Marriage Equality; does the end game begin?

[Freewill]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

Same sex couples aren't 'things'. They're people. They have a constitutional right to marry. If you're going to deny them that right, you're going to need a compelling state interest and a very good reason.

Opponents of same sex marriage have neither. Which is why they have so often failed.

I can't deny them a right that does not exist, and I never said that homosexuals were things. But you are trying to tell me that marriage is anything but between a man and a woman which is BS.

 

[Seawytch]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

Same sex couples aren't 'things'. They're people. They have a constitutional right to marry. If you're going to deny them that right, you're going to need a compelling state interest and a very good reason.

Opponents of same sex marriage have neither. Which is why they have so often failed.

Sigh, once again, and AGAIN and AGAIN where does the constitution give anyone the right to marry? It seems to me you gay blades certainly have a hard time understanding. Did the blacks get a guaranteed right to vote without a constitutional amendment? I can argue that all men are created equal and blacks are men thus they are indeed covered under the constitution. But I can not argue that two men marrying is the same in any way as a man an a woman, which is the traditional definition of marriage.

Nothing is a right just because you want it to be.

Be law abiding citizens and get the laws changed, that is all I am saying. This end run through the courts and just making stuff up is BS.

{Sigh} And once again it must be pointed out to you that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has declared marriage a Fundamental Right on no less than three (and some argue 14) occasions.

Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely. These are irrefutable facts. You may not like them, but they ARE facts.

 

[Seawytch]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

No, one consenting adult individual can still marry one consenting adult individual regardless of race or gender. The definition of marriage remains the same. Did the definition of voting change when women could do it? No.

The definition of the ACT of voting did not change, but the definition of whom could vote certainly did change. That is the point, women said the same things that gays are saying and people got the laws changed and the Constitution changed to make it a civil right. That is all I am saying that the gays should do, not this end run BS. Unless of course their real intent is to invoke their will on everyone, which I think really is the situation.

The ACT of civil marriage does not change either. It is still two consenting adult individuals entering into a marriage partnership. The law did not change when blacks could marry whites nor does it change when men can marry men and women can marry women. Discrimination based on gender is no different than discrimination based on race.

 

[Freewill]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

No, one consenting adult individual can still marry one consenting adult individual regardless of race or gender. The definition of marriage remains the same. Did the definition of voting change when women could do it? No.

Prior to voting rights legislation could a woman vote? NO. Thus the defintion was that to vote you had to be a man, worse yet a white man, so the defintion of a voter was a white man. That was what was changed.

I think I am done arguing. You want what you want and you will make up anything you can to get it, that we all know for sure. As I have said, if the legislation is changed, as it was with voting, then OK by me. Although to be honest I don't think I would vote for such a change.

 

[Freewill]

Obviously the whole thing begins where it has to begin, with the definition of marriage changing.

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

Same sex couples aren't 'things'. They're people. They have a constitutional right to marry. If you're going to deny them that right, you're going to need a compelling state interest and a very good reason.

Opponents of same sex marriage have neither. Which is why they have so often failed.

Sigh, once again, and AGAIN and AGAIN where does the constitution give anyone the right to marry? It seems to me you gay blades certainly have a hard time understanding. Did the blacks get a guaranteed right to vote without a constitutional amendment? I can argue that all men are created equal and blacks are men thus they are indeed covered under the constitution. But I can not argue that two men marrying is the same in any way as a man an a woman, which is the traditional definition of marriage.

Nothing is a right just because you want it to be.

Be law abiding citizens and get the laws changed, that is all I am saying. This end run through the courts and just making stuff up is BS.

{Sigh} And once again it must be pointed out to you that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has declared marriage a Fundamental Right on no less than three (and some argue 14) occasions.

Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely. These are irrefutable facts. You may not like them, but they ARE facts.

OMG, do you think this is day one of my internet experience? I know of Loving v Virginia it is famous for ruling that marriage is between a man and a woman regardless of RACE. RACE not proclivity.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision held this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

BTW, being black and gay are NOT THE SAME THING.

 

[Redfish]

The stupidity of the demagogues seeking to propagate the fallacy that allowing same-sex couples access to marriage law will result in the states being 'forced' to allow brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons to marry is considerable given the fact that same-sex couples have been allowed to marry for more than ten years now in some jurisdictions; and during the past ten years in none of those jurisdictions have brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters, or three or more persons been allowed to marry.

bullshit, the legal arguments are EXACTLY the same.

