Should same-sex marriage be left to the States?

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, you now attempt to equate race and gender, so what of ALL 'separate but equal' laws based on gender? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Is title 9 now invalid for college sports? Should we boycott the olympics? Should we strike gender restrictions for the military? Should we outlaw 'separate' restrooms and prison cells for women/men?

Click to expand...

I have it on authority that women are now going to be allowed into Ranger school.

This is born from women complaining that men have an easier time getting promotions because men can attend these elite schools, while women can not.

Forget about the fact that women simply can not perform on the same physical level as men, and that allowing women into these elite combat rolls will get people killed. No. We need to make sure folks have promotion points.

This is what gays are doing with marriage. Forget about fixing the institution, and forget that the creation of civil unions is about getting heteros into commitmentless unions and brake up more often. No. This institution is being reduced to a handful of minor tax brakes only the poor ever see and perhaps a reduced insurance premium.

ttwtt78640 said:

Rather circular logic there, if marraige is a right of the people then why has the state ANY right to say that my definition (perhaps polygamy) is not valid. If I say that I am "married" to my sister, three good friends and a goat has the state a right to deny that right?

Click to expand...

There is no compelling interest in denying polygamy. So I would have no problem in allowing it. Did you know that polygamist marriages outweight monogamous marriages across the world?

As for incest...sorry but this slippery slope fallacy has been debunked many times. Incestous relationships increase genetic deformities in any resulting offspring. Which not only harms the resulting child but also quite often ends up with the state helping pay for that childs needs. That is why it is not allowed. Second reason is that it is quite easy for an older sibling to negatively influence a younger sibling. Making them believe that something is OK even though it is not. When they are influenced this way then they are no longer able to make their own, informed, choice/consent. And informed consent is one of the major things required to get married. If I have to explain why informed consent is required and allowed to be required then there are deeper problems here.

As for marrying your goat, sorry but a goat cannot give consent.

Kal'Stang said:

As for marrying your goat, sorry but a goat cannot give consent.

Click to expand...

What?!? Listen again more closely. She said "YAHAHAHAHAHA!"

roguenuke said:

They're not the same for many things. Maybe you should check out one of those SC cases I posted earlier, Reed v Reed. That case involved gender/sex discrimination that was ruled unconstitutional by the SC under the EPC. The state had no legitimate state interest in saying that male heirs should be held in a higher regard than female heirs when it came to inheritance from a parent.

Reed v. Reed

Click to expand...

OK, of the many things, that race and gender are not equal (correctly), what makes marraige off the list but military service requirments on the list? I can think of more reasons that my wife should be female than that a fellow soldier must be male, yet there are valid (compelling?) reasons for both arguments.

Jerry said:

I have it on authority that women are now going to be allowed into Ranger school.

This is born from women complaining that men have an easier time getting promotions because men can attend these elite schools, while women can not.

Forget about the fact that women simply can not perform on the same physical level as men, and that allowing women into these elite combat rolls will get people killed. No. We need to make sure folks have promotion points.

This is what gays are doing with marriage. Forget about fixing the institution, and forget that the creation of civil unions is about getting heteros into commitmentless unions and brake up more often. No. This institution is being reduced to a handful of minor tax brakes only the poor ever see and perhaps a reduced insurance premium.

Click to expand...

1st: There is a difference between being allowed to enter into a program and being able to physically successfully finish that program. I have no problem in allowing women to enter into the Ranger Program, so long as they can hack it then they should pass. If not then they should not be allowed to pass. Yes generally most women could not hack it. But for the ones that can...whats the big deal?

2nd: I realize your biggest problem with SSM is that you don't know if they will commit to the marriage and not get a divorce. But you will never find out if this is true or not if you don't give them the chance. Of couse in my mind divorce is immaterial to allowing SSM. My reasons for allowing SSM are based on a fundemental right to get married.

Mathematician said:

What?!? Listen again more closely. She said "YAHAHAHAHAHA!"

Click to expand...

DANG IT! Need to turn my hearing aid up! ....now where the heck did I put it????

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, of the many things, that race and gender are not equal (correctly), what makes marraige off the list but military service requirments on the list? I can think of more reasons that my wife should be female than that a fellow soldier must be male, yet there are valid (compelling?) reasons for both arguments.

Click to expand...

Your reasons would be based on your personal view of marriage, not what legal marriage is and what is required legally for a person to do in a marriage. (I'll give you a hint, legal marriage in the US does not require procreation, either the ability or desire to do so.) Is there any other reason, besides your own personal attraction to your wife, that you think that a marriage must involve a man and a woman?

