Which is most likely to happen: same sex marriages or civil unions?

LuckyDan said:

Well. Strike while the iron is hot, I suppose. We are in the midst of a spirited culture war. Could be. Do you think there is enough strength on the right to amend the constitution? I'm not sure.

Click to expand...

I just don't see this issue not being resolved in this decade. My generation is overwhelming supporting of SSM, and support will only grow overtime with people who currently do not support it.

LuckyDan said:

So you frame it as a women's rights issue. Cute trick. It does leave homosexual men out of the picture, though, doesn't it?

A woman has the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as a man has. Equal. No unfair discrimination.

Click to expand...

I'm not framing it as a women's rights issue, the same thing applies to men, why can a women marry a man, and not a man. It's the same logic, and that is in violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. It discriminates against gender, and by that also discriminates against LGBT people.

And using the argument that I have the same right to marry a person of the opposites sex is dishonest. I will never have the desire to marry a person of the opposite sex, nor will I form a family with the person of the opposite sex. It's like what Centrist said, black people had the same right to marry as white people, just people of their own race. It's the same logic, and with that kind of precedent I think once it hits the SCOTUS it will only be a matter of time.

Centrist77 said:

I mostly agree, 10 years maybe be a little faster but it will not be 20.

Click to expand...

I don't think DOMA will survive more than a couple more years, and once that is gone, it is basically all over.

Redress said:

I don't think DOMA will survive more than a couple more years, and once that is gone, it is basically all over.

Click to expand...

I agree. It really is just a matter of actually getting it to the SCOTUS. Most likely the current court will strike down DOMA (going off of the Justices' histories here), although it isn't a guarantee and it most likely won't be unanimous.

I think it is possible though that someone in Congress may try to get something passed to preempt such a decision if they see DOMA going down, but they don't have the support to actually pass an Amendment and it is likely that whatever they do put up won't be enough, won't get passed, or just won't pass in time.

Your Star said:

I just don't see this issue not being resolved in this decade. My generation is overwhelming supporting of SSM, and support will only grow overtime with people who currently do not support it.



I'm not framing it as a women's rights issue, the same thing applies to men, why can a women marry a man, and not a man. It's the same logic, and that is in violation of the 14th amendment equal protection clause. It discriminates against gender, and by that also discriminates against LGBT people.

And using the argument that I have the same right to marry a person of the opposites sex is dishonest. I will never have the desire to marry a person of the opposite sex, nor will I form a family with the person of the opposite sex. It's like what Centrist said, black people had the same right to marry as white people, just people of their own race. It's the same logic, and with that kind of precedent I think once it hits the SCOTUS it will only be a matter of time.

Click to expand...

What's with the "dishonest" word? We don't agree. Fine. Doesn't make me a liar. If you don't want to marry a man, you don't have to.

Has equal protection ever been applied to sexual preference? I don't know. It will have to be to apply the 14th, and to bring your analogy to race in line.

Good luck with that.

LuckyDan said:

What's with the "dishonest" word? We don't agree. Fine. Doesn't make me a liar. If you don't want to marry a man, you don't have to.

Has equal protection ever been applied to sexual preference? I don't know. It will have to be to apply the 14th, and to bring your analogy to race in line.

Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

And a white man had every right to marry a white woman and a black woman had every right to marry a black man, so why did the Lovings have to have a marriage? The right to live together without being thrown in jail, sure. But the SCOTUS stated that they had a right to be married. Why? Sexual preferences are just a choice, right? Nothing ingrained about who someone is attracted to is there?

The discrimination is on sex, not sexuality. And yes, Equal Protection actually applies to both sex and sexuality at different levels. But since the discrimination is actually against sex, not sexuality, then the more strict level of scrutiny, middle tier, should be used to evaluate any case of same sex marriage equality. Two homosexuals can, technically, get married. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman, just as a black man could marry any black woman he wanted before Loving v VA. The issue is that people are attracted to who they are attracted to, and the government should not be preventing people to enter into a legal contract (marriage) because of the sex of the two people involved, anymore than they were right to prevent people from entering into the contract based on the race of the two people involved.

I read that twice and i admit it's either over my head, or nonsense.

In any case, thanks for the reply. We'll see what the supremes say.

