It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

page: 23
21
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Prop 8 Supporters Vow To Appeal Dismissal Of Lawsuit Seeking To Vacate Walker’s Ruling | Ari Ezra Waldman notices that Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the Prop 8 proponents, has vowed to appeal the court’s decision to throw out a lawsuit seeking to vacate Judge Walker’s ruling because he is in a same-sex relationship and may be interested in marriage. Cooper said his “legal team will appeal this decision and continue [its] tireless efforts to defend the will of the people of California to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”

thinkprogress.org...




posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
NCLR Executive Director Kate Kendell Reacts to Today's Perry v. Brown Hearing

www.youtube.com...=20



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxOutside of the ill conceived Fourteenth Amendment


Sorry to say, but your opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment is somehow ill-conceived isn't enough justification to deny certain people the rights that it grants.

Furthermore, The Declaration of Independence, which is directly tied to the Constitution as one of the primary founding documents even states that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." That statement extends to the text that is officiated within the Constitution, and therefore when the statement is put into the larger perspective, the Fourteenth Amendment also contains the specific self-evident truths about how all men are created equal.

Of particular worth to the gay marriage debate is the Equal Protection Clause and due process. The marriage laws in the US states that two consenting adults can get married. And the fact that it specifies that two consenting adults of the opposite gender can get married directly violates the Equal Protection Clause and due process, which makes illegalizing same-sex marriage unconstitutional, whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment is "ill-conceived." The truths within the Fourteenth Amendment are self-evident nonetheless.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeauxthe Constitution does not grant any rights to people


The Equal Protection Clause states:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.


The Constitution not only grants rights, it grants the most basic, fundamental, and important of rights, the right to equality and equal protection.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeauxand most assuredly does not specify "competent, consenting adults" are more "particularly" deserving of these rights.


It doesn't have to specify anything. The fact that marriage laws restrict same-sex couples from marrying is directly responded to by the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution which delves into law, liberty, and equality as it pertains to laws. That alone makes illegalizing gay marriage unconstitutional.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxIt really doesn't take careful analysis of the Constitution for the United States of America to understand that rights are not being granted and that the Bill of Rights functions as a prohibition on government


Actually as I'm demonstrating it does take some type of careful analysis of the Constitution to determine who has rights and who doesn't. Otherwise people would immediately recognize that certain rights, like equality, are self-evident... which apparently people do not immediately recognize.

People tend to forget or are ignorant to the fact that the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence go hand-in-hand. Those three documents are intentionally meant to compliment each other.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe Ninth Amendment in particular makes clear that the right enumerated shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the people. It is so remarkably clear in its language it is unfathomable how people have allowed themselves to come to believe that government has given them rights. All of which is moot, given that it is the states who issue marriage licenses, not the federal government.


Right. Which all amounts to how the Equal Protection Clause is given even more authority and validity, and says how the government more or less doesn't have the unlimited authority to intrude upon the basic rights of the people. In this particular case, the ability for same-sex couples to marry. The government really doesn't have the authority to prevent that.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxThe red herring that is known as "same sex marriage" is tragic in that the gay community had a perfect opportunity to point out that no government authority had the right to license their marriages, and to ask America why heterosexuals have been so willing to go along with licensing schemes that impose unlawful authority on marriage.


The fact remains it is how it is. And the fact remains that even though marriage requires some type of government-sanctioned license, it is still unconstitutional in more than one aspect to prevent same-sex couples from legally marrying.

Whether or not marriage is a government-sanctioned institution, and whether or not marriage requires a government issued license is irrelevant to the fact that it is still unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from marrying. So that in itself is a red herring and a distraction. It is constitutionally appropriate for same-sex couples to wed.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxInstead, the gay community has lined up to the alter of sacrifice and demanded they be given the same privilege of subjugation as heterosexuals have been given.


I tend to agree with you. But the reality is the reality. Even if it doesn't change, it's still unconstitutional for the government to ban gay marriage.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxNo person, straight or gay, need be licensed by the state in order to enter into a contractual relationship known as marriage. Every person, and even Klingons and Wookies have the absolute right to marry and do not need a license in order to marry.


