"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be

reply to post by kaylaluv


Section 2 of the DOMA has not been found to be unconstitutional

It protects the rights of individual states to vote on the issue.

Your using interracial marriages should not be considered a valid argument.

Stick the facts and subject at hand.

You trying to the race card is nearly the equivalent of me using the doggy card.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


I believe rights are not for voting. I believe that someones belief in the mythology they were raised in should not dictate laws within a nation thats strong point is what is called a "melting pot". I believe that the governments role is to ensure the populace is not infringed upon by any group no matter how entitled they feel their god makes them.

With that in mind according to the law marriage is only about tax and estate and misc legal benefits. Therefore if needs be the fed should mandate it to make it available to any consenting adults as this is supposed to be a free country where people can follow their right to happiness.

Simple fact is there is no reason what-so-ever that marriage should be denied any group of people-so long as they are consenting adults.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Now we've gotten to the point where the problem begins.

Allowing the Federal Government to control the individual States Laws.

This is where ... I will quote myself from page 1 of this thread.

I really don't care what you do behind closed doors as long as you keep it there. But when you want to try to shove it in my face is when I say , no that's not OK.

This should be left up to individual States to decide.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Section 2 of the DOMA has not been found to be unconstitutional

It protects the rights of individual states to vote on the issue.

Your using interracial marriages should not be considered a valid argument.

Stick the facts and subject at hand.

You trying to the race card is nearly the equivalent of me using the doggy card.

It absolutely is a valid argument. We're talking about people, not animals. The states had the right to ban interracial marriage. A few states allowed it, most did not. One case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, because it was discrimination.

The issue of gay marriage has not yet made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe that if/when it does, the S.C. will rule it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, on the basis of discrimination. Any law that says it's ok to ban will be overturned.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


According to your logic slavery should still be allowed if the state wants. Simple fact is: No. No. No.

We are United, this means that certain inalienable rights exist to the citizenry. Rights are things which states cannot take away.

You are very selective. What if states wanted to outlaw Christianity, is that permitted in your worldview? How about complete communism within the state where visitors entering could be imprisoned for owning personal property, would that be OK?

reply to post by kaylaluv

The issue of gay marriage has not yet made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe that if/when it does, the S.C. will rule it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, on the basis of discrimination. Any law that says it's ok to ban will be overturned.

I'm aware of that. However you may be disappointed with the outcome if it does ever reach the supreme court. Any predictions when that's going to happen? Why hasn't it already happened if your argument about interracial marriages was so valid? After all it's been 45 years since that case in the Supreme court.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Allowing the Federal Government to control the individual States Laws.

Tell me one logical reason why marriage is a state right.

Maybe there was a reason in the beginning of only 13 states 200 years ago.

But what reason is there today that makes any logical sense.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

The issue of gay marriage has not yet made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe that if/when it does, the S.C. will rule it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage, on the basis of discrimination. Any law that says it's ok to ban will be overturned.

I'm aware of that. However you may be disappointed with the outcome if it does ever reach the supreme court. Any predictions when that's going to happen? Why hasn't it already happened if your argument about interracial marriages was so valid? After all it's been 45 years since that case in the Supreme court.

Who can predict timing? It has to be an individual case that makes it through the appeals process, and the S.C. has to agree to rule on it.

And interracial marriage was outlawed in most states from colonial times until the 20th century, so that was a long time as well before it got fixed. Public opinion on minority rights reached a pinnacle with the civil rights movement, so the S.C. ruling was a result of that. Some might say that with the current poll results, we are beginning to reach that same pinnacle of public opinion for gay marriage rights, so I don't think we're too far off.

reply to post by Annee


Marriage Licenses .... the part that deals with the whole Government part are issued by individual cities and States.

That's one good reason. If you go and get married you don't ever have to send in an application to the Federal Government.

en.wikipedia.org...

A marriage license (American English) or marriage licence (British English) is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given).
Today, they are a legal requirement in some jurisdictions and may also serve as the record of the marriage itself, if signed by the couple and witnessed.

reply to post by kaylaluv

And interracial marriage was outlawed in most states from colonial times until the 20th century, so that was a long time as well before it got fixed. Public opinion on minority rights reached a pinnacle with the civil rights movement, so the S.C. ruling was a result of that. Some might say that with the current poll results, we are beginning to reach that same pinnacle of public opinion for gay marriage rights, so I don't think we're too far off.

That only strengthens my point. Interracial marriages have been accepted much longer than 45 years. The Supreme Court case was 45 years ago though in 1967. Which may not seem like that long but if same sex marriage and interracial marriage were so similar this would have already gone to the Supreme Court by now.

Therefore you may want to compare it to that precedent but it really is not valid. If it were valid don't you think there's enough smart lawyers who would have argued it by now?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Annee

 

Marriage Licenses .... the part that deals with the whole Government part are issued by individual cities and States.

That's one good reason. If you go and get married you don't ever have to send in an application to the Federal Government.

en.wikipedia.org...

A marriage license (American English) or marriage licence (British English) is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses began to be issued in the Middle Ages, to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal (for instance, if the necessary period of notice for the marriage had not been given).
Today, they are a legal requirement in some jurisdictions and may also serve as the record of the marriage itself, if signed by the couple and witnessed.

