SCOTUS and gay marriage

[quantum]

Again, you're making the claim it's going to "gay-ify" your marriage with ZERO basis. How? Will legalized gay marriage lead to a constant 24/7 loop of gay porn being played on your tv? And contrary to what you keep asserting, four states voted in favor of marriage equality in November. Facts. Look them up.

What do young people matter? They're only going to be the majority of the electorate soon and it's going to happen. Said it before, we do not go back in civil rights in this country.

to play Devil's Advocate: so a majority makes it right? 5 yrs ago, a majority said no to gay marriage. 200 yrs ago, a majority said blacks were 3/5s of a person.

Might want to rethink that argument.

[Winstonbiggs]

Here is the text of the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment:



Regardless of the scope of the decision of SCOTUS in Loving, I would submit that under the equal protection clause, it's hard to deny marriage equality. The fact of the matter is that we're denying rights to a whole group of citizens and not one person has been able to present a rational argument as to how granting same sex couples the SAME (not additional) rights as opposite sex couples will in any way cause legal injury to anyone.

Loving was about laws that were specifically created to descriminate against race and it was struck down on very specific Constitutional grounds. Descrimination on a racial basis is unconstitutional.

DOMA was passed by Congress to specifically descriminate against same sex marriage and will likely be struck down based on equal protection. The argument that States license marriages between a man and a women was designed to descriminate againts the Gay community is in most all cases nonesense, with the exception of States that have specifically redifined marriage for that exact purpose.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

I disagree. If anything OBENjet's statement that its not genetic, but is not choice is the illogical statement.

I don't know if there is real science to back up your other claims of promiscuity, but if gays claim they have no choice, that makes it genetic; if its genetic, and violates some basic rules when it comes evolution and species perpetuation, then I think it can safely be called a disorder (or pick whatever nonhostile/derogatory phrase you wish). Therefore, being against gay marriage, you would logically have to be against marriage between 2 diabetics, 2 people with Down's, etc
.

You completely misunderstood, what I'm saying is dont link being gay with a desire to be married. Google for yourself just how monogamous gays are compared to non-gays.

Your argument re: diabetics is unfounded, because diabetics have never been stopped from being married. In the past, cousins were discouraged from marrying as it was believed to prevent genetic disorders- some states still prohibit it. Folks with Down's Syndrome are not prohibited legally from marrying, but in general DS men cannot father children.
Furthermore, in any pregnancy, a woman with Down's syndrome has a 50/50 chance of conceiving a child with Down's syndrome, but many pregnancies are miscarried.

http://www.lpch.org/DiseaseHealthInf...ics/downs.html

Of course anyone knowingly with or who carries a serious hereditary disorder should consider the responsibility of bringing a child into the world who will have that potential disorder. But that is not the issue at hand.

Science wise, homosexuality used to be called a psychiatric disorder by the AMA, but that was discarded years ago. Some recent studies have determined a gay male brain is similar to a straight female brain....

Plain and simple, this is a rush job, a lib gambit/push to get a Good Housekeeping Seal of societal approval for homosexual practices/unions - which are not Constitutionally protected as rights - by having the SCOTUS equate SSM to normal marriages while similarly striking down state referendums against it.

Domestic partnerships have long been the law in CA and no ones rights are being truncated or abrogated here except the will of the people to decide what to call it and preserve normalcy and tradition.

If twiddled with, look for other pushes for marriage to be extended to other nontraditional couplings-animals, children, multiples and churches getting sued over not performing these nuptial mutations
(1st Amendment of religious freedom challenge) The age of consent will be swept away as a cultural relic installed by white powdered wigged slaveowners.

Hilarity or insanity (take your pick) will ensue when a man marries his son or daughter to escape estate taxes and suchlike.

And if anyone thinks the Equal Protection clause is reasoning for elevating SSM, then we should say goodbye to abortion and AA/Equal Opportunity because people are being discriminated against there.

[OBENjet]

to play Devil's Advocate: so a majority makes it right? 5 yrs ago, a majority said no to gay marriage. 200 yrs ago, a majority said blacks were 3/5s of a person.

Might want to rethink that argument.

