Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:

I don't need distorted semantics to tell me what marriage is, and has been, for 5,000 years.

Click to expand...

It's been many things in many cultures including same sex.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:

No, my side is just at work.

Now, I've got to get on a plane. Have fun.

Click to expand...

Ooh, you sound important. Only important people get on airplanes.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:

Ridiculous. Every McDonald's customer is not a murderer.

No, you can't. You can leave your property to a human being in a trust to be used to take care of the dog. The dog does not actually own the property.


True, but not relevant to this discussion. The state is barring gays from getting some of those benefits, in violation of the 14th amendment.


Between a man and a woman isn't universal either.

You're full of it. You absolutely do want to block someones' rights. You're hiding it behind this libertarian nonsense because you know the other arguments failed. You never, ever, even once expressed the idea that the government should "get out of marriage" until it became obvious that same-sex marriage was definitely going to happen.


Correct. Same-sex marriage does not affect you, and therefore should be legal. While the government can constitutional eliminate all marriages, you know as well as everyone else that this isn't going to happen. As long as the government recognizes marriage, it must do so in accordance with the 14th amendment, which precludes a gender-based distinction in absence of an important state interest.


See? This is how I know your libertarianism is bull****. An actual libertarian wouldn't be spitting out the social conservative rhetoric like this. An actual libertarian would recognize that the people have the right to dissolve a contract they created.

You aren't a libertarian. Stop lying to yourself, and stop lying to me.

Click to expand...

Then you have not read my other posts. Either keep it as it is or let everyone marry who and what the like. I think one man and one woman makes sense. But thats just me. Im a Libertarian and really dont give a flying you know what about who marries who. i do care that they can get special privileges from the government for it however

Next we should stop picking on pedophiles. Heck Mohamed married a 9 year old. But that wont effect me so who cares?

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:

If SCOTUS has declared it unconstitutional how do most states still have these laws?


Also the civil war was fought over nullification. The idea that the states had the right to nullify what they saw as unconstitutional federal laws. Marriage is the province of the individual states not the federal government.

Click to expand...

And how did that go? The whole nullification thing?

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Penrod said:

Then you have not read my other posts. Either keep it as it is or let everyone marry who and what the like. I think one man and one woman makes sense. But thats just me. Im a Libertarian and really dont give a flying you know what about who marries who. i do care that they can get special privileges from the government for it however

Next we should stop picking on pedophiles. Heck Mohamed married a 9 year old. But that wont effect me so who cares?

Click to expand...

Animals and children cannot consent to legal contracts. Feel free to start lobbying to change that, Mr. Libertarian. Since you're so interested in marrying animals and children.

I also like the not-so-subtle jab at Islam. Yeah, I'm sure this isn't just Christian social conservatism in disguise. You really have me convinced. :lamo

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Jetboogieman said:

"A black can marry a black and a white can marry a white

Blacks and whites are inherently separate but equal."

Click to expand...

No they are not. A man is man and a woman is a woman no matter the race.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:

If SCOTUS has declared it unconstitutional how do most states still have these laws?

Click to expand...

I didn't say SCOTUS has declared these specific laws to be unconstitutional. I stated that the laws still being on the books does not inherently mean they ARE constitutional as you attempted to suggest.

Lower courts have found these laws to be unconstitutional. SCOTUS is likely to weigh in sometime in the next year or two. Till then, the constitutionality of those laws is in question which is the entire reason people are having this discussion.

If your only argument for their constitutionality is "They're on the books!" then your argument is extremely flawed, since hundreds of unconstitutional laws were "on the books" at one time and ended up being over turned...so it's hardly rock solid evidence to support your claim.

Also the civil war was fought over nullification. The idea that the states had the right to nullify what they saw as unconstitutional federal laws. Marriage is the province of the individual states not the federal government.

Click to expand...

Marriage is the province of states, HOWEVER their laws are still subject to the Constitution of the United States thanks to the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment. This is why a state can't decide to confiscate all your weapons on the notion of "states rights". So while marriage is the province of states, their laws regarding marriage MUST still adhere to the federal constitution.

For example...

If Virginia wanted to make a law stating that to get married in Virginia one must relinquish all firearms to the state and may never legally be allowed to own, carry, or use a firearm again....would that be constitutional to you since marriage is the provine of the states?

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:

No they are not. A man is man and a woman is a woman no matter the race.

Click to expand...

One can discriminate on the basis of race as well as the basis of gender. Most people can hold these two facts in their heads simultaneously, which is why laws against gay marriage have been dropping like flies every time they're challenged in court.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Moderator's Warning:

There's a topic here folks and it's not what lean people are. Stop the baiting

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:

No they are not. A man is man and a woman is a woman no matter the race.

Click to expand...

"A black is a black and a white is a white"

The comparison is valid, most of the arguments against SSM were used on in a slight variation against interracial marriage.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:

Animals and children cannot consent to legal contracts. Feel free to start lobbying to change that, Mr. Libertarian. Since you're so interested in marrying animals and children.

