Jerry

To begin Monday, Jallman will argue against Gay Marriage and I will argue for it.

__________________
Palin/Miller 2012!

jallman

Gay Marriage presents several problems for our society if it becomes a matter of law. First of all, the only way that Gay Marriage can be legalized and still maintain the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution is if marriage was taken out of the hands of the states and given to the federal government to regulate. This would result, not in an expansion of rights, but in the creation of a new right for a subclass of people who are not, technically, barred from the existing institution.

Secondly, the body of legal code indicates that marriage is an institution of procreation and with gay marriage being what it is, there is no indication that such unions should be recognized with the same deference that are given to heterosexual unions.

Finally, there is no indication that the establishment of gay marriage will be beneficial culturally or socially. We already have the institution of marriage which acts as a cornerstone of society, being the most basic building block of our social order. The encouragement of procreation and maintenance of tight family structures is the cultural justification of marriage in the first place. The idea that such deference would be granted to unions which do not promote that agenda is perposterous at best.

__________________
I don't care if McCain and Palin have to dine on mentally handicapped babies with the devil himself to deliver us the White House. If that's what it takes, I'll personally put in the order for a case of barbecue sauce myself.

Jerry

It’s quite simple; marriage is a ‘Fundamental Right’:

Skinner v. Oklahoma 1942 first to declare marriage a “basic civil right”.

Loving v. Virginia 1967 interracial couples have a fundamental civil right to marry.

Zablocki v. Redhail 1978 “deadbeat dads” have a fundamental civil right to marry.

Turner v. Safley 1987: Prisoners have a fundamental civil right to marry.

Romer v. Evans 1996 State constitutional amendment is unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

Lawrence v. Texas 2003: Friend-of-the-court brief opposing sodomy laws.
Gay people have a civil right to privacy ( end of sodomy laws).

Citizens For Equal Protection v. Nebraska
(US District Court) 2005 State constitutional amendment is unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

Source.

Fundamental Rights can only be infringed upon when there is a compelling state interest to do so, and no such compelling interest has been demonstrated.

As a black atheist lesbian I have long awaited the day when the state no longer discriminates on the basis of gender. We have made great progress in the last century in curbing discrimination based on religion and race, yet I still can’t legaly marry my wife in a secular state. Why?

Free the women.

Jerry

1-post-win?

jallman

Hardly. I will deal with you as time permits today. I was away yesterday in Gakona, Alaska...not the best place for internet service.

Jerry

.....................

Jerry

...................

jallman

After taking the time to read each and every court case you presented (and it wasn't a short task, by the way), I can safely say that you did nothing to promote your argument for SSM.

The first four rulings which you offered as precedent have nothing to do with SSM as they all hinge their ruling on the fact that people have a right to "promote race" and to procreate. Homosexual unions, by their nature, are not inclusive in these rulings.

The remaining rulings you cite have only to do with discrimination and privacy issues. Marriage is not a privacy issue, but a social and legal one. Marriage confers benefits and a social nod of acceptance to the union based on the union's function: as a cornerstone of society. Further, there is no discrimination against anyone as the marriage laws stand now; everyone has a right to marry a member of the opposite sex.

You still have not addressed how you can justify creating a special right for a subclass of people (people who are a subclass based on a behavior, at that) with no intrinsic benefit to society by creating said right. The state must also have a compelling interest in creating institutions and you have yet to show a compelling interest by the state in creating a new form of marriage for homosexuals.

Jerry

I ain't letting this go just 'cuz you and I had an obligatory spat, but I'm on lunch right now, so you have some time to get your affairs in order.

jallman

Whatever, jerry.