Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[PJC]

I mixed it up with the proposition 8 regarding property taxes.

Gay marriage and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Gays are treated exactly under the law the same as straights.

Miscegenation and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Blacks are treated exactly under the law the same as Whites.

That argument was shot down in flames by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

Not sure what you're blathering about. Blacks were not treated the same as whites, that is what the 14th amendment was for. Forced segregation, separate facilities and so forth. If Steve is like me in every way except he was black in the South during the 50s, the law applied to him differently. That was a slam dunk violation of the 14th amendment.

Gays are treated the same as straights. Same laws treated the same way. If Steve is exactly the same as me except he's gay, he can still marry exactly the same people I can. If you don't like that, there's a solution. The legislature, that's what it's for.

That you'd say oh, you're against gay marriage so you're for Jim Crow laws is asinine. If you want to have serious conversations with anyone but yourself knock off that crap.

Jeez....research what miscegenation means before you show more of your ignorance. Dang, how difficult is it to take 5 seconds to copy and paste into google and read the definition before posting your foot in mouth reply???

 

[PJC]

I have to laugh that we have a "hippy" posting from afuckingstan. Well, I almost feel that land needs hippies...

Hell it might make it better.

Well, I'm certainly trying. I fear it's a lost cause though.

 

[kaz]

Constitutional protections apply to State and Local government? The Constitution doesn't say it does, but the Supreme Court does. I'm not sure I have a clear answer. I would like them to apply, but I would like them to have said that. Or going forward to pass an actual amendment saying that.

Actually the Constitution does say it. The 14th Amendment says...

"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."

What I'm saying is a flat out statement that the Bill of Rights and all personal rights protected by the Constitution apply. You gave a statement that protects some of those things, but the Constitution does not say that across the board. I said I'm in favor of it, I just think they should pass a broad amendment and keep the courts out of the making laws and Constitutional amendments business.

However, given we assume it does apply, the 2nd Amendment would prohibit that. The Constitution says nothing about government recognizing gay marriage. If States tried to pass laws sending gays to certain schools or forcing them to drink at different fountains, then that would be a violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution does say that citizens cannot be denied due process and equal treatment under the law.

Agreed, though that has nothing to do with the discussion.

The 14th amendment Constitution says you cannot treat groups by law differently than other groups. It does not say you have to give them what they want if they want different things than other groups.

Marriage equality doesn't give them different things from other groups, it gives them the same thing.

Can you show me the link that proves your assertion that straights can enter into same sex marriages? Because if that's true then you have something. Right now you have zip. Every consenting adult can enter into a man/woman marriage, no one can enter into a same sex marriage.

Don't like it? Stop being so lazy and go to the legislature. Actually wanting the courts to be dictatorships is a double edged sword. By your logic they have every right to apply rights to fetuses. I am pro-choice, I do not want the courts to have that power.

 

[PJC]

I mixed it up with the proposition 8 regarding property taxes.

Gay marriage and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Gays are treated exactly under the law the same as straights.

Miscegenation and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Blacks are treated exactly under the law the same as Whites.

That argument was shot down in flames by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

With the level of dead beats and disease. Who sane would want too?

I would if the right one came along. I used to have a black girlfriend years and years ago. She was neither a deadbeat nor was she diseased. Maybe you're just hanging with the wrong crowd.

 

[kaz]

Miscegenation and the 14th amendment have nothing to do with each other. Blacks are treated exactly under the law the same as Whites.

That argument was shot down in flames by the SCOTUS as unconstitutional.

Not sure what you're blathering about. Blacks were not treated the same as whites, that is what the 14th amendment was for. Forced segregation, separate facilities and so forth. If Steve is like me in every way except he was black in the South during the 50s, the law applied to him differently. That was a slam dunk violation of the 14th amendment.

Gays are treated the same as straights. Same laws treated the same way. If Steve is exactly the same as me except he's gay, he can still marry exactly the same people I can. If you don't like that, there's a solution. The legislature, that's what it's for.

That you'd say oh, you're against gay marriage so you're for Jim Crow laws is asinine. If you want to have serious conversations with anyone but yourself knock off that crap.

Jeez....research what miscegenation means before you show more of your ignorance. Dang, how difficult is it to take 5 seconds to copy and paste into google and read the definition before posting your foot in mouth reply???

Actually as you mimicked my sentence structure I didn't notice you'd changed the word. So change my answer to ... so?

