Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

TurtleDude said:

a state can clearly refuse to recognize gay marriage just as NYC or Chicago does not recognize my Ohio issued CCW permit

Tauro is a very well respected judge-I suspect his opinion will be given much respect

Click to expand...

Actually, a proper interpretation of the full faith and credit clause makes it clear that CCW licenses are as transferrable as driver's licences.

But, since the Second Amendment doesn't allow for licensing gun ownership, is it any surprise that the Full Faith and Credit clause is also ignored as gun rights are suppressed by tyrannical states across the nation?

But, since marriages ARE covered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, that means same-sex marriages are also covered. Which is why the federal courts are trying to avoid hearing such cases.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records,
and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general
Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be
proved, and the Effect thereof.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say a damn thing about one state not liking the public Act of the other state, it must be given "credit".

period.

It's what the Constitution says, unequivocably.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

You bet... as stated earlier, by your's truly, the Federal government has placed any number of restrictions upon the states through the establishment of standards... the list is endless. But federal standards on education, food and worker safety; the limitations upon the states power to influence the means of the individual to exercise their rights, sucession, etc...


Notions that the US Legislature cannot establish Federal standards for marriage is ludicrous... Given that Marriage represents a contract and that the US Constitution requires that ALL STATES recognize contracts made in every state... it serves reason that the Federal government establish standards which comport with the sound principle and reject the addled minded sophistry of morally invalid special interests.

digsbe said:

I think what people are saying in regards to the polygamy thing is that the arguments that justify homosexual marriage would also justify polygamy. I agree that it bringing polygamy into things is a red herring and serves no purpose in regards to the gay marriage debate.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is their argument, and no, it is not accurate. Polygamy and homosexuality are very different things. One is what a person is, one is what a person does to start with.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

digsbe said:

The federal law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define the institution
It ruled in favor of a state's right to define marriage, which means state's like mine who ban it have every right to do so.

Click to expand...

Well, no.

The Federal government doesn't have the authority to define marriages in the states. That means the clods in Congress can't write a law saying "certain arrangements of biological plumbing are accepted for marriage, other combinations are not".

The states don't have the authority to violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That means the clods in state legislatures can't write laws discriminating against some consenting adults while allowing identical legal arrangements between other consenting adults.

Churches can do the irrational and the hate-filled and conduct marriage ceremonies only for those people they like. They're a business and it's supposed to be a free country.

The state isn't a business and it's supposed to be a free country, so the state has no rational basis for prohibiting certain acts that it allows others.

Redress said:

Yes, that is their argument, and no, it is not accurate. Polygamy and homosexuality are very different things. One is what a person is, one is what a person does to start with.

Click to expand...

I agree, I wasn't saying that their argument is my argument though. I believe that polygamy and homosexuality are two different things and that the same logical arguments do not apply to both for obcious reasons.

digsbe said:

I agree, I wasn't saying that their argument is my argument though. I believe that polygamy and homosexuality are two different things and that the same logical arguments do not apply to both for obcious reasons.

Click to expand...

Holy ****, we find common ground on a topic we never agree on!

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Actually, a proper interpretation of the full faith and credit clause makes it clear that CCW licenses are as transferrable as driver's licences.

But, since the Second Amendment doesn't allow for licensing gun ownership, is it any surprise that the Full Faith and Credit clause is also ignored as gun rights are suppressed by tyrannical states across the nation?

But, since marriages ARE covered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, that means same-sex marriages are also covered. Which is why the federal courts are trying to avoid hearing such cases.



It doesn't say a damn thing about one state not liking the public Act of the other state, it must be given "credit".

period.

It's what the Constitution says, unequivocably.

Click to expand...

The relevant Constitutional issue is: Article I, section 10, clause 1. Stating that States must recognize contracts produced in other states. Where a state proclaims that the marriage contract exist sub-standard to that of other states, it burdens the other states to recognize the lower standard.

But hey... this is just another example of the ideological left subverting sound cultural mores... it's part and parcel of the insurgency, not at all distinct from the recent arrest of Russian insurgents. My guess is that a fair portion of the Left represented on the internet debate forums are formal insurgents, with the balance being the informal variety which have been influenced by the former and their predecessors; many of which are presently holdin high office or settled into key bureaucratic offices.

There's nothing particularly new here... Senator Joe McCarthy amongst many others warned us of this over half a century ago; with history having proven them to be absolutely correct.

