Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have already stated my position on marriage. It is a religious right (according to the right when they are talking about heterosexual marriage) that does no harm to anyone and is between consenting adults. So your claim that all of your examples must be allowed as well is absurd, to put it kindly.
So David Koresh's relious right to marry the multiple followers in his camp is not a "religious right"? Look, I think marriage is a religious institution and the state has no business being involved. I don't think any state violates someone's right to a religious marriage (you can have a marriage in your church and practice your religious freedom, there isn't really a ban on gay marriage, there is a lack of legal recognition in most states. I would be against an outright ban (and I don't know whate each state Constitution says) on a religious ceremony. Conversely, there is a ban on polygamy. You are breaking laws (in most states) if you attempt to marry more than one person.
So your argument against allowing homosexual marriage is that it's a gateway marriage and that it will open the door to other unseemly types of marriage?? So in other words you have no valid argument against it you just like trying to scare people with fears of hwat you believe will come later. BOO!. LOL Thanks for a lot of words that in the end said nothing of value.
You are correct that I have no argument against it. I have no dog in the fight. I am also not trying to scare anyone of what will come later. I don't understand why you are fighting for one and not fighting for the other. My position is clear and I will fight for a state's right.
And the laws are applied (and in cases that they are not, they should be corrected.) The problem here is that you are ignoring how the law is being applied. Do you see the distinction in the following cases?and yet the 14th amendment doen't speak of classes it speaks of CITIZENS and how the laws should be applied to them all equally. Funny how you missed that.
1. A marriage license shall be issued to any adult may get married to another person providing the person they get married to fits the following criteria:
a. They must be of legal age.
b. They must not be a blood relative.
c. Neither person may already be in a legal marriage.
d. The person may not be of the same gender.
and
2. A marriage license shall be granted to any adult who is not homosexual may get married to another person providing the person they get married to fits the following criteria:
a. They must be of legal age.
b. They must not be a blood relative.
c. Neither person may already be in a legal marriage.
3. No religious or civil ceremony may be held which sanctions/announces or makes a pact between two individuals of the same gender.
The first law is completely constitutional. It doesn't exclude a person from getting married.
The second law is unconstituitonal and it violates the 14th amendment because it doesn't provide equal protection of everyone to get married. It specifically precludes a person who is homosexual fro getting married.
The third one is a violation of the first amendment because it interferes with someone's ability to practice their religion.
"I don't believe that is addresed by the 14th amendment. I do think the states have the right to (though I wish they wouldn't, personally) make that determination if the people of that state grant the state that authority."
The 14th Amendment HAS been applied before to the right to marry. See Loving v. Virginia (1960). A state's rights argument won't fly.
The Federal government has to be involved thanks to a little piece of legislation called the Defense of Marriage Act which prevents Federal Courts from having to consider the subject. If anything you make an argument as to why it should be repealed.
There are no applicable legal arguments against gay marriage.
It always comes down to either "I don't like it, so there!" or some silly religious argument.
-Marriage is not a religious function in the eyes of the law. Religious groups have a right not to perform the ceremonies. Its not necessary. The local government can perform marriages.
-Gay marriage is not incest, polygamy or buggery. Its not just about a choice not being legal. Their inherent natures are altogether different. Just because you don't like any of them, it doesn't make them equivalent. Its a stupid analogy used to divert attention from the facts of the discussion and veer off into pointless discussions.
Before you give me the "gay people aren't the same as incest, incest is disgusting"... YOU find someone who is incestuious as disgusting as some people find gay people. I'm not arguing because I care either way, I'd rather see the state the hell out of the institution of marriage, but before I see that I want to see the correct use of an amendment.
Mike
WOW, way to try to put words into my mouth and attack me for something that I never presented as my argument. LOL If you want to see the correct use of an amendment you might want to try reading it first. LOL
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.
I went to great lengths to explain my stance but I will have to laugh at the assertion that I've not read the first amendment. I've not only read the Constitution, I've read accounts of constitutional panels most people are unaware of. Do you know what the convention at Anapolis was? Do you know about the committees of 9? The committees of 11?
While there were no official transcriptions of any of these events (there was a concern that an official document would be preserved as a matter of record and that it was impossible for someone to make such a record without inserting one's opinion) Mason, Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton all have at least (and some are rather extensive) collections of notes. Some of them are hard to get a hold of. A lot of them are out of print and will only be available at a large library. I will dig up the list that I have (mine isn't complete but I've got about 10 books that most 'constitutional scholars' are unaware they exist). I'm not saying that I'm the ultimate authority or anything but this is kind of a passion of mine and I'm not telling you how to interpret it, I'm just telling you that there are actual collections of notes by the actual delegates that do give insight into the original intention.
Its not the stuff that you will hear in con-law or american history class. I said in my intro that I'm an autodidact and I really do go out and read as much as I can. Again, just if you're interested, I'll forward the info. I'll have to dig it up at the house (I've moved twice recently)
Mike
First of all. I have made no personal attacks, that is your specialty. I said that you had poorly constructed arguments. I can see that you don't like that but I call it how I see it. We can, if you prefer, engage in personal attacks but I would really prefer not to. .
Yeah that was ONE of you comments directed at me now go back and read your previous posts.
How about this comment where you try to define an argument about incest that I never made and attribute it to me so you can counter an argument I never made so you can pretend to prove me wrong.
or how about this one
Both are attempts by you to insert something you made up as my opinion so you can attack me for something I never said.
So you don't disgree and have nothing to say but are still babbling on and coming at me with ridiculous BS?? Got it thanks for the heads up.
You REALLY need to read what i said and comment on that instead of assuming you know what i am thinking and then running with your assumptions.