Applying the 14th amendment to interracial marriage would be tricky. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. And races very much overlap. It would be a tricky bank to sink. I'm in an interracial marriage, BTW. My faith is in no way that dictator judges are going to protect me, and I see far more downside in them trying.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Constitutional protections apply to State and Local government? The Constitution doesn't say it does, but the Supreme Court does. I'm not sure I have a clear answer. I would like them to apply, but I would like them to have said that. Or going forward to pass an actual amendment saying that.

Actually the Constitution does say it. The 14th Amendment says...

"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."

What I'm saying is a flat out statement that the Bill of Rights and all personal rights protected by the Constitution apply. You gave a statement that protects some of those things, but the Constitution does not say that across the board. I said I'm in favor of it, I just think they should pass a broad amendment and keep the courts out of the making laws and Constitutional amendments business.

Then I think the amendment you are looking for is to remove the Judaical Branch or at least amend the part of the Constitution that identifies the Supreme Court as to being the final authority on the Constitution as to law and fact.

Agreed, though that has nothing to do with the discussion.

Actually Equal Treatment under the law has everything to do with it.

The 14th amendment Constitution says you cannot treat groups by law differently than other groups. It does not say you have to give them what they want if they want different things than other groups.

Marriage equality doesn't give them different things from other groups, it gives them the same thing.

Can you show me the link that proves your assertion that straights can enter into same sex marriages? Because if that's true then you have something. Right now you have zip. Every consenting adult can enter into a man/woman marriage, no one can enter into a same sex marriage.

"Can you show me a link that proves your assertion that straights can enter into same sex amarriages?" What?

In 9 States and DC there is no law that forbids a straight man from marrying a straight man (i.e. straights entering into a Same-sex Civil Marriage.)

If you think there is a law that bars that, a positive argument, feel free to post such a law.

Although what that has to do with what I said escapes me.

Every consenting adult can enter into a man/woman marriage, no one can enter into a same sex marriage.

What?

A man + man or a woman + woman can can enter into a Same-sex Civil Marriage in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington — as well as the District of Columbia.

Don't like it? Stop being so lazy and go to the legislature. Actually wanting the courts to be dictatorships is a double edged sword. By your logic they have every right to apply rights to fetuses. I am pro-choice, I do not want the courts to have that power.

The majority of legal entities now allowing Same-sex Civil Marriage have done it either through the legislature or through ballot initiative.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Applying the 14th amendment to interracial marriage would be tricky. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. And races very much overlap. It would be a tricky bank to sink. I'm in an interracial marriage, BTW. My faith is in no way that dictator judges are going to protect me, and I see far more downside in them trying.

No it wasn't, they already did in the Loving v. Virginia case that struck down anit-miscegenation marriage laws.


>>>>

 

[PJC]

Now that's funny. The people must be kept out of making laws, that's a role for the government. So if the people in a State vote for a referendum recognizing gay marriage and you were on the bench, you'd strike it down as Unconstitutional! Bull, it's the result you want by whatever method you can get it.

Logic, don't try it at home liberals. When used in correctly, it blows up in your face. Which for you is every time you try to use it.

“If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies.”

John Adams.

Clearly, conservatives are some of the very worst at attempting logic; they constantly use fallacies which they magically proclaim as "logic", but which is far from it.

John Adams solution to the problem was to be a republic, not to have government take decision making away from the people.
John Adams, along with several of our founding fathers' solution was to have an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch so as to ensure no one entity had too much power; that includes the majority.

In a direct democracy, which our founding fathers warned against, the power....all the power, resides directly with the people; no one can overrule the majority. Having a republic rather than a democracy helps deter some tyranny of the majority from ocurring, not all. Having checks and balances to include a judicial branch to interpret the law deters even more.

"To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen.."

He was speaking explicitly about placing a limitation on the desires and rights of the majority to visit injustice and inhumanity against the minority.

Your claim that they take away decision making from the people is a straw man. We are talking only of limitations on their decision making.

A limitation even on the majority.



To use John Adams, who I'm descended from by the way,
Irrelevent.

as a justification for government controlling the people is clueless and calling that logic even more so.

No one said "controlling the people" except you. We're speaking only of limitations. You're using a straw man fallacy again and an excluded middle fallacy.

Your over reliance upon fallacies reveals that your argument seriously lacks logic.

You do know what a fallacy is, don't you?

 

[kaz]

Applying the 14th amendment to interracial marriage would be tricky. Marriage is a privilege, not a right. And races very much overlap. It would be a tricky bank to sink. I'm in an interracial marriage, BTW. My faith is in no way that dictator judges are going to protect me, and I see far more downside in them trying.

No it wasn't, they already did in the Loving v. Virginia case that struck down anit-miscegenation marriage laws.


