However, people against gay marriage would bring up recent precedents, like the Eighth Circuit, the NY court of appeals and the GA supreme court. The general consensus I recieved from those decisions, all of which upheld bans on gay marriage, were that if the state constitution did not provide for the recognition of same sex marriages, then a state amendment would be valid, provided it not be overbroad, etc.

Lol at this thread ending up being Socratic Method 101.

In law school (hell, and practice), not only are you going to be challenged like this, but you're also going to be called upon to give legal support for views you don't personally agree with.

Random hijack, shinerbock, if you're going to law school, I HIGHLY recommend the Examples and Explanations series of study aids, I think they're published by Aspen. They're really good for giving examples for things and explaining more thoroughly than any other hornbook. I found the books very helpful, particularly in Civ Pro and Con Law.

Also, I assume you're saying obscenity is speech, based on the definition of speech the court uses, not simply spoken word.

Yeah, and I anticipate these types of arguments will be the most fun (well, maybe not fun, but interesting) because there is so little established for either side.

Well yeah, because we're talking legal terms. You can speak in more ways than just allowed- gestures, writings, signs, etc. There are several other elements in what is consider obscene, but I don't think it really matters to this discussion besides marriage not qualifying as speech.

<------ Currently studying for my third bar exam so this is a nice little rehash of obscenity

which one is this? and which have you taken before?

I took and passed PA last July, WV in February, and now this is Ohio.

WV wasn't bad b/c I could transfer part of my PA score. No such luck in Ohio, gotta take it all.

I'm confused then. This sounds like the only reason you're opposed to gay marriage is that you live around people who oppose it. I had thought you were opposed to it because it conflicted with certain religious/moral ideals, but now you're saying that you're opposed to it only because the people around you are?

No listen, I'm opposed to it in general. However, I do have somewhat of a majority mentality, in that I don't think a minority should set the course for the majority. If I lived in Boston, I would vote against it, but probably wouldnt make much of a move to stop it. However, if a ban was under siege in GA, where the large majority opposed gay marriage, I'd fight tooth and nail for that cause. I know its probably confusing, its just how I am. For example, I'm pro life, but I really think we need a change in heart(for America) before I would really get behind a reversal in policy that most Americans would not support. I guess I think sort of like a congressman, in that if it were my decision, I would do my best to reflect my constituency. I may disagree with their feelings, and in that case I should make it my duty to change their minds. However, I would not impose something upon people which they opposed, unless it was something clearly in their best interest. Its a judgement call, but most things are.

This is not about marriage it is about sex. Lets get real . If gays are allowed to marry then anal sex will get the official govt stamp of approval. Anal sex is like crack cocaine it may feel good but is it good for you?
Many states still have sodomy laws. This is an attempt to knock them off the books.
The rectum or butt hole is a part of the digestive system and its purpose is to get rid of waste or do- do and gas. It was not designed to have objects going in. Anal sex is destructive, bloody and violent.
The penis has a purpose. the vagina has a purpose. When we go outside of the natural functions of our sexual organs. Confusion will be the result.
:confused:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Sodomy laws have already been knocked off the books. And btw, Sodomy includes ORAL sex as well.. don't see you complaining about that....

Lol. Where have you been the past 3 years? Please refer to the US Supreme Court case Lawrence v. Texas.

i think we should be tolerant of them because they are people too.

whats next, non-white voting? psh.