True. But even still I'm debating within the dim light of the reality surrounding marriage.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxIf you want a license, you want a privilege


Regarding consenting adults, same-sex couples want equal access to these privileges, which the Constitution allows for.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeauxand privileges are not rights.


The Constitution still grants same-sex couples the ability to attain these privileges nonetheless. Which the government denies them. And that is unconstitutional to do. And that is what I'm debating.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxBut, what the hell, right? Who really cares about rights anyway? Privileges are way cooler, no?


Same as above.
edit on 17-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 





Sorry to say, but your opinion that the Fourteenth Amendment is somehow ill-conceived isn't enough justification to deny certain people the rights that it grants.


I am not at all sorry to say that the Fourteenth Amendment grants rights that people all ready had! Do you understand? Your insistence on framing natural rights as something government grants is a serious problem in the world today. What can be granted by government can be taken away, and rights are unalienable which means they cannot be taken away, only violated, denied, and disparaged.

You have to rely solely upon the Fourteenth Amendment in order to frame rights as being granted by government as opposed to being a natural law phenomenon. Do not make any mistakes about this; your insistence on framing rights as granted by government diminishes rights in the most horrific of ways.

Your insistence on diminishing rights and undermining their true authority speaks volumes to your politics, and it ain't about freedom.


Edit to Add:

Further, your hopeless attempt to ignore my argument and pretend I have somehow argued for the disparagement of rights is beyond disingenuous. Quite the opposite of what you contend, I am arguing that all people everywhere have rights and one has to willingly pretend otherwise in order to come to the conclusion that I am arguing that people should be denied rights for any reason at all.





edit on 17-6-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


That is the point, we have all our intrinsic rights to infinity, and the constitutions limit or negotiate areas where the state wishes to limit rights of citizens.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


That is the point, we have all our intrinsic rights to infinity, and the constitutions limit or negotiate areas where the state wishes to limit rights of citizens.


To infinity and beyond! It is always good to see you Unity. It is tragic that so few people understand this. Very, very, very, very, very tragic indeed.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxI am not at all sorry to say that the Fourteenth Amendment grants rights that people all ready had! Do you understand?


Do you understand that I'm arguing within the context of the reality surrounding marriage and I'm arguing within the topic parameters for this thread? It's already a government-sanctioned institution. Do you reasonably believe that marriage will be dropped as a government-sanctioned institution that requires a marriage license? It is more realistic to say that a group of people can get a law altered to better fit the Constitution than it is to empower and to educate an entire nation that they already have these rights granted to them.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYour insistence on framing natural rights as something government grants is a serious problem in the world today.


Wrong, it creates drama and debate and conversation that illuminates how natural rights are something that are naturally granted and are unalienable. It also paints a picture about how people do not know wtf the founding documents really are or what's in them. You and I are effectively igniting a flame of enlightenment. The more people know, the less ignorant they become, and the more they are able to understand.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxWhat can be granted by government can be taken away, and rights are unalienable which means they cannot be taken away, only violated, denied, and disparaged.


Right, which I elaborated upon in my post. Even despite the reality that the government likes to heavily intrude upon the rights of men, people can still demonstrate how it is unconstitutional even within the perimeter of government intrusion. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence work so well on so many levels, even within the most confined and rigid of perimeters can someone make a feasible argument to convey how something is unconstitutional and isn't right.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYou have to rely solely upon the Fourteenth Amendment in order to frame rights as being granted by government as opposed to being a natural law phenomenon.


Not quite. It's more accurate to say that I get to redirect a person to the Constitution to point out how the government, despite its incessant intrusion, doesn't have the right to intrude so heavily. And even when the government does heavily intrude, it doesn't have the right to restrict marriage to just between a man and woman.

I pointed that out perfectly in my previous post. It works on both levels. The government can't ban gay marriage, and the government doesn't even have the right to intrude upon someone's ability to marry. Yet when it does, it still doesn't have the right to ban gay marriage.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxDo not make any mistakes about this; your insistence on framing rights as granted by government diminishes rights in the most horrific of ways.


