Utah legalizes gay marriage, December 20, 2013

Christian Voice
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.

How about this for a reason: You are a disgusting old man, but you have lots of money - and I am a hot young babe... so let's get married so I can get all your money when you kick the bucket. Happens all the time.

reply to post by Christian Voice


But, well, it is happening. Your state constitution likely mirrors the state constitutions in Utah, and in Oklahoma, and many other states. Yet when a Federal judge rules that your states constitution is trumped by the Federal constitution, then that case will join the others.

Just as in the civil rights movement, it may come down to local officials refusing to go along with federal law. But I bet your states attorney general will, if it comes to it, order all local clerks to issue marriage licenses to gays or to lose their job. Change comes with some bumps in the road, but it is coming.

And as I've done with other U.S. states, I'll google yours and see what cases are running through the courts there. Here you go:

www.wsmv.com...

Although the judge in Tennessee is not required to follow that lead, the attorney for four same-sex couples who have sued here says she thinks those other opinions will be influential.

The Tennessee case involves couples who were legally married in other states before moving here.

Sounds like a repeat of the Ohio ruling is occurring there, the question of acceptance of the contract of marriage in one state being accepted as legal in yours. This is almost a given now, that they must be accepted, so at least in this case the outcome will eventually be in favor of the same-sex couples.

Laws, again, must protect all citizens equally. That is why all laws with gender-specific language (like TN) will eventually be struck down.

Unless addressed to specific status restricted to one sex or another (a woman's unique ability to become pregnant) such language is quite simply discrimination based on sex, forbidden under the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This legislated inequality will been seen for what is and will be repealed or struck down by the judiciary.

Christian Voice
reply to post by Bhadhidar

 

Homosexuality is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution including amendments which go right up to recent times-and are the law of the land as regards legality. It is like some subjects which are not mentioned in the Bible- one has to look for an analogous subject- for example Gambling versus the ninth article of the decalogue ( Thy shall not covet they neighbor"s Goods) which can be drawn broad enough to cover gambling. but the subject of Homosexuality is not directly mentioned in the Constitution, not are any amendments directly applicable except possibly the angle of separation of church and state

This opens up a gigantic can of worms. If the constitution did in fact guarantee marital rights for people (which it does not), then would it also protect mentally retarded people to wed, or cousins, or people and animals ?

Nice attempt at trying to duck the question.

But as you can see, your assertion that the Equality under the Law does not pertain to the issue of homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals has been soundly refuted, by several posters far more eloquent than I.

The fact that sexual orientation is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Constitution does not negate the fact that, as citizens of the United States, homosexuals, even those homosexuals who are not Black, enjoy Equal Protection under the law.

And that protection, which is preserved as being as basic as any other noted freedom, cannot be denied without good and justifiable cause; regardless of the opinion or will of the prevailing majority.


If you are in fact concerned about "opening a gigantic can of worms", consider that the very power to over-ride the principle of equality under the law is the same power that could, one day, over-ride the freedom to practice one's chosen religion.

reply to post by kaylaluv


Your response makes no sense to me at all. I'm guessing you are referring to the comment that family is detrimental to society. It refers to the FACT that homosexual couples cannot conceive children. Please do not come back with the ignorant response of artificial insemination or surrogates. I mean both parties involved and only both parties, they cannot conceive. Also don't come back with the tired argument of baron women. We can deal in semantics all day. Normally a man and a woman can conceive, normally a man and a man cannot nor can a woman and a woman.

reply to post by Aleister


Does not matter, the seven pidly states you hold so dear are not indicative of the remainder of the rest of the country. It's not going to pass everywhere, it just will not. Buckle of the Bible belt baby, it is not going to happen. Yes the primary liberal states have done their little thing but we will not falter.

Christian Voice
reply to post by Aleister

 

Does not matter, the seven pidly states you hold so dear are not indicative of the remainder of the rest of the country. It's not going to pass everywhere, it just will not. Buckle of the Bible belt baby, it is not going to happen. Yes the primary liberal states have done their little thing but we will not falter.

No, it will not need to pass the voters. Judges are ruling that it must be legal. Federal law is covering this now, ten years after voters had their whack at it. As Utah goes, so goes the nation.

