Originally Posted By jonvn Now, I'm absolutely sure you'll go right ahead and answer the original question as to why it is not a violation of the 14th ammendent, right? I'll be interested to see your reasoning.
Originally Posted By ecdc It's not nonsense, Douglas. You've got a unique perspective on these boards and I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts and ideas. But if you're just going to do your "I disagree" and "No it isn't" schtick, then I'll bow out now. I don't have the patience that Dabob has. "Because states have the right to decide which marriages they recognize. They don't have to recognize incestous marriages, or those involving minors, or plural marriages, or same sex marriages." But then why don't they have the right to decide not to recognize interracial marriages? You still haven't answered that. It really is an easy question, Douglas. What's the difference between a gay marriage and an interracial marriage? And why is one not covered under the equal protection clause but the other one is?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Eventually, the courts will decide that same-sex marriages are indeed covered here. You could certainly argue persuasively that interracial marriages should have been legal in all 50 states as soon as the 14th ammendment was passed. Yet it took 100 years (!) for the supreme court to finally insist on APPLYING the 14th ammendment to this very emotional issue.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Now, I'm absolutely sure you'll go right ahead and answer the original question as to why it is not a violation of the 14th ammendent, right?> Because the rules to recognizing marriages are applied equally.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But if you're just going to do your "I disagree" and "No it isn't" schtick, then I'll bow out now.> Then go ahead and bow out now, because I've laid out my thoughts and ideas many times on this issue, and I'm told I'm wrong or worse. You're free to disagree with my opinion, but don't tell me I'm wrong or worse based on your opinion. <What's the difference between a gay marriage and an interracial marriage?> Do you really not know? <And why is one not covered under the equal protection clause but the other one is?> See post 24.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Eventually, the courts will decide that same-sex marriages are indeed covered here.> Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. But if they do, it won't be due to the application of logic.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Do you really not know?" As far as the Constitution and the Amendments thereto are concerned, I do not. It is about two people who have decided to publicly signal their desire to be recognized in a union or a partnership. One is recognized by the state and receives tax breaks and employer benefits; the other does not. Whether we find either interracial marriage or gay marriage to be personally distasteful or morally wrong is beside the point, just as it is beside the point if we don't like it when person A decides to marry person B, someone we don't like. They still get to have their marriage recognized by the state. Gay people should have the same right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <As far as the Constitution and the Amendments thereto are concerned, I do not.> There is nothing in the Constitution that tells states they can't recognize biological facts. <They still get to have their marriage recognized by the state.> Not if the marriage doesn't fall within the bounds set by the state.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Because the rules to recognizing marriages are applied equally." Obviously they are not otherwise there wouldn't be an issue. And you've not really laid out why they are equal. Just declared that they are. So once again, you have not supported anything you've had to say.
Originally Posted By jonvn "There is nothing in the Constitution that tells states they can't recognize biological facts." This means nothing. The "biological facts" so far point to homosexuality being a completely normal behavior amongst all animals. "Not if the marriage doesn't fall within the bounds set by the state." The 14th ammendment says otherwise, as has been pointed out to you. They are not allowed to pass laws that denies equal protection.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I'm not sure if I care if two people of the same sex want to be married; so I guess that means I don't care if it is legal or not. But I think it's wrong to say Romney is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator, which implies that those who are against gay marriage are less thoughtful or intelligent than everyone else.
Originally Posted By jonvn It certainly does appeal to their bigotry and fears, and that is lowest common denominator.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss But if someone believes that being gay or lesbian is wrong for religious reasons, I wouldn't call that bigotry or fear, just a different belief.
Originally Posted By jonvn Do you know why Mormons don't allow black people to become bishops in their church? It's because they believe that being black is the Mark of Cain, which God put on to show the world the seed of he who slew his brother. Of course, that the church was founded in 19th century America has nothing to do with this codified bigotry against black people and this particular sect. So, I really don't hold a lot of truck with people who claim "religious reasons" for their bigotry and intolerance. It has historically been the refuge for those who want to hate. From the pogroms in Europe where Jews were killed with the cries of "hep hep" to the black people of this country who are labeled as something less than everyone else because of some other "belief." There are many people who are religious who believe quite differently. And the fact is that anybody's "religious" belief is not in any way any sort of thing that should be a basis for laws in this country. Now, if you belong to a church that wants to discriminate against black people, or homosexuals, or jews, or whomever, that is fine. You can belong to such a group. That is a long standing tradition amongst those who wish to find an excuse for their personal bigotry. Your group can refrain from marrying people, you can refrain from letting them join, you can do what you want. But I'm not a member of your group, and I am not interested in your group, and I find your groups beliefs to be archaic, irrational, and filled with hatred. So, it's not a different belief anymore than any other set of fears and bigorties and superstitions are different beliefs. And the indecent views of a group such as that have absolutely no interest to me as someone interested in simple justice and equality.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Eventually, the courts will decide that same-sex marriages are indeed covered here.>> <Maybe they will, and maybe they won't. > They will. Like interracial marriage, it will be when either a small majority or a significant minority believes it is time. We've getting there, albeit slowly. When enough people agree, there will be this decision, probably after a number of states have instituted it already. As with interracial marriage, some people will consider it wrongly decided, some people will be convinced our civilization will end, and some won't approve of it even 40 years later. But most people will, and will wonder what took so long. <But if they do, it won't be due to the application of logic.> Of course it will. Gay marriage makes all the sense in the world - for gay citizens. Unless you believe that there is no such thing as an inherently gay person - which many people do believe, consciously or unconsciously, which is the root of much of the trouble. They believe being gay is a choice, and there is no such thing as an inherently gay person, just a straight person who has chosen (for some reason) to be gay. But these people are a dying breed. Most people are coming to understand that there is such a thing as inherently gay people, and it makes no logical sense to deny an equal contract of marriage to two gay citizens who wish to enter it together, or to deny gay citizens the right to marry the person of their choosing and to have that recognized on an equal basis. It is, in fact, logic that will win this for us, ultimately.
Originally Posted By jonvn "They believe being gay is a choice, and there is no such thing as an inherently gay person, just a straight person who has chosen (for some reason) to be gay." The only way I can see anyone thinking this is if they are a closeted gay person themself, and are living a lie. I can see no other explanation.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Do you know why Mormons don't allow black people to become bishops in their church? It's because they believe that being black is the Mark of Cain, which God put on to show the world the seed of he who slew his brother. Of course, that the church was founded in 19th century America has nothing to do with this codified bigotry against black people and this particular sect." Change the word "don't" to "didn't" and you've got an accurate statement Mormons didn't allow blacks to hold leadership positions until 1978. Which is another interesting question for a Romney candidacy - how do you answer the question, "Did you support your church's ban on blacks in the early 1970s?" Good luck spinning that one.
Originally Posted By ecdc "But if someone believes that being gay or lesbian is wrong for religious reasons, I wouldn't call that bigotry or fear, just a different belief." Would you say that believing that being black is wrong is not bigotry or fear, just a different belief? As jonvn already pointed out, plenty of religions in the 19th century used the Bible to justify slavery - was that just a different belief?
Originally Posted By jonvn "Change the word "don't" to "didn't" and you've got an accurate statement Mormons didn't allow blacks to hold leadership positions until 1978." I just don't keep up with mormon theology like I should.
Originally Posted By dlkozy No, you probably don't, but that one was a BIG inaccurate statement that you wrote-makes me have to discount your other "facts" as well.