And the bans on women in the military do not keep a woman completely out of the military. They keep a woman from being able to do certain jobs in the military because of many unique differences between men and women. Those things could easily be changed with changes in how warfare is conducted, training, and developing new, lighter equipment and/or equipment that will "enhance" physical attributes of either sex. At the moment, we recognize that the vast majority of women are not as strong as men, require certain considerations in their sanitation/medical needs, and are viewed, due to their sex, differently by many men than other men are. These are valid state interests for keeping women out of certain military jobs. As we develop newer technology and perhaps different male/female relationships, we may see these rules changing as well.

Kal'Stang said:

1st: There is a difference between being allowed to enter into a program and being able to physically successfully finish that program. I have no problem in allowing women to enter into the Ranger Program, so long as they can hack it then they should pass. If not then they should not be allowed to pass. Yes generally most women could not hack it. But for the ones that can...whats the big deal?

Click to expand...

As always, the standards will be lowered so that women can pass. Not only will women not be able to perform on a man's level, they won't even be expected to. this is the theme through all military training. Females have lower standards to achieve.

Introducing females into tight fire teams is disastrous for the additional reason of romantic interests. Even if a women could perform on a man's level, romantic relationships will form, and then brake up, then she's going out with the first guy's buddy, and now she's just broken up a fire team, all for the sake of a few promotion points.

Kal'Stang said:

2nd: I realize your biggest problem with SSM is that you don't know if they will commit to the marriage and not get a divorce. But you will never find out if this is true or not if you don't give them the chance.

Click to expand...

I've heard that line a million times (literary) on this forum. You say it as though SSM could ever be repealed. You either think I'm incredibly ignorent of how the law works, you're incredibly ignorant yourself.

Kal'Stang said:

If there is compelling interest in allowing those things then they should be allowed. Not all rights are absolute. Even the right to free speech is limited. The right to own a gun is limited. Every right that we have is limited in some way shape or form. But those limitations does not mean that those rights do not exist.

So what is the compelling interest in denying SSM?

Click to expand...

The compelling interest in denying SSM is the same that denies polygamy, traditional limitations on the definition of 'family'. We have created 'special' legal realtionships for husband and wife, primarily to reenforce the traditional familiy unit by confering some legal advantages to it. For those that feel that this is unfair to homosexuals, polygamists, those believing in 'free love' or absolute individual equal protection under the law, it is "wrong", but the vast majority like it (or at least accept it). We now have all sorts of moronic things like 'bad' discrimination (race or gender bans) and 'good' discrimination (race or gender perks), yet we seem to accept that some forms of discrimination are for the general good, traditional marraige simply being one of them. Adding yet another class of 'special' (super?) or protected citizens, based on sexual orientation, is a bad idea, just as 'affirmative action' and 'hate crime' laws are bad ideas, since they (by definition) make for unequal protection under the law and help to prolong the recognition of differences and thus actually seem to slow setting them aside.

ttwtt78640 said:

The compelling interest in denying SSM is the same that denies polygamy, traditional limitations on the definition of 'family'. We have created 'special' legal realtionships for husband and wife, primarily to reenforce the traditional familiy unit by confering some legal advantages to it. For those that feel that this is unfair to homosexuals, polygamists, those believing in 'free love' or absolute individual equal protection under the law, it is "wrong", but the vast majority like it (or at least accept it). We now have all sorts of moronic things like 'bad' discrimination (race or gender bans) and 'good' discrimination (race or gender perks), yet we seem to accept that some forms of discrimination are for the general good, traditional marraige simply being one of them. Adding yet another class of 'special' (super?) or protected citizens, based on sexual orientation, is a bad idea, just as 'affirmative action' and 'hate crime' laws are bad ideas, since they (by definition) make for unequal protection under the law and help to prolong the recognition of differences and thus actually seem to slow setting them aside.

Click to expand...

Except polygamy is not being denied on the same basis. Polygamy is denied because polygamy does not fit into the current marriage contract. Changing the number of people within the marriage actually does raise legal issues pertaining to the government rights/benefits of marriage.

And you have yet to explain why a legal marriage contract requires a man and a woman. The contract involves legal rights, benefits and responsibilities that involve two people becoming the beneficiaries and responsible parties for those things. What part of a person's sex relative to another prevents them from taking on those legal responsibilities and/or causes problems with the distribution of those legal rights/benefits?

Jerry said:

I've heard that line a million times (literary) on this forum. You say it as though SSM could ever be repealed. You either think I'm incredibly ignorent of how the law works, you're incredibly ignorant yourself.

