Schwarzenegger: Gay marriage licenses illegal

[NcDeuce]

Schwarzenegger: Gay marriage licenses illegal

CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that the marriage licenses San Francisco is issuing to same-*** couples are illegal, after the city sued the state over a law banning such marriages.

"The marriage certificates submitted to the Department of Health Services by the city and county of San Francisco fail to meet legal standards," Schwarzenegger said in a statement on his Web site.

San Francisco on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the state of California, challenging the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, the city attorney's office said.

The suit came a week after newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the county clerk to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-*** couples. Nearly 3,000 couples have taken advantage of it, despite the filing of two lawsuits to stop the practice.

San Francisco's city attorney Dennis Herrera said his city and county are "going on the offense" with the lawsuit. "Mayor Newsom took a bold step last week, and we fully agree with him that his position is justified,"

Herrera said the city's case will assert that the state law banning same-*** marriage goes against California's constitution because it violates the equal protection and due process clauses.

Schwarzenegger's statement said California citizens generated, and passed, Proposition 22 -- the marriage law -- and it will be defended.

"The attorney general has assured me that he will vigorously defend the constitutionality of the law in the case brought against the state by San Francisco," the governor's statement said.

Herrera said he hopes to consolidate the cases against same-*** marriage pending against the city with the city's lawsuit against the state. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for Friday at 11 a.m. PT (2 p.m. ET).

"I would anticipate that this case is going to have a long life," Herrera replied when asked about the national ramifications of the city's move.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/LAW/02/20/samesex.marriage/vert.gay.marriage.ap.jpg
Inside San Francisco's City Hall, a lesbian couple embrace after being married.


Get 'em Arnold

[hank]

Well, they are illegal in Cal. T-gov is right. That mayor should be arrested. If he disagrees then sue and get the CAl SC to say it is wrong. Or amend the Cal constitution. As it stands that mayor is just a common criminal. Arrest him and let him get a "civil union" in the county lockup.

hank

[hood]

As part of my new hard-ass campaign, I'm going to tell you that Gay Marriage has nothing to do with general military topics (unless you're talking about the Navy) so it should be put in the off topic section with other like topics. That is all. :)

[Herrmannek]

As part of my new hard-ass campaign, I'm going to tell you that Gay Marriage has nothing to do with general military topics (unless you're talking about the Navy) so it should be put in the off topic section with other like topics. That is all. :)
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0609609505.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

http://www.danzigercartoons.com/img/2004/dancart1940.jpg

[Seoulstriker]

the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. this definition existed for millenia, but now they want to change the definition so they can get benefits?

don't change the definition. change the law for civil unions. :roll:

[Guttorm]

Aaaanyway, I don't see the problem.

Why shouldn't two people that love each other be allowed to marry?

[Tengu]

Aaaanyway, I don't see the problem.

Why shouldn't two people that love each other be allowed to marry?Don't see the problem either. Here in belgium gay marriages are legal, there was never any real discussion about it.
Hmm mabye i should do something about my sig. :oops:

[pinkeye]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?

[Trigger]

*waving arms wildly*

OOOOH! OOOOOH!
Moderator!
Pinkeye just made both religious and racial insults.

[pinkeye]

*waving arms wildly*

OOOOH! OOOOOH!
Moderator!
Pinkeye just made both religious and racial insults.

ssshh, maybe the moderators won't notice that i, as a raving liberal, hate everyone except for homo****** commie atheist handicapped native americans...

[Seoulstriker]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?


you are a f***ing idiot, you know that? what freedom is being denied, numbnuts? they have civil unions, dumbass!

they want 'gay marriage' for the benefits that other couples are getting. instead of changing the law for civil unions to get the same benefits as marriages (which would have been ridiculously easy in SF), they didn't. instead, they decided to change the definition of a word to get their way.

marriage is what it is. what's next, teenagers applying for senior citizen benefits? :roll:

[Jack Mehoff]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?

Hey stupid!! By your own defintion, polygamists in Utah should sue Utah because Utah's law prosecuted polygamists for years. How about legalize group marriages too?

[pinkeye]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?


you are a f***ing idiot, you know that? what freedom is being denied, numbnuts? they have civil unions, dumbass!

they want 'gay marriage' for the benefits that other couples are getting. instead of changing the law for civil unions to get the same benefits as marriages (which would have been ridiculously easy in SF), they didn't. instead, they decided to change the definition of a word to get their way.

marriage is what it is. what's next, teenagers applying for senior citizen benefits? :roll:

seoulstriker, since you are merely a little corn-infested turd that simply won't flush away, i won't waste anymore of my time with you.

[NcDeuce]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?

http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc4.jpg

[pinkeye]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?

Hey stupid!! By your own defintion, polygamists in Utah should sue Utah because Utah's law prosecuted polygamists for years. How about legalize group marriages too?

stupid? did i insult you in some way? your argument is ridiculous. i am talking about the union of two individuals, not adam, mark, robert, and ricky. your knee-jerk "christian" homophobic rhetoric reeks of intellectual underdevelopment.

you seem to forget that the same argument against gay marriage was made when the issue of inter-racial marriages emerged in the '50s and '60s. and let's not forget women's suffrage...

civil unions are frequently not recognised outside the state in which they are granted, so the marriage is null and void if the couple decides to relocate to a different state. half-measures were unacceptable during the civil-rights movement, the women's rights movements of the 20th century, so they are certainly unacceptable for homo******s.

[pinkeye]

and jack, correct me if i am wrong, but you are the result of a mixed marriage, right? you, of all people, should be sensitive to this issue because interracial marriage was illegal in many states several decades ago:

"[I]n 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the remaining interracial marriage laws nation-wide. A Virginia judge had upheld that state's ban on interracial marriages, invoking God's intention to separate the races. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned his decision, declaring that:

the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans;
marriage is one of our “vital personal rights” and
the right to marry is “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by a free [people].”

[dez000]

Wtf is wrong with gay marriages... If those people want to get married let them...

As long as they don't try to marry me it's fine :p

[Seoulstriker]

hey, phucktard, do you know the definition of marriage? do you know the definition of senior citizen? do you know the definition of disabled?

how about i change the definition of those words so i can be 'included' and receive the benefits. sounds fair?


there is a reason why civil unions exist. :roll:

[buckeyedoc]

marriage is what it is. what's next, teenagers applying for senior citizen benefits?

rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl rofl

[Jack Mehoff]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?

Hey stupid!! By your own defintion, polygamists in Utah should sue Utah because Utah's law prosecuted polygamists for years. How about legalize group marriages too?

stupid? did i insult you in some way? your argument is ridiculous. i am talking about the union of two individuals, not adam, mark, robert, and ricky. your knee-jerk "christian" homophobic rhetoric reeks of intellectual underdevelopment.

you seem to forget that the same argument against gay marriage was made when the issue of inter-racial marriages emerged in the '50s and '60s. and let's not forget women's suffrage...

civil unions are frequently not recognised outside the state in which they are granted, so the marriage is null and void if the couple decides to relocate to a different state. half-measures were unacceptable during the civil-rights movement, the women's rights movements of the 20th century, so they are certainly unacceptable for homo******s.

You have to admit that it is also a bit ironic that the "Freedom of Speech," "Equal representation,” "Peace and Tolerance for All" advocating party in America completely focuses its fight against and preaches a contradicting policy towards anyone who even slightly questions their policies (even if they agree with them on other issues).

It's downright comical if you really think about it.

So, what's your stand on polygamists and group marriages?

My stand on homo****** marriages/polygamy are neither positive or negative, but if they allow gay marriages then they better legalize polygamy.

[cut]

let's play beat the liberal! looks like you guys took it up to gang bang the liberal already..

[hank]

hey, phucktard, do you know the definition of marriage? do you know the definition of senior citizen? do you know the definition of disabled?

how about i change the definition of those words so i can be 'included' and receive the benefits. sounds fair?


there is a reason why civil unions exist. :roll:

well seoul - do you? where did you go to find the definition? I am curious what law defines marriage as man and woman. Do you really know?

Have you heard of the 14th amendment and/or the 5th amendment. They are in the US constitution and they guarantee equal protection under the law. Do you understand equal, not separate, but equal protection.

Lighten up on the curse words and increase the thinking.

Marriage is only defined - that is a really inacurate descritpion by the way - as man/woman by statute. Many statutes violate the constitution. Many states used to have laws that said blacks were not human. Many states also used to have laws that said separate facilities were OK so long as equal. Does that make it right? YOu tell me. Civil unions is just another way to say separate but equal. IMHO it will not work, but if a court says it will - then it will until a higher court says it will not.

Stop calling different opinions stupid and start thinking about what the law says, not what you think, or someone who actually read it and told you what it means. If you need them I will forward the relevant statutes to you.

hank

[pinkeye]

"You have to admit that it is also a bit ironic that the "Freedom of Speech," "Equal representation,” "Peace and Tolerance for All" advocating party in America completely focuses its fight against and preaches a contradicting policy towards anyone who even slightly questions their policies (even if they agree with them on other issues). "

jack, what are you referring to? contradictory policy? you'll have to specify...


"So, what's your stand on polygamists and group marriages?"

polygamy and "group marriages" are irrelevant to the issue being discussed. gay marriage is not about polygamy, so the slippery slope argument is garbage. again, i point to the historical constraints placed on african-americans, women, etc.

my view on polygamy is irrelevant to the issue. some right-wing kooks on this board will undoubtedly mis-interpret this to signify that i support polygamy, beastiality, atheism, communism, satanism, and so on and so forth...



"My stand on homo****** marriages/polygamy are neither positive or negative, but if they allow gay marriages then they better legalize polygamy."

how do you reach the conclusion that one must necessarily follow the other?

[Haiw]

^
What he said.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I never knew marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Maybe it just always happened like that, but that doesn't make the definition. Besides, if gay people want to marry, with the whole 'you can now put on the ring' and the 'you are now husband bla bla' show, who are you to forbid it to them?!

Oh, and about polygamy; I already covered that in another thread. IMO marriage is just like a sort of 'officialisation' of telling each other "we love eachother, and we're gonna dedicate the rest of our lives to eachother, you are the person I want to share my life with bla bla etc etc". When you start making those kinds of promises to multiple people...it doesn't make sense. It's like telling 5 different friends that they're your best friend.

[hank]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?

Hey stupid!! By your own defintion, polygamists in Utah should sue Utah because Utah's law prosecuted polygamists for years. How about legalize group marriages too?

stupid? did i insult you in some way? your argument is ridiculous. i am talking about the union of two individuals, not adam, mark, robert, and ricky. your knee-jerk "christian" homophobic rhetoric reeks of intellectual underdevelopment.

you seem to forget that the same argument against gay marriage was made when the issue of inter-racial marriages emerged in the '50s and '60s. and let's not forget women's suffrage...

civil unions are frequently not recognised outside the state in which they are granted, so the marriage is null and void if the couple decides to relocate to a different state. half-measures were unacceptable during the civil-rights movement, the women's rights movements of the 20th century, so they are certainly unacceptable for homo******s.

You have to admit that it is also a bit ironic that the "Freedom of Speech," "Equal representation,” "Peace and Tolerance for All" advocating party in America completely focuses its fight against and preaches a contradicting policy towards anyone who even slightly questions their policies (even if they agree with them on other issues).

It's downright comical if you really think about it.

So, what's your stand on polygamists and group marriages?

My stand on homo****** marriages/polygamy are neither positive or negative, but if they allow gay marriages then they better legalize polygamy.

Well, Jack, you are certainly entitled to that opinion and may even get people to agree with it. There are huge differences between gay marriage and polygamy, however. Gay people are denied the access to rights incident to marriage unless they marry the opposite ***. Since they are not attracted to the opposite *** this becomes impossible. Hence the denial of rights that would normally accrue if they decided to marry the opposite ***.

Polygamy is totally different becaue nobody is denied the rights incident to marriage. The second wife can marry any man she wants, except a married one, and she is evern free to marry him if he diverces first. So, the idea that the rights are unattainable are just spurious. I mean an analogous argument that also would not work would be to say that you should have the right to marry an animal, or better yet a dead guy/girl. Not being able to marry a particular person is much less offensive to "right" than not being able to get access to rights at all.

The minor limitation on access to rights that you not marry more than once is viewed, historically as well as now, as minimal. A speed bump, as it were, compared to an impenetrable wall.

So, the polygamy/gay marriage arguments are vastly different.

That being said, I think that if your religious beliefs, say as a mormon, say polygamy is OK, then that is a much better argument. In that case you would in effect be arguing that this is a restriction on your free exercise of religion and that there is not a good reason for the government to impose that restriction. The problem with this argument is that every state has voluntarily outlawed polygamy. Courts, despite the feelings of many on this forum, are loathe to overrule the legislature unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

Equal protection does not require or even allow a balancing of interests. If the rights are denied or abridged, then there is a violation and the offending statute is unconstitutional. This however is abridgement of religious rights, and in this case courts balance the restriction's limitation with the right to be exercised. The governmental interest must be greater than the religious expression interest. Invariably the government has won.

I am no saying that I agree - but that is what happened. I mean, I don't KNOW that polygamy hurts anybody. If the women consent then it seems to me that Mormons should be allowed to go ahead. That is a personal opinion and I'm sure many don't share it. The usual arguments that have won are unequal bargaining power (no women really want polygamy, just the men), its not a requirement of Mormon faith - just OK with it, in the old days there were health problems with multiple *** partners and diseases spreading - I agree today this is silly. All these reasons have historically justified the restriction.

But, understand that the analysis/argument for gay marriage will not in any way effect polygamy in the short term b/c the abridged right is of a different class and the applicable justification is less compelling.

Hope that helps.

hank

[pinkeye]

hey, phucktard, do you know the definition of marriage? do you know the definition of senior citizen? do you know the definition of disabled?

how about i change the definition of those words so i can be 'included' and receive the benefits. sounds fair?


there is a reason why civil unions exist. :roll:

well seoul - do you? where did you go to find the definition? I am curious what law defines marriage as man and woman. Do you really know?

Have you heard of the 14th amendment and/or the 5th amendment. They are in the US constitution and they guarantee equal protection under the law. Do you understand equal, not separate, but equal protection.

Lighten up on the curse words and increase the thinking.

Marriage is only defined - that is a really inacurate descritpion by the way - as man/woman by statute. Many statutes violate the constitution. Many states used to have laws that said blacks were not human. Many states also used to have laws that said separate facilities were OK so long as equal. Does that make it right? YOu tell me. Civil unions is just another way to say separate but equal. IMHO it will not work, but if a court says it will - then it will until a higher court says it will not.

Stop calling different opinions stupid and start thinking about what the law says, not what you think, or someone who actually read it and told you what it means. If you need them I will forward the relevant statutes to you.

hank

great post hank, balanced and intelligent. if only more posts were like yours.

and haiw, you're cool in my book... woot

gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage; i think heteros are doing a good job of that already. correct me if i am wrong, but civil unions are only recognised in the states where they are granted, so if a gay couple wishes to relocate to a different state their union may not be recognised. considering most states do not permit civil unions, homo******s wishing to marry find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

at one point in time african-americans, asian-americans, native americans, women, etc., etc., were denied their rights and fortunately we overcame these ghastly injustices. funny how naysayers refuse to address this issue...

homo******s merit the same rights as anyone else. they are not calling for the overthrow of the government, they are not interested in subverting your children, they simply want the state to recognise their love and accord them the same legal and financial rights enjoyed by the majority.

[Seoulstriker]

hey, phucktard, do you know the definition of marriage? do you know the definition of senior citizen? do you know the definition of disabled?

how about i change the definition of those words so i can be 'included' and receive the benefits. sounds fair?


there is a reason why civil unions exist. :roll:

well seoul - do you? where did you go to find the definition? I am curious what law defines marriage as man and woman. Do you really know?

Have you heard of the 14th amendment and/or the 5th amendment. They are in the US constitution and they guarantee equal protection under the law. Do you understand equal, not separate, but equal protection.

Lighten up on the curse words and increase the thinking.

Marriage is only defined - that is a really inacurate descritpion by the way - as man/woman by statute. Many statutes violate the constitution. Many states used to have laws that said blacks were not human. Many states also used to have laws that said separate facilities were OK so long as equal. Does that make it right? YOu tell me. Civil unions is just another way to say separate but equal. IMHO it will not work, but if a court says it will - then it will until a higher court says it will not.

Stop calling different opinions stupid and start thinking about what the law says, not what you think, or someone who actually read it and told you what it means. If you need them I will forward the relevant statutes to you.

hank

great post hank, balanced and intelligent. if only more posts were like yours.

and haiw, you're cool in my book... woot

gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage; i think heteros are doing a good job of that already. correct me if i am wrong, but civil unions are only recognised in the states where they are granted, so if a gay couple wishes to relocate to a different state their union may not be recognised. considering most states do not permit civil unions, homo******s wishing to marry find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

at one point in time african-americans, asian-americans, native americans, women, etc., etc., were denied their rights and fortunately we overcame these ghastly injustices. funny how naysayers refuse to address this issue...

homo******s merit the same rights as anyone else. they are not calling for the overthrow of the government, they are not interested in subverting your children, they simply want the state to recognise their love and accord them the same legal and financial rights enjoyed by the majority.

merit the same rights as anyone else??? it's called civil unions. if they want the marriage benefits, modify the law for civil unions.



but why do they have to change the definition of marriage? that is fundamentally wrong. it's like changing the definition of senior citizen because you don't have the same rights/benefits so that I, as a teenager, can receive the same rights as a senior citizen. that's how f***ing ridiculous this has gotten.

wiggle your way out of that. :fork:

[Jack Mehoff]

african-americans were breaking the law when they refused to abide by the jim crow laws.
funny how some people on this messageboard are so quick to deny the rights of others. guess freedom only applies to caucasian christians, right?

Hey stupid!! By your own defintion, polygamists in Utah should sue Utah because Utah's law prosecuted polygamists for years. How about legalize group marriages too?

stupid? did i insult you in some way? your argument is ridiculous. i am talking about the union of two individuals, not adam, mark, robert, and ricky. your knee-jerk "christian" homophobic rhetoric reeks of intellectual underdevelopment.

you seem to forget that the same argument against gay marriage was made when the issue of inter-racial marriages emerged in the '50s and '60s. and let's not forget women's suffrage...

civil unions are frequently not recognised outside the state in which they are granted, so the marriage is null and void if the couple decides to relocate to a different state. half-measures were unacceptable during the civil-rights movement, the women's rights movements of the 20th century, so they are certainly unacceptable for homo******s.

You have to admit that it is also a bit ironic that the "Freedom of Speech," "Equal representation,” "Peace and Tolerance for All" advocating party in America completely focuses its fight against and preaches a contradicting policy towards anyone who even slightly questions their policies (even if they agree with them on other issues).

It's downright comical if you really think about it.

So, what's your stand on polygamists and group marriages?

My stand on homo****** marriages/polygamy are neither positive or negative, but if they allow gay marriages then they better legalize polygamy.

Well, Jack, you are certainly entitled to that opinion and may even get people to agree with it. There are huge differences between gay marriage and polygamy, however. Gay people are denied the access to rights incident to marriage unless they marry the opposite ***. Since they are not attracted to the opposite *** this becomes impossible. Hence the denial of rights that would normally accrue if they decided to marry the opposite ***.

Polygamy is totally different becaue nobody is denied the rights incident to marriage. The second wife can marry any man she wants, except a married one, and she is evern free to marry him if he diverces first. So, the idea that the rights are unattainable are just spurious. I mean an analogous argument that also would not work would be to say that you should have the right to marry an animal, or better yet a dead guy/girl. Not being able to marry a particular person is much less offensive to "right" than not being able to get access to rights at all.

The minor limitation on access to rights that you not marry more than once is viewed, historically as well as now, as minimal. A speed bump, as it were, compared to an impenetrable wall.

So, the polygamy/gay marriage arguments are vastly different.

That being said, I think that if your religious beliefs, say as a mormon, say polygamy is OK, then that is a much better argument. In that case you would in effect be arguing that this is a restriction on your free exercise of religion and that there is not a good reason for the government to impose that restriction. The problem with this argument is that every state has voluntarily outlawed polygamy. Courts, despite the feelings of many on this forum, are loathe to overrule the legislature unless there is a clear constitutional violation.

Equal protection does not require or even allow a balancing of interests. If the rights are denied or abridged, then there is a violation and the offending statute is unconstitutional. This however is abridgement of religious rights, and in this case courts balance the restriction's limitation with the right to be exercised. The governmental interest must be greater than the religious expression interest. Invariably the government has won.

I am no saying that I agree - but that is what happened. I mean, I don't KNOW that polygamy hurts anybody. If the women consent then it seems to me that Mormons should be allowed to go ahead. That is a personal opinion and I'm sure many don't share it. The usual arguments that have won are unequal bargaining power (no women really want polygamy, just the men), its not a requirement of Mormon faith - just OK with it, in the old days there were health problems with multiple *** partners and diseases spreading - I agree today this is silly. All these reasons have historically justified the restriction.

But, understand that the analysis/argument for gay marriage will not in any way effect polygamy in the short term b/c the abridged right is of a different class and the applicable justification is less compelling.

Hope that helps.

hank

And yet US laws still prosecuted a small group of traditional and hard core Mormon who still practice polygamy because polygamy is part of their religion.

[Jack Mehoff]

hey, phucktard, do you know the definition of marriage? do you know the definition of senior citizen? do you know the definition of disabled?

how about i change the definition of those words so i can be 'included' and receive the benefits. sounds fair?


there is a reason why civil unions exist. :roll:

well seoul - do you? where did you go to find the definition? I am curious what law defines marriage as man and woman. Do you really know?

Have you heard of the 14th amendment and/or the 5th amendment. They are in the US constitution and they guarantee equal protection under the law. Do you understand equal, not separate, but equal protection.

Lighten up on the curse words and increase the thinking.

Marriage is only defined - that is a really inacurate descritpion by the way - as man/woman by statute. Many statutes violate the constitution. Many states used to have laws that said blacks were not human. Many states also used to have laws that said separate facilities were OK so long as equal. Does that make it right? YOu tell me. Civil unions is just another way to say separate but equal. IMHO it will not work, but if a court says it will - then it will until a higher court says it will not.

Stop calling different opinions stupid and start thinking about what the law says, not what you think, or someone who actually read it and told you what it means. If you need them I will forward the relevant statutes to you.

hank

great post hank, balanced and intelligent. if only more posts were like yours.

and haiw, you're cool in my book... woot

gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage; i think heteros are doing a good job of that already. correct me if i am wrong, but civil unions are only recognised in the states where they are granted, so if a gay couple wishes to relocate to a different state their union may not be recognised. considering most states do not permit civil unions, homo******s wishing to marry find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

at one point in time african-americans, asian-americans, native americans, women, etc., etc., were denied their rights and fortunately we overcame these ghastly injustices. funny how naysayers refuse to address this issue...

homo******s merit the same rights as anyone else. they are not calling for the overthrow of the government, they are not interested in subverting your children, they simply want the state to recognise their love and accord them the same legal and financial rights enjoyed by the majority.

I can easily use your argument, almost word for word to support my view on polygamy and group marriages.

[Maverick77]

If those faggots want to get married then I don't give a ****.

Its just when they adopt kids that it pisses me off.

Think of the ****in kid for a second.


kid: whats your moms name?

other kid: Frank

kid: I said your mom stupid.

other kid: yeah.........i know....

kid:............

[martinexsquaddie]

er some of those hardcore mormons were are running pretty close to child abuse thats why the state of utah is after them.
two gays wish to get married so what its not hurting me let them get on with it or is that too much freedom for you?
its not like there going to be target shooters or something rofl

[Midtown]

if two dudes want to go get hitched, good for them, who gives a ****, its not going to hurt you any. If it takes away from your "marraige" then your marraige is a sham anyway. If it's not going to hurt anyone, why make such a damn fuss. If your bitching that its against your religion, WELL BUDDY, thats for GOD to decide when they are at the gates of heaven isnt it. Im pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible that you shouldnt be judging people. Too much bitching and whining about **** that we shouldnt be bothered by, get a ****ing nintendo.

[Jack Mehoff]

er some of those hardcore mormons were are running pretty close to child abuse thats why the state of utah is after them.
two gays wish to get married so what its not hurting me let them get on with it or is that too much freedom for you?
its not like there going to be target shooters or something rofl

:roll: 1-2 hardcore mormon dudes married 12 year old girls automatically make the rest of their church as deviant. This is like saying one homo****** dude abuses a 10 year old boy, therefore all gay people should be thrown in jail because of that one dude.

