Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[IBCoupe]

Yes, the SCOTUS will eventually rule that way. Show me where a gay person does not have the same right to marry as I do today.....

That's the same disingenuous argument that Stebo made before, and I called him on it, too. Show me that you, a man, have the same marriage rights as a woman. If you want to play with legal trickery, I must warn you, there's a chance that I'm better at it than you are. If you want to argue that the same literal rights exist for everyone, I'm going to give another semantic argument to suggest that they don't.

I hope, instead, you choose substance.

So, new protection laws for them to be put in place? Hurting peoples feelings should result in court and jail time you know.....in today's society.

No, new protections should be in place because it's illegal for the government to discriminate. I'm simply responding to the silly notion you have that somehow monogamy and social statistics are somehow relevant to the issue.

Forget it.

Done, but only if you promise to stop making such obviously bad arguments.

[IBCoupe]

I disagree that gays in general would support polygamy. Why you are bringing in the Mormons in this part of the reply is unknown as they are meaningless.

Unless I read it wrong, what you were responding to as "the same" was the hypothetical bisexual person wanting to marry both a man and a woman at once and another person wanting to marry two people of the opposite sex.

I imagine Mormons would see straight polygamy as something different from bisexual or gay polygamy, being that the Mormon Church was hard behind Prop 8, and their particular history with polygamy.

No precedent = not going to happen? So, gay marriage is considered legal. Two gays go to the SE Baptist Church and request the pastor to marry them. Pastor does not believe in gay marriage and refuses. What happens when the two gays bring up discrimination charges against the church? Your comments about tax status are dead on. Either be forced to do what you don't believe in or lose your exemptions under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, AND be sued by the ACLU, the people wanting to get married and every gay rights organization out there. You think it goes nowhere, I see it resulting in a large scale backlash against the "establishment", or churches in this case. There are lots of people looking forward to it.

No precedent = not going to happen, unless there's a drastic change in our laws. Your hypothetical never happened when Churches refused to marry blacks and whites after Loving v. Virginia. Churches receive an exception to civil rights laws. It didn't happen with Churches and employment discrimination after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There's absolutely no reason to think that it would happen, and the only reason you'd suggest that it could is because you've run out of other arguments.

Churches are private institutions, and while I think there are questions about their tax status regardless of their discriminatory policies, their discriminatory policies do not make that private institution status any different. It's illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of gender. Yet the Catholic Church does not permit women to be priests. If your theory is correct, it should have been that this would have changed, that Catholic Churches across the country would lose their tax status. Why hasn't this happened? It's because you don't know what you're talking about.

[wingFeather]

It would do you right to show some respect, since one day he may be cutting you open when you require a life saving surgery.

Respect is earned. Calling me names is not a way to earn it.

[stebo0728]

Hey guys, one question to ask, and im not too big on the gay marriage thing myself, but .... is anyone else rights being violated in the process?

[audtatious]

Unless I read it wrong, what you were responding to as "the same" was the hypothetical bisexual person wanting to marry both a man and a woman at once and another person wanting to marry two people of the opposite sex.

No, I used bisexual as a point but not an exclusion. Heartfelt tears to the poor woman who is bisexual and is in love with both a man and a woman....why should she not be able to marry both? Since gay is a sexual preference, so is bisexual. If one can marry the other should be able to as well. Thus, polygamy should be legal for her which means it's open for everyone. I'm just ready to watch Divorce Court for the comic relief.

I imagine Mormons would see straight polygamy as something different from bisexual or gay polygamy, being that the Mormon Church was hard behind Prop 8, and their particular history with polygamy.

I don't care about the Mormons nor their issues with gay marriage. I'm not against gays in the least and really don't care what they do with each other. Personally I think most of this is stupid and all about the meaning and use of a single word.

No precedent = not going to happen, unless there's a drastic change in our laws. Your hypothetical never happened when Churches refused to marry blacks and whites after Loving v. Virginia. Churches receive an exception to civil rights laws. It didn't happen with Churches and employment discrimination after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There's absolutely no reason to think that it would happen, and the only reason you'd suggest that it could is because you've run out of other arguments.

