Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[Vanquish]

Homosexuals are not a "minority".
Homosexuals are not a "race".
Homosexuals are not a "religion"
Homosexuals are not a "gender"
Homosexuals are not a specific age

It has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with choice. If a known drug addict wants to "adopt" the court stops them. If a known alcoholic/gambler/sex addict/cleptomaniac/ etc wants to adopt, the court stops them. The reason they can get married is their condition is not known to the state. If there was an "easy" way to determine who was making these bad decisions, the state would pass laws to stop them. Homosexuals are making bad choices, it is easy for the state, to discourage that behavior by not rewarding it with same sex marriage.

The Supreme Court and Constitution recognize homosexuals as a protected, minority class, entitled to equal protection and due process:

Yet Amendment 2, in explicit terms, does more than repeal or rescind these provisions. It prohibits all legislative, executive or judicial action at any level of state or local government designed to protect the named class, a class we shall refer to as homosexual persons or gays and lesbians.

Amendment 2 bars homosexuals from securing protection against the injuries that these public accommodations laws address. That in itself is a severe consequence, but there is more. Amendment 2, in addition, nullifies specific legal protections for this targeted class in all transactions in housing, sale of real estate, insurance, health and welfare services, private education, and employment. See, e.g., Aspen Municipal Code §§13-98(b), (c) (1977); Boulder Rev. Code §§12-1-2,12-1-3 (1987); Denver Rev. Municipal Code, Art. IV §§28-93 to 28-95, §28-97 (1991).

Romer v. Evans (1996)

It therefore has everything to do with rights, your argument has no basis in law.

The court also acknowledges that homosexuality, whether naturally occurring or choice, constitutes a class of persons entitled to their Constitutional right to privacy. Just as an adult may elect to join a given religion and enjoy First Amendment protection accordingly, so too may homosexuals enjoy 14th Amendment protections, the issue of 'choice or nature' is moot.

The constitution does not protect fagginess(homosexuals) as a class of people, and the courts can be wrong. Fagginess is a choice, period!!!

So you admit that under current law, but not your interpretation of the Constitution, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. That's what you're saying when you say "the courts can be wrong!"

Thanks for admitting what we all knew.

You just hate homosexuality and don't want to be fair. We all knew this too, but at least you're becoming more blatant about it now that you've been cornered with the law.

 

[Google]

Not if you are the state......they have a little problem called the Constitution.

Regardless....marriage has been established by the courts as a RIGHT

Christ, yeah the Constitution clearly supports homosexual marriage

SOME courts have, and I'm waiting with anticipation for a Supreme Court ruling.

Does the fact that nearly all, around 70%, of all new AIDS cases are homosexuals? Or the fact that gays make up 2% of the population and the vast, over-whelming majority of AIDS cases?

Oh, its a healthy alternative lifestyle though. Bullshit. In classic shout em down tactics any mental health care professionals or organizations that dare state statistics are 'glittered'.

After the Giffords shooting I believe any of those morons that decide they are going to pose as a security threat like that should be shot.

Oh, it's okay for gays to commit acts of vandalism of those they disagree with.

Well, since (as indicated in your post) we are pulling figures directly out of our hindquarters...100% of the obesity epidemic is comprised of fat people. Let's stop them from getting married! What do the incidents of HIV (your figures are beyond wrong) in gay men have to do with legal, civil marriage?

Lesbians are in the lowest risk category of most sexually transmitted disease...do they get to legally marry?

Are you seriously comparing glittering to being shot in the head? Do you belong to Landover Baptist Church by any chance?

While I do not support these acts of civil disobedience, you're being silly.

I'm not being silly. Rep. Giffords was shot in the head, and you are telling me that getting that close to a politician reaching in a bag and throwing glitter out should just be shrugged off?

If you believe that taking that action shouldn't get you shot, I'd like to know what you think should be done in that situation if it were the president.

It isn't silly, it is serious.

 

[Google]

Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.

Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

 

[eflatminor]

If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.

Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?

I would deny no one the right marry. If the Church of the Sacred Beaver wishes to marry a gay couple, have at it. We have freedom of speech, so go ahead and call yourself married. No one cares. I would deny no one anything regarding marriage. I'm only saying that the Federal government has no business defining the institution of marriage...for anyone!

