Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

Jerry said:

Pro-ssm argues that I should accept gay behavior. This would be a violation of my right to free religious expression. It's one thing to welcome and encourage folks to support gays, but pro-ssm goes further as to villainize, troll, and insult those of us who simply maintain a different religious opinion.

Tolerance is a 2 way street.

Click to expand...

No, the point is that you have to live and let live, just like we do with you.

SmokeAndMirrors said:

On an ethical level, no. Whether people deserve equality is not a "state issue." It's a civil rights issue. This is like asking whether women being allowed to vote should be a state issue. The states don't get to decide to discriminate against people.

Click to expand...

This is why I voted yes.

Kal'Stang said:

SSM does not in any way inhibit your right to free religious expression.

Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

The pro-ssm political movement is not a same-sex marriage. They are the political force behind the issue. The issue of ssm harms me every time one of them comes on this forum and starts tossing around homophobe and other insults. To reiterate, a given same-sex marriage doesn't affect me good or bad, in any way. The pro-ssm political movement are the one's trying to infringe on my right to free religious expression.

Kal'Stang said:

No church is going to be required to marry two people of the same sex.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree, but I'm talking about me, and I'm not a church.

Kal'Stang said:

No one is going to force you to attend a same sex wedding.

Click to expand...

I know.

Kal'Stang said:

So in what way does SSM actually inhibit your right to free religious expression?

Click to expand...

I already explained, 3 times. Explaining a 4th time isn't going to offer more clarity.

Jerry said:

That's not what I said.

The pro-ssm political movement is not a same-sex marriage. They are the political force behind the issue. The issue of ssm harms me every time one of them comes on this forum and starts tossing around homophobe and other insults. To reiterate, a given same-sex marriage doesn't affect me good or bad, in any way. The pro-ssm political movement are the one's trying to infringe on my right to free religious expression.

Click to expand...

Sorry Jerry but I have a hard time believeing that you have such thin skin as to be harmed by words. You just don't strike me as the kind of guy that lets someone elses beliefs roll over you. I've noticed that you quite often ignore such comments (such as "homophobe") before.

Now as for SSM's political movement....don't all the other religions have their own "seperate" poltical movement? Doesn't yours? And I know they all condemn one another. If you think that SSM's political movement infringes your free expression of religion then don't those also?

And just to note, you didn't make the distinction between SSM and SSM's political movement before so how was I suppose to know?

Possibly temporally. If it warrants national action of some sort, be in legislative or through the court, you need enough states that have accepted it in order to have enough credibility for it to be solid nationally. If not nationally, it is the only way to go through the states.

Some states have a pathetic history of discrimination and hatred, so no.

Paschendale said:

No, the point is that you have to live and let live, just like we do with you.

Click to expand...

Yup, and that means tolerating my lack of support for your issue.

Thunder said:

Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

Click to expand...

Thunder, try to imagine driving cross-country with your spouse and children. Every 50 feet in the Northeast, and every 50 hours out west, your marital status, your rights to seek emergency medical care for the kids, to make medical decisions for your spouse, etc. would change.

Try to imagine having to decline a job offer because it would entail a move to a state in which you and your spouse would be "unmarried". Or plotting one, to escape the justice of a divorce.

Try to imagine having to litigate which side of a state line your spouse died on, so as to be entitled to his or her life insurance proceeds.

Etc.

There's a provision in the US constitution to the effect that every state must give "full faith and credit" to the denizens or former denizens of another, when it comes to such matters. At the present, many states have common law marriage laws -- no two alike. If you are considered "married" via common law in Arkansas, then should your marriage be "dissolved" by traveling to New York?

What you propose is unworkable, would create a GLBT ghettozied area of the country and is not constitutional, IMO.

Kal'Stang said:

Sorry Jerry but I have a hard time believeing that you have such thin skin as to be harmed by words. You just don't strike me as the kind of guy that lets someone elses beliefs roll over you. I've noticed that you quite often ignore such comments (such as "homophobe") before.

