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 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 161

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

  1. #121
    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
    LOL. What do you think the term "LEGAL PRECEDENT" means? I think it means that, if it was done (or decided) before then it stands of its own weight, not having to be "redecided" in all such future cases, simply referenced in a decision "as law". So using THAT logic constitutional action for "GLBT rights" needs a constitutional amendment. We shall see what the SCOTUS thinks. Far too many are willing to substitute the "opinions" of 5/4 of our nine robed umpires of the day, as equivalent to the actual words of the constitution (or an amendment), a VERY dangerous thing, IMHO.
    You're not making any sense here.

    Then you are saying there should have been an Amendment to legalize interracial marriage throughout the country because even after the 14th was put in place, interracial marriage bans were ruled not to violate the Amendment. The same for segregation. So, I guess you believe that that too should have had an Amendment to address it?

    It is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitutional Amendments. They exercise at least some restraint in doing so but everyone will complain about something or other.

    We should not have to put every single right that the states or federal government should not be allowed to abridge in the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th is actually a pretty good Amendment to ensure that people are treated pretty fairly, particularly those who can show they are "similarly situated" in regards to other groups, but they are being treated unequally. This requires the state to provide the rationale for why it feels it is in the state's interest to not treat those two groups equally. The Constitution is meant to limit the government and the laws of the government, not say that the citizens are only allowed to do what is specified in the Constitution.
    "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. #122
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    One of the issues of the fact that the SCOTUS essentially invested itself with the power of Judicial Review is the fact tht what is or isn't covered under the 14th is more up to the thoughts of 9 Justices rather than some universal, consistent, unquestionable baseline. As such, a constitutional amendment provides an avenue to get something passed that may actually already, theoritically, be allowed by the constitution but because the current make up of the court doesn't judge it so then for practical purposes it isn't.

    A hypothetical to explain my point. Lets say, for some strange and odd reason, the SCOTUS just remains relatively silent on cases regarding automatic weapons bans. Not directly saying the laws are unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment, but neither overturning them. An amendment could be passed saying "People can own automatic weapons". Looking back...people could say that its inclusion in the constitution as an amendment proves the 2nd amendment doesn't cover it, but inreality it came about because the SCOTUS refused to actually take a stance either way about the 2nd amendment covering it.

    Additionally, in terms of the 15th and 19th...because the right to vote I believe is a constitutional issue, not simply a privledge granted by legislatively passed federal law, there could be issues with the 14th applying to it. Essentially it brings the question of whether or not the constitution has the power to invalidate other constitutional provisions without a direct statement of doing so (IE if the constitution says "white men can vote" and then passes an amendment saying "laws much be applied equally" [really really paraphrasing here] does that amendment have the power, in its broad statement, of over riding the other part of the constitution or does it apply to lower law and an amendment specifically addressing the constitutional matter is needed to change it). It's at least a slightly more clouded issue.
    Thank you for the clear, readable reply. I understand completely why a clearly worded, explicitly stated, ratified, constitutional amendment was made. What I disagree with you on, is that ABSENT any actual constitutional reference to a "concept" that the SCOTUS can say, well it is "kind of like" or "it would follow from xxxx that yyyy would be OK". Words have meaning, that do not "change over time", especially to ADD/DELETE new "concepts" or "classes".

    Race is not "like" gender (nor is GLBT orientation "like" race or gender) thus they were explictly and separately addressed, via constitutional amendment. To me that establishes a "legal precedent", that we DO amend the constitution for "conceptually different" things, not simply accept that all things "like" or "sort of similar to" are the SAME or EQUAL concept.

    Treating a black man not like a white man is unconstitutional, but treating a black man not like a white woman is NOT unconstitutional IFF treating a black man not like black woman is also done (e.g. military physical fitness standards) thus marriage defined as one man/one woman is perfectly legal. Just as race and gender are NOT mutually exclusive, neither is GLBT status a substitue for either gender or race, it is in its "own class" of concepts. You can be a gay black man, or a white bisexual woman, or... (you get my drift here).
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-13-12 at 05:43 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

  3. #123
    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
    Thank you for the clear, readable reply. I understand completely why a clearly worded, explicitly stated, ratified, constitutional amendment was made. What I disagree with you on, is that ABSENT any actual constitutional reference to a "concept" that the SCOTUS can say, well it is "kind of like" or "it would follow from xxxx that yyyy would be OK". Words have meaning, that does not "change over time", especailly to ADD new "concepts" or "classes".

    Race is not "like" gender (nor is GLBT orientation "like" race or gender) thus they were explictly and separately addressed, via constitutional amendment. To me that establishes a "legal precedent", that we DO amend the constitution for "conceptually different" things, not simply accept that all things "like" or "sort of similar to" are the SAME or EQUAL concept.

