50% of people who answered this poll are IDIOTS!

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Not really . . . as stated above, the 14th is their amendment.

States can't pass laws barring inter-racial marriages . . . as that would be discriminatory.

Passing laws based on sexual orientation falls under the same category.

While I agree that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage, it is within their right to claim discriminatory abuses under current law.

I'm missing something... is there some Supreme Court ruling you both are referring to or something as the basis for your arguments?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by xedocodex

 

Sure I do only government officials get to have "assault weapons" the average person doesn't

That is discriminatory.

Straight people get to marry and get money and benefits from it LGTB'S are mad they don't get money and benefits.

Straight Marriage recognition under the eyes of god

Gay marriage recognition under the eyes government.

edit on 5-4-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Well, if they are mad that they can't leave assets to their partner when they die that's not an argument FOR gay marriage, that's an argument to abolish the estate tax. If they're mad they don't get the same tax rate as married folks then that still isn't an argument FOR gay marriage, that's an argument for a flat tax.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Not really . . . as stated above, the 14th is their amendment.

States can't pass laws barring inter-racial marriages . . . as that would be discriminatory.

Passing laws based on sexual orientation falls under the same category.

While I agree that the federal government shouldn't be involved in marriage, it is within their right to claim discriminatory abuses under current law.

I'm missing something... is there some Supreme Court ruling you both are referring to or something as the basis for your arguments?

The 14th amendment 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.

14th amendment

The important language is the third clause:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As states issue marriage licenses and have laws to govern this issuance, these laws must apply to all equally under the law. A state cannot discriminate based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. As states and the feds have laws that afford privilages only to married couples (i.e. tax code), these laws must be equitable to all, as well.

So, just as it is unconstitutional to bar inter-racial marriage:

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Loving v. Virginia

It can be argued marriage based on gender or sexual orientation falls under the same protection of equality under the law.

One can claim that sexual orientation is not a protected status against discrimination, but the court has already held that it is.

1996: In Romer v. Evans, the Court struck down as unconstitutional a Colorado state referendum that would have overturned local laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination. The Court held that the referendum was motivated by irrational bias against gays and lesbians and served no legitimate government interest, thus violating basic federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

Supreme Court civil rights cases

reply to post by watchitburn


Because the idiots in government can`t do anything else, they can`t fix the economy, they can`t balance a budget, they can`t do anything that is important and that needs to be done so they waste their time with softball pitches like this, that they know they can hit, so that it looks like they are actually doing something to earn their inflated pay checks.

reply to post by FortAnthem


The issue is that the government is already deeply involved in marriage. I believe federal tax rates are effected by marriage for instance.

They never should have been in the first place. I agree with the idea that marriage is a religious concept, and therefore the government shouldn't involve it in its laws. Rather they should define a legal structure, like a civil union, that goes for everybody who wants joint ownership like married people, but leave the defining of marriage up to the churches. However that isn't what happened, so certain rights depend on being married, and that leaves gay folks out in the cold, which means a civil rights issue. So the redefinition of marriage, even up to the federal level, has become a rights issue.

Originally posted by tridentblue

I agree with the idea that marriage is a religious concept, and therefore the government shouldn't involve it in its laws. Rather they should define a legal structure, like a civil union, that goes for everybody who wants joint ownership like married people, but leave the defining of marriage up to the churches.

Such a civil union already exists, it is the one wherein a marriage license is issued by a government office. A subsequent oath or ceremony can be administered by a justice, priest, or other agent.

Most people appear not to object to the idea of a civil union between two persons, non-discriminated by gender, only that some dare call it "marriage." Let the active parties qualify and define the relationship as they find appropriate. Though producing offspring is a frequent result of such a union it is not a requirement of that union. I personally do not find a legal requirement of that union which cannot be carried out by two participants regardless of their gender.

Traditional roles are often archaic in today's world, though their adherence typically remain a matter of personal choice to be exercised by the active individuals.

reply to post by watchitburn


Because they want us to.

By they I mean gay people. They're the ones pushing the issue.

Personally I'm sick of hearing about it.We get it.You're gay.

Shut up already.

I'm of the belief marriage is between a man and a woman. But,I do believe that "gays" should have the same rights.Just don't call it a marriage.

Originally posted by nightstalker78

Personally I'm sick of hearing about it.We get it.You're gay.

Shut up already.

I'm of the belief marriage is between a man and a woman. But,I do believe that "gays" should have the same rights.Just don't call it a marriage.

It's not the fact of we are saying "HEY WE ARE GAY!" It's the fact of having the same opportunities as our straight counterparts. Maybe you should read up on the 14th amendment and also look at previous Supreme Court rulings because I can definitely tell you separate but equal is not equal. If everyone was treated the same in the first place by the government and society you wouldn't even have this in the news.

