• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Its official... Same sex marriage April 27th

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
But injustice is.

People are inherently flawed, and when they come together their flaws multiply as surely as their potential for greatness. It is incumbent upon us to create a test of all products we create, to ensure that the things we bring into this world are not unduly harmful. People do not question these safety measures in the production of consumer goods but when the government acts to bring safety measures to laws, a direct product of society, they begin crying out against intrusions.

When tyranny becomes an institution...when people get dressed in the morning to take part in tyranny...when you drive to a place from which to dispense tyranny...when the physical government acts akin to tyranny...these things all Americans guard against and would oppose.

When we're met with tyranny out of uniform...when tyranny has no single address...when it is merely the masses acting as a majority that imposes tyranny...suddenly Americans turn a blind eye and raise in anger against those oppressed instead of those who would visit wrong, and harm upon them.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,480
9,430
126
Who cares? The state shouldn't be telling people who they can or cannot marry anyway. Mind yer business.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
For me it has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter.

Someones subjective morality should never be law.

As an aside to this discussion, didnt Vermont just legalize gay marriage via legislation? (1st time ever)
 

smack Down

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2005
4,507
0
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
For me it has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter.

Someones subjective morality should never be law.

As an aside to this discussion, didnt Vermont just legalize gay marriage via legislation? (1st time ever)
Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont for almost a decade now. All The legislation did was rename it from civil union to marriage.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,698
3,157
126
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Acanthus
For me it has nothing to do with my personal feelings on the matter.

Someones subjective morality should never be law.

As an aside to this discussion, didnt Vermont just legalize gay marriage via legislation? (1st time ever)
Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont for almost a decade now. All The legislation did was rename it from civil union to marriage.
All this legislation did was make gay MARRIAGES legal!!
Sorry a civil union is NOT the same as a MARRIAGE!!
Until you are gay you will not understand why that is!!
A man and a woman in Vermont could get married previously....
a man and a man had to get a civil union....not the same!!
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
I can't help but think people were saying the exact same thing half a century ago during the civil rights movement...
Tired arguement... apples and oranges... gay agenda does not equal civil rights movement. Not by a longshot.

Gays can do anything anyone else does now.
No they can't: They can't marry the person of their choice and be afforded the same benefits as straights.

Any right-wing bigot who responds, "Oh, but they can marry someone of the opposite sex and get the same marriage rights," is just being an intellectual fraud.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
 

whylaff

Senior member
Oct 31, 2007
200
0
0
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
I can't help but think people were saying the exact same thing half a century ago during the civil rights movement...
Tired arguement... apples and oranges... gay agenda does not equal civil rights movement. Not by a longshot.

Gays can do anything anyone else does now.
How is not a civil rights issue? The invocation of morality makes it a civil rights issue. It is just not the civil rights issue that most associate with the term because of historical perspective. One situation having more meaning or emotional impact does not remove it from this broad realm of classification.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,932
8,602
146
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.


Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Stop trying to deny a minority group their rights.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Who cares? The state shouldn't be telling people who they can or cannot marry anyway. Mind yer business.
:thumbsup:
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
0
0
The thing that I always found interesting was that it was generally the same "we're for freedom!" type people that were so quick to deny that to others because it disagreed with their ideologies. Really, it's more about being for your idea of freedom, and to hell with everyone else.

I think everyone deserves a chance to be happy.
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
0
0
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.


Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
I think you missed the point.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,932
8,602
146
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.


Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
I think you missed the point.
What did I miss?
Well maybe it looks like I was aiming it at Shira, which I wasn't - more sort of agreeing with him.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

You forgot to bold religion, since most polygamists do so because of their religion.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.

That's a ridiculous argument. Just because it's not legal anywhere doesn't mean that it's not descrimination.

Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
 

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
gay marriage should be legal and so should polygamy. Basically, anyone legally able to enter into a contract with another should be able to get married.

Of course this excludes children, and animals so the idiots using that arguement are wrong.

I honestly just think marriage shouldn't be recognized at all by the govt but since that won'[t happen only the above is equal and fair.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
gay marriage should be legal and so should polygamy. Basically, anyone legally able to enter into a contract with another should be able to get married.

Of course this excludes children, and animals so the idiots using that arguement are wrong.