I understand your point. I personally think it will happen with the way society in general is turning anti-religion. Precedent may not be made for 10+ years but it will happen at some point. Hell, look at civil rights...blacks still want whitey to pay even when those of my generation and forward had nothing to do with racism. I see pissed off gay activists doing the same thing.

Churches are private institutions, and while I think there are questions about their tax status regardless of their discriminatory policies, their discriminatory policies do not make that private institution status any different. It's illegal to discriminate in employment on the basis of gender. Yet the Catholic Church does not permit women to be priests. If your theory is correct, it should have been that this would have changed, that Catholic Churches across the country would lose their tax status. Why hasn't this happened? It's because you don't know what you're talking about.

probably not, I do live in a red state.

[Jesda]

As a California voter, I'm one of those who voted to ban recognition of gay marriages. As I explained to our gay niece and nephew (one on my side of the family, one on my wife's) I'm against it for a different reason than that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am against the state recognizing any marriage. It should be left to the churches to perform marriages separately from a state civil union between two consenting adults. Let people get a civil union before a justice of the peace, judge, etc. and then go get married in a church if they so desire. Currently a minister performing the ceremony can sign off on a state issued marriage certificate. I believe that is wrong.

I would like to see state recognition of marriage stopped entirely and would vote that way if given the opportunity. Once one's commitment to another consenting adult is separated into civil unions (state) and marriage (church) it will probably go away as such a divisive issue.

Its nice to see I'm not alone in my way of thinking. Props, bro.

[stebo0728]

As a California voter, I'm one of those who voted to ban recognition of gay marriages. As I explained to our gay niece and nephew (one on my side of the family, one on my wife's) I'm against it for a different reason than that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I am against the state recognizing any marriage. It should be left to the churches to perform marriages separately from a state civil union between two consenting adults. Let people get a civil union before a justice of the peace, judge, etc. and then go get married in a church if they so desire. Currently a minister performing the ceremony can sign off on a state issued marriage certificate. I believe that is wrong.

I would like to see state recognition of marriage stopped entirely and would vote that way if given the opportunity. Once one's commitment to another consenting adult is separated into civil unions (state) and marriage (church) it will probably go away as such a divisive issue.

Its nice to see I'm not alone in my way of thinking. Props, bro.

This is most likely going to be the end result, its the only tenable solution.

[AZhitman]

^ It really is.

Big props to you for explaining it clearly - I see, to quote a smart fellow, no legitimate opposition to this.

[HashiriyaS14]

The majority of those who voted against "gay marriage" would have been OK with a "civil union", but those pushing for "equality" refused to have it.

As I have addressed in prior threads, the reason for this is legal precedent.

If you call them two different things, you could theoretically leave the door open later to somehow regulate each differently. They want to use the same term as everyone else so that, if anyone ever wanted to somehow place limits on them, you'd also have to place limits on "normal" married people. If you used "civil unions", you could somehow later place a limit on said "civil unions" that would not, in turn, apply to "marriages".

Granted, SOME people are just in it for the nomenclature, but primarily, the reason is to hedge against future legislative incursions on their right to be like everyone else.


I'm of the opinion that everyone should have "civil unions". A "Marriage" is an innately religious term, IMO, and the state shouldn't have anything to do with it. Marriages involve all sorts of things that a simple agreement to share property and liability does not. The state must be involved in the latter, but should nose out of the former, IMO.

EDIT: Apparently Srellim and (predictably) Jesda share my opinion, although I'd still have voted for it to get them the rights, and then later have supported any initiative to change the term for everyone all at once.

[stebo0728]

To further the reform, I heard a good notion the other day regarding prenuptial agreements. What if they were required to form a "civil union" as you speak of? So many people are afraid to breach the subject for fear of hurting their future spouse's feelings, or maybe they simply dont consider it because they are disillusioned enough to believe that separation could never happen to them. If it were required to form a legal contract of marriage, then it would qualm the timidity toward them, and people would inherently be more protected in their romantic ventures.

