they just broke the news. poor Ghazi. he will never be able to marry Dirk now.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-gay-marriage/
Printable View
they just broke the news. poor Ghazi. he will never be able to marry Dirk now.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...-gay-marriage/
Those who did get married when they could will remain so. And I don't know about "never" because times they are a changing.
This nation would be worse of that I thought if the court ruled making a legal constitutional change, invalid.
I couldn't quite follow what you said, but I'd agree that it's good that the court shot this down. I'm of the mind that the constitutional change does not reflect a repudiation of the "rights of man" in the state constitution itself. Let the law be changed by the will of the people in a few years time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Thats a statement i agree with. Im not against gay marraige, but this is a "Majority wins" country.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
If i have to eat shit about "Majority elected Obama, deal with it" for the next 4-8 years and acccept what the majority wanted there, shouldnt they then respect the majority of Californian's decision to ban gay marraige?
Nice of the courts to be gracious enough to uphold the peoples vote.
We're actually not a "majority wins" country in a lot of ways. We don't elect a President by a popular majority, as Al Gore knows from 2000. More importantly, the framers of the Constitution addressed their assessments of individual rights in a manner that actually protects against the tyranny of the majority in a great many ways. If this were truly a majority wins country, things like segregation could still conceivably be deemed "constitutional" if a majority of voters in certain states ratified a measure mandating segregation; I think, however, that such a provision would undoubtedly run afoul of the 14th Amendment and, at the end of the day, the Constitutional guarantees will ALWAYS trump what the majority wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasho8
Whether the Constitution can be construed to guarantee a right to marriage and a concomitant right to same-sex marriage remains an open question with strong arguments existing on both sides. What is undoubtedly true, however, is that since that question has not been definitively resolved as a matter of constitutional law, a majority vote in any given state will preclude same-sex marriage (or permit it). For now, there's not a signficant federal issue, but there will be (and soon, I suspect) when couples who were legally married in one state seek to invoke the Full Faith and Credit guarantees after moving to another state.
If I were married and gay, and wanted to move, I'd do my best to move to a state that legally recognized it.
Great post. :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I love reading your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
But we already had that debate when people who were married in Hawaii (I think it was Hawaii) moved to other states. The ruling was they were not allowed to maintain their status as that state did not recognize their marraige as lawful.
edit: removed the rest for accuracy
Same-Sex Marriage Overview
In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage was unconstitutional. The Senate then asked the Court for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed law that would bar same-sex couples from civil marriage but would create civil unions as a parallel institution, with all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law. In February, the Court answered, "segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or preserve" the governmental aim of encouraging "stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children." Under this decision, the state of Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in May 2004.
This ruling is part of a larger public discussion of "marriage" and "family" that started in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that laws denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated state constitutional equal protection rights unless the state could show a "compelling reason" for such discrimination. In 1996, a trial court ruled that the state had no such compelling reason and the case headed back to the Supreme Court. Voters adopted a Constitutional amendment in 1998, before the final ruling was issued, giving the Legislature the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples and effectively ending the lawsuit.
In April 2000, Vermont approved landmark legislation to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples, granting them virtually all the benefits, protections and responsibilities that married couples have under Vermont law. The Vermont legislation was a result of the state Supreme Court ruling in Baker v. Vermont that said same-sex couples are entitled, under the state constitution's "Common Benefits Clause," to the same benefits and protections as married opposite-sex couples. The court ruled that the Vermont Legislature must decide how to provide these benefits and protections, either by legalizing marriage for same-sex couples or by establishing an alternative system. In April 2005, Connecticut became the first state to legalize civil unions without prompting from the courts.
The Vermont Legislature chose to preserve marriage as the "legally recognized union of one man and one woman," but at the same time create a parallel system of civil unions for same-sex couples that goes beyond existing "domestic partnership" and "reciprocal beneficiaries" laws that exist in California and Hawaii and in many localities in the U.S. today.
In October, 2006, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the legislature to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples or to establish a separate legal structure, such as civil unions, to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual marriage couples. In late 2006, the New Jersey legislature passed a statute allowing civil unions beginning February 19, 2007. New Hampshire passed legislation authorizing civil unions, which will take effect on January 1, 2008.