No one asked you to come to this thread or waste any of your time on the issue whatsoever, it impacts you're life in no way and doesn't need you're attention if you feel that way. Just because it isn't your rights being denied doesn't mean it's stupid or a wasted of time. That's pretty immature.

The fact is that marriage has moved away from being strictly a religious institution to being a government one. Where do people get married these days? Court Houses, they go get there contracts there and that's when it becomes official, the actual wedding is ceremonial and symbolic, a tradition.

Under the 14th amendment the Federal Government can't give a contract to these 2 people and not give a contract to the next 2 people based on gender differences, the courts see it, the US population is QUICKLY starting to see it to, and that's why repeatedly courts have struck down gay marriage bans as being unconstituional, you guys are on the wrong side of history and 50 years from now people will look back on the anti-gay crowd the exact same way they look back on the racist interracial marriage crowd today.

Originally posted by Uniceft17

Originally posted by nightstalker78

Personally I'm sick of hearing about it.We get it.You're gay.

Shut up already.

I'm of the belief marriage is between a man and a woman. But,I do believe that "gays" should have the same rights.Just don't call it a marriage.

It's not the fact of we are saying "HEY WE ARE GAY!" It's the fact of having the same opportunities as our straight counterparts. Maybe you should read up on the 14th amendment and also look at previous Supreme Court rulings because I can definitely tell you separate but equal is not equal. If everyone was treated the same in the first place by the government and society you wouldn't even have this in the news.

No one asked you to come to this thread or waste any of your time on the issue whatsoever, it impacts you're life in no way and doesn't need you're attention if you feel that way. Just because it isn't your rights being denied doesn't mean it's stupid or a wasted of time. That's pretty immature.

edit on 4/6/2013 by Uniceft17 because: (no reason given)

That's exactly what you are saying. HEY WE ARE GAY!!! We're going to keep telling you till you accept us!!

Please. We get it already.You're gay. You want a cookie?

It DOES impact my life dude,because I have to hear about it.

I'm all for you having rights..but lets face it..you have more than any straight person.

Constantly in the news..constantly telling everyone you're gay and deserve rights.

.If you live in America..you have rights and you are accepted.

Being gay is now the new COOL thing. That's just pathetic.

My own beliefs. Not going to apologize if you're offended by it.

Originally posted by nightstalker78

That's exactly what you are saying. HEY WE ARE GAY!!! We're going to keep telling you till you accept us!!

Show me all the clips you got to prove this accusation, because it's a straight up lie, they only thing you've remotely seen on the news lately about anything gay is the case in the supreme court.

It DOES impact my life dude,because I have to hear about it.

Ummmm. Change the channel, that's what ordinary people do when they see something they don't like.

I'm all for you having rights..but lets face it..you have more than any straight person.

On please do prove this one, please do. Tell me what RIGHTS we have that you don't.

Constantly in the news..constantly telling everyone you're gay and deserve rights.

Really i've been in the news telling everyone I'm gay? That's NEWS to me, that's you're problem, everyone who is gay is a problem to you, it's pretty obvious with the way you structure you're replys, it seems like everytime I turn on the news I see someone bashing gay marriage and saying we are unstable and unsuitable to have a family, maybe that's why you hear about us all the time, because the far religious left is always trying to tell us and legislate on what we can and can't do. Maybe if they stopped then it wouldn't even been in the news in the first place.

If you live in America..you have rights and you are accepted.

Yep, we all have rights, except for one and that's to marry the person whom we love. A right that you have. Now acceptance that's a completely different story.

Being gay is now the new COOL thing. That's just pathetic.

No being gay is just much more open now, and gay people can finally be themselves somewhat, that's why they are coming out of the woodwork, not because it's the COOL thing, it's because it's not stuffed in a closet with all the other skeletons. And call it pathetic all you want, that just speaks volumes about your character.

My own beliefs. Not going to apologize if you're offended by it.

Oh i'm no offended, and you're exactly right, those are your BELIEFS because half the crap you just said has no truth to it, it's just you getting butt hurt over the gays wanting exactly what everyone else has, without everyone else trying to constantly take it away from them and being judged for who they are.

And you never hear gay people screaming they are gay, except to the people close to them, because those people deserve to know. Besides you're occasional celebrity of course. The only reason you hear anything gay in the news is because over the fight for marriage equality and having equal protection under the 14th amendment, if gays were treated like normal people all over the world and afforded that same right as everyone else then it would all be cookies and cream and we could focus on other issues and this would never be brought up. But the religious right have made it an issue so if you want to blame anyone for you getting an earful of gayness then blame the ones who make it an issue, the bigoted self religious heterosexual religious right.

reply to post by Uniceft17


You just keep rambling on.

You're proving my point.

Nobody cares.

You're a human being.