>>>>

I didn't say the courts haven't done that, I said they shouldn't.

When they wrote the 14th amendment, they clearly didn't mean that. One question you should ask yourself is where that power came from if it didn't come from the people who wrote it? What is the basis of their ruling? Simply going back and parsing words to apply it to something else is not only no basis for law, it's dangerous.

A second question is if judges can just decide later that something that is written for one thing can just be applied to another because they said so, what can't they do? Again, the obvious one is the Supremes go back and apply all rights to fetuses. Based on what you are arguing, they have every right to do that. Liberals think they can build a dragon and then control the dragon. History proves over and over ... you're wrong.

 

[kaz]

You do know what a fallacy is, don't you?

I know what a dick is. If you want to see one, head for the closest mirror.

 

[kaz]

Actually Equal Treatment under the law has everything to do with it.

And yet you cannot name one person that I can marry that a gay man can't, or vice versa. There is nothing wrong with what you are arguing. What is wrong is that you want it done through judicial fiat and word parsing. - Strike 1

Also, you ignore my point that let's say we go with your formula definition. Well, singles are married to who they want. And you have to open it to bigamists as well for the same reason. Your standard is "who they want." So they get marriage too. You can't have it both ways, sorry. - Strike 2

Last ditch on your part is to say marriage is "two people." Not "who they want." Well, now their standard of man/woman and your standard two people, are equally arbitrary. - Strike 3.

All logical roads lead to that you want gay marriage, convince people and get it done in the legislature.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Actually Equal Treatment under the law has everything to do with it.

And yet you cannot name one person that I can marry that a gay man can't, or vice versa. There is nothing wrong with what you are arguing. What is wrong is that you want it done through judicial fiat and word parsing. - Strike 1

That logic was tried and failed in the Loving v. Virginia case - it failed. Miserably.

No one in the Commonwealth of Virginia could name a person that Mildred Jeters could marry that another colored woman couldn't marry. All colored women could marry colored men and white men could marry white women. The Commonwealth therefore argued that since the individuals were treated the same, that there was no discrimination in the law.

The SCOTUS didn't buy it.

You are correct - that logic failed, so it was a strike.

Also, you ignore my point that let's say we go with your formula definition. Well, singles are married to who they want. And you have to open it to bigamists as well for the same reason. Your standard is "who they want." So they get marriage too. You can't have it both ways, sorry. - Strike 2

You "second point" is also a strike on two counts. You attempt to create a false Dilemma (If "A" happens, "B" must happen, even though "A" and "B" are not related). False Dilemma, compounded with the False Analogy fallacy. Because there is no compelling government interest in denying two consenting adults, does not preclude there being a reason for denying unlimited permutations of combinations over the two threshold.

So ya, you can have it both ways. Civil Marriage can be limited to two people - it all depends on an independent evaluations of the pro and con cases.

Last ditch on your part is to say marriage is "two people." Not "who they want." Well, now their standard of man/woman and your standard two people, are equally arbitrary. - Strike 3.

There is your third strike.

The standard is not arbitrary. The standard is clearly defined in the law.

1. Can States make laws administering the institution of Civil Marriage? The answer is yes.

2. Are citizens guaranteed protections from the government enacting invidious and capricious laws to exclude groups that might be unpopular from equal treatment and protections of those laws? The answer is no.

3. Is there a right, that when citizens can demonstrate they have been harmed by unequal treatment under the law, that they can thing grievance against the government and require that the government prove a compelling government interest to justify why that group is treated differently? The answer is "yes". Equal treatment is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment and the right to bring grievance against the government is enumerated in the 1st Amendment.​

All logical roads lead to that you want gay marriage, convince people and get it done in the legislature.

The majority of legal entities that now recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage have been achieved through the legislature and ballot initiative (a legislative action).

Personally I'd like to see it passed more through legislatures and ballot initiatives then in the courts. My personal preferences though are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments that anti-marriage equality laws were passed to discriminate against same-sex couples and the Constitutional challenges presented.



>>>>

 

[kaz]

Personally I'd like to see it passed more through legislatures and ballot initiatives then in the courts. My personal preferences though are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments that anti-marriage equality laws were passed to discriminate against same-sex couples and the Constitutional challenges presented.



>>>>

Your whole argument boils down to the courts can decree law because they say they can. I reject that circular logic.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Personally I'd like to see it passed more through legislatures and ballot initiatives then in the courts. My personal preferences though are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments that anti-marriage equality laws were passed to discriminate against same-sex couples and the Constitutional challenges presented.