I never made an argument against polygamy. I just said that is a matter for another thread. Once again try to put words into my mouth.
actually you and several others have brought up incest, polygamy and other issuesmany people find distasteful to try and argue against gay marriage claiming that gay marriage will lead to those other things like the "gateway drug" arguments. I made up the phrase 'gateway marriage" and did not intend to attribute that phrase to you even though you are guilty of the act.
What is at issue here is not "do you want gay marriage to be legal". It is, "can the 14th amendment be used in support of gay marriage". The answer is no. The entire Constittuion can be used however, to support a states right to legalize gay marriage.
Mike
and once again you make the unsubstantiated claim that the 14th amendment cannot be used in support of gay marriage. If I got something wrong in using the application of the 14th amendment, which you admitted that you did not disagree with, then explain how i got it wrong. You merely stating it doesn't apply just doesn't cut it.
P.S. I see you dropped that ridiculous "honor killing" argument. LOL
The 14th amendment cannot be used in support of gay marriage. It can be used against a ban on a gay person marrying.
I wasn't making the honor killing argument for any reason other than to demonstrate that the first amendment does not allow anyone to do anything in the name of religion.
Sometimes making an outrageous argument is an effective technicnique to demonstrate a principle. Apparently it failed here.
With regards to incest/polygamy, I'm not saying we should debate the merit or morality of them, hell I'm not debating the merit or morality of homosexuality here, the real issue is, does a person have an unalienable right to marry whomever they want. If that is the case then why do we exclude anyone (short of children) from that? Why do we limit the number to one.
Either a state has the authority to place restrictions on who you may marry or it doesn't. If it does then you should be allowed to marry anyone you want and we should stop dictating who you are allowed to get married to.
Hopefully my last post more eloquently stated my position.
Mike
Ok. Lets have a serious, honest, intellectual debate. No name calling no intellectual dishonesty... here's my attempt. I'll stop the rhetoric.
To explain that I'm going to, for the sake of argument, say that you are right on your interpretation of the 14th amendment. If you are right then it doesn't apply just to homosexuals. What is up for debate is not who is allowed to get married, it is who a person is allowed to get married to. If you are saying that someone should be able to choose any person to get married to then why would you stop at homosexuals? Does someone having multiple wives somehow interfere with your life? What about if someone marries their cousin or sister? Why would you argue for someone's right to marry someone of the same sex but then take something that is, in our society, consider devient or risque to you (or the majority) and not defend that.
I don't agree with polygamy, incest or homosexuality but I would defend the right of a state to allow it.
Ok. So that's the end of the sake of argument (translation: I'm not saying I agree that it is covered under the 14th, that argument didn't move.)
The moment you make the "gateway marriage" argument in a desperate attempt to deter people from recognizing homosexual marriage under the claim that it will lead to something else is patently dishonest on your part. Polygamy is not part of the debate according to the OP since he just wants to talk about the constitution, the 14th amendment and homosexual marriage. SO if you want to talk about the legality of polygamy go start another thread.
Stay focused on the REAL topic of this thread and present a REAL reason why it shouldn't be recognized instead of all of the "gateway marriage" bs that is nothing mroie than a distraction and has NO bearing on whether gay marriage should be recognized or not.
You still haven't shown how I narrowed the scope of the 14th amendment because I never said anything about it applying to polygamy or not. That was one of your attempts to attribute something to me that I did not say so you could try to define me as being hypocritical.
I am not making a "gateway marriage argument". I don't have a problem with people recoginizing a homosexual marriage. You conveniently ignore where I said that numerous times.
Also you seemed to completely ignore this:
Mike
That outlines what is and what is not constitutional.
You didn't speak to that though, you spoke to the idea that I am using a "slippery slope" argument which is not the case.
I don't care if polygamy is legal or not.
I don't even care if homosexual marriages are recognized.
All I care about is that the federal government butt out because they do not have the authority to do so in this case so long as 1) homosexuals are allowed the same marital privilages as everyone else in a given state and 2) a religious service is not criminal (and I believe the same about polygamy- that is NOT a gateway marriage argument that is my belief.)
As for the assertion that I was implying that you are a hypocrite, that was not my intention.
I can care less if same sex want to get married. The problem will be getting a church to marry them. Of course they can still get the licence
The supporters of gay marriage are still ducking and avoiding my question, how can gays petition for gay marriage when heterosexual marriage isn't legally existent?
I was going to say gender discrimination based on sexual orientation but oh well.
Just as civil rights for minorities was won through a long, protracted battle with bigots, so will equality for gays.
It's an inevitability.
The supporters of gay marriage are still ducking and avoiding my question, how can gays petition for gay marriage when heterosexual marriage isn't legally existent?
Their not petitioning for "gay marriage" they are petitioning for Civil Marriage and an end to a requirement that participants be restricted by gender. Just as under the law it isn't recognized as Jewish Marriage, or Catholic Marriage, Interfaith Marriage, or Mexican Marriage, or Asian Marriage, Interracial Marriage, or Two Old People Marriage, or One Old and One Young Marriage. The legal term is Civil Marriage
But you probably knew that already and would like to play word games.
>>>>
I ignored NOTHING. the post was so long I responded in small parts. Funny you should talk about ignoring though becuase I still don;t see when and where you showed and explained how I narrowed the scope of the 143th amendment.
Just as civil rights for minorities was won through a long, protracted battle with bigots, so will equality for gays.
It's an inevitability.
What equality? I repeat, there is legally no such thing as heterosexual marriage nor is there any law that states heterosexuals have a right to marriage, the 14th Amendent has no use is arguing for equal protection under the law for something that legally doesn't exist for the group that is claimed to have those rights.