Stop trying so hard to associate yourself with being gay.

I and many others will accept you if you don't feel the need to shove it down our throats.But you dont get that.

You people never will

reply to post by solomons path


So since you said "it CAN be argued.." there is no Supreme Court precedent on gay marriage and the 14th.

That being the case, you shouldn't speak of it as settled law.

Originally posted by tridentblue
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

The issue is that the government is already deeply involved in marriage. I believe federal tax rates are effected by marriage for instance.

As pointed out earlier that's a valid point, but not an argument for gay marriage. That's an argument for a flat tax.

Oh the irony, it wouldn't even be an issue at all if the gov would simply
stay out of marriage all together, if that were the case then fine, but
the problem comes when people refuse to allow others to make their
own choices, apparently they have to be forced to allow others to be
free because their god told them to make sure and oppress the gays......

They want the rights to tell everyone else what they can do and then get
mad when they are told what to do, yeah its just wonderful..... why not
let people make their own choices so they don't have to run to mommy
every time something doesn't go their way??? oh yeah i forgot god said
so.... ugh what a waste of time this whole thing is.

reply to post by nightstalker78

Originally posted by nightstalker78
By they I mean gay people. They're the ones pushing the issue.

Gay people are NOT the only ones pushing the issue. Not by a long shot. Fully 50% of the people support marriage equality. Only ~5% of people are gay. The people pushing marriage equality are those who truly believe in equality and equal treatment under the law of all citizens.

I would be fine if the laws changed so that the word "marriage" would be applied only to those who were religious and the rest of us would have "civil unions", as long as the same rights and benefits were given, but you CANNOT stop people from using the word, no matter how you try.

If my husband and I had a civil union, we would still proclaim to be "married" and so would gay people. I would not say that I'm "civilly unioned"... Religion cannot copyright the word "marriage" so that no one else can use it. And frankly, it seems extremely immature and insecure to want to. You get a new word. Call the religious union "Holy Matrimony", since it's already called that. I NEVER use that phrase and it would be a LOT easier for religious people to add it to their vernacular than for all the legal documents involved to be changed. Atheists and gay people don't care if you use the word marriage. If you want your own word that applies to religious union, YOU change it to something obviously religious.

But right now, the legal contract is called "marriage" and if you really believe in equality, you would support that, rather than a "separate but equal" situation.

Originally posted by nightstalker78
Personally I'm sick of hearing about it.We get it.You're gay.

Then stop opening these threads... I'm not gay and I fight for equality every chance I get.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


There shouldn't have to be any legal precedence for the 14th being applied to gay marriage, it's a given if hate isn't clouding your comprehension skills. The 14th amendment couldn't be more clear, equal protection under the law.

Here's some financial reasons, but it goes beyond financial... there's Family Law, which is different for married couples vs same sex unions and not by any means equal. There's health coverage issues not just for the adults in same sex unions, but their children. There's emergency medical care issues, in which a same sex union couple may not be able to act as proxy if their partner is in a life threatening medical emergency.

The Practical
Marriage offers 1,138 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state.

In times of crisis, spouses have hospital visitation rights and can make medical decisions in event of illness or disability of their spouse.
Employers offer spouses sick leave, bereavement leave, access to health insurance and pension
The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists.
Married couples in elderly care facilities are generally not separated unless one spouse's health dictates hospitalization or special care.
The dissolution of a marriage requires a determination of property distribution, award of child custody and support and spousal support. Absent divorce, there is no uniform system for sorting out the ending of a relationship.

Source

Gay couples are denied access to legal protections which violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by solomons path

 

Thanks for explaining that a bit more but i have to confess to still being confused, to a degree. The confusion arising from the fact that marriage is a legally binding contract, is it not? Therefore it must be recognised at Federal level? (otherwise how can divorce courts pass legally binding judgements, shared property, etc)?

Please understand i am not being pedantic here, i really am rather confused by this!

Ultimately yes, you are correct. equality or nothing in this case.

Government did it themselves. if they can decide to recognize a institution (in this case, marriage), then they must also balance it with equality. Marriage is not a Judeo-Christian invention, it has been around for as long as society has...society is now equal..so should marriage be.
So, either they must remove any and all meddling into it and recognize none, or put to law equality and recognize all.

Your correct. its many people that just don't want to understand the issues here because they don't like the gay or whatever.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by solomons path

 

So since you said "it CAN be argued.." there is no Supreme Court precedent on gay marriage and the 14th.

That being the case, you shouldn't speak of it as settled law.

There does't have to be a specific case on "gay marriage". The case is about discrimination and more specifically marriage discimination.

The 14th provides equal protection to "all" . . . it's actually pretty cut and dry.

The only reason you don't see it that way is due to your religious/moral beliefs about the "gay" part.