Judge strikes down Michigan's ban on gay marriage[W:95]

Gaugingcatenate said:

Race is not gender, so what do you not get about that, eh? Skin color is nothing similar to the differences in anatomy, the functions of that anatomy, the value rendered to society of these differences, blah blah blah. You can structure your arguments similarly, but you cannot get around the fact that male and female structures are very different. So, way way way different argument.

In addition to that, a society may decide what it will and will not accept. Hanging your hopes on the technicalities of similarly structured cases does not make your case [ I thought we had previously gone over this ].

Now, thanks for all the typing to get to: What do you not get about all genders being equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex? That is what we require. That is what we SHOULD require.

You don't think a society can make its own rules? You think that every minority that so desires can use this, and similar arguments, to force any of its ways upon the rest of society? That We, society, can have no say in our own society? That is what you are advocating?

Click to expand...

your discriminating against certain gender combinations in the exact same way race combinations in couples were discriminated against

nether race or gender matter when it comes to marriage we don't require anything for a marriage that race or gender effects

pretending people have equality because your applying a rule that benefits you and discriminates against them is dishonest

what don't you get about this

(What do you not get about all genders being equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex? That is what we require. That is what we SHOULD require.)

being the same kind of faulty logic as this

(What do you not get about all races being equally able to marry someone of the same race? That is what we require. That is what we SHOULD require.)

Gaugingcatenate said:

Whoa... I would say perhaps someone is on their way to writing the next manifesto...

If you want to take on what I meant by the Nero reference, if you want to counter my assertion of tyranny by the few, have at it. But please refrain from gobbledygook like that above. If I need to employ a strainer to get a few useful nuggets [ I could find none in what you wrote] then its fairly useless to me.

Click to expand...

sorry I thought you were trying to say nero married a guy, nero was bad so same sex marrage is bad because that bad nero guy did it.

blarg said:

good nice to see that tired deception wont be accepted

Click to expand...

So you misread it then...to add insult to injury, mis-characterized it, too.

But such is the way of people who either do not understand, or understand then consciously choose to "misappropriate the truth". From which is your provenance, eh?

blarg said:

your discriminating against certain gender combinations in the exact same way race combinations in couples were discriminated against

nether race or gender matter when it comes to marriage we don't require anything for a marriage that race or gender effects

pretending people have equality because your applying a rule that benefits you and discriminates against them is dishonest

what don't you get about this

(What do you not get about all genders being equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex? That is what we require. That is what we SHOULD require.)

being the same kind of faulty logic as this

(What do you not get about all races being equally able to marry someone of the same race? That is what we require. That is what we SHOULD require.)

Click to expand...

Don't know if you have taken the time to observe this but

Race and gender are dissimilar, not the exact same, just as the decisions are dissimilar. So your exactness argument relies upon a complete misunderstanding of the differences between race and gender.

Re: gender not mattering---- That is your opinion and you are surely welcome to harbor it. I certainly cannot seem to disabuse you of such false notions.

You truly know very very very little about me and my circumstances... so while all people can have their own opinions about such, you can apply the rule about everybody having opinions here. So to speak of what is beneficial or not to me, when you haven't the first clue, well...
and...We are not guaranteed outcomes, blarg, equality under the law, however we chose ultimately to construe that, will be our destiny or our fate. Not everybody is going to be happy with the outcome, and the fight will no doubt continue.

As for the last of your facile attempts, see above.

blarg said:

sorry I thought you were trying to say nero married a guy, nero was bad so same sex marrage is bad because that bad nero guy did it.

Click to expand...

Nope, but its cool, we all make similar mistakes at times. Now I have at least an idea of what exactly you were going on about... before I was scratching my head.

AGENT J said:

nope not my news, guess you didnt read the post and are ignoring the facts

you can think what you wish but as already proven, your statement was factually wrong, :shrug:

Click to expand...

Who talks like this? Look J, I am not looking to get into a pissing match with you, where you proclaim everything you write down as "fact", and dismiss everything the person talking with you says.

All I was saying is that there are more important things going on today, than to worry about who wants to marry who...I couldn't care less. And what I am saying, is that I really don't think anyone other than hardcore activists on the issue really care a whole lot what gay people want to do. Hell, just make it legal and get it over with already, I am sick and tired of seeing thread after thread on every little thing concerning it...