Jerry said:

Except that driving is not a right whereas the right to keep and bear, like the right to marry, are rights.

Click to expand...

There's a "right" to marry?

What if the girl says "no".

There's no "right" to marry. A marriage is typically a formal legal and/or religious recognition of the formation of a pair bond between consenting adults. In some primitive societies, such as Islam, a marriage can be a legal bond between a prophet of God and a nine year old girl. Thus, in some societies, the "right" to marriage is the "right" to rape.

There is no "right" to marriage. Can't be, not when the term doesn't have a uniform definition and not when the concept isn't applied consistently anywhere.

But....in the United States, a legal act in one state is, by the Constitution, valid in all other states and territories.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Goshin said:

I'm going to say something, and I'm going to hope that the two of you both understand the level of honesty that I operate at enough to understand that I'm serious.

I think that if SSM is legalized, failing to also legalize polygamy or group marriage would be discriminatory and hypocritical. I think at some point it will be recognized as discriminatory, whether that takes 2 years or 20.

Is there evidence to demonstrate that adult-only polygamous marriage is a societal negative? Not that I know of. Would it be somewhat more complex legally? Yes, but that could be handled... there are legal complications in SSM that aren't as typically encountered in traditional marriage, namely custody issues for children that are genetically the product of one partner and an outsider by consent of the couple. If we can handle that some smart group of lawyers can come up with a legal structure to handle polygamy/group marriage.

So many of the same arguments apply!

How do you know polygamy isn't an orientation? Based on the number of people who have sex with more than one person at a time, one might argue that polyamory is an inborn trait in some substantial number of people.

If it is wrong to deny two gay people who love each other the right to marry, why is it not wrong to deny four people who love each other the right to marry? You're depriving them of the right to file joint tax returns and be each other's legal next-of-kin.

Just as some people associate homosexuality with pedophilia based on isolated incidents, you're associating polygamy with "marrying" underage girls based on a small sample of religious-extremists polygamists.

To be frank, I consider a pro-SSM / Anti-Polygamy position to be hypocritical.

Click to expand...

I believe you are serious. You are also wrong. I have posted information in the past that demonstrates both how GM and polygamy are, in essence, different, and how polygamy does NOT yield any of the benefits that GM does. Now, though I do not adhere to the discriminatory aspect of the GM debate, in order for discrimination to be considered, both issues need to be similar. They are not. A sexual orientation is defined as "the direction of one's sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes." Desiring more than one of any of these does not fit this definition. You may WANT to be with more than one, but that has nothing to do with which sex you are oriented towards. So, since these are completely different entities, allowing GM cannot be discriminatory towards those who want polygamy.

As I have repeatedly said, the polygamy issue in the GM debate is a red herring. It is a distraction that anti-GMers bring in as a "the sky is falling" argument.

I have a post that explains, more fully, the fallacy of the polygamy argument. I've posted it before. When I get home, I'll do it again.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Goshin said:

Has there been any research done into whether some human beings are inherently inclined (ie inborn orientation) to multiple partners? What did Kinsey have to say on that subject?

Maybe polyamory isn't considered an orientation because it doesn't have the political power that the SSM movement does...

Click to expand...

Or maybe because sexual orientation refers to being oriented towards one, the other, or both sexes. Wanting more than one does not fit the criteria. Therefore, this is a completely seperate issue, as sexual orientation does not apply. As I said, nothing but a red herring... a "the sky is falling" issue.

texmaster said:

You can make fun of him all you like but he's right. You cannot exclude pologamy if you allow gay marriage. Not unless you want to become what you claim to be fighting.

There is no argument you could make that could not be called "discriminatory" or "bigoted" the new favorite arguments the left uses against anyone opposed to gay marriage.

I think my favorite argument some on the far left are using is the they claim that polygamy isn't beneficial as if that is a new defining standard for allowing marriage for an alternative lifestyle.

Considering there are 3 times the number of countries that still practice polygamy I'd say its far easier to prove it is more beneficial to a society than allowing 2 homosexuals to marry. That argument made is about the funniest if not dumbest one I've ever seen to try and discriminate against polygamists while in the same breath claim to be fighting discrimination against 2 couple homosexuals.

And that goes for all other alternative lifestyles as well.

Click to expand...