Click to expand...

Stop trying to excuse and cover for the behavior.

Kal'Stang said:

Now as for SSM's political movement....don't all the other religions have their own "seperate" poltical movement?

Click to expand...

Not really, no. In fact in order to maintain their tax-exempt status your average church is not allowed to be involved in politics.

Kal'Stang said:

Doesn't yours?

Click to expand...

Nope.

Kal'Stang said:

And I know they all condemn one another.

Click to expand...

All Americans do this to eachother. Even gays aren't uniform on the issue of SSM. A good number of gays don't think ssm is a big deal at all and are quite embarrassed at the pro-ssm movement.

Kal'Stang said:

If you think that SSM's political movement infringes your free expression of religion then don't those also?

Click to expand...

The behavior of one group doesn't define the behavior of other groups.

Kal'Stang said:

And just to note, you didn't make the distinction between SSM and SSM's political movement before so how was I suppose to know?

Click to expand...

I did make that distinction. The reader saw the words the wanted, not the words I placed.

Fiddytree said:

Possibly temporally. If it warrants national action of some sort, be in legislative or through the court, you need enough states that have accepted it in order to have enough credibility for it to be solid nationally. If not nationally, it is the only way to go through the states.

Click to expand...

Uh, not so much. You couldn't find 50 American adults, nevermind 50 states, outside the Westboro Baptist Church who agree with them, but nonetheless, they are guaranteed their right to exersize certain civil liberties.

The whole point of civil rights is that you can be viewed as undesirable by a majority -- even by an overwhelming majority -- and yet continue unmolested on your merry way. As the Supremes have already ruled nothing is more fundamental to one's civil rights than sex, the home and the family, this fight over same-sex marriage is all over but the crying, and justice won.

Pinkie said:

Thunder, try to imagine driving cross-country with your spouse and children. Every 50 feet in the Northeast, and every 50 hours out west, your marital status, your rights to seek emergency medical care for the kids, to make medical decisions for your spouse, etc. would change.

Click to expand...

Step-parents do not have any automatic rights to their spouse's children. SSM will not change this.

Pinkie said:

Try to imagine having to decline a job offer because it would entail a move to a state in which you and your spouse would be "unmarried". Or plotting one, to escape the justice of a divorce.

Click to expand...

Heteros today jump states to seek a jurisdiction more favorable to their 'plot'. SSM will not change this.

Pinkie said:

Try to imagine having to litigate which side of a state line your spouse died on, so as to be entitled to his or her life insurance proceeds.

Click to expand...

To bad that never happens. In the extremely rare case where it's an issue, the police report of the death resolves the question of the location.

Pinkie said:

There's a provision in the US constitution to the effect that every state must give "full faith and credit" to the denizens or former denizens of another, when it comes to such matters. At the present, many states have common law marriage laws -- no two alike. If you are considered "married" via common law in Arkansas, then should your marriage be "dissolved" by traveling to New York?

Click to expand...

Via common law? Yes.

Jerry said:

Stop trying to excuse and cover for the behavior.

Click to expand...

If I was trying to do that then I would do the same thing as them. Have you ever known me to call someone against SSM a homophobe? Of course not. I don't believe in that kind of behavior.

Jerry said:

Not really, no. In fact in order to maintain their tax-exempt status your average church is not allowed to be involved in politics.

Click to expand...

Church's have tax exempt status. Religious political movements are not a church. Indeed those that are religious often speak out against SSM and homosexuality in general all the time.

Jerry said:

Nope.

Click to expand...

Considering what I said above would you still say "nope"?

Jerry said:

All Americans do this to eachother. Even gays aren't uniform on the issue of SSM. A good number of gays don't think ssm is a big deal at all and are quite embarrassed at the pro-ssm movement.

Click to expand...

Agreed, this is human nature.

Jerry said:

The behavior of one group doesn't define the behavior of other groups.