On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. The ruling takes effect in mid-June, but could be stayed by the courts for six months, which would allow California residents to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman. If the amendment passes in November, same-sex marriage would again be banned in California.
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to do the same. Since 1996, many states have enacted legislation prohibiting same-sex marriages or the recognition of same-sex marriages formed in another jurisdiction. States have traditionally recognized marriages solemnized in other states, even those that go against the marriage laws of that particular state. Under the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, states are generally required to recognize and honor the public laws of other states, unless those laws are contrary to the strong public policy of that state.
Over half of the states have passed language defining marriage between a man and a woman in their state constitutions. Arizona is the only state where a constitutional amendment on the ballot in a general election has failed (2006). Typically, constitutional amendments have passed with an overwhelming majority.
There have been several proposals before Congress to amend the federal Constitution, defining marriage as between a man and a woman and ensuring that states would not be required to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. President Bush has announced his support for such an amendment, however, he is receptive to allowing states to "define other arrangements." This could indicate that the President does not favor enacting a federal ban on civil union or domestic partnership laws. Opponents of the amendment cite federalism concerns in addition to support for same-sex marriages. A constitutional amendment requires 2/3 of the U.S. House and Senate and 3/4 of the state legislatures for enactment. For a summary of proposed federal legislation from 2002 to present, click
Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA)
Forty-one states currently have statutory Defense of Marriage Acts. Three of those states have statutory language that pre-dates DOMA (enacted before 1996) defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Thirty states have defined marriage in their constitutions. Arizona is the only state that has ever defeated a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman (2006), but subsequently passed one in 2008.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/samesex.htm
DOMA and its opt-out on Full Faith and Credit is really going to be what gets the substantive issue before the Supreme Court of the United States, I think. A state can opt-out on giving full faith and credit where it can establish a strong public policy interest in denying credit to a sister state's enactment (such as a marriage license). But if a right to same-sex marriage is found to be among the interests protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment -- and if such a right is deemed a fundamental constitutional right (marriage, as an institution is already so recognized) -- it will be nearly impossible for a state to articulate a policy interest that would be strong enough to trump that constitutional right and would invalidate the FF&C opt-out that DOMA claims to create.
Like I say, there are strong arguments on both sides of the substantive debate (though, as many here know, I decidedly favor the arguments in support of recognizing same-sex marriage). I think we'll see the same-sex marriage/full faith and credit duo work their way to the Supreme Court in the next few years and will have a substantive decision on the issue. At the moment, I'd predict that the Supreme Court's majority would likely leave it a state-by-state issue and conclude that DOMA's opt-out is constitutional. But I think that's entirely dependent upon the fact that the Court tends conservative on such issues because of Justice Kennedy's relative conservatism. I'm not sure that such a result would be objectively supportable or Justice Kennedy really warrants possession of such power. But that would nevertheless be my hunch.
Man, this has been a rough couple of weeks for adam lambert.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
If you support same-sex marriage, how do you feel about polygamy?
Just curious.
Huh, interesting twist, I'm not sure if anyone has ever raised that question.
And animals -- they always want to bring up animals too.
What do you pro-homos think about marrying a dead baby squirrel? If we let the gays marry, whose to say I can't marry and have relations with a dead baby squirrel?? Better yet, what if I wanted to marry TWO dead baby squirrels? And what if they were both male??
I don't know about you, but I sure as shit don't want my children joining some gay dead squirrel baby poligamy cult just because you want the gays to get married.
Yeah that would be bad. Make sure your kids don't ever see dead baby squirrels or they might be converted into gay dead baby squirrel polygamists. Also, keep them away from baby seals. They're cute, warm, and blubbery. Children can easily fall for their charms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
I wouldn't do it, but if there's 3 consenting adults out there who want to, that should be their business.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
If you can get that squirrel to convince a justice of the peace that it consents, then I'll support your right to marry it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
You're right...it should be. But, so long as the contract of marriage is so intertwined in government, it's everyone's business and, to many -- confining the definition of marriage to that between a man and a woman makes as much economic sense as it does moral sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
The proper course of action is to remove all benefits and/or penalties of being married from the law. Period.
