shake:

Most states have "romeo and juliet" laws that either doesnt make it a serious crime, or a crime at all for young boys and girls to have sex.

18 yr old man and underage girl = bad. two underage kids... well they are BOTH underage. You cant really make it a crime, because if you did, BOTH kids would be guilty of statutory rape against each other, which is rediculous.

[Amnorix]

It's a right no gay couple has enjoyed in over 2 centuries in this country, but it's not new?


Who is saying this?? What am I missing?!

[alnorth]

I have no problem with civil unions.

Okie doke, then we pretty much are almost alike then. I dont like the idea of letting gay couples adopt, so I am against gay marriage in favor of civil unions. I would only support a constitutional ban on civil unions if the courts said that we had to let them adopt.

[KCN]

Okay, I'll try again: it is impossible for two homosexuals to breed. Take all of them, and not one couple can do it. That's nature. They are incompatible on a very basic level, although nothing is medically wrong with them.

The opposite is true for heterosexual couples who can't breed.

And, BTW, I never said that the sole purpose is marriage is to to hav children.

Take all the infertile individuals in the world and have them go at it, no babies coming from them either.

However, this group must be able to take advantage of other purposes of marriage to keep them qualified. What might those be that homosexuals are unable to enjoy?

[Mr. Kotter]

Most states have "romeo and juliet" laws that either doesnt make it a serious crime, or a crime at all for young boys and girls to have sex.

18 yr old man and underage girl = bad. two underage kids... well they are BOTH underage. You cant really make it a crime, because if you did, BOTH kids would be guilty of statutory rape against each other, which is rediculous.

I'd like to see the stats on such laws, and the effects of such laws.

I live in a red state; the shit wouldn't fly here or in any of our neighboring states, unless both sets of parents approve.

You must be a blue-stater.

[stevieray]

Certainly. ;)

and what does abnormal mean?

So the possiblity exists that something went wrong somewhere, like blindness, retardation, etc...? I don't think God allows those things to happen to punish, rather to teach.

Many people have said that down syndrome and handicapped kids are incredibly REAL, exhibiting more dignity, bravery and courage than unafflicted people.

[Amnorix]

I agree with you. But there are those that support the gay rights movement that argue this idea is a straw man....a red herring.

It is not. I don't know legally, how one allows 13 yr olds an abortion, but denies them the ability to consent to sex in the first place. THAT is illogical.

And that opens a big door to NAMBLA and like-minded freaks. Good luck closing it... :shake:


The case of the 13 year old involved a ward of the state, I believe. I'm not familiar with the circumstances of why she wasn't in the care of her parents, but that seemed to be parent of the background.

Also note that I do not have a problem with minors being required to obtain parental consent OR court permission, which would only be granted in certain limited instances (rape, incest and similar situations).

[KCN]

Okie doke, then we pretty much are almost alike then. I dont like the idea of letting gay couples adopt, so I am against gay marriage in favor of civil unions. I would only support a constitutional ban on civil unions if the courts said that we had to let them adopt.

They're already adopting without the civil unions.

[Donger]

Take all the infertile individuals in the world and have them go at it, no babies coming from them either.

Do you really not see the difference or are you simply being argumentative?

[alnorth]

Who is saying this?? What am I missing?!

I'm saying that there is only one right here: marriage.

Gay marriage isnt a new right, the ban on gay marriage is a restriction of the single right of marriage to a segment of society.


This is all to be consistent with my arguement that polygamy WOULD be a brand-new right.

[Mr. Kotter]

Most states have "romeo and juliet" laws that either doesnt make it a serious crime, or a crime at all for young boys and girls to have sex.

18 yr old man and underage girl = bad. two underage kids... well they are BOTH underage. You cant really make it a crime, because if you did, BOTH kids would be guilty of statutory rape against each other, which is rediculous.

Sorry, misread your post the first time.....statutory rape laws would be invalidated if we lower age of consent laws, as I see coming. In other words, pedophilia (with teens, at least) will become legal soon under this logic.

[stevieray]

Take all the infertile individuals in the world and have them go at it, no babies coming from them either.




being sterile does not equate to incompatiblity.