[Jack Mehoff]

if two dudes want to go get hitched, good for them, who gives a f***, its not going to hurt you any. If it takes away from your "marraige" then your marraige is a sham anyway. If it's not going to hurt anyone, why make such a damn fuss. If your bitching that its against your religion, WELL BUDDY, thats for GOD to decide when they are at the gates of heaven isnt it. Im pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible that you shouldnt be judging people. Too much bitching and whining about **** that we shouldnt be bothered by, get a f*** nintendo.

I should be concern because marriages come with benefits and those benefits come from tax payers. I'm assuming you pay taxes, do you?

[pinkeye]

if two dudes want to go get hitched, good for them, who gives a f***, its not going to hurt you any. If it takes away from your "marraige" then your marraige is a sham anyway. If it's not going to hurt anyone, why make such a damn fuss. If your bitching that its against your religion, WELL BUDDY, thats for GOD to decide when they are at the gates of heaven isnt it. Im pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible that you shouldnt be judging people. Too much bitching and whining about **** that we shouldnt be bothered by, get a f*** nintendo.

for once i agree with you.
which game console do you recommend? lately i have gone back to the old systems, like the nes.

[Trigger]

I call the next game of 'duck hunt' :D

[FallenAngel]

wether gay-marriages should/ should not be against the law is irrelevant.

The fact is that there is a law, voted on by the people, which states that in California marriage is between one man and one woman. Period.

The Mayor broke the law. Plain and simple. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, even if he believes that law is stupid. Some people think murder is perfectly fine...but do they get to do whatever they want? F*ck no.

The mayor should be arrested and the liscenses given out thus far voided.

If you don't like the law-- change it. Don't break it.

[Midtown]

if two dudes want to go get hitched, good for them, who gives a f***, its not going to hurt you any. If it takes away from your "marraige" then your marraige is a sham anyway. If it's not going to hurt anyone, why make such a damn fuss. If your bitching that its against your religion, WELL BUDDY, thats for GOD to decide when they are at the gates of heaven isnt it. Im pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible that you shouldnt be judging people. Too much bitching and whining about **** that we shouldnt be bothered by, get a f*** nintendo.

for once i agree with you.
which game console do you recommend? lately i have gone back to the old systems, like the nes.

Most of the time when I say **** Im just joking around, but this I'm serious, who the **** are we to say what another person can, or cannot do. Especially when it doesnt hurt a goddamn thing. If a dude wants to call another dude his husband, then so be it.

And Super Nintendo had some dope ****, like Superbomber man with 4 people when drunk is amazing. Unless your high, then you get pissed off at all the explosions. Then you eat pizza.

[WARPIG]

Back to this?
Jack actually brings up some good argument. It willopen a whole new pandora's box on marriage. The statute definition of marriage really doesn't violate any constitutional rights that I can see. I have disagreed with hank a few times on this before. The point that civil unions are a seperate but equal option is weak. If the definition of marriage is not correct then it opens marriage to minors, people of dimminished pshychological or mental capacity, homo******s of course and people can be forced to marry. The statute definition of marriage was intended to protect men and women in the act of creating a family. Ceremonial religious, and civil acts of marriage are conducted seperately. Man and women are the intended of the law and that is what the statutes reflect. Poligamy being banned may have a good fight under the constitution. This is becuase it has religious implications. Mixed race or banning any race is against the constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Giving homo******s the ability to ratify themselves as a group or culture that is being descriminated against. Being gay is not a culture. It is a ****** preference. Giving them a status as a seperate culture, minority, or whatever you call it will set a presedence that will devulge into the same idiocy described by Jack and seoul. (challenging the statutes of handicapped parking, tax classifications of dependents, challenging minority benefits to business.)
Think of the precedent that would be created. People could question VA benefits because they feel they are discriminated against because they are not veterans. "Why is there not a White history month?" "Why can't I vote in Arkansas.. I am being descriminated against because I'm from LA."
Civil Unions are what should be addressed at the national level. If homo******s were really concerned about the "rights and benefits" they would be persuing Civil Union reforms. Their interest is in getting recognized as a seperate culture and the novelty of being called "married."

Regardless, hanks insight on the constitutionality leaves some legal interpretation for either side. Not because of his interpretation but because it is a very vague area. No matter how clear cut the defenition of marriage is to you and I...
many states call it a union between a free man and free women....blah blah blah
Webster calls it "the state of being united to a person of the opposite *** as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law"
Most religious definitions agree.
My humble opinion of course.

[WARPIG]

Just a little observation. The most intelligent and credible comments on this thread, arguing for rights of same *** marriage, came from hank. A Christian, caucasian, straight.. (i think) and generally conservative. Yet pinkeye, in all his wisdom has managed to repeatedly insult Christianity at every opportunity. This is a matter of legal validity, not religious sensitivity. Your posts are like a great big green poop stain on this toilet bowl of a thread.

[California Joe]

Hank's cool like that. The gay is strong in that one.... ;)

[ChuckThunder]

if two dudes want to go get hitched, good for them, who gives a f***, its not going to hurt you any. If it takes away from your "marraige" then your marraige is a sham anyway. If it's not going to hurt anyone, why make such a damn fuss. If your bitching that its against your religion, WELL BUDDY, thats for GOD to decide when they are at the gates of heaven isnt it. Im pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible that you shouldnt be judging people. Too much bitching and whining about **** that we shouldnt be bothered by, get a f*** nintendo.

Yeah, and when the gays getting married now have to go through years of legal battles for custody of homes, cars, ---, ect. the rest of the country's gays will realize it wasn't that good of an idea and more of "lets do it because we can." I bet you the next time Rosie is in court it will be about her divorce.

[WARPIG]

you should see him sing show tunes... fab-u-lous

[hank]

Hooray for Hollywood, right back where I started from . . .

Whoa, sorry about that, got lost in the moment, where was I?

Oh, yeah. Jack, don't get offended. I ain't calling Mormons deviant. I am just pointing out that the way the analysis goes gay marriage is not the equivalent of polygamy. I am not necessarily defending that distinction - merely pointing out that it exists and that the distinction is the reason why you cannot necessarily expect allowing gay marriage to equate to allowing polygamy. I personally agree with you - polygamy as PART of religion ought to get constitutional protection, within limits. I think the 12 year old thing is over the line, but adults - I say go for it.

Seoul - you remind me of 2 sheds. Where does your definition come from? You say the definition is changing? Point to your definition. See, the rub is that your definition comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition. For years, courts and legislatures have based laws on judeo-christian traditions - about that I think we would agree.

Hell, I am straight, Catholic, Southern, educated, conservative - all signs point to me being against gay marriage or even civil union. Yet, I support it. Why? Well, there is a document called the constitution and it contains a bill of rights. Those rights include the right to equal protection under the law. The fact is that the Judeo-Christian tradition can never trump the constitution. How do I know? Well the very first amendment says that the govenrment shall make no law establishing a religion. When wwe sy only men andwomen can get married what is our justification? Is there any other than Judeo-Christian tradition? I think not. Hell - a lot of societies - successful ones that were around alot longer than our puny 200+ years - allowed homo****** unions. So any idea that they should not be allowed to unite to me is spurious at best.

Now, why marriage and not civil union? Why not one for straights and one for gays? Separate but equal. Already tried it with slaves and it did not work - won't work here. If you can give a single justification - outside the Judeo-Christian tradition - to support the distinction then go ahead. I cannot so I think gay marriage is the only option.

Again - I post the question. If you don't like gay marriage why do you bash gays and the courts? Why would you do that when you could amend the constitution to get what you want. I disagree with Bush on this particular issue but I respect the hell out of the fact that instead of bashing judges and whining he wants to amend. The Founding fathers would not have included an amendment provision if they did not expect us to use it. That is the answer.

Now, turing to California. The mayor of San Francisco is clearly breaking Cali law. He is not the oneto decide that teh Cal law is unconstitutional. That is the province of the courts. As such, I thin je should be arrested and all these marriages should be stricken. Taht being said, I think ultimatley the constitution, CAL and US in their current forms, guarantee equal protection and gay marriage will ultimately prevail.

Did anybody understand or care about the distinction between limitng a first amendment right (polygamy) and abridging equal protection? Does anybody care that the standard is different and thus the burden to striek a law different? I hope so - it affects your life.

I see so many people - here and elsewhere - who are oblivious to the law and how it affects their life. If you don't want gay marriage wuti your bitching and get the constitution amended. I would disagree with you and vote against it - but THAT IS YOUR RIGHT! EXERCISE IT!

hank

[hank]

if two dudes want to go get hitched, good for them, who gives a f***, its not going to hurt you any. If it takes away from your "marraige" then your marraige is a sham anyway. If it's not going to hurt anyone, why make such a damn fuss. If your bitching that its against your religion, WELL BUDDY, thats for GOD to decide when they are at the gates of heaven isnt it. Im pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible that you shouldnt be judging people. Too much bitching and whining about **** that we shouldnt be bothered by, get a f*** nintendo.

Yeah, and when the gays getting married now have to go through years of legal battles for custody of homes, cars, ---, ect. the rest of the country's gays will realize it wasn't that good of an idea and more of "lets do it because we can." I bet you the next time Rosie is in court it will be about her divorce.

What is the point here? Lots, I MEAN LOTS, of hetero marriage end in divorce. Rosie is gay, not perfect or better at marriage than a straight person.

hank

[hank]

Seoul - instead of quoting me and asking the same question as before - REALLY THINK about the reason you thin gay marriage is wrong. Identify that reason. Think about it. Refine it. The nask yourself if there is any basis for your dislike other than religion. The reason is that if religion is all you got then you might as well 1) learn to live with gay marriage or 2) amend the constitution.

Instead of gettting mad at me or cursing something you don't understand - think about this and try to figure it out. if you are going to be a doctor - people are going to listen to you. if you don't educate yourself about something other than microbiology then you should not spout this baseless opinion unless you have THOUGHT about it. Think about that before you fly off and post something.

hank

[Falco]

amend the constitution.
hank

Isn't that what Bush is trying to do?

[hank]

yes - and that is his right. IMHO that is the way to end this problem. If everyone agrees that gay marriage is so wrong then just amend the constitution and it will not be an issue.

hank

[Ratamacue]

Seoul, why do you feel so strongly about this topic? You're not gay. What does it matter to you whether two guys or girls get married? If it's religious belief, it shouldn't concern you because you're not practicing it, are you?

What's so horrible about gay marriage? I'm not gay, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with two people of the same *** getting married if they want to. Sometimes civil union just isn't enough. Put yourself in the position of a gay couple. You want to get married not only for the benefits but also for the symbolism and meaning involved. Unfortunately, some closed-minded fool with a monkey avatar says that the dictionary definition of marriage is "a union between a man and a woman." How would that make you feel? Perhaps a bit frustrated? Angry, even? Think.

[Seoulstriker]

Seoul - instead of quoting me and asking the same question as before - REALLY THINK about the reason you thin gay marriage is wrong. Identify that reason. Think about it. Refine it. The nask yourself if there is any basis for your dislike other than religion. The reason is that if religion is all you got then you might as well 1) learn to live with gay marriage or 2) amend the constitution.

Instead of gettting mad at me or cursing something you don't understand - think about this and try to figure it out. if you are going to be a doctor - people are going to listen to you. if you don't educate yourself about something other than microbiology then you should not spout this baseless opinion unless you have THOUGHT about it. Think about that before you fly off and post something.

hank

the fact that gay marriage is wrong is not a religious one. the religious problem is the homo******ity!

the problem with this whole gay marriage thing is that they are taking the word 'marriage' and applying it not to a man and a woman, but to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. they are taking the fundamental unit of society and mankind and changing its definition so that they can say 'me too!'

what it boils down to is they want marriage benefits, so they say 'marriage applies to a man and a man as well'. they are doing this instead of changing the law legally and making civil unions have the same benefits.

[hank]

Seoul - instead of quoting me and asking the same question as before - REALLY THINK about the reason you thin gay marriage is wrong. Identify that reason. Think about it. Refine it. The nask yourself if there is any basis for your dislike other than religion. The reason is that if religion is all you got then you might as well 1) learn to live with gay marriage or 2) amend the constitution.

Instead of gettting mad at me or cursing something you don't understand - think about this and try to figure it out. if you are going to be a doctor - people are going to listen to you. if you don't educate yourself about something other than microbiology then you should not spout this baseless opinion unless you have THOUGHT about it. Think about that before you fly off and post something.

hank

the fact that gay marriage is wrong is not a religious one. the religious problem is the homo******ity!

the problem with this whole gay marriage thing is that they are taking the word 'marriage' and applying it not to a man and a woman, but to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. they are taking the fundamental unit of society and mankind and changing its definition so that they can say 'me too!'

what it boils down to is they want marriage benefits, so they say 'marriage applies to a man and a man as well'. they are doing this instead of changing the law legally and making civil unions have the same benefits.

Seoul - did you read what I wrote? Please do. Religion as far as the law is concerned in the US CANNOT be based on religion. I nteh eyes of the law - so long as there is a first amendment - cannot see marriage as a religious instution - it is simply a union. Whether you believe that or not taht is what it is.

hank

[Seoulstriker]

Seoul - instead of quoting me and asking the same question as before - REALLY THINK about the reason you thin gay marriage is wrong. Identify that reason. Think about it. Refine it. The nask yourself if there is any basis for your dislike other than religion. The reason is that if religion is all you got then you might as well 1) learn to live with gay marriage or 2) amend the constitution.

Instead of gettting mad at me or cursing something you don't understand - think about this and try to figure it out. if you are going to be a doctor - people are going to listen to you. if you don't educate yourself about something other than microbiology then you should not spout this baseless opinion unless you have THOUGHT about it. Think about that before you fly off and post something.

hank

the fact that gay marriage is wrong is not a religious one. the religious problem is the homo******ity!

the problem with this whole gay marriage thing is that they are taking the word 'marriage' and applying it not to a man and a woman, but to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. they are taking the fundamental unit of society and mankind and changing its definition so that they can say 'me too!'

what it boils down to is they want marriage benefits, so they say 'marriage applies to a man and a man as well'. they are doing this instead of changing the law legally and making civil unions have the same benefits.

Seoul - did you read what I wrote? Please do. Religion as far as the law is concerned in the US CANNOT be based on religion. I nteh eyes of the law - so long as there is a first amendment - cannot see marriage as a religious instution - it is simply a union. Whether you believe that or not taht is what it is.

hank

it is simply a union? yeah, that's what civil unions are. :cantbeli:

and the definition is not based on religion but on the foundations of mankind.

[Haiw]

Foundations of mankind? Might wanna read up on a little history... homo******ity was propably more common 2000 years ago then it is now. Maybe religion had something to do with it?

Seriously Seoul, what is the whole problem for you when gay people would marry?. Really, why would you want to cut down on other people's rights and freedoms?

It's even in the human rights:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Now tell me. Would that right suddenly be gone when the person who wants to marry happens to be a homo******?

[hank]

Seoul - that is weak. Don't run it down if you won't back it up. That is as bad as 2 sheds. Hell, you can't point to anything better than that. Where do I go to find the law of mankind? At the human library? Is that next to the human city hall? Why don't you give me directions.

Here is the reason why none of ya'll will ever get what you want. You won't even make an effort to figure out WHY you think like you do or whether your REASON is even valid. You might actually have good reason but we'll never know b/c you won't articulate it so it might as well not exist.

Seoul - you better pray that your lawyer is smarter than you when you get to be a doctor. Cause otherwise you won't have a chance. The law of mankind is WEAK, WEAK, WEAK. I obey the law of the US, then TN. I have no time for the law of mankind b/c I can't define it and neither can you.

Read the constitution.

Come up with a valid reason, I dare you. I bet you can't.

hank

[Seoulstriker]

dudes. why do YOU think the definition of marriage should be changed?

and what do you guys find wrong with civil unions? :|

[hank]

dudes. why do YOU think the definition of marriage should be changed?

and what do you guys find wrong with civil unions? :|

Define it first. You can't change what you can't define can you? I really don't think you have read any of this and taht is what is silly. You don't even know what has happened or what could happen. Yet you repeat the definition of marriage.

Let me try to spell it out for you. The judeo-christian ideal that man and woman marry is unaffected by any of this. These people are not asking for the right to marry in your church - they just want the lisence. Is it really that hard to understand. No court will ever tell a church that they have to marry 2 women or 2 men. It is only about the license.

Civil unions = separate but equal. Gays get civil unions + straights get married = unconstitutional b/c it is just another attempt at separate but equal which has been unconstitutional since the 1950's Brown v. Bd of Ed. decision. No different

its not hard if you try - but YOU have to try - only if you try will you be able to defend the distinction you ask for - i won't THINK of it for you

hank

[Seoulstriker]

dudes. why do YOU think the definition of marriage should be changed?

and what do you guys find wrong with civil unions? :|

Define it first. You can't change what you can't define can you? I really don't think you have read any of this and taht is what is silly. You don't even know what has happened or what could happen. Yet you repeat the definition of marriage.

Let me try to spell it out for you. The judeo-christian ideal that man and woman marry is unaffected by any of this. These people are not asking for the right to marry in your church - they just want the lisence. Is it really that hard to understand. No court will ever tell a church that they have to marry 2 women or 2 men. It is only about the license.

Civil unions = separate but equal. Gays get civil unions + straights get married = unconstitutional b/c it is just another attempt at separate but equal which has been unconstitutional since the 1950's Brown v. Bd of Ed. decision. No different

its not hard if you try - but YOU have to try - only if you try will you be able to defend the distinction you ask for - i won't THINK of it for you

hank

i'm going to bed after this:

the logic of saying civil unions are unconstitutional is like saying senior citizen status is unconstitutional because of how many people don't receive the same benefits that older people get.

"how can they get social security benefits while my family is starving! i want to get social security benfits too! it would be extremely unfair if I didn't! It's unconstitutional!"


Marriage is the building block of mankind. the union of a man and a woman is fundamental to the race of man being propagated. but this is really besides the point: if gays want the exact same benefits as married couples do, then change the law about civil unions.

this is the point of importance around this issue: benefits. marriage is what it is. it's really as simple as that, and for me to argue for that is as ridiculous as trying to explain why murder is wrong (because killing other people is not right?)

[SOG]

if two dudes want to go get hitched, good for them, who gives a f***, its not going to hurt you any. If it takes away from your "marraige" then your marraige is a sham anyway. If it's not going to hurt anyone, why make such a damn fuss. If your bitching that its against your religion, WELL BUDDY, thats for GOD to decide when they are at the gates of heaven isnt it. Im pretty sure it says somewhere in the bible that you shouldnt be judging people. Too much bitching and whining about **** that we shouldnt be bothered by, get a f*** nintendo.

for once i agree with you.
which game console do you recommend? lately i have gone back to the old systems, like the nes.

stay with the old ones, nes, snes, sms, neo geo, cas, a16, all the newer ones are simply graphical shams that the majority of the public left for rehashed gameplay and physics updated once in a blue moon because of thier ideal entertainment on demand and cow sitting values.

[SOG]

as for this gay marriage thing, i say, if we want to be truly true and not doublehanded then gays should be able to adpot children freely as ANY COUPLE should regardless of thier ***. but im wondering how far we should push our "laws" over nature which obviously hasnt "evolved" to see fit that gays rasie children.

not to mention the only thing that is currently proving gays arent ******ly disturbed deviants as many straight people are also is thick billed ever changing scientific information that says gays are gay because of one way, then ten years later they discover why gays are truly gay, then ten yars later yet again.

this "factual" evidence is also the foundation for evolution in which current scientists are claiming the earth is not as old as they 1st thought and have downgraded the earth to 22 milions yeas old. radical new evolution scientists have gestimated the earth is at a maximum of 66 thousand years old.

this is interesting in that the old is fighting the new to keep the paws locked on grants aka thier jobs and also not lose credibilty to preaching science is fact when in fact science is ever changing and is only "fact" for the moment in which it was created. hence the same thing many athiests acuse religion of being, a fairy tale story or a ever changing evolution of ideals hence science is unto religion. of course some science is so far unbending fact just like some religion has been proven to happen in the same way.

so the basis for all this talk about gay marriages and equal rights is founded on literally momentary quicksand of so called ever changing facts and new finds and discoveries yet we are willing to change society and nature and the upbringing of children and evolution of thought on what could be a population oversell of ****** urges? interesting.

the reason why any of this is still debatable today is because scientifically it is challenged at every corner on all sides with highly experiemental theories and tests with singular testing or confined results and trumpeting truth for cause. just like any ideal or group would trumpet really.

scientists tried this years back when they regarded "negroes" as genetically inferior with smaller mental capacity meant for nothing but laborious work. if one side or agenda did it ages ago and throughout history why wouldnt they today?

then again if it works in other countries and they are getting along fine then eh. i understand where seoul is coming from and just because one does it does not mean all should do it regardless of how it turns out. i also understand if it is implemented it may just be a wash and nothing big will come from it.

but, CYA when it comes to kids being adopted by gays. i dont care what people spout about kids being fine raised in that manner when it is against nature and "natural evolution" and not been thoroughly looked at or studied because freedom and equal rights demands action, bull****.

IMO anyway.

[hank]

"as for this gay marriage thing, i say, if we want to be truly true and not doublehanded then gays should be able to adpot children freely as ANY COUPLE should regardless of thier ***. but im wondering how far we should push our "laws" over nature which obviously hasnt "evolved" to see fit that gays rasie children. "

There is no right to adoption - it is a privilege and it is not granted freely like marriage license that affords rights. Different under the law - though you make a good point - where is the line? I say the line is with rights under the con.

"so the basis for all this talk about gay marriages and equal rights is founded on literally momentary quicksand of so called ever changing facts and new finds and discoveries yet we are willing to change society and nature and the upbringing of children and evolution of thought on what could be a population oversell of ****** urges? interesting."

Maybe if your assumption about the reason for not allowing gay marriage = a perceptin of ****** deviation. The right in the 14th A is not quicksand - it has not been recognized up to this point for a variety of reasons but it has been there since the 1860's - the rest of the BoR since the 1780's. Fortunately our constitution is not momentary quicksand.

"but, CYA when it comes to kids being adopted by gays. i dont care what people spout about kids being fine raised in that manner when it is against nature and "natural evolution" and not been thoroughly looked at or studied because freedom and equal rights demands action, bull****. "

See the post above - nothing about allowing marriage will force adoption privilege - different realm - although slippery slope maybe

This part is for everybody - try to disassociate what you "think" about it from what the law says. You all give reasons against gay marriage that the law cannot recognize. IF you think the reasons you give are valid - then the only way to reconcile is to change the law - in this case the constitution. I assure you that courts will not look at ****** deviancy as a reason for/against gay marriage - if you think it should/should not factor in then you misinterpret the level on which the argument exists. Courts can't just decide what factors will play - the constitution does. All this fear about things outside the license itself - religion, adoption, etc. - are really not part of this argument - not should they be.

hank

[SOG]

There is no right to adoption - it is a privilege and it is not granted freely like marriage license that affords rights. Different under the law - though you make a good point - where is the line? I say the line is with rights under the con.

nope. 14 amendment.
"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."

doesnt matter if its a privelage or a right, its thiers is it not? thats where we cross line/lines and choose sides and where to stop. if it is a public service it is a privelage or a right of a US citizen. you cannot limit a public service. now logic dictates nobody wants to see a fuggin guy waiter at hooters..... thankfully that was a private requirement for service to the public. if its private then and not offered by the state then that is entirely different. then you always have cross abuse in which one can argue, this privelage or right is available to anyone as long as they meet such and such requirements. so hey, sure this is open to you, but you got to jump through loops and hoops to get there which are there to actually keep you out. then people lable these reservations as hatefull or profiling and attempt to break open barriers for thier own gain, even though it may be right or wrong.


Maybe if your assumption about the reason for not allowing gay marriage = a perceptin of ****** deviation. The right in the 14th A is not quicksand - it has not been recognized up to this point for a variety of reasons but it has been there since the 1860's - the rest of the BoR since the 1780's. Fortunately our constitution is not momentary quicksand.

well its not my assumption per sei, it could very well be scientific fact among hundreds of other theories on why gays are simply gaggle silly gay. it could be something simple as emotional disorder or something as complex and genetic growth in the womb.

our constitution is momentary quicksand as every group has "interpretated" thier own ideals and value on it. the fact that two people can read the very same thing and come to complete different conclusions is simply evident as to why our laws flux with societal changes and is the same reason why laws are changed back and forth in a never ending war.

i wholly agree on the letter of the law with you and that if one person has the right as a US citizen so should everyone else have the right period in the US, and that is not quicksand in the slightest. but then you can simply privatize and control that. that leads to abuse and arguing.


See the post above - nothing about allowing marriage will force adoption privilege - different realm - although slippery slope maybe

nope, adoption if public is a privelage to certain individuals who simply meet certain requirements and thus covered wholly under under 14a.