Those rulings were not about religious marriage, but legal, civil marriage. THAT is what the discussion is about, not about religious marriage...which we already HAVE equal access to.

I understand that but it doesn't change the fact that the Federal government has no authority to define relationships. Nor should any state. If two people want to enter into a civil contract that they want to call a marriage, that's not the government's business other than to provide the court system should a dispute arise between the parties of the contract. Again, get the government the fuck out of marriage and all these problems go away.

 

[Google]

Gays cannot marry who they love. YOU can. How can you say they have the same rights you do??

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

The key is that the Federal Government applies the same standard to all citizens. You can either have all marriage or all civil union

You can't have seperate but equal

The same argument that homosexuals, and yourself, are making for same-sex marriage can be made for bigamy and polygamy.

That is a lifestyle too. They are Americans too. Why is it okay to deny them fundamental rights?

 

[Google]

"Our crime has been: We married women instead of seducing them; we reared children instead of destroying them; we desired to exclude from the land prostitution, bastardy and infanticide. If George Reynolds [the man who was convicted of committing bigamy] is to be punished, let the world know the facts . . . . Let it be published to the four corners of the earth that in this land of liberty, the most blessed and glorious upon which the sun shines, the law is swiftly invoked to punish religion, but justice goes limping and blindfolded in pursuit of crime."

 

[eflatminor]

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

The key is that the Federal Government applies the same standard to all citizens. You can either have all marriage or all civil union

You can't have seperate but equal

The same argument that homosexuals, and yourself, are making for same-sex marriage can be made for bigamy and polygamy.

That is a lifestyle too. They are Americans too. Why is it okay to deny them fundamental rights?

It is absolutely NOT okay to deny them rights. If consenting adults want to enter into a contract they call "marriage" that involves more than two people, that's their business. Only if the contract come into dispute should the courts be made available to the parties of the contract. Again, if government were out of the business of marriage, this would not be an issue.

 

[Seawytch]

It just irritates the hell out of you that the homosexual lifestyle is not healthy, and children should not be exposed to it.

Your original claim was 70% of HIV/AIDS cases were gay men. Even your 2006 data does not support that contention.

Male to male sexual contact actually accounts for roughly half of all new HIV/AIDS cases and the numbers are actually going DOWN from what they were, even in 2006.

You didn't address lesbians again. They are in the lowest risk categories.

What does ANY of this have to do with legal, civil marriage?

Using your "logic" (and I use the term lightly), obese people should not be able to legally marry. They ARE, after all, in the highest possible health risk category of all Americans.

 

[konradv]

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

The key is that the Federal Government applies the same standard to all citizens. You can either have all marriage or all civil union

You can't have seperate but equal

The same argument that homosexuals, and yourself, are making for same-sex marriage can be made for bigamy and polygamy.

That is a lifestyle too. They are Americans too. Why is it okay to deny them fundamental rights?

As long as no one is being co-erced and are of age, that should be their right, IMO.

 

[eflatminor]

The key is that the Federal Government applies the same standard to all citizens. You can either have all marriage or all civil union

You can't have seperate but equal

The same argument that homosexuals, and yourself, are making for same-sex marriage can be made for bigamy and polygamy.

That is a lifestyle too. They are Americans too. Why is it okay to deny them fundamental rights?

As long as no one is being co-erced and are of age, that should be their right, IMO.

Careful with that logic and reason there...

 

[Seawytch]

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.

Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

Loving v Virginia.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n. 1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

1 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

The constitution of the US is cited liberally in both Turner and Zablocki.

 

[Seawytch]

get the government the fuck out of marriage and all these problems go away.

While that might be the Libertarian wet dream, we might as well wish for unicorns that fart glitter. It isn't going to happen.

So what is the compelling state reason to deny gays and lesbians the same legal marriage contract that heterosexuals enjoy?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

The key is that the Federal Government applies the same standard to all citizens. You can either have all marriage or all civil union

You can't have seperate but equal

The same argument that homosexuals, and yourself, are making for same-sex marriage can be made for bigamy and polygamy.