I didn't frame rights. I pointed out how the government didn't have the authority to intrude upon a person's equal right to pursue liberty, despite the reality that the government does so in the instance of marriage. Which I stated was unconstitutional.


Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYour insistence on diminishing rights and undermining their true authority speaks volumes to your politics, and it ain't about freedom.


I didn't diminish rights. I elaborated upon how the government couldn't intrude upon those rights. I'm not sure how you mistook what I said for anything but that. I encouraged freedom. And in this particular instance I encouraged the freedom that homosexuals have to marry their same-sex partner.
edit on 17-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxEdit to Add:

Further, your hopeless attempt to ignore my argument and pretend I have somehow argued for the disparagement of rights is beyond disingenuous. Quite the opposite of what you contend, I am arguing that all people everywhere have rights and one has to willingly pretend otherwise in order to come to the conclusion that I am arguing that people should be denied rights for any reason at all.


No, I directly confronted your argument by saying that even though marriage has become a government-sanctioned contractual agreement that requires a license, that that doesn't somehow detract from the reality that it is unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples from having the chance to attain these licenses and shouldn't be denied from attaining these privileges. Which the government prevents same sex couples from doing in the instance of marriage. I was saying that wasn't right. I was saying that it was unconstitutional for the government to do so.

I didn't once make it appear that you argued for the disparagement of rights. I directly confronted and addressed each and every sentence that you typed out.

But... your hopeless attempt to ignore my argument and pretend that I have somehow argued for natural rights to be framed or diminished is beyond disingenuous. Quite the opposite of what you contend, I am arguing that all people everywhere have rights and one has to willingly pretend otherwise in order to come to the conclusion that I am arguing that people should be denied rights for any reason at all.

All my posts have ever done was to convey how equality is a basic human right. And to convey how the government did not have the right to restrict marriage. And how the government didn't even have the right to intrude upon the institution of marriage, despite the fact that it does.
edit on 17-6-2011 by arbitrarygeneraiist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
 


Exactly. The recent arguments on this thread have been pushing the, 'why would you want to be married when this is what it's become'. Instead of just saying they dont want it to happen because they disagree for whatever personal reason. They ought to just say they dont like it and tell everyone why. I have seen some other posts on different threads of members arguing in the negative and though appalling, they we at least honest.

Their argument is now fundamentally why do I want what they have when what they have is so flawed. When you tell them because that's equality they offer ridiculous alternatives that they themselves would have been outraged to have been offered.



edit on 17-6-2011 by Garfee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Garfee
 


No kidding. Despite what marriage has become other people still want to get married, but are denied the ability to do so. What people also don't seem to understand is that even though marriage has become what it has, same-sex couples still have the constitutional right to get married, or at least have the constitutional right to obtain the privilege to get married, since some people decided to become even more specific about what marriage is.

Whether it's a matter of being able to enter into the contract, or whether marriage is about equality, same-sex couples being married is still protected under the Constitution.

Basically, regardless of the alternatives that anyone offers in place of same-sex marriage, the Constitution still argues in favor of the legalization of same-sex marriages. So those offers are pointless. But I still respect a person's brazen ability to come forth and say "I hate this person and feel that they should be discriminated again!" even if I don't really respect the opinion or the person himself/herself.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Uh...yes, I would like to apply for a license to discuss the "legality" of marriage please. While you're at it, could I get a license for Equal Rights as well?

Without any license to discuss "legal" marriages, would I be criminal for pointing out that something "legal" must be lawful. It is highly doubtful that licensing schemes for the purpose of marriage is lawful. People have the right to marry without obtaining any permission from the state to do so. Unless, of course, they don't have an Equal Rights license, then I guess they should be damn happy the state allows them to even exist.


Better yet what is marriage doing in the federal government? Hows about we remove it all together, give it back to people, let the folks individually decide how they wish to deal with marriage. Either marriage is a private matter, or if it is to be upheld by any government, then it applies across couples regardless of sexuality. I mean what reason is it to have marriage only to keep out and discrimminate against americans over sexuality? or race (which was once the case). There's no justification other than to keep the idea of favouritism legal in the government. All americans, straight or not, black or white, should be treated equally under the government in public settings.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
I have tried to stay focused on LEGAL MARRIAGE - in discussing this issue.