This part is for everybody - try to disassociate what you "think" about it from what the law says. You all give reasons against gay marriage that the law cannot recognize. IF you think the reasons you give are valid - then the only way to reconcile is to change the law - in this case the constitution. I assure you that courts will not look at ****** deviancy as a reason for/against gay marriage - if you think it should/should not factor in then you misinterpret the level on which the argument exists. Courts can't just decide what factors will play - the constitution does. All this fear about things outside the license itself - religion, adoption, etc. - are really not part of this argument - not should they be.
hank

well marriage is a part of this since it is a religious thing. this equals seperation of church and state, aka marriage goes to the church and may not impede on the state and the state may not declare the church to hand out state rights for only certain US citizens aka the state benefits for marriage must be secured for all as in 14a aka civil unions. is marriage connected to religion? yes, thousands of different religions throughout the centuries. everything the state and the US gives to its citizens must be made open to everyone. same **** with the boyscouts. it was a line that some gay guy decided to push and they smacked his ass down no matter the poltical hagling and bs media surrounding the account. they tried to push hate laws against the group and all sorts of other ****, hey, they only allow certain people, just like any other group, get the hell over it! (not screaming at you hank, just mo-rons)

now adoption may be open to interpretation through private groups. the 14a seems to cover privelages that the US offers to its citizens. is the answer simply privatize everything sacred and holy to anyone and everyone? but adoption on a public service scale LEGALLY should be open to anyone who fits the bill? i would willingly follow the law in those regards but i have serious reservations about adoption and its effects if crossed mix with a non natural pairing.

i see marriage as a wholly religious rite that has been taken on by the US just like so many other things covered under church and state and should be seperated according to the law. then again from day one these laws were made and accepted by our fore fathers yet NEVER followed even by them so how serious could they have been or were they meant in a different connotation? retarded huh? litteral interpretation or different meanings?

thx for the feedback hank.

[SOG]

ah, and the reason why i brought up science into this, it plays a part if it is a genetic defect or anomoly. certain birth defects or mutations legally prohibit certain people from doing certain things for the safety of others. at 1st having someone gay or gender disposed adopt a child may seem like nothing however we have not in depth studied how a child grows differently and develops differently counteractive as to nature would have them raised. if this is harmfull in any way then it should be investigated much the same way divorce is mentally harmfull and detrimental to children.

its the same thing with genetics. we are massively overpopulated so we now use geneticly made seeds and foods yet the fda has hardly put any thought or testing into long terms effects as to what this will do to us. in europe i have heard they are much more active against this and we in the US have for the most part simply accepted it. genetically growing seed that feeds us directly and also feeds the animals we feed on is a pretty big step in the chain of things.

[WARPIG]

population oversell of ****** urges

That is the point exactly.
It doesn't matter if our laws were based in Christian belief... our society, our culture, is formed around the family unit. That is what is being threatened here. Neil and Bob wanting the novelty of calling their union "Marriage" so one of them can be "the wife" is not a valid reason for changing the meaning of the word. I have quoted the basic definition of the word in several threads but then the focus goes to "seperate but equal." Again it has no application here. Differentiating on man from another (or women) because of ****** preference, has about as much credibility as making a distinction because of how you eat your eggs or what football team you root for.

[Haiw]

population oversell of ****** urges

That is the point exactly.
It doesn't matter if our laws were based in Christian belief... our society, our culture, is formed around the family unit. That is what is being threatened here. Neil and Bob wanting the novelty of calling their union "Marriage" so one of them can be "the wife" is not a valid reason for changing the meaning of the word. I have quoted the basic definition of the word in several threads but then the focus goes to "seperate but equal." Again it has no application here. Differentiating on man from another (or women) because of ****** preference, has about as much credibility as making a distinction because of how you eat your eggs or what football team you root for.
How is the family unit threatened by allowing gay marriages? Seriously, because I can't figure out how it could. Second, gay marriages aren't about 'so one can be the wife'.

[WARPIG]

Well, unless I was uninformed.. families are created when a man and wife procreate. I am pretty sure assf***ing does not produce offspring. The traditional family unit is threatened because of the psychological disfunction of homo****** lifestyles. It is not a matter of not wanting to fit into the traditional mold. It is a matter of people who have a ****** preference. Not a racial, religious, cultural, or gender seperation. For us to set a precedence of acceptance of homo******s as a seperate culture, then we also should add: pedifiles, homicidal sociopaths, all manner of paraphiles, people who suffer addictions, etc.
Should a pediphile be banned from having child ****ography in his/her possesion? They simply have a ****** preference and should also have their constitutional rights preserved right? I think some measure of common sense and reasonable thinking is called for here. I think it is also implied in our laws. The common and reasonable family unit does not consist of a pair of mothers with a strap on and handcuffs. Marriage is the legal union of a man and women to protect and support the creating of a family. The definitions of marriage (legal) in most states even go as far as outlining the terms of which a man or women can consumate marriage, divorce for reasons of sterility, and requiring both man and women to be free of any contract restrictions.( prior marriage, pshychogical or mental weakness, minor status.. etc)

I can concede that my view of homo******s is that they have a psycho****** disfunction. Therefore, they do not fit any group, culture, race or religion that is being discriminated against. If homo******ity can be given consideration in this matter, what is to stop other people from claiming the same consideration? "I am a nudist. It is unconstitutional to prevent me from walking my naked saggy ass around in public." "People with clothes can walk around in public, so why can't I?" Are they being descriminated against? Oh.. they can go to **** beaches and places as long it is "seperate" from the general public. Finding loopholes in the law doesn't make it legal.

[Haiw]

Dude, I'm not even gonna respond to that. You just managed to insult every homo****** being on the planet. Kudos.

[WARPIG]

Well, my opinion.. take it or leave it. Your silence is appreciated Haiw.

As far as my opinion goes.. I think I have looked at it pretty fair. If the "status" of homo******ity is truly different than I have described... I have yet to see any credible arguement to the contrary. If I have it wrong.. I would love to see the right answer. Haiw obviously doesn't have the intellectual fortitude to enlighten me but I am never closed to being educated. Homo****** is called homo****** because it is defined as:
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct ****** desire toward another of the same ***
2 : of, relating to, or involving ****** intercourse between persons of the same ***
I don't see cultural behavior mention.. nor social distinction. This is just the Merriam-Webster definition but it is the common description included in psychlogical, medical, and legal definitions as well.

My view of homo******s aside. Our commen society feels the same. Just because it is normally unharmfull to the individuals involved, has become popular in culture..does not make it other than a ****** behavior.

Again, marriage is a union to support and legalize the act of creating a family. It is not a union between couples to support and legalize their ****** behavior and activities.

[hank]

Warpig - I was writing a reponse to that first post and I got interrupted. I see your point and you are right about gay not meeting the traditional definition of marriage. That has been Seoul's definition and argument all along. Humankind, Christian, whatever you call it - the traditional definition of marriage is man and woman.

Unfortunately that is not what is at issue here. And i am sure that even these liberal activist judges - to use a 2 sheds phrase - won't, b/c they can't, try to dictate to religion.

Threshold - no court or state has the right or authority to force any church to marry 2 gays for any reason. That confusion b/w the license and the judeo-christian idea is REALLY prevalent in the media and screws the whole thing up. If your church, as does mine, does not recognize homo****** union nothing about any of this that has or will happened will change that. Your church will continue to be able to oppose gay marriage by not allowing marriage in their churches.

The problem - and the point that the media never stresses - is that the legal ramifications of the license to marry CANNOT have a religious underpinning. If it did then the marriage license itself would be unconstitutional. does that make sense? If you can understand that they i think you can begin to differentiate what these gay couples want.

A marriage license is just that - a license to go and get married. The fact is that the same license currently applies to non-religious marriages. I mean if a man and woman get married at the courthouse that taht union - while called a marriage - is different than a marriage in a Catholic church. Right? From the church's perspective they may be married but that marriage is not synonymous with a marriage that takes palce in a CAtholic Mass. I used to be presbyterian and I know it was the same there. If a pres man and woman get married with the justice of teh peace the pres minister is supposed to "counsel" them to do it again in the church.

Yet for either, in church or at the courthouse - the participants get a marriage license and from the legal perspective the marriages are synonymous. Yet for the church they are not. This is so b/c the legal definition may be influenced by - but is independent of - the religious definition of marriage. Any other arrangement would violate the first amendment on its face by definition.

So, in the current system "marriages" occure that are not exactly the same in the eyes of God - yet get hte same rights. All these couples want is the ability to get those rights. I don;t know if this even helps - but this is WHY the pay marriage will happen eventually.

Separate but equal is why civil union won't work

hank

[WARPIG]

Separate but equal is why civil union won't work

I still say it doesn't apply to homo******s. Seperate from what? Is it my understanding that ****** behavior is factor in defining a seperate group? I doubt it.
Give us some constitutional language that points to that hank. I understand that they feel discriminated against.. and even though it is obvious that I don't agree with same *** marriages.. I do have some sympathy.
Haiw says that I insulted gays all over the world by lumping them in with pedophiles and other psychological sicknesses. I can understand that. I think I was being a little extreme. But, how do you think black Americans, Mormons, handicapped, Buddists, or any other cultural, racial, religious group or gender feel with having ****** behaviors given the same voice as them? ****** orientation has never been a basis for equal opportunity or discrimination. Only now with same *** marriage is that precedence being set.

[hank]

SOG - GOOD! reading theactual document is a great place to start and that is a great point. The problem with thinking that this will bnecessarily apply to adoption is that the adoption privilege is not synonymous with the license privilege.

License privilege - like a driving license is teh privilege that teh 14th A refers to. Long line of cases where the US SC does not allow people to say I can't get a privilege that is not uniformly available and the court has said that privilege does not count for 14th (or 5th A) purposes.

For starters - the 14th only applies to state law and the context in which it was passed was slavery. So it would be a great stretch - albeit not IMPOSSIBLE I admit - but highly unlikely that the 14th would ever be applied to adoption laws b/c that, though strictly a privilege, is not a privilege available to all. I mean, states - like FL for example where my father has adopted a child through the FL agency - won't allow a couple to adopt if the cumulative age exceeds 90. That limitation for age is OK and does not even warrant a challenge b/c the state's interest in restricting adoption is so strong. SAame rationale applies here - state will get much more leeway in child b/c the state interest is so high.

But, on the state level, rememebr that every state EP clause is different. For example the MAss provision is MUCH broader than the con - this is often so. In that situation the problem you would run into is that if an individual state wanted to say gay couple adoption is protected based on a really broad state constitution with a much looser context for privilege - then your fear is warranted. The fed govt does not have a dog in this hune - the 14th would not be an appropriate basis for a challenge.

Teh 14th/5th EP clauses deal with licenses that are widely available - like marriage and driver's license.

But that is good - read the document and gourn your complaint there. At least then we can disagree and its not just an "I believe" deal which is totally out of context in a constitutional debate.

Kudos to you, sir.

On the scientific deal - that is precisely the type of inquiry the US SC and state SCs will not get into. Facts are not determined at the SC - only law. So your arguement and concern might be relevant at trial - but anot on appeal. Also, those studies are often easily destroyed on an evidentiary basis and liekly would never get in for unreliability reasons - especially true lately where science has begun to think that gay = genetic.

As for you last paragraph I say this. Really think about what you have said. B/c the logical extension of your concern is that the governemtn could dictate to religion and that concept has traditionally been viewed as a violation of the establishment clause. EP does NOT MEAN equal protection of chruch and state. EP means each INDIVIDUAL gets the right to have and expect eaual protection from the laws of the states (14th A) and the Fed Govt (5th A). Right? I mean i think you are incorrectly readin equal protection. Religion gets no protection under teh 14th/5th - only individuals. Religion's protections are found in the 1st amendment - throught the establishment and right of association clauses. These areas are wholly independent and the logic/analysis that works for one does not NECESSARILY work for the other. Maybe clear that up and I will respond - the way I read your last part is church and state get equal protection and that is not contained in teh 14th/5th amendments (both of which are EP clauses).

Still - really good. I am not saying taht to be condescending - I am sincere. Thinking about this and trying to establisha basis for your opinion is the only way that I think people opposed to gay marriage will ever 1) understand it and learn to accept it or 2) understand why they will lose on the current setup and make the necessary changes to get what they want.

As I have repeatedly said - my adamance on this subject is not drivne by my acceptance or affinity for gay marriage. I presonally opposed to it. My argument is only grounded on the current state of the law. I admit that I would oppose a change - but I have wholly independent reasons for that opposition that I have hinted at but never really outlined fully. Another day.

All BS aside - SOG - if you want to win this - aginst the world not just me - keep doing what you are doing. That type of argument might prevail - while the "I believe" will ALWAYS lose unless grounded in the constitution.

hank

[hank]

Separate but equal is why civil union won't work

I still say it doesn't apply to homo******s. Seperate from what? Is it my understanding that ****** behavior is factor in defining a seperate group? I doubt it.
Give us some constitutional language that points to that hank. I understand that they feel discriminated against.. and even though it is obvious that I don't agree with same *** marriages.. I do have some sympathy.
Haiw says that I insulted gays all over the world by lumping them in with pedophiles and other psychological sicknesses. I can understand that. I think I was being a little extreme. But, how do you think black Americans, Mormons, handicapped, Buddists, or any other cultural, racial, religious group or gender feel with having ****** behaviors given the same voice as them? ****** orientation has never been a basis for equal opportunity or discrimination. Only now with same *** marriage is that precedence being set.

Well, warpig you know that I always respect your opinion and I enjoy your posts. But this idea is simply spurious. ****** orientation is a protected class under Title VII for employment discrimination for one example. For another, there is no positive language in teh constitution that says anything about race. That is why slavery was held to be constitutional for so long. I mean if you want to have a limited interpretation of protected classes in th constitution then women would never get to vote b/c the original 10 amendments make no mention of women or race. That is a fact. "All men are creted equal" "The states shall make no law which shall abridge . . . nor deny . . . the equal protection of the laws". You tell me where women fit in? If you read it that way then women are otu of the loop.

It is hard to distance your belief about gays from the constitution. I know that - it is hard for me also. But if you don't then you deny the basic premise behind the document. ALL MEN, ALL WOMEN, ALL RACES - that is the point.

Let's say that your characterization of gay as a choice is right. If it is then what choices do you make that will not get protected? Think about that. Religion is a choice - protected by teh 1st amendment. What others? How about military service? What if we said no military service people can marry? I mean there are complications when you are in and it is expensive. All good reasons to not allow you to marry while you are in. Right? I mean I'm sure some, in fact I know some, religions that say to kill in the military is wrong. So in that case are we justified. I submit that the anser to one is the answer to both - assuming that you are right about gay being a choice.

Think about it.

hank

[hank]

SOG - one thing I thought about while I was writing my response to WARPIG- that privileges and immunities section of the 14th you highlighted is not the part that is in question. That seciton you highlighted has always been read together "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" and has always been interptreted as pertainging to the right to vote. I should have pointed that out. Sorry.

The relevant part for EP purposes is really that last part that says shall not deny equal protection of the laws. That is another reason why adoption would not fit the same analysis. It is not a privilege of US citizenship. At best it is a highly restricted privilege incident to state citizenship - at worst and for these purposes it is not even a privilege but an opportunity. Certainly not a privilege incident t oUS citizenship b/c a state would be well within its rights to not even allow adoption at all. no expectation - even as a limited expectation incedent to privileges.

The US does not sanction adoption - the states do - so even more ofa stretch. That portion deals with rights and privileges under the con and federal codes. Adoption is no int the purview of "privileges and immunities of citizens of the US" - historically - it could happen BUT unlikely

Still though that is good and you could make that arguement with a straight face. Probably would lose but good nonetheless.

hank

[Trigger]

You just managed to insult every homo****** being on the planet. Kudos.
Kind of like you with your anti-Christian rant the other day.

Ain't equality a bitch. ;)

[WARPIG]

Well, warpig you know that I always respect your opinion and I enjoy your posts. But this idea is simply spurious.

Apparently.. hank is up to the "S"s in his vocabulary calender. Get your thesaurus out and find a new word! ;)

I hear you hank.. I can see some navigating room in the constitution for the "seperation" arguement. (Just like a lawer to take advantage of the vagueness of legal language.)

My biggest argument here is the precedence that is set by allowing ****** orientation as a credible social identifier. I am up to the "P"s in my vocab calender.


there is no positive language in teh constitution that says anything about race
slavery is addressed and title VII covers it as well.. but most of the laws are worded around "free men." The Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment, womens rights with the 19th.
Further civil rights laws have and are being addresses on a continual basis. If it includes civil rights on the basis of ****** orientation, title VII has no "positive language" that I know of either...then it will be ammended and will include all forms of ****** orientation to include pedophiles, paraphiles etc.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, ***, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
***, or national origin.

Homo******ity as of yet is not protected under title VII
1. *** defined as gender, not ******ity or ****** practices
2. Not discrimination to prefer persons because of:
1. ******ity: DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone, 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1979)
2. ****** attractiveness: Malarkey v. Texaco, 559 F.Supp. 117 D.C.N.Y.1982), aff'd, 704F.2d 674 (2d Cir.1983)
3. ****** activity or morality: Thomas v. Metro Flight, 814 F.2d 1506 (10th Cir.1987)
3. Rule applied to one *** only is discrimination
1. No children for female employees: Phillips v. Martin Marietta , 400 U.S. 542, 91 S.Ct. 496, 27 L.Ed.2d. 613 (1971)
2. No employment for married women: Sprogis v. UAL,444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971)
4. May not measure performance in terms of *** stereotypes: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989)
5. *** includes pregnancy and related conditions
6. Not discrimination to use ****** preference as condition
1. DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph >>> Was ridiculed for not “acting like a stereotypical male”
2. Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, 742 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.1984) Not protected under VII but was fired for being a transectual. “She” later proved with psychological and medical treatments that she was transformed into a female and not a tran******.
7. States and municipalities may limit discrimination based on ****** preference
8. Homo******ity not a disability for ADA and 504

[California Joe]

All I know is if I ever kill another one of my wives I'm hiring hank....

Oops. :oops:

[hank]

I charge by the hour - so make it quick. By the way, I am tough, smart AND I work hard for YOUR rights. (Note: this is not a paid advertisement. hank does not claim a certified specialty under TN law). I will get you the recovery that YOU deserve. Now, where was I.

True enough WARPIG on the amendments - I used the word constitution instead of specifyinging the con + the first 14 amendments - those amendments - even though 11-14 came much later - are considered the core. Still does not change the argument that all men are to have equal protection. What other meaning would you ascribe to that phrase? I mean if there is a basis to distinguich it then point it out. I am not aware of one.

Everyone always likes to accuse me, and all lawyers for that matter, of splitting hairs on word choice or pregnant omissions. Surely you can understand why we do that? I mean - if it is not in there then the logical question is why not? Limited granting of rights mentioned in the first 14 amendments can be very dangerous. Ask the interred Japanese in WWII and slaves from 1820 to 1060's.

Title VII - I definitely like the quote - but I will work on this. I have the stuff but I don't have time to lay my hands on it right this minute. I will get back to the Title VII argument though.

Here is a great quote from this most recent term of the SC. It deals with the relationship between the enumerated rights in the first 10 amendments and the EP protection of hte 14th (also rememebr that the 5th A has a limited EP clause also). Enjoy:

"Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests. If protected conduct is made criminal and the law which does so remains unexamined for its substantive validity, its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons. When homo****** conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homo****** persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres. The central holding of Bowers has been brought in question by this case, and it should be addressed. Its continuance as precedent demeans the lives of homo****** persons." Quote from Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472 - decided this summer. Kennedy wrote the opinion and he got appointed by - guess - Ronald Reagan - liberal? - I don't think so.

This is the lynchpin of the argument and the distinction is really important. Think about this distinction:

If men and women have a constitutional right to engage in whatever *** acts they desire, - provided there is not some overriding societal reason (not grounded in religion mind you) - then, allowing states or anyone else for that matter to use that choice (assuming it is actually a choice) as a basis to exclude defeats the liberty interest.

Read that paragraph again: If men and women have a constitutional right to engage in whatever *** acts they want, then, allowing states to exclude people based on those choices defeats the liberty interest.

Same logic applies to religion, association, etc.

Now, admittedly that quote deals with a criminal law - but the same logic the intertwining of protected conduct and equal protection - is applicable to discrimination and/or equal protection violations.

That is why I say that if you want gay marriage out - (assuming you accept that a marriage license in legal terms is nothing more than a bundle of rights and I am beginning to think many will not accept that) - you need to come up with a non-religious reason that society can put forth to justify the exclusion. Personally I don't think EP and the right should be tied. Be that as it may b/c I might be wrong about this. But either way, my EP idea that gay is not choice and thus a protected class, or your idea that it is choice - either way - you MUST have a bona fide non-religious reason to justify the exclusion.

The key to this distinction is understanding that a mirriage license is independent from the reiligous (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Mormon, etc.) idea of man and woman in marriage under the almighty. That is the key and teh first amendment provides the answer for that - religion cannot be the basis for that bundle of rights b/c it would violate the establishment clause.

hank

[Fargin]

advantages of being happy:

#1: I have a headache
#2: So have I
#1: lets have ***
#2: ok

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Good gravy, it's taken me all day to read through this thread. Good meaty stuff though.



Read that paragraph again: If men and women have a constitutional right to engage in whatever *** acts they want, then, allowing states to exclude people based on those choices defeats the liberty interest.

Those eee-vil activist judges have consistently leaned toward personal liberty & away from societal responsibility of late. So, using that established privacy/liberty argument as in the Texas sodomy ruling...does it not stand to reason that I can legally have *** with & marry anything (animals, objects etc.)? What ground would be left to deny someone the right to pork and/or marry anything? They're just pursuing happiness after all...

This is a lawyer's paradise. Unless and until the Constitution specifies it, we'll wind up generating endless lists of things that are appropriate to or not to marry (all with attached legal fees).

Hank - what do you think should be done with the mayor of SF, who's continued to violate current law? Personally, I figure he should do some time in the pokey. What if some kid from Compton decides to start boosting stereos & his defense is that he's just anticipating that it will soon be legal?

[SOG]

Good gravy, it's taken me all day to read through this thread. Good meaty stuff though.



Read that paragraph again: If men and women have a constitutional right to engage in whatever *** acts they want, then, allowing states to exclude people based on those choices defeats the liberty interest.

Those eee-vil activist judges have consistently leaned toward personal liberty & away from societal responsibility of late. So, using that established privacy/liberty argument as in the Texas sodomy ruling...does it not stand to reason that I can legally have *** with & marry anything (animals, objects etc.)? What ground would be left to deny someone the right to pork and/or marry anything? They're just pursuing happiness after all...

you have to have a consenting party in marriage so if the animal could somehow consent then yes, if not, then no. use peanut butter. its a sure bet ;)



"""No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"""

well if marriage isnt a governmental privelage of US citizens and the marriage benefits are dictated by state then marriage isnt covered under 14a right? so if its not covered then its a state by state case, 100% illegal according to state laws, and then that is where science comes to play on a local level to determine state legalities? are they arguing still on different interpretations of the law or simply trying to get there way locally?

[Durandal]

Bah, guess I'll jump in and add my two cents to the discussion...

One, I like to think that America is in fact the nation where its people can be guaranteed a Life of Freedom, Liberty, while trying to Pursue Happiness. We tend to forget how these simple yet fundamental concepts can be misplaced for any of number of reasons. Fear of something unknown or different can lead to this happening, as can bigotry and hatred. Faith or, sometimes independent of faith, religious doctrine can do this. Simple misunderstanding or lack of education can lead to the loss of these very important concepts as well. I believe that we are treading on dangerous waters here if we simply say: "Marriage is defined as a man marrying a woman, screw the gays."

Now some completely random points as they come to mind...

They are not asking for special rights, just equal rights. Marriage is also defined simply as a "union" as well or a "union of love".

In some States, marriage is also a Constitutional right as well. Which makes the case for gay marriages all that much stronger.

The concept of marriage has become blurred. it certainly no longer a "holy bond, between a man, woman, and god. If I got married right now, and the woman I married did not belong to a particular church or faith, our marriage would have both the church and a god(s) absent from the ceremony. So, I find the argument about sanctimony, far fetched. MILLIONS of people each year get married and have nothing to do with a faith, theirs or ours...

Defending the institution of marriage is just as silly. In a day an age when 50% of marriages end in divorce I find it difficult to argue that marriage is something magical to be defended. We hetero******s are doing plenty to ruin the concept. This is a matter of opinion of course, but the whether gay people can get married have no influence of whether a man and a woman stay together after making their vows. Someone has to prove to me that gays getting married somehow decrease the chances of hetero's staying married (there is no correlation BTW).