(1) prove it; you can't

(2) show any even minimally significant movement for any of it

arguments for gay marriage
1. discrimination
2. equal protection
3. equality
4. people should be allowed to marry who they love
5. civil rights

arguments for multiple person marriage

exactly the same.

There's a major difference. The legal structure is perfectly set up to handle gay marriage. We have no legal structure for polygamy.

For example, lets say 4 people get married, first 2, then a third, then later a fourth. If there is a divorce, do all 4 get divorced, or just do they just spin one off while the other remains married?

We have no law for this.

If they do divorce, does property get split 4 ways equally? Or is it based on the time in the relationship?

We have no law for this.

What if two people want to get divorced, but two don't want to? Can any individual initiate a divorce, or do all parties have to agree? If so, is a successful divorce a matter of a vote?

We have no law for this.

When a child is born within such a union, are parental decisions made by the biological parents, or by any person in the union? If the latter, if they get divorced, do they all retain custody? And in what proportions, given that some may be newer to the union than others? How do you settled child support for say, non-biological shorter term members?

We have no law for this.

Gay marriage can easily answer any of these questions: the same as they would be for a straight couple.

you are correct, we have no statutes addressing polygamous divorce. The ABA is licking its chops to get billable hours on the first such case---------and its coming. I guarantee it.

 

[Redfish]

Incorrect.

Same-sex couples are currently eligible to enter into marriage contracts, the same contracts as opposite-sex couples – marriage unchanged, unaltered, and not 'redefined.'

Then anyone can marry anything or anyone, is that what you are saying? Some things do not require definition in the law. No one until recently ever would have defined marriage as between anything other then between a man and woman. The judicial system proclaiming they can marry IS changing the definition.

Same sex couples aren't 'things'. They're people. They have a constitutional right to marry. If you're going to deny them that right, you're going to need a compelling state interest and a very good reason.

Opponents of same sex marriage have neither. Which is why they have so often failed.

Sigh, once again, and AGAIN and AGAIN where does the constitution give anyone the right to marry? It seems to me you gay blades certainly have a hard time understanding. Did the blacks get a guaranteed right to vote without a constitutional amendment? I can argue that all men are created equal and blacks are men thus they are indeed covered under the constitution. But I can not argue that two men marrying is the same in any way as a man an a woman, which is the traditional definition of marriage.

Nothing is a right just because you want it to be.

Be law abiding citizens and get the laws changed, that is all I am saying. This end run through the courts and just making stuff up is BS.

{Sigh} And once again it must be pointed out to you that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has declared marriage a Fundamental Right on no less than three (and some argue 14) occasions.

Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely. These are irrefutable facts. You may not like them, but they ARE facts.

OMG, do you think this is day one of my internet experience? I know of Loving v Virginia it is famous for ruling that marriage is between a man and a woman regardless of RACE. RACE not proclivity.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights decision of the United States Supreme Court which invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

The case was brought by Mildred Loving, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". The Supreme Court's unanimous decision held this prohibition was unconstitutional, reversing Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States.

BTW, being black and gay are NOT THE SAME THING.

yes, but wytchey will never understand that.

 

[Redfish]

arguments for gay marriage
1. discrimination
2. equal protection
3. equality
4. people should be allowed to marry who they love
5. civil rights

arguments for multiple person marriage

exactly the same.

I'm afraid you've got it all wrong. This is the primary argument for gay marriage:

People who are not hurting other people should be free to live their lives however they wish.

All the other stuff about discrimination and civil rights....those are arguments objecting to government interference in people's lives.

ok, then what is the legal basis to reject polygamy using that one criteria?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Legislatures, the courts, and the majority of the population disagre with Freewill, and since no one will force Freewill to marry a person of the same sex, his exercise is mental masturbation: probably feels good and is sterile.

 

[Freewill]

Legislatures, the courts, and the majority of the population disagre with Freewill, and since no one will force Freewill to marry a person of the same sex, his exercise is mental masturbation: probably feels good and is sterile.

And once again rightwinger states statistics without backing. In almost every case where the people were asked, even in California, gay marriage was turned down. But keep making things up jake it really is the only argument.

 

[Redfish]

Legislatures, the courts, and the majority of the population disagre with Freewill, and since no one will force Freewill to marry a person of the same sex, his exercise is mental masturbation: probably feels good and is sterile.

wrong again, snake.

care to review the california prop 8 vote? BTW, it was done twice and the will of the people was very clear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not since 2012, the tide has turned round, and the majority disagrees with you. And more importantly, millennials overwhelmingly resent and resist heterofascism. In 2016, that generation will be able to vote as a complete age group for the first time.