[audtatious]

I'm of the opinion that everyone should have "civil unions". A "Marriage" is an innately religious term, IMO, and the state shouldn't have anything to do with it. Marriages involve all sorts of things that a simple agreement to share property and liability does not. The state must be involved in the latter, but should nose out of the former, IMO.

I agree with the above as well. It's strange to me how people who don't believe in God or make jokes about religion are still getting married in churches. I know numerous people who scoff at the thought of God but were married in a church via a preacher with a bible. Just too weird....

[Bubba1]

[

I agree with the above as well. It's strange to me how people who don't believe in God or make jokes about religion are still getting married in churches. I know numerous people who scoff at the thought of God but were married in a church via a preacher with a bible. Just too weird....

I can offer a theory on that scenario having several friends do exactly that. Frequently it is done to appease one or both families. And if parents are footing the bill for the big show, which is common, concessions are frequently made.

[C-Kwik]

No, I used bisexual as a point but not an exclusion. Heartfelt tears to the poor woman who is bisexual and is in love with both a man and a woman....why should she not be able to marry both? Since gay is a sexual preference, so is bisexual. If one can marry the other should be able to as well. Thus, polygamy should be legal for her which means it's open for everyone. I'm just ready to watch Divorce Court for the comic relief.

As I brought up earlier, A man who love 2 women or a woman who loves 2 men are in the same dilemma. Based on your response to it, it seems you missed my point. Ultimately, each has to make a choice of which of the 2 they love that they want to marry. Although, they can certainly choose not to marry at all.

[vikesfankevin1986]

I just watched this comedian and he made a good point that I saw some of you debating over earlier. He was talking about gay marriage and how people say if we let that happen, next people will want to marry animals. He's like when they were giving women the right to vote was there some sexist guy that was like no we can't let women vote because that will lead to couches, and horses and other things I own vote...

I thought that was a good point...

[stebo0728]

audtatious wrote:Yes, the SCOTUS will eventually rule that way. Show me where a gay person does not have the same right to marry as I do today.....


That's the same disingenuous argument that Stebo made before, and I called him on it, too. Show me that you, a man, have the same marriage rights as a woman. If you want to play with legal trickery, I must warn you, there's a chance that I'm better at it than you are. If you want to argue that the same literal rights exist for everyone, I'm going to give another semantic argument to suggest that they don't.

I hope, instead, you choose substance.

While you made a good rebuttal I dont quite think you pwn'd me there. My point was that under current law, 2 men are not allowed to marry, period, regardless of sexual orientation. 2 women are not allowed to marry, period, regardless of sexual orientation. The complaint is not that women can marry men, why cant I? The complaint is not that homosexual men dont have the same rights as heterosexual women, the complaint is that homosexual men do not have the same rights as heterosexual men, or that homosexual women dont have the same rights as heterosexual women. This is the complaint that I am addressing, and it is inaccurate.

[AZhitman]

I find it interesting that someone who dismisses the "will of the people" in one arena would embrace it (via abolition of the EC) in another arena.

<cue Constitutionality defense>

[IBCoupe]

No, I used bisexual as a point but not an exclusion. Heartfelt tears to the poor woman who is bisexual and is in love with both a man and a woman....why should she not be able to marry both?

Because she can still only marry one person at a time. I'm not necessarily opposed to polygamous marriage (on the basis of its own merits, mind you), but it's a bit of a stretch to say that somehow being able to be married to one person of the same gender will allow you to marry two people.

I understand your point. I personally think it will happen with the way society in general is turning anti-religion. Precedent may not be made for 10+ years but it will happen at some point. Hell, look at civil rights...blacks still want whitey to pay even when those of my generation and forward had nothing to do with racism. I see pissed off gay activists doing the same thing.

When the First Amendment is repealed, feel free to make that argument. Until then, it won't happen. I'm not sure that that "blacks" still want whitey to pay. I'm sure you can find a website that advocates reparations, but I don't see it as a serious issue, and I'm pretty sure most people, including most African Americans, see it that way as well.

