What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

Zyphlin · Dec 28, 2012

digsbe said:
Marriage is largely societal thing that is recognized in law, I don't believe that by default homosexuals and other sexualities have the right to legally define marriage in context of society and the law without their approval.

They do the moment that society decided to make marriage NOT a "societal" thing alone but make it a legal thing. Once that happens, then it's subject to laws. Once it's subject to laws, that means it's subject to being held to constitutional standards. "Homosexuals" have no inherent right to, on their own, legally define what marriage is in the context of LAW...but then neither do heterosexuals or anyone else. The legal right is in society to create the laws through their elected officials and the legal right is in the courts to judge if laws adhere to constitutional standards.

I would say it is within important state interest if when the issue is brought up to a vote that the majority of citizens of a state disprove of SSM (which is usually indirect since nearly all votes are to define marriage as one man one woman).

So the "important state interest" that it's serving is....that people think it's a state interest? That's a rather hillariously bad argument. "People want it" or "People don't want it" is not a legitimate "important state interest". If it was, what you've essentially created is constitutionally allowed tyranny which is specifically something the constitution works to prevent against. By your own standard, if we managed to get 51% of people to say "**** women, they shouldn't be allowed to speak unless spoken to" then that should be constitutionally legal because a majority of people want it and thus its an important state interest.

Dragonfly · Dec 28, 2012

Zyphlin said:
Yeah, your anecdotal statement that there are more kids that are open to SSM than adults in no way changes my statement that it does create an actual change.

The fact you "don't weep for them" in no way negates the fact that it would cause a change.

Your strawman, again, doesn't negate the fact that there would be cahnge. I never suggested "gay people" weren't "a part of society". I suggested that changing the legal meaning of marriage would impart a societal change as to what the public consiousness of "marriage" means. While you can't force societal acceptance of something, it would force society to LEGALLY accept something which DOES create a change.

Simply because you think those changes are good or don't care that people may not like the changes doesn't mean they don't happen.

Alright, I see what you're saying. For some there will be some changes. Mostly positive changes for those that see any at all.

I'd bet that the vast majority won't feel or experience anything different at all.

Sort of like allowing liquor and beer sales to happen on Sunday in places where it was previously against the law.
Some love the idea. Some hate the idea based on religious grounds. Some recognize and experience change. Vast majority don't.

Zyphlin · Dec 28, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
Marriage as defined by the state is a right, I will agree.

Correct.

Additionally, people have a right that there will be equal protection under the law.

Meaning that definition of marriage by the state must be applied in a way that adheres to the EPC clause born of the 14th

Zyphlin · Dec 28, 2012

ttwtt78640 said:
Silly me, I thought that we were talking about changing state law, by SCOTUS fiat, based on a preference for SSM being recognized (added?) as a new "civil right".

It would not be a "new" civil right. It would be applying one civil right (Equal Protection of the Law) towards Laws (marriage laws) that deny people another civil right (Marriage)

Verthaine · Dec 28, 2012

I find it very eerie that the Anti-SSM crowd are using the same arguments and basically the same phrases used by those who opposed interracial marriages in the 60's.

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/...l_Marriage.pdf

Do some of these seem rather familiar?

“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding
intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are
void.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting
from a prior court case))
“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against
miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions
against incest and incestuous marriages.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting
from a prior court case))
“[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same
footing
as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or
the prescription of minimum ages at which people may
marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally
incompetent.”
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument
transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton,
eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant
Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial

Or how about some of these...

“Civilized society has the power of self-preservation, and, marriage being the
foundation of such society, most of the states in which the Negro forms an
element of any note have enacted laws inhibiting intermarriage between the
white and black races.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from
a prior court case))
Interracial marriages would be a “calamity full of the saddest and
gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”
(Source: Tennessee Supreme Court, quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May
19,1996)

Or this...

Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of
conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than
execration.”
(Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago
Tribune, May 19, 1996)

And here's another...

“It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon
the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a
marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such
inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's
argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))

And yet another..

Interracial marriage runs counter to God's plan:
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he
placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his
arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he
separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
(Source: Virginia trial judge upholding conviction of Mildred and Richard
Loving for interracial marriage, quoted in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 3
(1967))

I'm willing to bet that future generations will look back at the Anti-SSM crowd the same way decent people today look back at the anti-interacial marriage crowd.
With disgust.

digsbe · Dec 28, 2012

Zyphlin said:
They do the moment that society decided to make marriage NOT a "societal" thing alone but make it a legal thing. Once that happens, then it's subject to laws. Once it's subject to laws, that means it's subject to being held to constitutional standards. "Homosexuals" have no inherent right to, on their own, legally define what marriage is in the context of LAW...but then neither do heterosexuals or anyone else. The legal right is in society to create the laws through their elected officials and the legal right is in the courts to judge if laws adhere to constitutional standards.