LuckyDan said:

I read that twice and i admit it's either over my head, or nonsense.

In any case, thanks for the reply. We'll see what the supremes say.

Click to expand...

Allow me to clarify a couple of things that you be missing about this debate.

First, the SCOTUS case that struck down anti-interracial marriage laws was Loving v Virginia in 1967. It involved a white man/black woman couple living in Virginia who were arrested for living together after they were married in another state and moved to Virginia. They fought the law to the SCOTUS and this case ended up striking down all state laws against interracial marriages as unconstitutional.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, the SCOTUS judges cases that bring laws that may be against Equal Protection based on levels of scrutiny. Which basically means that some things are judged to be more important to not be discriminated against than other things.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

All of this said, the fact is that there really hasn't been any argument established as to why the state has any interest in not allowing a man to marry another man or a woman to marry a woman, while allowing a man to marry a woman and vice versa. The prevailing (false) claim is that marriage is for children. However, this is easily debated by pointing to how marriage laws apply to opposite sex couples, particularly those who can't or do not want to have children. And the government has failed to explain adequately why it is important to promote marriage only between opposite sex couples, whether they have children or not, without showing why homosexual couples who are raising children, either their own or adopted, all over the country are not allowed to provide the same such stability for their children.

That I got. Thanks. Let me think on it.

roguenuke said:

I am trying to get a realistic view on what people believe will most likely happen.

The argument goes on about if gays should have the right to marry the person that they want to actually marry, legally, and have that marriage recognized in every state.

But my question is more on what is most likely to happen, civil unions for same sex couples with the exact same or at least most of the same rights/responsibilities/benefits as opposite sex marriage or just same sex marriage? I'm looking for basis on current court cases moving up, judge and Justice views, laws associated with this, positions of those in Congress, the President, the people, and an overall legal standpoint. Not asking if it is right or wrong, just asking what you believe is likely to happen and when you would expect to see it.

I even want some discussion from those who believe it will never come and/or that there will/might be a federal Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage and support for this in Congress.

Many against same sex marriage are in support of civil unions for same sex couples, with all the legal aspects of marriage, but without the name. I do not believe that this is likely to happen before marriage is simply opened up to same sex couples nationwide, like what happened after Loving v. VA.

Possible timelines that some might foresee could be interesting as well.

Click to expand...

When all is said and done, as it stands right now, the end result is going to be marriage.

Those that are religious would throw a huge fit if the federal government were to abolish marriage and replace it with civil unions. Since the huge majority of people in the US are religious that would be very bad for the federal government.

Those that are gay would never settle for a civil union if marriages were still recognized by the federal government. Even if the civil unions had the exact same pro's/con's as marriage does. For the simple fact that it would still be a form of segregation if they were not allowed to use the term marriage.

Another reason that would apply to all the religous, athiest, and gay folks is that "marriage" is just too ingrained into our society. You simply cannot cast aside thousands of years of the use of the word. The majority of people just wouldn't allow it.

roguenuke said:

Allow me to clarify a couple of things that you be missing about this debate.

First, the SCOTUS case that struck down anti-interracial marriage laws was Loving v Virginia in 1967. It involved a white man/black woman couple living in Virginia who were arrested for living together after they were married in another state and moved to Virginia. They fought the law to the SCOTUS and this case ended up striking down all state laws against interracial marriages as unconstitutional.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, the SCOTUS judges cases that bring laws that may be against Equal Protection based on levels of scrutiny. Which basically means that some things are judged to be more important to not be discriminated against than other things.

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

All of this said, the fact is that there really hasn't been any argument established as to why the state has any interest in not allowing a man to marry another man or a woman to marry a woman, while allowing a man to marry a woman and vice versa. The prevailing (false) claim is that marriage is for children. However, this is easily debated by pointing to how marriage laws apply to opposite sex couples, particularly those who can't or do not want to have children. And the government has failed to explain adequately why it is important to promote marriage only between opposite sex couples, whether they have children or not, without showing why homosexual couples who are raising children, either their own or adopted, all over the country are not allowed to provide the same such stability for their children.

Click to expand...