And reparations is something that's a bit different. What could the gay community ask for? To go back in time and let gay people in the past get married? Those who demand reparations are demanding them as a result of economic injury to their ancestors that has, arguably, affected them. That's apples and oranges.

[IBCoupe]

While you made a good rebuttal I dont quite think you pwn'd me there. My point was that under current law, 2 men are not allowed to marry, period, regardless of sexual orientation. 2 women are not allowed to marry, period, regardless of sexual orientation. The complaint is not that women can marry men, why cant I? The complaint is not that homosexual men dont have the same rights as heterosexual women, the complaint is that homosexual men do not have the same rights as heterosexual men, or that homosexual women dont have the same rights as heterosexual women. This is the complaint that I am addressing, and it is inaccurate.

Right, but let me paraphrase your argument (and feel free to correct me if you think I've mischaracterized it):
- Gay marriage doesn't need to be legal because there's no discrimination, because homosexuals aren't treated any differently than heterosexuals.

And this would be a really sleazy argument that is literally acceptable, if it weren't for this obvious (to me, at least) counter:
- Gay marriage does need to be legal because there is discrimination, because women aren't allowed to do what men can do, and vice versa.

While it may look like a simple rebuttal and a game, I've turned your premise that there is no discrimination on its head. It's not that homosexual men don't have the same rights as heterosexual women, it's that all men do not have the same rights as all women. If your argument is that gays can still get married (to women), so there's no discrimination, my response is that men can get married to women but women can't, so there is discrimination.

You're saying that there is no discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, and I'm saying that, while that may be technically true from a certain point of view, that same point of view says that there is discrimination on the basis of gender.

[IBCoupe]

I find it interesting that someone who dismisses the "will of the people" in one arena would embrace it (via abolition of the EC) in another arena.

<cue Constitutionality defense>

No Constitutionality defense, here, Greg. I don't usually like pointing to legal technicalities when it comes to arguments about the way things should be. Inherent in that argument is a proposition from one side or the other that the law needs to be changed, and so appeals to what the law is now are pretty ineffective. Sometimes I'll point to the existing law as a gateway to the principle it embodies, but I try not to stop at the letter of the law.

With that in mind, here's how I address your comment: I'm very distrustful of the will of the people when it comes to affecting an individual's liberty. I'm not similarly distrustful of the will of the people when it comes to directing the government. That's how an apparent inconsistency looks suddenly consistent.

[stebo0728]

While you made a good rebuttal I dont quite think you pwn'd me there. My point was that under current law, 2 men are not allowed to marry, period, regardless of sexual orientation. 2 women are not allowed to marry, period, regardless of sexual orientation. The complaint is not that women can marry men, why cant I? The complaint is not that homosexual men dont have the same rights as heterosexual women, the complaint is that homosexual men do not have the same rights as heterosexual men, or that homosexual women dont have the same rights as heterosexual women. This is the complaint that I am addressing, and it is inaccurate.

Right, but let me paraphrase your argument (and feel free to correct me if you think I've mischaracterized it):
- Gay marriage doesn't need to be legal because there's no discrimination, because homosexuals aren't treated any differently than heterosexuals.

And this would be a really sleazy argument that is literally acceptable, if it weren't for this obvious (to me, at least) counter:
- Gay marriage does need to be legal because there is discrimination, because women aren't allowed to do what men can do, and vice versa.

While it may look like a simple rebuttal and a game, I've turned your premise that there is no discrimination on its head. It's not that homosexual men don't have the same rights as heterosexual women, it's that all men do not have the same rights as all women. If your argument is that gays can still get married (to women), so there's no discrimination, my response is that men can get married to women but women can't, so there is discrimination.

You're saying that there is no discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, and I'm saying that, while that may be technically true from a certain point of view, that same point of view says that there is discrimination on the basis of gender.