In my opinion adhering to Constitutional standards does not require forcing all states to recognize same sex marriages. If anything it would be a violation of state's rights to force them to do so when many have amended their state constitutions to legally define marriage. It is within the legal right of states to define marriage as one man one woman just as the opposite is also true. Race is something protected within the Constitution, a state cannot ban interracial marriage. However, I do not believe that sexuality is a protected entity within the Constitution nor is it unlawful gender discrimination for a state to legally define marriage as one man one woman. As far as the law is concerned it is not a violation.

So the "important state interest" that it's serving is....that people think it's a state interest? That's a rather hillariously bad argument. "People want it" or "People don't want it" is not a legitimate "important state interest". If it was, what you've essentially created is constitutionally allowed tyranny which is specifically something the constitution works to prevent against. By your own standard, if we managed to get 51% of people to say "**** women, they shouldn't be allowed to speak unless spoken to" then that should be constitutionally legal because a majority of people want it and thus its an important state interest.

People voting on an issue goes along with the Democratic process. You may call defining marriage that does not include homosexual relationships as tyranny, but the fact remains that the populous may vote on issues within state authority under the umbrella of the Constitution. I think it would be tyranny for the government to mandate that all states recognize SSM regardless if their laws when there isn't a basis for it within the Constitution (in my legal opinion).

My standard is not that if we get 51% to agree with something that it should be law. My standard is the Constitution and I believe that a state has the authority to put the issue of defining marriage for their state up to the people and if a majority approves, then that definition is what is legal. If 51% believed that women shouldn't be allowed to speak unless spoken too then that cannot legally happen as long as we have freedom of speech (since doing so violates that).

Zyphlin · Dec 28, 2012

digsbe said:
In my opinion adhering to Constitutional standards does not require forcing all states to recognize same sex marriages. If anything it would be a violation of state's rights to force them to do so when many have amended their state constitutions to legally define marriage. It is within the legal right of states to define marriage as one man one woman just as the opposite is also true.

The Constitution mandates that constitutional restrictions upon the Federal Government are equally applied to the States. A state has no more right to violate your ability to marry than it would to violate your ability to speech. Are you suggesting that if a state made a constitutional amendment in it's state constitution barring people from, let's say, speaking in a negative fashion about the Governor under penalty of law that it should be allowed to stand and would not be constitutionally problematic?

People voting on an issue goes along with the Democratic process. You may call defining marriage that does not include homosexual relationships as tyranny,

Nice spin. I call allowing people by simple majority to enforce the will of the majority over the minority despite constitutional protections is tyranny. The fact that it just happens to be in terms of marriage right now is irrelevant but tells us a TON about your own argument.

but the fact remains that the populous may vote on issues within state authority under the umbrella of the Constitution.

But the fact they cast their vote does not inherently mean the thing they've voting for is constitutional.

I think it would be tyranny for the government to mandate that all states recognize SSM regardless if their laws when there isn't a basis for it within the Constitution (in my legal opinion).

So what your argument is now melding into is that there isn't insufficient evidence to suggest that there is a voilation of the EPC in terms of either sexuality or gender....but that the notion of a civil right to marriage is non-existant?

In which case then, what you're suggesting is that...hypothetically speaking...if a state was to go back to denying interracial marriage that on a constitutional level you'd be perfectly fine with that?

My standard is not that if we get 51% to agree with something that it should be law. My standard is the Constitution and I believe that a state has the authority to put the issue of defining marriage for their state up to the people and if a majority approves, then that definition is what is legal. If 51% believed that women shouldn't be allowed to speak unless spoken too then that cannot legally happen as long as we have freedom of speech (since doing so violates that).

digsbe · Dec 28, 2012

Zyphlin said:
The Constitution mandates that constitutional restrictions upon the Federal Government are equally applied to the States. A state has no more right to violate your ability to marry than it would to violate your ability to speech. Are you suggesting that if a state made a constitutional amendment in it's state constitution barring people from, let's say, speaking in a negative fashion about the Governor under penalty of law that it should be allowed to stand and would not be constitutionally problematic?