>>>>

Your whole argument boils down to the courts can decree law because they say they can. I reject that circular logic.

Nope. Not my argument.

My argument is that when a superior law (the Constitution) guarantees that all citizens will have equal access to the privileges and immunities of a State, that all citizens will enjoy due process under the law, and that all citizens have a right to equal protection under the laws (the previous being embodied in the 14th Amendment) then a standard has been established.

That when a subordinate legal entity creates invidious and capricious laws, that citizens have a right to challenge those laws (embodied in the 1st Amendment) to determine if they comply with superior law.

Linear logic, not circular.



Again, I recognize that my personal preference and reality are two different things. Something some people have problems with, they think there preference is reality. Continued passage of marriage equality at the legislatures and the ballot box (as a majority of entities that now have Same-sex Civil Marriage have done) reflects the shifts that have occurred over the last decade in society. That method effectively pulls the teeth of marriage equality opponents. When it's done through the courts, then it gives them something to piss and moan about. Politically there are huge advantages to changing the law instead of having the courts overturn it. Something the people that challenged Prop 8 fail to recognize. Repeal of Prop 8, which would likely have happened in 2010 or 2012 if it hadn't been for the court challenged, would have been HUGE in terms of acceptance and political capital.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

Personally I'd like to see it passed more through legislatures and ballot initiatives then in the courts. My personal preferences though are irrelevant to the validity of the arguments that anti-marriage equality laws were passed to discriminate against same-sex couples and the Constitutional challenges presented.



>>>>

Your whole argument boils down to the courts can decree law because they say they can. I reject that circular logic.

Nope. Not my argument.

My argument is that when a superior law (the Constitution) guarantees that all citizens will have equal access to the privileges and immunities of a State, that all citizens will enjoy due process under the law, and that all citizens have a right to equal protection under the laws (the previous being embodied in the 14th Amendment) then a standard has been established.

That when a subordinate legal entity creates invidious and capricious laws, that citizens have a right to challenge those laws (embodied in the 1st Amendment) to determine if they comply with superior law.

Linear logic, not circular.



Again, I recognize that my personal preference and reality are two different things. Something some people have problems with, they think there preference is reality. Continued passage of marriage equality at the legislatures and the ballot box (as a majority of entities that now have Same-sex Civil Marriage have done) reflects the shifts that have occurred over the last decade in society. That method effectively pulls the teeth of marriage equality opponents. When it's done through the courts, then it gives them something to piss and moan about. Politically there are huge advantages to changing the law instead of having the courts overturn it. Something the people that challenged Prop 8 fail to recognize. Repeal of Prop 8, which would likely have happened in 2010 or 2012 if it hadn't been for the court challenged, would have been HUGE in terms of acceptance and political capital.


>>>>

Gays have the exact same right now that straights do. They can marry and not marry the exact same people. You lose, the 14th doesn't apply.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your whole argument boils down to the courts can decree law because they say they can. I reject that circular logic.

Nope. Not my argument.

My argument is that when a superior law (the Constitution) guarantees that all citizens will have equal access to the privileges and immunities of a State, that all citizens will enjoy due process under the law, and that all citizens have a right to equal protection under the laws (the previous being embodied in the 14th Amendment) then a standard has been established.

That when a subordinate legal entity creates invidious and capricious laws, that citizens have a right to challenge those laws (embodied in the 1st Amendment) to determine if they comply with superior law.

Linear logic, not circular.



Again, I recognize that my personal preference and reality are two different things. Something some people have problems with, they think there preference is reality. Continued passage of marriage equality at the legislatures and the ballot box (as a majority of entities that now have Same-sex Civil Marriage have done) reflects the shifts that have occurred over the last decade in society. That method effectively pulls the teeth of marriage equality opponents. When it's done through the courts, then it gives them something to piss and moan about. Politically there are huge advantages to changing the law instead of having the courts overturn it. Something the people that challenged Prop 8 fail to recognize. Repeal of Prop 8, which would likely have happened in 2010 or 2012 if it hadn't been for the court challenged, would have been HUGE in terms of acceptance and political capital.


>>>>

Gays have the exact same right now that straights do. They can marry and not marry the exact same people. You lose, the 14th doesn't apply.

And Colored's had the exact same rights that whites did. The could marry and not marry the exact same people (each according to race).

Virginia made the same argument you are making. They lost. The 14th did apply.