You do realize that "State" when used in many legal contexts means the civil authority relevant to the issue at hand. It is not a state right, it is something required to be done by some sort of recognized civil authority. A REQUIREMENT. Not an option.

Frankly it should have nothing to with churchs as it confers special benefits recognized by the law.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


That is not an answer.

Not a real logical reason for individual states to determine marriage rights.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

And interracial marriage was outlawed in most states from colonial times until the 20th century, so that was a long time as well before it got fixed. Public opinion on minority rights reached a pinnacle with the civil rights movement, so the S.C. ruling was a result of that. Some might say that with the current poll results, we are beginning to reach that same pinnacle of public opinion for gay marriage rights, so I don't think we're too far off.

That only strengthens my point. Interracial marriages have been accepted much longer than 45 years. The Supreme Court case was 45 years ago though in 1967. Which may not seem like that long but if same sex marriage and interracial marriage were so similar this would have already gone to the Supreme Court by now.

Therefore you may want to compare it to that precedent but it really is not valid. If it were valid don't you think there's enough smart lawyers who would have argued it by now?

It was years and years and years that the state bans of interracial marriages was allowed. No one was able to get it to the U.S. Supreme Court before 1967. Why? Who knows - maybe it had to do with the timing of the whole civil rights movement, and the S.C. felt it was time to rule on the issue.

Certain states have banned same-sex marriage for years and years, but it was only in 1996 that the DOMA act said that states had a right to. Why hasn't it gotten to the Supreme Court already? Who knows - maybe the timing isn't quite right yet for the Supreme Court to agree to rule on it. But I believe we're getting close.

i'm fine with homosexuals, and i have two gay best friends.

personally, i think it is wrong, but personally i think the best color is blue. i love my friends and i wish them the best.

lets be completely honest. gay couples want the same rights that straight couples get. let's compromise (not for my personal sake, but for the country at large, as most religious folk are stubborn)

if gay couples can get the rights they want AND keep tensions down between homophobic people, then call it a civil union, not marriage.

gays get the rights they want, and religious people keep their "sanctity". win win.

if you disagree with my logic, then the issue isn't about rights. if it isn't about rights, then there is no issue.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Actually, not only is the interracial marriage thing relevant but completely applicable. Right now several states recognize gay marriage. What gives one state the right to ignore something done in another selectively?

The primary purpose of the federal government is to ensure a degree of uniformity between states just for this reason. The interracial item went to the courts because of this same sort of structure.

The Supreme Court has a long history of ensuring more rights, not reducing them. Even on the current conservative weighted panel of activist republican judges, I suspect it would still side in favor of gay marriage.

reply to post by lordtyp0


Are you trying to be argumentative ot ignorant on purpose?

I can tell you are a smart enough individual to understand what I'm saying.

In the United States the authority over seeing marriage licenses has always been the individual States.

The current law in the United States give individual States the authority to issue marriage licenses.

If certain States laws are found to be unconstitutional then the Federal Government can change that law.

Since it's been 45 years since the interracial marriage issue made it to the Supreme Court.

Comparing interracial marriage to same sex marriage is obviously not so clear cut.

The burden of proof is on you the prove that homosexuality is the same as skin pigmentation or racial ethnicity.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm fine with homosexuals, and i have two gay best friends.

personally, i think it is wrong, but personally i think the best color is blue. i love my friends and i wish them the best.

lets be completely honest. gay couples want the same rights that straight couples get. let's compromise (not for my personal sake, but for the country at large, as most religious folk are stubborn)

if gay couples can get the rights they want AND keep tensions down between homophobic people, then call it a civil union, not marriage.

gays get the rights they want, and religious people keep their "sanctity". win win.

if you disagree with my logic, then the issue isn't about rights. if it isn't about rights, then there is no issue.

No, this creates a second class citizenry to have separate names. A rough analogy is bathrooms and drinking fountains for non-whites. Thats still a toilet and drinking fountain right?

Either people are equal and its good, or not equal and there is reason to fight. This is a reason to fight.

reply to post by lordtyp0

Actually, not only is the interracial marriage thing relevant but completely applicable. Right now several states recognize gay marriage. What gives one state the right to ignore something done in another selectively?

The current Federal Law, specifically Section 2

Defense of Marriage Act

Section 2. Powers reserved to the states
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Easy-the drama of interracial marriage was because it would "cause people to marry their dogs" "Is against the way god intended, that people should stick to their own kind" etc. etc.

Either people have rights, or they do not. Certain classes of people do not get rights that others do not also have. That was what the interracial marriage item was about and that is what the gay marriage movement is about.

It is not allowed to remove rights, because of this those rights must be extended otherwise it is a state sanctioned second class citizen structure which time and time again has been proven and judged unconstitutional.

The states are required to issue certificates of marriage for legal recognition. That is all they are involved with, the current argument being fought is whether they can dictate who they give that recognition to.

Citizens who are consenting adults have this right. It is simple as that.

That was what solved the interracial marriage item and forced all states to recognize said marriages instead of just the enlightened ones.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Quoting DOMA is pointless. This law will be overturned, it was bread in grotesque maliciousness. Moreover the topic is really whether marriage is constitutional. DOMA is being cast down in case after case, it is only a matter of time before it is tossed down entirely.

Edit to add: Many laws state emphatically that items be recognized between states. This is further proof that there is no room in our society for a law like DOMA. It again-intentionally sets out to make a second class citizenry.