Gay marriage: Tolerance at the cost of liberty

[rdean]

the majority of Americans now support gay marrige.

No civil unions but full on gay marriage.


You on the right are on the wrong side of history yet again.

First of all, you are wrong. The majority of Americans are obviously against gay marriage as witnessed by the fact that most states have in fact passed laws clarifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

Second off all, the majority does NOT get to run roughshod over the COTUS.

Like a jumping bean, you are leaping from "if" to "then". If the majority of Americans are "obviously" against gay marriage, you wouldn't mind providing a link proving that assertion?

 

[Jazmine]

Are you just stupid?

You have NO right to a government issued marriage license. None, nada. It doesn't exist.

I believe the problem is they are giving out tax deduction and benefit licenses to one type of couple and not another type.

If it is different race couples that is illegal.

If they give out no recognition of couple marriage/deductions/health insurance then it is legal.

They just can not give me a tax deduction and not you because you are taller, shorter, lighter, darker or prefer your intercourse differently.

which is why I'd do away with civil marriage PERIOD. just let anyone who wants to sign a contract agreeing to share benefits and such .

Shouldn't the government support arrangements that result in the best environment for the creation and raising of new citizens: citizens that get the benefits of a biologically orchestrated upbringing. This would include making divorce more difficult as well.

Other times we fight against how nature intended our lives to be organized we cause social problems. Growing corn, subsidizing corn, and not following what the land is telling us about crops causes trouble.

Family is the most important part of developing citizens. Government endorsed schools should be gone before government endorsed family.

Government endorses family by getting out of it's way and not dictating against nature how it should be, and not taxing it how it would a less productive unit.

 

[TheBrain]

the majority of Americans now support gay marrige.

No civil unions but full on gay marriage.


You on the right are on the wrong side of history yet again.

First of all, you are wrong. The majority of Americans are obviously against gay marriage as witnessed by the fact that most states have in fact passed laws clarifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

Second off all, the majority does NOT get to run roughshod over the COTUS.

Like a jumping bean, you are leaping from "if" to "then". If the majority of Americans are "obviously" against gay marriage, you wouldn't mind providing a link proving that assertion?

Sure, 28 states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seems to be proof that the majority of Americans want marriage to between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TheBrain]

I believe the problem is they are giving out tax deduction and benefit licenses to one type of couple and not another type.

If it is different race couples that is illegal.

If they give out no recognition of couple marriage/deductions/health insurance then it is legal.

They just can not give me a tax deduction and not you because you are taller, shorter, lighter, darker or prefer your intercourse differently.

which is why I'd do away with civil marriage PERIOD. just let anyone who wants to sign a contract agreeing to share benefits and such .

Shouldn't the government support arrangements that result in the best environment for the creation and raising of new citizens: citizens that get the benefits of a biologically orchestrated upbringing. This would include making divorce more difficult as well.

Other times we fight against how nature intended our lives to be organized we cause social problems. Growing corn, subsidizing corn, and not following what the land is telling us about crops causes trouble.

Family is the most important part of developing citizens. Government endorsed schools should be gone before government endorsed family.

Government endorses family by getting out of it's way and not dictating against nature how it should be, and not taxing it how it would a less productive unit.

Nope, government shouldn't be worried about who is fucking who in the privacy of their own home. The fact of the matter is you can't conclusively prove that heterosexual families are on average any more stable that homosexual ones are even if you did want to fight that fight. At best you might have an argument that subjecting a child to that kind of behavior is mental abuse , but that would be a tough sell, and frankly I don't trust the government to be giving them that kind of power to make that call.

 

[Jazmine]

Nope, government shouldn't be worried about who is fucking who in the privacy of their own home. The fact of the matter is you can't conclusively prove that heterosexual families are on average any more stable that homosexual ones are even if you did want to fight that fight. At best you might have an argument that subjecting a child to that kind of behavior is mental abuse , but that would be a tough sell, and frankly I don't trust the government to be giving them that kind of power to make that call.

When did I ever say anything about "fucking"? What I'm talking about is procreation. And heterosexual families are better not as dictated by sociological evidence (that may be the case), but on the biological necessity. There is a greater chance that going against that citizen-forming anatomical fact would result in other negative side effects than it not resulting in anything negative. That is just the way nature tends to work.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

First of all, you are wrong. The majority of Americans are obviously against gay marriage as witnessed by the fact that most states have in fact passed laws clarifying marriage as between a man and a woman.

Second off all, the majority does NOT get to run roughshod over the COTUS.

Like a jumping bean, you are leaping from "if" to "then". If the majority of Americans are "obviously" against gay marriage, you wouldn't mind providing a link proving that assertion?

Sure, 28 states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seems to be proof that the majority of Americans want marriage to between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh?

How is that "proof" of what the majority of Americans want?

Obama's health care plan passed, and was signed - do you think the majority of Americans want it?