I'd love to know why you do this, when the last time you made this argument, it was completely destroyed... at which point you vacated the thread. Since we are talking about the difference between sexual orientation and NOT sexual orienation, discrimination does not apply. Different issues.

And, as I did the last time you presented this stupid argument, if you want to base your position on what you see in other countries, then I'm sure, since you are not a hypocrite, you want DADT repealed since gays can serve openly in the militaries of other countries. Right tex?

digsbe said:

I think what people are saying in regards to the polygamy thing is that the arguments that justify homosexual marriage would also justify polygamy. I agree that it bringing polygamy into things is a red herring and serves no purpose in regards to the gay marriage debate.

Click to expand...

Wait... what have you done with digsbe? We NEVER agree on this issue, yet we agree, here. Just proves that some anti-GM folks can actually look at this situation with some logic.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

rivrrat said:

Automatic inheretance and hospital visitation aren't rights. And, those things can be dealt with on an individual basis. The state need not be involved.

Click to expand...

Hmmm...."automatic inheritance".

If the state law says the surviving spouse gets all the goodies, what difference does it make if the surving spouse had a penis like the dead guy?

If a couple is married, that statement is enough to inform anyone concerned that HIS will is that his spouse be it She/He/Both, inherits the full estate unless some formal will has been written following that state's legal format. It's really no one else's business.

If a patient dying of cancer wants his spouse to visit, why should anyone interfere just because the spouse is the same sex as the patient? The fact of the marriage itself says enough, doesn't it? What if the patient isn't dying, but is unconscious and the hospital must turn to the spouse to make decisions? Again, what difference does the sex of the spouse make? The couple made their decisions, I see no reason why any third party has to second guess this, or why they should be able to.

If a spouse can inherit, then the spouse can inherit. That's not complicated.

If a spouse can visit in the hospital, or make life decisions for treatment, then the spouse can do so.

Really no complicated at all.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

CaptainCourtesy said:

As I have repeatedly said, the polygamy issue in the GM debate is a red herring. It is a distraction that anti-GMers bring in as a "the sky is falling" argument.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

Polygamy isn't the same as a simple one-on-one marriage.

Not that I oppose polygamy, but the laws needed to make sense of that are completely different than simple "gee we don't care what sex you TWO people are, you're now married to each other, and no one else."

Redress said:

digsbe said:

I think what people are saying in regards to the polygamy thing is that the arguments that justify homosexual marriage would also justify polygamy. I agree that it bringing polygamy into things is a red herring and serves no purpose in regards to the gay marriage debate.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is their argument, and no, it is not accurate. Polygamy and homosexuality are very different things. One is what a person is, one is what a person does to start with.

Click to expand...

Absolute dissemblence; total deception and a fraud of the first order.

Homosexuals are only an 'is' when the issue is their abnormal sexual DESIRE... Who gives a red rats @$$ about their abnormal sexual desire? No one here is discussing their abnormal sexual desire... NOT ONE PERSON IN THIS DISCUSSION IS CONCERNED WITH, OR HAS CALLED FOR ANY LEGISLATION WHICH PRECLUDES THE LOWLY HOMOSEXUAL FROM DESIRING INDIVIDUALS OF THEIR OWN GENDER FOR SEXUAL GRATIFICATION...

This debate is concerned PURELY with the ACTIONS of the homosexual which hopes to play house and present themselves as something akin to normal... To demonstrate that being a homosexual is just as normal as to not be a pathetic sexual deviant that is incapable of rejecting their twisted, deviant sexual cravings.

Actions... Of course, at the end of the day, who one IS, is demonstrated by one's actions, isn't it? So in that one immutable principle alone, the member's argument is refuted...



There is not ONE STATE within the fifty United States that precludes homosexuals, declared or otherwise from marriage... NOT ONE~

Meaning that ANY homosexual, in ANY AMERICAN STATE... can make application for and expect to be summarily accepted by ANY American state authority which is concerned with the issuing of such licenses... as long as that homosexual's application fits the reasonable and necessary standard of marriage; that being that only two individuals, each representing the distinct genders be listed in the application.

Thus there is no discrimination of the Homosexual with regard to marriage... PERIOD! Yet the advocates of the normalization of abnormality would have you believe otherwise...

Deceit and Fraud... It's who and what the Progressives are... "One is the sum of one's actions..." What's that tell us?