An answer...

The most logical answer is to simply take all State and Federal laws dealing with "marriages/unions" and turn them all into Civil Unions. When I get married, it is a Civil Union. When Bob join Don, it is a Civil Union. When Peggy elopes with Sue..yep, Civil Union. Simply redefine Marriage as a RELIGIOUS Union between a man and a woman. Thus, marriage would be a faith based event, rather than something else. The State and Federal government would not recognize marriages as a Civil Union until the couple applied for a civil union with that State and Federal government office. Health care, jobs, legal documents, parental and estate issues are all handled under the Civil Union license.

End of arguments, and of the craziness. A common sense solution to an irrational problem.

[WARPIG]

State law can't violate Fed.

As for hanks response.... I don't think I made any link to religion. Perhaps my comments regarding the family unit and who the marriage laws were intended to protect gave that impression.
Other than one judge ruling that someone could not be tried on a criminal offense of sodamy or homo****** acts, there is no real language that protects homo******s as a social class or group.
Title VII does not define anything other than race, color, religion,
***, or national origin. Homo******ity does not fall into the *** definition either. Consentual ****** acts are not illegal on the most part but ****** preference and conduct is not protected by any stretch.
As far as marriage, the door to marrying anything might be a slight exaggeration but if the only requirement is consenting party's then what will stop minors from marrying? As long as they have parental consent, it is legal. Can you say arranged marriage? Want to marry a goat? As long as the owner gives consent.. giddy up. Marry your sister? Why not? Multiple marriages? Easy.
Don't assume it will stop with homo******s. If you can marry who you want, with all the rights, for what ever reason, what do you think will become of marriage? Think the intent or definition is not an arguable point for marriage?

Imagine I am an illegal immigrant. I come from South or Central America, Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, or China for that matter... I marry an American girl. Eventually I become a citizen. My brother comes over... he marries the same girl.. becomes a citizen eventually. I have an old friend from Cuba, he comes too.. I marry him... he becomes a citizen. He marries all of his brothers and sisters.. ...

I assume you don't have to be gay to have a same *** marriage right? So it would be unconstitutional to prevent me from marrying a buddy of mine just for the sake of the benefits. Maybe we are trying to take advantage of some tax breaks, or business classifications, citizenship, etc.

Divorces are pretty cheap when they are uncontested. Think of the burden that will descend on the court systems with these "legal contracts" being created and ended.

Same *** marriage goes against what the law is meant to protect. Plain and simple. Homo******s are not defined as a group that warrants discrimination protection. Also simple. If they are protected then all ****** preferences should be protected. The possesion of child ****ography could not be illegal. Perhaps the people who make it or engage in it would have criminal charges but pedophiles could seek protection of their civil rights.
The same *** marriage issue has much bigger and deeper ramifications than most people realize.

[Andersson]

State law can't violate Fed.
I assume you don't have to be gay to have a same *** marriage right? So it would be unconstitutional to prevent me from marrying a buddy of mine just for the sake of the benefits. Maybe we are trying to take advantage of some tax breaks, or business classifications, citizenship, etc.


So, how is it different if two hetero******s got married in order to take advantage?



Divorces are pretty cheap when they are uncontested. Think of the burden that will descend on the court systems with these "legal contracts" being created and ended.


Now you´re really making me laugh. Are you actually trying to defend you opinion with this kind of a silly argument?



Same *** marriage goes against what the law is meant to protect. Plain and simple. Homo******s are not defined as a group that warrants discrimination protection. Also simple. If they are protected then all ****** preferences should be protected. The possesion of child ****ography could not be illegal. Perhaps the people who make it or engage in it would have criminal charges but pedophiles could seek protection of their civil rights.
The same *** marriage issue has much bigger and deeper ramifications than most people realize.

This is the most nauseous part of your comment. How can you place a homo****** and a pedophile on the same level? Homo******ity is not a sickness as you seem to think. When two men or women love each other, or just have *** without any kind of forcing, they are not harming anyone. Everybody can see that pedophilia is a totally different thing.

Gay people are not a threath to anyone. Let them be as they are and make a civil union. It shouldn't bother you.

I'm wondering what makes people feel so strongly about this issue (and now I mean those who are against gay marriages/unions).

[WARPIG]

State law can't violate Fed.
I assume you don't have to be gay to have a same *** marriage right? So it would be unconstitutional to prevent me from marrying a buddy of mine just for the sake of the benefits. Maybe we are trying to take advantage of some tax breaks, or business classifications, citizenship, etc.


So, how is it different if two hetero******s got married in order to take advantage?



Divorces are pretty cheap when they are uncontested. Think of the burden that will descend on the court systems with these "legal contracts" being created and ended.



Now you´re really making me laugh. Are you actually trying to defend you opinion with this kind of a silly argument?



Same *** marriage goes against what the law is meant to protect. Plain and simple. Homo******s are not defined as a group that warrants discrimination protection. Also simple. If they are protected then all ****** preferences should be protected. The possesion of child ****ography could not be illegal. Perhaps the people who make it or engage in it would have criminal charges but pedophiles could seek protection of their civil rights.
The same *** marriage issue has much bigger and deeper ramifications than most people realize.

This is the most nauseous part of your comment. How can you place a homo****** and a pedophile on the same level? Homo******ity is not a sickness as you seem to think. When two men or women love each other, or just have *** without any kind of forcing, they are not harming anyone. Everybody can see that pedophilia is a totally different thing.

Gay people are not a threath to anyone. Let them be as they are and make a civil union. It shouldn't bother you.

I'm wondering what makes people feel so strongly about this issue (and now I mean those who are against gay marriages/unions).

First of all, your inclination to insult me just backs up my position and lends no credit to your rational. If you or anyone take offense to my using homo****** and pedophillia in the same context.. allow me to clarify and dumb it down for you. ****** preference and orientation whether it is having *** with members of the same gender, with minors, with animals, with yourself, or with members of the oposite ***.. are not grounds for a social class or group protected under civil rights.
If you feel my argument is silly, back it up. I think I have a pretty firm grasp of what legal ramifications and affects can and will come from same *** marriages. I don't feel strongly because of some hatred of gay people, religious ideal, or phobia. I have backed up all of my opinion and theory with legal sources and made clear my own personal opinions. If they take a derrogatory tone against homo******s.. I apologize. My opinion and view stands. Furthermore, it continues to hold water.
If you have he intellectual fortitude to argue against what I have to say.. I welcome it. Otherwhise, keep laughing and being sick.

[Durandal]

Ok, I'll try to put into less offensive terms...

When arguing against homo******ity, using negatives, especially illegal negatives in analogies, does nothing at all to mainatain a non-argumentative dialogue.

It would be similar using an analogy between Christian and Nazis...

It is false in either case and simply inflames the issue.

With that said, this fear that somehow allowing homo******s to marry will open the flood gate is silly. Since A) As with ANY law in America, be it Federal or State, it is taken on a case by case basis and B) There are already laws in existence that prevent some of the very thigns you have supplied as examples in previous posts.

Marrying a foreigner, while legal, is ILLEGAL for gain of citizenship and benefits.

Animals are under any law, chattel, property, and have no bearing on this discussion AT ALL. You cannot marry a llama or a toaster or 20 acres in Idaho. Allowing gays to marry does not suddenly do away with the basis for defining a marriage as a relationship between people. Arguing otherwise is like saying that because an employer extends health insurance to gay partners, they also have to pay for car repairs for single automobile owners ("but boss, I really LOVE that car!"). It's just apples & oranges.

Children, while human beings, are not adults, and thus even IF they "concent" the adult partner is still subject to current laws which means the child is still a child and protected by law. So they cannot legally consent to *** or marriage. So that long-established rule stops child marriage even if gay marriage becomes commonplace.

The only thing we may need to look at are polygamist relationships. If we change the definition of marriage to allow for gay couples, then the rule prohibiting polygamy becomes more obviously arbitrary. And in time, they will lobby hard and maybe even do away with it. But that won't happen anytime soon. Homo******s are relatively well accepted into American society today; polygamists are considered weirdo outcasts by just about everyone (you won't see a show on cable called "Mormon Eye for the One-Woman Guy" anytime soon, or a sitcom called "Will & Grace & Heather & Jenny & Martha" either).

Until polygamists are able to convince the rest of society that they are really a part of mainstream America, then they will not have a snowball's chance in hell of earning marriage rights. For strictly pragmatic reasons, it's just not going to happen. All allowing gay marriage does to polygamists' rights is it makes the prohibition against them more arbitrary. By itself, that's not going to be enough to convince even the most enlightened lefty to legalize such views.

I hope that is a better to attempt to say what he might have been trying to say without sounding offensive...

[WARPIG]

Thanks D. It does seem much less flammable than my posts. I do realize that my examples were exaggerated. But the precedence of giving homo******s a status as a protected group is still potentially damaging. I don't condone any discrimination against homo******s in any way but I don't think that ****** preference is a credible identifier for a social class.
Marrying a toaster or an animal may be a ridiculous example, but there are laws agianst doing this because....? Someone has tried it. Our society has begun to accept homo******s because they harm no one and we are free to do as we wish. The fact is, whether your prefer *** with the opposite gender, with minors, with the same gender, with toasters, or with dead people... it is a ****** orientation. Whether society deems it is sick or accepted is not the issue.
I have to concede that I may not have given our society the benefit of the doubt. After all, religion is also a choice. Our civil rights protect that choice and for the most part people aren't allowed to claim rights based on their religious worship of thier car or the neighbors cat.
The potential I described before is there. Unlike religion, which our society bases our morals and culture around, ****** orientation is simply that. A persons pshychological choice or propensity for ****** contact.

[Durandal]

Thanks D.

No problem man.


I have to concede that I may not have given our society the benefit of the doubt. After all, religion is also a choice.

A fantastic point. Religion is a choice. Hell, my friend converted from Lutheran to Catholcism...that was a concious choice.


Our civil rights protect that choice and for the most part people aren't allowed to claim rights based on their religious worship of thier car or the neighbors cat.

Well, net exactly. Anyone can worship these items, legally. THough I admit it would be silly. However, your car and your neighbor's cat cannot apply for a tax-exempt church status. :)


The potential I described before is there. Unlike religion, which our society bases our morals and culture around, ****** orientation is simply that. A persons pshychological choice or propensity for ****** contact.

Who ever said marriage had anything to do with ***? :) I am going to play this devils advocate card. While I think we can all agree that the "idea" of marriage brings to mind bearing of children and ***, marriage is not, by definiton, a ****** act. Nor do I have to be married to participate in a ****** relationship.

I have to say that this issue is FAR more complex than either side is willing to admit, expecially those that are against it. Because a fair number of opponents break into very polarized issues and a large number of proponents turn it into a hate crime.

[Jack Mehoff]

Ok, I'll try to put into less offensive terms...

When arguing against homo******ity, using negatives, especially illegal negatives in analogies, does nothing at all to mainatain a non-argumentative dialogue.

It would be similar using an analogy between Christian and Nazis...

It is false in either case and simply inflames the issue.

With that said, this fear that somehow allowing homo******s to marry will open the flood gate is silly. Since A) As with ANY law in America, be it Federal or State, it is taken on a case by case basis and B) There are already laws in existence that prevent some of the very thigns you have supplied as examples in previous posts.

Marrying a foreigner, while legal, is ILLEGAL for gain of citizenship and benefits.

Animals are under any law, chattel, property, and have no bearing on this discussion AT ALL. You cannot marry a llama or a toaster or 20 acres in Idaho. Allowing gays to marry does not suddenly do away with the basis for defining a marriage as a relationship between people. Arguing otherwise is like saying that because an employer extends health insurance to gay partners, they also have to pay for car repairs for single automobile owners ("but boss, I really LOVE that car!"). It's just apples & oranges.

Children, while human beings, are not adults, and thus even IF they "concent" the adult partner is still subject to current laws which means the child is still a child and protected by law. So they cannot legally consent to *** or marriage. So that long-established rule stops child marriage even if gay marriage becomes commonplace.

The only thing we may need to look at are polygamist relationships. If we change the definition of marriage to allow for gay couples, then the rule prohibiting polygamy becomes more obviously arbitrary. And in time, they will lobby hard and maybe even do away with it. But that won't happen anytime soon. Homo******s are relatively well accepted into American society today; polygamists are considered weirdo outcasts by just about everyone (you won't see a show on cable called "Mormon Eye for the One-Woman Guy" anytime soon, or a sitcom called "Will & Grace & Heather & Jenny & Martha" either).

Until polygamists are able to convince the rest of society that they are really a part of mainstream America, then they will not have a snowball's chance in hell of earning marriage rights. For strictly pragmatic reasons, it's just not going to happen. All allowing gay marriage does to polygamists' rights is it makes the prohibition against them more arbitrary. By itself, that's not going to be enough to convince even the most enlightened lefty to legalize such views.

I hope that is a better to attempt to say what he might have been trying to say without sounding offensive...

So much for tolerance for other with different ****** preference, separation of state and church, whatever make people happy and blah blah blah

[Durandal]

So much for tolerance for other with different ****** preference, separation of state and church, whatever make people happy and blah blah blah

Personally, I could care less about polygamists. If that is their thing, then fine. Live and net live.

I was simply pointing out the legal and social realities.

[WARPIG]

Who ever said marriage had anything to do with ***? I am going to play this devils advocate card. While I think we can all agree that the "idea" of marriage brings to mind bearing of children and ***, marriage is not, by definiton, a ****** act. Nor do I have to be married to participate in a ****** relationship.
Actually many, if not most of the language of the laws that states apply to marriage still contain statutes that describe the consummation of marriage.
Marriages can still be annulled on the grounds of one party being sterile or infertile. The idea of *** is based on the intent of the law.
Regardless, I wasn't speaking on the legality of ****** orientation in marriage. (Gay man can marry a gay woman for example) My point was that ****** orientation is currently not protected by the Con, bill of rights, or VII because it is not defined as a group. I posted that stuff earlier.


I have to say that this issue is FAR more complex than either side is willing to admit, expecially those that are against it. Because a fair number of opponents break into very polarized issues and a large number of proponents turn it into a hate crime.

I agree completely. That is what I meant when I said that the gay marriage and the ramifications that it would cause was deeper than we realize.
If you think about it, by legalizing same *** marriages on the basis of "seperate but equal" infractions, the law would be recognizing ****** orientation as a civil rights protected group. That includes all ****** orientations.. to include the ones that our society does not accept.

[Jack Mehoff]

This is for liberals, not you Durandal

Liberal: "We must open our minds and hearts for homo****** couples. We should be tolerance to one another regardless of their ****** preference."

Liberal: "I see a polygamist couple. Let's go lynch that son of a bitch!"

[Durandal]

My point was that ****** orientation is currently not protected by the Con, bill of rights, or VII because it is not defined as a group. I posted that stuff earlier.

Technically it is, just in a more all encompassing way. Just as balcks and women are protected equally the Bill of Rights. We tend to pass laws because human nature tends to discredit those that are different. I would love a nation where common sense ruled...


If you think about it, by legalizing same *** marriages on the basis of "seperate but equal" infractions, the law would be recognizing ****** orientation as a civil rights protected group. That includes all ****** orientations.. to include the ones that our society does not accept.

See, I look at this in a different light. I look at the term "protected" as a good thing. People are human and suffer from imperfection and a lack of common sense. I am also a straight anglo-saxon white guy. The system was designed by people like me, for people like me. So, I am not asking for portections. However, I also understand that a corporate boss CAN indeed fire a person for being gay. This is descrimination. Just as much as it would be if he fired a guy because he was black or a worker for being female. However, if there are not laws preventing a form of descrimination, the descrimination will happen and this is simply untolerable.

While it may cause us to accept certain sexaul orientations that we currently, as a society do not accept, it would not override certainly other laws, that prevent, for example, an adult having *** with a child. It would of course lead the way to bi-******, transvestite, and transgender acceptance, but I hardly see the issue with that. It certainly is NOT my lifestlye, but them there are plenty of hetero******s whose lifestyle I disapprove of. I would not dream of preventing them from their lifestyle though. I simply choose not to associate with those that practice it.

As is the case so many times before the use of the term "protection" or "special rights" druns up some concept of a group getting MORE than the majority, which simply is not true. Cities, Counties, and States across this nation have "human rights" ordinances that include ******ity as a monority group that has the same rights as anyone else. Just because there is not a Federal Mandate, either it the for of a Constitution Amendment or a bill/law does not mean that ******ity is not already considered by a large number of people as minority group that needs protection from descrimination.

Let me also add that I DO disagree with forced hiring practices and awarding points to minorities who plan on attending certian Universities. I believe in a meritocracy where a person is as good as their skill and effort/drive. That, however, is a seperate issue.

[WARPIG]

Well said!

I am coming to the conclusion that the law as it is now does not support same *** marriages. Unless some state specific laws have language that does afford civil rights on the basis of ****** orientation, on the most part federal law does not recognize ****** orientation as a protected civil right.

Whether or not it should be changed is still debatable. Not just in this forum but in my mind as well. I don't like the idea of intolerance of any person. But, I still live in a specific society with some specific moral and ethical norms. Although I personally, along with most people, don't have any real issue with homo******s. I don't think I am prepared to accept many other ****** lifestyles, orientation, habits, choices... whatever.
"Seperate but equal" has been the wrong that many supporters of the same *** marriage subject claim. In reality ****** orientation has always been seperate and equal. The rule of tolerance is that maybe I don't think the same as you ******ly, but I deserve the same equal treatment. Meaning I deserve the same consideration and rights as you just don't apply society's moral or ethical views to me.

My opinion, of course.

[Durandal]

I am coming to the conclusion that the law as it is now does not support same *** marriages. Unless some state specific laws have language that does afford civil rights on the basis of ****** orientation, on the most part federal law does not recognize ****** orientation as a protected civil right.

This is going to be a bit long, so please, bear with me. :)

Well let me give this as MY own regional experience. Much like the gun laws in my area, civil rights in regards to ******ity varies. I now live in Covington, KY, right across from my brith place, Cincinnati, OH. Kentucky as a State is more Libertarian (not liberal, but less government) than Ohio. Cincinnati is a fairly conservative city. In the early 90s, the city council, there, passed the Cincinnati Human Rights Ordinance. It was essentially a listing over every minority group, every element of faith, income, ***, and...******ity. The ordinance said, you cannot discriminate against these people: fire them from their place of employment, deny housing, deny fair waged or health care, etc because they are "X". A year later, a Christian and Citizen Watch groups joined forces campaigned and through democratic process, had ******ity removed from the bill. Not a good thing in my eye, both sides pushed a media blitz filled with dissinformation (equal not special rights vs. they are nazi and going to put us in camps...both sides were equally ugly).

Meanwhile, in Covington, we added ******ity to the human rights ordinance of this small city, soemthign like five years later. A good thing I believe.

Now, I do not think we need to argue that homo******s are a group, a sub-group (no negative implied) of our population. No they are not an ethnic group, or race, religion, or *** that nromally is an issue when we discuss Civil Rights, but then Civil Rights ignores race, gender, and faith. Civil Rights does not recognize JUST blacks. Civil Rights does not ignore Catholics. It is there for all of us.

Nor should it logiciall (or rationaly?) ignore ******ity.

So how do you categorize ******ity? Some argu it is a choice. Tell my sister that. Maybe it is, and I will admit that for some (which I persoanlly consider "bi-******") that may be the case. Nor has the scientific community proven that it is genetic (though homo******ity does tend to pop up in families that have had previous homo******s, nothing has been attributed to it yet). There are certainly a number of homo******s that are gay because of environmental reasons...abuse for example. Regardless of the reasons though, they exist. Nor are they the violent leather clad mustache wearing underground culture sterotyped during the 50s, 60s, and 70s. They are everyday individuals that hold jobs, have families, and look like everyone else. I have met gay signles that are no better than a frat guy trying to sleep witha drunk girl and have met gay couples that are just as loving and caring with each other (and their friends and family) as my parents. Homo******s, like hetero******s, represent a diverse culture of different individuals that have the same exact pros and cons (with the sole exception of child bearing...which only effects male homo******s not female...they can obviously bear children).


Whether or not it should be changed is still debatable. Not just in this forum but in my mind as well. I don't like the idea of intolerance of any person. But, I still live in a specific society with some specific moral and ethical norms.

And I respect you more for having said this. It takes a LOT to admit yoou do not like something in this case, intolerance, but struggle because you also have other beliefs that hold certain moral judgments. There is nothing wrong with that.



Although I personally, along with most people, don't have any real issue with homo******s. I don't think I am prepared to accept many other ****** lifestyles, orientation, habits, choices... whatever.

Now here is where I get worried. Take me for instance. To some, I have led an immoral lifestyle. I have had MANY female ****** partners, on a couple occassions several at once. I have not looked for nor happened upon "the one". The person I want to spend my life with, nor I am trying now. I have never paid for *** nor have any of the situations be anything BUT consenting. Yet...

Do I, somehow, because I lack some people's concept of morality (when it comes to ******ity). Do my rights get denied? Am I not allowed to marry? I do not plan on having children. Does this mean, marriage is out of the question? What about faith? I have no Church and my faith is muddy at best when coomapred to others. Does this have an impact on my rights and marriage?

Because that is what we are telling homo******s...at least that is what I see...I could be wrong *shrug*


My opinion, of course.

Hey, if we all though alike, this would be a very boring world indeed!

[WARPIG]

Quote:

Although I personally, along with most people, don't have any real issue with homo******s. I don't think I am prepared to accept many other ****** lifestyles, orientation, habits, choices... whatever.


Now here is where I get worried. Take me for instance. To some, I have led an immoral lifestyle. I have had MANY female ****** partners, on a couple occassions several at once. I have not looked for nor happened upon "the one". The person I want to spend my life with, nor I am trying now. I have never paid for *** nor have any of the situations be anything BUT consenting. Yet...

Do I, somehow, because I lack some people's concept of morality (when it comes to ******ity). Do my rights get denied? Am I not allowed to marry? I do not plan on having children. Does this mean, marriage is out of the question? What about faith? I have no Church and my faith is muddy at best when coomapred to others. Does this have an impact on my rights and marriage?
Of course not. But, do you feel that you fit into a special group.. say, fornicators.. that deserve to be classified as a social group that needs protection under Title VII?

What about those who prefer masterbation... I can't think of the technical or medical term for it, but should Jackmehoff get consideration as social class or seperate group?
Religious and personal relevance aside, I am still convinced that ****** orientation has no credibility as a class or group identifier.
I realize my position paints me as some kind of conservative or religious right winger but I assure you that is not the case. As far as civil rights and equal opportunity is concerned, one of my career goals is to work for my state as the EO rep. for the National Guard.
Legal and social consideration alone is where I base my opinion of this on. Who gets married to what has no bearing on my upcoming marriage. I don't feel threatened in anyway by it. If a man wants to marry his own brother, so be it... it won't take away from my pending marraige to the woman I love. Even though my faith tells me that marriage is for a man and a women in God's eyes... that is my faith.

By the way.. Thanks D. Don't apolagize for a lengthy post. Especially to me. I would feel ripped off if you were stingy with your words. I am sincerely challanged by your intelligent arguement. As I am sure you are aware, between our differing views lies the complicated truth.

[Durandal]

Of course not. But, do you feel that you fit into a special group.. say, fornicators.. that deserve to be classified as a social group that needs protection under Title VII?

No, of course not. In part because I am a white male who likes women. :)


What about those who prefer masterbation... I can't think of the technical or medical term for it, but should Jackmehoff get consideration as social class or seperate group?

Yes he should, but not because of that. :) (Sorry Jack, just kidding around)


Religious and personal relevance aside, I am still convinced that ****** orientation has no credibility as a class or group identifier.
I realize my position paints me as some kind of conservative or religious right winger but I assure you that is not the case.

Actually, in my mind at least, it does not. Pplenty of liberals, for example, feel the same way. Though I am thoroughly convinced that the liberal politicians treat it this way because it is political timebomb.

Nor would I assume tha you were...any of those you mentioned.


Even though my faith tells me that marriage is for a man and a women in God's eyes... that is my faith.

And most importantly, WHEN you get married, it will be before your god. Not only do I support your choice, but I respect it as well as your understanding that it IS your faith. I would NEVER even think of somehow undermining it either by personal actions or supporting someone that would attempt to do so.


By the way.. Thanks D. Don't apolagize for a lengthy post. Especially to me. I would feel ripped off if you were stingy with your words. I am sincerely challanged by your intelligent arguement. As I am sure you are aware, between our differing views lies the complicated truth.

Not to turn this into soome sort of mutual admiration society, but you ain't so bad yourself...its been a good discussion. Agreeing to disagree (even if it is only a few points) and still retain each other's respect is always better than blowing up over nothing.