 

[TheBrain]

Like a jumping bean, you are leaping from "if" to "then". If the majority of Americans are "obviously" against gay marriage, you wouldn't mind providing a link proving that assertion?

Sure, 28 states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seems to be proof that the majority of Americans want marriage to between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh?

How is that "proof" of what the majority of Americans want?

Obama's health care plan passed, and was signed - do you think the majority of Americans want it?

Eh what? Obama's health care plan was passed by Congress , so yes obviously the majority of Congresspersons wanted it. State constitutional amendments are voted on by citizens of the state so yes they were passed because the majority of voters in each state wanted it.

IOW apples and oranges.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Sure, 28 states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seems to be proof that the majority of Americans want marriage to between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh?

How is that "proof" of what the majority of Americans want?

Obama's health care plan passed, and was signed - do you think the majority of Americans want it?

Eh what? Obama's health care plan was passed by Congress , so yes obviously the majority of Congresspersons wanted it. State constitutional amendments are voted on by citizens of the state so yes they were passed because the majority of voters in each state wanted it.

IOW apples and oranges.

My analogy was faulty.

But votes that took place 5-10 years ago aren't very reflective of current majority opinions.

 

[SGdsn]

This one is going by the wayside just like them laws you referenced banning inter racial marriage.

Perhaps States and the IRS coukd just start giving tax breaks for civil unions and stop mentioning the word marriage. That way civil unions are a government matter and the "1st Baptist Church of Vidor Texas" can hold whatever marriage ceremonies they feel like.

Rather skirts the issue, then again we all presumably believe anal sex should be legal between consenting adults so who cares.

This makes no sense. Why should the government completely eschew marriage just so a handful of people will stop whining that they're being discriminated against? Methinks it would be easier if they just got over themselves.

 

[SGdsn]

Lawrence established homosexuals as a protected class entitled to 14th Amendment protection. Consequently, no law may be passed singling them out for exclusion, such as marriage, or creating laws that effect homosexuals only, such as sodomy laws. They are entitled to equal protection.

Uh, no it didn't. The Supreme Court hasn't found sexual orientation to create a class of person. Lawrence was about the right to sodomy; it didn't have anything to do with creating an entitlement to gay marriage because some people want to frame opposition of gay marriage as gay discrimination.

With regard to homosexuality being a ‘lifestyle choice,’ aside from being rendered moot by Lawrence, consider the First Amendment protection of religion. No one is born the religion he practices as it is with his race. Often individuals as adults will elect to leave one religion to follow another. They choose to follow another faith. One’s right to follow a given religion is protected by the Free Exercise Clause, regardless how one came to that faith. The same is true for homosexuals, whether one is born a homosexual or ‘chooses the lifestyle,’ it makes no difference from a Constitutional standpoint.

What does this have to do with anything?

This one is going by the wayside just like them laws you referenced banning inter racial marriage.

True. And Loving v Virginia – the case that ended laws against interracial marriage – is further case law in support of the right of gays to marry.

First off, no anti-miscegenation law was a categorical ban on interracial marriage. Second, most states overturned their anti-miscegenation laws legislatively (besides Loving, the only state to overturn it by judicial review was CA in the Perez v. Sharpe case). Third, it's actually the worst thing you can cite to support your argument.

All Loving did was allow more men to marry more women, and to put it in some context, Baker v. Nelson came five years after Loving. I could be wrong, but the very same court that found anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional also found no substantial federal question with regards to the notion of same-sex marriage.

You're ignoring the parts of the debate that directly contradict your argument. That's not a very good debate strategy.

 

[SGdsn]

The judiciary does exist, in part, to right legislative wrongs. That is part of the constitutional checks and balances. When they go over the line is when they make policy instead of interpreting the law and telling the legislative branch that a law is simply not permitted under our Constitution. Some judges understand this, and some are activists. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

Righting legislative wrongs is a natural consequent of judicial review, it's not its primary function. Ideally, the court will only intervene when it's a matter of life, liberty (as in your literal freedom, not entitlement), and/or property at stake. For example, the plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were imprisoned and fined and facing banishment from the state of Virginia for marrying outside their race. That would be a constitutional matter. Gay marriage isn't since states simply outline what is their legal definition of marriage. They're not throwing gay couples in jail for having a legal marriage elsewhere, nor are they fining them or confiscating their property because the people don't include same-sex couples in their understanding of marriage. It's simply not of the law. So for courts to more or less declare it law oversteps their role.

As far as same sex marriage goes, if to government steps on and issues licenses to regulate and guarantee certain legal rights to people in the guise of marriage, that right should be available to everyone. This will not stop the government from stepping in and taking away your rights when it has a mind to, but it will make it harder, and that alone is a good argument for allowing same sex marriage.

By the way, I should have responded to you first, but but Jones pissed me off when I read his post.

My apologies.

