Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

Self-declarations of "victory" are meaningless and puerile. Facts are facts.

Laws aren't established overtly against one group of people in the US. That whole "equal protection under the law" thing from the Constitution. The fact that sodomy laws were usually used (as I previously stated very clearly) primarily against homosexuals was obvious, and that discrimination contributed to their repeal or removal in all US states.

Equal protection before the law.

General observation: when copying and pasting from another site, citation numbers unique to that site can be removed. It makes posts look a bit less juvenile here, in my opinion.

The question at hand is about marriage equality in Utah, not about the world's position on certain sexual acts nor the history of discrimination in the US, in my opinion. Tossing such references into a discussion is common for the weaker position in debates and more often than not, merely reflect attempts to muddy the water when numerous errors have been repeatedly stated as fact and have been called out by the other side.

Another general observation: References for posted material stated as facts are useful. Fabricated statistics do not lead any discussion toward truth. Also, it helps avoid accusations of plagiarism, in my opinion.

In the US, a fundamental concept is equality before the law. Since limiting marriage (as a legal not a religious construction) to a specific combination of genders is obviously unfair and discriminatory, and our laws are specifically designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" whenever possible, i.e. if the majority of a state's population wants to pass laws that unfairly discriminate, those laws are eventually repealed or removed by judicial action.

reply to post by Christian Voice


Thanks for answering. But you know what? You seem like a nice guy, and if your friend does meet the love of his life and plans a wedding, and invites you, I bet you'd go. You might fret about it, and hem and haw, but when the morning of his wedding came you'd probably get dressed and go to it.

But you probably wouldn't attend the bachelor party, or do the chicken dance. But I bet the food would be great.

reply to post by Gryphon66

In the US, a fundamental concept is equality before the law. Since limiting marriage (as a legal not a religious construction) to a specific combination of genders is obviously unfair and discriminatory, and our laws are specifically designed to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" whenever possible, i.e. if the majority of a state's population wants to pass laws that unfairly discriminate, those laws are eventually repealed or removed by judicial action.

That concept has nothing to do with sexuality. It was written to protect black people. It had nothing to do with homosexuals. You are attempting to pervert a law for racial equality. Again, if I were black I'd be pissed

reply to post by Aleister


If they had Italian or Sushi it would be great.
Or even Beer Brats

Christian Voice
reply to post by Aleister

 

Nope, the last three threads I have debated in on this topic were closed down due to people staying off topic. It will either be in private or not at all. And how in the heck am I going to "convert" someone as you put it. You claim he is born gay so how can I change how he was born ? Ridiculous.

Ah, I didn't know that. OK, keep on at least a portion of the topic. I was kidding about the converting bit, hoped that was obvious, and I meant to God not to straight. And I don't know if he is gay. My apology if I offended you, just playing.

reply to post by Aleister

It's all good, no worries. These threads tend to get rather heated and off topic.

There are some incredibly backward ideas being espoused as true in this thread.

Laws in the US are not designed for nor against individual people or groups.

Laws that are designed that way are, sooner than later (hopefully), ruled as unconstitutional at the appropriate level.

People have rights because they are people. Citizens have rights because they are citizens.

Not BECAUSE of their gender, race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation and not IN SPITE of those qualities, either.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered folk are human beings first and citizens of the US and respective States second. That's the basis of equality. They have a right to marry the person they choose, because that right is afforded to American citizens.

That's the reason that Utah, as every other state in the Union, will eventually recognize same-sex marriage.

reply to post by Gryphon66


I want to address one more thing with you. I see a fundamental difference between you and I and I believe this is where a lot of our issues are coming from. I have not leaned on my faith so we are putting that aside for a moment. This legal equality can of worms you insist on opening is the primary issue as I see it. See you are a man or woman, and I am a man. We are not equal in every sense. Yes we are equal as human lives on this planet but that's about it. I firmly believe when it comes to work, I believe that all who do the same job should be treated the same as long as they perform the same. I do believe that there are private clubs and institutions that are not open to everyone nor should they be. Groups like the BSA originated as a private Christian group for like minded individuals. This is true for several areas. I believe that so many homosexuals are so hate filled that they wish to have every single thing that straight people have for whatever reason. Spite, jealousy, a greater feeling of equality, whatever. Start your own groups, start your own form of union. What I'm saying is you are not entitled to anything just because you are gay.

Gryphon66
There are some incredibly backward ideas being espoused as true in this thread.

Laws in the US are not designed for ror against individual people.

Laws like that are designed that way are sooner than later (hopefully) ruled as unconstitutional at the appropriate level.

People have rights because they are people. Citzens have rights because they are citizens.

Not BECAUSE of their gender, race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation and not IN SPITE of those qualities, either.

Gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered folk are human beings first and citizens of the US and respective States second. That's the basis of equality. They have a right to marry the person they choose, because that right is afforded to American citizens.

That's the reason that Utah, as every other state in the Union, will eventually recognize same-sex marriage.

agreed.

marriage needs to stop being 'looked at' as some sort of sanctimonious [church-related] dealio, and just be considered for and what it is - a 'lawful' agreement between two individuals.

i give half. you give half. we go from there. -like .... pre-determined agreements, pre-nuptials, etc. so be it. have at it.

what else need there be ???

kids and a picket fence don't 'define' a 'family' in these days and times...

if two people are 'happy enough' with each other to enter into a 'lawfully-binding contract/agreement' then so be it, IMHO

???? wth ???

what place is it, yours or mine, to tell them otherwise. (???)

ffs .... we've got/seen women wanting to 'marry' dolphins and the like .... and we've ..... or at least 'some' ..... their panties in a buinch over folks just wanting to be 'happy' in their lives.


makes not as tinker's damn of sense to me, but it is what it is, i guess. ????