Couples who can't have children can adopt, and their children have the benefit of a mother who was born a female and knows all about that girly stuff, and a father who was born a male, and knows about manly type stuff. Couples who don't want to have children are free to change their minds, or have a love child without legal problems.

Why is civil union inferior to marriage?

While we're at it, why do homosexuals want to marry?

Equaiity seems to be the goal. Would gay rights activists consider it a victory to outlaw marriage?

LuckyDan said:

Couples who can't have children can adopt, and their children have the benefit of a mother who was born a female and knows all about that girly stuff, and a faher who was born a male, and knows about manly type stuff. Couples who don't want to have children are free to change their minds, or have a love child without legal problems.

What is the state interest in allowing homosexual marriage?

Click to expand...

Gay folks don't know "manly" or "girly" things? Did you really just try to use that tired old false arguement?

Anyways, gays can (or should be able to) adopt and give a loving home also. They can even have kids naturally with a third party involvement. Which btw also answers your question of state interest. Assuming of course that you think that the state interest in marriage is just for families having/taking care of kids.

Edit note: Oh wait...you haven't been actually posting at the DP for very long. This is going to be fun watching you learn.

Kal'Stang said:

Gay folks don't know "manly" or "girly" things? Did you really just try to use that tired old false arguement?

Anyways, gays can (or should be able to) adopt and give a loving home also. They can even have kids naturally with a third party involvement. Which btw also answers your question of state interest. Assuming of course that you think that the state interest in marriage is just for families having/taking care of kids.

Edit note: Oh wait...you haven't been actually posting at the DP for very long. This is going to be fun watching you learn.

Click to expand...

Thanks, teach. I'm especially looking forward to learning how homosexual couples have children "naturally with a third party involvment."

Tell me.

LuckyDan said:

Thanks, teach. I'm especially looking forward to learning how homosexual couples have children "naturally with a third party involvment."

Tell me.

Click to expand...

Ummm....how old are you? Serious question there as most adults knows how kids can happen naturally....

Kal'Stang said:

Ummm....how old are you? Serious question there as most adults knows how kids can happen naturally....

Click to expand...

49.

Still waiting to learn how homosexual couples have kids "naturally with a third party involvement."

LuckyDan said:

49.

Still waiting to learn how homosexual couples have kids "naturally with a third party involvement."

Click to expand...

Ok so you know how the birds and the bee's work right? 1 gay guy gets together with 1 woman..with luck 9 months later out pops a kid. Woman gives up rights to kid and gay guys boyfriend adopts kid for legal reasons. Poof. Gay couple now have a kid to call their own.

Seriously...did that really have to be explained? Do you need me to go into more detail? Because I'm not sure if I'm willing to test the Mods tolerance levels....

Kal'Stang said:

Ok so you know how the birds and the bee's work right? 1 gay guy gets together with 1 woman..with luck 9 months later out pops a kid. Woman gives up rights to kid and gay guys boyfriend adopts kid for legal reasons. Poof. Gay couple now have a kid to call their own.

Seriously...did that really have to be explained? Do you need me to go into more detail? Because I'm not sure if I'm willing to test the Mods tolerance levels....

Click to expand...

Sounds perfectly natch.

Meanwhile there's a mother out there who sold her kid, and kid who will never know a mother's love.

You can call it "natural." Sounds ****in diseased to me.

LuckyDan said:

Sounds perfectly natch.

Meanwhile there's a mother out there who sold her kid, and kid who will never know a mother's love.

You can call it "natural." Sounds ****in diseased to me.

Click to expand...

WTH does selling kids have to do with this?

Kal'Stang said:

WTH does selling kids have to do with this?

Click to expand...

The female is gonna do this for free? I'll bet you think stippers just adore you.

But more to the point, are you at least a little bit bothered that the child in your scenario has no inkling of what it feels like to be loved by his mother? HIS MOTHER?

LuckyDan said:

The female is gonna do this for free? I'll bet you think stippers just adore you.

But more to the point, are you at least a little bit bothered that the child in your scenario has no inkling of what it feels like to be loved by his mother? HIS MOTHER?

Click to expand...

I doubt it would be for free. I'm sure she would expect the gay couple to pay for the hospital bills. Beyond that...why not? Family is family, friends are friends. Besides, legally speaking a woman cannot sell her child.