Click to expand...

Most political movements that I know of (be they religious or not) are generally the same. The way they go about it might be different, but their end goal is the same. To push their ideals upon other people. And as such that could be construed, as you have here, as infringing on their/your rights. Whether it actually is or not is a different matter entirely.

Jerry said:

I did make that distinction. The reader saw the words the wanted, not the words I placed.

Click to expand...

I looked at your post again and I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

Jerry said:

Stop trying to excuse and cover for the behavior.


Not really, no. In fact in order to maintain their tax-exempt status your average church is not allowed to be involved in politics.

Click to expand...

Churches, average or not, are involved in politics, directly and indirectly....There is a movement underway to change their tax-free status, which may never go anywhere.

Pinkie said:

Uh, not so much. You couldn't find 50 American adults, nevermind 50 states, outside the Westboro Baptist Church who agree with them, but nonetheless, they are guaranteed their right to exersize certain civil liberties.

The whole point of civil rights is that you can be viewed as undesirable by a majority -- even by an overwhelming majority -- and yet continue unmolested on your merry way. As the Supremes have already ruled nothing is more fundamental to one's civil rights than sex, the home and the family, this fight over same-sex marriage is all over but the crying, and justice won.

Click to expand...

Be that as it may, I'm suggesting that in order for the best progress to actually stand, you have to work the masses to a certain extent before you can have your victory. Sometimes you can squeak reforms of magnitude without public commentary, as has happened in the past. However, SSM is hardly that issue. The public has its eye on it. The Courts do not operate in some sanctuary either. Public opinion and their own disposition have quite the impact on them. If the system worked as I had wanted it to on this one given issue, we would have it be a guaranteed right across the nation. But I'm not in charge, the system doesn't work that way, and that's unfortunate. As much as I would want SSM to be there, it won't be without a great amount of fuss until at least the Courts stand firm. Anything else is posturing.

Kal'Stang said:

The 9th amendment states...



This shows that there are rights that people have that are not enumerated in the Constitution.

SCOTUS has determined that marriage is a fundamental right. Which means that even though it is not talked about in the Constitution it is still covered by the Constitution via the 9th Amendment.

In point of fact the Bill of Rights would never have passed if the 9th Amendment and the 10th Amendment had not been included in it because many people were afraid that if they weren't then the rest of the BoR's would have been considered the only rights that people were allowed.

Click to expand...

Applying the 9th amendment to SSM is not only easy and cheap, it's invalid. Under your interpretation, the 9th amendment can be applied to anything as long as their is reason behind it, e.g. If a guy a gouges my dogs eye out, I can gouge his eye out. An "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". After all we are a nation of laws based off of Judeo-Christian priniciples. Wouldn't that be Constitutionally sanctioned? It's after all an unenumerated right of mine to steal groceries in order to feed my kids because I can't find work. After all, I deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thats reasonable, or is it not?

Let me tell you, roguenuke, and cephus something. Everyone whos advocating states rights and/or something else doesn't hate/detest/abhor or whatnot the LGBT community, at least I don't. I personally don't give a damn what you, my neighbor or anyone else does in their bedrooms or in their spare time. We just want to see things done right, by the book (the Constitution). Everything you guys are advocating, is just more government power in my ears, and thats the last thing I want. I don't know about you guys, I hope government intrusion never reaches the level of a Washington bureaucrat dictating what the hell my kids can eat or not.

Thats what you guys don't understand the more y'all give to government, the more control they have over us.

Where's the option for "why the **** is this even an issue"?

Lightning said:

Applying the 9th amendment to SSM is not only easy and cheap, it's invalid. Under your interpretation, the 9th amendment can be applied to anything as long as their is reason behind it, e.g. If a guy a gouges my dogs eye out, I can gouge his eye out. An "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth". After all we are a nation of laws based off of Judeo-Christian priniciples. Wouldn't that be Constitutionally sanctioned? It's after all an unenumerated right of mine to steal groceries in order to feed my kids because I can't find work. After all, I deserve the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thats reasonable, or is it not?