Funny how this conversation came up on the day I decided to stay home from work to fix my tenant's furnace...been a good way to a break.

Cheers man!

[WARPIG]

Well, if it gets too friendly and we suddenly get the urge to hug and cry.. we can always resort to calling each other phucktard, or something.

[hank]

Man - where do we goet so off track.

OK - WARPIG did not mention religion - that is true - but religion gets implicated anyway.

REad the whole thing I post here a few time before you respond.

Whenever you are confroneted with denial of a constitutional right - the first questions you ask are: 1) does the govt have an interest in abridging the right? Yes = go to question 2; No = the abridging law is unconstitutional 2) is the abridging law limited in scope so as only to further the interest and not in effect swallow the right (sorry for the pun)? Yes = law is unconstitutional; No - law is OK and the abridgements of hte right = constitutional.

That is the analysis if a right is abridged. Now - you will say that hoho******ity is not a right. For years that would have been the answer b/c the 14th A/5th A never really got applied. Not a lot of successful challenges that way b/c it just was not favored.

That is why I posted the quote from the Texas case. Read it again. If homo******ity is constitutional - and it is - then what is the effect if you can use hohosevuality as the basis for excluding someone? Answer that and respoond and then I will go on.

I have not forgotten about Title VII - but the answer to that question above is the answer to and explanation for why WARPIG, and many others, get confused b/c they think homo******ity os not a protected right. That is technically true - but by implication - recognized in TX case, and the slavery cases before them the answer will ultimately be the same.

think about that and respond

the religion gets implicated because it will invariably be the reason given to ****g #1 above - that has been my point all along - you need to think about the reason you want to abridge homo marriages - then ask yourself if there is a basis independent of your christian beliefs - I submit that in my case the answer is no - I know of no reason outside my religion to mot allow it. If taht is the answer then 1st A is implicated b/c allowing religioin to be the reason = establishment clause violation.

If everybody wants to just agree that we will never agree - then by amm means I will quit. My hope in this was to try and point out that under a truse constitutional analysis gay marriage will exist. The poitn of all this was to show that amendment is the way to stop it - not judge bashing, or saying you don't believe in it, etc.

Do the con analysis and see if you really believe you can not allow gay marriage- not whether you should - but whether you can.

Can and should are different in this case. I agree with the should but take issue with the can.

hank

[WARPIG]

Actually hank, I have. Durandal has done a good job of challenging my position on that. The way I read you Texas case. Sodomy was what was being argued..not homo******ity. Let me know if this is wrong.
I have addressed the religious implications and the question of can gay marriage be legally banned and should it.
I will do so again.
Yes..I think on the social and legal argument alone (not religious).. same *** marriage has a weak foot hold at best.
Do I think it should.. well, I do not support same *** marriage, I am torn to whether it should be banned on the social level.. but thinking in legal terms.. I think the fall out of allowing it will open up some pretty ugly side effects. ****** orientation will be looked at as a seperate class, so people with other ****** practices and orientation, will have the protection of civil rights as well. No discriminating against pedophiles.. they can claim ****** orientation discrimination when trying to fight being put on a *** offenders list. Just an example.

[hank]

Actually hank, I have. Durandal has done a good job of challenging my position on that. The way I read you Texas case. Sodomy was what was being argued..not homo******ity. Let me know if this is wrong.
I have addressed the religious implications and the question of can gay marriage be legally banned and should it.
I will do so again.
Yes..I think on the social and legal argument alone (not religious).. same *** marriage has a weak foot hold at best.
Do I think it should.. well, I do not support same *** marriage, I am torn to whether it should be banned on the social level.. but thinking in legal terms.. I think the fall out of allowing it will open up some pretty ugly side effects. ****** orientation will be looked at as a seperate class, so people with other ****** practices and orientation, will have the protection of civil rights as well. No discriminating against pedophiles.. they can claim ****** orientation discrimination when trying to fight being put on a *** offenders list. Just an example.

This is where I lose track of what you are saying. You want to distinguish sodomy and homo******ity. Where is the difference? Woman/woman *** + man/man *** = by definiont sodomy. Hell if the wife slobs the ol' knob that is also sodomy under the vast majority of sodomy laws. Sodomy is more than anal *** b/w man/man.

So if that distinction is gone then I thin you need to think about the Texas case again. Kennedy's point in that case was this. Sodomy is contitutional. Waht two consenting adults choose to do in their homes is constitutional. If the governement wants to limit these activities they have to go through the analysis in my previous post. The 1) interest and 2) limited application analysis. That is really beyond argument from a constitutional point of view.

Now, I know you can still disagree. But understand that on the 2 points in the preceding paragraph your beef is not legal or constitutional but on a personal moral level. Follow?

Well, what is the difference if you figure out how to discriminate agaisnt the behavior by not allowing marriage or by positive law? Kennedy said there is no difference. That is the leap that the public does not get. EP or Bill of Rights is not really relevant. I have consistently chosen to argue the EP argument here. I think that may be the reason that protected class keeps coming up. But as Kennedy showed in Texas - the protected class is not the issue when the discrimination occurs over conduct that is wholly constitutional and the only reason for the abridgement is religious.

I am going to spread this out over several posts to deal with a lot of the other points that WaARPIG and Durandal have made.

You discussion is great and I applaude it but you both are operating on some great common sense ideas that do not necessarily equate to the legal issue. I'll start there in the next post. Try to read each one in turn with regards to the passage I quote from you earlier post. It may take a while to pull this off.

hank

[hank]

WARPIG made the fraudulent marriage point.

Handled well by others but I have apoint I want to add on that. This is exactly the arguement made against making slave citizens. It is costly, they won't obey the law, the courts will get bogged down.

Waht is the point? I mean enforcing murder laws takes enormous resources - yet we do it. The cost/benefit argument is irrelevant in constitutional context. It always has been - when an honest constitutional analysis occurs.

Most of what else has been said is right. Marriage for merely citizenship purposes has a name = fraud. Fraud is illegal in all 50 states and under the US Code.

Nobode here wants to condone illegal activity

hank

[hank]

WARPIG made anpother point about state law granting or affordinga right to a marry. He then went on to say something about protected class.

Again, this is not the point.

You really, Durandal and WARPIG, have to try to understand the distinction between the license and the ceremony.

The license is a state license - and getting the license is NOT a right. If TN tomorrow decided that its answer was to no longer allow ANY marriage license TN would be completely within its rights as a state. Getting a marriage license is a privilege - always will be and always has been. I can't say for sure, but I am almost positive that the word marriage is not used in the US con. Doesn't really matter - b/c eve if it is there the con grants no right to marry.

This point is fundamental and without getting this point the argument will always descend into personal morality - whic quite frankly is not the question.

Here comes the leap - marrying is a privilege - but the granting of the privilege confers rights.

Think about that.

You have no right to get a marriage license - but once you have it you get rights.

That is the constitutional implication. When a state decides to grant marriage licenses - rights are part of the deal even though the license itself is not granted by right.

Follow?

Seriously - if this is confusing please pm me b/c this may be where we all get off the track - I know this is definitely where a lot of the media gets off the track. Also, so much gets lost in these writings - maybe a phone call would be better. PM me if you want to talk about it instead of these drawn out posts b/c this is pivotal to the rest.

hank

[hank]

Another pivotal distinction - license v the ceremony

the state does not control the actual marriage in the same way in which the state controls the license.

Think about it - is TN going to tell the Catholic shurch how, when, what , etc. about the ceremony - NO - TN could not (put aside for a minute laws like time, place, etc.) - I mean TN cannot tell the Catholic, Methodist, Mormon (except polygamy which I will deal with in turn Jack - you make some great points on this) who gets married, can they, outside the license. TN's involvement with the ceremony begins and ends with teh license.

That is the second key distinction that gets lost.

We are talking, in this discussion, ONLY about the license.

That is why I get so frustrated with the argument about the definition of marriage. Forget for a second about the various state constitutional amendments that "define" marriage. B/f them waht was the definition?

All BS aside - please go and find a definition of marriage and cite it. Dictionary, encyclopedia, bible, torah, Koran, - where will you get it. Whatever you get will ONLY APPLY to what happens after the ceremony.

KEY point - so think about it.

The license = b/f the ceremony - - - - the defintion of marriage = after the ceremony

Teh confusion b/w these is another problem at the heart of the problem

TN can't fool with the after definition - just the license

Constitution really has no interest in the after, just the license

So - how does the definition get into the picture?

Maybe there is an explanation - I will listent to anyone who tried to explain - I promise - but I just don't see the connection

b/f teh ceremony deals with rights incident to a privilege

after the ceremony deals with a definition that must come from a religion

hank

[hank]

Now - if you are with me here then we'll go on to the separate but equal problem

Seriously - pm me if you don't follow these previous 2 key points - b/c this post WILL NOT MAKE SENSE if you don't get the 2 previous posts

This is the point in the proceedings where WARPIG will say protected class/fundamental right - etc.

My first answer to that is the rationale espoused (big word) by Kennedy in the Texas case - EP/BoR = irrelevant b/c the conduct is OK

BUT - the separate but equal argument is the same here

The civil union LICENSE that gives the same rights as the marriage LICENSE will be unconstitutional - IMO admittedly but there is a lot of precedent in my favor

Notice that I am talking ONLY about the license not the ceremony - your defition of marriage will be unaffected by this - KEY POINT

Separate but equal is unconstitutional - if 2 men have civil union license and man/women get marriage licence it will violate the 14th A

hank

[hank]

OK - now some of the other points which are less fundamental but still important

pedophile v homo******

That got ugly and feathers got ruffled.

Here is why they are distinguishable. Pedophilia involves ****** acts with a group of people (children) incapable in the eyes of all state laws of giving consent. At the heart of it all and without being derogatory to anybody this is the key.

*** b/w adult and child is illegal - and here is the KEY POINT - on a basis wholly indepedent from religion.

Even an hoho****** Aetheist can understand that children cannot consent and therefore *** with child is illegal

illegal behavior v legal behavior

clean and simple

hank

[hank]

The next point is about changin the definition of marriage. WARPIG has repeatedly referred to this. I think my previos post deal with this sufficiently but there is another ancillary point that is relevant to all this.

One of my points all along has been that 1) i don't peronally accept gay marriage b/c my religion requires that of me 2) that personal conviction is irrelevant in this discussion 3) the current state ofthe law supports gay marriage licenses 4) if you want to get rid of the problem amend the constitution as W has suggested.

#'s 1-3 above I stand by til I die. #4 is a LITTLE BIT disingenuous b/c I really don't think that a single amendment will do the trick.

First - defining marriage as man/woman in my view is discriminatory - I admit that I THINK the constitution protects gays the same as blacks or orientals and you may disagree - but I also believe the con has another protection for gays in the EP clause of the 5th and 14th A

That is why I really think that the only way to fix it is this: 1) define marriage as man/woman 2) change the wording of hte 14th/5th to have sentence or two that gays are not entitled to EP 3) another amendment that reiterates that gays are not a protected class

Without all three I think you can, and in my view should, read the US con to say that not granting the license to gays would still be in violation of the 14th A

I agree that maybe not even the US SC would agree - but I would argue it tomorrow and I always bet on myself in these arguements - I am very persuasive in forn of judges.

hank

[WARPIG]

This is where I lose track of what you are saying. You want to distinguish sodomy and homo******ity. Where is the difference? Woman/woman *** + man/man *** = by definiont sodomy. Hell if the wife slobs the ol' knob that is also sodomy under the vast majority of sodomy laws. Sodomy is more than anal *** b/w man/man.

So if that distinction is gone then I thin you need to think about the Texas case again. Kennedy's point in that case was this. Sodomy is contitutional. Waht two consenting adults choose to do in their homes is constitutional. If the governement wants to limit these activities they have to go through the analysis in my previous post. The 1) interest and 2) limited application analysis. That is really beyond argument from a constitutional point of view.
I am well aware of what sodomy is. It has nothing to do with ****** orientation and you know it hank.
Where is the difference?

Hell if the wife slobs the ol' knob that is also sodomy under the vast majority of sodomy laws. Sodomy is more than anal *** b/w man/man.
You said it yourself.. you also were clear on the distinction between sodomy and homo******ity when you engaged in the discussion of homo******ity in the military. POWs from many countries were often sodomized as a torture method and not ****** desire... ring a bell?

Suicide is a consentual act.
Religion is a protected class yet people who practice different forms of voodoo aren't allowed to sacrifice animals in many states. Animal cruelty is against the law. Being a person who practices voodoo is protected but many of their practices are not.
Posession of drug paraphanalia is not illegal in many states.. posession of drugs is. Being a pot head is not illegal, having pot is, use of pot technically is not illegal in many states either.. posession is. Even when the use of pot may not be illegal in a certain state.. you can be fired from your job when it is proven that you use it.

One does not necessarily assume the other hank. Sodomy is an act that is not unconstitutional.. being homo****** is not unconstitutional. Neither warrants a protected class. The Texas ruling in the case of sodomy has no bearing. Saying that there is no distinction between sodomy and homo******ity is inaccurate, and trying to link it to justify classification of ****** orientation as being protected by the Con is a weak stretch.

One question hank. My position on whether ****** orientation is a protected class is based on Title VII of course. Can or do individual states include ****** orientation on thier own?
I mean.. if California law does not recognize homo******s as a protected class but Colorado does.. the same *** marriages are legal in Colorado but Californian homo******s don't have a state or Federal Civil rights law to protect them.. right? I am under the impression that this is the source of the controversy in the country right now.

[WARPIG]

OK - now some of the other points which are less fundamental but still important

pedophile v homo******

That got ugly and feathers got ruffled.

Here is why they are distinguishable. Pedophilia involves ****** acts with a group of people (children) incapable in the eyes of all state laws of giving consent. At the heart of it all and without being derogatory to anybody this is the key.

*** b/w adult and child is illegal - and here is the KEY POINT - on a basis wholly indepedent from religion.



Even an hoho****** Aetheist can understand that children cannot consent and therefore *** with child is illegal

illegal behavior v legal behavior

clean and simple

hank

Not clean or simple by any stretch. The act of having *** with children is illegal. Again.. you confirm that. If I go to the local police and openly admit, sign a written statement that I am a pedophile.. but have never nor plan to have *** with a child.. it is not illegal to have that ****** orientation.

Bottom line both are a ****** orientation.. whether the acts are legal or not is irrelevent.

I want to take this opportunity again to say that I don't mean to put homo******s and pedophiles or paraphilse or in a class... I include hetero******s as a ****** orientation as well.

[hank]

The last point to make i the protected class thing. WARPIG keeps bringing this up and I want to explain it a little b/c the characterization in the media is just plain WRONG.

Ok - this one is less important - so the feint of hear should skip this one - this is HIGHLY technical constitutiona law that may not even be necessary for the discussion. I offer it only for WARPIG's benefit b/c I know he likes this stuff and he operates under a misconception about the very nature of the protected classes themselves.

Here goes

First - the clases are never mentioned in the document. READ it if you don't believe me. There is no mention of any class of person in the BoR or the other amendments. This idea is wholly judicial product.

Why?

Because the fact is that if our country strictly adhered to the con none of our governements could survive. If you strictly read the first amendment it just says the govt can't do these things. NO balancing - no classes - no nothing - the govt may not make a law establishin religion or restricing freedom of expression.

Broad brush strokes - can the Fed govt ban nudity on TV. Read the first amendment - an strict interpretation of the first amendment necessarily answers no the government cannot stop nudity on TV. Yet it does.

Why?

B/c the court a long time agoi recognized that without some limitations the people who are protected by the BoR could run amock of the govt. So, the court came up with a test that says taht anytime the govt wants to abridge speech they have to 1)have a compelling reason and 2) they have to narrowly tailor the restriction to advance the goal of the restriction.

There is no provision in the con for this test whatsoever - a true patriot from the 1750-1780's would cringe at the thought. they did not provide a test - they did not contemplate one - yet we have one b/c it is a political/social necessity.

Without it people coud 1) broadcast ****ography on TV 2) yell fire in a theatre 3) advertise cigarettes to minors 4) call for riots to oust W 5) protest Clinton not resigning even on the steps to the white house or congress

See the problem? Without check a small, unhappy minority could cripple the country - so the court allowed the govt to limit speech

NOTE: 1) speech is the most fundamental right - the very first one listed in the BoR and 2) there is no mention of classes in the test - we have not yet progressed to protected classes at this time - it will omce later

OK - so now we see why and how the govt gets its ability to limit fundamental rights - also note that the burden is on the governement - govt HAS TO SHOW that the restriction meets the test - no burden on the plaintiff - important b/c if the govt forgets about the court date or whatever or does not fil an answer then the govt loses.

OK - I am out of time but I will try to come back to this later to explaing where the "protected classes" fit into the picture.

I am going to make one other post right now to Durandal and WARPIG

But everybody else - if you have gotten this far - I know most have not - but if you have - you may begin to see how this entire issue has been misrepresented in the media - tha actual conflict between interests and the conflict dscribed in the media are not even closely realted.

I have no answer for this - but please challenge anything I have posted - I may be wrong - I am human and I do most of this from memory - only getting citations whe I must have them - so check me up and call me out - I admit it when I am wrong and that kind of checking up will only help.

By the way I ahve not forgotten the Title VII thing - it will just take me some more time b/c obviouosly memory did not serve in that case.

hank

[hank]

SOG- did oyu read my responses to you great posts Please do and do not take offense. CAll me out on that if you think I misinterpret it.

Thatwas really commendable to get that stuff and I don't want you to htink I just dismissed what you were trying to say.

You point about the 14th A is at the hear of the issue.

hank

[WARPIG]

First - defining marriage as man/woman in my view is discriminatory - I admit that I THINK the constitution protects gays the same as blacks or orientals and you may disagree - but I also believe the con has another protection for gays in the EP clause of the 5th and 14th A
It is not discriminatory.. homo******s are not protected the same as a persons race. I do disagree as the fact that race is listed as a protected class, hetero******s, homo******s, bi******s, or any other ****** orientation is not protected. No language in the Con or any Civil Rights law, title, or amendment recognizes ****** orientation as a protected group.




That is why I really think that the only way to fix it is this: 1) define marriage as man/woman 2) change the wording of hte 14th/5th to have sentence or two that gays are not entitled to EP 3) another amendment that reiterates that gays are not a protected class
OK.. if you “fix” the constitution by adding homo******s.. do not forget to include hetero******s, pedophiles, paraphiles, gangbangers, nerds, geeks, jocks, pot heads, and the tens of thousands of other groups that consider themselves a separate group in society.
Just because it does not say “ homo******s are not protected” does not mean they get protection

[hank]

Durandal and WARPIG

First - if I have not said it yet - I really respect both your opinions and the fact that you have passion - combined with knowledge - on this issue. You both really think and I appreciate that. So - none of this is derogatory towards either of you.

Also - as I said - we CAN disagree. It is OK for anyone to disagree with the current state of the con on this subject and even to think that I, the legal mind that I try to be, have missed the boat on this.

OK

One thing about your discussion that troubles me is that you both have not really questioned your own position in light of the actual document and the way the SC has interpreted it.

Durandal - you want gay rights - I respect that - but you always try to back up you argument with a lot of common sense ideas that gays aren't "bad" and that "tolerance" is good. Both noble concepts to be sure - but that only takes the fight out of the constitutionaal frame and allows the "moral" arguments to creep in. I don't get that. MORALITY is irrelevant in this situation. We are talking about rights granted under out constitution and "falling back" to compelling moral arguments, while admittedly compelling, really misses the point IMHO.

WARPIG - you don't like gay marriage - I respect (and incidentally agree personally) with that - but you always try to narrowly define "rights" under the con in such a way as to fit you belief system. No offense, but that scares me a little. That type of rationalization is precisely what allowed slaves to be slaves under the law. I am not saying that you are in anyway for and aligned with that horrible cause, I hope you know that. I only mean that IMHO you need to step back and play devil's advocate for your own arguments against gay marriage.

Case in point - when this first came up - 2 sheds and I debated a long time about the MASS stuff. Finally he just got tired or pissed or whatever and quit- but I have gone back and read that thread many times and he never answered my point. He just accused me of likning 1) activist judges 2) fine legal distinctions and he also basically tried to argue aginst me what I argue against you - which is this:

Honestly ask why you don't want this - take a few days and kick it around - if there is a non-religious reason then tell me. Don't come back with anything about the constitution - forget that for the time being - just give your personal reason for not wanting it. I promis I will listen.

B/c at the end of the day - I DON'T WANT IT EITHER - I hink it is wrong, immoral, indecent, non-productive - all those things. But when I belly up to the mirror, as a future lawyer, and look into my own eyes I have to ask this:

"Would I want to not be allowed to get these rights if I were gay?"

That is the question that if HONESTLY say that the answer is "NO" - then maybe just disagreeing is OK.

But I submit that you will answer yes - if you are really puttin personal beliefs aside and thinking of what you rights you would want in the convers situation.

OK - couple more

These arguments for limiting classes and protection ALWAYS lose. Not saying you can't make them or even that they have not won before - but if you look at teh 200+ years of con law you will see that ultimately limited readings of the grantings of rights lose. Not b/c of acvitist judges - but b/c as a whole the con is adocument about protecting and fostering rights - that is what it does - by having a BoR but also, and maybe more importantly, BY CALLING FOR LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT whose reall job is to enforce the rights in the con

Second - don't take any of this LONG series of posts as derogatory or condescending - that is not my intent.

I only argue with you both about this because you are worhty opponents. I have not interest in debates like I have with 2 sheds or Seoul on this issue - they are pointless

ALL BS aside - if the meaning is lost in my quick and crappy writing - pm me and we can talk or whatever b/c some of these distinctions that exist I have explained to the best of my ability here and I won't be able to improve them in writing - talking might be the only answer

hank

[hank]

First - defining marriage as man/woman in my view is discriminatory - I admit that I THINK the constitution protects gays the same as blacks or orientals and you may disagree - but I also believe the con has another protection for gays in the EP clause of the 5th and 14th A
It is not discriminatory.. homo******s are not protected the same as a persons race. I do disagree as the fact that race is listed as a protected class, hetero******s, homo******s, bi******s, or any other ****** orientation is not protected. No language in the Con or any Civil Rights law, title, or amendment recognizes ****** orientation as a protected group.




That is why I really think that the only way to fix it is this: 1) define marriage as man/woman 2) change the wording of hte 14th/5th to have sentence or two that gays are not entitled to EP 3) another amendment that reiterates that gays are not a protected class
OK.. if you “fix” the constitution by adding homo******s.. do not forget to include hetero******s, pedophiles, paraphiles, gangbangers, nerds, geeks, jocks, pot heads, and the tens of thousands of other groups that consider themselves a separate group in society.
Just because it does not say “ homo******s are not protected” does not mean they get protection

WARPIG - point out the protected groups in the constitution

hank

[hank]

First - defining marriage as man/woman in my view is discriminatory - I admit that I THINK the constitution protects gays the same as blacks or orientals and you may disagree - but I also believe the con has another protection for gays in the EP clause of the 5th and 14th A
It is not discriminatory.. homo******s are not protected the same as a persons race. I do disagree as the fact that race is listed as a protected class, hetero******s, homo******s, bi******s, or any other ****** orientation is not protected. No language in the Con or any Civil Rights law, title, or amendment recognizes ****** orientation as a protected group.




That is why I really think that the only way to fix it is this: 1) define marriage as man/woman 2) change the wording of hte 14th/5th to have sentence or two that gays are not entitled to EP 3) another amendment that reiterates that gays are not a protected class
OK.. if you “fix” the constitution by adding homo******s.. do not forget to include hetero******s, pedophiles, paraphiles, gangbangers, nerds, geeks, jocks, pot heads, and the tens of thousands of other groups that consider themselves a separate group in society.
Just because it does not say “ homo******s are not protected” does not mean they get protection

Show me in the con and the first 14 amendments where women, blacks, elderly, handicapped - are proteted groups. Just the amendment number or the Art, clause, sec will do.

B/c if you are right then the con will positively speak to that issue, right? It has to or the courts could NOT protect them, right?

The con is a framework - an ideology if you will - many of the rights that you think you have are simply not in the constitution. They are in the interpretation of the constitution. There is a spirit that NECESSARILY goes with the letter when you read the con.

hank

[hank]

"Religion is a protected class"

Quote from WARPIG - question - where does it say that?

The first amendment does not contain the words PROTECTED or CLASS - this is simply judicially created language to justify allowing the government to violate the first amendment when the interests in priotecting our society OUTWEIGHS the first amendment. YET weighing is not part of the amendment. The fact that we even get to have this discussion points to the idea that rights contained in the constitution go unprotected.