This is where we hit the snag.

There should be no such thing as ''legal marriage''. Marriage is a philosophical concept which is just a show of commitment between partners on a personal level.

The whole idea of ''legal marriage'' is corrupt and tantamount to government blackmail. ''You and your husband/wife want these perks and privileges ? Pay us some money and you can have them !''


I'm against gay people legally marrying. I'm against straight people legally marrying. In fact, I'm against anyone or anything legally marrying !

It's just not right or proper that a couple can have a week-long whirlwind romance, then legally tie the knot to pay for some extra privileges while a legally unmarried couple of 30 years do not receive these same perks and benefits.

It's an extortion racket !

Having said all that, paid-for legal marriage perks for heterosexual couples are a reality in our society, so I agree that gay couples should equally be able to obtain these same privileges.


To round up my entire post in a more succinct fashion: I strongly disagree with the notion of ''legal marriage''. However, considering that legal marriage does exist in our society, then I believe that all consenting adult couples should be subject to the same legal entitlements - regardless of their sexuality.


edit on 17-6-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

What tax breaks?


From my second source:



spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;


And



Married taxpayers typically file a joint return because of the added tax benefits and credits.


HR Block


(Your source marriageequality.com is dead in the water.)


My source was this: www.angelfire.com... The dead source was embedded in that quote. Sorry.




It's not as if you get married to gain money.


Yeah, I know, we get married to reproduce, right?

The truth is that people get married for MANY reasons and there is no legal requirement as to the reason for marriage. People marry for love, MONEY, convenience, fear, lust, status, security, companionship, because they're drunk out of their minds and in Vegas, and other reasons. Oh, yes, and to breed.

See, I married for love. But it's none of my business to judge other people's reasons for THEIR marriage. Their marriage is not MY marriage. It's absolutely NONE of my business.

Besides, that's not the point. The point is that the federal government offers benefits.



Fill out our taxes separately and jointly see how that changes things. I've been filing separately lately because I pay less taxes.


How nice for you that you have a choice.


Originally posted by dbates
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is still the defacto reference for what groups can not be discriminated against.


So, as long as a group is not listed in the civil rights act, it's OK to discriminate against them? Do they ask your gender? Or if you're married? Of if you have kids? Is that one of the boxes? Since "parental status" isn't listed in the Civil Rights Act, is it OK to discriminate against people who have children?

The fact is that the Constitution is there to protect PEOPLE. ALL people. Not just certain groups. You can site the Civil Rights Act all you want, but I don't agree that only certain groups are protected from discrimination.

I ALWAYS answer the questions put to me here on this board and I am amazed at how many questions I ask, only to be completely ignored. That's no way to have a discussion or debate or to engage someone. It's just drive-by BS.

Here are the questions I have asked of you in this thread that you have gone unanswered, just in case you want to engage.

1.

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Abrihetx
if a straight couple decides to marry, but have no desire to have children should their request to marry be denied?

That would be micro-management on the government's part.
Your post here

My question: Are you saying that it's OK to micro-manage gay marriages by not allowing them to get married unless they have children, but it's not OK to micromanage straight marriages by not allowing them to get married unless they have children?


2.

Originally posted by dbates
So I do have to ask, why do homosexuals want to get married?
Your post here

My question: I have to ask, why don't you want them to?


3.

Originally posted by dbates
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is still the defacto reference for what groups can not be discriminated against.
Your post here

My question: Since "parental status" isn't listed in the civil rights Act, is it OK to discriminate against people who have children?

Please feel free to answer any or all of these neglected questions.


.

edit on 6/17/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So, as long as a group is not listed in the civil rights act, it's OK to discriminate against them? Do they ask your gender? Or if you're married? Of if you have kids? Is that one of the boxes? Since "parental status" isn't listed in the Civil Rights Act, is it OK to discriminate against people who have children?

The fact is that the Constitution is there to protect PEOPLE. ALL people. Not just certain groups. You can site the Civil Rights Act all you want, but I don't agree that only certain groups are protected from discrimination.



The constitution actually protects your right to discriminate against many groups (all except for those familiar one's which have already been cited).