What the homosexuls want to do, is to LOWER THE STANDARD TO PROVIDE FOR THE STRIPPING OF THE ELEMENT OF THE MARRIAGE STANDARD WHICH REQUIRES INDIVIDUALS MAKING APPLICATION FOR SUCH, TO BE OF TWO DISTINCT GENDERS... This more often than not based upon the claim that because normal individuals who enter into marriage enjoy numerous financial advantages, that this provides for the unfair treatment of the lowly homosexual... despite the absolute fact that ANY two homosexuals can file to incorporate their union with their respective state and receive almost identical financial advantages; from being recognized as one legal entity for the purposes of taxation, to insurable interests, to the right of inheritence, to the the legal right to visit their legally binding partners in hospital... and what's MORE... they could EASILY lobby the federal legislature to change the tax code to provide more equal treatment relative to the normal people who join in marriage.

BUT NOoooooeeuu... They DEMAND that the culture lower the standard of marriage to provide for their sliverous special interests; as if the REST of the nation has NO RIGHT to establish cultural mores.

Let me ask ya this friends... IF the homosexual has a right to establish cultural standards, how is it POSSIBLE that the same right doesn't exist for the rest of the citizenry? Clearly it would, right? At least where the principle that 'all men are created equal...' is recognized and respected. Which is, in truth that which this entire issue revolves around...

We're debating Progressives... They're secularists... anti-theists... anti-Americans... who are defined by nothing at all beyond the chronic advancement of deceit and fraud and the raw abuse of whatever power they may come by.

With examples of such being all around us... everyday.

These people do NOT believe in the natural rights of man... they believe rights are endowed, not by nature's God, but by Government power. And at the end of the day, the only thing that separates the men from the shims, is the will of men to reject their deviant notions... standing together in sound principle, ready to go to whatever length THEY DEMAND WE GO... to sustain sound, sustainable cultural principle; such as required as the sustaining element of our own, certain, self-evident, unalienable human rights.

It's evil... that's all. It only wins when we succumb to it's lies. And the choice as to whther or not good or evil prevails is our own. Period and without exception.

Now where the issue is the marriage standard and the desire by one subversive element of the culture to lower that standard, in this case the element which provides that both distinct genders be represented, it is quite relevant to note that where this spurious reasoning is accepted, that the foolish judgment which accepts that premise, BY DEFAULT establishes that the OTHER ELEMENT OF THE STANDARD IS ALSO UNFAIR... and as a result must be lowered to accomodate those which IT PRECLUDED from participation.

Thus this member's specious claims are refuted as well as those of like mind who have come to advocate for the same unsustainable twaddle.

Marriage forces men to marry only women and women to marry only men. Would a law forcing blacks to only marry whites and whites to only marry blacks be constitutional? Is Gender a protected group that we can not discriminate against?

Still waiting for someone to answer this with something other than suggesting its not a common argument so therefore must be flawed.

Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Hmmm...."automatic inheritance".

If the state law says the surviving spouse gets all the goodies, what difference does it make if the surving spouse had a penis like the dead guy?

If a couple is married, that statement is enough to inform anyone concerned that HIS will is that his spouse be it She/He/Both, inherits the full estate unless some formal will has been written following that state's legal format. It's really no one else's business.

Click to expand...

Of course, the law says that a person can pass on to whom ever they choose, any portion of their estate which suits them... without regard to their gender.

Corporations very often pass along the responsibilities and assets which was headed up by a passing member, to the relevant individual which picks up the reigns in their wake...

Ya see, the assets were the property of the corporation...

Yet in 15 years of debating this... of the THOUSANDS of advocates of normalizing abnormality... NOT ONE has ever come CLOSE to accepting the simple fact that every whim of the homosexual lobbies stated goals could be met by simply incorporating.

And this is because incorporation does not provide the legitimacy inherent in marriage.

The delicious irony resting in the certainty that should the deviants ever prevail, they will destroy that legitimacy inherent in marriage... by their very presents.

Thus there is no upside to allowing it... no higher moral plain will be reached. Only the usual chaos, calamity and catastrophe which follows every leftist policy.

But look... We... The Americans... We're not budging on this one. There'll be no compromise, no concessions... No gay marriage, as Marriage is the joining of two individuals, each representing the distinct genders.

And we're prepared to go to whatever lengths you people require us to go, to stop ya. You're the aggressor, so you set the rules... But rest assured, we'll be there for ya, which ever way you decide to go.