Agreed that the will of the majority is not the best argument for equal rights. My point was just to counter JSJ's argument that it always fails when put up to the majority. Regardless of how a majority of people feel about same sex marriage, the rights should be granted.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Agreed that the will of the majority is not the best argument for equal rights. My point was just to counter JSJ's argument that it always fails when put up to the majority. Regardless of how a majority of people feel about same sex marriage, the rights should be granted.

There is no "right" to SSM, or health care for that matter in the US Constitution...DPs confer all the rights of marriage, whatever they may be, so there is no deprivation or discrimination...certainly a radical minority has no "right" to dilute, corrupt or redefine marriage against the will of a majority

[OBENjet]

There is no "right" to SSM, or health care for that matter in the US Constitution...DPs confer all the rights of marriage, whatever they may be, so there is no deprivation or discrimination...certainly a radical minority has no "right" to dilute, corrupt or redefine marriage against the will of a majority

So you're saying stick with "separate but equal" domestic partnerships. Yeah, that's worked real well for this country in the past.

Also, refer to my prior posts. If you're referring to 54% of the country who now support marriage equality as a radical minority, I think you need a dictionary.

And once again, I have to ask, how exactly does allowing two men or women to marry "dilute" heterosexual marriage? Concrete examples please. If your marriage is threatened by two men marrying, methinks you have other problems in your marriage.

[parafly]

In my mind, it's very simple. An argument against human equality is objectively and fundamentally in the wrong regardless of any supposed justifications. It's only a matter of time before this blatant injustice is corrected by our evolving society.

[intelligentjetsfan]

When a basic right is afforded to one group of citizens but not to another it ABSOLUTELY becomes a civil rights issue. And that is why the old crutch argument that it should be left up to the individual states to decide is not valid just like it was not valid for desegregation or the abolishment of slavery.

[Winstonbiggs]

So you're saying stick with "separate but equal" domestic partnerships. Yeah, that's worked real well for this country in the past.

Also, refer to my prior posts. If you're referring to 54% of the country who now support marriage equality as a radical minority, I think you need a dictionary.

And once again, I have to ask, how exactly does allowing two men or women to marry "dilute" heterosexual marriage? Concrete examples please. If your marriage is threatened by two men marrying, methinks you have other problems in your marriage.

It's another assault on the very successful nuclear family that our entire society is based on. Divorce dilutes it, single parenting by choice dilutes it and gay marriage with the obvious right to adopt may dilute it.

Very little that anyone does impacts us personally. Taken in its entirety if everyone behaved in a certain way in opposition to societal norms things might be better but they might really suck?

We have a representative government. Society is changing, the law changes with it. Things are moving in the right direction, no need for the Court to impose a solution that isn't warranted or needed.

[OBENjet]

It's another assault on the very successful nuclear family that our entire society is based on. Divorce dilutes it, single parenting by choice dilutes it and gay marriage with the obvious right to adopt may dilute it.

Very little that anyone does impacts us personally. Taken in its entirety if everyone behaved in a certain way in opposition to societal norms things might be better but they might really suck?

We have a representative government. Society is changing, the law changes with it. Things are moving in the right direction, no need for the Court to impose a solution that isn't warranted or needed.

"It might suck" is not justification enough to deny a whole group of people rights. There might've been race riots when we integrated public schools in this country. We did it anyway. Through the courts.

[Winstonbiggs]

When a basic right is afforded to one group of citizens but not to another it ABSOLUTELY becomes a civil rights issue. And that is why the old crutch argument that it should be left up to the individual states to decide is not valid just like it was not valid for desegregation or the abolishment of slavery.

Why do you get to define sexual orientation as a separate class of people simply because our democratic society has laws based on societal norms developed over time that you don’t like?

[JetPotato]

Was it Winston that predicted DOMA would be shot down and Prop 8 stands? I agree (somewhat). I think a provision needs to be added to Prop 8 to allow it to survive (if it doesn't already).

Although I usually hope we defer to states on this kind of issue, this situation does not warrant that argument fully. First of all, marriage as defined by any given state does impact an individual's federal tax returns. Now, I don't agree that should even exist, but it does, and we have to deal with that silly fact.