Christian Voice
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.

You're right, it's just a piece of paper, which makes the opposition to allowing homosexuals to get this piece of paper look even dumber than before.

reply to post by Aleister


I have to run for now, but let me leave you with this,,,, By what you jost posted, the people voted this out, do you not think it is giving the federal government entirely too much power and leniency to allow them to redefine marriage against their constituents wishes ? What if in the near future, the majority of people actually vote against a national world currency and the government overturns the people and does exactly what the people do not want ? What is the purpose of a vote if the feds are going to what they want regardless ? That is not democracy

I am out everyone. I have neglected my responsibilities for the day long enough.
It was great debating with you guys. I truly hope I did not piss anyone off too bad.
Have a wonderful evening everyone!!!!!!

Christian Voice
reply to post by Aleister

 

I have to run for now, but let me leave you with this,,,, By what you jost posted, the people voted this out, do you not think it is giving the federal government entirely too much power and leniency to allow them to redefine marriage against their constituents wishes ? What if in the near future, the majority of people actually vote against a national world currency and the government overturns the people and does exactly what the people do not want ? What is the purpose of a vote if the feds are going to what they want regardless ? That is not democracy

It was good talking to you here, enjoy.

Back in the civil rights days if those laws were put up for a vote state-to-state you'd still have some people having to sit in the back of the bus. That's why some things are taken out of the hands of the voters. And judges and lawmakers have done lots of things I disagree with, but all I can do is wonder at their stupidity and unfairness (which is how all of us think sometimes).

Christian Voice
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Your response makes no sense to me at all. I'm guessing you are referring to the comment that family is detrimental to society. It refers to the FACT that homosexual couples cannot conceive children. Please do not come back with the ignorant response of artificial insemination or surrogates. I mean both parties involved and only both parties, they cannot conceive. Also don't come back with the tired argument of baron women. We can deal in semantics all day. Normally a man and a woman can conceive, normally a man and a man cannot nor can a woman and a woman.

Semantics? It's a FACT that baron women and sterile men cannot physically have children. There's no semantics about it. If marriage is ONLY for having children, then infertile heterosexuals should not be allowed to get a marriage license (according to the logic of the great state of Tennessee).

But we all know this really has nothing to do with the fact that gays can't reproduce with each other. This is really about prejudice against something that people don't understand, or can't relate to. Fortunately, things are changing in our society, and the younger generation is becoming very nonchalant about this. They just don't really see it as a big deal. You're left-handed? No big deal. You're a red-head? No big deal. You're gay? No big deal.

This is a really, really PERSONAL thing for some folks. It's too easy to see the attention given to this as some kind of repressed desire. That's too easy. Nah, I don't think that's it at all. I think it's real fear.

It doesn't have anything to do with "liberal" states, ... it's going on in real time. It's happening right in front of our eyes ... it's not seven "pidly" states ... it's SEVENTEEN.

Iowa, for godsake! and New Mexico ... one by one, state by state, it's happening. In a couple of election cycles, the trends say that Georgia might go Blue again, and TEXAS if the population keeps changing at the same rate it has been.

Before long gay people are going to be treated JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. State by State, county by county ... person after person after person will see that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH IT, that gays and lesbians and bisexuals are just ...

People, ... they're just people. And they deserve to be married in any state they wish, to anyone that they wish to marry, and who wishes to marry them, anytime they want to marry.

Just people, just like everyone else.

Oh, by the way, it's EIGHTEEN now, if we count Utah. Yep, EIGHTEEN and counting.

Having followed the debate with same sex marriage there is a lot of debate on the nature of marriage, the reasons and ultimately the benefits for such.

If you look at marriage in a historical point of view, it was not done the majority of the time for love, but for social-political reasons. In the past there were three primary reason why people got married, the first is for children. The second was for political reason and the third was for the protection of wealth. Those were the primary reason for why marriages occurred in the past.

Points in case: Many people in the past married for children, and the primary reasons for this is that women were not allowed to own property or have any wealth. It was considered to be wrong, and most women were considered to be more property than a person. They were used as pawns in games, bid and bartered for like cattle at market. Most to marry well, would have large dowries that went along with them when they wed, that would become property of her husband.

