Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder beau's analogies don't deserve serious discussion. Religious and moral sentiments are separate from legal rules, and for good reason. No good strong hetero marriage can possibly be threatened by a good, strong gay one. How could that possibly be? How does the marriage next door affect your own now? It doesn't. So how could one that was between two gay people? If it does, it's only because someone let it.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Pass we just discussed this--You refuted as it's not legal and would NOT be allowed in this country of laws not people because of the civil rights act. Am I missing something here?
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I agree with the like it or lump it. I think it will be like the Civil War where they have to have amendment to preclude gay marriage. I have friends who wouldn't like it but when 80% or so or all Americans feel like that, we have to like it or lump it. Pass, I haven't heard that aphorism in years.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Your post 185 Pass that you can't target a class and discriminate. I agree and that's the law with the civil rights acts passed starting with the great one in LBJ's 1965 act. Gays are NOT discriminated against and gay marriage is NOT legally a fundamental right. That is against the law. What is unclear?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder An amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional. Marriage is a states right issue. This is a circular thing. States can only grant more liberties or rights than the Fed Con does, it can't restrict. A state amendment banning gay marriage would be restrictive. Some are in force right now simply because they haven't been challenged. They haven't been challenged because the proper plaintiff hasn't come along yet. Those that have been challenged have all lost for a myriad of reasons. Georgia's lost because it was tied in with other things. In other words, they were tring to put one over there, because they probably knew on its own it wouldn't stand legal scrutiny. So the Feds can ban it because it is up to the states to act on it, but the states can't because it would be too restrictive, hence the circular thing. And when I use "can't" I'm talking about ultimately withstanding a legal challenge. As for what the majority of people want, that's why I've brought up segregation. My hypothesis, which somewhat surprsingly no one has yet challenged,is that if segregation were to be voted upon in the southern states, there would still be one or two, possibly more, that would vote for it, or at least come dangerously close. If any actually did, of course that wouldn't be allowed. More than a few times in our history, laws have been enacted despite what the "people" want. Just because they want it doesn't make it right as far as the law and the Constitution are concerned.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Your post 185 Pass that you can't target a class and discriminate. I agree and that's the law with the civil rights acts passed starting with the great one in LBJ's 1965 act. Gays are NOT discriminated against and gay marriage is NOT legally a fundamental right. That is against the law. What is unclear?" I'd say you are. Targeting a suspect class did originate with the Civil Rights Act. The CRA did use the concept. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are those that are available to ALL citizens. Stepping in and telling gays "not so fast to the altar" unfairly targets them and therefore discriminates. The phrase "gay marriage" doesn't even enter in to it as far as a right is concerned.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder AHHHH Targeting a suspect class did NOT originate King of the Real Big Typo
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << And I'm waiting for someone to refute post 185, because that's really the crux of the issue. Show me some case law that supports the proposition that gays aren't a targeted class, and therefore aren't the subjects of discrimination. >> Who needs case law. All a decent attorney has to point out is that gays are first off not a " class " of people. They are people who declared themselves to be different than other people. A pedophile or a polyagamist can claim to be a "class " of people also. I can claim to be gay tonight. Do I get to join this "class" of people just because I said so? This is why comparing gays to blacks is so insulting. Blacks ARE born black. Gays declare they are gay kinda like a person declares they are lazy or afraid of cats. People even sometimes declare themself NOT gay after they said they were gay. Finally, this attorney can point out that if you legalize gay marriage you HAVE to allow all forms of marriage. this includes multiple partner marriages. This is not in the best interest of society and not something the American founders would have ever even considered. Then he will ask the question that STPH refuses to answer because there is no answer from the pro gay marriage crowd. How is the INDIVIDUAL who has " declared him or herself gay, being discriminated against any more than the straight person who wants to marry a child, or a relative or another married person?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<beau's analogies don't deserve serious discussion. Religious and moral sentiments are separate from legal rules, and for good reason. No good strong hetero marriage can possibly be threatened by a good, strong gay one. How could that possibly be? How does the marriage next door affect your own now?>> You have been told countless times that YOUR marriage or MY marriage will not change if Bruce and Dick get married. But what does change is the cultures attitude towards marriage and accepting homosexuality as normal. The places where your liberal ideas are put into practice end up being a disaster for marriage, kids, and single parents.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <We just disagree Dabob but I really think it's supercilious of you to say you've thought about it more than me. I think you HAVE any your imagination is correct as you are gay so I hope you have thought about it more than me. The point is you can't say what I think until we have a sit down and talk.> I was responding to your comment to me to "think about it" - as though I hadn't. Or that if I did, I'd come to your conclusion. Well, I've thought about it a lot, and I reach a very different conclusion. <This internet thing is NOT my medium and does NOT project actually all the thoughts and feelings that go into my rationale. Again ---Not allowing gay marriage is NOT discrimination and the courts say I'm right > Actually, they're starting to say you're wrong. The Mass. supreme court, obviously. The GA court in a more limited way. And various mid-level courts in a number of cases have okayed gay marriage, which in all cases of course were appealed and those cases are pending.