I'm just sayin'.... I really don't care.

Gaugingcatenate said:

It affects all of us [there are a heck of a lot more of us heteros ], it affects me [ cannot help this sinking feeling about America, the ill-omened paths it is being directed down ]. So, there absolutely is no tie, besides this isn't baseball, we aren't base running. The burden is not on the side that is content with the way things are... it is on you, those who want the change things, those who will benefit.

Click to expand...

Anyone else notice he didn't actually name any effect?

There are a million paper cuts, assaults on American culture and the American spirit, that are destroying what was once a strong and proud country... the injury with SSM is one of the larger, this being a deep cut, the wound directly to the strength of America, its traditional family stability, slicing constantly deeper. We know this is not where it will stop... this is but the cliff where the cascading will begin. You tell me, using the 14th after this, what will be a good reason to stop anybody from marrying just about anybody or anything? Give me a logic end point to that...

Click to expand...

We allowed interracial marriage, what's to stop pedphile marriage?

Looking back we should have never compromised, never said we would tolerate such conduct in the first place... our toleration has not been met with any appreciation, much less reciprocal toleration, just the desire for more and more and then more...

Click to expand...

And there it is. Admission of support for sodomy laws and lynchings.

Waaah wah wah...Quit with the crocodile tears. You are not hurt by SSM not being accepted, loves are in no way discontinued just because two are unable to marry in the eyes of the law... many heteros in fact prefer it that way. So lets get over the idea of grievous injury, its silly and overly maudlin. Have your own ceremony if desired, live together, do as you please just don't ask the rest of us to accept, to be forced to accept, that which we loathe to even think very much about in any detail.

Click to expand...

And again, legalizing same sex marriage doesn't force you to accept anything. You're the one whining here. "Waaah. Waaah. Someone else is going to get married, and I don't want them to! This harms me because I don't want them to get married! Waaaaah!"

See? Two can play that game.

Your "debate" is pathetic. You cannot name any manner in which same-sex marriage causes you harm. None at all. This is why you've already lost. Same-sex couples are going to be getting married, nationwide, soon. Probably mid 2015, judging by how the SCOTUS schedule works. It has already been legal in Massachusetts for a freaking decade, where's all this doom you keep predicting?

j-mac said:

Who talks like this? Look J, I am not looking to get into a pissing match with you, where you proclaim everything you write down as "fact", and dismiss everything the person talking with you says.

All I was saying is that there are more important things going on today, than to worry about who wants to marry who...I couldn't care less. And what I am saying, is that I really don't think anyone other than hardcore activists on the issue really care a whole lot what gay people want to do. Hell, just make it legal and get it over with already, I am sick and tired of seeing thread after thread on every little thing concerning it...

I'm just sayin'.... I really don't care.

Click to expand...

And I'm just sayin you're full of ****, based on just how often you come into these threads. If you didn't care so much, you'd post elsewhere.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Race is not gender, so what do you not get about that, eh? Skin color is nothing similar to the differences in anatomy, the functions of that anatomy, the value rendered to society of these differences, blah blah blah. You can structure your arguments similarly, but you cannot get around the fact that male and female structures are very different. So, way way way different argument.

Click to expand...

Race is not gender, but both are protected classifications.

In addition to that, a society may decide what it will and will not accept. Hanging your hopes on the technicalities of similarly structured cases does not make your case [ I thought we had previously gone over this ].

Click to expand...

That's not how America works. I don't get to decide that your free speech is unacceptable. I don't get to decide that your religion is unacceptable. And I don't get to decide that your marriage is unacceptable. My personal opinion is not good enough to deny those things to you. 51% of the population's opinion is not enough to deny those things to you.

Now, thanks for all the typing to get to: What do you not get about all genders being equally able to marry someone of the opposite sex? That is what we require. That is what we SHOULD require.

Click to expand...

We've responded to this a dozen times. The logic was rejected with Loving v Virginia.

You don't think a society can make its own rules? You think that every minority that so desires can use this, and similar arguments, to force any of its ways upon the rest of society? That We, society, can have no say in our own society? That is what you are advocating?

Click to expand...

I don't think 51% of the population gets to vote that Christianity is outlawed, no.