Let it become a personal contract between two (or more) people. No dependent insurance clauses, no tax benefits for married couples, etc...
2 consenting adults should be allowed to marry. How hard is that?
Well, it draws a line at two. What do you have against polygamists?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
There should be no governmental reward or penalty for being married or unmarried. How hard is that?
what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Beyond the extent the government (or courts) become involved in any contract, they should stay out of marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
To what consenting adults agree, that does not infringe on anothers rights, should not fall under government scrutiny. Period.
As a consequence, however, governments and employers should not be required to offer special dependent insurance coverage and there should be no tax benefits/penalties resulting from the agreement.
what rights are infringed upon yoni?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Where did I say someone's rights were being infringed?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Govt should stay out of peoples private lives so gays should be able to marry. Got itQuote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Yes. But, government should not dictate what employers must offer employees, based on a marriage contract, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
If you want to insure your spouse, pay for it.
They're jerks,Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
So? Jerks are protected by the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Polygamy is protected by the Constitution?
Explain.
Let the fags get married just don't let them adopt kids.
But they already have kids.
See, the best solution would just be to kill all tax breaks for married couples.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Or if you're looking at tax breaks as an incentive to produce children, then at the least there should be a time limit for procreation or adoption. :D :lol
Non-Issue Issues like this make me sick to be an American. Americans give Christians such a horrible image.
All fags that want to get married already have kids?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Watch it Chimp... I think the annointed ones father is a polygamist.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
True. Civil unions in CA offer all the same benefits as marriage. The issue is about the use of a fucking word. And for the record the state shouldn't be involved in regulating marriage between whoever and however many, so long as it is between consenting adults. Still, CA's fiscal house is burning down and this is what the masses worry about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Many already have their own kids -- what are you going to do about them?Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
Is he American? Living in America with his wives?Quote:
Originally Posted by hope4dopes
dang this entire board is boring at 4am.... nothing going on.
That makes more sense. My opinion has changed. Fags shouldn't be allowed to be married. Queers are disgusting. One can tolerate a queer but that does not mean it is still not disgusting. By definition a queer is strange,not normal, unconventional, as in behavior and perverted. You let them get married and they get all the benifits by law as normal Americans. It sends a message to our youths that being queer is ok. Which it is not. I am going with my man Obama on this one. Men should not marry men nor women marry women.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The polygamist argument is a valid one (I'm not bringing animals into it, because animals can't consent). If the entire issue is based around the human right to marry someone they love, why should the definition be limited to only two people?
I think what some of the gay's really want, is to get this approved, then move on to teenagers marrying. Doesn't NAMBLA have a contribution to these efforts? After all, teenagers can consent to many things already!Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Once you break down what traditional marriage means, it becomes meaningless. Marriage should never have been something the government got involved with. It is between a man, a woman, the families, and their God.
What happened to the liberal argument of "Separation of Church and State?" Guess they want interference here.
I say remove all preferences that a marriage gives legally. Make contracts for that in all cases.
Marriage was traditionally polygamous.
You changed the definition of traditional marriage.
Shame on you.
"When any society says I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom" Dr. Martin Luther King Jr 1958
18 year olds can already marry -- and teens younger than that can marry with parental consent in many states -- so the notion of allowing teen marriage is not exactly a novel one.
The polygamy argument, to me, is effective insofar as it shows that this debate is about drawing arbitrary lines -- like the line of limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
After all, no sane person would argue that allowing that definition of marriage would suggest that one man should be able to marry 10 women or vice versa.
But if you despise same sex marriage, one means to discredit the idea is to suggest that maintaining the number of parties to a marriage will never be enough if we alter the gender construction for what we deem a marriage.
In the end, saying a marriage is only between 2 people strikes me as far less arbitrary (and more defensible) than saying that it's only between one man and one woman. A significant portion of the society is much more comfortable with the entirely arbitrary line that now exists and what better way to defend the arbitrary line that you like than to suggest all sorts of ridiculous scenarios for changing that line.