Click to expand...

Jerry, I have never considered you ignorant. Yeah we may disagree on quite a few issues but that doesn't mean that I think you are ignorant.

roguenuke said:

Your reasons would be based on your personal view of marriage, not what legal marriage is and what is required legally for a person to do in a marriage. (I'll give you a hint, legal marriage in the US does not require procreation, either the ability or desire to do so.) Is there any other reason, besides your own personal attraction to your wife, that you think that a marriage must involve a man and a woman?

And the bans on women in the military do not keep a woman completely out of the military. They keep a woman from being able to do certain jobs in the military because of many unique differences between men and women. Those things could easily be changed with changes in how warfare is conducted, training, and developing new, lighter equipment and/or equipment that will "enhance" physical attributes of either sex. At the moment, we recognize that the vast majority of women are not as strong as men, require certain considerations in their sanitation/medical needs, and are viewed, due to their sex, differently by many men than other men are. These are valid state interests for keeping women out of certain military jobs. As we develop newer technology and perhaps different male/female relationships, we may see these rules changing as well.

Click to expand...

WOW. That's a lot to swallow. Tradition and the 'normal' familiy unit are the best justification for marriage getting special legal status. Barring that, marraige is then ONLY about life partnering with special legal status, not anything to do with having or raising children, but we all know that is the next "logical" step, denying that the homosexual lifestyle may confuse children even, as many gays now say that they are 'hurt' and/or 'confused' by the reactions of their own heterosexual parents toward their lifestyle. As far as the military goes there should be TWO branches, like in the old days of the WAC. The current nonsense is not working well, as neither the men nor women in the service really like it. As you note, different is not same (equal), no matter how much you wish it to be so. We should stop the denying that equivalent (separate but equal) is as close to equal as different things can be. Civil unions are as close to marraige as same sex couples can get, accept it and move on.

ttwtt78640 said:

The compelling interest in denying SSM is the same that denies polygamy, traditional limitations on the definition of 'family'. We have created 'special' legal realtionships for husband and wife, primarily to reenforce the traditional familiy unit by confering some legal advantages to it. For those that feel that this is unfair to homosexuals, polygamists, those believing in 'free love' or absolute individual equal protection under the law, it is "wrong", but the vast majority like it (or at least accept it). We now have all sorts of moronic things like 'bad' discrimination (race or gender bans) and 'good' discrimination (race or gender perks), yet we seem to accept that some forms of discrimination are for the general good, traditional marraige simply being one of them. Adding yet another class of 'special' (super?) or protected citizens, based on sexual orientation, is a bad idea, just as 'affirmative action' and 'hate crime' laws are bad ideas, since they (by definition) make for unequal protection under the law and help to prolong the recognition of differences and thus actually seem to slow setting them aside.

Click to expand...

Sorry but "tradition" is not a valid reason to deny a fundemental right. Do I really have to go through a list of traditions that have been overturned because they were bad traditions? Besides, appealing to tradition would not work very well for you. Polygamy use to be tradition long before monogamy came into the picture.

And we are not adding a "special" class of protected citizens. We are just acknowledgeing that the fundemental right to marry should be applied to everyone and not just one class of people.

ttwtt78640 said:

WOW. That's a lot to swallow. Tradition and the 'normal' familiy unit are the best justification for marriage getting special legal status. Barring that, marraige is then ONLY about life partnering with special legal status, not anything to do with having or raising children, but we all know that is the next "logical" step, denying that the homosexual lifestyle may confuse children even, as many gays now say that they are 'hurt' and/or 'confused' by the reactions of their own heterosexual parents toward their lifestyle. As far as the military goes there should be TWO branches, like in the old days of the WAC. The current nonsense is not working well, as neither the men nor women in the service really like it. As you note, different is not same (equal), no matter how much you wish it to be so. We should stop the denying that equivalent (separate but equal) is as close to equal as different things can be. Civil unions are as close to marraige as same sex couples can get, accept it and move on.

Click to expand...

No. Legal rights and benefits that come from being legal family are the best reasons to have legal marriage.

People do not marry, for the most part, in the US just to have children. The vast majority of people marry because they want to marry the person they feel they love. If they find out after or even before they marry that they can't have children together, the vast majority of those people will still get married to each other and find another way to have/raise children together, if that is important to them.

You do not get to determine the "normal" family unit. There are many different types of family units that work well for raising children, including having same sex parents.