Click to expand...

You have a few problems here.

First, if a guy gouges out your dogs eyes then he is no longer with in his rights because his rights ends where yours start. So if he gouges out your dog's eyes then he is damaging your property. Which means he interfered with your rights. If you recipocate the gouging of eyes by gouging out his eyes then not only is it not an "eye for an eye" (because his eyes are not equal to your dog's eyes) but you are then interfering with HIS rights as your rights ends where his rights start. So no, the 9th would not apply to this scenario. Everyone's rights ends where someone else's rights begin.

Next, by stealing food you are stealing someone else's property. So the same precept applies here as it does above. Your rights end where someone else's rights start.

And while this country might have been based off of Judeo-Christian beliefs (debateable), the Constitution does not run off of Judeo-Christian beliefs. It runs on laws and rights. Remember, the 1st Amendment puts a seperation between Church and State.

Next, you do have a right to life...until the courts deem that you do not deserve it (death penalty) because you killed a dozen people. You also do have a right to liberty, so long as you do not interfere in someone elses right to liberty. And no one has the right to happiness. If everyone had a right to happiness then everyone would be rich and own porche's and never go hungry and always had free medical care that would help take care of any little problem that arose.

So in conclusion your protest about the 9th being invalid is not correct. The 9th Amendment was put there to protect any other fundemental right that was not put into the original Bill of Rights. That was not just its reason for being. It was the MAIN reason for it being put into the original Bill of Rights. With your type of arguement then no matter what the 9th Amendment would be invalid. In which case why the hell would it have been put in there to begin with?

Lightning said:

Let me tell you, roguenuke, and cephus something. Everyone whos advocating states rights and/or something else doesn't hate/detest/abhor or whatnot the LGBT community, at least I don't. I personally don't give a damn what you, my neighbor or anyone else does in their bedrooms or in their spare time. We just want to see things done right, by the book (the Constitution). Everything you guys are advocating, is just more government power in my ears, and thats the last thing I want. I don't know about you guys, I hope government intrusion never reaches the level of a Washington bureaucrat dictating what the hell my kids can eat or not.

Thats what you guys don't understand the more y'all give to government, the more control they have over us.

Click to expand...

You've got this backwards. Since Marriage has been determined to be a fundemental right it doesn't give the government more power. It restricts the government in its power. Since marriage is a fundemental right that means that the government is not allowed to make laws that restrict one class of people from getting married over another class...such as they tried to do during the miscegation era.

You argue for the rights of States to decide in the case of SSM, which gives them all the power...power which is generally abused. We argue that since marriage is a fundemental right, and does not interfere with anyone elses right then neither the State, nor the Federal government can make laws against SSM. However we do look to the Federal government in enforcing that no other State makes laws against SSM because that is the Federal Governments main job...to protect the individual rights that each and every citizen of this country has.

Now personally I could care less if you hate, despise, love, like the LGBT community or not. The ONLY reason that I participate in SSM threads is to promote the right of two consenting human adults to marry. I believe that no one has the right to deny them something which I have as a right but they are not allowed just because they happen to be of the same gender. The only way that I would ever agree to deny SSM is if you can come up with a valid reason to deny it. Such as it harming another, outside person or interfering with another persons rights. Can you do this? Yes or no?

Of course it should. But you know...my position is evolving on this and could change, should it become politically expedient...

Jerry said:

Not really, no. In fact in order to maintain their tax-exempt status your average church is not allowed to be involved in politics.

Click to expand...