Those arguments make no sense together. The same-sex marriage argument, as a public policy issue, has very little to do with religious recognition of that union. It has everything to do with governmental recognition of a union that need not necessarily be a religious one. Different sex couples that marry through non-religious means get the same governmental treatment as those who are religiously married. So the religion argument is a total red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The point about eliminating any governmental benefits arising from marriage is a much stronger position.
True. The definition of marriage as being between a couple is just as arbitrary as it defined solely as a heterosexual institution, now that we are moving beyond the notion of heterosexual marriage as a necessary part of society, one which is relied upon to provide for the creation, development, and care of individuals through childhood. With the collapse of the traditional family unit, the state is now called upon to replicate that which was generally provided without state intervention. To me, that's the larger issue regarding "marriage" in this country, instead of the hotbutton issue of homosexual marriage. In short, heterosexuals have done a good job destroying the importance of marriage over the last five decades in this country such that it really doesn't matter how it's defined anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Let's not forget the dowry! I think we should bring dowries back! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I agree with your last statement though.
Once upon a time it was not uncommon for teens to marry in this country. Of course, as they generally did not enjoy an extended childhood, they were much more mature, at least mentally. This, of course, is not to say that this is desirable and that more time to 'grow up' and devote to education as opposed to familial responsibilities is a bad thing. Considering the prevalence of teenage mothers in our society, I'm sure it's an issue which will receive some attention in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That was a world regional thing. Most men were poor and didn't have the means to support a family. Those with more money, could support more wives and children.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Today, we can do the same thing in the USA. We just cannot marry. Hell, men do it all the time. Knock up three, four, or more women. That is morally wrong by most people, but what is really criminal in my eyes, is having children you cannot provide for! I see that as Child Abuse!
Gold... :tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
That was why marriage first entered the government eyes. Well before MLK, the government started to register and regulate marriages. It started as a racist ideal, to control who blacks could marry.Quote:
Originally Posted by urunobili
Try to stay on point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Polygamy was traditional.
In the Bible.
Why did you go and mess with the definition of marriage?
And I'm not sure that you can argue against excluding homosexual couples from marriage as "arbitrary" while maintaining an arbitrary line against polygamy. Polygamy has been practiced throughout human history, as has homosexual relationships. It has been excluded from the state definition of marriage due to religious biases against its practice. So potential polygamists might constitute a small portion of the population? Do homosexuals constitute anything larger than, say, 5%?
The reason proponents of liberalizing the state definition of marriage to include homosexual couples do not want to recognize that polygamy is just as worthy of inclusion is the fear of the impact on public support as it relates to their cause, though logically there's no difference.
Hey, you'd piss off a lot of evangelicals by legalizing polygamy. Though some might like to try it.
The age of consent is 17 in some states, and I think 16 in others.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
One you start changing the definition, others will want their way with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I am among several people who will never tolerate the idea if redefining marriage. Call it something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
You already changed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
We see it from different perspectives. Look at it from the point of view that the government never had the right to interfere with a traditional church activity.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Does this mean anything to you:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Polygamy won't get play because it doesn't upset the patriarchal order of traditional marriage with the man as the head of the household as much as defining marriage to include homosexual couples will. Some will likely see polygamy as an attempt to revert back to the old school patriarchal order with men free to set themselves up as mini-potentates with a bevy of wives to do their bidding.
in the US? Probably 10% are out and there should be an 8 % closeted still...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Of course, religious practice for some does include polygamy. Why must their religious liberties be infringed upon? Because of some arbitrary definition of marriage as between a couple?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
60 million? Highly doubtful. Even 30 mil is stretching it, unless you believe Kinsey's studies...Quote:
Originally Posted by urunobili
Oh trust me -- I'm an absolutist when it comes to the Establishment Clause. But we're not talking about a religious issue with same-sex marriages. If it were a religious issue, we'd be talking about government insisting that no church or temple or mosque or other worship group recognize same-sex marriages (or that they all do it). If and when same-sex marriages get universal recognition, there's nothing about that to make religious groups marry same-sex couples. The whole issue is whether a government that recognized marriages -- whether religously sanctified or simply done through civil ceremonies performed by public officials -- can narrowly define marriage and accord benefits to those who are married that are unavailable to those who are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Surely you're not insisting that all marriages are religious in their nature? If so, are ceremonies performed by judges without any religious significance nevertheless religious unions? And, if so, into what religion do those non-religious ceremonies fit?