Fun fact: Opponents of same-sex marriage are no longer a majority. Your whole argument rests upon this "will of the people" schtick but you don't even have that anymore.

Deuce said:

And I'm just sayin you're full of ****, based on just how often you come into these threads. If you didn't care so much, you'd post elsewhere.

Click to expand...

No, I think if you were honest, you'd actually look back and notice that of the dozen or so "gay marriage" threads in the past, oh, I don't know, MONTH, I haven't posted in but one or two of them, and only to ask usually why so many of the seemingly same thread, has to spam the board. See, where you are dishonest here, is to imply that I am constantly in these threads, I'm not.

So, the one "full of ****" here, would be you my friend.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Well, then let WE the people decide... not the courts saying We the people can only decide in the way the court will allow...right? You cannot deny that, can you? Not and maintain any degree of intellectual honesty, you can't. You and your people will just have to abide by what me and my people have to say in concert with all the rest of those concerned and unconcerned.

So, get off your high horse and start using your minority rights, speech, press, assembly, petition... and persuade us. And if We remain unconvinced and you don't like our decision, tough beans. If the decision goes the other way, tough beans for my side... but we won't stop and, if there is a country worth living in to be salvaged, we won't lose.

Your position against morals and moral judgements is a telling one for the future...who needs them right? We can live with lying, cheating, stealing... all morals are passe', no longer fashionable and were just silliness on the part of the upstanding...

Click to expand...

If we did not allow the Courts to decide issues about the Constitution, then the Constitution would be pointless. We would still have laws against interracial marriages, Jim Crow laws, segregation in schools (which is actually still on the books in some states), sodomy laws, laws that ban everyone from owning guns in some places, laws that restrict some religions from being practiced in certain areas, laws that allow some people to enforce their religious rules upon others, laws that do not allow people in jail to marry, laws that do not allow those behind on their child support to marry, laws that place certain children as more important than others even in the absence of a will, and many more.

Minorities are protected without having to persuade enough people to vote for them. That isn't how our country works. It is "tough beans" for you that we have a US Constitution that protects us, via the Courts, from votes of the majority. Constitutional republic, not direct democracy. That is where you live.

Everyone has morals. Our morals do not agree. The fact that you do not understand that this is a difference in morality is telling on yourself.

j-mac said:

No, I think if you were honest, you'd actually look back and notice that of the dozen or so "gay marriage" threads in the past, oh, I don't know, MONTH, I haven't posted in but one or two of them, and only to ask usually why so many of the seemingly same thread, has to spam the board. See, where you are dishonest here, is to imply that I am constantly in these threads, I'm not.

So, the one "full of ****" here, would be you my friend.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of reality shows on television now, on a ton of channels. I have this awesome strategy regarding those shows I don't care about:

I don't watch them.

Deuce said:

There's a lot of reality shows on television now, on a ton of channels. I have this awesome strategy regarding those shows I don't care about:

I don't watch them.

Click to expand...

Good for you....Then take your own advice, and don't reply to me....Won't ruin my day. :shrug: In the end though, that you choose not to watch Idol, and would rather watch Glee, doesn't mean that Idol doesn't air.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Wasn't talking US Constitutional Amendment.

And its 38 states needed, the ERA only got 35 and was defeated by not obtaining the necessary 3 additional. Thanks for all the effort anyhow, maybe someone else out there might learn from it. I have taught these things, so am aware.

Click to expand...

Then what were you talking about? Because we are talking about a constitutional issue here since judges are ruling that same sex marriage bans, even those written into state constitutions, violate the US Constitution. This means that if the SCOTUS agrees and rules that those bans violate the US Constitution (as they very likely will), then that means the only way to override that is via another US Constitutional Amendment. Nothing else will do. It doesn't matter how many states have voted (in the past) to have amendments for their own constitutions banning same sex marriage. Votes from the past mean little in a world that changes like ours does. Every day more and more people change their mind in support of same sex marriage being legal everywhere. Every day older people (those most likely to currently be against same sex marriage) die. Every day young people (those most likely to support same sex marriage) become old enough to vote. Unfortunately, the political process works slower than the courts in some places. Heck, some things can only be voted on every 2 or even 4 years in accordance with state constitutions.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Again, I am totally familiar with the concept...need to explain it to the other guy. The 14th was not in its being an expansion of rights, it guaranteed equal protection under the laws.