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Sexual orientation is intrinsic to the individual. Straight marriage would be a sham for me. Yet I am not allowed (legally) to enter into marriage with the person I do love and make my life with.>> <What about people who were born pedophiles? Do they get to use the same argument so they can justify marrying children? After all, it's "intrinsic ".> No it's not. You always fall back on this one, and it's an indication of the weakness of your argument. No one, except a handful of pedophiles themselves, claimed pedophilia is anything other than a disorder. On the other hand, nearly all experts in human sexuality agree that sexual orientation (hetero, homo, or bi) is intrinsic to the individual. Do a little research before you make such sweeping statements that are so easily disproved. < Gays declare they are gay kinda like a person declares they are lazy or afraid of cats.> What you don't understand is a lot. <But what does change is the cultures attitude towards marriage and accepting homosexuality as normal.> As I argued before, this would be a net boon for society. Millions of gay people would get to participate in the institution we insist (rightly, I think) is so beneficial to stability of both individuals and society in general, and as with ending Jim Crow, equality in itself is a societal virtue. I think it's telling, too, that you fear homosexuality being thought of as normal. It IS normal, Beau, just as left-handedness is normal. Not the norm, but normal.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> [G]ays are first off not a " class " of people. They are people who declared themselves to be different than other people. << Are christians a " class " of people?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Let me elaborate. By that I mean - are they capable of being discriminated against, as a "class"? But they too just up and decide one day that they're christian. They may say they're "born that way", but how do we really know? In fact, some people say they used to be christian but now they're not. Sounds to me like they don't deserve equal protection under the law either.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "How is the INDIVIDUAL who has " declared him or herself gay, being discriminated against any more than the straight person who wants to marry a child, or a relative or another married person?" Asked and answered, this ridiculous question, countless times by now. You just don't like the answer, nor comprehend it, apparently.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy You never answered it STPH because it destroys your whole theory that gay marriage is some fundamental right here in America. So you avoid the question. You also can't admit the fact that if gay marriage is legalized ALL forms of marriage have to be legalized including polyigamy. So your idea to change marriage after hundreds of years of it being one man and one woman will lead to all sorts of chaos and a breakdown of our culture, worse than it already is. It's happening in Sweden and Denmark and other places where one man and one woman is not the standard. They need to ammend the constitution and just put this whole thing to rest. If the founding fathers had known about liberalism and what it brings.. bringing things like two men being married, they would have put it into the constitution themselves.
Originally Posted By KachinaBear I'm not comprehending how allowing gay marriage would automatically lead to all the other marriage possibilities you aluded too... why couldn't they simply change laws to state "between two consenting adults" rather than "between a man and a woman." Pedophiles cannot marry a child because the child is not an adult; polygamy cannot occur because the number two is right there in the law; and I don't see how marrying relatives would work its way into the scenario at all. For all I know, there may well be other, valid reason why gay marriage should be outlawed, but I really don't understand how this is one of them.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If the founding fathers had known about liberalism and what it brings.. bringing things like two men being married, they would have put it into the constitution themselves. << Apparently you don't understand what the constitution is, and this has been explained to you before too. The constitution is written to put constraints on the government - not the governed. It's there to protect us, "we the people" from our government. So no, the founding fathers would not have inserted clauses that place restraints on the public - that's not the purpose or intent of the document. People who are not only opposed to gay marriage, but who support a constitutional amendment don't seem to understand that doing so would subvert the entire purpose of the document itself - and thus is inherently "unconstitutional". Doesn't that matter to these people? If you want to oppose gay marriage - fine, think whatever you like. But keep yer filthy mitts off of the constitution - it's bigger than you are.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "You never answered it STPH because it destroys your whole theory that gay marriage is some fundamental right here in America." Of course it didn't, but if it makes you feel better, keep repeating that, but remember, it still won't change anything. One of your flaws is that you can't or won't follow the argument, and insist on injecting things that aren't there. MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. There's no qualifier such as the word "gay". And when a right is fundamental, then it is available to everyone, whether straight, gay, or even you. The challenge for those opposed, such as yourself, is to somehow come up with case law and/or statutes and a cogent legal argument, devoid of conclusons unsupported by analysis, which is all you presented so far, that will sway nine Supreme Court justices. "So you avoid the question. You also can't admit the fact that if gay marriage is legalized ALL forms of marriage have to be legalized including polyigamy." Again, as you've done many times before, you're arguing with yourself here. You're presenting strawmen, making up things, and assigning conclusions (again without any basis) to people who haven't made them. All the debate is about is the right of one person to marry another of their choosing. No one is arguing for polygamy, bestiality, incest, or any other ridiculous and insulting thing you throw out there. Once before you admit you were defeated in this area. I'm not asking you to do it again, but just the same, as I've often done before, and no one here has done so, if anyone has a cogent legal argument to make I'd like to see it. Wild, emotional, unsupported conclusions and suppositions need not apply. The link I supplied on the fictional Ames case for the Harvard moot court had links to all kinds of actual cases related to this topic. When this does eventually get decided, those are the cases and likely some others we'll hear all about. Get familiar with them.