No, that would be a violation of free speech (just as with your previous example where 51% of a state believes women shouldn't speak). I completely agree that the federal Constitution applies to states. What I don't believe is that banning SSM, or rather, defining marriage as one man one woman, is a violation of the Federal Constitution.

Nice spin. I call allowing people by simple majority to enforce the will of the majority over the minority despite constitutional protections is tyranny. The fact that it just happens to be in terms of marriage right now is irrelevant but tells us a TON about your own argument.

I think you have missed my argument. I am saying that homosexuals as a minority are not protected under the Constitution nor is any sexuality. States do have rights, what I said is that it would be tyranny to tell a state that has legally defined marriage as one man one woman (which in my view is not a violation of the Constitution) would be tyranny where the Federal government steps on the right of the states.

But the fact they cast their vote does not inherently mean the thing they've voting for is constitutional.

No it doesn't, but in my view it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage as one man one woman. They issue the license, it's within the realm of the Constitution, and there is nothing wrong with it.

So what your argument is now melding into is that there isn't insufficient evidence to suggest that there is a voilation of the EPC in terms of either sexuality or gender....but that the notion of a civil right to marriage is non-existant?

In which case then, what you're suggesting is that...hypothetically speaking...if a state was to go back to denying interracial marriage that on a constitutional level you'd be perfectly fine with that?

The states have the authority to define marriage, they issue marriage certificates. The Federal government does not. I believe that DOMA is a violation of the Constitution and the rights of the states because it limits states that allow SSM. Federal marriage benefits in the workplace and other instances need to be given to legally married couples for that state, the federal government defining marriage and withholding those benefits violates the state's right to define the terms of marriage for that state. In this instance, DOMA is tyrannical. The opposite is also true, if the Federal government were to mandate that all states recognize SSM that would be tyrannical, it is overstepping it's boundaries and powers.

As to your hypothetical argument which I have already addressed. If a state goes back to denying interracial marriage on the state Constitutional level that is illegal under the Federal Constitution because it violates rights based on race. The entire premise of my argument is that I do not believe that there is legal power within the Federal Constitution to mandate SSM nor do I believe that the Constitution, as written, states that defining one man one woman marriage at the state level is a violation of Constitutional rights. I believe that it is the right of the states to define marriage and issue the marriage certificates. A state may allow SSM, it may not allow SSM. The Federal government should not tell them what is or is not marriage and enforce such a thing because it violates state rights (hence, DOMA should be ruled unconstitutional). It is not a violation of the Federal Constitution of for a state to define one man one woman marriage or to define marriage as a union between two adults or even for a state to allow polygamy.

Dragonfly · Dec 28, 2012

digsbe said:
in my view it is Constitutional for a state to define marriage as one man one woman.

Just to be clear - do you feel the same about marijuana laws, gun laws, voting laws, abortion laws, ......

digsbe · Dec 28, 2012

Dragonfly said:
Just to be clear - do you feel the same about marijuana laws, gun laws, voting laws, abortion laws, ......

That depends entirely on the laws. I am very much pro-life, but with SCOTUS rules on abortion I think it's unconstitutional for a state to ban abortions and violate those rulings. Gun laws fall under the 2nd amendment which can be regulated but not violated. Each of these things are different though and would depend entirely on the laws passed and what the Federal Constitution says/SCOTUS rules.

If we are going to say that defining one man one woman marriage is a violation of the Constitution because it essentially bans SSM then I believe a Constitutional amendment will be required to make such a legal claim.

Dragonfly · Dec 28, 2012

digsbe said:
If we are going to say that defining one man one woman marriage is a violation of the Constitution because it essentially bans SSM then I believe a Constitutional amendment will be required to make such a legal claim.

Why on earth should we need the constitution to define marriage?

That just seems so silly.

If you don't want to drink alcohol because of your religious beliefs, don't drink it.
If you don't want to marry somebody of the same sex because of your religious beliefs, don't marry that person.

digsbe · Dec 28, 2012

Dragonfly said:
Why on earth should we need the constitution to define marriage?

That just seems so silly.

If you don't want to drink alcohol because of your religious beliefs, don't drink it.
If you don't want to marry somebody of the same sex because of your religious beliefs, don't marry that person.

You would need the Federal Constitution to define marriage or another legal action if you want to remove a state's right to define marriage for that state.

Dooble · Dec 28, 2012

Dragonfly said:
If you don't want to drink alcohol because of your religious beliefs, don't drink it.