As for the child and it's mother. Who knows? Perhaps you could ask the same of all the children that are put up for adoption by heterosexuals? Or maybe the child, once older will understand how he/she came to be and won't care because he/she had two great parents?

As for strippers? Never been to one so wouldn't know.

Kal'Stang said:

I doubt it would be for free. I'm sure she would expect the gay couple to pay for the hospital bills. Beyond that...why not? Family is family, friends are friends. Besides, legally speaking a woman cannot sell her child.

As for the child and it's mother. Who knows? Perhaps you could ask the same of all the children that are put up for adoption by heterosexuals? Or maybe the child, once older will understand how he/she came to be and won't care because he/she had two great parents?

As for strippers? Never been to one so wouldn't know.

Click to expand...

Right. The mother will be all, "I'll let you inseminate me. I'll throw up for weeks. Miss time from work - all that. Just pay my hospital bills."

And you asked how old I am? Dude.

You ask, "And as for the mother, who knows?"

Seriously? You keep on and I'm gonna start feeling sorry for you.

Call your mom. Tell her you love her.

Then hit a titty bar. (Break your $5s and $10s for singles at a 7-11 first. Trust me.) You need it, dude.

LuckyDan said:

Right. The mother will be all, "I'll let you inseminate me. I'll throw up for weeks. Miss time from work - all that. Just pay my hospital bills."

And you asked how old I am? Dude.

You ask, "And as for the mother, who knows?"

Seriously? You keep on and I'm gonna start feeling sorry for you.

Call your mom. Tell her you love her.

Then hit a titty bar. (Break your $5s and $10s for singles at a 7-11 first. Trust me.) You need it, dude.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

Cease the personal attacks.

And the personal attack was. . . what?

I honestly don't understand.

Is this one of those "We're all a bunch of old ladies and faggots and we don't cotton to your kind" boards?

Ban me. Ban me now.

LuckyDan said:

Right. The mother will be all, "I'll let you inseminate me. I'll throw up for weeks. Miss time from work - all that. Just pay my hospital bills."

Click to expand...

It's been known to happen. Like I said, family is family. But hey thats alright, we don't have to go by that. What are your thoughts on surrogate mothers giving birth for a couple that is infertile but heterosexual?

LuckyDan said:

And you asked how old I am? Dude.

Click to expand...

Yeah, becuase not knowing the birds and the bees is an indication that the person is underage. In which case I didn't want to talk to you about the birds and the bee's. I'd have told you to go talk to your mother/father.

LuckyDan said:

You ask, "And as for the mother, who knows?"

Seriously? You keep on and I'm gonna start feeling sorry for you.

Click to expand...

Reread please. I said "as for the child and it's mother, who knows?" You know, in response to...

*snip* child in your scenario has no inkling of what it feels like to be loved by his mother?

Click to expand...

LuckyDan said:

Call your mom. Tell her you love her.

Click to expand...

I do, quite often. But then as far as I know I was never adopted or came from a surrogate mother. I also do not have homosexual parents. Hence why I said "who knows" and "ask the same of all the children that are put up for adoption by heterosexuals". I do not presume to know what adopted children feel like.

LuckyDan said:

Then hit a titty bar. (Break your $5s and $10s for singles at a 7-11 first. Trust me.) You need it, dude.

Click to expand...

I'm married. My wife would have my junk if I went to a strip bar. No Thank You.

LuckyDan said:

And the personal attack was. . . what?

I honestly don't understand.

Is this one of those "We're all a bunch of old ladies and faggots and we don't cotton to your kind" boards?

Ban me. Ban me now.

Click to expand...

The attack was here...

LuckyDan said:

Then hit a titty bar. (Break your $5s and $10s for singles at a 7-11 first. Trust me.) You need it, dude.

Click to expand...

And trust me, there are others here that are just like you...if not worse. We encourage lively debate here at the DP and censor no one for thier views alone. But ad homs are a no no. Attack the post, not the person.

Wow. You worked on that. You honor me, sir. Thank you.

But did you miss this one?

But more to the point, are you at least a little bit bothered that the child in your scenario has no inkling of what it feels like to be loved by his mother? HIS MOTHER?

Click to expand...