(To be honest, even though in this discussion I support marriage equality, my real stance is that I'm opposed to gay marriage, but only as much as I am opposed to straight marriage too, because government has no business in marriage AT ALL. Marriage is a rite, not a right. Why do we feel we need validation from society? Our marriage is a promise between me and my wife. I don't give a crap about the piece of paper I had to pay money to get from the government to make it "official". It was merely a formality I was forced to deal with, but the marriage itself really is whatever we decide it is. Should be for anyone. Despite evidence that marriage is beneficial to society as a whole, I don't see tax incentives as an effective way to encourage it. No one gets married for that reason, and if you do, do you really believe those people are the ones that make that data true?)

Secondly, the 14th Amendment seems pretty clear to me. Discrimination is discrimination. So I'd hope the court would rule that a state that provides union options for one group consenting adults, it would do so for any.

Now, that said, if a state's populace decides that they want the definition of marriage to be the "union of two consenting adults of the opposite sex", then go right ahead, provided that you also supply an equivalent option of a civil union that provides all of the identical legal and tax benefits to two consenting adults of the same sex. Let the states decide the naming convention. If it means that much to enough people to define marriage as the "union of two consenting adults of any sexual preference", have at it. Personally, wouldn't bother me. As I said, our marriage is between me and my wife. I'm pretty secure and confident in that marriage, so I really couldn't care less what Bob and Sally do, or what Bob and Steve do for that matter. Doesn't affect me one iota. Whoever you are, I hope you enjoy your life as much as I am.

The quicker this all gets wrapped up the better, to be honest. Not only am I sick of the issue (this would be a nice thing to tackle if we weren't dealing with a laundry list of much more dire circumstances), but even as a supporter of marriage equality, if I have to see one more person change their Facebook profile picture to that horrible pink-on-red equal sign, my head is going to explode.

[intelligentjetsfan]

Why do you get to define sexual orientation as a separate class of people simply because our democratic society has laws based on societal norms developed over time that you don’t like?

I did not define them as a separate class of people; the people who are trying to prevent them from being legally married are.

[Bay Ridge Jet]

Good. An excuse to post Louis CK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtJ_sDRRVVI

Also. Bill O'Reily is for it now for some reason:

And I agree with you 100-percent. A 100-percent! … I agree with you a 100-percent. The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is. ‘We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.’

That’s a compelling argument. And to deny that, you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.

[FF2®]

Alot of good points being made here on both sides. Interesting stuff to be sure.

(Except for the usual suspect.)

Like all social issues throughout out country's history, once there is enough momentum, there's really no putting the genie back in the bottle.

As I've said before...My kids think this shouldn't even be an issue, so soon it won't be.

[JetPotato]

Good. An excuse to post Louis CK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtJ_sDRRVVI

Also. Bill O'Reily is for it now for some reason:

Don't feel like you ever need an excuse to post Louie

[detjetsfan]

to play Devil's Advocate: so a majority makes it right? 5 yrs ago, a majority said no to gay marriage. 200 yrs ago, a majority said blacks were 3/5s of a person.

Might want to rethink that argument.

The majority was wrong about 10 years ago and now a majority of Americans are right about this subject b/c people changed their mind. Why can't the conservatives ever just leave the gays alone? They can't get abortions, they can't produce unwanted kids that have to go on welfare and they even want to adopt other people's unwanted kids to prevent them from going on welfare.

A real economic conservative would be all for gay marriage. But most republicans aren't economic conservatives they are just radicalized social activists.

[MnJetFan]

Who brought this argument out to the public in the first place, who brought before the courts, who is stepping on others rights. The Gays thats who!
BTW the 14th amendment doesn't cover this horsecrap! It is a states right to say what goes on in that state not the Supreme Court.

[detjetsfan]

Who brought this argument out to the public in the first place, who brought before the courts, who is stepping on others rights. The Gays thats who!
BTW the 14th amendment doesn't cover this horsecrap! It is a states right to say what goes on in that state not the Supreme Court.

The gays brought out the argument because they are being discriminated against. The current law does not consider homosexual relationships to be as legitimate as and equal to heterosexual relationships. This is because gay couples can't get the same rights and entitlements straight couples get from being married.

[jetman67]

Who brought this argument out to the public in the first place, who brought before the courts, who is stepping on others rights. The Gays thats who!
BTW the 14th amendment doesn't cover this horsecrap! It is a states right to say what goes on in that state not the Supreme Court.

Its a human rights issue and should be fought. How does gay marriage step on others rights? Come on, give a real argument.