So did the churches that denied communion to those who would vote for Kerry in 04 lose their tax exempt status? Let's be realistic, I doubt many if any churches will ever lose that status because religion is untouchable, despite many of them are scandalously wealthy and well there's the 1st amendment. They rant and rave all the time about political issues and the LSD church spends millions to support bans on SSM.

wolv67 said:

So did the churches that denied communion to those who would vote for Kerry in 04 lose their tax exempt status? Let's be realistic, I doubt many if any churches will ever lose that status because religion is untouchable, despite many of them are scandalously wealthy and well there's the 1st amendment. They rant and rave all the time about political issues and the LSD church spends millions to support bans on SSM.

Click to expand...

Did you know that John Kerry served in Vietnam?

Fiddytree said:

Possibly temporally. If it warrants national action of some sort, be in legislative or through the court, you need enough states that have accepted it in order to have enough credibility for it to be solid nationally. If not nationally, it is the only way to go through the states.

Click to expand...

Credibility would be more in line with it being the right thing to do, although as for it being sustainable, a majority of the public supports it now. True, not most states, but that's more a reflection on politicians being useless. Even Row v Wade, contentious as that remains, has stood for decades. Almost certainly if the SC made it legal nationally, it would quickly become a dead issue. There'd be some vocal whiners, but overall support would continue to climb. Then there's the fact many just don't care if it's "solid" but only that it's a right to have.

Lokiate said:

Where's the option for "why the **** is this even an issue"?

Click to expand...

It will continue to be an issue as long as hetero married people gain a benefit that is denied to non-hetero married people.
The largest on a federal level is the "married filed jointly" option.

I, personally, feel it is a Right and therefore not subject to a vote or state restriction, but that is not what you asked.

Kal'Stang said:

If I was trying to do that then I would do the same thing as them. Have you ever known me to call someone against SSM a homophobe? Of course not. I don't believe in that kind of behavior.

Click to expand...

While it's very easy to confuse you with any of the faceless foaming-at-the-mouth anti-religious pro-smm radicals, I don't have quotes of your posts handy so I'll have to let it go.

Kal'Stang said:

Church's have tax exempt status. Religious political movements are not a church. Indeed those that are religious often speak out against SSM and homosexuality in general all the time.

Click to expand...

That's all I'm saying, that just because a church (still not sure why we're talking about churches..religion =/= church) has a religious opinion doesn't mean it's attempting to dabble in politics.

Kal'Stang said:

Considering what I said above would you still say "nope"?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm gona hold. A church having a religious opinion on an issue which also happens to be a political issue, doesn't mean the church is attempting to get it's hands in politics any more than it means politicians are trying to change religion by passing a policy.

Kal'Stang said:

I looked at your post again and I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

Click to expand...

Right here:

Jerry said:

A given SSM doesn't have to involve women at all.


Pro-ssm argues that I should accept gay behavior. This would be a violation of my right to free religious expression. It's one thing to welcome and encourage folks to support gays, but pro-ssm goes further as to villainize, troll, and insult those of us who simply maintain a different religious opinion.

Tolerance is a 2 way street.

Click to expand...

"Pro-ssm", just like you might use "pro-choice", as distinguished form a married couple who happens to be gay. A gay couple who doesn't care one way or the other about ssm might still take advantage where it's legal. This doesn't mean such a couple is affiliated with the political movement.

Chiefgator said:

It will continue to be an issue as long as hetero married people gain a benefit that is denied to non-hetero married people.
The largest on a federal level is the "married filed jointly" option.

I, personally, feel it is a Right and therefore not subject to a vote or state restriction, but that is not what you asked.

Click to expand...

It's an issue that only effects a percentage of 3.5% of the population. Gay marriage is only a red herring to detract from the real issues our nation is facing.

Lokiate said:

It's an issue that only effects a percentage of 3.5% of the population. Gay marriage is only a red herring to detract from the real issues our nation is facing.

Click to expand...

I do agree with this. A candidates stance on SSM will have ZERO influence on my vote.

Interestingly, I read an article written by a gay man a while ago that commented on how much money and effort was spent to get SSM passed and yet only a small fraction of gay couples actually got married. I am surfing via phone or I would try to find that source.