[KCN]

and what does abnormal mean?

So the possiblity exists that something went wrong somewhere, like blindness, retardation, etc...? I don't think God allows those things to happen to punish, rather to teach.

Many people have said that down syndrome and handicapped kids are incredibly REAL, exhibiting more dignity, bravery and courage than unafflicted people.

Sorry to bow out on you, but we are getting into a serious subject that I'd love to talk with you more about, but my weekend starts in 10 minutes and I don't want to give you a substandard answer.

So perhaps a raincheck will suffice?

[1punkyQB]

no particularly logical reason
You're arguing that 68% of the population is illogical, so I assume you think you are. And libs wonder why they keep losing elections.

[alnorth]

They're already adopting without the civil unions.

Adoption law varies from state to state.

If marriage is 100% irrelevant to your ability to adopt, then my only objection to gay marriage is obliterated, and I would then have to support it, whether its called marriage, civil unions as an exact clone of marriage, or whatever.

[KCN]

Do you really not see the difference or are you simply being argumentative?

I see the difference. I just don't think it's relevant, nor a serious enough issue to prevent gays from marrying.

[1punkyQB]

Amnorix, alnorth is saying that gay marriage is constitutional, that it is not a new right. I'm responding to him.

[Amnorix]

Well, I do think that Catholic priests and nuns are abnormal. Then again, they've CHOOSEN to be so. I personally don't believe that homosexuals choose to be homosexual; they simply are. Just my opinion.

They are "unusual" in that they have chosen a profession and lifelong dedication to both a job and a way of life that involves certain sacrifices that are rare among general society.

But that hardly raises to abnormal in my eyes. Abnormal is a word I reserve for something far more odd than that.

I agree on the "homosexuals don't choose to be", by and large. I don't pretend to know whether it's truly nature or nuture, but it's probably a combo, and I'm sure it's rare that anyone just says "Hell, think I'll go queer". That just seems very unlikely in hte face of overwhelming familial and societal pressures to be straight.

[Donger]

Whatever you're do in this arena, you're doing social engineering. That was true when the SC said sodomy (including oral sex) could constitutionally be made illegal by a state.

What we're talking about here, to me, is a narrow segment of society getting to enjoy certain rights and benefits that there is no particularly logical reason to deny them, except (1) our Judeo-Christian roots (and associated prejudices) and (2) the general disgust most males (including myself, I admit) feel when confronted with (or thinking about, for whatever reason) acts of homosexuality, especially between men (I personally appluad acts of homosexuality between women of exceptional attractiveness, but that's just me :) ).

And a couple of thousand years of tradition; a tradition that has been part of the bedrock of our society.

[alnorth]

I'd like to see the stats on such laws, and the effects of such laws.

I live in a red state; the shit wouldn't fly here or in any of our neighboring states, unless both sets of parents approve.

You must be a blue-stater.

ok fine, who are you taking to jail?

The purpose of romeo and juliet exceptions isnt to condone the practice, its a simple reality that you cant call both an underage girl and an underage boy rapists of one another.

I said "almost every" state because I didnt know for sure, but I'd be surprised if any state didnt have this exception. Kansas has this exception, as does most red states.

Again, WHO ARE YOU TAKING TO JAIL? The underage boy? The underage girl? both? why?

[Amnorix]

Amnorix, alnorth is saying that gay marriage is constitutional, that it is not a new right. I'm responding to him.

I dont' want to speak for him, but I think he's saying the same thing I've said before -- there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits homosexuality, so it is "constitutionally permitted", so to speak. I think that is inarguable.

I think it's also inarguable that gay marriage as a Constitutional RIGHT would be very new indeed.

It has historically been prohibited by law, of course.

Same thing with incest, murder and a whole host of other prohibitions. It's not like Article III, Section 2 says "and murder shall be a crime" or anything...

[stevieray]

They're already adopting without the civil unions.

It like saying that either a man or a woman isn't rneeded in raising a child.

when eight out of ten men in prison come from broken homes, I can only imagine the effects of a desensitized generation growing up with even more inability to determine what our roles in society are.

Eventually there would be no emotional connection, therefore creating a stage for euthenasia and who knows what else..