Ask yourself this - di we need the Civil WAr amendments to free slaves? I say no - blacks are men and thus protected. Yet we have the CW amendments, don't we? Why? If blacks were always a protected class then why the amendments?

Answer that and you are almost there.

hank

[hank]

First - defining marriage as man/woman in my view is discriminatory - I admit that I THINK the constitution protects gays the same as blacks or orientals and you may disagree - but I also believe the con has another protection for gays in the EP clause of the 5th and 14th A
It is not discriminatory.. homo******s are not protected the same as a persons race. I do disagree as the fact that race is listed as a protected class, hetero******s, homo******s, bi******s, or any other ****** orientation is not protected. No language in the Con or any Civil Rights law, title, or amendment recognizes ****** orientation as a protected group.




That is why I really think that the only way to fix it is this: 1) define marriage as man/woman 2) change the wording of hte 14th/5th to have sentence or two that gays are not entitled to EP 3) another amendment that reiterates that gays are not a protected class
OK.. if you “fix” the constitution by adding homo******s.. do not forget to include hetero******s, pedophiles, paraphiles, gangbangers, nerds, geeks, jocks, pot heads, and the tens of thousands of other groups that consider themselves a separate group in society.
Just because it does not say “ homo******s are not protected” does not mean they get protection

Check the definition of discriminatory again. Not allowing a gay man to get a mirriage license is discrimination, it may be constitutionall allowed discrimination, but excluding anyone for a characteristic = discriminatory.

I don't think we are going anywhere with this. We are back to semantics and that is nowhere.

hank

[WARPIG]

OK hank.. you don't need me to point them out. You know them. The only reason you are asking is because you learned somewhere in trail class to challenge your oppositions knowlede in an effort to discredit sources.

If you want my understanding.. read my past posts in this thread where we discuss the Con and few vague amendments that do protect certain groups.
Slaves were freed and in several amendments allowed to vote, etc.
Women were given equal rights in similar language.
The Bill of rights further provides language on the same.
Civil Rights laws are where the protected classes are defined. Title VII to be specific. I went into that before as well.
My position has been and continues to be.. ****** orientation is not a credible argument for protection under Title VII. If it is then so is affilitation to a gang. For example. Schools are in the habit of prevenenting students from wearing "gang" related colors or symbols. Not because they are considered religious symbols but because gang affiliation is considered disruptive and dangerous to campus life. So if ****** orientation is acceptable cause for protection, then why not gang affiliation? Being a blood, crip, folks, or peeps is not illegal. The criminal activity that many engage in is. But, the fact that I either chose or was born in a cultural society that gave me no choice but to join a gang. My place and definition of society is base on my relationship and involvement in my gang. So, by the same thinking.. my gang colors and my right to display them in any public institution should be protected.

Hank mentions that some of our rights are narrowly limited in many cases in the interest of not running amuck..amoch.. going nuts. It makes sense, and it should apply here.

[hank]

This is where I lose track of what you are saying. You want to distinguish sodomy and homo******ity. Where is the difference? Woman/woman *** + man/man *** = by definiont sodomy. Hell if the wife slobs the ol' knob that is also sodomy under the vast majority of sodomy laws. Sodomy is more than anal *** b/w man/man.

So if that distinction is gone then I thin you need to think about the Texas case again. Kennedy's point in that case was this. Sodomy is contitutional. Waht two consenting adults choose to do in their homes is constitutional. If the governement wants to limit these activities they have to go through the analysis in my previous post. The 1) interest and 2) limited application analysis. That is really beyond argument from a constitutional point of view.
I am well aware of what sodomy is. It has nothing to do with ****** orientation and you know it hank.
Where is the difference?

Hell if the wife slobs the ol' knob that is also sodomy under the vast majority of sodomy laws. Sodomy is more than anal *** b/w man/man.
You said it yourself.. you also were clear on the distinction between sodomy and homo******ity when you engaged in the discussion of homo******ity in the military. POWs from many countries were often sodomized as a torture method and not ****** desire... ring a bell?

Suicide is a consentual act.
Religion is a protected class yet people who practice different forms of voodoo aren't allowed to sacrifice animals in many states. Animal cruelty is against the law. Being a person who practices voodoo is protected but many of their practices are not.
Posession of drug paraphanalia is not illegal in many states.. posession of drugs is. Being a pot head is not illegal, having pot is, use of pot technically is not illegal in many states either.. posession is. Even when the use of pot may not be illegal in a certain state.. you can be fired from your job when it is proven that you use it.

One does not necessarily assume the other hank. Sodomy is an act that is not unconstitutional.. being homo****** is not unconstitutional. Neither warrants a protected class. The Texas ruling in the case of sodomy has no bearing. Saying that there is no distinction between sodomy and homo******ity is inaccurate, and trying to link it to justify classification of ****** orientation as being protected by the Con is a weak stretch.

One question hank. My position on whether ****** orientation is a protected class is based on Title VII of course. Can or do individual states include ****** orientation on thier own?
I mean.. if California law does not recognize homo******s as a protected class but Colorado does.. the same *** marriages are legal in Colorado but Californian homo******s don't have a state or Federal Civil rights law to protect them.. right? I am under the impression that this is the source of the controversy in the country right now.

You need to think about the next paragraph in light of these statements b/c they do not answer this:

"This is where I lose track of what you are saying. You want to distinguish sodomy and homo******ity. Where is the difference? Woman/woman *** + man/man *** = by definiont sodomy. Hell if the wife slobs the ol' knob that is also sodomy under the vast majority of sodomy laws. Sodomy is more than anal *** b/w man/man.

So if that distinction is gone then I thin you need to think about the Texas case again. Kennedy's point in that case was this. Sodomy is contitutional. Waht two consenting adults choose to do in their homes is constitutional. If the governement wants to limit these activities they have to go through the analysis in my previous post. The 1) interest and 2) limited application analysis. That is really beyond argument from a constitutional point of view.

Now, I know you can still disagree. But understand that on the 2 points in the preceding paragraph your beef is not legal or constitutional but on a personal moral level. Follow? "

You understand that when you talk religion you are outside the constitution - BUT the same goes for social/etc. - the foothold is not from a social standpoint but from a constitutional standpoint

You simply cannot intermigle personal views with the con - it just won't work - you can try to change the doc to fit your views - but that is another matter.

Think about it again.

hank

[Durandal]

Ok, I may actually have time to properly respond to this (I am waiting on a HVAC/Furnace folks to show up to fix my third floor apratment furnace...guys, if you ever buy rental property, it may cost initially, but in the long run, depending on who you rent too, it rocks...)

Ok...

Right now I am going to tackle the Texas Sodomy Case...as I understand it. We will see if it matches up, without me running down the story and getting my facts straight. :)

Police broke into a house, the wrong house, instead of the criminals they were trying to bust, the found to consenting homo******s engaged in sodomy. Texas has anti-Sodomy laws, so the arrested them.

The Federal Court determined that the arrest was unconstitutional and threw out the case, also say that Texas' Sodomy Law was also unconstitutional.

No here is where I am taking a stab in the dark, because I have not read up on any of this to be honest (which sort of pisses me off, but hey, only so many hours in the day).

A) You had an unwarranted search and seizure. The wrong house was raided. Ooops. Bad, bad, bad. Definately a violation of privacy in my eyes.

B) From my understanding, Texas' Sodomy Laws specificaly target Homo******s. In Ohio for example, Sodomy laws at one point in time were applied to everyone. So, saying one group CAN preform such acts while another cannot is unconstitutional.

Did I get it right?

[hank]

OK hank.. you don't need me to point them out. You know them. The only reason you are asking is because you learned somewhere in trail class to challenge your oppositions knowlede in an effort to discredit sources.

If you want my understanding.. read my past posts in this thread where we discuss the Con and few vague amendments that do protect certain groups.
Slaves were freed and in several amendments allowed to vote, etc.
Women were given equal rights in similar language.
The Bill of rights further provides language on the same.
Civil Rights laws are where the protected classes are defined. Title VII to be specific. I went into that before as well.
My position has been and continues to be.. ****** orientation is not a credible argument for protection under Title VII. If it is then so is affilitation to a gang. For example. Schools are in the habit of prevenenting students from wearing "gang" related colors or symbols. Not because they are considered religious symbols but because gang affiliation is considered disruptive and dangerous to campus life. So if ****** orientation is acceptable cause for protection, then why not gang affiliation? Being a blood, crip, folks, or peeps is not illegal. The criminal activity that many engage in is. But, the fact that I either chose or was born in a cultural society that gave me no choice but to join a gang. My place and definition of society is base on my relationship and involvement in my gang. So, by the same thinking.. my gang colors and my right to display them in any public institution should be protected.

Hank mentions that some of our rights are narrowly limited in many cases in the interest of not running amuck..amoch.. going nuts. It makes sense, and it should apply here.

Dude that is precisely what I am trying NOT to do. The point is that the classes are not in the constitution anywhere - they are only in cases that interpret it. Dude, I am not trying to trick you or win this argument - if I wanted to do that it would be easy.

I am trying to point out to you that the constitutional analysis that you think has occurred has not - you are fundamentally confusing your moral view and the protections contained in the constitution. Simple as that.

The semantic argumetn and the Title VII argument YOU make are the tricks. I am sticking to the details and the concepts that you try to limit b/c it fits an agenda you agree with.

There are no protected classes anywhere in the constitution. period. the protected classes don't come up unitl the court interprets the document

hank

[Durandal]

Hank

Now, about the marriage license...

Yes, I know ithe license is a priviledge, not a right. A marriage (depending on which State you live in) is a Constitutional Right. Big difference between the two. The State also has the right to deny the license if I am not mistaken.

I did tackle this issue, sort of, rather than call it a marriage license, call it a civil union license. Issue them to ever couple who wants to enter into such unions.

Leave marriages (and thus, their definition) to the churches, but do not recognize marriages as "official" civil unions till those married couple apply for a civil union license.

I think I understand your point hank. I have not argued it because in my eye there is no need to. Constitutionality of allowing homo******s to "marry" at this current point and time is fairly obvious...well, to me it is though I know PLENTY will disagree with me.

I am not a lawyer though, nor a politician. I tend to make stands that are both emotional and logical though not necessarily onthe obvious points, in this case, the marriage license.

It is certainly the easiest argument to win or if not arguing the most logical subject of the discussion. :)

[hank]

Ok, I may actually have time to properly respond to this (I am waiting on a HVAC/Furnace folks to show up to fix my third floor apratment furnace...guys, if you ever buy rental property, it may cost initially, but in the long run, depending on who you rent too, it rocks...)

Ok...

Right now I am going to tackle the Texas Sodomy Case...as I understand it. We will see if it matches up, without me running down the story and getting my facts straight. :)

Police broke into a house, the wrong house, instead of the criminals they were trying to bust, the found to consenting homo******s engaged in sodomy. Texas has anti-Sodomy laws, so the arrested them.

The Federal Court determined that the arrest was unconstitutional and threw out the case, also say that Texas' Sodomy Law was also unconstitutional.

No here is where I am taking a stab in the dark, because I have not read up on any of this to be honest (which sort of pisses me off, but hey, only so many hours in the day).

A) You had an unwarranted search and seizure. The wrong house was raided. Ooops. Bad, bad, bad. Definately a violation of privacy in my eyes.

B) From my understanding, Texas' Sodomy Laws specificaly target Homo******s. In Ohio for example, Sodomy laws at one point in time were applied to everyone. So, saying one group CAN preform such acts while another cannot is unconstitutional.

Did I get it right?

True enough - but that does not end the inquiry. Kennedy's point was that 1) if two men can legally have *** and 2) that makes them by definition homo****** then 3) if you don't allow them to do something under a law you would violate EP if the only basis was #1 + 2 above.

The case did not get decided on those grounds b/c it was not necessary but that quote that I gave from the case says this - whether you deal with the BoR or the EP clause the answer MUST be the same.

Get it?

Theopposite anwere would allow some smrt lawmaker in TX to rewrite the law so as to be able to target the gay men without violating the BoR strictly speaking b/c we haven't defined the class and the test is lower. So, kennedy said, don't try it b/c we are going to say that waht is bad under the BoR (in theory) is also bad under EP - that is why the classes (even though never defined in the con) are irrelevant here.

You can't get through around BoR protections on a technicality (like by including everybody in the sodomy law) without NECESSARILY violating EP.

Maybe that will do it. Durandal you are definitely on the track though to gettting the distinction.

hank

[hank]

Hank

Now, about the marriage license...

Yes, I know ithe license is a priviledge, not a right. A marriage (depending on which State you live in) is a Constitutional Right. Big difference between the two. The State also has the right to deny the license if I am not mistaken.

I did tackle this issue, sort of, rather than call it a marriage license, call it a civil union license. Issue them to ever couple who wants to enter into such unions.

Leave marriages (and thus, their definition) to the churches, but do not recognize marriages as "official" civil unions till those married couple apply for a civil union license.

I think I understand your point hank. I have not argued it because in my eye there is no need to. Constitutionality of allowing homo******s to "marry" at this current point and time is fairly obvious...well, to me it is though I know PLENTY will disagree with me.

I am not a lawyer though, nor a politician. I tend to make stands that are both emotional and logical though not necessarily onthe obvious points, in this case, the marriage license.

It is certainly the easiest argument to win or if not arguing the most logical subject of the discussion. :)

Where is the marriage RIGHT? Seriously where is it. Because I think states could, as an internal matter, cimply choose not to issue the licenses at all.

If you mean marriage within your religion is a right - then I follow

But I am unaware of any independent source of a right to marry - if you know of one let me know

hank

[WARPIG]

I have made it painfully clear where my personal views and my position on legal and social relevence to this subject are. I have also pointed out where you contradict yourself. You have yet to clarify that hank. You keep rehashing constitutional protection without providing language in support. At the same time challenging me to provide proof of constitutional or bill of rights statements or dialogue that omits ****** orientation. My position has always been that ****** orientation does not have any protection currently. Cases where acts or interpretation have been argued but nothing credible on the grounds of ****** orientation has been heard. I also have mentioned that my personal opinion on whether it should be changed to protect homo******s is torn. I fear the ramifications that the legel precedence will establish by doing so, but I don't at all like the idea that people are being discriminated against.
I do know the meaning of the word by the way... Discriminate:the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Prejudice: to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)

[hank]

I have made it painfully clear where my personal views and my position on legal and social relevence to this subject are. I have also pointed out where you contradict yourself. You have yet to clarify that hank. You keep rehashing constitutional protection without providing language in support. At the same time challenging me to provide proof of constitutional or bill of rights statements or dialogue that omits ****** orientation. My position has always been that ****** orientation does not have any protection currently. Cases where acts or interpretation have been argued but nothing credible on the grounds of ****** orientation has been heard. I also have mentioned that my personal opinion on whether it should be changed to protect homo******s is torn. I fear the ramifications that the legel precedence will establish by doing so, but I don't at all like the idea that people are being discriminated against.
I do know the meaning of the word by the way... Discriminate:the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Prejudice: to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)

OK I see the dosconnect. You are simply saying that as of now this right hs not been declared. With that I agree and what I am saying is different. Let me try it this way.

In 1840 slavery was legal in the US. Can't be argued against, right? What I am saying is that even though the court had allowed slavery it was unconstitutional even in 1840 andeven without the 14th A b/c teh constitution on its face - without declaring race as a class - is convered by the document and that it was unconstitutional, undeclared to be sure, but unconstitutional nonetheless. The act that teh court took later + teh amanciaption proclamation only stated what had already existed but not been realized.

See that difference - there is a big difference there.

now think of this issue - if protected classes are not in the con - only fromth court - and when you read the 1st, 5th, 14th amendments together I say the right EXISTS in the document right now, in the 1860's when the 14th came along , IMO it existed even before the 14th but certainly after that, and it need only be realized or declared by the court.

Don't forget that the court can only decide this when it arrives b/c there is a lawsuit.

I mean ask yourself this. Between 1870 and 1950 was separate but equal constitutional. Well, if you don't look beyond that actual holdings of the court then yes it was. But, if you think Brown was consistent with the 14th A then you MUST admit that every second after the 14th A got ratified sepraate but equal = unconstitutionl.

Maybe that is the disconeect and I have just not seen it. If all you are saying is that right this minute no court has declared the right - then I agree - assuming you at least consider that the points I make about the constitution contain the right even if undeclared.

Try that.

hank

[hank]

I have made it painfully clear where my personal views and my position on legal and social relevence to this subject are. I have also pointed out where you contradict yourself. You have yet to clarify that hank. You keep rehashing constitutional protection without providing language in support. At the same time challenging me to provide proof of constitutional or bill of rights statements or dialogue that omits ****** orientation. My position has always been that ****** orientation does not have any protection currently. Cases where acts or interpretation have been argued but nothing credible on the grounds of ****** orientation has been heard. I also have mentioned that my personal opinion on whether it should be changed to protect homo******s is torn. I fear the ramifications that the legel precedence will establish by doing so, but I don't at all like the idea that people are being discriminated against.
I do know the meaning of the word by the way... Discriminate:the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Prejudice: to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)

Yeah and when you say gays can't marry you are saying tat a category can't marry - thus you discriminate. It may be legal. But see it for what it is discrimination.

Think about this - if I say that, in the state of TN for example, I will only hire ex-mil people for my security co - like Wackenhut we discussed. That decision to only hire ex-mil IS discrimination by definition. You discriminate against eveyone who has never been in the military. Now that is not illegal so you are cool to do it.

But, what is a black woman says that Wackenhut in TN did not hire her b/c she is black and sure you under Title VII. Before trial Wackenhut will simply point to the manaual and say, true she is black, woman and we did not hire her, but the reason we did not hire her is that she has no military experience. B/c Wakenhut defends DoE installations that discriminatory reason - military service - is closley related enough to the job that the black lady will lose unlese she cna give some evidence that the ex-mil reason was a pretext, or a sham, for the real reason which was her race/***.

The answer as to whether it is legal or illegal discrimination is at issue. The fact that discrimination took place is not. Ex-mil discrimination is legal while black or woman discrimination is not.

See the difference and why not allowing gays to marry is defitionally discrimination?

hank

[Durandal]

Where is the marriage RIGHT? Seriously where is it. Because I think states could, as an internal matter, cimply choose not to issue the licenses at all.

If you mean marriage within your religion is a right - then I follow

But I am unaware of any independent source of a right to marry - if you know of one let me know

hank

I am still looking. I may hve gotten court cases confused with Amendments (a no-no, I know). However, while I am still looking here are some court battles that lend weight to hom****** rights to get married.


The first state marriage law to be invalidated was Virginia's miscegenation law in Loving v Virginia (1967).* Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, had been found guilty of violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages and ordered to leave the state.* The Court found Virginia's law to violate the Equal Protection Clause because it invidiously classified on the basis of race, but it also indicated the law would violate the Due Process Clause as an undue interference with 'the fundamental freedom" of marriage.

In Zablocki v Redhail (1978), the Court struck down a Wisconsin law that required persons under obligations to pay support for the children of previous relationships to obtain permission of a court to marry.* The statute required such individuals to prove that they were in compliance with support orders and that marriage would not threaten the financial security of their previous offspring.* The Court reasoned that marriage was "a fundamental right" triggering "rigorous scutiny" of Wisconsin's justifications under the Equal Protection Clause.

In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason.* Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.

In 1999, the Vermont Supreme Court in Baker v State considered a closely-watched challenge to that state's laws denying same-*** partners the benefits of marriage.* Relying on the "Common Benefits" Clause of its own constitution (a rough analogue to the Equal Protection Clause), the Court found the laws denying equal benefits to committed same-*** partners unconstitutional, and ordered the State legislature to respond within a reasonable time by adopting legislation meeting its constitutional mandate.* Four months later, the Vermont Legislature responded by enacting the nation's first law authorizing "civil unions" between same-*** partners that entitled those entering into such unions all the state benefits that would come from marriage.

An interesting note that is slightly offtopic while i was looking around for data: 18 allow the marraige of cousins and another 9 States allow these marriages under certain circumstnaces.

[WARPIG]

Your still not reading my post my friend. I am well aware of what discrimination is and how it plays in our laws. I don't believe that I have posted otherwise.

[WARPIG]

I have made it painfully clear where my personal views and my position on legal and social relevence to this subject are. I have also pointed out where you contradict yourself. You have yet to clarify that hank. You keep rehashing constitutional protection without providing language in support. At the same time challenging me to provide proof of constitutional or bill of rights statements or dialogue that omits ****** orientation. My position has always been that ****** orientation does not have any protection currently. Cases where acts or interpretation have been argued but nothing credible on the grounds of ****** orientation has been heard. I also have mentioned that my personal opinion on whether it should be changed to protect homo******s is torn. I fear the ramifications that the legel precedence will establish by doing so, but I don't at all like the idea that people are being discriminated against.
I do know the meaning of the word by the way... Discriminate:the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Prejudice: to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)

OK I see the dosconnect. You are simply saying that as of now this right hs not been declared. With that I agree and what I am saying is different. Let me try it this way.

In 1840 slavery was legal in the US. Can't be argued against, right? What I am saying is that even though the court had allowed slavery it was unconstitutional even in 1840 andeven without the 14th A b/c teh constitution on its face - without declaring race as a class - is convered by the document and that it was unconstitutional, undeclared to be sure, but unconstitutional nonetheless. The act that teh court took later + teh amanciaption proclamation only stated what had already existed but not been realized.

See that difference - there is a big difference there.

now think of this issue - if protected classes are not in the con - only fromth court - and when you read the 1st, 5th, 14th amendments together I say the right EXISTS in the document right now, in the 1860's when the 14th came along , IMO it existed even before the 14th but certainly after that, and it need only be realized or declared by the court.

Don't forget that the court can only decide this when it arrives b/c there is a lawsuit.

I mean ask yourself this. Between 1870 and 1950 was separate but equal constitutional. Well, if you don't look beyond that actual holdings of the court then yes it was. But, if you think Brown was consistent with the 14th A then you MUST admit that every second after the 14th A got ratified sepraate but equal = unconstitutionl.

Maybe that is the disconeect and I have just not seen it. If all you are saying is that right this minute no court has declared the right - then I agree - assuming you at least consider that the points I make about the constitution contain the right even if undeclared.

Try that.

hank
I do get the connection hank. And yes your assumption that my position is that currently laws and courts do not support ****** orientation as a protected civil right is correct. ( considering I have mentioned it several times in this thread, you powers of observation are immense ;) ) I also mentioned that my personal opinion of whether it should be protected is split, yet logically I see a great amount of legal ramification to including ****** orientation.
I do consider that a great many rights, groups, or classes are included in your points of the constitution. That is part of the contradiction I see in some of your quotes. You ask me to point out which classes or groups are protected in the Con and BoR , then use them to back yours. I think we see the same things hank, and interpret them differently. Most of this thread is a mess of miscommunication and argument for the sake of argument. (We don’t have a judge or jury here hank.. so we will be doomed to argue for eternity.) So instead of arguing for the sake of argument.. I will take a break and hope that you will revisit some of my posts and see where I am coming from rather than assuming a “disconnect.” I think I deserve more credit than that.

Thanks again for the enlightening and challenging discussion hank, durandal. I do not envy our lawmakers . I am none the less for this opportunity to argue the subject and adjust my views with such notable and intelligent company.

[Durandal]

Your still not reading my post my friend. I am well aware of what discrimination is and how it plays in our laws. I don't believe that I have posted otherwise.

No, no, that last post was directed to Hank...

[Durandal]

If you mean marriage within your religion is a right - then I follow

I think I also need to step back and respond to this line in detail.

That is, in my opinion the crux of the matter. Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious term. While a civil union is a term to be used for ANY joining of a couple recognized by the State/Fed.

Unfortunately, this is not hte case, legally.

I mean, think about it. Common Law Marriage. A legal state awarded to those that have lived together (albeit to a male and female couple) that have spent a specified amount of time living together. Having looked at some State's common law practices, this gives full rights to partners, yet, these State's use the term marriage.

Seperate marriage from the State and Fed and you have what I see as your most rational answer or solutio ot the problem.

As far as rights go, I have the right to asscoiate with however I want...even in whom I join in "union" to share my life with.

Does tha tmake sense? From a Constitutionality view point?

[WARPIG]

Your still not reading my post my friend. I am well aware of what discrimination is and how it plays in our laws. I don't believe that I have posted otherwise.

No, no, that last post was directed to Hank...

correct it was.

but if you want a piece of me too durandal.. I ain't skeered. Just like a couple of southerboys to gang up on a yankee. ;)

[Durandal]

rofl

[hank]

If you mean marriage within your religion is a right - then I follow

I think I also need to step back and respond to this line in detail.

That is, in my opinion the crux of the matter. Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious term. While a civil union is a term to be used for ANY joining of a couple recognized by the State/Fed.

