Maine shoots down same-sex marriage law

[ElNono]

I do, and those have been put up for a vote (when legislators voted to outlaw them.) I do see what you're saying about the simplistic "discrimination is bad, love is good" argument.

You have to draw the line somewhere, and that line-drawing must be consistent with the Cons ution. There's no question that defining marriage in a way that discriminates against gays and polygamists and incestuous couples is cons utional (under the federal cons ution). The relevant question we have to ask is, is it right?

This is why I hope gay marriage is legalized by popular vote. It would enhance the legitimacy of the policy change. And it would reflect society's evolving view of what kinds of relationships are acceptable and deserving of endorsement. The expansive language in Lawrence gives some insight into why courts would be a bad way to go about this.

Either that, or simply amend to remove the ins ution of marriage and the rights granted by it from the cons ution entirely.

[Winehole23]

Is there any direct reference to marriage in the US Cons ution?

[DarrinS]

Is there any direct reference to marriage in the US Cons ution?

Evidently not.

[baseline bum]

So why isn't marriage a right?

If marriage is a "right" in the same essence as equal creation, Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness then it is something that you are guaranteed to have. It is something that cannot be denied to you. It is something that belongs to all of us innately and an object that our government was ins uted to protect and make sure that we all have. Knowing that, if someone wants to marry but cannot find someone to wed then what? If no one is willing to marry a person who wants to marry then where does that leave us? It's a right, isn't it?

If it is a right no one would be able to deny someone else the right to marry for any reason, including simply not wanting to. And if no one wants to marry someone who wants to marry then rights have been violated.

A person with the "right to marry" could say: "I want to marry. I have that right." and then use the legal system to uphold that right. But no one wants to marry them. But they have the right to marry. But no one wants to marry them. At this point we enter into a circular loop of argument. This person's "rights" with respect to marriage are not consistent with reality and at this point the only way to achieve their "right to marry" is to force someone who doesn't necessarily want to marry them to marry them.

That sure sounds like a violation of the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness of the person forced to marry against their will. And it is.

Thus marriage is not a right, but as originally shown a privilege of one's religion.

This is just the stupidest strawman I have ever heard on this forum, and no surprise it's spursncowboys-endorsed logic. Is this even worth a response? Instead of attacking the problem of the government taking away the rights of consenting adults who want to bind themselves in a legal union, he instead moves the goalposts to the ridiculous assertion that everyone has the right to force another to marry him. This is re ed even for you, spursncowboys. I mean, how do you even read that and think that sounded like a solid argument? Did you even read it before the copy and paste? I sincerely hope not.

[doobs]

Is there any direct reference to marriage in the US Cons ution?

No.

There is no federal cons utional right to marry. There is, however, a federal cons utional right to equal protection. So when a state decides to grant marriage licenses and create rights in that relationship, the state must do so in a manner consistent with the equal protection clause.

There is a multi-tiered analysis to equal protection, but the basic point is this: the state has to justify its decisions to discriminate, and its burden is very low when discriminating against gays.

[ElNono]

Is there any direct reference to marriage in the US Cons ution?

Not directly, no. But there's some interesting tangential cons utional issues here:

http://www.uscons ution.net/consttop_marr.html

[Winehole23]

Basically, I see things going this way: the more states vote to allow gay marriages and civil unions, the greater the momentum will be for comity. Allowing states to decide for themselves will tend to ensure popular legitimacy throughout the process, whereas a federally imposed solution will tend to create abiding resentments and resistance.

[panic giraffe]

If you pass a same-sex marriage law, you open the door to polygamy, brother-sister marriages, etc.

how do you even jump to so many crazy conclusions?

[spursncowboys]

This is just the stupidest strawman I have ever heard on this forum, and no surprise it's spursncowboys-endorsed logic. Is this even worth a response? Instead of attacking the problem of the government taking away the rights of consenting adults who want to bind themselves in a legal union, he instead moves the goalposts to the ridiculous assertion that everyone has the right to force another to marry him. This is re ed even for you, spursncowboys. I mean, how do you even read that and think that sounded like a solid argument? Did you even read it before the copy and paste? I sincerely hope not.

How was a right taken away? Also please do not assume that I am agreeing one hundred percent with an article because I post it. I don't believe, however, that you fully understood the post.
I do elieve marriage is a religious practice that is in our govt from our religious culture. Govt should not have the right to decide who gets married when no religious group believes in gay marriage. If our government wants to give all the benefits of being married to gay couples fine.