Equality before the law (equal protection) and equal rights for all citizens obviously does not mean that people are identical.

That is so utterly obvious it shouldn't need to be stated in an adult conversation, discussion or debate.

Ensuring that all people are treated fairly BEFORE THE LAW does not confer special rights. That's another old chestnut.

Gays don't have rights because they are gay, they have rights because they are American citizens.

Period. That's all. The end.

Christian Voice
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

What I'm saying is you are not entitled to anything just because you are gay.

Except equal protection under the law, at least in the U.S. That's why gay marriages will be in every state in the union in the blink of an eye, or at least in a year or so (maybe less).

(BTW, I removed my stupid earlier post, which wasn't clear and should have been disowned immediately)

Oh, and in case you missed it, yes, mentally retarded people in the U.S. can get married. Equal protection again.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


What two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business. However, marriage needs to be left alone.

Christian Voice
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

What two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business. However, marriage needs to be left alone.

You're talking as if gay marriage isn't being recognized and allowed in the U.S. and elsewhere. It no longer is an "if" but a "when" (and "where"). It is happening, and within a few years you may not even notice it anymore, it may be so accepted and common.

Christian Voice
reply to post by 12m8keall2c

 

What two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business. However, marriage needs to be left alone.

But your marriage IS left alone. Two people getting married for tax benefits down the street from you has nothing to do with you or your marriage. Two gay people getting married down the street from you has nothing to do with you or your marriage.

reply to post by Christian Voice


I agree, and i have never said you were "hateful" or attacked you. as i mentioned to you i would never attack anyone who has an equal right to believe what they want.

now, you know i am Gay, but if you did not know that and i asked if you thought i should have the right to get married you would say yes. even if you asked if i was straight and i lied and said yes, you would say i had as much right as any other heterosexual person. but as soon as the word "Gay" comes into play i don't have that right to marry ( we are only talking about the right to marry not any other "rights")

what changes? in your religion i am against God, in your view i selected to practice homosexuality. but how does that alter the fact that i am Human?

and this is the debate that is happening with Same Sex marriage, people are invoking religion which has to baring on the "Laws" or "Rights" of Humans, religion is a belief system but it cannot "Rule" the people.

If people really wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage, they'd work to do something about divorce.

About half the marriages (that'd be het-ero-sexual ones) in this country end in divorce. (American Psychological Association)

That has an amazingly detrimental effect on families, on children, and on society in general. Yet, when debates arise about the "sanctity of marriage," divorce is almost never mentioned, yet it is the greatest danger to the concept.

Why? One wonders if the whole focus on same-sex marriage is merely a smokescreen to take the heat off divorce.

reply to post by Aleister

Each state has their own laws on this topic and all depend on the type and severity of the mental disorder.

In Tennessee where I live gay marriage is still illegal and ones from other states are not recognized here either. The wording in our laws is rather interesting as well:

In Tennessee, gay marriage is not currently legal. According to state laws in Tennessee, marriage consists of a union of one man and one woman. In fact, Article XI states that "any law, policy or judicial interpretation," of marriage as anything other than a legal contract to join one man and one woman, is contrary to public policy and should void and therefore, not legally recognized. In addition, the state does not recognize legal same sex marriages performed in another state. In Tennessee, marriage is strictly defined by state laws and the state's constitution.
In Tennessee, gay marriage is also forbidden by Title 36, which says that family is essential to society and that any other definition of marriage puts society at risk. In fact, Tennessee law states that marriage is unique in its rights and responsibilities and any alteration of the definition is detrimental to society. In essence, families are run by one man and one woman and any variation of that, will pose a danger to the natural order of society. The union of one man and one woman, is the only acceptable definition of marriage in Tennessee.

I do not believe your dream of a universal overturning will happen. Several states still stand firm enough that any interference by the Feds will be met with massive opposition. There is talk amongst these states that even goes as far as succession. I think that's a bit extreme but it is discussed openly and bluntly. We had a town hall meeting in September that addressed the very topic of succession. If the people in a state legitimately vote in gay marriage then whatever, but the states where the majority of the people struck it down, the feds are wrong for even hearing the case.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Really ? Is tax breaks and benefits reasons to get married ? Several have already said, if you love your partner then be with your partner, why do you need a piece of paper ? Now you have explained that question for me.
Dude, I love you bro but lets get married so we can get tax breaks.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Remind me to tell you my opinion on why the divorce rate is so high these days sometime. And it has nothing to do with homosexuals. However the concept relates to why I think the homosexual population is growing today the way it is.

reply to post by Christian Voice


So in Tennessee, a man and a woman cannot get married if they have no intention of having a family??? Wow. Do ya'll have to sign some kind of affidavit confirming that you will indeed have children before you can get a marriage license? What happens if you get the marriage license, but don't have children within a few years? Can they revoke your marriage license? I mean, since marriage is only allowed if you are going to have children...