That is a lifestyle too. They are Americans too. Why is it okay to deny them fundamental rights?

Yes you can. And? If the polygamists and the bigamists want to take their cases to court, it is up to the opposition to come up with a compelling state reason to deny their request.

What is your compelling state reason to deny gays and lesbians OR polygamists the fundamental right to legally marry?

 

[Google]

It just irritates the hell out of you that the homosexual lifestyle is not healthy, and children should not be exposed to it.

Your original claim was 70% of HIV/AIDS cases were gay men. Even your 2006 data does not support that contention.

Male to male sexual contact actually accounts for roughly half of all new HIV/AIDS cases and the numbers are actually going DOWN from what they were, even in 2006.

You didn't address lesbians again. They are in the lowest risk categories.

What does ANY of this have to do with legal, civil marriage?

Using your "logic" (and I use the term lightly), obese people should not be able to legally marry. They ARE, after all, in the highest possible health risk category of all Americans.

Are there obesity organizations attempting to indoctrinate school children that being, and I'll use the term indelicately, fat is a healthy lifestyle alternative?

There is a fundamental difference, and it is one that you are completely overlooking. The institution of marriage is one whose primary goal is to secure the family unit. Study after study has proven that children raised in a one parent households are drastically more likely to commit crimes, use drugs, ect, ect.

The left artfully employs propaganda to disavow these statistics. What you are championing is an assault on family--advocating instead that society embark on a grand experiment and in future generations we will determine the end result for children placed in the care of homosexual couples.

Let me ask you this, should my child be forced to be educated on the homosexual lifestyle in 2nd grade?

 

[eflatminor]

get the government the fuck out of marriage and all these problems go away.

While that might be the Libertarian wet dream, we might as well wish for unicorns that fart glitter. It isn't going to happen.

So what is the compelling state reason to deny gays and lesbians the same legal marriage contract that heterosexuals enjoy?

There is no compelling reason for states to attempt to define personal relationships anymore than the Federal government. They need only provide the courts to settle disputes. The ONLY case that can be made for government intervention into personal relationships may have to do with immigration, a responsibility of the Federal government. Knowing your relationships may be necessary for those wishing to become US citizens but still, there is no need to define those relationships at any level.

Lastly, I strongly disagree that it isn't going to happen. Check back after 2012.

 

[Seawytch]

get the government the fuck out of marriage and all these problems go away.

While that might be the Libertarian wet dream, we might as well wish for unicorns that fart glitter. It isn't going to happen.

So what is the compelling state reason to deny gays and lesbians the same legal marriage contract that heterosexuals enjoy?

There is no compelling reason for states to attempt to define personal relationships anymore than the Federal government. They need only provide the courts to settle disputes. The ONLY case that can be made for government intervention into personal relationships may have to do with immigration, a responsibility of the Federal government. Knowing your relationships may be necessary for those wishing to become US citizens but still, there is no need to define those relationships at any level.

Lastly, I strongly disagree that it isn't going to happen. Check back after 2012.

Oh puhleese...Even if Ron fucking Paul won the Presidency, you aren't going to get the government out of the business of licencing legal marriage. You aren't just dreaming, you're delusional if you believe that. It will NEVER happen.

Even the most reasonable proposition, that the government would ONLY issue civil unions isn't likely to happen.

And yes, the state DOES have a reason to define relationships...the benefits and privileges that are associated with them...not to mention the biggie...DIVORCE and the equitable division of property.

Just out of curiosity, are you legally married?

 

[Google]

If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.

Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

Loving v Virginia.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n. 1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

1 Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."​

The constitution of the US is cited liberally in both Turner and Zablocki.

Are you purposely misrepresenting that court case? That ruling had zero to do with homosexual marriage.

Can you show me one court case involving homosexual marriage where the US, not state constitutions, were cited?

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967),[1] was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v. Alabama (1883) and ending all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Google]

get the government the fuck out of marriage and all these problems go away.

While that might be the Libertarian wet dream, we might as well wish for unicorns that fart glitter. It isn't going to happen.

So what is the compelling state reason to deny gays and lesbians the same legal marriage contract that heterosexuals enjoy?