My point is that you are the FIRST person I have ever heard make that argument, and it sounds a wee bit like it was nestled where that goofy terrorlst tried to nestle his bomb. If that is the argument that folks want to stand on, let them do it, but they arent, they are clinging to the argument I addressed. I was merely indicating that it is an incorrect b*tch fest to make.

[AZhitman]

With that in mind, here's how I address your comment: I'm very distrustful of the will of the people when it comes to affecting an individual's liberty. I'm not similarly distrustful of the will of the people when it comes to directing the government. That's how an apparent inconsistency looks suddenly consistent.

You're either half eel, half car salesman, or you're a ninja. Nicely done... I think...

[IBCoupe]

That's not the only argument against the "There's no discrimination" argument. One could say that there's an implied right to marry the person you want to marry necessarily resides within the right to marry established by the Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia.

After all, couldn't the same thing have been said of interracial marriage? "There's no discrimination; every person is allowed to marry another person of the same race. That's applied equally across all races."

The appeal of the argument I used is that it employs the same silly literal rhetoric and turns it on its head. Is it a dumb argument? Yes. Is it half-assed? Absolutely. But that's also what it's responding to.

[IBCoupe]

You're either half eel, half car salesman, or you're a ninja. Nicely done... I think...

"Law student" or "Lawyer" incorporates all of them, I believe.

[ADDirishboy]

Your arguments are invalid. You are biased towards humans & the government's idea of when a person is ready to marry. I've known dogs who were more rational than gays, and I've known "kids" who are more mature than senior citizens.

Lets give animals citizenship and allow animals and children to vote, too. Great idea. Really.

Now, I do know dogs who are smarter than some gays. Those same dogs are smarter than a lot of straights as well. And as long as we are on the people marrying dogs subject, what about dogs marrying other dogs? Cause you know, what if they love each other? Shouldn't they be allowed to marry too?

And yes, there are children who are smarter than many adults. That doesn't mean they have the mental capacity to choose who they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

Animals and children have nothing to do with this topic. It's a fantastically pathetic attempt by anti-gay people to show that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Come up with a valid argument and I'll listen. But most likely you will just try to defend how dogs and children are on the same level as gays.

[IBCoupe]

Can we let dogs and children sign other contracts, too? Let's let them elect to go to war. Yeah, sounds like a good idea.

And a great argument: Gay marriage will lead to child soldiers! Don't let this happen to America!

[AZhitman]

I think we've established that the opposition to gay marriage (at least in the realm of policy-making) is useless.

Hell, I've opposed DADT for quite some time as well.

The real question is, what kind of progress is the current Administration making towards wrapping up these issues, given their prominence in the campaign pledges of 2008.

[ADDirishboy]

Not very much. Gay marriage was just another one of those promises that Obama threw out and never followed up on. Way to go PrezBo.

[IBCoupe]

I'm not sure the President needs to do anything. I think I'm actually opposed to the President (or Congress, short of proposing some massive Constitutional Amendment) taking any action until this Prop 8 case gets through the Supreme Court (maybe next year, maybe just prior to the 2012 elections) and the Massachusetts case against DOMA goes further.

I'd like to see what the Courts are going to say about these sorts of things, especially DOMA. The Court's ruling on that case could have implications for any national policy, not just one that is opposed to gay marriage.

[Bubba1]

Can we let dogs and children sign other contracts, too? Let's let them elect to go to war. Yeah, sounds like a good idea.

Well, to be fair about animals, we did elect some jackasses to office...

[stebo0728]

That's not the only argument against the "There's no discrimination" argument. One could say that there's an implied right to marry the person you want to marry necessarily resides within the right to marry established by the Court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia.

After all, couldn't the same thing have been said of interracial marriage? "There's no discrimination; every person is allowed to marry another person of the same race. That's applied equally across all races."

The appeal of the argument I used is that it employs the same silly literal rhetoric and turns it on its head. Is it a dumb argument? Yes. Is it half-assed? Absolutely. But that's also what it's responding to.

You're intellectually exhausting.