But really, I don't see the SCOTUS taking a real Same-sex Civil Marriage case for 5-10 years, the two cases now DOMA Section 3 and Prop 8 don't have national implications as neither is really about the fundamental question of Same-sex Civil Marriage. The DOMA case is about can the federal government selectively recognize legal Civil Marriages based on gender when it is within the States purview to establish marriage (not the feds) and the Prop 8 is about using the ballot initiative process to restrict rights already recognized under the State Constitution. So neither will have a national impact as to the fundamental question. The SCOTUS (IMHO) will run hard away from the question until - my prediction? At least half to three quarters of the states already have marriage quality.


>>>>

 

[DSRN88]

This quote in the title so famously spoken by William Lloyd Garrison over a century ago exemplifies this specific issue regarding marriage equality, or lack thereof. Laws are not supposed to be popular and well received by everyone. They are supposed to serve the greater good. We as a country of laws need to realize that we cannot utilize religion as our main tool for engendering a social conscious. It must be from within the community, the simple notion that we sink or swim together. To deny marriage to two consenting adults based solely on who they sleep shows a measure of great imbacility. When a law such as prop 8, or any other that is put into place to deny equal opportunity to people based on gender, sexuality, race or disability you must disobey it.



"Freedom rings where opinions clash"

Adlai Stevenson

 

[kaz]

And Colored's had the exact same rights that whites did. The could marry and not marry the exact same people (each according to race).

That qualification is why you lose. Steve is like me in every way except he's black. He and I can marry entirely different groups of people. Mike is like me in every way except he's gay. He and I can marry the same set of people. It's your colored qualification that did your argument in.

Virginia made the same argument you are making. They lost. The 14th did apply.

My argument lost a completely different case. Irrelevant.

And as I said if you ignore that, your argument is circular. The courts can make law because they say they can.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And Colored's had the exact same rights that whites did. The could marry and not marry the exact same people (each according to race).

That qualification is why you lose. Steve is like me in every way except he's black. He and I can marry entirely different groups of people. Mike is like me in every way except he's gay. He and I can marry the same set of people. It's your colored qualification that did your argument in.

Doesn't do the argument in, "race" is biological condition, "gender" is a biological condition.

It will be the responsibility to show a compelling government interest as to why different treatment of couples based on gender is warranted.

Virginia made the same argument you are making. They lost. The 14th did apply.

My argument lost a completely different case. Irrelevant.

Your argument is that being black (a biological condition) is different than gender (also a biological condition). I don't buy it.

I know you want it to be irrelevant, but it's not. The structure of the argument to prevent marriage equality for coloreds is the same as the structure used to deny marriage equality based on the gender of the couples.

And as I said if you ignore that, your argument is circular. The courts can make law because they say they can.

If you ignore the superior/subordinate natures of our legal system and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land?

Ya, I guess if you want to ignore that situation, then you can believe as you wish.



>>>>

 

[EriktheRed]

Still, no comment for

1. Allowing "civil unions" or REDEFINING marriage will bankrupt this nation, monetarily, if the benefits stand as they are. People that can legally give their gov't benefits to another (partner) will circumvent the laws for inheritance (so much for taxing the rich). SS benefits will be passed on to young adults that have chosen to play the system by legally joining their elderly benefactor (their does not have to be a "loving", intimate relationship). Same sex relatives will legally join to avoid inheritance taxes, and to scam social security benefits. Incest laws do not apply to same sex "couples".
2. Legally joining people for any other reason than "marriage" (in the traditional sense) will morally bankrupt this country. To avoid the above (see 1.), the gov't will either have to appoint witness panels (to verify the "union" was completed), or it will have to eliminate the benefits of marriage. That will hurt millions and millions of "children" that are dependent on married parents supporting them in a loving relationship where one parent is supported by the other during child-bearing and child-raising years. The benefits of the supporting spouse will not legally go to the other. People will become even more deceptive to get the benefits and support that is needed to raise a family, or families will simply not exist anymore. Children will be turned over to the "state" to be raised in a cold, unloving, calculating atmosphere where the gov't will be almighty and people will be part of the "collective" (so much for individuals).

Homosexuals are fully aware that their behavior is not "traditional" in any sense. Just like people that choose to have children out of wedlock, and raise those children on their own or in a "loving" relationship with a person they "choose" not to marry. I cannot understand how such a tiny percentage of the population wants to DESTROY the entire population, by demanding they are given "additional" privileges for choices that can be demonstrated to be immoral and unhealthy. In this country, you have a right to live within the laws as you please. You do not have a right to force a change onto society that will destroy the nation, and leave the "children" hopeless and bankrupt. Another sad testament in this country of personal "greed" over what is "best" for the community and country.


So much for these people "caring about the children"....

Hey, do you like the Family Research Council?