Women in the military is working fine for those who understand that women should be treated like the men. If they have a problem, it should based on the issue, not the sex of the person involved. The vast majority of jobs in the military do not require a certain level of strength or physical ability and most people, particularly in the normal situations that the majority of service members face can work together with little problems.

Oh, and since more states recognize legal same sex marriages than they do legal civil unions, it is highly likely that same sex couples will be allowed to legally marry within the next ten years. Likely sooner. Your argument is not supported by facts. There is absolutely no reason to deny same sex couples legal marriage, even the word, and I strongly believe the SC will agree with me.

roguenuke said:

Except polygamy is not being denied on the same basis. Polygamy is denied because polygamy does not fit into the current marriage contract. Changing the number of people within the marriage actually does raise legal issues pertaining to the government rights/benefits of marriage.

And you have yet to explain why a legal marriage contract requires a man and a woman. The contract involves legal rights, benefits and responsibilities that involve two people becoming the beneficiaries and responsible parties for those things. What part of a person's sex relative to another prevents them from taking on those legal responsibilities and/or causes problems with the distribution of those legal rights/benefits?

Click to expand...

OK, let's use this example. Tom and John, or Mary and Susan (not at all sexual partners) work or even go to school together, and decide that the financial advantages of marriage, say just for health insurance purposes, make it 'wise' to marry, making one the spouse of the other, getting 'free' coverage on the policy of the other, they form a prenuptual agreement protecting all current assets and agree to buy no joint property. What is to stop this "scam" from becoming wide-spread, as is the 'single mother' scam now used to collect welfare and protect the wages of the 'daddy' (from child support requirements or consideration in 'family' income)? Welfare caused a huge increase in out-of-wedlock childbirth, and I believe that asexual 'marraige' will lead to similar benefit abuse, just as you assert that polygamy would. Adding a spouse (dependent) makes many more 'low income' same sex roommate situations (now able to be called marraiges) into cases qualifying for public assistance (they could simply take turns being employed, or one work 'off the books').

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, let's use this example. Tom and John, or Mary and Susan (not at all sexual partners) work or even go to school together, and decide that the financial advantages of marriage, say just for health insurance purposes, make it 'wise' to marry, making one the spouse of the other, getting 'free' coverage on the policy of the other, they form a prenuptual agreement protecting all current assets and agree to buy no joint property. What is to stop this "scam" from becoming wide-spread, as is the 'single mother' scam now used to collect welfare and protect the wages of the 'daddy'? Welfare caused a huge increase in out-of-wedlock childbirth, and I believe that asexual 'marraige' will lead to similar benefit abuse, just as you assert that polygamy would. Adding a spouse (dependent) makes many more 'low income' same sex roommate situations (now able to be called marraiges) into cases qualifying for public assistance (they could simply take turns being employed, or one work 'off the books').

Click to expand...

This happens now with opposite sex couples. It happens all the time in the military. They try to crack down on it but its a little hard to prove who got married because they planned to stay together and who got together for the benefits alone. Military members get divorced all the time.

You seem to think that this is really going to be some huge issue. It won't. The vast majority of people want to marry the person they actually plan to stay with, not some random person they may get some assumed benefits from.

Oh, and you obviously don't realize how most assistance programs work. The vast majority of them, it would hurt someone to get married to their roommate and try to get on assistance than it would just to stay single roommates living together.

Plus, each now opens themself up to property disputes that could cause major issues.

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, you now attempt to equate race and gender, so what of ALL 'separate but equal' laws based on gender? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. Is title 9 now invalid for college sports? Should we boycott the olympics? Should we strike gender restrictions for the military? Should we outlaw 'separate' restrooms and prison cells for women/men?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's a lame argument. Separate restroom and prison cells exist for the purposes of personal privacy. Dumb, dumb argument.

As far as the military is concerned, yeah we ought to strike any gender only restrictions. If women can do the job, they ought to be allowed to do it.
It's really not that complicated. Unless, of course, you believe that female is the inferior gender and there are certain jobs only men should be allowed to do.

Jerry said:

As always, the standards will be lowered so that women can pass. Not only will women not be able to perform on a man's level, they won't even be expected to. this is the theme through all military training. Females have lower standards to achieve.

Introducing females into tight fire teams is disastrous for the additional reason of romantic interests. Even if a women could perform on a man's level, romantic relationships will form, and then brake up, then she's going out with the first guy's buddy, and now she's just broken up a fire team, all for the sake of a few promotion points.



I've heard that line a million times (literary) on this forum. You say it as though SSM could ever be repealed. You either think I'm incredibly ignorent of how the law works, you're incredibly ignorant yourself.