Freewill, I understand you don't agree and probably never will, but this is how our culture changes things.

You will have to accept that you will not have your way.

 

[SwimExpert]

ok, then what is the legal basis to reject polygamy using that one criteria?

Actually, if you had been reading the rest of the thread you'd see I already laid it out. Polygamy has a demonstrated history of contributing to a male dominated society where women's equality are subjugated and suppressed. The government has a legitimate interest in disallowing it.

Personally, I firmly believe that any man who wants to have 8 wives should be given enough rope to hang himself. One wife is bad enough.

 

[Redfish]

Not since 2012, the tide has turned round, and the majority disagrees with you. And more importantly, millennials overwhelmingly resent and resist heterofascism. In 2016, that generation will be able to vote as a complete age group for the first time.

Freewill, I understand you don't agree and probably never will, but this is how our culture changes things.

You will have to accept that you will not have your way.

let the people vote. let the will of the people decide societal values of right and wrong---------thats all we are asking for. Just as the constitution was adopted by majority vote, so should issues like gay marriage.

if a majority wants it, then so be it. But lets let every citizen have a say----and a vote.

 

[Redfish]

ok, then what is the legal basis to reject polygamy using that one criteria?

Actually, if you had been reading the rest of the thread you'd see I already laid it out. Polygamy has a demonstrated history of contributing to a male dominated society where women's equality are subjugated and suppressed. The government has a legitimate interest in disallowing it.

Personally, I firmly believe that any man who wants to have 8 wives should be given enough rope to hang himself. One wife is bad enough.

not true, many poligamous societies are matriarchal. What I said is correct, the exact same legal arguments that are currently being made for gay marriage, can and will be made for multiple partner marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not since 2012, the tide has turned round, and the majority disagrees with you. And more importantly, millennials overwhelmingly resent and resist heterofascism. In 2016, that generation will be able to vote as a complete age group for the first time.

Freewill, I understand you don't agree and probably never will, but this is how our culture changes things.

You will have to accept that you will not have your way.

let the people vote. let the will of the people decide societal values of right and wrong---------thats all we are asking for. Just as the constitution was adopted by majority vote, so should issues like gay marriage.

if a majority wants it, then so be it. But lets let every citizen have a say----and a vote.

Jacksonian democratic majorities may not eliminate civil rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The anti-female brutality of historic polygamy in Judaism and Islam gives sufficient reason to not consider polygamy.

 

[Redfish]

Not since 2012, the tide has turned round, and the majority disagrees with you. And more importantly, millennials overwhelmingly resent and resist heterofascism. In 2016, that generation will be able to vote as a complete age group for the first time.

Freewill, I understand you don't agree and probably never will, but this is how our culture changes things.

You will have to accept that you will not have your way.

let the people vote. let the will of the people decide societal values of right and wrong---------thats all we are asking for. Just as the constitution was adopted by majority vote, so should issues like gay marriage.

if a majority wants it, then so be it. But lets let every citizen have a say----and a vote.

Jacksonian democratic majorities may not eliminate civil rights.

horseshit. Jacksoniam democratic majorities ESTABLISHED civil rights. But we get it, you would prefer having "rights" established by a dictatorial minority.

 

[Redfish]

The anti-female brutality of historic polygamy in Judaism and Islam gives sufficient reason to not consider polygamy.

thats not the point, but your failed deflection attempt is noted.

 

[Nosmo King]

The marriage contract is one in which two parties engage. There are contractual provisions for the establishment of a protected corporation including more than two parties or individuals. But those contracts are beyond the breech of the marriage contract...

You mean, traditionally, right?

Like man/woman... You guys had better get busy polishing up the gaping holes in your legal arguments...and fast. You might want to give Judge Sutton's Opinion at the 6th circuit level a good thorough read on the matter before you jump into the boxing ring without headgear and a teeth-guard..

Tradition is not a trap door defense for inclusion. If you want to argue that tradition makes laws safe, I ask what happened to the 'traditions' of the old south in the 1950s and 60s. What happened to the 'tradition' of the nuclear family with a stay at home mother and the father as the sole bread winner? What happened to the tradition of compromise in American politics?

If tradition is used to exclude others from the law, how well is tradition serving society?