California gay marriage ban overturned: report

ptif219 said:

Just another sign that gays want their immoral behavior to be seen as normal

Click to expand...

This demonstrates that you do not understand the issue either. Define immoral.

The Prof said:

barack hussein obama's dept of justice equated gay marriage to pedophilia

ug-ly

what's going on with dadt?

Click to expand...

Real quickly, because it is not really relevant to this topic but maybe answering will get you on topic...

DADT is currently undergoing a 1 year review by the pentagon, looking into how to handle possible issues with repeal. This review will finish in December. This is all easy to get information if you put the slightest effort into doing so.

Hicup said:

And he's wrong.. If one beleives that marriage is fundamental right, then any type of marriage is. Is it not?

Tim-

Click to expand...

Exactly right. And that is what many on the other side refuse to admit.

Hicup said:

And he's wrong.. If one beleives that marriage is fundamental right, then any type of marriage is. Is it not?

Tim-

Click to expand...

As I said before, the right of marriage is the right of two parties to choose a spouse, and with free and mutual consent, join together and form a household where they then consent to support each other and their dependents. If polygamists wish to argue that the state has an interest in promoting marriage that includes more than two parties, then let them. They must provide evidence to support that they can provide just as stable homes as heterosexual couples and same sex couples. It has been more than adequately demonstrated through evidence in this case that same sex couples are just as capable of providing a stable household and raising children as heterosexual couples. There is no evidence to support that polygamists are similarly capable. As such, arguments of polygamy are irrelevant to same sex marriage.

CriticalThought said:

If polygamists wish to argue that the state has an interest in promoting marriage that includes more than two parties, then let them. They must provide evidence to support that they can provide just as stable homes as heterosexual couples and same sex couples.

Click to expand...

they've been LEGISLATED into virtual non existence, get real

Zyphlin said:

So what about my particular argument in regards to males and females.

Can men change the fact they're men in your opinion?

Can women change the fact they're women in your opinion?

Then how is telling a man he can only marry women and women can only marry men any different than telling a black person they can only marry a white person and white people they could only marry black people?

Click to expand...

When a Black person marrys he is marrying someone of the opposite sex...........I guess that if a gay man or woman wanted to change their sex then they could marry someone of the opposite sex no matter how screwed up that is.........

ptif219 said:

Just pointing out marriage may not make gays happy.They keep talking about what they gain and avoid looking at what they lose

Click to expand...

Marriage does not make all straights happy either. What's your point? I suppose, in accordance with what you said, we should outlaw all marriage.

CriticalThought said:

The right of marriage is the right to two parties to choose a spouse, and with free and mutual consent, join together and form a household where they then consent to support each other and their dependents. If polygamists wish to argue that the state has an interest in promoting marriage that includes more than two parties, then let them. They must provide evidence to support that they can provide just as stable homes as heterosexual couples and same sex couples. It has been more than adequately demonstrated through evidence in this case that same sex couples are just as capable of providing a stable household and raising children as heterosexual couples. There is no evidence to support that polygamists are similarly capable. As such, arguments of polygamy are irrelevant to same sex marriage.

Click to expand...

Nice try but no! The case before the bar, Sir, isn't whether gays can have stable households. It is whether they're fundamental rights are being infringed.


Tim-

Hicup said:

And he's wrong.. If one beleives that marriage is fundamental right, then any type of marriage is. Is it not?

Tim-

Click to expand...

The right to contract is fundamental under the constitution, but minors cannot enter into contracts.

The right to free speech is fundamental, but there are limits.

The right to bear arms is fundamental, but there are limits.

Zyphlin said:

Ah, it seemed you were speaking about polls as in the whole over turning the peoples will, california people support it, etc. My mistake and apologizes.

Click to expand...

Not a problem, I probably should have been more clear.............

Redress said:

DADT is currently undergoing a 1 year review by the pentagon, looking into how to handle possible issues with repeal. This review will finish in December. This is all easy to get information if you put the slightest effort into doing so.

Click to expand...

LOL!

you need to put a little more of that effort you're pushing into finding a little more of that easy info you tout

Taylor said:

No... I never claimed that "number of partners" should be included in the "sexual orientation" construct.

Click to expand...

Good. Then your comparison of the two, as I said, was incorrect.

CaptainCourtesy said:

No, it's because the polygamy argument is irrelevant to the issue. It's like comparing apples and airplanes. Bringing it up is a silly talking point/red herring that does not apply.

Click to expand...

Of course it applies, but only as an illustration to make a point.


Tim-

Redress said:

The right to contract is fundamental under the constitution, but minors cannot enter into contracts.

Click to expand...

And there are laws against hommosexual marriage yet you want to disregard those do you not so what is the difference?

The right to free speech is fundamental, but there are limits.

The right to bear arms is fundamental, but there are limits.

Click to expand...

Exactly what we are saying

Hicup said:

Nice try but no! The case before the bar, Sir, isn't whether gays can have stable households. It is whether they're fundamental rights are being infringed.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Indeed, and that right is defined in this case as, "the right of two parties to choose a spouse, and with free and mutual consent, join together and form a household where they then consent to support each other and their dependents."

The judge argued that the evidence presented demonstrated clearly that same sex couples could fulfil their obligations to their dependents as well as heterosexual couples. There is no evidence that polygamists could do so and so it is an irrelevant argument to make.

