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

[kaz]

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

I never argued that. Regardless of your gender, you can enter a man woman marriage. What does gender being different than blacks have to do with anything I said? You seem like a decent, fair guy and pretty intelligent. One of my best buds is like you. We get in these discussions. You're thinking it's not "fair" because blacks didn't pick being black, we didn't pick our gender or our orientation. I agree in society with all that.

However, we're talking about the law. You're thinking politically along the wrong plane. You're taking your thoughts about "fairness" and thinking of government being an abiter of that. What you don't get, yet, you will one day, is that government is actually the threat. The best thing that government can do for blacks, women, gays, and the rest of us is leave us alone. Your wanting to empower judges to implement "fair" without an actual basis in the law is the real threat. That is Pandora's box. We don't need government in this at all. You're giving them an opening to do what they do, seize more power over our lives. The best thing government can do for gays is leave them alone. They do that.

My bud who you remind me of has started to realize that. Once you start asking government why instead of what, you start to unveil the real threat and recognize what they are doing. You'll get there.

Going to the south, the Jim Crow laws were government. BTW. The bus companies didn't want to segregate blacks. Government is the threat, not the solution.

 

[logical4u]

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?

I don't follow them.

 

[logical4u]

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.



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.



>>>>

The problem is:
civil unions or redefining marriage will change our entire cultural structure.
The tax laws will have to be re-written to tax people that are using their "unions" to avoid paying taxes. Older relations will be able to marry younger relations (no incest laws for same sexes, or cousins, or great uncles.....) to avoid inheritance taxes. They can do the same thing to pass Social Security payments to their young choices.
That will mean that Social Security benefits will be eliminated as we know them. The gov't will not be able to pay for all the "dependents", newly "joined".
Now, people are not getting "joined" for "love" or, the real reason for marriage: "children" (and building the community to support those children); they are getting "joined" to scam the system. The system will survive. It will reduce benefits and hurt the most vulnerable amongst us: the children. Anarchy, oh boy!
This is only looking at what will happen in this country. What will happen when the "non-traditional" couple/group goes into another country and is harassed or arrested for doing things that are ILLEGAL in that country? Will our military members be required to fight for people that wanted to force "their beliefs" onto other peoples and nations? How many will die?

Homosexuals have a choice of their actions (otherwise they would be running around like sexual zombies raping anyone that was "attractive" to them). They "choose" not to marry according to "tradition". There are thousands and thousands of others in this country that are unwilling to live in that narrow definition of marriage, and "choose" not to do so. For a small percentage of the population to demand that the entire foundation of civilization change so they can "feel" equal is totally selfish, and destructive. For others, that lack the courage to "say NO", just show how much cowardice there is, when it comes to absolute CORRUPTION.

 

[logical4u]

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.


>>>>

Where did the definition of marriage ever include what color the groom had to be, or what color the wife had to be? Those were laws passed to circumvent the law, not enforce it.

 

[logical4u]

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

To destroy a civilization so that a small percentage can "feel" validated, is absolutely..... stupid. What do you do when people can marry for "any" reason (just as long as they declare "love" for each other)? You break the economic system that supports raising children, and supporting the spouse that invests their time with those children.
Oh, I can hear your argument now: that won't happen. What evidence do you have that the civilization will not crumble, due to this stupid fantasy that "same-sex" is the same as heterosex? Homosexuals are trying to game the system to make it pay for them. Once that "nose is under the tent", how do you propose to stop others from using the same argument to scam the system, themselves?
People believed the politicians and the scammers when they told us, this is the wealthiest nation on earth, and we can afford to do x, y, z. Now we are $16,000,000,000 in debt. Our taxes are going up, our standard of living is going down, our health care system is going under. We no longer believe you. If you want us to "follow" the blind, give us some evidence that it will improve the country. Otherwise, lets go back to the morals and beliefs that made us the best country in the history of the planet.

 

[Robodoon]

Because the gay Lobby is funded by people who believe in Eugenics.

And under UN AGENDA 21...that ain't going to fly.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Because the gay Lobby is funded by people who believe in Eugenics.

And under UN AGENDA 21...that ain't going to fly.

Can you back that statement up with a link?

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

I never argued that. Regardless of your gender, you can enter a man woman marriage. What does gender being different than blacks have to do with anything I said? You seem like a decent, fair guy and pretty intelligent. One of my best buds is like you. We get in these discussions. You're thinking it's not "fair" because blacks didn't pick being black, we didn't pick our gender or our orientation. I agree in society with all that.

However, we're talking about the law. You're thinking politically along the wrong plane. You're taking your thoughts about "fairness" and thinking of government being an abiter of that. What you don't get, yet, you will one day, is that government is actually the threat. The best thing that government can do for blacks, women, gays, and the rest of us is leave us alone. Your wanting to empower judges to implement "fair" without an actual basis in the law is the real threat. That is Pandora's box. We don't need government in this at all. You're giving them an opening to do what they do, seize more power over our lives. The best thing government can do for gays is leave them alone. They do that.