    Treating a black man not like a white man is unconstitutional, but treating a black man not like a white woman is NOT unconstitutional IFF treating a black man not like black woman is also done (e.g. military physical fitness standards) thus marriage defined as one man/one woman is perfectly legal. Just as race and gender are NOT mutually exclusive, neither is GLBT status a substitue for either gender or race, it is in its "own class" of concepts. You can be a gay black man, or a white bisexual woman, or... (you get my drift here).
    Your problem is that you can also have a gay man who prefers to have sex with those who are of a different race or a gay woman who prefers to have sex with those of the same race as his/her-self. Whether it is about sex/gender or race, it is still a choice for what characteristic may be a factor in why a person is attracted to and wants to marry another person.

    And if the treatment cannot be justified (as it is justified with military fitness requirements) then it would still be unconstitutional. A state cannot make a law that said white women could not have a driver's license based purely on their race and/or sex/gender without said law being ruled unconstitutional.
    "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. #124
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    You're not making any sense here.

    Then you are saying there should have been an Amendment to legalize interracial marriage throughout the country because even after the 14th was put in place, interracial marriage bans were ruled not to violate the Amendment. The same for segregation. So, I guess you believe that that too should have had an Amendment to address it?

    It is the job of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitutional Amendments. They exercise at least some restraint in doing so but everyone will complain about something or other.

    We should not have to put every single right that the states or federal government should not be allowed to abridge in the Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th is actually a pretty good Amendment to ensure that people are treated pretty fairly, particularly those who can show they are "similarly situated" in regards to other groups, but they are being treated unequally. This requires the state to provide the rationale for why it feels it is in the state's interest to not treat those two groups equally. The Constitution is meant to limit the government and the laws of the, not say that the citizens are only allowed to do what is specified in the Constitution.
    Not at all. Race, gender and GLBT status ar THREE separate and NOT EQUAL concepts. The concept of racial equality is separate and distinct from the concept of gender equality. The mixed race "bans" were unconstitutional because a black man was treated differently (unequal) to a white man, and black woman was treated differently (unequal) to a white woman, PURELY RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. Marriage was (and largely still is) one man/one woman.

    You will note that it IS constitutional to treat the genders unequally, one need look only at military duty assignments and physical fitness standards. But it is NOT constitutional when it comes to voting to treat gender or race differently; but note no GLBT changes needed at all for voting laws.

    What you wish to do is to equate a male/female pair and a male/male pair and a female/female pair, but NOTHING in our constituion bestows rights on EITHER pairing or marriage, that is ALL state contract law, as the 10th amendment CLEARLY states that it should be. Since marriage is neither an individual right nor a federal power granted by the constitution, it is left to states.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-13-12 at 06:04 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. #125
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    It really doesn't affect me. Explaining from the pov that it leads to even more moral decay isn't received well by some people. It's not important in the sense that it's dangerous or anything like that, but important if you're concerned about the overall morality of a nation from a Christian point of view.

  6. #126
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

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

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    Your problem is that you can also have a gay man who prefers to have sex with those who are of a different race or a gay woman who prefers to have sex with those of the same race as his/her-self. Whether it is about sex/gender or race, it is still a choice for what characteristic may be a factor in why a person is attracted to and wants to marry another person.

    And if the treatment cannot be justified (as it is justified with military fitness requirements) then it would still be unconstitutional. A state cannot make a law that said white women could not have a driver's license based purely on their race and/or sex/gender without said law being ruled unconstitutional.
    Then ANY desired "partnership agreement" should be possible as being called a "marriage", e.g. polygamy. What "compelling state interest" is served by saying that ONE is a "sacred" or "tradional" number of spouses, yet man/woman is now "passe" due to social "evolution" or whatever makes GLBT now a right? If I really want a husband AND a wife, or two or three wives then WHY NOT? That is perfectly accetable in a state issued business partnership, that deals with the death of a partner and property distribution upon separation (of any/all partners), minor additions to child custody laws could easily handle polygamy as well. Once it is up to the nine robed umpires, and no longer a state or constituional amendment issue, we are in deep trouble, IMHO, as we the people are totally at the mercy of the SCOTUS unless and until an amendment is passed, to simply set set things back as they were. In your view 5/4 of the SCOTUS can simply change existing federal/state law after 200 years with no constitutional action at all, that is dangerous indeed.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-13-12 at 06:20 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