And if you do want to drink alcohol because of your personal beliefs, don't drink it, because alcohol is bad for you, anyways. Just like a large soda pop is bad for you, right Mayor Bloomberg (D)?

Dragonfly said:
If you don't want to marry somebody of the same sex because of your religious beliefs, don't marry that person.

And if you don't want to marry somebody of the same sex because of your religious beliefs, then good for you; you're also obeying the law.

Intersting that you compared alcohol consumption to homosexuality/same-sex marriage. Both can be destructive to the person physically, and most certainly destructive to the person spiritually.

Zyphlin · Dec 28, 2012

digsbe said:
No, that would be a violation of free speech (just as with your previous example where 51% of a state believes women shouldn't speak). I completely agree that the federal Constitution applies to states. What I don't believe is that banning SSM, or rather, defining marriage as one man one woman, is a violation of the Federal Constitution.

The problem is the body with the power to interprit the Constitution, the SCOTUS, found that marriage IS a constitutionally protected right. Which means it's as protected from being violated by the states as Free Speech is.

I think you have missed my argument. I am saying that homosexuals as a minority are not protected under the Constitution nor is any sexuality.

And you're incorrect based on legal precedence as evidenced by the concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas or the ruling in Romer v. Evans. You can state that they SHOULDN'T be, but that's a different argument.

Also, statements fail to address the other point of my post which was suggesting that the issue could be completely seperated from the notion of "homosexuals" at all and be looked at by gender.

States do have rights, what I said is that it would be tyranny to tell a state that has legally defined marriage as one man one woman (which in my view is not a violation of the Constitution) would be tyranny where the Federal government steps on the right of the states.

Requiring that the States make their laws in accordance with the Constitutional requirements of Equal Protection is no more tyrannical than saying states must make their laws in accordance with the Constitutional requirement of free speech.

The states have the authority to define marriage, they issue marriage certificates. The Federal government does not.

I've never stated that opposition to those facts. They do have tha authority....but that definition MUST be constitutional in nature.

I believe that DOMA is a violation of the Constitution and the rights of the states because it limits states that allow SSM. Federal marriage benefits in the workplace and other instances need to be given to legally married couples for that state, the federal government defining marriage and withholding those benefits violates the state's right to define the terms of marriage for that state. In this instance, DOMA is tyrannical. The opposite is also true, if the Federal government were to mandate that all states recognize SSM that would be tyrannical, it is overstepping it's boundaries and powers.

I'll be honest in stating I don't know a great deal about DOMA so can't speak to it in the specific sense.

As to your hypothetical argument which I have already addressed. If a state goes back to denying interracial marriage on the state Constitutional level that is illegal under the Federal Constitution because it violates rights based on race.

Your argument makes no logical sense then. The Constitution no more clearly states that Race is protected then it states Sexual Orientation or Gender is protected. You are simply deeming that you'll adhere to judicial precedence in one case but ignore it in another. Which if that's the way you want to go...fine. But don't sit here and try to imply to me that your argument is based off the notion that Race is clearly a constitutionally protected class but sexual orientation isn't when they both are protected for the same reason...judicial precedence.

So if I'm understanding you now....your argument is that Marriage is a constitutional civil right, and that there is a Constitutional requirement for Equal Protection of the Law, but that equal protection applies to Race but doesn't apply to homosexuals because........?

The Federal government should not tell them what is or is not marriage and enforce such a thing because it violates state rights

It violates states rights no more than the Federal Government telling them what is or is not a marriage in the case of race since it's based on the exact same constitutional principle.

Also, you've still not addressed the notion of Gender Inequality...which is what I stated I actually argue based off of, not sexual orientation discrimination. Under the law the man is able to do something a woman can not and vise versa. Stating "Well people voted that they want it that was" is not a legally viable "important state interest".

Zyphlin · Dec 28, 2012

digsbe said:
You would need the Federal Constitution to define marriage or another legal action if you want to remove a state's right to define marriage for that state.

No ones wishing to remove the right for a state to define marriage....they simply wish for the states definition to be Constitutional. Stating that barring same sex marriages is unconstitutional no more "removes the states right to define marriage" then stating the barring of interracial marriages removed it.

It restricts it....but the Constitution is meant to RESTRICT the government from infringing upon peoples rights.

Redress · Dec 28, 2012

Dooble said:
And if you do want to drink alcohol because of your personal beliefs, don't drink it, because alcohol is bad for you, anyways. Just like a large soda pop is bad for you, right Mayor Bloomberg (D)?