Marriages were also used to join families and countries together, it was seen more primarily in the more affluent parts of society back then, where the father would seek for a good match for his daughter, usually looking for someone of equal station or greater. It was considered to be the greatest of social faux pas for a woman to be married beneath her station and she would often lose all title or any sort of household, if she did. Many of the royal families were so connected that inbreeding was common, to the point where it was shown that cousins were wedding. Even when both people were unable to have children, they still would wed for political reasons. Many countries were joined all cause a noble or someone of royal blood would wed someone else from another country.

Later on in the years, many weddings were done to protect wealth, those who had it did not want to lose it to those who did not, so they would seek to wed those who also had wealth and increase what they had. It was rare that people would be marrying for love.

But if you look at all of those reasons, ultimately the women who were married had no say, no rights to refuse and often required permission to marry. If the head of the household did not agree with the match it did not happen. It was not until the industrial revolution, where women started to work and make their way into the working sector that the requirements for permission started to fade from view and more ideal reasons for marrying another person, such as love, came into being.

But there are many other benefits to being married. The first is the tax basis, where a couple would enjoy the benefits of having a different tax basis, where it is beneficial for such. Often the rates are a bit lower than say a single person of the same age making the same amount. The next benefit is that when a person is married, their spouse has automatic power of attorney on the other. That means for legal purposes, in the event that one ends up in the hospital, the one who is not, can speak for the one who cannot. And from a legal point of view, those who are married, have full legal benefits for such, including one that is never talked about until it comes up in rare cases, and that being in a court of law, a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other. Point in case would be Bernie Maddoff, his wife could not be compelled to testify against him, even though the crime that he committed was very heinous, and she benefited from such. Even the death benefits for married persons are also very nice, where a person who is married and their spouse dies, they do not have a large tax to pay on any assets that are left to them, as was the case of Windsor, that brought down the DOMA law.

If you want to end the debate on marriage it would require one of 2 options, the first is that you allow for 2 legal adults to marry, or remove all legal advantages that a marriage provides. As long as there is a discrepancy between same sex domestic partnerships and a marriage, it sets it up to show that a marriage is only a benefit for one group and sets the other to be less than equal, which is clearly against the letter and the spirit of the laws of the USA.

technical difficulties Having children isn't a requirement for marriage. There are many old and infertile couples who are married. There are also people who are married and don't have children, or they adopt.

Homosexuality is intrinsically, categorically, infertile, and not such simply beause an organ has failed.

Gays can have children, believe it or not. They may not have them through traditional means, but they are more than capable of having them. They, like heterosexuals can also adopt (in some places).

Homosexual acts can NEVER produce children.

As for denying the nature of the sexes, homosexuality exists in nature. Also, even if that wasn't the case, it wouldn't be a valid argument against allowed them to marry.

Whether homosexuality exists in Nature or not does not change the fact that homosexuality denies the nature of the sexes.

You do understand the two different meanings of the word 'nature' there, don't you?

sdcigarpig
If you want to end the debate on marriage it would require one of 2 options, the first is that you allow for 2 legal adults to marry, or remove all legal advantages that a marriage provides. As long as there is a discrepancy between same sex domestic partnerships and a marriage, it sets it up to show that a marriage is only a benefit for one group and sets the other to be less than equal, which is clearly against the letter and the spirit of the laws of the USA.

Any setting of values and morals declares one group to be less than equal to another. When you outlaw discrimination you immediately bias against one group (the discriminators) who are then treated as "less than equal" because they do not share your values.

Egalitarianism contradicts itself because it says that everyone should be equal and then proceeds to make those who disagree with it "less than equal". As such, it is a ludicrous basis for law.

The problem with same-sex "marriage" is non-heterosexuality itself, which runs contrary to the nature of life and the sexes,.

But this is a discussion forum, not a legislature, so if you are unable to recognise those points I suggest we agree to differ on the matter.

Morals developed in order to foster productive interactions in human groups. In every human group, there is a power structure. Certain individuals manage the behavior of the majority, either through direct or indirect action. Egalitarianism, while linguistically dependant on the concept of equality, can just as surely be considered as fairness. Fairness reflects a constancy in in the application of judgment, and in the case of social interaction in human groups, provides an established reward/punishment system known to all which continues the application of the group power structure even in the absence of those certain individuals that maintain control and order.

