Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Marriage is a contract - legally.> Yes, but it's not just a contract between two people; it's also a contract with the rest of society. That's why the rest of society needs a voice in determining the terms of the contract, and deciding who is eligible. <I guess the 19th amendment is an example of a waste of taxpayers money since it was pretty much covered.> The people who passed it didn't think so. Why didn't women just sue under the 14th? Maybe it's because, back then, judges didn't think they had the authority to make the 14th amendment mean whatever they wanted it to. Nowadays, however, activist judges have no qualms about deciding that "equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation", as the Iowa SC did. When the words written in Constitutions can be constantly reinterpted, then they mean nothing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Douglas, you didn't answer this question: >>So you agree that white southerners have a right to not recognize black or interracial marriages? And if not, why?<<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So you agree that white southerners have a right to not recognize black or interracial marriages? And if not, why?> I notice you didn't repost any of the questions I asked that were ignored. Why is that? I didn't answer the question because I've answered similar ones on other threads. It's a red herring, because the two situations are not the same. The 14th amendment was actually written and agreed to in order to prevent discrimination based on skin color; if homosexuals think they need something similar, then let them do the work and get an amendment ratified, instead of relying on judges to reinterpret an existing one.
Originally Posted By piperlynne <<<I guess the 19th amendment is an example of a waste of taxpayers money since it was pretty much covered.> The people who passed it didn't think so. Why didn't women just sue under the 14th? Maybe it's because, back then, judges didn't think they had the authority to make the 14th amendment mean whatever they wanted it to. Nowadays, however, activist judges have no qualms about deciding that "equal protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation", as the Iowa SC did. When the words written in Constitutions can be constantly reinterpted, then they mean nothing.>> Actually, I corrected myself in a later post. The 19th amendment WAS needed and not a waste because of the verbage of the 14th amendment SPECIFICALLY about the right to vote.
Originally Posted By piperlynne <Marriage is a contract - legally.> Yes, but it's not just a contract between two people; it's also a contract with the rest of society. That's why the rest of society needs a voice in determining the terms of the contract, and deciding who is eligible. So what other citizens of the United States (aside from those not of legal age or mental capacity or that have broken the law) should not be allowed to enter into contracts? Or marriage? Who else should we discriminate against in this regard?
Originally Posted By piperlynne Since property ownership is a legal contract that also has ramifications in society, should we not allow certain social groups to own property? What about contract for incorporating businesses? Should we disallow a social group that right as well. That is, in essence a contract with society that has rights, obligations and benefits as well.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So what other citizens of the United States (aside from those not of legal age or mental capacity or that have broken the law) should not be allowed to enter into contracts?> Who has said that anyone shouldn't be allowed to enter into a contract? I certainly haven't. However, I don't think people should be forced to enter into a contract against their will; do you?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That is, in essence a contract with society that has rights, obligations and benefits as well.> And those terms have been agreed to by society, through the passage of laws. If you don't like the law, then work to change it through the legislative process, not through judicial fiat.
Originally Posted By piperlynne <So what other citizens of the United States (aside from those not of legal age or mental capacity or that have broken the law) should not be allowed to enter into contracts?> Who has said that anyone shouldn't be allowed to enter into a contract? I certainly haven't. However, I don't think people should be forced to enter into a contract against their will; do you? Nope, sure don't. But I guess by your reasoning, I am entering into a contract against my will or knowledge each time someone gets married. Since I consider myself part of society and apparently marriage is a contract with society.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 "Yes, but it's not just a contract between two people; it's also a contract with the rest of society. That's why the rest of society needs a voice in determining the terms of the contract, and deciding who is eligible." Well, then "society" has done a pretty bang-up job keeping the sanctity of marriage, right? I mean, where would we be without Britney Spears, drive-thru wedding chapels, or "1-800 divorce" banners on the sides of busses? I don't think gay people are to blame for that. So, basically, society can suck it. They've done a lot more harm to marriage than allowing gay people to marry would ever do! "Who has said that anyone shouldn't be allowed to enter into a contract? I certainly haven't. However, I don't think people should be forced to enter into a contract against their will; do you?" Who is forcing anybody into a contract? Nobody is forcing you, or any other straight couple into anything. The marriages would exist in tandem. I just think some people are so skeeved out by two gay people being together, they just need to make up any kind of "facts" to insist it's not something equal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>However, I don't think people should be forced to enter into a contract against their will; do you?<< There are all sorts of marriages I don't like, but am "forced" to enter into contracts with (using your definition of marriage being in part a contract with society). I don't like abusive marriages, or marriages where people have children and then don't take care of them, or when two partners are very young and unready for the responsibility, or certain celebrity marriages or any number of others. So using your definition of the marriage contract, I am forced to enter into contracts on a daily basis. How would you remedy that?
Originally Posted By dshyates I suspect the bottomline is that someone that Douglas trusts without question told him that homosexuality is a no-no. And therefore will support NOTHING that makes life easier for them. Some call that bigotry others call it defending morality. And I also believe that there is nothing anyone here can say that will change his mind.
Originally Posted By piperlynne <<The 14th amendment was actually written and agreed to in order to prevent discrimination based on skin color; if homosexuals think they need something similar, then let them do the work and get an amendment ratified, instead of relying on judges to reinterpret an existing one.>> ACTUAL TEXT OF THE 14th AMENDMENT: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1] Where is there anything about skin color in here?
Originally Posted By piperlynne Maybe you meant the Civil Rights Act of 1866 that specifically mentions it: ""Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding."" It basically establishes citizenship(including former slaves)of the United States for those born in country and not subject to a foreign power. It says "regardless of race or color". And further goes on to establish that citizens of the United States have the right to enter into contracts. It doesn't say "can enter into society accepted contracts".
Originally Posted By piperlynne Does anyone have a marriage license that says that the two persons involved are entering into a contract with "society"?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Does anyone have a marriage license that says that the two persons involved are entering into a contract with "society"?<< I don't, but I do send flowers down to City Hall on our anniversary. I'm extra thoughtful that way.
Originally Posted By piperlynne <<>>Does anyone have a marriage license that says that the two persons involved are entering into a contract with "society"?<< I don't, but I do send flowers down to City Hall on our anniversary. I'm extra thoughtful that way.>> LMAO!! Seriously - water out nose.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The 14th amendment was actually written and agreed to in order to prevent discrimination based on skin color; if homosexuals think they need something similar, then let them do the work and get an amendment ratified, instead of relying on judges to reinterpret an existing one.<< In other words, African Americans are not inherently entitled to equal rights. They had to fight and get an Amendment to guarantee them their rights. Oh, and what was Earl Warren doing in Brown v. Board? Reinterpreting an existing amendment, I'd say. At least that was the argument at the time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <They've done a lot more harm to marriage than allowing gay people to marry would ever do!> That remains to be seen. Not that I agree with the changes in the law that brought those conditions on, but arguing that we've screwed up in the past so we should screw up now is not a logical deduction.