And if you don't want to marry somebody of the same sex because of your religious beliefs, then good for you; you're also obeying the law.

Intersting that you compared alcohol consumption to homosexuality/same-sex marriage. Both can be destructive to the person physically, and most certainly destructive to the person spiritually.

Being gay does not harm one physically.

Verthaine · Dec 28, 2012

Dooble said:
Intersting that you compared alcohol consumption to homosexuality/same-sex marriage. Both can be destructive to the person physically, and most certainly destructive to the person spiritually.

How about you phrase this another way...

“It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon
the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a
marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such
inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's
argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))

You are doing the same old song and dance as bigots before you,it's just the dancefloor that's changed.

Dooble · Dec 28, 2012

Redress said:
Being gay does not harm one physically.

Sure it does. The following paragraph on this link will be of most interest to you:

Since 2000, the largest increase in syphilis cases has been among men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2010, MSM accounted for two-thirds of syphilis cases (67%), up from just 4% in 2000 (1). This is of particular concern, since MSM are also most heavily affected by HIV, and syphilis infection can facilitate HIV transmission (1).

CDC NPIN ? STDs - Today

Verthaine · Dec 28, 2012

Dooble said:
Sure it does. The following paragraph on this link will be of most interest to you:

Since 2000, the largest increase in syphilis cases has been among men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2010, MSM accounted for two-thirds of syphilis cases (67%), up from just 4% in 2000 (1). This is of particular concern, since MSM are also most heavily affected by HIV, and syphilis infection can facilitate HIV transmission (1).

CDC NPIN ? STDs - Today

Nothing about gay women.But don't let that stop you from spreading hatred.

Dooble · Dec 28, 2012

Verthaine said:
How about you phrase this another way...

“It is contended that interracial marriage has adverse effects not only upon
the parties thereto but upon their progeny . . . and that the progeny of a
marriage between a Negro and a Caucasian suffer not only the stigma of such
inferiority but the fear of rejection by members of both races.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 26 and n.5 (summarizing the State's
argument in favor of ban on interracial marriage))

You are doing the same old song and dance as bigots before you,it's just the dancefloor that's changed.

No, it isn't. You simply changed the dance to the racebaiter two step. Sorry, pal. I don't play your kind of racial games. Unlike you, I actually know how to separate skin tone from behavior.

Dooble · Dec 28, 2012

Verthaine said:
Nothing about gay women.But don't let that stop you from spreading hatred.

Don't let the other half of the gender equation keep you from obfuscating the issue.... wait. :doh

digsbe · Dec 28, 2012

Zyphlin said:
The problem is the body with the power to interprit the Constitution, the SCOTUS, found that marriage IS a constitutionally protected right. Which means it's as protected from being violated by the states as Free Speech is.

And it's not a violation of the Constitution for a state to define one man one woman marriage which indirectly bans SSM.

And you're incorrect based on legal precedence as evidenced by the concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas or the ruling in Romer v. Evans. You can state that they SHOULDN'T be, but that's a different argument.

Also, statements fail to address the other point of my post which was suggesting that the issue could be completely seperated from the notion of "homosexuals" at all and be looked at by gender.

The act of sodomy laws and banning homosexual sex is unconstitutional. However, I do not believe that Constitutionally homosexuals as a group are protected to the same level as race, religion, and gender which are specific in the Constitution. I don't believe that issuing equal rights on the basis of sexuality is clearly outlined in the Constitution. If we want to extend equal rights on the basis of sexuality I believe that an amendment is needed. People can do as they please when it comes to sodomy/homosexuality with their own bodies, but because someone is homosexual does not grant them equal rights as is the fact that they are a member of a race or religion.

Requiring that the States make their laws in accordance with the Constitutional requirements of Equal Protection is no more tyrannical than saying states must make their laws in accordance with the Constitutional requirement of free speech.

It's not a violation of ECP to define one man one woman relationships as marriage unless of course the SCOTUS rules otherwise.

I've never stated that opposition to those facts. They do have tha authority....but that definition MUST be constitutional in nature.

I do believe that the definition is Constitutional in nature if a state defines marriage as between a man and woman and within a states right to do so.

I'll be honest in stating I don't know a great deal about DOMA so can't speak to it in the specific sense.

A landmark case in an appeals court in MA stated that DOMA was unconstitutional because it infringes upon a state's right to define marriage. Likewise, it also upholds a state's right to do so, this is a quote directly from the ruling.