There is no compelling reason for states to attempt to define personal relationships anymore than the Federal government. They need only provide the courts to settle disputes. The ONLY case that can be made for government intervention into personal relationships may have to do with immigration, a responsibility of the Federal government. Knowing your relationships may be necessary for those wishing to become US citizens but still, there is no need to define those relationships at any level.

Lastly, I strongly disagree that it isn't going to happen. Check back after 2012.

Yes there is a compelling argument, and that is the F-ing 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Yes, it is incumbent upon the citizens of the states to determine if they want to participate in this social experiment.

 

[Vanquish]

Yes they can. Gay couples are free to call themselves married. If their church is willing to preform a ceremony, they're free to have a wedding. They are free to enter into any contract, same as straight people. The only difference is that the federal government won't recognize the marriage, which is something they shouldn't be doing for any couple, gay or straight.

Fighting for gay marriage is like fighting against segregation laws...but only for Blacks...not Mexicans or Asians. Either the federal government practices EQUAL justice under the law or not. Federal gay marriage would simply expand slightly those that get special treatment. Screw that. There is nothing in Constitution about marriage. It's a state issue, but the argument is the same. It makes no sense for ANY government to carve out certain groups for special treatment (gays plus straights do NOT equal everyone when it comes to marriage). Better to remain mute on the subject and let people marry whomever they like.

If that were true then the Supreme Court would not have ruled on:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

In all three of those cases they declared legal marriage a fundamental right.

Specifically in Turner v Safley the court stated that there was no compelling reason to prevent prison inmates from marrying. What compelling reason can you provide to deny gays and lesbians a fundamental right?

Can you give me one court case where the ruling was not based no state constitutional provision?

Because if you can't, then the Supreme Court will not be reviewing them.

Not one case has cited the US Constitution.

Seriously? That's your argument? It's not in the Constitution?

Apparently you don't understand how our legal system works. There are whole bodies of caselaw, constitutional doctrines, that have emerged over time and are entirely valid. Not every bit of our laws are embodied in one document. The outline, yes, but not every part in every way.

This silly mantra of some conservatives that if it's not in the Constitution it aint valid is simplistic and childish. You think you have some kind of "gotcha" there. SORRY. The law doesnt work that way.

Now before you go off half-cocked, I respect and revere The Constitution. It IS and always will be the supreme law of our nation. I am not a "living constitution" type either. I'm a mix of "original intent" and "textualist". I do think the constitution is a living document, but only because it can be amended and changed through legislation...not judicial interpretation.

 

[Seawytch]

Are there obesity organizations attempting to indoctrinate school children that being, and I'll use the term indelicately, fat is a healthy lifestyle alternative?

It's not indoctrination, it's the truth. Living a lie is a lot more unhealthy than being gay. Just ask all the kids that kill themselves. Oh right...you can't.

A kid can't stop being gay, but they can stop being overweight.

There is a fundamental difference, and it is one that you are completely overlooking. The institution of marriage is one whose primary goal is to secure the family unit. Study after study has proven that children raised in a one parent households are drastically more likely to commit crimes, use drugs, ect, ect.

Agree 100%. So why would you want to deny the children of gay parents that stability and security?

Oh, and by the way, it is not REQUIRED that people have children to get married.

The left artfully employs propaganda to disavow these statistics. What you are championing is an assault on family--advocating instead that society embark on a grand experiment and in future generations we will determine the end result for children placed in the care of homosexual couples.

The results are already in...our kids are all right. In fact, all studies show that are children are at no disadvantage to those raised in heterosexual households. The key is what you cited above...kids do better in two parent households. Why is my family less deserving of this safety and security than YOUR family?

Let me ask you this, should my child be forced to be educated on the homosexual lifestyle in 2nd grade?

Should a 2nd grader know that gays exist and that there is nothing wrong with that? Yes, they should. I'm gonna clue you in on a little something...our kids are going to school with your kids. Gay kids are going to school with your kids. Schools should be teaching tolerance and that differences are accepted and respected.

What is the "homosexual lifestyle"?

Here's another little "FYI" for ya...the kids get it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBkQ8yww0Ho]‪Little Boy's 1st Gay Encounter With 2 Husbands‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]