  7. #127
    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
    Not at all. Race, gender and GLBT status ar THREE separate and NOT EQUAL concepts. The concept of racial equality is separate and distinct from the concept of gender equality. The mixed race "bans" were unconstitutional because a black man was treated differently (unequal) to a white man, and black woman was treated differently (unequal) to a white woman, PURELY RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. Marriage was (and largely still is) one man/one woman.
    You do know that Mr Loving was white right? His wife was black. And they both spent time in jail for living together in VA as a married couple. They were treated unequally because they were not allowed to choose their partner based on the partner's race. Same sex couples are being treated differently because they are not allowed to choose their partner based on the partner's sex. It is purely sex/gender discrimination. At that time marriage was still largely between people of the same race only.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    You will note that it IS constitutional to treat the genders unequally, one need look only at military duty assignments and physical fitness standards. But it is NOT constitutional when it comes to voting to treat gender or race differently; but note no GLBT changes needed at all for voting laws.
    It is constitutional to treat the races unequally, the states just need a really exceptional reason to do so. It all depends on the level of scrutiny and the state's reasoning for the unequal treatment and how that unequal treatment furthers a state interest.

    Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    What you wish to do is to equate a male/female pair and a male/male pair and a female/female pair, but NOTHING in our constituion bestows rights on EITHER pairing or marriage, that is ALL state contract law, as the 10th amendment CLEARLY states that it should be. Since marriage is neither an individual right nor a federal power granted by the constitution, it is left to states.
    You're wrong. Male/female pairs can be equated to male/male pairs or female/female pairs when it comes to marriage because nothing in a marriage contract or any actual laws pertaining to the responsibilities or functioning aspects of the contract make a male/female pair a necessity.

    And marriage is a right. Even if it were not, the people still have a right to equal protection under marriage laws as long as the states recognize legal marriages at all.

    There is a way that the states could constitutionally ban same sex marriages but they won't because they know that it would also ban opposite sex couples who cannot procreate from getting married as well and possibly require more stringent divorce laws when couples do have children. It completely ignores the other purposes of marriage and would likely be a horrible move on the part of any state that did it. It likely wouldn't last long if it was pulled off to begin with either.
    "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.

  8. #128
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    It really doesn't affect me. Explaining from the pov that it leads to even more moral decay isn't received well by some people. It's not important in the sense that it's dangerous or anything like that, but important if you're concerned about the overall morality of a nation from a Christian point of view.
    The proposition that homosexuality = moral decadence or decay is a claim that has yet to be substantiated by an logical argument or evidence.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 06-14-12 at 02:53 AM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  9. #129
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,998

    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.
    That's it right there! You've just proven my point. If I gave any impression that I figured that SCOTUS would come to the conclusion I gave, I apologize. My point was that would be the logical justification that would occur in the lower courts.

    I'll give you times change and as they do SCOTUS shifts with the times. But given that they are the final authority they can only get things wrong in our opinion of how things should be and should be interpreted.

    Why can't we just say no law shall contain any reference to gender, race, religious choice or sexual orientation/identification? Things would be so much simpler.

  10. #130
    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
    Then ANY desired "partnership agreement" should be possible as being called a "marriage", e.g. polygamy. What "compelling state interest" is served by saying that ONE is a "sacred" or "tradional" number of spouses, yet man/woman is now "passe" due to social "evolution" or whatever makes GLBT now a right? If I really want a husband AND a wife, or two or three wives then WHY NOT? That is perfectly accetable in a state issued business partnership, that deals with the death of a partner and property distribution upon separation (of any/all partners), minor additions to child custody laws could easily handle polygamy as well. Once it is up to the nine robed umpires, and no longer a state or constituional amendment issue, we are in deep trouble, IMHO, as we the people are totally at the mercy of the SCOTUS unless and until an amendment is passed, to simply set set things back as they were. In your view 5/4 of the SCOTUS can simply change existing federal/state law after 200 years with no constitutional action at all, that is dangerous indeed.
    I swear you don't understand the part about states being able to restrict things based on a legitimate state interest in doing so under the EPC. The legitimate state interest in denying more than 2 people to enter into a marriage can easily be that the laws and responsibilities connected to legal marriage are only designed for 2 people. Plus, there would be extensive legal issues that can easily be anticipated by having more than two people involved in a marriage.

    I'm not even against some form of marriage for multiple spouses, particularly granting many family rights to multiple spouses, but I see the actual legal issues involved with just legalizing polygamy without addressing the problems that would come with it first.

    So tell me, exactly what legitimate state interest is being reasonably furthered by banning same sex couples from getting legally married? Keep in mind always that no couple is required to have or raise children to get legally married and maintaining tradition is not a legitimate state interest either, or interracial marriage bans could have been upheld easily since most of them had been in place in those states that had them overturned since before we officially became a country.

    It's not just "my view" that says that SCOTUS can change existing federal/state laws without adding new Amendments, it is part of US law and has been used quite often in the last 50 or more years, maybe even longer.
    "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.

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... 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
  •