My bud who you remind me of has started to realize that. Once you start asking government why instead of what, you start to unveil the real threat and recognize what they are doing. You'll get there.

Going to the south, the Jim Crow laws were government. BTW. The bus companies didn't want to segregate blacks. Government is the threat, not the solution.

You should really just post your own fallacious statements and then argue against them yourself instead of trying to use the strawman fallacy to attribute points to me and then argue against them. If you are going to make them up, you should just attribute them to yourself.

First of all I'be NEVER tried to make the claim that the government should impose "fair". The government should definitely not be in the "fairness" business, that being the imposition of equal outcomes, they should though - in the context of the function of government - be required to function upon the basis of equal treatment under the law without the imposition of invidious and capricious discriminatory laws.

Secondly, you've been in these threads before, so you should remember that I'm a strong proponent of the repeal of Public Accommodation laws that limit the rights of private businesses of free association and determination of how their property and services will be used. That position is pretty much the opposite of government imposed "fairness". When private business can refuse service based on race, ethnicity, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, etc... that is often viewed as "unfair" from the customers standpoint, however it's not the governments purpose to impose (IMHO) "fair" on private entities.


>>>>

 

[Flaylo]

Give them the rights but don't call marriage, anything else is uncivilized

 

[ABikerSailor]

Give them the rights but don't call marriage, anything else is uncivilized

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

 

[Flaylo]

Give them the rights but don't call marriage, anything else is uncivilized

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Come on squid! I said give them the rights, but these gays in here are making hissy fits over semantics because their agenda is to make homosexuality the equal of heterosexuality when it is not.

 

[PJC]

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

It was pretty hard not to notice.

Applying the 14th amendment to interracial marriage would be tricky.

No it wouldn't be; as it was already done by the SCOTUS.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right.

Wrong, it is a right, matter of fact it's a fundamental right. Look it up.

And races very much overlap.

no, not overlap, i think you meant to say there is a multi-tiered spectrum; with one tier (the black-white one): on one end is all black, the other end is all caucasian; there are varying degrees in the middle.

Same thing with sexual orientation too.

It would be a tricky bank to sink.

No, it wouldn't, cause the SCOTUS already determined the 14th applies. See Loving v Virginia

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.

Huuuh??? You're talking about an issue that was already decided years and years ago; they've already tried and succeeded in deeming that bans of interracial marriage are unconstitutional. so you're safe.

Please go read up on this stuff prior to opining.

 

[Flaylo]

It was pretty hard not to notice.


No it wouldn't be; as it was already done by the SCOTUS.


Wrong, it is a right, matter of fact it's a fundamental right. Look it up.


no, not overlap, i think you meant to say there is a multi-tiered spectrum; with one tier (the black-white one): on one end is all black, the other end is all caucasian; there are varying degrees in the middle.

Same thing with sexual orientation too.



No, it wouldn't, cause the SCOTUS already determined the 14th applies. See Loving v Virginia


Huuuh??? You're talking about an issue that was already decided years and years ago; they've already tried and succeeded in deeming that bans of interracial marriage are unconstitutional. so you're safe.

Please go read up on this stuff prior to opining.

The constitution doesn't list marriage as a right. Bullshit

 

[ABikerSailor]

Give them the rights but don't call marriage, anything else is uncivilized

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Come on squid! I said give them the rights, but these gays in here are making hissy fits over semantics because their agenda is to make homosexuality the equal of heterosexuality when it is not.

Actually, they're not making hissy fits over what it's called, they're making hissy fits over the rights, benefits and priveledges of what people get when they're married.

I mean..................you can have a civil union in one state, but if you move to another, those benefits of the civil union which are recognized in the state they joined together at are not recognized in the state they had to move to because of a job? (Example............a gay couple in the military gets married in VT, but then moves to FL or TN and has to give up the rights they just gained, because the detailer said that is where their next duty station is?)

If you can give the same recognition to civil unions as you do to marriage, then fine.

But until then? They need to keep fighting to get the same rights, which is why I believe that gay couples should have federal recognition at least, no matter what state they are in, which is one of the main reasons I support gay marriage.

And no.....................I'm not gay, but having served 20 years in the military alongside some who were (and most were damn fine people to serve with), I personally believe their partners should have the same access to stuff like the Ombudsman program that married couples have, because a relationship is a relationship, regardless of who you love.

 

[PJC]

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.

Actually, you did indeed imply that very thing. But now, since you were proven wrong, you change your argument slightly to save face and claim something slightly different. typical. Be that as it may, now you're saying that the SCOTUS's ruling in Loving v Virginia was wrong. Okay.

When they wrote the 14th amendment, they clearly didn't mean that.

How do you know? Were you there? Or are you saying that your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is correct and the 9 Supreme Court Justices' interpretations were wrong? How much formal training and experience in the law do you have? More than those 9 Justices who ruled in Loving v Virginia?