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenBeans
The constitution actually protects your right to discriminate against many groups (all except for those familiar one's which have already been cited).


To be clear, here is the meaning of discriminate I'm using. M/W


: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit


And you're partially right. MY individual rights to discriminate are protected. I can discriminate against anyone I want as long as I don't break the law in my actions. And in fact, who I can discriminate against is not limited to the Civil Rights Act groups. Individuals can discriminate against black people, fat people, men, people with cats, ugly people, feminists, politicians... whatever.

But we're not talking about my individual rights. We're talking about the rights of the state. And neither the Constitution NOR the Civil Rights Act protects the rights of the STATE to discriminate against ANYONE. That is so bass-akwards I can't believe anyone is trying to make that argument.

I have no problem with individuals being bigoted. You have every right to hate, feel superior to, speak out against or discriminate against gay people. Or white people or Democrats or the wealthy.

Your knowledge of marriage, the Constitution and rights (or lack of same) is really getting in the way of a good discussion.

You say marriage isn't a right because it's not listed in the Constitution as a right.




Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


You insist that marriage isn't a contract, that you didn't agree to the terms of your marriage contract and that those terms can change at any time, yet you give NO proof of these statements at all.

I have shown you the Legal Definition of Marriage. It's a contract. The TRUTH is that you were married BY THE STATE. One of the people LEGALLY qualified to perform that function is clergy. That paper you FREELY signed on the day of your marriage was a LEGAL contract and it was sent back to the state to be filed. You had EVERY right not to sign that contract. The state imposed NOTHING on you. You ASKED the state if you could get married when you filed for a license.

.
edit on 6/17/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
There should be no such thing as ''legal marriage''. Marriage is a philosophical concept which is just a show of commitment between partners on a personal level.




There IS currently LEGAL Government Marriage - - that affords certain privileges/rights not available elsewhere.

To deny gays the right of LEGAL Government Marriage and the privileges/rights it affords is unconstitutional.

That is the subject of this thread.

What your belief is on marriage is a different discussion.

Thank you to those understanding and staying on topic

edit on 17-6-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
However, considering that legal marriage does exist in our society, then I believe that all consenting adult couples should be subject to the same legal entitlements - regardless of their sexuality.



Oh thank you. Got distracted and missed the last paragraph.

Yes - - that is the point of this thread.

Doesn't mean what else you said is not valid - - just not the topic.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The truth is that people get married for MANY reasons... because they're drunk out of their minds and in Vegas, and other reasons. Oh, yes, and to breed.

Yes you don't need to be sane, sober, or really have a good reason to get married. You don' t even need to be married to breed. I just think that the only vested interest that the government has in marriage is for the protection and financial stability of children. Of course there are single individuals that can adequately provide for children on their own but we know that this isn't the average person. How many discussions have we seen on ATS that highlights just how few people have all the wealth? The rest of us just get by.

The government isn't interested in anyone getting married, heterosexual or homosexual. What the government is interested in is the poverty and crime rates.


Decreasing Nonmarital Births and Strengthening Marriage to Reduce Poverty
Wendy Sigle- Rushton and Sara McLanahan, using data from the Fragile Families Study, found that if the unmarried parents in the sample were to marry, nearly half of the poor single mothers and their children would rise above the poverty line.

www.princeton.edu...




Nearly six of 10 children living with only their mother were near (or below) the poverty line. About 45 percent of children raised by divorced mothers and 69 percent of those raised by never married mothers lived in or near poverty.

www.census.gov...

So while there are many factors that contribute to poverty, the want of stable families accounts for up to half those in poverty. This doesn't even begin to touch the additional studies about missing fathers and incarceration rates which includes upwards of 70% of those in jail today. Similar studies in the UK highlight the exact same outcome for the same scenarios. Children living with single mothers are normally poor, neglected, uneducated, abused. If you're so inclined you can read here about the specifics.