Unfortunately, this is not hte case, legally.

I mean, think about it. Common Law Marriage. A legal state awarded to those that have lived together (albeit to a male and female couple) that have spent a specified amount of time living together. Having looked at some State's common law practices, this gives full rights to partners, yet, these State's use the term marriage.

Seperate marriage from the State and Fed and you have what I see as your most rational answer or solutio ot the problem.

As far as rights go, I have the right to asscoiate with however I want...even in whom I join in "union" to share my life with.

Does tha tmake sense? From a Constitutionality view point?

Right - but understand that marriage license - as an instrument of the state - CANNOT have a religious connotation lest it violate the first amendment. See the distinction - ceremony v. license?

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Things have become far to civil in here (pardon the pun), so allow me to fan the flames of discord-

My major sticking point over gay marriage is kids. Marriage, in addition to having monetary benefits (taxes, health insurance etc.) has always been, for at least 5000 years anyhow, a hetero****** pairbond intended for the production and rearing of well adjusted children.

Now, you can produce kids, and have them raised in plywood boxes by monkeys, but this is not the best way. Similarly, I believe that children raised by homo******s will not be in the best situation.

Not that gays are inherently evil or deviant (though some would contend that they are, and I guess technically speaking their ****** habits are deviant)- -- but from a rational standpoint - how are two middle aged gay men going to give proper "womanly" advice to a 13 year old girl going through puberty? Or vice versa, how will two lesbians give manly advice to a young man? Read up on it somewhere? The Internet...hmmm let me google "manly advice...."

Then they'd have to sit the kids down and give them the time honored "the birds and the birds" story....

The battle cry has always been that there are so many undadopted kids - and having gays be able to marry & adopt would be a godsend. But this argument is falllsse (silly fat stupid argumentses).

As I understand the current state of adoption - most "unadoptable" children tend to remain so, regardless of the ****** orientation of the potential adoptive parents. Drug addicted kids, severely deformed or mentally disabled etc. prove to be too challenging for prospective parents (especially first time parents).

Increasingly, people are paying for others to have kids for them (such as Melissa Ethridge did) - essentially not helping needy kids, but buying fresh shiny new ones.

And hopefully if the adoption agency finds a NAMBLA membership card in your wallet, they show you the door.

I remember a study a couple of years back that compared kids raised by gays & traditional couples. If I remember right - the "gay" family kids were not more likely to be gay, but the vast majority faced a lot of social difficulties etc. due to their family structure. Though they loved their families, many were resentful.

Is this something that we as a society are willing to put kids through so that some people can play family?

[Elmo]

I remember a study a couple of years back that compared kids raised by gays & traditional couples. If I remember right - the "gay" family kids were not more likely to be gay, but the vast majority faced a lot of social difficulties etc. due to their family structure. Though they loved their families, many were resentful.

Is this something that we as a society are willing to put kids through so that some people can play family?

Eh...to say "playing family" is quite harsh.

What happened to landofthefreehomeofthebrave?

True, some kids may face difficulties, but many kids do. There are a variety of reasons for that. However, the kids raised by a homo****** couple will definately adobt values that emphasize tolerance and solidarity.
They can handle the critique at least as succesfully as kids who are being picked on because they are...wearing glasses...or being raised by their grandparents who smell funny.

The issue at hand will not disappear. The sooner the better. Uptight attitudes will eventually go 6ft under and the society will become better.
It may take a few generations though.

[Durandal]

See the distinction - ceremony v. license?

Yeah, that's my point Hank.

We have to redefine it. Because it cannot be both.

Thus, my proposal was that governments license "civil unions" and folks that want to get "married" do so with a cermony that has NOTHING to do with the government license.

Of course, you could play devil's advocate as well and claim that the as a "cermony", "marriage" can be done by anybody, since no one has the authority to say "you cannot participate in this ceremony."

If "Marriage" is JUST a ceremony, a gay couple can (and do...since I have attended several actually) get married anytime they want.

Oh well, ultimately like most things it comes down to legalize...and I think the States are walking a VERY thin line indeed.

The fact that some are pushing for a Federal Constitutional Amedment for the sole purpose of defining marriage makes me sick, both from a freedom and liberties standpoint as well as a tax payer's cost view...think of the cost associated, the time wasted, just so you can define a simple 2 syllable word.

[Durandal]

I'll field this one...


My major sticking point over gay marriage is kids. Marriage, in addition to having monetary benefits (taxes, health insurance etc.) has always been, for at least 5000 years anyhow, a hetero****** pairbond intended for the production and rearing of well adjusted children.

There is also an issue of legal standing with the partner. Estate issues, visitation rights issues, freeedom of information, and custodial rights. The last time I checked, marriage did nothing to gaurantee the rearing of well adjusted children. The assumption that a married couple (especially in a day and age when a great percentage of BOTH parents work) somehow gaurantees a better rearing than a single parent (regardless of ***) or a male or femal gay couple is not absurd, but unproven.


Now, you can produce kids, and have them raised in plywood boxes by monkeys, but this is not the best way. Similarly, I believe that children raised by homo******s will not be in the best situation.

I hate to be (no pun intended) anal about this, but you just made a comparitive statement that compared homo******s to monkeys. Why not say black people are monkeys? Or jews? Or single father's?


...but from a rational standpoint - how are two middle aged gay men going to give proper "womanly" advice to a 13 year old girl going through puberty? Or vice versa, how will two lesbians give manly advice to a young man? Read up on it somewhere? The Internet...hmmm let me google "manly advice...."

I think they would do so in the same manner a straight single FATHER parent would do so. Hell, if I may the "other side's" stereotype to make a point, maybe even better than the straight single father. What if the pair are lesbians? I am sure they could give great advice.


Then they'd have to sit the kids down and give them the time honored "the birds and the birds" story....

You know, what is ignorant about this? The fact that you think a guy could not do this? Are you telling me you have no idea what kind of changes happen in young girl before she becomes a woman? You have to be kidding me. Are you saying that guy should be ashamed to tell his daughter this? Or a mother her son?


The battle cry has always been that there are so many undadopted kids - and having gays be able to marry & adopt would be a godsend. But this argument is falllsse (silly fat stupid argumentses).

As I understand the current state of adoption - most "unadoptable" children tend to remain so, regardless of the ****** orientation of the potential adoptive parents. Drug addicted kids, severely deformed or mentally disabled etc. prove to be too challenging for prospective parents (especially first time parents).

Let's look at the State of Florida. 3000 HEALTHY children are a vailable for adoption as of today (there are several website where you can look this up). To generalize and say "all these kids suck and no one wants them anyways" is is even more of a false argument than the one you attack.

If adoption is an acceptable practice for hetero******s then it should be for gay couples (and is in several States).


Increasingly, people are paying for others to have kids for them (such as Melissa Ethridge did) - essentially not helping needy kids, but buying fresh shiny new ones.

Do you tell a normal straight couple that has a child through either artificial insemination or a testube that they bought "fresh shiny new one?"

And hopefully if the adoption agency finds a NAMBLA membership card in your wallet, they show you the door.

[/quote]I remember a study a couple of years back that compared kids raised by gays & traditional couples. If I remember right - the "gay" family kids were not more likely to be gay, but the vast majority faced a lot of social difficulties etc. due to their family structure. Though they loved their families, many were resentful.[/quote]

I would love to see this report and see who wrote/sponsored/published it.


Is this something that we as a society are willing to put kids through so that some people can play family?

We do it for straight folks all the time. 50% (+-5 to 10% depending on who's numbers you read) of marriages end in divorce. Of those roughly 35% involve children. Marriage is never a clean, neat process, and few (though albeit not all) are a good experience for the children. Both short term and long term harm to come to the children as a result of divorce.

Add to this thatin 2000, an estimated 879,000 children in the U.S. experienced or were at risk for child abuse and/or neglect. An estimated 1,200 children died from such maltreatment. (I would love to see a breakdown of who is doing this, couples, single parents or gays. I would wager a beer that gays represent a smaller percentage then their percentage of society) (Numbers available on the CDC website)...

And you have the GALL to tell me that gays are less capable of taking care of children. *snort*

The reality is, homo******s (male or female) are just as capable of bringing up a child.

[hank]

See the distinction - ceremony v. license?

Yeah, that's my point Hank.

We have to redefine it. Because it cannot be both.

Thus, my proposal was that governments license "civil unions" and folks that want to get "married" do so with a cermony that has NOTHING to do with the government license.

Of course, you could play devil's advocate as well and claim that the as a "cermony", "marriage" can be done by anybody, since no one has the authority to say "you cannot participate in this ceremony."

If "Marriage" is JUST a ceremony, a gay couple can (and do...since I have attended several actually) get married anytime they want.

Oh well, ultimately like most things it comes down to legalize...and I think the States are walking a VERY thin line indeed.

The fact that some are pushing for a Federal Constitutional Amedment for the sole purpose of defining marriage makes me sick, both from a freedom and liberties standpoint as well as a tax payer's cost view...think of the cost associated, the time wasted, just so you can define a simple 2 syllable word.

Not only can it be both - but b/c the first amendment has been around since 1780 or so - it ahs been both for more than 200 years. That is simply the distinction that opponenets refuse to understand. Marriage licenses - just the licenses - CANNOT and have not if anyone ever thought about it - have been based on religion, any religion. If they were then the licenses would violate the 1st amendment.

That is what I think everyone fails to recognize and why there is so much indignance on this issue.

marriage licenses are merely an attempt by states to organize and control who gets the rights incident to the privilege.

Think about this as an example. A Catholic - like me - gets married in the Catholic church with a marriage license from TN. If I want divorce TN will give it - but not the catholic church. TN can't force the catholic shurch to recognize the divorce and the catholic shurch cannot force TN to leave the marriage in tact. Yet - all that happens under the law just like the license.

That is the distinction that exists right now - whether you realize it or not. I think that may be the sticking point is that many people think the license has religious connotations when in fact it cannot under the first amendment.

This example works in the opposite direction as well. If I took my license and went to the city hall instead of my parrish and got hitched by a justice of the peace - TN would say I am "married" but the Catholic church woudl not recognize it. Thus in this case a TN divorce would be fine with teh CAtholic church b/c they woudl say I was never married under CAtholic rules. A silly distinction to be sure - I am not defeinding this practice by my church - but it perfectly illustrates that ABSOLUTE DISCONNECTION b/w the religious marriage ceremony and the by-definition secular marriage license.

hank

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Durandal-

It's inconceivable that you don't understand the difference between a direct comparison and using language to illustrate a less than perfect condition. This is more of a technique you use rather that a point of argument. I could say children raised in ice trays by koala bears - will that be more acceptable language? My point remains - it is a less than ideal situation no matter what nouns you choose. And booo! to the comparison between black people and monkeys. I'm gonna tell everybody here you said that, and they're all gonna hate you.

You make several other points that basically just boil down to "Well other families suck too, so what's the difference". The difference is that in this case we would be knowingly placing children in less than ideal conditions.

I have many friends who are single parents - none of them consider it an ideal situation. Do they make it - sure, but they all concede that it's not an ideal environment for children.

Yeah, a pencil could give advice to a pen (are those innocuous enough) - but will it be as good as pencil to pencil advice? God this PC language is killin' me - I'm not very PC. Do you actually think that a gay dude can give decent advice to a 13 year old girl?

"Well, back when I was in High School..."
"Dad...er...mom...whatever you are...you weren't like me..you were a gay 13 year old boy...you don't know what it's like"
"sssh hon, enough about you. Do you like these drapes...I think they're fabulous!"

About straights doing artificial insemination -yes I would frown on that when there are needy kids out there.

I don't know about the abuse data - that would be interesting to see. Remember the case of the 2 gay guys a couple of years back who raped one dude's son to death while they were high? The press shuts these non-PC events up pretty quick. So yes, it happens both ways. Gays are no more compassionate, inclusive, loving or anything else than straights - the just happen to like people with the same plumbing as them.

Should we not all want the best for our kids? Who wouldn’t? Why would we accept anything less? But this is what we are being asked to do

[California Joe]

You arguing cats impress the hell out of me. Kudos. Or as Stephen King would say Cujos.

[hank]

I have made it painfully clear where my personal views and my position on legal and social relevence to this subject are. I have also pointed out where you contradict yourself. You have yet to clarify that hank. You keep rehashing constitutional protection without providing language in support. At the same time challenging me to provide proof of constitutional or bill of rights statements or dialogue that omits ****** orientation. My position has always been that ****** orientation does not have any protection currently. Cases where acts or interpretation have been argued but nothing credible on the grounds of ****** orientation has been heard. I also have mentioned that my personal opinion on whether it should be changed to protect homo******s is torn. I fear the ramifications that the legel precedence will establish by doing so, but I don't at all like the idea that people are being discriminated against.
I do know the meaning of the word by the way... Discriminate:the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>

Prejudice: to injure or damage by some judgment or action (as in a case of law)

OK I see the dosconnect. You are simply saying that as of now this right hs not been declared. With that I agree and what I am saying is different. Let me try it this way.

In 1840 slavery was legal in the US. Can't be argued against, right? What I am saying is that even though the court had allowed slavery it was unconstitutional even in 1840 andeven without the 14th A b/c teh constitution on its face - without declaring race as a class - is convered by the document and that it was unconstitutional, undeclared to be sure, but unconstitutional nonetheless. The act that teh court took later + teh amanciaption proclamation only stated what had already existed but not been realized.

See that difference - there is a big difference there.

now think of this issue - if protected classes are not in the con - only fromth court - and when you read the 1st, 5th, 14th amendments together I say the right EXISTS in the document right now, in the 1860's when the 14th came along , IMO it existed even before the 14th but certainly after that, and it need only be realized or declared by the court.

Don't forget that the court can only decide this when it arrives b/c there is a lawsuit.

I mean ask yourself this. Between 1870 and 1950 was separate but equal constitutional. Well, if you don't look beyond that actual holdings of the court then yes it was. But, if you think Brown was consistent with the 14th A then you MUST admit that every second after the 14th A got ratified sepraate but equal = unconstitutionl.

Maybe that is the disconeect and I have just not seen it. If all you are saying is that right this minute no court has declared the right - then I agree - assuming you at least consider that the points I make about the constitution contain the right even if undeclared.

Try that.

hank
I do get the connection hank. And yes your assumption that my position is that currently laws and courts do not support ****** orientation as a protected civil right is correct. ( considering I have mentioned it several times in this thread, you powers of observation are immense ;) ) I also mentioned that my personal opinion of whether it should be protected is split, yet logically I see a great amount of legal ramification to including ****** orientation.
I do consider that a great many rights, groups, or classes are included in your points of the constitution. That is part of the contradiction I see in some of your quotes. You ask me to point out which classes or groups are protected in the Con and BoR , then use them to back yours. I think we see the same things hank, and interpret them differently. Most of this thread is a mess of miscommunication and argument for the sake of argument. (We don’t have a judge or jury here hank.. so we will be doomed to argue for eternity.) So instead of arguing for the sake of argument.. I will take a break and hope that you will revisit some of my posts and see where I am coming from rather than assuming a “disconnect.” I think I deserve more credit than that.

Thanks again for the enlightening and challenging discussion hank, durandal. I do not envy our lawmakers . I am none the less for this opportunity to argue the subject and adjust my views with such notable and intelligent company.

Well wit hall due respect I submit that you miss the point. Maybe I have as well - but now I understand that the thing you fail to recognize is more fundamental than I thought.

I'll try another way.

Go back to 1840 b/f the 14th A existed and slavery was legal under US law. Was it really constitutional? Ask yourself that. If you say that it was then I say you do not really understand what the 14th A tried to do.

The whole idea behind enacting the 14th A was that it did not create a right that did not already exist in the con - it just made it unarguable that AL for example could not keep slaves if the US said no.

Think about that - maybe it is just this simple - the 14th A did not create equal protection - which was already in the 5th A - it just applied EP to state's laws.

Make sense?

Now ask yourself another question in the same vein. After the 14th A exists - now there is no argument that EP exists. Let's say the year is 1900 and separate but equal is alive and well in TN. Was separate but equal constitutional? What do you think?

You answer may well clear this up.

If you say it was then you have fallen into an old trap that has gotten many better than you or I. Why not? There was no change in the con between 1900 and Brown in the 1950's in regards to EP. So where did it come from if it did nto exist in 1900?

The answer is it was there, in the con and amendments, all along. it just never got correctly brought up. Remember that the US SC cannot just come out and say a law is bad without a suit. (In reality the SC has that power under the con - but they rarely invoke it b/c guys like 2 sheds have a fit about activism when they do.) So I ask again - was separate but equal constitutional in 1900?

The no answer you may well give is built upon a common legal concept - legal positivism. Simply stated it means that nothing exists in the law until some court says it does (or maybe a legislature). Legal positivism exists and works very well in a trial court or intermediate appellate court.

Legal positivism has no place in constitutional law b/c the con neveer changes (well rarely) and yet new and novel cases present unthought about questions.

Think of this - the SC has said that abortion is a right of a woman. So, ten years from now I get a client and I go up and say to them: "You already decided this in ROe v. Wade and that is that." That is a prototypical legal positivist argument based on precedent (that is the word you used on me earlier).

One catch - precedent is not controlling in the US SC b/c they don't even have to follow their own previous decisions. If they did we might well still have separate but equal in the sourth.

Legal positivism works in the 6th Circuit - you just site a SC cse and say to the 6th: "This has already been decided and you have to follow it." B/c that is so you can, and lawyers often do say, "This is a con question and the SC has not given this right so you can't either." Usually this second argument would work at the 6th Cir - but every once in a while it would not - as evidence by the Mass situation where I think the trial court found the right (I am not 100% sure about this).

B/c the con does not change like Title VII or marriage license law - when a new situation comes up that requires a new right the reality is that the right is not new. it was there all the time. Just like separate but equal was bad every second b/w 1860 and 1950. it just did not get explicitly brought out until 1950 - but make no mistake it was there all the time.

That seem bad I know - but it is merely a product of the system we have. The SC does not like to decide things until forced to so many issues go years without resolution.

This is really evident in 4th A cases. i mean before Terry v. Ohio the police could do just about anything. Now, after Florida v. J.L. it is not even clear that they can ask you questions at a bus stop. Does that mean that the 4th A has changed. NO. It means that ss new and unique situations get brough up the court has to refine its position.

That is waht is at play here. You say there is no right b/c the court hasn't said so. But that is too simplistic - if the right exists it is there right now - if it does not then 1) I am wrong or 2) the court will make a mistake it will correct later.

But the reality is that the reason states have been able to prohibit gay marriage is that nobody tried to get it to the SC yet. it is just now time - for whatever reason. maybe a gay agenda maybe jsut luck. But when and if the court says that marriage licesne for only heteros violates the 14th or the 5th or whatever - they will not create a right - they will simply make another refinement that onyl then was necessary.

Think about that.

hank

[hank]

Things have become far to civil in here (pardon the pun), so allow me to fan the flames of discord-

My major sticking point over gay marriage is kids. Marriage, in addition to having monetary benefits (taxes, health insurance etc.) has always been, for at least 5000 years anyhow, a hetero****** pairbond intended for the production and rearing of well adjusted children.

Now, you can produce kids, and have them raised in plywood boxes by monkeys, but this is not the best way. Similarly, I believe that children raised by homo******s will not be in the best situation.

Not that gays are inherently evil or deviant (though some would contend that they are, and I guess technically speaking their ****** habits are deviant)- -- but from a rational standpoint - how are two middle aged gay men going to give proper "womanly" advice to a 13 year old girl going through puberty? Or vice versa, how will two lesbians give manly advice to a young man? Read up on it somewhere? The Internet...hmmm let me google "manly advice...."

Then they'd have to sit the kids down and give them the time honored "the birds and the birds" story....

The battle cry has always been that there are so many undadopted kids - and having gays be able to marry & adopt would be a godsend. But this argument is falllsse (silly fat stupid argumentses).

As I understand the current state of adoption - most "unadoptable" children tend to remain so, regardless of the ****** orientation of the potential adoptive parents. Drug addicted kids, severely deformed or mentally disabled etc. prove to be too challenging for prospective parents (especially first time parents).

Increasingly, people are paying for others to have kids for them (such as Melissa Ethridge did) - essentially not helping needy kids, but buying fresh shiny new ones.

And hopefully if the adoption agency finds a NAMBLA membership card in your wallet, they show you the door.

I remember a study a couple of years back that compared kids raised by gays & traditional couples. If I remember right - the "gay" family kids were not more likely to be gay, but the vast majority faced a lot of social difficulties etc. due to their family structure. Though they loved their families, many were resentful.

Is this something that we as a society are willing to put kids through so that some people can play family?

Well I am glad to see that you are back. I do feel compelled to tell you that you have yet again changed your position. Again I will try to sort this out.

Do you think that this is a question of children is one for the constitution? I mean whether I agree with this or not (and I probably do agree with a lot of it), is this the question that is relevant? I mean can't we deal with kids in another way. This area that concerns you seems to me to be an area wholly appropriate for the states. None of these concerns really underpin the rights involved in the 14th A and/or 5th.

Think about this.

2 men will not be able to naturally conceive, now will they? So we don't ahve to worry about that. Where will these hypotheticla kids come from. Adoption? - already debunked that. Black market? - can't figure in the equation. From a previous hetero marriage? - well then they will have a dad + mom.

The other problem is that your hypo rests on the idea that same *** couples won't live together if they can't marry. I mean the practical difference in tow men living together for years and 2 men who marry is nothing. The result you fear will occur either way.

2 sheds - I like you a lot. You jump right in with passion and I respect the hell out of that. But you simply have to learn the lay of the land. You bring up stuff that has nothing to do with law or constitutional principles.

I mean no disrepsect - but reading the document and the analysis would just do wonders for you. Heck, you might evn decide that you are right.

Social difficulties for kids of gay parents? You think? I for one am shocked. But is that a constitutionally cognizable interest? Seems the better result would be to deal with same *** adoption in separate matter. B/c gay single men can adopt right now, can't they? Answer = yes in some places.

hank

[hank]

See the distinction - ceremony v. license?

Yeah, that's my point Hank.

We have to redefine it. Because it cannot be both.

Thus, my proposal was that governments license "civil unions" and folks that want to get "married" do so with a cermony that has NOTHING to do with the government license.

Of course, you could play devil's advocate as well and claim that the as a "cermony", "marriage" can be done by anybody, since no one has the authority to say "you cannot participate in this ceremony."

If "Marriage" is JUST a ceremony, a gay couple can (and do...since I have attended several actually) get married anytime they want.

Oh well, ultimately like most things it comes down to legalize...and I think the States are walking a VERY thin line indeed.

The fact that some are pushing for a Federal Constitutional Amedment for the sole purpose of defining marriage makes me sick, both from a freedom and liberties standpoint as well as a tax payer's cost view...think of the cost associated, the time wasted, just so you can define a simple 2 syllable word.

I do agree that civil unions for all would solve the problem - whether you marry or go to a justice of the peace would be your choice - but the attached bundle would be the same - in name and reality.

I just make this post so its clear that I don't disagree with this. The other post of mine that had the same quote still stands.

hank

[Durandal]

It's inconceivable that you don't understand the difference between a direct comparison and using language to illustrate a less than perfect condition...

I call it like I see it. Comparing ANY adult (in generalized terms) to monkeys raising children is silly and if you want people to take you seriously, next time simply say what you want to say rather than making a poor coomparison.


You make several other points that basically just boil down to "Well other families suck too, so what's the difference". The difference is that in this case we would be knowingly placing children in less than ideal conditions.

Actually no. My point was, homo******s are JUST as capable as being parents as hetero******s. Nothing proves otherwise.


I have many friends who are single parents - none of them consider it an ideal situation. Do they make it - sure, but they all concede that it's not an ideal environment for children.

Hehe ok. That is your experience. Sorry to hear that (for them). I have the opposite experience. I know several single parents that have raised EXCPETIONAL children. Was it tough for the parents, sure. Was it less than your Ward and June Cleaver experience, of course. Does that make the experience bad? No, not on your life. It is good, just not perfect. You show me a parent who has a PERFECT 18 years of raising a child and I'll show you a liar.


Do you actually think that a gay dude can give decent advice to a 13 year old girl?

Yep, as could a single straight father. I could, and I know some other guys on this forum probably could too. Would we make mistakes, maybe...probably. Would they be bad? Probably not. I think it is sad that YOU think it would not be possible for a male parent, any male parent, to provide thought out, helpful guidance for a girl.


"Well, back when I was in High School..."
"Dad...er...mom...whatever you are...you weren't like me..you were a gay 13 year old boy...you don't know what it's like"
"sssh hon, enough about you. Do you like these drapes...I think they're fabulous!"