To conclude, many Americans believe that marriage is the
union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where
that is the law today. One virtue of federalism is that it permits
this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies
as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex
marriage.

The ruling was largely made because DOMA violates MA's right to define marriage and include same sex relationships. It is unconstitutional on the grounds of states rights, not that it's unconstitutional to define marriage as between a man and woman. Here is a link to the pdf ruling: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/ca...12-may-31-gill-v-opm-first-circuit-ruling.pdf

Your argument makes no logical sense then. The Constitution no more clearly states that Race is protected then it states Sexual Orientation or Gender is protected. You are simply deeming that you'll adhere to judicial precedence in one case but ignore it in another. Which if that's the way you want to go...fine. But don't sit here and try to imply to me that your argument is based off the notion that Race is clearly a constitutionally protected class but sexual orientation isn't when they both are protected for the same reason...judicial precedence.

So if I'm understanding you now....your argument is that Marriage is a constitutional civil right, and that there is a Constitutional requirement for Equal Protection of the Law, but that equal protection applies to Race but doesn't apply to homosexuals because........?

My argument is that and always has been that defining one man one woman marriage is not a violation of the Constitution or the EPC. It does not apply to homosexuals because I don't believe under the Constitution that it clearly states that sexuality is protected to the level that a state cannot define marriages that exclude certain sexual relationships.

It violates states rights no more than the Federal Government telling them what is or is not a marriage in the case of race since it's based on the exact same constitutional principle.

Also, you've still not addressed the notion of Gender Inequality...which is what I stated I actually argue based off of, not sexual orientation discrimination. Under the law the man is able to do something a woman can not and vise versa. Stating "Well people voted that they want it that was" is not a legally viable "important state interest".

There is legal sexual inequality in this country. Under the law men are forced to sign up with selective service, women are not. There are areas that men and woman cannot enter (restrooms are an example) and currently combat roles and military roles are not equal when it comes to men ad women in the military. I don't think it's outside the law to say that only females can be wives/brides or that only males can be husbands/grooms or to say that marriage is only between a man and woman. I would agree that it is a violation of the Constitution if the Equal Rights Amendment was ratified, but it failed to be ratified.

Zyphlin said:
No ones wishing to remove the right for a state to define marriage....they simply wish for the states definition to be Constitutional. Stating that barring same sex marriages is unconstitutional no more "removes the states right to define marriage" then stating the barring of interracial marriages removed it.

It restricts it....but the Constitution is meant to RESTRICT the government from infringing upon peoples rights.

As it is I again do not believe that the Constitution as written is violated by states that define one man one woman marriages. The SCOTUS may disagree and I'll accept that I was wrong, but in my opinion I think it would require a Constitutional amendment to make it so.

winston53660 · Dec 28, 2012

Dooble said:
Sure it does. The following paragraph on this link will be of most interest to you:

Since 2000, the largest increase in syphilis cases has been among men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2010, MSM accounted for two-thirds of syphilis cases (67%), up from just 4% in 2000 (1). This is of particular concern, since MSM are also most heavily affected by HIV, and syphilis infection can facilitate HIV transmission (1).

CDC NPIN ? STDs - Today

so discouraging monogamous stable relationships via gay marriage bans is the correct course of action ?

Verthaine · Dec 28, 2012

Dooble said:
No, it isn't. You simply changed the dance to the racebaiter two step. Sorry, pal. I don't play your kind of racial games. Unlike you, I actually know how to separate skin tone from behavior.

Yes it is,and that's a matter for future generations to decide.I didn't accuse you of being a racist,I accuse you of being a bigot using the same arguments as bigots before you have.
Nice try and spectacular fail on your part.
Bigots aren't necessarily racists.You are the one who can't seem to make that distinction.

Verthaine · Dec 28, 2012

Dooble said:
Don't let the other half of the gender equation keep you from obfuscating the issue.... wait. :doh

Ahh,so you have no problem with gay women,it's gay men you have a problem with.

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage? [W:539/549]

What is the primary reason behind your support for same-sex marriage?

Because I’m gay/lesbian

Because it’s an equal rights issue

Because gays/lesbians love each other too

Because I despise bigots/haters

Because I don’t want to be labeled a bigot

I’m opposed to gay marriage

I don’t care, either way

Other

Truth will set you free

Truth will set you free

Truth will set you free

Truth will set you free

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Truth will set you free