One question you should ask yourself is where that power came from if it didn't come from the people who wrote it?

The power to interpret the US Constitution? That power came from Article III of the US Constitution itself.

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.

They weren't "parsing" words. But no matter, how do you interpret the 14th Amendment, exactly? and if it is different than the SCOTUS' interpretation, what gives your interpretation more weight and credence than those who have studied US Constitutional law for years, have practiced the law for years, and have been mandated to interpret the law?

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?

They can't "just decide" "because they said so". their decisions must be based upon precedent, logic, and fact.

QUOTE]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.

they might. They haven't yet though.

Liberals think they can build a dragon and then control the dragon. History proves over and over ... you're wrong.

Uuuh, no. That "dragon" as you call it, was already built and was constructed within Article III of the US Constitution itself well over 200 years ago.

Your argument seems to boil down to one of two things: Either you think that the Supreme Court should not interpret the Constitution and laws; we should only do exactly what the law says and nothing more.

The problem with that argument is that the Supreme Court's mandate is to interpret the Constitution.

Or two, that you say the SCOTUS' interpretations of the Constitution are wrong, and yours is right.

So either you're saying we should ditch Article III of the US Constitution, or we should appoint you as the sole Supreme Court Justice to interpret the Constitution the "correct" way.

Please explain how you are more qualified to interpret the US Constitution than all those Supreme Court Justices.

(Clearly you can't and won't, meaning you aren't more qualified.)

Therefore your argument is illogical.

 

[Flaylo]

Hey................call it what you want, but it's gotta come with the same over 1,000 benefits that married couples currently enjoy.

Fair is fair, right?

Come on squid! I said give them the rights, but these gays in here are making hissy fits over semantics because their agenda is to make homosexuality the equal of heterosexuality when it is not.

Actually, they're not making hissy fits over what it's called, they're making hissy fits over the rights, benefits and priveledges of what people get when they're married.

I mean..................you can have a civil union in one state, but if you move to another, those benefits of the civil union which are recognized in the state they joined together at are not recognized in the state they had to move to because of a job? (Example............a gay couple in the military gets married in VT, but then moves to FL or TN and has to give up the rights they just gained, because the detailer said that is where their next duty station is?)

If you can give the same recognition to civil unions as you do to marriage, then fine.

But until then? They need to keep fighting to get the same rights, which is why I believe that gay couples should have federal recognition at least, no matter what state they are in, which is one of the main reasons I support gay marriage.

And no.....................I'm not gay, but having served 20 years in the military alongside some who were (and most were damn fine people to serve with), I personally believe their partners should have the same access to stuff like the Ombudsman program that married couples have, because a relationship is a relationship, regardless of who you love.

Some licenses and gun permits aren't recognized in other states, i don't see the point, give those people the rights just don't call it a marriage. Keep homosexuality in its proper place.

 

[PJC]

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.

Deflection using an ad hominem fallacy.

So much for your claim of "logic". :rolleyes"

 

[ABikerSailor]

Come on squid! I said give them the rights, but these gays in here are making hissy fits over semantics because their agenda is to make homosexuality the equal of heterosexuality when it is not.

Actually, they're not making hissy fits over what it's called, they're making hissy fits over the rights, benefits and priveledges of what people get when they're married.

I mean..................you can have a civil union in one state, but if you move to another, those benefits of the civil union which are recognized in the state they joined together at are not recognized in the state they had to move to because of a job? (Example............a gay couple in the military gets married in VT, but then moves to FL or TN and has to give up the rights they just gained, because the detailer said that is where their next duty station is?)

If you can give the same recognition to civil unions as you do to marriage, then fine.

But until then? They need to keep fighting to get the same rights, which is why I believe that gay couples should have federal recognition at least, no matter what state they are in, which is one of the main reasons I support gay marriage.

And no.....................I'm not gay, but having served 20 years in the military alongside some who were (and most were damn fine people to serve with), I personally believe their partners should have the same access to stuff like the Ombudsman program that married couples have, because a relationship is a relationship, regardless of who you love.

Some licenses and gun permits aren't recognized in other states, i don't see the point, give those people the rights just don't call it a marriage. Keep homosexuality in its proper place.

So.........................comparing marriage and civil unions with gun licenses? Really?

I think the bolded part is the most honest part of your post. You're scared of the "ghey" and don't want it around you because of either (a) your dogma says its icky and wrong, or (b) you're like Ted Haggard and don't want it around because you're closeted and don't want to be tempted.

Which is it?

 

[PJC]

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.

No, that is not what his argument was at all. Where'd you pull that from? Nothing in his arguments could be misconstrued as them decreeing law because they say they can.

It appears you're in the habit of making straw men arguments, inventing things your opponent says just so you can knock them down.

Try arguing against what he actually said.

 

[PJC]

The constitution doesn't list marriage as a right. Bullshit

I see. So are you saying that if the Constitution doesn't explicitly list a certain right, then that right does not exist?