Absolute ignorance. Do you stereotype everyone?


About straights doing artificial insemination -yes I would frown on that when there are needy kids out there.

Thank goodness we have you to frown on free choice.


Remember the case of the 2 gay guys a couple of years back who raped one dude's son to death while they were high?

The Catholic Hurch is STILL going through massive problems with abuse within the Curch. Let's prevent children from going anywhere near the Church. O is that as irrational as your statement above. You take a SINGLE case and use it as the corner stone of an abuse issue?

This is abd as some gun control nut that wants to get rid of pistols because a single child in a population of a million was accidentally shot with one. The rationale behind this amazes me...


So yes, it happens both ways. Gays are no more compassionate, inclusive, loving or anything else than straights - the just happen to like people with the same plumbing as them.

I never claimed homo******s were better. I was saying that hetero******s and homo******s are probably both equally capable of being bad and/or good parents.


Should we not all want the best for our kids? Who wouldn’t? Why would we accept anything less? But this is what we are being asked to do

Well hell! Let's take all the children away from single parents and divorced couples? Lets not stop there. Kids in porr homes? Give them to the Rich. Why should we accept anything less? It obviously (as you stated) not for the best...

What the hell are talking about?

You anti-gun arguments carried little weight and your arguments against gay marriage make little sense.

[hank]

Durandal is a bad muthaf--ka! Nice work with each point in turn. Very impressive.

hank

[Durandal]

Durandal is a bad muthaf--ka! Nice work with each point in turn. Very impressive.

hank

Not that impressive, but *shrug* thanks.

You should have seen our gun ownership argument. He was pro-gun control, I am most defiantely not.

*shakes head*

Interesting times.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Hey I dig the verbal battering we give each other - makes us think. I just get a bit bent out of shape when some people consider their opinions more valid. And that's what most of this is .. opinion. Damn near anything can be argued - even the Supreme Court is seldom of a single mind, and they're the end of the line. Don't they even call their rulings an "opinion"? I guess that sounds more diplomatic than "decree".

Durandal - you just ain't pickin' up what I'm layin' down. Of course single parents are capable - but you yourself said that it's more difficult. Why whould we want as a matter of policy, to purposely do that to kids? It would be akin to handing them to single parents...that's OK? Yes, it is done, and no I don't support it. So you're OK with knowingly giving these kids second best? Just askin'..

Everybody is so concerned with the "rights" of gays - I simply wonder why nobody expresses the same concern for the "rights" of the children who have no say in the process (prolly because they don't have the same level of disposable income)

Hank - changed my position? Not really - it's a different area of the same argument. I see a distinction between adult same-*** relationships & giving them children to raise. I've got no problem with Mary & Sue strappin' it on and going to town...but I get concerned when they want to bring children into what I consider an "artificial" family.

You and I are approaching this from different angles. I wouldn't have the first clue if the gay adoption thing could/should be adressed by states/or federal. I know you guys have been battering around the turgid details of this - but I find that tiresome.

Lawyers tend to see the law as the end-all of everything - it is not. It is simply a mechanism that can be manipulated at will by those in power, who make policy (and those who shouldnt' make policy but do anyhow). We have the judiciary legislating from the bench (which is strictly "legal", but I believe violates the intent of the constitution), mayors blatantly ignoring the law because they know they'll get a pass, argh - we're living in a fool's paradise if we think there's any order or structure here.

So I've lost interest in the nuts-n-bolts of the legal game. What interests me more is the bigger picture - of a society that for what I can see - is having an extremely unpopular change foisted upon it.

Interesting how this plays in metropolitain vs. rural areas. There is virtually no support for this stuff once you get past the streetlights.

[hank]

Hey I dig the verbal battering we give each other - makes us think. I just get a bit bent out of shape when some people consider their opinions more valid. And that's what most of this is .. opinion. Damn near anything can be argued - even the Supreme Court is seldom of a single mind, and they're the end of the line. Don't they even call their rulings an "opinion"? I guess that sounds more diplomatic than "decree".

Durandal - you just ain't pickin' up what I'm layin' down. Of course single parents are capable - but you yourself said that it's more difficult. Why whould we want as a matter of policy, to purposely do that to kids? It would be akin to handing them to single parents...that's OK? Yes, it is done, and no I don't support it. So you're OK with knowingly giving these kids second best? Just askin'..

Everybody is so concerned with the "rights" of gays - I simply wonder why nobody expresses the same concern for the "rights" of the children who have no say in the process (prolly because they don't have the same level of disposable income)

Hank - changed my position? Not really - it's a different area of the same argument. I see a distinction between adult same-*** relationships & giving them children to raise. I've got no problem with Mary & Sue strappin' it on and going to town...but I get concerned when they want to bring children into what I consider an "artificial" family.

You and I are approaching this from different angles. I wouldn't have the first clue if the gay adoption thing could/should be adressed by states/or federal. I know you guys have been battering around the turgid details of this - but I find that tiresome.

Lawyers tend to see the law as the end-all of everything - it is not. It is simply a mechanism that can be manipulated at will by those in power, who make policy (and those who shouldnt' make policy but do anyhow). We have the judiciary legislating from the bench (which is strictly "legal", but I believe violates the intent of the constitution), mayors blatantly ignoring the law because they know they'll get a pass, argh - we're living in a fool's paradise if we think there's any order or structure here.

So I've lost interest in the nuts-n-bolts of the legal game. What interests me more is the bigger picture - of a society that for what I can see - is having an extremely unpopular change foisted upon it.

Interesting how this plays in metropolitain vs. rural areas. There is virtually no support for this stuff once you get past the streetlights.

I guess this will just never work out. Please try to understand what I am saying. When the question comes up about gay marriage being a right under the constitution there is a framework within which that question gets answered. Opinion is relevant of course- but there are norms about which opinions are weighed and whic are not.

Religion can never be one of those opinions in light of the first amendment. So, to say that gays can't marry b/c of your beliefs involves 2 misconceptions about the inquiry - 1) that your opinion if based on religion is not even relevant and 2) the ability to marry is not the issue the rights incident to the license are.

So that is what I've tried to point out all along.

Now with that in mind I have a hard time figuring out how the children's interests fir into this when at the outset there is no necessary correlation b/w marriage and children - especially when 2 men or 2 women are incapable of natural reproduction.

The better solution would be to address that possible problem when it arises - a course the SC has consistently taken.

One last thing that you mention - about whose opinions get put ahead of other opinions. I really disagree about whether this is opinion. The rights in the constitution are there - they may go unrecognized for long periods of time as did separate but equal - but they are there all the time nonetheless. Also - if you want me to take your opinion more seriously and not be so dismissive then base it on a principle that is actually at issue. I mean both religion and hatred of jews are not allowed to be embodied in a law under the first amendment. Well if your opinion was based on anti-semitism I, and you ifthe roles wre reversed, would dismiss it. the fact that I agree with your reason, i.e. religion, makes no difference - if that reason is not recognizes as valid under the constitution - then I will dismiss it - and if you honestly read the constitution you will too.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

The rights in the constitution are there - they may go unrecognized for long periods of time as did separate but equal - but they are there all the time nonetheless.

I totally see where you're coming from & I get the point(s) you have eloquently stated. I just disagree with 'em is all. I tend to see things in a larger scope, outside of the strict language of law (which of course can & does change with the tide). You seem to be more tethered to the letter of the law - which is good considering your chosen profession.

Submitted for your consideration - if all conceivable rights are in the Constitution, would we not be entitled to unlimited freedom? Looking back, we say these rights have always existed. IMHO what has changed is that the Court now places more emphasis on egalitarianism & individual freedom, than on the interests of society.

We're all about giving people all the rights in the world, but many are curtailed because we recognize that society cannot function if people have total freedom.

Normally individual rights are hashed against the interests of a stable society - for example where's the harm in an individual doing drugs in private - then they look at the impact it has on society. Thus it is made illegal - in society's - not the individual's interests.

One example of rights that have "always existed" but have never existed (do to societal interests) stem from the Texas sodomy ruling. They pretty much established that society has no interest in what kind of *** happens in private. That's an opinion. It cannot be stated as a fact. And based on that opinion, now law, new privacy rights have been born - "rights" which have never existed - but have always existed.

Due to that opinion, the anal cat's out of the bag & many new behaviors can theoretically be decriminalized (other "deviant" ***, drug use etc.). I suppose the question remains - will the court completely discard society's interests - if so where will that leave us? Me, I'm continuing to engage in private ****** activities that run contrary to society's interests....

[hank]

I totally see where you're coming from & I get the point(s) you have eloquently stated. I just disagree with 'em is all. I tend to see things in a larger scope, outside of the strict language of law (which of course can & does change with the tide). You seem to be more tethered to the letter of the law - which is good considering your chosen profession.

Submitted for your consideration - if all conceivable rights are in the Constitution, would we not be entitled to unlimited freedom? Looking back, we say these rights have always existed. IMHO what has changed is that the Court now places more emphasis on egalitarianism & individual freedom, than on the interests of society.

We're all about giving people all the rights in the world, but many are curtailed because we recognize that society cannot function if people have total freedom.

Normally individual rights are hashed against the interests of a stable society - for example where's the harm in an individual doing drugs in private - then they look at the impact it has on society. Thus it is made illegal - in society's - not the individual's interests.

One example of rights that have "always existed" but have never existed (do to societal interests) stem from the Texas sodomy ruling. They pretty much established that society has no interest in what kind of *** happens in private. That's an opinion. It cannot be stated as a fact. And based on that opinion, new privacy rights have been born using the new privacy "rights" which have never existed - but have always existed.

Due to that opinion, the anal cat's out of the bag & many new behaviors can theoretically be decriminalized (other "deviant" ***, drug use etc.). I suppose the question remains - will the court completely discard society's interests - if so where will that leave us? Me, I'm continuing to engage in private ****** activities that run contrary to society's interests....

First - I'm not saying ALL conceivable rights are in the con - in fact many that are there I might change IMO - but many that I would like I do not find there. For one - I think an education right should exist in our con. It does not - so Congress created it a long time ago. That does not mean that it cannot be changed or whatever - just that IMO it should be there. There is a difference between what I want and what I find there when I read it.

That is precisely the reason why I say your position has changed. You originally brought this up b/c you said the Mass judges were activist. I disagreed on the face of the Mass con. You then said that they made a right. I again disagreed on the face of the con. Then you said it should not be a right. See, to me that is a positition change. However, I can acknowledge that from your perspective what you have been saying all along is that it should not be in the con and that is you postiion. Well ehough.

I think that is why this frustrates me. B/c if I see something in the law that I do not like I do not blame judges. I do not blame legislatures. I blame US. We ultimately make the laws - whether you are suffering from extreme skepticism or not those people in Wash are elected and even the SC judges are appointed by someone we elect. So that is a source of frustration for me.

If I felt as you do - that regardless of the state of the con at this point - that it SHOULD not contain a equal protection rights for gays - the nI would try to change it. Instead of believing some dumbass journalist who tells you that judges are activist - take the bull by the horns.

So, that was the source of my comment about position change. Make sense?

Now about the sodomy rule - I think you really miss the point of the con here. Do you have the right, under the con to have *** with your wife? Well - if you sya yes then point out that right. The fact is that you won't find it. You have the RIGHT not to be subject to allowing the police into your home without a warrant that establishes probable cause that you commit or committed a crime (4th A). But no explicit right to ball your old lady.

So, if you balled the old lady in the park you can be arrested and the con is not even implicated. I mean there is no right (in the con) to argue for. BUT, if *** with the old lady is not illegal - just *** in the park or in public - and you do it in your home then the 4th A gets implicated by necessity. Why? Not b/c of the *** to which you have no right under the con - but b/c the police can't come in and find out about your "crime" unless they know about it ahead of time.

So - in order to protect your right to do whatever you want in your house - we have lived since 1780 with the warrant requirement. We know that a lot of crimes - pedophilia for example - goes unprocteded against because the police CANNOT just come in to see what you are doing. They first have to get a warrant supported by probable cause. That trade off is not explicit in the constitution - but it is impolicitly there and has been recognized for 200+ years.

Ok take a breath and read that again if necessary b/c here is where the problem occurs, I think.

Now here is where the fallacy creeps in - b/c I say that the pedophilia in my example above is protected and you will scream at me. THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE A RIGHT TO HAVE *** WITH KIDS. That is true, it does not. But without a warrant, the police could not arrest you for it. The same is applicable for sodomy and that is what Kennedy recognized in the Texas case.

Can you see the distinction? The SC did not say that two men had a right to butt ***. We know that sodomy if it were in the park would be illegal - no argument - but if they are doing it in the home they get the protection of the 4th and it then covers the sodomy by necessity.

So what happened is that the 4th protected something that is otherwise not protected. Make sense?

This is where WARPIG and I get off track and maybe this time and can at least get the distinction out there.

Continue the thought about the 4th protecting the gay *** only in the house. If the *** in the house - only in the house - is protected, then what sense does it make to be able to say to those men - we understand that even if illegal you can have the *** in your house unless we have a warrant BUT we can say that you aren't entitled to a driver's license if you are gay?

Well, hell that does not make any sense at all. I mean, if they were convicted of sodomy and it was a felony then they could not vote - but as it stood they had perfectly protected *** and now they can't drive b/c of it. No way that is the right answer now is it?

Well that is what Kennedy pointed out with his understanding of the EP clause IN RELATION to the document as a whole. We have all these situation where we allow this type of behavior, whether a choice or not is irrelevant and is another matter, but then we turn around and make it a crime that will curtail rights. How can that be. The act itself is not illegal - but in certain contexts it might be - that is true whetehr hetero or gay *** is concerned - but only the gays have to suffer a lack of proitection under the law.

Kennedy said - and I submit that he got it right - that that kind of situation is precisely the type of situation that the 14th EP clause is designed to curtail.

This interrelation betwee nteh amendments is a hard concept to understand but any EP analysis requires it - lest the EP clause fail as it did for years in separate but equal untile Burger caught the distinction and "forced" it on us.

So think no again about the Texas case in this light - maybe this new analogy will help.

Next point - out of the bag about anal *** - here again I think you miss the point entirely and maybe another example is OK. Back to *** with your wife. No right in the con for that is there? OK then - do you have the right to ahve *** with your wife at a school? No = does tno exist. What woudl change in your answer if teh 30th Amendment said "All men may have *** with their wives." Would that change your answer about teh school answer. It should not b/c ever since the 1780's the SC has recongnized that even fundamental rights MAY be abridges when 1) there is a compelling reason for the abridgement and 2) the abridgement is narrowly tailored to protect the compellgin interest. So, even if you did have the right to ball the old lady that right would not extend to shcool b/c each state has a compelling interest in protecting children from witnessing *** and a restricition that was narrow would pass constitutional muster.

Sp, applied to your "deviat" *** example you should be able to see that states can still abridge the right to ***, assuming it exists, if they have a good reason. That is why the slippery slope argument is so moot in this case. I mean pedophilia is justa ****** act - whereas marriage is so much more - but the state can criminalize pedophilia at will b/c teh societal interest is 1) not religious but based on protecting children and 2) its hard to imagine a situation where pedophilia would be OK soa blanket ban is acceptable. Also, bear in mind that it is a huge leap to even get to the con for pedophilia b/c the *** is not even the basis for the right in the first place.

Well that is a lot to digest - but please try. I think maybe WARPIG is just out of it now which is a shame, but maybe he will come back.

hank

[hank]

You know one other thing occurred to me right after I pressed submit.

Think about this. It is illegal to use certain drugs. No brainer. If the cops see you use them they can arrest you without even getting a warrant. If they don't see you use them but you "look" high then they can arrest you for intoxication, right? No problem. We are all with this so far.

Now, let's assume that a new drug comes out and it has no outward effects - you look like normal but you are in fact really impaired. Say, for example it makes you not be able to read or something silly like that. Let's also say that in TN this drug is illegal - illegal to possess, illeagal to be under the influence of, and illegal to use. With me?

Now - if a policeman sees you and you have no signs that you have used it and he did not see it and you do not possess it, but he thinks you have used it b/c you could not read your name off your driver's license, can he arrest you?

Think about that b/c it will involve both the 4th A and the right to privacy and a concept called "status" crimes that once was a hot topic like gay marriage.

What is your answer? Is the con implicated?

Surely it is implicated and maybe even violated if you get arrested.

Just think about it and we'll talk about how it all plays in after you think about it. The answer has not come down and you can't be wrong. But I think it will surprise you what the ultaimate answer will involve for something that may appear easy.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Oh man you're makin' my head hurt - I'm not supposed to have to work this hard on a Friday.

About the judicial activism thing - I'm not just parroting some journalist - this is a phenomenon that I've noticed over my 40 some-odd years, and have taken an interest in. I've read a few books, and tend to agree with those who've observed what I have (Bork & Bennet etc.). Digging into these things reveals a lot - the average shmo just rolls along not noticing how these decisions are made.

Aubrun.edu (hardly a hotbed of conservative thought) defines Judical Activisim as:


Judicial activism
The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and/or the various state governments seem to them to be failing to meet these needs. On such a view, judges should not hesitate to go beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws given to them by others in order to assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society.

I added the bold for emphasis. Also interesting is the definition of Judical Restraint (which I think we could use more of):


The view that the Supreme Court (and other lesser courts) should not read the judges' own philosophies or policy preferences into the constitution and laws and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state governments within their constitutional spheres of authority. On such a view, judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.

About your drug example. I hesitate to even answer this - I know I'm just gonna get slammed by a torrent of indecyperable legal goo that will get changed at some point due to the whims of the judiciary - but I guess I asked for it. What the hell, I love the abuse.

Would the drug arrest not violate some statute against unreasonable search & siezure? Like the cop didn't have the justification to make the arrest due to not overving the offense. But then I believe some states give police a lot of lattitude in such matters & let the courts fight it out in the end.

That's similar to the private butt lovin' ruling - but drug use is illegal irrespective of it being observed by anybody, or the offender demonstrating ill-effects. My guess is that sodomy was once in that realm - seen as so bad that society needed to be protected from it, and those who would practice it.

Again, this is arguing law, which is like nails on a chalkboard to me. I probably am too cynical about things.

As an aside, have you read late Justice Harry Blackmun's private papers (24 years worth) that was recently released? Man, Justice Kennedy is one flip-flopping mofo. Writes an opinion, then changes his mind to go the other way. Infighting among the Justices - petty jealousy etc. The people running our society are just as screwed as we are - I demand they be replaced by robots.

Law has been purposely turned into something so complicated and specialized that the common man can no longer run his own affairs. He has to hire a specialist just to get through the technicalities created by those who work with & in the system. Job security in action. Tax law is another good example - the average joe can't even get through the "EZ" 1040, let alone the big one - again, policy created by and for those in the system. Argh, I'll stop griping & get back to opressing the masses.

[hank]

Well - I am not going to get into a fight about activism among the judiciary. I will say that the definition you give is way off, but I know I will not get where I want with that. As far as Bork is concerned he absolutley does not understand activism - he thinks any rights that are not currently procaimed by the court or that have not been practiced simply do not exist - to which I say - what about slavery? Was the court's recognition that slavery violated the constitution activism? I think not. What about Brown v. Board? Was it activism? I think not. So we will never agree on that. Well enough.

But - and please answer this - do you not see how this is a moving target for me?

You start with activism. You say that activism is your idea and not some journalists - OK - but even if it is your criticism started there. Now we are dealing with your personal beliefs about gay marriage. Those positions are far apart. One is that judge screwed up and the other is I disagree with the result.

You curse the judges b/c you say their personal beliefs should not fit in - BUT - when I hold your feet to the fire on the con you say - well if its not in there it should be. What is the difference? You esponse activism when you say that gay marriage is not there - can you see that?

About Kennedy - give the man some credit - these areas require the most intensive review of your ability to set aside personal beliefs and see the document. I mean - think of the trouble you have in acknowledging that it might be constitutional in the face of your beliefs. If I argued so eloquently that you had to admit that the right existed - what would be the result? Loss of face, maybe a snide comment from yours truly. What would be the effect for Kennedy - considering that this is a struggle? The implications of these decision is hard to imagine. O'Connor's vote on Roe prompted death threats against her children - maybe that was in Kennedy's mind? Who knows? Judge them not lest ye be judged I say. They have an impossible job and they make mistakes - but boy they get it right an awful lot.

Did you even consider the interrelation between the amendments. This is why these discussions are so frutrating to me. You make a statement that disregards one part for another. Then I point out the inconsistency. Then you forget the first point and move on. Well, did you think about the first leg?

Maybe you did - I don't know? Yes there is a 4th A right and as an answer to your question about the drugs the answer is that states may not abridge the 4th and then fight it out. The states may provide a greater protection but not less.

The fact that this was your question makes me think you did not get it. The idea is that if the 4th protects it in your home then how can that action be the basis for discrimination? Discrimination in that case may not even involve a fundamental right determination - at least possibly.

Please at least try to answer that question.

The same argument got brought out by Kennedy in the Texas case. If sodomy is legal or illegal for gays and not heteros then that is not constitutional. Should the answer be different if it illegal or legal for both? Kennedy says no. And that totally disregards the 4th A argument.

At a base level the right to *** does not exist in the con. It exists in RELATION to other rights in the con - and that is the point.

Well - I doubt this will do any good b/c I have already been through this once and to no avail.

hank

[2Sheds_Jackson]

About Kennedy - give the man some credit - these areas require the most intensive review of your ability to set aside personal beliefs and see the document. I mean - think of the trouble you have in acknowledging that it might be constitutional in the face of your beliefs. If I argued so eloquently that you had to admit that the right existed - what would be the result? Loss of face, maybe a snide comment from yours truly. What would be the effect for Kennedy - considering that this is a struggle? The implications of these decision is hard to imagine. O'Connor's vote on Roe prompted death threats against her children - maybe that was in Kennedy's mind? Who knows? Judge them not lest ye be judged I say.

True enough, they have a tough job, and it's very public. But on the other side, they're in for life, and that has to be pretty sweet. Has one ever been impeached? We ought to take one down, just to keep the rest of them in line. Sure, maybe none has broken the law, but I'll just bribe an activist judge, change the law, and boot the justice out! Woo-hoo!

About the "judge not lest ye be judged" ...the rest of it goes "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged" - not a warning against judging others, but instead instructing us that we should judge others & by the same standards we are to be judged by. That's all I'm doin'...trying to keep it real y'all.

[hank]

I am not aware that any have been impeached but it would not surprise me. Before anyone has a cow I posted earlier that O'Connor got death threasts for Roe - that was wrong she was not on the court then - I meant to say Schenk the follow-up to Roe where O'Connor clarified Roe to talk about viability and not nexessarily be about trimesters.

Did you see the other questions that I asked?

hank

[Durandal]

Durandal - you just ain't pickin' up what I'm layin' down. Of course single parents are capable - but you yourself said that it's more difficult. Why whould we want as a matter of policy, to purposely do that to kids? It would be akin to handing them to single parents...that's OK? Yes, it is done, and no I don't support it. So you're OK with knowingly giving these kids second best? Just askin'..

I never said it was perfect, in fact I DID answer this question in the previous post to your comments. 2nd Best does not equate to bad or wrong. Hell, to some I may have had a second best child hood because my parents made good money but were SUPER thrifty. Sure, they were good parents, sure I was brought up in a loving home. I never had the fancy toys, PONG, and Atari, a VCR, or Cable. My dad had just gotten out of the Navy, he was in Naval Reserves still, he worked 3rd shift, and helped my grandfather on our family's farm during the weekdays.

Is that better or worse than someone else's childhood? My mother went back to teach 5th grade while my sister and I were still in High School.

Was that 2nd best. The problem here is that you consider 2nd best bad. I know PLENTY of single family folks that have a rough time, but no one who has raised a child could argue THEIR children had not been reared in a bad home.

Simply put, your defintion of something "not perfect" is so abstract that bringing it up in conversation means little to the over all impact of whether gay couples should or should not get married.


Everybody is so concerned with the "rights" of gays - I simply wonder why nobody expresses the same concern for the "rights" of the children who have no say in the process (prolly because they don't have the same level of disposable income)

Huh? You know, this same argument was made for multi-racial children. Social stigma, ethnic issues, etc...

Much like that argument, yours is well, silly.

[Durandal]

I am not aware that any have been impeached but it would not surprise me.

One was under investigation during the 70s...same time as Roe v. Wade. I forget his name....

[hank]

Douglas got investigate I know - could have been him. Taney - the Chief Justice for Dred Scott was investigated as a threat to not overturn slavery - I have never seen documentation but my con-law professor swears this is true.

Also - FDR threatened to add some justices if the court did not quit striking down the new deal programs as violating the commerce clause - the switch in time that saved nine - as the saying goes.

hank