Redress said:

The right to contract is fundamental under the constitution, but minors cannot enter into contracts.

The right to free speech is fundamental, but there are limits.

The right to bear arms is fundamental, but there are limits.

Click to expand...

Are you making an argument? If so, I apologize I do not see it?


Tim-

I grow weary of this thread............I think there is one thing we all can agree on.......This issue will go to the SCOTUS to be decided........In the end I am willing to abide by their decision............To all you "Feel good Libs" and gays out there are you willing to do the same????????????????????

texmaster said:

And there are laws against hommosexual marriage yet you want to disregard those do you not so what is the difference?



Exactly what we are saying

Click to expand...

Except that as has been pointed out before, you have to prove, at a minimum, a reasonable reason for that limit under the law. Get busy on that, since the lawyers who argued this case failed miserably. There are reasons for all those exceptions, so what is your reason for denying gays?

Hicup said:

The liberals here seem to shy away form the polygamy argument, as it tends to nullify the "fundamental" meaning of marriage. This is precisely my point. If marriage is so fundamental, then by what measure is it so? What is it about marriage that makes it fundamental, or inalieanable?

Liberals care to weigh in?


Tim-

Click to expand...

I've addressed the polygamy argument numerous times and demonstrated that it is inconsistent and irrelevant with what we are discussing. Conservatives bring it up as a red herring.

Navy Pride said:

I grow weary of this thread............I think there is one thing we all can agree on.......This issue will go to the SCOTUS to be decided........In the end I am willing to abide by their decision............To all you "Feel good Libs" and gays out there are you willing to do the same????????????????????

Click to expand...

Bull. If they say that gays can marry, then you will be one of the people leading the charge to pass a Federal amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

To help make this a bit more specific for people complaining about the polygamist stuff, so you know...maybe you can actually make an argument for it that addresses peoples points.

In regards to equal protection there's two arguments being made.

One held by myself, riv, and perhaps others, that this is a gender thing. Gender is already a defined status under the EPC that is of mid level protection requiring important state interest and substantial proof.

One held by others is that sexual orientation should be covered under EPC. They tend to feel one of two ways:

• 1. They feel that they should be there under the minimum scrutiny level "Rational Basis" and that even under that there is not enough proof to show that the the discrimination is rationally able to be shown to serve a legitimate state interest.
  
  2. They feel that they should be there under the Quasi-Suspect middle tier at the very least, requiring an equal amount of proof and need as gender does. And possibly even arguing equal to the top tier "Strict Scrutiny". They feel this way because there's a large amount of legitimate evidence that suggests homosexual orientation is, in many if not most cases, a natural occuring thing that one is born with akin to race or sex.

Finally, the argument from both in regards to equal protection and why it does not account for polygamists is as generall as follows. "How many people" is not a protected status of some sort under the EPC, and saying "Its not equal that he can marry one person but I can't marry two" is not evidence of inequality based on a protected status of any kind.

Additionally, there is a far stronger argument for state interest in preventing polygamists marriages then there is in gay marriages. And it can be made without the typical hyperbolic stereotypes of pedophilia or incest. The implimentation of polygamist marriages opens the door for a significant hinderance on the U.S. and States court systems due to the numerous issues surrounding polygamy. Take for example the ability for the spouse to have the final say over health decisions...when there is multiple spouses if they disagree then this becomes a legal issue that will bog down the courts. The only alternative to this would be to be able to designate certain spouses as somehow special and having more of the benefits than others, but that in and of itself creates a government imposed unequal designation. Additionally it opens up a far more glaring and damaging issue for the government in regards to the tax abilities regarding marriage by allowign people to create extremely long chains of individuals all connected with regards to the tax benefits where as the current "two people" limit provides a reasonable limit on the connections that keeps its impact from reaching the point where it would reach government interest.

So to truly use the polygamist argument against people making the EPC claims to suggest they're hypocritical one must:

1. Provide a legitimate argument as to how and why Polygamy should be or is a protected EPC class of equal or greater level to the class they're suggesting is the reason for same sex marriage is.

2. Provide a legitimate argument as to why the arguments for government interest against polygamy are incorrect.

3. Provide a legitimate argument as to why there is as pertinent of arguments for government interest against same sex marriage as there is for polygamy.

Enjoy.

OK, I have a question for our legal experts on both sides. I am, admittedly not a legal expert, though I have learned alot in my time on this board. Sometimes it is best to reach out and ask for input from people who know more:

The ruling on Prop 8 says that this state law violated the constitution. The ruling in the DOMA case said in part that DOMA violated a states right to regulate marriage. I can, I think see ways these can be reconciled, but is there an easy way to do so? Is winning on one mean a loss on the other?

Hicup said:

Of course it applies, but only as an illustration to make a point.


Tim-

Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't apply. It illustrates a different argument with differen parameters. The only point it makes is a red herring point.

did you hear what obama said about gay marriage when our gay neighbors and friends had their backs turned...

pedophilia

that's gotta hurt

why doesn't barry agree with all the refined constitutionalists of dp?

Hicup said:

Step up? I've been stepping up since I entered the thread.. LOL

Click to expand...

You have never once given an example of how my arguments regarding the constitutionality of allowing same sex marriage also applies to polygamy. Not once. So don't put forth a broad challenge to people for ignoring your comments on polygamy when you are ignoring people making arguments against said arguments.