Click to expand...

The Constitution itself is about ensuring our rights our protected against the government. It doesn't need to expand rights because those are rights we already have that simply are being enshrined within the Constitution to ensure they are protected.

You obviously have no idea what equal protection under the law means. It means that you cannot treat people differently based on random characteristics of those people, even some things that can be changed, without showing how that difference in treatment furthers a legitimate state interest.

For instance, a state cannot randomly say that during the ages of 45-50 a person cannot have a driver's license because there is no way they could justify (with evidence/information we have now anyway) that this restriction would further any legitimate state interest. Age limits are in fact legal, when they are justified (ever wonder why no state says people who reach a certain age are not allowed to own a driver's license). Hair color is not a constitutionally protected specifically right. However, it would violate equal protection to make a law that restricted red heads from obtaining business licenses (even if it allowed for them to change their hair color in order to obtain that license). There would simply be no legitimate state interest being furthered in that law. When it comes to marriage, a state could not legitimately limit marriages to those who have IQs within 20 points of each other. IQ is not a protected class (specifically) within the Constitution, yet people are still protected by the Constitution from having their IQ, or their age, or their hair color, or their gender used to treat them differently than other people, even when it is being used in a way that is simply relative to a characteristic of another person, unless the state can show that such treatment furthers a legitimate state interest. Judicial precedence is part of a laws and has been for some time.

Gaugingcatenate said:

It affects all of us [there are a heck of a lot more of us heteros ], it affects me [ cannot help this sinking feeling about America, the ill-omened paths it is being directed down ]. So, there absolutely is no tie, besides this isn't baseball, we aren't base running. The burden is not on the side that is content with the way things are... it is on you, those who want the change things, those who will benefit.

There are a million paper cuts, assaults on American culture and the American spirit, that are destroying what was once a strong and proud country... the injury with SSM is one of the larger, this being a deep cut, the wound directly to the strength of America, its traditional family stability, slicing constantly deeper. We know this is not where it will stop... this is but the cliff where the cascading will begin. You tell me, using the 14th after this, what will be a good reason to stop anybody from marrying just about anybody or anything? Give me a logic end point to that...

Then, when what was strong all collapses from the weaknesses inflicted by all these constant assaults of failed liberal ideology, where then does one go to seek OUR remedy... from you, perhaps? No. All will be equally lost just because We could never say no to anything.

Looking back we should have never compromised, never said we would tolerate such conduct in the first place... our toleration has not been met with any appreciation, much less reciprocal toleration, just the desire for more and more and then more...

Waaah wah wah...Quit with the crocodile tears. You are not hurt by SSM not being accepted, loves are in no way discontinued just because two are unable to marry in the eyes of the law... many heteros in fact prefer it that way. So lets get over the idea of grievous injury, its silly and overly maudlin. Have your own ceremony if desired, live together, do as you please just don't ask the rest of us to accept, to be forced to accept, that which we loathe to even think very much about in any detail.

Sorry, saying its normal just does not make it so... will not make it all better and we cannot be just forced into accepting something we do not accept. Case closed.

Click to expand...

No, same sex marriage does not legitimately affect you. And I am heterosexual. I support same sex marriage. The majority of the supporters of same sex marriage are heterosexuals.

And the burden is always on the state to show a legitimate state interest is furthered whenever a person can show that the law treats them differently than someone else. The law treats men and women differently based on their gender/sex. A man cannot marry a man, but a woman can. A woman cannot marry a woman, but a man can. Why? Because of their gender/sex.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Just where is this gender discrimination? All genders have the same rights, all, if they want to marry, have to marry one of the opposite sex... that is equal for all genders. What do you not get about that?

Click to expand...

A man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman. That is gender discrimination. A person cannot do something another can based solely on their gender. The same as it would be religious discrimination if the law said a Catholic can marry a Catholic but a Methodist cannot marry a Catholic. A person cannot do something another person can based solely on their religion.

Let's flip the logic over to a different legal contract: an employment contract.

