View Poll Results: On a scale of one to ten, how much does it matter?

Voters
65. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 (least important)

    21 32.31%
  • 2

    3 4.62%
  • 3

    3 4.62%
  • 4

    2 3.08%
  • 5

    3 4.62%
  • 6

    3 4.62%
  • 7

    7 10.77%
  • 8

    10 15.38%
  • 9

    3 4.62%
  • 10 (most important)

    10 15.38%
Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 161

Thread: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

  1. #101
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    OK first I'm going to reword the bolded part to see if I understand you correctly because I saw at least two different way that could have been taken. Are you saying, "The lower courts have ruled that denying same sex marriage violates the 14th admendment" or are you saying that "The violation of the 14th admendment comes from the lower courts ruling in favor of denying same sex marriages"?
    The Prop 8 case was ruled on as a violation of the 14th Amendment and it was upheld by the Appeals Court. At least one of the DOMA challenges ruled it unconstitutional because of violating the 14th. Many of those states that have same sex marriage legal is because the courts ruled that banning it violated equal protection.

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    Not I am admittedly not up on all the various lower court rulings, but to the best of my recollection, there have been courts that have upheld bans and ones that have struck them down. Now maybe all the ones that have cited the 14th admendment have been ones to strike the bans down, I don't know. All I am saying is that one interpertation can be, as I have heard from anti-SSM proponents, that when marriage is defined legally as the union between a man and a woman, then that definition can be applied equally to all people. That is a homosexual man is just as equally able to get married to a woman as a straight man is. And I know the argument that a woman of any type is then not able to be married to a woman. But that doesn't fit the legal definition.
    All those court rulings that said same sex marriage bans did not violate the EPC went off an assumption that man/woman marriage was traditional and what has been the accepted form of marriage. Which is an appeal to tradition that no court should be using, particularly when it comes to marriage. If it was right, then we should not have had a ruling making interracial marriage legal since it was not traditionally legal in those places with laws against it. And same sex partners can now legally marry in not only some of our own states and other countries around the world, but there is also evidence that they were allowed to marry in other places in history.

    The entire point is that the legal definition of marriage when it is limited to only people of opposite sexes is what violates the 14th Amendment. Just as the legal definition limiting marriage to only couples of the same race violated the 14th Amendment.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #102
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,943

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    But how long was the 14th amendment in effect prior to interracial marriage being deemed in violation of it? My only point here is that interpretation will very through the ages, and it looks like there were many years between the adoption of the amendment and the court ruling that allowed interracial marriages. So unless I am mistaken, and do please point out the pertinent dates, there was a period where the courts held that the marriage laws were equally applied because they saw the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race.

  3. #103
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    But how long was the 14th amendment in effect prior to interracial marriage being deemed in violation of it? My only point here is that interpretation will very through the ages, and it looks like there were many years between the adoption of the amendment and the court ruling that allowed interracial marriages. So unless I am mistaken, and do please point out the pertinent dates, there was a period where the courts held that the marriage laws were equally applied because they saw the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race.
    Sure there was. In fact, I know of at least one, but I believe there were more, SCOTUS cases that ruled interracial marriage bans did not violate the EPC, and the one I know of was unanimous in that decision. Just as there were several cases in the SC that upheld segregation laws.

    However, that doesn't mean they were right or that the fact that it could be deemed constitutional means that it should be or actually is constitutional. The SCOTUS gets stuff wrong and times change.

    I know for sure that any SCOTUS decision on this will not be a unanimous decision that denying same sex couples access to marry does not violate the 14th Amendment's EPC. We know more than we did in the past and it has become a very big deal for the Court to separate church and state and uphold individual rights over many government laws, whether state or federal, particularly when it cannot be shown that the government has a legitimate reason to have such a law in place.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #104
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by maquiscat View Post
    But how long was the 14th amendment in effect prior to interracial marriage being deemed in violation of it? My only point here is that interpretation will very through the ages, and it looks like there were many years between the adoption of the amendment and the court ruling that allowed interracial marriages. So unless I am mistaken, and do please point out the pertinent dates, there was a period where the courts held that the marriage laws were equally applied because they saw the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race.
    You raise a very valid point, as to the time delay between a "wrong" and someone with the time, money and balls to get it through the quagmire of our legal system, especially if a constitutional issue is involved. As to the applicability of the 14th amendment ALONE allowing SSM as a new "right", I would say no. I base this on no dislike for SSM, only that race and gender are fixed, easily defined things, whereas "sexual preference" is well, a "concept", that is not related directly to either race or gender.

    Consider polygamy; how does that differ from SSM, since both require changes to "traditional marriage; one man/one woman", one seeks to alter only the "man/woman" part and the other the number of partners covered by the marriage contract (so it would more resemble a typical business partneship contract).

    I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).

    As you can see, I hope, "sexual preference" (SSM) is not much different, conceptually, than "multiple partner preference" (polygamy), they are both choices (desires?) requiring a change from traditional marriage laws, but deeply rooted in personal preference (perhaps even as a "religion" to some) yet neither is allowed as a right protected by the constitution, yet.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-13-12 at 02:47 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #105
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Sure there was. In fact, I know of at least one, but I believe there were more, SCOTUS cases that ruled interracial marriage bans did not violate the EPC, and the one I know of was unanimous in that decision. Just as there were several cases in the SC that upheld segregation laws.

    However, that doesn't mean they were right or that the fact that it could be deemed constitutional means that it should be or actually is constitutional. The SCOTUS gets stuff wrong and times change.

