Originally Posted By cape cod joe That's the telltale quote Pass "civil rights of MAN" doesn't even mention women until after 1919 and thus we have the battleground set for the gay marriage issue. The Constitution certainly is an evolving conceptual document. What are the chances that gay marriage will make it past the Supreme Court? 0 or nill? That's obviously why 2004 was so critical"
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "That's the telltale quote Pass "civil rights of MAN" doesn't even mention women until after 1919" Loving is from 1967, and is talking about "man" as the human race, not one particular gender.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Further on Ames. It is from a fictional case constructed for a moot court competition at Harvard.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<"The Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination. The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.">> Would you really use this as your defense in court?? It would get destroyed by even a guy like me who is a simple high producing, big money making salesman. Exactly how is the INDIVIDUAL being discriminated against regarding gay marriage? How is the INDIVIDUAL being discriminated against any more than the straight person who wants to marry a child, or a relative or another married person? Well??? Good luck with that. <<"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.">> What if nobody wants to marry you? Regardless of that... how are gay people getting married helping our existence and survival?? Gay marriage is not about that.. it's about recognition and money and benefits. All things that can be had with Civil unions or a decent attorney.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I KNOW Pass but my point is that is how sensitive I AM and I DON'T even like man hole covers or men at work. I go with "person hole covers" or "people at work" I really do and have for decades. The point I was trying to make is that the COURT has to decide this one as we both agree on > I read your post after I posted mine. I think that obviously with the Bush appointees, gay marriage has NO chance. There will be freedom fighters like me though, that make darned sure there will be NO discrimination against gays as NO gay marriage has NOTHING to do with gay rights. Again, marriage is a priviledge like a driver's licence, not an inalienable right. I think the SC might use that same terminology too.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Would you really use this as your defense in court?? It would get destroyed by even a guy like me who is a simple high producing, big money making salesman." Go ahead and try. I'm sure we'd all be interested. Rather than make internet insulated empty threats and boats, let's see some legal argument from you. C'mon, I dare you. I think we'd all like to see you back it up for a change. Unless, of course, you can't.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Substitute "sexual orientation" for "racial" and you have the inevitable upcoming Supreme Court decision.>> LOL, no you don't. But you can dream. I can't wait for this to make it to the supreme court. However, I think a lot of Americans don't even want that to happen, so they are pushing to ammend the constitution and be done with it.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I think that obviously with the Bush appointees, gay marriage has NO chance" I disagree. Chief Justice Roberts is not the lock some people think he is as it relates to gay rights. "Fundamental rights" are rights that are available to everyone, regardless of anything. The Court would have to find some tortured way of saying otherwise.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Excuse me STPH, can you please answer this simple question, which is my " legal" argument. How is the INDIVIDUAL 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 Dabob2 <<It's a special benefit given to heterosexual couples because they tend to have children, and society wants to encourage them to form stable relationships in which to raise those children. >> <Thirty-one percent of children in the U.S. are in single parent households. That policy doesn't seem to have worked too well. Its use as a reason to not allow gay marriage is pretty much worthless.> Amen. Not to mention the fact that we allow marriages to straight couples who never have children, plus we allow it for straight couples who include a post-menopausal woman, who we KNOW won't be having children. We allow - indeed, even celebrate - that marriage for its own sake. It obviously has nothing to do with child-bearing. Of course, Douglas once insisted that the only reason we allow post-menopausal women to marry is because we can't tell by looking (!) if they're post-menopausal. No kidding, that was the argument.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder For yur legal argument beau, I'll even be gracious enough to give you a head start. If you haven't already, read and then make sure you understand the arguments made in the link I provided, even if you don't agree. A good lawyer will do that. Then, familiarize yourself with all the cases cited in the brief, in case you want to try and rebut or distinguish them as used in the brief, by citing other passages from them or finding your way to other cases that have discussed them. It'll be like a real law school assignment. I'd normally have been given a couple weeks to do that, but since you claim to be able to do so much better than me, try and get it done by tomorrow.
Originally Posted By mele What did *you* do to earn your priveledge to get married joe? I know that all I had to do was plunk down $50 and show my ID. If I had been previously married, I would have had to show proof of my divorce. That's it. I know lots of gay people who have $50, valid IDs (and some even have divorce papers). Why isn't that enough for them to get married?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Excuse me STPH, can you please answer this simple question, which is my " legal" argument. How is the INDIVIDUAL being discriminated against any more than the straight person who wants to marry a child, or a relative or another married person?" Not a legal argument at all, as it contains no analysis,law or facts applied to the law. Rather, it's a spurious question designed to distract.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder And don't forget, last time we tried this, you got us both banned. I, for one, am going to make sure that doesn't happen to me again.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder One more thing. I'll be away from the computer now for several hours so you won't have me to distract you.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<"Fundamental rights" are rights that are available to everyone, regardless of anything.>> Oh, so is marriage a " fundamental right"? Maybe you can show me this in the constitution? While your at it, show me where it says " seperation of church and state ".
Originally Posted By mele It's funny (in a sad way) that people argue that heteros continue to have the right to get married, divorced and remarried as many times as they want, no questions asked. They can be abusive spouses, they can cheat on their partners, they can never have children, they can have multiple abortions, basically they can be the lowest form of human beings and yet they still deserve to get married as often as they want but gay people are denied marriage simply because they have fallen in love with someone of the same sex. They could be the kindest, most generous and pure-hearted person in the country and yet they are denied the right to form a stable union with the person they love. Suuure, things are equal.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Why do gay people want to get married? Why is this so important to them? Why isn't a civil union type arrangment good enough? Gay marriage is not about that.. it's about recognition and money and benefits. All things that can be had with Civil unions or a decent attorney.<< There are lots of reasons, emotional and logistical, and we've been over them and over them and over them. Why should I have to pay an attorney to achieve what you take for granted? With the heart transplant I face, I am in the process of crossing my t's and dotting my i's to ensure that everything is taken care of with regard to my medical care. My partner is my transplant advocate, but the line is drawn there. Just so he can be with me in ICU when the time comes, we have to jump through the hoops to ensure he can, not to mention making my medical decisions. Why should we have to? Civil unions are OK by me -- as long as they're equal one-to-one with the rights of marriage. The proposals vary, though: some intend them to be one-to-one while others are "almost as good as" marriage. I just cannot understand the mentality of someone who says s/he is for equal civil unions as long as it isn't called marriage. It comes down to semantics and the power of language and maybe a little arrogance. I swear, it's like you people think you're in an exclusive club. Either way, if one-to-one equivalents to marriage become a reality, I have a feeling language will catch up and the semantics will become less of an issue.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Regardless of that... how are gay people getting married helping our existence and survival?? >> It is of great benefit to society for gay people to get married. By almost any measure married people are better off than non-married people. Married people have higher incomes, commit less crime, have lower incidence of alcoholism and drug abuse, are healthier etc, etc than non-married people. Now is there anything magic about one of the marriage partners having a penis while the other has a vagina? Is THAT what creates all the benefits I've noted above? Of course not. What creates those benefits is having two partners in a loving committed relationship who can experience all of the rights and responsibilities resulting from a legal marriage. I really don't think genitalia have much to do with it. Without at doubt, gay marriage would benefit society. Checkmate.