It doesn't cost a dime to have sex but male/female sexual intercourse can have lifetime consequences. It is in the best interest of the state for these relations to take place inside of a stable marriage. Homosexual sexual relations do not have these complications.Don't take this to mean I think their relationships aren't as important to them as mine and yours are and God forbid that anyone think they are less of a human for who they love. This isn't about close-minded bigoted religious nuts as some people would like to paint it. This is just basic birds and bees stuff. Can homosexuals have children through in-vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, or adoption? Sure but people that can afford these measures are hardly below the poverty line. These fancy methods for having babies sounds like rich men discussing which fabric makes a better sail on a yacht to those of us that live paycheck to paycheck. We're buying Always-Save bread from Wal-Mart to save .50 while they speak of dropping thousands on making babies.

Since when did the government honestly look for ways to cut taxes? They'll take every dime you have if we would allow it. So why do married people get tax breaks? Crime and poverty costs the government billions and billions of dollars. The government makes more money when children are brought up in stable homes so it only makes sense for them to encourage marriages and to provide incentives for people to wed. I know not all marriages produce children but the government wants to establish that this is the socially acceptable manner of behavior. Not because they care about Mr. and Mrs. Smith happiness when they can't have kids, but because they know that Mr. Jones might see that and be influenced to marry his girlfriend. And hopefully a domino effect of marriages will keep the poverty and crime rate down.




So, as long as a group is not listed in the civil rights act, it's OK to discriminate against them?

Are we talking morally or legally? There are a few more specific laws about discrimination but homosexuals are not in any of those lists.





My question: Are you saying that it's OK to micro-manage gay marriages by not allowing them to get married unless they have children, but it's not OK to micromanage straight marriages by not allowing them to get married unless they have children?

No I don't think they should micro-manage anything. I was just throwing that out there as an example of a possibility for something like a tax break because children cost money.




My question: I have to ask, why don't you want them (homosexuals) to (marry)?

I don't care if they do or don't. My position is that the state has no vested interested in promoting these types of unions.

One other point of discontent many people have is that "marriage" is a pre-defined word with an existing meaning. I think that homosexual community would frown on NMBLA defining "gay" to include their group as well.




My question: Since "parental status" isn't listed in the civil rights Act, is it OK to discriminate against people who have children?

Yes, so long as you don't have different rules for men and women such as men can have kids but women can't. If having children interferes with the job the it's perfectly legal to say so. See The Supreme Court case of Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.; 1971; 400 U.S. 542.

No, I don't ignore you. I just don't always notice when I get replies to comments and they can be overlooked. Plus I don't want to flood the topic with just my discussion and ideas. I think I've already made those well know and I'm curious what others think about the issue as well. Plus people probably get tired of me yammering away anyhow.


EDIT:

Yes, some adult unions are preferable to others from the state's point of view. Let's not pretend that they are not or that all are equal.


As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them.

to pretend that people ought to live as if nothing whatever had been known in the world before they came into it; as if experience had as yet done nothing towards showing that one mode of existence, or of conduct, is preferable to another.

- J.S. Mill; On Liberty (1859)

edit on 17-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But we're not talking about my individual rights. We're talking about the rights of the state. And neither the Constitution NOR the Civil Rights Act protects the rights of the STATE to discriminate against ANYONE. That is so bass-akwards I can't believe anyone is trying to make that argument.


The state discriminates all the time but it's generally based on circumstances rather than individual traits.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You say marriage isn't a right because it's not listed in the Constitution as a right.


I didn't really say that, no. The legalities of marraige can be removed, altered or added to at any time therefore they are not rights.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You insist that marriage isn't a contract, that you didn't agree to the terms of your marriage contract and that those terms can change at any time, yet you give NO proof of these statements at all.


Are you suggesting that the legalities which the government imposes upon married people have not changed at all since I got married 20 years ago? Are you suggesting that I agreed to conditions that weren't even proposed until years and years after I got married?

Have you even looked at the form you fill out and sign to get a marraige license?

edit on 17-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
There IS currently LEGAL Government Marriage - - that affords certain privileges/rights not available elsewhere.

To deny gays the right of LEGAL Government Marriage and the privileges/rights it affords is unconstitutional.

That is the subject of this thread.


The "subject of this thread" is a lie.

The criteria for what marraiges will be legally recognized doesn't include sexual orientation.




top topics



 
21
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join