Thus, egalitarianism can be seen as the basic functionality of the human social group, rather than some purely abstract idea of equality which can be pointed to as fundamentally inconsistent in practice.

Homosexual behavior can provide many logical functions working in a group structure in tandem with heterosexual activities. If it is posited that the real long-term purpose of human groups is to create more healthy, strong, productive humans, and since the majority of successful mating takes place between the managers or alphas of the group (which may or may not also be the most genetically superior in a given circumstance) at the same time each member can be assumed to have basically the same sexual drives and desires, it naturally follows that part of the intrinsic, instinctual punishment/reward system that establishes the group would apply in this area as well. The existence of homosexuality alongside heterosexuality offers outlets for all members of the group for socio-sexual bonding at some level while preserving or acknowledging the power/control structure and the incumbent right of "who mates with who."

... at least, that is one alternate explanation that does not deal in biased absolutes based merely on "procreation is the only raison d'etre" ...

Gryphon66

Egalitarianism, while linguistically dependant on the concept of equality, can just as surely be considered as fairness. Fairness reflects a constancy in in the application of judgment, and in the case of social interaction in human groups, provides an established reward/punishment system known to all which continues the application of the group power structure even in the absence of those certain individuals that maintain control and order.

Fairness does not mean treating everyone the same. It allows for people to be treated differently according to their condition - is it fair to expect the paralympians to compete in the same events as the able-bodied?

So use the word I use, rather than trying to redefine it to suit your case.

There is nothing wrong with treating some people as less than others. Any set of values will intrinsically treat some as higher and some as lower, as that is what defining values does - it differentiates between "better" and "worse".

Inkyfingers

sdcigarpig
If you want to end the debate on marriage it would require one of 2 options, the first is that you allow for 2 legal adults to marry, or remove all legal advantages that a marriage provides. As long as there is a discrepancy between same sex domestic partnerships and a marriage, it sets it up to show that a marriage is only a benefit for one group and sets the other to be less than equal, which is clearly against the letter and the spirit of the laws of the USA.

Any setting of values and morals declares one group to be less than equal to another. When you outlaw discrimination you immediately bias against one group (the discriminators) who are then treated as "less than equal" because they do not share your values.

Egalitarianism contradicts itself because it says that everyone should be equal and then proceeds to make those who disagree with it "less than equal". As such, it is a ludicrous basis for law.

Using the American civil rights movement as an example, discrimination was not outlawed. Legal discrimination was. If I lived in America I could discriminate all I want up to the point of stepping on a legal line. I could say "Red-haired men aren't allowed in my house. I will not go to a doctor, or hire a repairman, or go to a check-out line served by a red-haired man. I will root against them in sports, I will not speak to them, I will turn my back and walk away if they try to speak to me (except for red-haired men policemen), I will not watch a tv show or movie starring a red-haired man." Those are rights you surely have in America.

You just can't not serve them if you work in a public restaurant, or not allow them to vote, or, in 17 states, refuse to give two of them a marriage license if you clerk in a marriage license bureau. Discrimination is fine, legal discrimination is illegal.

Fairness, as stated, has nothing to do with the person being "done to." It describes the process of "doing to."

Fairness is a descriptor of the system itself, not the results.

Focusing on the inequity of individuals is the cornerstone of every totalitarian political system.

The US system of government, founded upon the Constitution, is structured by a different set of values from totalitarianism. In fact, it was a reaction to a totalist system that focused on creating different classes of individuals by focusing on their differences, by establishing a system that focused on some being "more than" and others being "less than." Enforced inequality.

The US Founders had a different approach. Thus you have Jefferson saying in the Declaration (a document that inspired but did not establish the government): "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.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Thus, government (the power structure) in the US arises from the body politic itself. From the People. A system thus inspired set out (in the Constitution) to establish a condition of fairness of Equality in the way that the laws are applied that does not focus on the differences in the individuals they are applied to.

Thus the Preamble to the Constitution introduces the concept of a "perfect Union" that "establishes Justice."

Justice. Fairness. Equal protection of the law.