    I know for sure that any SCOTUS decision on this will not be a unanimous decision that denying same sex couples access to marry does not violate the 14th Amendment's EPC. We know more than we did in the past and it has become a very big deal for the Court to separate church and state and uphold individual rights over many government laws, whether state or federal, particularly when it cannot be shown that the government has a legitimate reason to have such a law in place.
    I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-13-12 at 02:47 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #106
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    You raise a very valid point, as to the time delay between a "wrong" and someone with the time, money and balls to get it through the quagmire of our legal system, especially if a constitutional issue is involved. As to the applicability of the 14th amendment ALONE allowing SSM as a new "right", I would say no. I base this on no dislike for SSM, only that race and gender are fixed, easily defined things, whereas "sexual preference" is well, a "concept", that is not related directly to either race or gender.

    Consider polygamy; how does that differ from SSM, since both require changes to "traditional marriage; one man/one woman", one seeks to alter only the "man/woman" part and the other the number of partners covered by the marriage contract (so it would more resemble a typical business partneship contract).

    I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).

    As you can see, I hope, "sexual preference" (SSM) is not much different, conceptually, than "multiple partner preference" (polygamy), they are both choices (desires?) requiring a change from traditional marriage laws, but deeply rooted in personal preference (perhaps even as a "religion" to some) yet neither is allowed as a right protected by the constitution, yet.
    You are still trying to equate choice of marriage partner based on race with race. That is simply not the same thing. Unless you equate choice of marriage partner based on sex with sex. That is the issue.

    Having the choice of who a person is allowed to marry who would otherwise be allowed to marry someone in a similar position if not for their race or their sex. Legal marriage is a contract.

    The government recognizes the contract for many reasons. One is raising children together. Another is stable relationships are better for society. And yet another is just simply a way to better handle issues when people decide to split up. All of these can apply to one or another same sex couple. And all three do not apply to every opposite sex couple.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #107
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    You raise a very valid point, as to the time delay between a "wrong" and someone with the time, money and balls to get it through the quagmire of our legal system, especially if a constitutional issue is involved. As to the applicability of the 14th amendment ALONE allowing SSM as a new "right", I would say no. I base this on no dislike for SSM, only that race and gender are fixed, easily defined things, whereas "sexual preference" is well, a "concept", that is not related directly to either race or gender.

    Consider polygamy; how does that differ from SSM, since both require changes to "traditional marriage; one man/one woman", one seeks to alter only the "man/woman" part and the other the number of partners covered by the marriage contract (so it would more resemble a typical business partneship contract).

    I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).

    As you can see, I hope, "sexual preference" (SSM) is not much different, conceptually, than "multiple partner preference" (polygamy), they are both choices (desires?) requiring a change from traditional marriage laws, but deeply rooted in personal preference (perhaps even as a "religion" to some) yet neither is allowed as a right protected by the constitution, yet.
    Personally this is why I don't see Same Sex Marriage as unconstitutional based on the notion of "sexual orientation" but rather based on gender discrimination. Such a notion functoins off an established standard of gender being a middle tier scrutiny category under the EPC brought about by the 14th amendment as opposed to a case with sexual orientation where it would likely require that classification being moved farther up the heirarchy of teirs by the potential court rather than treating it in the vain of the teir its always been.

  8. #108
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I think that a change so basic, as allowing a "concept" to be elevated to getting constitutional protection, requires a separate constitutional amendment, just like the women's right to vote, the racial minority right to vote and the voting age "standard" did, as they ALL followed the 14th amendment (indicating that those "rights" exceeded what was considered meant by "equal protection" under the 14th amendment).
    Sexuality is already covered under the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. It does not need another Amendment.

    Stop living in the past. We should not have Amendments for every major change unless it is a direct contradiction to what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution prevents same sex couples to having access to marriage. But the equal protection clause does cover people who are homosexual or of a certain sex when it comes to the law applying equally to them.

    And no, saying that they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not equal protection, any more than saying people had the right to marry someone of the same race was equal protection under the law.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #109
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Personally this is why I don't see Same Sex Marriage as unconstitutional based on the notion of "sexual orientation" but rather based on gender discrimination. Such a notion functoins off an established standard of gender being a middle tier scrutiny category under the EPC brought about by the 14th amendment as opposed to a case with sexual orientation where it would likely require that classification being moved farther up the heirarchy of teirs by the potential court rather than treating it in the vain of the teir its always been.
    Lots of blather there Z, but very incoherent. I NEVER said or implied that SSM was unconstitutional. Some states have allowed SSM (by changing their state marriage law) yet most do not allow SSM (per existing state marriage law), which is ALL constitutional. Perhaps, instead of using "impressive" phrasing and big words, you could concentrate on simply making some sense.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-13-12 at 04:45 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #110
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,544

    Re: How important do you consider the issue of gay marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Sexuality is already covered under the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. It does not need another Amendment.

    Stop living in the past. We should not have Amendments for every major change unless it is a direct contradiction to what the Constitution says. Nothing in the Constitution prevents same sex couples to having access to marriage. But the equal protection clause does cover people who are homosexual or of a certain sex when it comes to the law applying equally to them.

    And no, saying that they have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex is not equal protection, any more than saying people had the right to marry someone of the same race was equal protection under the law.
    Big assumptions but not legal facts. Explain what in the 15th (banning racial voting restrictions) or 19th (banning gender voting restrictions) amendments WAS NOT covered by the 14th amendment WHEN USING YOUR "interpretation" of the equal protection clause.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-13-12 at 04:46 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •