SCOTUS to take on allowing Gays to marry. What say you?

[BigRedChief]

There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Slippery slope arguments aren't always wrong.

That's true. But it should give pause to those who come down on the side of restricting equality. It's possible that certain slippery slope arguments are well founded. When the bill of rights was first ratified, there were several good slippery slope arguments against it. Some of which we very much still have to deal with: disrespectful speech to authority, hate speech, assault weapons, etc...

[mcan]

Originally Posted by nstygma

so you condone discrimination against muslims and other people who traditionally have multiple wives? who are you to dictate their lives? seriously, why not just remove all benefits and restrictions on marriage from the federal books? let anyone marry anyone as long as its not unlawful on some other grounds.

I'm not against polygamy prima facia. I'm against abuse and inequality. As it happens, many of these "multiple wives" traditions are fond of, and fueled by inequality of men and women. I suppose there could easily be a group of bisexuals who have decided they would be happiest as a 3 or 4 person family unit, instead of 2. And maybe someday we would have to decide how that squares with our idea of traditional marriage, and it's benefits. But for now, it's not necessary to answer that question. For now, marriage is 2 person deal. And by restricting gays from participating, we aren't any better than the racists and misogynists in the days of old.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by mcan

I'm not against polygamy prima facia. I'm against abuse and inequality. As it happens, many of these "multiple wives" traditions are fond of, and fueled by inequality of men and women. I suppose there could easily be a group of bisexuals who have decided they would be happiest as a 3 or 4 person family unit, instead of 2. And maybe someday we would have to decide how that squares with our idea of traditional marriage, and it's benefits. But for now, it's not necessary to answer that question. For now, marriage is 2 person deal. And by restricting gays from participating, we aren't any better than the racists and misogynists in the days of old.

And for now you aren't so much advocating equal rights, as you're advocating additional rights to a single demographic that is pushing for it at present.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

They DO have right to marry. No one is storming garden parties where gay nuptials are being performed and jailing the brides/grooms.

The issue is more properly whether gay couples have the right to demand the government recognize the union they have made.

I'm pretty sure that's the question I'm asking

And the question you're not answering.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

A gay man and gay woman can get married under traditional marriage laws just like a black man and black woman.

A black man and another black man are not allowed to marry under traditional marriage laws just like a gay man and another gay man.

So, in that sense there's no difference.

Dodge.

What's the difference between a black man and a black woman getting married, and two men getting married?

What's the difference that makes one constitutional and another unconstitutional.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FD

I agree the argument I presented wouldn't withstand strict scrutiny, but the court has been wary about applying that standard to issues other than race, and as far as I know do not apply it to issues of sexual orientation.

We're getting two cases where they'll get the chance to, is what I'm saying.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm pretty sure that's the question I'm asking

And the question you're not answering.

Then why are you asking if they have the right to marry, which they do, instead of asking if the government has the obligation to afford that union the same special benefits hetero marriages enjoy?:

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Why should strict scrutiny be the standard instead of rational basis?

Because people are born black sometimes, yet we do not get in their way to marry one another.

People born gay should be able to marry whomever they want as well.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Dodge.

What's the difference between a black man and a black woman getting married, and two men getting married?

What's the difference that makes one constitutional and another unconstitutional.

I gave you the answer. You inexplicably called it a dodge.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Dave

Not this one.

It has no effect on the economy, national debt, or job creation.

Pointless.

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I'm with you. If it were put up to a vote in my state I wouldn't participate because it doesn't matter to me.

So, only gay people should decide this issue?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mcan

The slippery slope argument has been made every time a "tyranny of the majority" has been corrected.

Yup.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Then why are you asking if they have the right to marry, which they do, instead of asking if the government has the obligation to afford that union the same special benefits hetero marriages enjoy?:

Expediency, mostly.

What say you, anyway? Why should gay marriages not be subject to the same special benefits that black marraiges are?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I gave you the answer. You inexplicably called it a dodge.

What's the difference between a black man and a black woman getting married to each other, and two gay men getting married to each other?

What's the difference that makes one constitutional and another unconstitutional, in your eyes?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Dodge.

What's the difference between a black man and a black woman getting married, and two men getting married?

What's the difference that makes one constitutional and another unconstitutional.

Jesus ****!!! It's like reading analysis through a funhouse mirror.

The question behind the SC case is whether it was proper to strike down Prop 8, a Prop voted on by the Citizens of CA declining to recognize gay marriages, because IT was unConstitutional.

Pretty much the precise inverse of your query.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Because people are born black sometimes, yet we do not get in their way to marry one another.

People born gay should be able to marry whomever they want as well.

People may well be born to be sexual predators, violent miscreants, or prone to addiction too, but that wouldn't make strict scrutiny appropriate for those groups. And it's not really even clear that people are born gay. Do you have a better reason for applying strict scrutiny or is that all you've got?