[panic giraffe]

How was a right taken away? Also please do not assume that I am agreeing one hundred percent with an article because I post it. I don't believe, however, that you fully understood the post.
I do elieve marriage is a religious practice that is in our govt from our religious culture. Govt should not have the right to decide who gets married when no religious group believes in gay marriage. If our government wants to give all the benefits of being married to gay couples fine.

Yes please, keep the religious context stay w/in the religion.

So what you are say is, that if a church approves a gay marriage you would be completely behind it, right? And the big bad nasty govt should just butt the out, right?

And health benefits, hospital rights, POA, pensions, custody, &estates between two sexuals are completely ok?

cause if that's what you're saying then i can finally agree with you on something.

[MiamiHeat]

how do you even jump to so many crazy conclusions?

Why? What's wrong with incestous relationships? or polygamy?

[clambake]

do you think your qualified to discuss relationships?

[MiamiHeat]

I've been married since I was 19. So yeah, marriage is important to me.

What's wrong with incestous relationships? or polygamy?

[clambake]

i remember reading some literature based solely on your personal relationships with women.

[baseline bum]

How was a right taken away? Also please do not assume that I am agreeing one hundred percent with an article because I post it. I don't believe, however, that you fully understood the post.
I do elieve marriage is a religious practice that is in our govt from our religious culture. Govt should not have the right to decide who gets married when no religious group believes in gay marriage. If our government wants to give all the benefits of being married to gay couples fine.

You post articles you don't agree with as the logic to support your view?

You really didn't read it, did you? Congrats on being a member of the mouse school of anti-intellectualism.

[panic giraffe]

Why? What's wrong with incestous relationships? or polygamy?

as long as they're consentual, and not forced on anyone, its a personal choice...nothing, i couldn't give a rat's ass what other people do in their own beds/cars/trailers.......

but, that's changing the subject really...


i don't see how one can equate same-sex marriage to incest or polygamy, thats all.

[jack sommerset]

Just let the s get married. It's not a big deal.

[clambake]

i don't see how one can equate same-sex marriage to incest or polygamy, thats all.

he must think they don't exist, yet.

[LnGrrrR]

I love how gay people want a stable coupling, and conservatives are like " no! You gays must live in sin with no official bonds!"

[jack sommerset]

I love how gay people want a stable coupling, and conservatives are like " no! You gays must live in sin with no official bonds!"

Conservatives are not the only ones who don't want same sex marriage. In fact the big dog of the democratic party himself does not want it. Me, I am independent. Let them get married!!!!! How is that for someone (me) being accused of gay hating.

[clambake]

Conservatives are not the only ones who don't want same sex marriage. In fact the big dog of the democratic party himself does not want it. Me, I am independent. Let them get married!!!!! How is that for someone (me) being accused of gay hating.

you just made miamiheats list.

[MiamiHeat]

I love how gay people want a stable coupling, and conservatives are like " no! You gays must live in sin with no official bonds!"

actually, most people who oppose same sex-marriage will support a civil union or a new form of union for gays that is recognized by the government with all of the benefits

[panic giraffe]

he must think they don't exist, yet.

well that would be going too far, almost like saying that incestous relationships and polygimist don't exist...

and if incestous couples and polygimist stood up en masse and demanded equal rights, i would support them as well, and would commend anyone who claims to be a libertarian as not being 100% full of by doing the same thing...

the first problem with the question posed is that by saying the three are correlated is saying that two definite choices, incest and polygamy (which are not even debated as being biological by those who practice either), is the same as saying that something that is at the very least debated as being a biological characteristic.

the second problem is that its just attempting to skirt a issue by instilling fear on a completely unrelated issue. like telling someone on 9/12/01 to not ride a bike because someone just crashed a plane into a building and you don't know what they might hijack next.

but that all probably went over his head.

[MiamiHeat]

yeah of course, us dumb men of character and morals can't understand your beatnik tree hugging logic.

[clambake]

well that would be going too far, almost like saying that incestous relationships and polygimist don't exist...

and if incestous couples and polygimist stood up en masse and demanded equal rights, i would support them as well, and would commend anyone who claims to be a libertarian as not being 100% full of by doing the same thing...

the first problem with the question posed is that by saying the three are correlated is saying that two definite choices, incest and polygamy (which are not even debated as being biological by those who practice either), is the same as saying that something that is at the very least debated as being a biological characteristic.

the second problem is that its just attempting to skirt a issue by instilling fear on a completely unrelated issue. like telling someone on 9/12/01 to not ride a bike because someone just crashed a plane into a building and you don't know what they might hijack next.

but that all probably went over his head.

it's a perfect example of how they've trained him to argue.