I do believe they are religious in nature. I have always taken that stance. I say those who were married by a judge are not married.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
Again, the government should not be involved with marriage.
[QUOTE=FromWayDowntown;3425434]
After all, no sane person would argue that allowing that definition of marriage would suggest that one man should be able to marry 10 women or vice versa.QUOTE]
you totally miss the point. once you change the definition for one group -- the polygamists or the triad will bring their cause and demand the change and "right" (marriage is not a right).
the NAMBLA argument is also a valid one - but more to the point is the agenda to bring law suits against religious organizations under "hate speech" with intent to remove tax-exempt status' and further remove diety from the fabric of our society.
No consent.Quote:
the NAMBLA argument is also a valid one
As FWD mentioned, I'm perfectly fine with trading one arbitrary definition for another.
That's ridiculous. There are plenty of legal activities and lifestyles that some religions condemn, why haven't lawsuits been brought on behalf of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by implacable44
There are a great number of churches who would deny Eldership to a man who has had children out of wedlock, or who smokes, or any variety of other LEGAL activities that the church disagrees with. There are still PLENTY of churches who will not grant leadership positions to women! They can't even lead worship, lead a prayer or so much as give announcements in front of the congregation. When are we going to see the onslaught of feminist lawsuits to remove those churches' tax exempt status??
Well, first of all, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a right -- and a fundamental one at that. Zablocki v. Redhail makes that pretty clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by implacable44
Nevertheless, I'm sure that you've missed my point. The definition of marriage as being limited to one man and one woman is just as arbitrary as it would be to limit marriage to two people (which the current definition already does). The point is that we draw arbitrary lines in this area; the question is whose arbitrariness should carry the day. My ultimate point is that an arbitrary line that says marriage is an institution between two consenting adults strikes me as more reasonable than removing any line to define marriage as the polygamy/NAMBLA red herrings suggest. In other words, there seems (to me) to be a reasonable arbitrariness to saying that marriage is limited to two adults (regardless of gender) -- I think while still arbitrary, that line is far more reasonable than saying only a man and a woman or saying as many men and women as want to be married.
So, you're cool with dowries and forced marriages, right? :) That was the traditional setup, IIRC?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Not personally, but it happens in some cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
If we are going to go by the laws as wanted by the majority, then we will not have such things. We will also not have same sex marriage.
If we go by customs, and don't interfere with family beliefs, then whats the problem with it?
Now forced marriages have happened in this country. They were called shot gun weddings. However, a forced marriage cannot be made valid, simply because of the rights extended to individuals by the constitution.
Yes, I'm just pointing out that the 'traditional marriage' definition has never been set in stone. It's meant polygamy, it's meant politics, it's meant many different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Why can't the discussion of gay marriage in California end? Seriously, the people voted and they voted to ban gay marriage in California. You may not like and you might even hate it but the people voted and that's how it is. Accept it. Besides, if you want to get married, you don't have to do it in California. There are states in America where gay marriage is legal. Go to a state where gay marriage is legal.
The people can vote again.
And bring lawsuits.
You might not like it, but that's how it is.
Personally, I could care less about gay marriage. I don't give a fuck if gays want to get married. If they want to get married, fine by me. I was just saying that the people of California voted and they voted against gay marriage. And yes, they can vote again on it but from what I've heard it won't be for a while. I just don't get why gays are still protesting Prop 8. It's done. Protesting is not going to have it overturned. They should just wait until the next time it is on the ballot. And if they really want gay marriage to be legal in California, then all the gay marriage supporters need to get off their asses and convince/persuade/pressure/bribe voters to vote their way.
Gotta start sometime. The legal challenge has already begun, so they might as well keep it on the frontburner.
LOL at the Epic fail from a bitch trying to hand Obama a letter to "Save" marriage :lol
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...Pi2egD98FF5EO0
also...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurminator
True. As long as freedom of religion and freedom of association are upheld, then this isn't the issue it's made out to be.
And I hope those fuckers don't bring back the eighteenth amendment. Jesus drank wine with his disciples, but yous wouldn't understand...