Click to expand...

I think you have a pretty low opinion of women in general. How is it again that SSM harms you?

ttwtt78640 said:

Fortunately, you only live in one of them and have but one vote. ;-)

Click to expand...

That's OK. I'm not power hungry. As I already said, I'm totally willing to leave this up to the States.

Nope, any more than slavery should be a state issue. As the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit, any marriage that is legal in one state must be viewed as legal in all of them, thus even if you make it illegal in one state, they still have to recognize the marriage that moves in from another state where it's legal.

People, especially the religious retards, need to get the hell over themselves.

Wiggen said:

Sorry, but that's a lame argument. Separate restroom and prison cells exist for the purposes of personal privacy. Dumb, dumb argument.

As far as the military is concerned, yeah we ought to strike any gender only restrictions. If women can do the job, they ought to be allowed to do it.
It's really not that complicated. Unless, of course, you believe that female is the inferior gender and there are certain jobs only men should be allowed to do.

Click to expand...

I am glad that you, yet sadly not congress, agree that separate, gender specific, physical requirements should not apply to the military. You left out title 9 entirely (equal number of althetic opportunities for men and women, yet not for races or ethnic groups). Just what 'personal privacy' applies to gender yet not to sexual preference? What, other than sexual preference being predominantly heterosexual, denies privacy based only on gender (whoops, that might be simply tradition, like marraige is now based on)? Different does not mean superior or inferior, simply different. It makes sense to have physical and mental test standards for many jobs, even if that means that the results are not equal for both genders and all races. We all have equal opportunity for an NBA spot, even though mostly tall, black males get those jobs (yet nobody has sued), yet when mostly white males get firefighting or police jobs, that seems (to many) to indicate gender/race discrimination has somehow occured (and many lawsuits have resulted). My simple point is that gender is accepted as a reason to have legal differences only until someone feels 'slighted' then they zoom in on one area (marraige) and say that there is no 'compelling state interest' for only a man and woman to be allowed to marry, but that two is the only correct number of 'partners' in a marraige without regard to any 'compelling state interest' at all. Business partnerships (state contracts) have no such limit on the number of partners (nor their genders) and we seem to survive quite well that way. The reason that I included the title 9 federal rules, is that they specify that for every male athelete, at that school, that their must be one female athlete, they can not count it any other way, just as state marraige law now says that one spouse must be male and the other female, with no 'substitutions' allowed.

roguenuke said:

Marriage has already been ruled to fall under the 14th Amendment as far as equal protection goes. Since this is true, the federal government has a right, generally through the SC, to enforce the 14th Amendment on state laws regarding marriage.

Click to expand...

Uhmmm...no it hasn't. Again roguenuke, you have no understanding of legal precedents. You're trying to use a limited precedent set to destroy the discrimination of interracial marriages, and apply it to sexual tastes...again.

Cephus said:

Nope, any more than slavery should be a state issue. As the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit, any marriage that is legal in one state must be viewed as legal in all of them, thus even if you make it illegal in one state, they still have to recognize the marriage that moves in from another state where it's legal.

People, especially the religious retards, need to get the hell over themselves.

Click to expand...

I agree and that also goes for polygamy, should a state decide to add that as a legal form of marraige. The only disagreement, that I have with some here, is that a federal standard is OK because they think it fair, even if the constituion does not give the federal gov't the power to define marraige. Some have used the SCOTUS denying of state racial mix restrictions on marraige to imply that a federal (court?) power over state marraige gender restrictions exists as well, in effect, forcing all states to drop it and making SSM a nationwide "right" if the SCOTUS thinks it "fair".

Kal'Stang said:

Sorry but "tradition" is not a valid reason to deny a fundemental right. Do I really have to go through a list of traditions that have been overturned because they were bad traditions? Besides, appealing to tradition would not work very well for you. Polygamy use to be tradition long before monogamy came into the picture.

And we are not adding a "special" class of protected citizens. We are just acknowledgeing that the fundemental right to marry should be applied to everyone and not just one class of people.

Click to expand...

I'd like for you to point out where in our Constitution there is a clause that says marriage is a right...thought so.

Lightning said:

Uhmmm...no it hasn't. Again roguenuke, you have no understanding of legal precedents. You're trying to use a limited precedent set to destroy the discrimination of interracial marriages, and apply it to sexual tastes...again.

Click to expand...

I agree, that case involved marraige, as an aside, but the central objection was to mix-race sex laws spearate from the marraige law, as the marraige involved was from out of state.