I also like the not-so-subtle jab at Islam. Yeah, I'm sure this isn't just Christian social conservatism in disguise. You really have me convinced. :lamo

Click to expand...

A legal contract would mean involving the state in marriage would it not? Once more Im against this. Im also not interested in marrying anyone. Who needs it?

Im a Diest not a christian. Truthfully I hate organized religion. I was just pointing out that the age of consent has varied wildly over the centuries and societies. It took until very recently however for this notion of gay marriage to come about

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Zyphlin said:

I didn't say SCOTUS has declared these specific laws to be unconstitutional. I stated that the laws still being on the books does not inherently mean they ARE constitutional as you attempted to suggest.

Lower courts have found these laws to be unconstitutional. SCOTUS is likely to weigh in sometime in the next year or two. Till then, the constitutionality of those laws is in question which is the entire reason people are having this discussion.

If your only argument for their constitutionality is "They're on the books!" then your argument is extremely flawed, since hundreds of unconstitutional laws were "on the books" at one time and ended up being over turned...so it's hardly rock solid evidence to support your claim.



Marriage is the province of states, HOWEVER their laws are still subject to the Constitution of the United States thanks to the Supremacy Clause and the 14th amendment. This is why a state can't decide to confiscate all your weapons on the notion of "states rights". So while marriage is the province of states, their laws regarding marriage MUST still adhere to the federal constitution.

For example...

If Virginia wanted to make a law stating that to get married in Virginia one must relinquish all firearms to the state and may never legally be allowed to own, carry, or use a firearm again....would that be constitutional to you since marriage is the provine of the states?

Click to expand...

Until SCOTUS declares then unconstitutional they are not

The 14th amendment was never properly ratified for one thing and the 10th says any power not granted congress is the province of the state. The State is sovereign not the federal government. Just as you are sovereign not the state. Most people have it backwards.

They cant take your weapons because the constitution specifically says they cant. It says nothing about gay rights or marriage. Thats left to the states.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

disneydude said:

If there was any doubt that this war is over:

Record Support for Gay Marriage; Half See it as a Constitutional Right - ABC News


Record numbers of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll support gay marriage, say adoption by gay couples should be legal and see gays and lesbians as good parents. Most oppose a right to refuse service to gays, including on religious grounds. And, by a closer margin, more also accept than reject gay marriage as a constitutional right.

The results continue a dramatic transformation of public attitudes on the issue, led by political, legislative and court-ordered developments alike. Seventeen states now allow gay marriage, and federal courts in four others – most recently Texas and Virginia – have rejected laws banning it.

See PDF with full results and charts here.

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1159a2GayMarriage.pdf

Click to expand...

I don't agree this is breaking news.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Jetboogieman said:

"A black is a black and a white is a white"

The comparison is valid, most of the arguments against SSM were used on in a slight variation against interracial marriage.

Click to expand...

But they are still the same. Only the color is different. There is a lot more difference between a man and a woman. Do you think if marriage did not usually lead to children or never led to children it would even ever have been invented? To what purpose? Marriage was invented in case you had children not so you could. Its all about inheritance and property rights.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Penrod said:

A legal contract would mean involving the state in marriage would it not? Once more Im against this. Im also not interested in marrying anyone. Who needs it?

Click to expand...

Whether you're against it or not is irrelevant as to whether the currnet laws are constitutional or not.

They're two seperate issues, but you keep deflecting by focusing on your claim that you don't want marriage to exist at all.

Are you suggesting that state marriage is unconstitutional in and of itself? Because if you're not, then your prefered opinion on the law is irrelevant as to whether or not the law on the books is or isn't constitutional.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:

But they are still the same. Only the color is different. There is a lot more difference between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

"But they are still the same. Only the race is different. There is a lot more difference between black and white" - Circa early to mid 20th century

Do you think if marriage did not usually lead to children or never led to children it would even ever have been invented? To what purpose? Marriage was invented in case you had children not so you could. Its all about inheritance and property rights.

Click to expand...

Marriage is partly about children but the important thing to note is it's not a pre-requisite.

Otherwise you can amend the law and demand a fertility test every year for every married couple and if they don't produce children the marriage should be terminated by the state.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Deuce said:

So even fewer conservatives think increasing gun control is a problem?

Click to expand...

Guns, is that what you want to misdirect to? Now, how many pregnancies do you know of in gay marriages, which you have stated are "exactly" the same as normal marriage? No need to answer, since you either won't or you'll come up with some non answer, we know it is zero. So admit it, they are not the same.

If you want to talk about guns, or gay rights to own guns, I'm sure there is another thread for that. But, you'll probably go there and talk about gay marriage.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:

There's simply no integrity in the debate to begin with. We've just heaped a new definition on a word that already had a definition. It's like deciding that English is the same language as Russian. You can say it, or pass a law declaring it, but that doesn't make it so. That's where our system has lost any sense of integrity.

This whole thing is simply about votes and political power. Nothing more. Otherwise this would have been changed sometime in the past 3,000 years or so.

Click to expand...