I want to make a law saying you can only work for someone of the opposite gender. Everyone will have the equal right to work for someone of the opposite gender. Constitutional, right?

roguenuke said:

A man can marry a woman but a woman cannot marry a woman. That is gender discrimination. A person cannot do something another can based solely on their gender. The same as it would be religious discrimination if the law said a Catholic can marry a Catholic but a Methodist cannot marry a Catholic. A person cannot do something another person can based solely on their religion.

Click to expand...

I often wonder just where "the state" got the authority to sanction marriage in the first place. But, I'll tell you a little story, My wife and I celebrated our 25th last summer with friends and family. When we were first married, we went to the Catholic priest to get married in the church. As this was my 2nd marriage, and the first was to a Lutheran woman, and done in a Lutheran church. The Catholic priest would not marry us. We ended up getting married by a JoP at the court house, and this is one of the reasons that I, or my wife have not been "Catholic's" since, even though both of us were raised Catholic.

j-mac said:

I often wonder just where "the state" got the authority to sanction marriage in the first place. But, I'll tell you a little story, My wife and I celebrated our 25th last summer with friends and family. When we were first married, we went to the Catholic priest to get married in the church. As this was my 2nd marriage, and the first was to a Lutheran woman, and done in a Lutheran church. The Catholic priest would not marry us. We ended up getting married by a JoP at the court house, and this is one of the reasons that I, or my wife have not been "Catholic's" since, even though both of us were raised Catholic.

Click to expand...

Any number of legal proceedings need a way to recognize kinship.

Deuce said:

Any number of legal proceedings need a way to recognize kinship.

Click to expand...

IOW, it's a revenue grab.

j-mac said:

IOW, it's a revenue grab.

Click to expand...

Spouses can transfer property between each other without tax, spouses can inheret without taxes, spouses can sell the principal residence after the death of their spouse and still claim the $500,000 married exemption on profit of the sale (vice the single exemption of $250,000), etc, etc.

In many cases legal recognition allows the family to keep MORE of their own money instead of having the government claim it.



>>>>

WorldWatcher said:

Spouses can transfer property between each other without tax, spouses can inheret without taxes, spouses can sell the principal residence after the death of their spouse and still claim the $500,000 married exemption on profit of the sale (vice the single exemption of $250,000), etc, etc.

In many cases legal recognition allows the family to keep MORE of their own money instead of having the government claim it.



>>>>

Click to expand...

Because progressive taxation promotes the idea that the money you earned is not really yours, and the need for all these exemptions therefore are needed to complicate the lives of families is a travesty....Taxes should be simple. Everyone owes a percentage, buy a stamp, and send it in.

Gaugingcatenate said:

Don't know if you have taken the time to observe this but

Race and gender are dissimilar, not the exact same, just as the decisions are dissimilar. So your exactness argument relies upon a complete misunderstanding of the differences between race and gender.

Re: gender not mattering---- That is your opinion and you are surely welcome to harbor it. I certainly cannot seem to disabuse you of such false notions.

You truly know very very very little about me and my circumstances... so while all people can have their own opinions about such, you can apply the rule about everybody having opinions here. So to speak of what is beneficial or not to me, when you haven't the first clue, well...
and...We are not guaranteed outcomes, blarg, equality under the law, however we chose ultimately to construe that, will be our destiny or our fate. Not everybody is going to be happy with the outcome, and the fight will no doubt continue.

As for the last of your facile attempts, see above.

Click to expand...

The only difference it makes that race and gender are different is in what kind of interest a state has to show is being furthered and/or how that trait is related to that interest. It doesn't change that they are both protected against unequal protection of the laws/unequal treatment.

j-mac said:

I often wonder just where "the state" got the authority to sanction marriage in the first place. But, I'll tell you a little story, My wife and I celebrated our 25th last summer with friends and family. When we were first married, we went to the Catholic priest to get married in the church. As this was my 2nd marriage, and the first was to a Lutheran woman, and done in a Lutheran church. The Catholic priest would not marry us. We ended up getting married by a JoP at the court house, and this is one of the reasons that I, or my wife have not been "Catholic's" since, even though both of us were raised Catholic.

Click to expand...

People want the state to be involved in marriage. You can complain all you want about it, but the state recognizes legal relationships and they do that by having forms to show that people really are legally related. Some of those forms are birth certificates, some are adoption records, some are simply court rulings, and some are marriage licenses.