It is available to everyone. The problem is, it isn't available in more than one way to everyone. Because someone wants to marry a member of the same sex doesn't mean they don't still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex and have access to those benefits if they wanted to. It's not all or nothing. A man who wants three wives isn't being denied rights just because the law wont recognize three marriages.

You can say maybe our definition of marriage isn't inclusive or progressive enough. That's subject to debate. But it doesn't have to be more than what it already is.

Which is why I am pointing out that allowing SSM expands our rights. That, for me, is enough reason to support it. If you personally need more reason I have no problem with that, I can point you to some well thought out arguments in support of SSM that might help change your mind. If you simply refuse to support it, that is also fine with me.

My point is, people don't have to want to expand their right to marry if they don't want to. Nobody is arguing that gay marriage is unconstitutional. Morally wrong? Perhaps. Socially reckless? Maybe. Unnecessary? Sure. But nobody is dragging supporters of SSM into court to "explain" themselves for their beliefs.

 

[SGdsn]

All Americans equally possess their naturally derived rights. The issue is the un-Constitutional preemption of equal protection rights to a specific class, in this case homosexuals.

Are you just stupid?

You have NO right to a government issued marriage license. None, nada. It doesn't exist.

I believe the problem is they are giving out tax deduction and benefit licenses to one type of couple and not another type.

If it is different race couples that is illegal.

If they give out no recognition of couple marriage/deductions/health insurance then it is legal.

They just can not give me a tax deduction and not you because you are taller, shorter, lighter, darker or prefer your intercourse differently.

Well, you're right and wrong. The government has plenty of arbitrary barriers for what benefits and subsidies and incentives people qualify for. We've decided skin color, gender, and religious background aren't acceptable barriers for certain benefits, but that doesn't make the ones we do have any less arbitrary.

The thing is, we don't have "collective" entitlements to stuff. The government can and does treat couples differently, for good and some bad reasons. A couple is just an abstract pairing. They don't have to treat all of them the same. More to the point, they don't, so deciding that this particular way is discriminatory is a little disingenuous.

Even couples that qualify for certain benefits aren't treated the same. Do you think Bill and Melinda Gates gets all the benefits, say, your parents get? No. Do you think they shoulder the same tax burden? No. So your point is a little on the simplistic side.

 

[SGdsn]

Like a jumping bean, you are leaping from "if" to "then". If the majority of Americans are "obviously" against gay marriage, you wouldn't mind providing a link proving that assertion?

Sure, 28 states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seems to be proof that the majority of Americans want marriage to between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh?

How is that "proof" of what the majority of Americans want?

Obama's health care plan passed, and was signed - do you think the majority of Americans want it?

Last I checked we didn't have a nationwide vote on Obamacare. Congress passed it.

 

[SGdsn]

Eh?

How is that "proof" of what the majority of Americans want?

Obama's health care plan passed, and was signed - do you think the majority of Americans want it?

Eh what? Obama's health care plan was passed by Congress , so yes obviously the majority of Congresspersons wanted it. State constitutional amendments are voted on by citizens of the state so yes they were passed because the majority of voters in each state wanted it.

IOW apples and oranges.

My analogy was faulty.

But votes that took place 5-10 years ago aren't very reflective of current majority opinions.

They're a hell of a lot more reflective than what one anonymous opinion poll has said. And they're more permanent, too.

 

[Ravi]

The only ones whining are the ones that want to deny two adults the same rights that other adults enjoy.

boo hoo

 

[Toro]

Here is the link I promised earlier.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/164309-majority-of-americans-support-gay-marriage.html

 

[bodecea]

the majority of Americans now support gay marrige.

No civil unions but full on gay marriage.


You on the right are on the wrong side of history yet again.

I don't believe that. Polls are not proof of anything in and of themselves. We have over thirty public votes over the past ten years that say differently, and not only that, but the last three were in states that had a high Democrat turn-out (ME, FL, CA).

All you have to do is look at that trend in those votes...it is simply a matter of time.

 

[bodecea]

Sure, 28 states have passed state constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Seems to be proof that the majority of Americans want marriage to between a man and a woman.

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eh?

How is that "proof" of what the majority of Americans want?

Obama's health care plan passed, and was signed - do you think the majority of Americans want it?

Last I checked we didn't have a nationwide vote on Obamacare. Congress passed it.

And Congress was elected by who?

 

[editec]

The fact that we allowed THE STATE (or for that matter any religion) to insinuate itself into the whole issue of marriage is the real root of the problem, folks.

 

[Jazmine]

The fact that we allowed THE STATE (or for that matter any religion) to insinuate itself into the whole issue of marriage is the real root of the problem, folks.

The institution of the family is a prerequisite to have any state. Imagine a nation without families.

It is not that we allow the state into the family, it is that the state is the child of the family. We cannot cut it off entirely, it needs it's parents. Without biological families, where does the next generation of tax paying citizens come from?