I honestly just think marriage shouldn't be recognized at all by the govt but since that won'[t happen only the above is equal and fair.
Agreed. :thumbsup:
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
I can't help but think people were saying the exact same thing half a century ago during the civil rights movement... It's absolutely eerie to me that statements like this could have just as easily been used to oppose desegregation, women's suffrage, etc.
Then why do we even need legislatures? Why do we not leave everything up to the courts, who know best?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
You are right. We should still have slaves, segregation, women not voting.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
This could ALL go away by making civil unions for government recognition of official relationships and "marriage" would be kept to religious institutions. Everyone wins.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
14,932
8,602
146
Originally posted by: JD50


Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
404 Hypocrisy Not Found

The argument I made is that polygamy doesn't fall under the equal protection clause because no state has allowed anyone to marry more than one person, so it can't be argued that way in court.

Gay marriage works because the only way to discriminate against it violates the equal protection clause and can be argued that way in court.


 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2

The gay agenda, what a fucking joke. What exactly is the gay agenda?
This is a curiously appropriate explanation.

Now Stuart, if you look at the soil around any large U.S. city with a big
underground homosexual population - Des Moines, Iowa, perfect example.
Look at the soil around Des Moines, Stuart. You can't build on it, you
can't grow anything in it. The government says it's due to poor farming.
But I know what's really going on, Stuart. I know it's the queers.
They're in it with the aliens. They're building landing strips for gay
Martians. I swear to God.[/b]
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: JD50


Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
404 Hypocrisy Not Found

The argument I made is that polygamy doesn't fall under the equal protection clause because no state has allowed anyone to marry more than one person, so it can't be argued that way in court.

Gay marriage works because the only way to discriminate against it violates the equal protection clause and can be argued that way in court.
Cool, so let's make it illegal for gays to marry in every state. Hell, why stop there? Let's make it inter-racial marriage illegal in every state too. It wouldn't be discrimination because no state would allow it. Brilliant!
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,698
3,157
126
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: Descartes
Originally posted by: Paratus
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Originally posted by: EXman
ANother dictation by a court.

Hasn't every single gay marriage refferendnum failed miserably? something like 0-38.

Courts suck when they go against the peoples wishes. I know the courts are supposed to uphold laws but to often they end up legislating from the bench giving them more than their share of the 1/3 of power they should weild.

Regardless of political party I think legislating from the bench isn't American.
And denying a minority groiup their rights is American?

Your priorities are wrong.
Are you for or against polygamy?

I am for gay rights btw.
When there's a significant movement to legalize polygamy - when there's a groundswell of support for polygamous marriages - we can debate whether polygamy should be legal. Until then, polygamy is a red herring thrown into the gay-marriage argument to sidetrack the central issue. Just like the argument, "What about someone who wants to marry their dog?"

Let's limit this debate to same-sex marriage, shall we? We'll deal with polygamy when it too becomes an important social issue.
Well actually the logic that allows gay marriage doesn't support polygamy.

Most states constitutions and of course the Constitution have an equality clause, (i.e. can't be discriminated against due to race, religion, sex, or creed.

If a state allows:

Alice and Bob to marry and provide legal benefits then it by law has to allow
Bob and Chuck to marry or they violate the equal protection clause.

The only reason that Chuck is not allowed to marry Bob is due to Chucks sex which as many courts have now agreed a violation of the equal protection clause.

(I'll point out here that many religions already allow gay couples to be married in their churches, it's just the civil rights they are denied. Which is way f'd up in my mind)


Polygamy on the other hand is a strawman.

Nowhere in the country is it legal for anyone, hetero or otherwise to receive legal benefits by marrying more than one person, so there is no violation of the equal protection clause.


Polygamy has to be fought through the legislative branches.


On a further note, if certain folks want to prevent gay marriage in the future, you'll have to change those pesky amendments about equal protection to specify who's more equal than others.
I think you missed the point.
What did I miss?
Well maybe it looks like I was aiming it at Shira, which I wasn't - more sort of agreeing with him.
what you missed was these fools who are trying desperately to get those of us who are for gay marriage to also approve of polygamy as a form of marriage.......

Polygamy and gay marriage are not even conceptually related!!
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
Originally posted by: JD50
Every argument that is made of in favor of gay marriage can also be made in favor of polygamy. Don't be a hypocrite.
Again, you're attempting to sidetrack the issue. But you're statement is completely incorrect. There are lots of arguments in support of same-sex marriage that do NOT apply to polygamy. I refuse to get into that though, since polygamy introduced into the same-sex marriage discussion is exactly like partial-birth abortions introduced into the abortion discussion.

Nothing more than intellecutal dishonesty. You can do better.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY