Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[shinerbock]

Well I imagine the Court will one day have to address this. But to this point, several state supreme courts and the 8th circuit have upheld the state's right to legislate marriage.

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by beverysure

Lets take sex out of marriage and what do you have . Friends

Why cant I marry my goat. because eventhough I can have sex with a goat and fall in love with a goat.Should society allow me to Marry a goat so it can have vet benefits.Or collect a social security check. Humans are so free they will do whatever they imagine but there must be a standard so that Chaos will not takeover. America is on the verge of ANARCHY!

I don't really think it's fair to compare an animal to a human in regards to gay marriage, so whatever you prefer to do with your goat is your deal. Oh, If you think that two dudes humping each other is going to drive this country to anarchy or chaos, you need a reality check.
1. Set your bible down for just one minute
2. Open your eyes to the real world
3. Realize that two women aren't going to stop seeing each other because they can't legally get married
4. You're probably in a cult, aren't you?

I'm neither for nor against gay marriage, but I don't like how a lot of people who want to ban gay marriage are touting these proposals as if it's a flat out ban against homosexuality. Like I said before, Adam and Steve aren't going to turn straight because they can't get married in Texas. Aren't there better ways to waste my tax dollars, like free eduaction for illegal immigrants?

[beverysure]

adam and steve are humping each other then turning around and humping mary and women are dying of aids.

So yes regardless of the law you can go hump a tree . But as a society we need a standard. Or it will be anything goes. Next thing old men will want to hump littlle boys and start their own boy lovers organization ......oops too late they already did


women grinding on each other and guys blowing out each others back is twisted. lets give the homo sexual community a hug and some real love.

not a condom

[shinerbock]

I think there are bigger issues, like immigration. However, if you want to get this out of the way, why not have liberals change their tune and recognize the traditional concept of marriage. Just because there are other issues does not mean the republicans should have to concede this issue. The idea that gay people will still be gay is obvious, that is not the point. This is not a war on homosexuality, it is a battle for marriage. Marriage, once again, is between a man and a woman. There are requirements and qualifications required for things in life. I can't go to a women's gym because I'm a man. Women shouldn't be allowed to play at Augusta National, they don't fit the requirements. If gay people want to start their own idea of a union, do that and make a proposal. But until then, marriage should not be an available option to them.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by beverysure

adam and steve are humping each other then turning around and humping mary and women are dying of aids.

First of all, women are responsible for themselves and their health, period.

Second of all, WTF are you talking about here? What does anything in your post have to do with gay marriage, for real?

[sdsuchelle]

Ummm so I'm not sure if this beverysure person is a troll or the biggest idiot I have ever come into contact with.

But let's just ignore them, please?

[kstar]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Well, we may be at the end of the story here, but its not an "innate right."

It is an inate right:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I've read many law briefs supporting the fact that marriage is a liberty, or it could fall under the pursuit of happiness. However you look at it, it is an inate right. Yes, the current law prevents them from exercising that right, however many people (maybe not in hicksville where you are) do believe that preventing it is wrong.

Marriage is held to be a fundamental (inate) right in the US, by the Supreme Court Loving -v- Virginia.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sdsuchelle

It should be allowed because not allowing it is discrimination.

Why should the government restrict the right to marry two people who are in love?

In Loving vs. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court declared the following:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)

Why shouldn't that be applicable to same-sex marriages as well?

I should read before posting, you had the exact quote from the Loving case that I was looking for.

[shinerbock]

You guys also completely ignore where it mentions fundamental, it also mentions it being essential to survival. Guys being married to each other is not essential to survival. It is not an innate right, and the most recent state supreme and us circuit rulings say the bans are constitutional. I wouldnt be too sure the SC is gonna rule in your favor, either.

[sdsuchelle]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You guys also completely ignore where it mentions fundamental, it also mentions it being essential to survival. Guys being married to each other is not essential to survival. It is not an innate right, and the most recent state supreme and us circuit rulings say the bans are constitutional. I wouldnt be too sure the SC is gonna rule in your favor, either.

If you want to use that argument, then marriage isn't really essential to survival at all, sexual intercourse is. You don't have to be married to have sex.

In which case, should we not allow infertile couples to marry? How about couples who don't want children?

I don't know if the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay marriage NOW, but I definitely believe I will see its legalization/acceptance in my lifetime.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

You guys also completely ignore where it mentions fundamental, it also mentions it being essential to survival. Guys being married to each other is not essential to survival. It is not an innate right, and the most recent state supreme and us circuit rulings say the bans are constitutional. I wouldnt be too sure the SC is gonna rule in your favor, either.

Yes, but if it is an inate right, that means that EVERYONE has the right. Even if those unions do not end up in children. To state that it is an inate right, and then not allow a certain group to exercise that is discrimination and against the principles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. I'll quote part of it again:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

All men. All citizens have the same rights and protections under the law. Gay or straight.

[Kevin]

The Declaration is an irrelevant historical document when it comes to our laws.

It's even less relevant than the Articles of Confederation.

The trouble with resting on the decisions of state supreme courts is that they tend to make politically expedient rulings. For example, here in Oklahoma, our Supreme Court recently ruled that it's unconsitutional for the state to take land via eminent domain and give it to private enterprise (except for in instances of urban renewal). They rested on the Oklahoma Constitution, but it was a terrible and wrong opinion. The thing is, they're all on a retention ballot, so had they affirmed Kelo, they'd face not being retained by the voters -- and enough morons vote 'no' 'just 'cuz' anyhow.

We need to let our respective legislatures deal with this.

To me, what will be interesting to see is what will happen when one state allows gay marriage? Will others be bound to recognize the union due to the full faith and credit clause? I'd love to see some courts reason their way out of that one.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by ktsnake

To me, what will be interesting to see is what will happen when one state allows gay marriage? Will others be bound to recognize the union due to the full faith and credit clause? I'd love to see some courts reason their way out of that one.

That's what I was asking earlier. It's bound to happen sooner or later.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by kstar

It is an inate right:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I've read many law briefs supporting the fact that marriage is a liberty, or it could fall under the pursuit of happiness. However you look at it, it is an inate right. Yes, the current law prevents them from exercising that right, however many people (maybe not in hicksville where you are) do believe that preventing it is wrong.

Marriage is held to be a fundamental (inate) right in the US, by the Supreme Court Loving -v- Virginia.

Why do you people keep quoting the Declaration? That is a bad document to use when discussing law.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by macallan25

Why do you people keep quoting the Declaration? That is a bad document to use when discussing law.

True, but as there is nothing mentioned in the constitution, nor should there be in my opinion, I think it's acceptable to go to the Declaration. We say these rights are inalienable, although we can take away someone's life and liberty IF they harm other people.

Gay marriage does not harm other people, and if marriage does fall under pursuit of happiness then it should indeed be allowed.