We've accepted you as human beings... we don't give a damn what two men do in the privacy of their home with a midget, two goats, a quart of Quaker State and a unicyle. But we're not ABOUT to go any further with it.

So keep us posted...

PubliusInfinitu said:

We're debating Progressives... They're secularists... anti-theists... anti-Americans... who are defined by nothing at all beyond the chronic advancement of deceit and fraud and the raw abuse of whatever power they may come by.

Click to expand...

So what where you doing when I was serving America in war? Damn, how anti-American of me...

See how stupid it is to throw out blind insults? That is all your post is, just blind insults.

Zyphlin said:

Marriage forces men to marry only women and women to marry only men. Would a law forcing blacks to only marry whites and whites to only marry blacks be constitutional? Is Gender a protected group that we can not discriminate against?

Still waiting for someone to answer this with something other than suggesting its not a common argument so therefore must be flawed.

Click to expand...

Marriage doesn't force anyone to do anything... PERIOD.

And yes, Gender is a protected group... if one happens to be female.

But gender is something that one can not readily escape. One can't claim to be a woman on ladies night and then claim to be a man the following Tuesday when such is advantageous to do so.

Sexual orientation however is a distinct issue... There is no 'homosexual gene'... One can be a homo and change into a hetero without notice, as far as the law is concerned. Thus where the law provides for subsidies or other consideration specific to homosexuals, there no means to determine if the claimant is a homosexual or not; and this without regard to one's snappy style instincts and the number of show tunes one can belt out on any given day...

Homosexuality is a farce... in its most severe cases, it is a distinct minority who suffer abnormal sexual cravings. Which is hardly a premise on which to tilt the culture on it's head and revise the nucleus element of that culture as a form of appeasement.

Redress said:

So what where you doing when I was serving America in war?

Click to expand...

Huh.. so you feel that serving in the US Military, authorizes you to undermine and advocate for foriegn ideas which are at diametric odds with the immutable principles on which America rests?

Benedict Arnold served in the US military... didn't excuse his subversion and at the end of the day, I doubt it's gonna excuse yours.

PubliusInfinitu said:

Sexual orientation however is a distinct issue... There is no 'homosexual gene'...

Click to expand...

Gene switches sexual desires of female mice - life - 09 July 2010 - New Scientist

Redress said:

You make several mistakes. There are reasons to include marriage of gays but not polygamy. They have been stated. You can ignore them, but that does not make them go away.

No one is claiming that is some new standard. We are stating that is the reason why the government has any argument to be involved in marriage.

The number of countries that allow same sex marriage is not an argument that it is beneficial, and is not being claimed as such.

Click to expand...

Oh I would really love to hear this argument against poligamy.

You can't claim to be for equality if you aren't actualy fighting for equality. You can't cherry pick your target voting block and your arguments retain any spec of credability.

PubliusInfinitu said:

Huh.. so you feel that serving in the US Military, authorizes you to undermine and advocate for foriegn ideas which are at diametric odds with the immutable principles on which America rests?

Benedict Arnold served in the US military... didn't excuse his subversion and at the end of the day, I doubt it's gonna excuse yours.

Click to expand...

Hey look, another straw man.

PubliusInfinitu said:

Huh.. so you feel that serving in the US Military, authorizes you to undermine and advocate for foriegn ideas which are at diametric odds with the immutable principles on which America rests?

Benedict Arnold served in the US military... didn't excuse his subversion and at the end of the day, I doubt it's gonna excuse yours.

Click to expand...

Redress isn't subverting anything. Liberals are not subverting a SINGLE THING. We are not some evil organization that sits in dark rooms laughing menically at the pain of others while we stroke the cats sitting in our laps, we are trying to advocate policies which we feel will improve things that are wrong with America. This is not a perfect country, and trying to fix our imperfections hardly makes us anti-American, in fact the very idea of trying to better America makes us Pro-American.

Jerry said:

Oh I would really love to hear this argument against poligamy.

You can't claim to be for equality if you aren't actualy fighting for equality. You can't cherry pick your target voting block and your arguments retain any spec of credability.

Click to expand...

I did not make any argument against polygamy. This has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread.

I certainly can pick what should be equal and what should not. A brick is not equally as heavy as a feather. I don't have to support the concept both are equal. Under the law, convicted felons are less equal than those who are not. I do not have to argue otherwise.