No, gays are finally being included into rights they should have been included in years ago but they were the victims or religious persecution and discrimination. The fact that finally the population of the USA is willing to accept gays as "normal" people with the same civil rights as other people have.

The whole things is about people no longer blindly goose-stepping behind their religious leaders when they are discriminating and ostracizing millions of people who do not do anything "illegal or evil" just because they are not straight.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162]

Penrod said:

Until SCOTUS declares then unconstitutional they are not

Click to expand...

Correct. However, "they're on the books now" is a poor argument as to why you think they're constitutional in the sense of a challenge within the court.

The fact the lower courts have overturned those laws indicate there is a constitutional question. Contrary to your seeming belief, while SCOTUS is the highest court in the land those lower courts aren't just non-existant. The reality is the constitutionality of those laws ARE in question. In Virginia, for instance, the law states it IS unconstitutional.

The "SCOTUS hasn't ruled" knife cuts both ways. So currently, in this country, SOME states laws are constitutional and some aren't. Until SCOTUS rules one way or another, it's a mess with different ones saying different things. Thus the conversation and people expressing their personal opinions on what the constitutionality of it is.

The 14th amendment was never properly ratified for one thing

Click to expand...

Legally, you're jus wrong. Sorry. You being pissy about it or missing a forgone age of the Confederacy doens't change that. Legally, the 14th amendment is the law and is part of the Constitution. You don't get to pick and choose to ignore it.

and the 10th says any power not granted congress is the province of the state.

Click to expand...

Indeed. But the 14th and the Supremacy clause establish the protections present in the Constitution apply to the States as well as to the Federal.

That means that powers not granted congress was the province of the states, but those powers must be within the boundries and limitations established by the constitution.

They cant take your weapons because the constitution specifically says they cant.

Click to expand...

And the constitution specifically establishes equal protection under the law.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Anthony60 said:

Guns, is that what you want to misdirect to? Now, how many pregnancies do you know of in gay marriages, which you have stated are "exactly" the same as normal marriage? No need to answer, since you either won't or you'll come up with some non answer, we know it is zero. So admit it, they are not the same.

If you want to talk about guns, or gay rights to own guns, I'm sure there is another thread for that. But, you'll probably go there and talk about gay marriage.

Click to expand...

Do you favor annulling or preventing the marriage of elderly or otherwise-infertile couples? Anyone over 60 legally barred from marriage?

And don't even think to go with this "you're changing the subject" bull****. You literally posted a list of other topics you think people should be more concerned about instead of same-sex marriage. You tried to deflect the discussion to ANYTHING ELSE.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Zyphlin said:

Whether you're against it or not is irrelevant as to whether the currnet laws are constitutional or not.

They're two seperate issues, but you keep deflecting by focusing on your claim that you don't want marriage to exist at all.

Are you suggesting that state marriage is unconstitutional in and of itself? Because if you're not, then your prefered opinion on the law is irrelevant as to whether or not the law on the books is or isn't constitutional.

Click to expand...

I want marriage to exist. Just not state sanctioned.

No I am suggesting no such thing. I said marriage is a state matter not a federal one
I wish it were neither however.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

For those suggesting the important state interest to marriage is the creation of biological offspring that include the DNA from both spouses....

How in the world can you suggest disallowing homosexuals from entering into marriage substantially is related to that purpose if you don't also support disallowing infertile people from becoming married as well?

Not even counting those that are infertile due to age, 10.9% of all women ages 18-44 are infertile (Source). Meanwhile, just shy of 4% of the population is homosexual (Source)

Hell, that's going off the higher standard of gender. Let's say we actually look at it based on sexual orientation as a lower tier of scrutiny...

If having biological children of both spouses is a legitimate state interest, how in the world is banning homosexuals rationally related to that if you're not also banning infertile people?

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Penrod said:

I want marriage to exist. Just not state sanctioned.

Click to expand...

Cool deal. Understand that position entirely.

Still has nothing to do with whether or not you believe the current laws on the books are constitutional or not.

No I am suggesting no such thing. I said marriage is a state matter not a federal one

Click to expand...

Great, then we come back to the question as to whether or not the current laws are constitutional. And "I don't want marriage as part of the law at all" isn't an answer to that question.

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Erod said:

No, continue on with your little forum circle jerk. That's the MO around here.

I don't need distorted semantics to tell me what marriage is, and has been, for 5,000 years.

Click to expand...

facts proved your post wrong and deflectiong for that wont change anything

also did you just claim that until recently marriage was only man and woman for the last 5000 years?

I hope not because that would make you post factually wrong again
facts win again

Re: Record Support for Gay Marriage

Texmex said:

Yea, right! I've been married to my wife since 1972. I wonder if perverted relationships last that long. We didn't need anyone donating their children to us, we had our own.

Click to expand...

Good for you. I've been married for 25 years myself. I am sorry, however, that you have such disdain for adopted children. Its sad to see people with that kind of attitude towards children who have no responsibility for the situation that they find themselves in necessitating a need to find a new family for them. Thankfully there are a lot of people who don't have the same attitude.