Republicans in Cali must be livid

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

I guess it could be argued that that "basic biological instinct" also applies to those who are into having sex with children or sex with animals too? What about when Billy Joe Bob want to get hitched to Mary Sue Ellen, who just happens to be his sister? Yet we have laws against those very things. So apparently we can legislate based on sexual orientation and proclivities that don't meet a socially acceptable litmus test. We do it all the time. At least most States no longer have sodomy laws on the books.

States issue a marriage license only after two people meet certain conditions. You can't marry an underage person, you can't marry your sister, you can't marry the next-door neighbor's sheep, you can't marry more than one person at a time, and so on. The right to marry is saddled with restrictions. Imagining that marriage is an unasailable right that is enjoyed by all without any restrictions or preconditions is silly, at best. It's a wonderful idealism that doesn't come close to being grounded in reality.

I have seen no credible evidence that pedophilia or zoophilia are biological in origin and I am aware of no expressions of these traits in nature. (okay, I guess animals like to hump each other and dogs hump legs a lot, but you know what I mean)

It's not that rights can't be limited, it's that in order to do so the government needs to show a reason for doing it. Having laws against marrying your siblings are there because there is a nontrivial chance of significant birth defects from incest. That is usually considered a pretty good reason. There is no such reason for gay marriage.

Finally, I see this reasoning a lot and it's completely false: The gay marriage fight is NOT about the 'unassailable right to marry' that each human has or whatever. It is an argument about equal protection under the 14th amendment, same as the interracial marriage argument of years past. Everyone back then had the right to get married, they just had to get married to someone of their own race. Today everyone has the right to get married, they just have to get married to someone of the opposite gender. No problem, right? Everyone has the right to get married!

How did that other one work out again? The argument gays are using already has legal precedent. The machinery of justice moves slowly, particularly in issues like this, but it is inevitable.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
WTF are you going on about?

Again, I will remind you...I fully support gay marriage. I personally see nothing wrong with it. But if you can't tolerate the fact that others, particularly a voting majority, have an opinion that differs from yours and mine, then you need how to learn suck it up and move on instead of trying to manufacture pathetic responses simply as a device to call people names and assess blame.

Get over yourself, LL. Your knee-jerking is not doing you any favors, particularly in this instance.

Frankly, I don't get your attitude that the majority vote is somehow unimpeachable.

If we were talking about selling bonds to raise funds to fix our roads, there would be little debate if such a proposition passed. However, when the issue is of a constitutional nature, that certainly trumps any concern of a majority vote. In fact, it matters very little that the majority passed it. If it's unconstitutional, and that's the basis that most people are objecting to it, the majority vote means nil.

As it should be.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess it could be argued that that "basic biological instinct" also applies to those who are into having sex with children or sex with animals too? What about when Billy Joe Bob want to get hitched to Mary Sue Ellen, who just happens to be his sister? Yet we have laws against those very things. So apparently we can legislate based on sexual orientation and proclivities that don't meet a socially acceptable litmus test. We do it all the time. At least most States no longer have sodomy laws on the books.

States issue a marriage license only after two people meet certain conditions. You can't marry an underage person, you can't marry your sister, you can't marry the next-door neighbor's sheep, you can't marry more than one person at a time, and so on. The right to marry is saddled with restrictions. Imagining that marriage is an unasailable right that is enjoyed by all without any restrictions or preconditions is silly, at best. It's a wonderful idealism that doesn't come close to being grounded in reality.

That's an irrational argument considering that having sex with children or animals (and every other slippery slope nonsense you just spewed) is a CHOICE, whereas being gay is NOT a choice. Apparently, you missed that rather huge distinction.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And the TLC copout is, " WTF are you going on about?

Again, I will remind you...I fully support gay marriage. I personally see nothing wrong with it. But if you can't tolerate the fact that others, particularly a voting majority, have an opinion that differs from yours and mine, then you need how to learn suck it up and move on instead of trying to manufacture pathetic responses simply as a device to call people names and assess blame.

Get over yourself, LL. Your knee-jerking is not doing you any favors, particularly in this instance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sorry TLC, despite the fact that you are willing to agree with gay marriage, certain issues cannot come down to majority rules. And majority rules in the case of total irrationality is a litmus test of the sane or the morally bankrupt. Down the road of majority rules lies the worst of humanity, the acceptance of slavery and all kinds of moral repugnance naturally follows.

But in your previous post you argued that some how sex is a state sanctioned privilege rather than a human right. And you may be right that I missed the point. Because sex is neither a right or a privilege, sex
comes down to a basic biological instinct and hence transcends either argument. Even the brainless and beneficial coliform bacteria in my septic tank have sex, they preform a socially beneficial task, and pardon me if I do not waste my time micromanaging their sexual habits.

The argument that I think something is wrong at a very basic level, but I will keep looking the other way does not excuse you in any way. You can deny your brain or go to the devil, no middle ground exists.

I guess it could be argued that that "basic biological instinct" also applies to those who are into having sex with children or sex with animals too? What about when Billy Joe Bob want to get hitched to Mary Sue Ellen, who just happens to be his sister? Yet we have laws against those very things. So apparently we can legislate based on sexual orientation and proclivities that don't meet a socially acceptable litmus test. We do it all the time. At least most States no longer have sodomy laws on the books.

States issue a marriage license only after two people meet certain conditions. You can't marry an underage person, you can't marry your sister, you can't marry the next-door neighbor's sheep, you can't marry more than one person at a time, and so on. The right to marry is saddled with restrictions. Imagining that marriage is an unasailable right that is enjoyed by all without any restrictions or preconditions is silly, at best. It's a wonderful idealism that doesn't come close to being grounded in reality.

No Gay can marry under any of the circumstances you list. Nobody says there are no restrictions. We are saying that a restriction applicable to Gays that prevents them from marrying a person of the same sex is unconstitutional. You can't make unconstitutional restrictions.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Exactly. As LunarRay has pointed out, it is not illegal to be gay and therefore rights applied to one group of legal status can't be denied to another similarly legal group. That is in the constitution. But rights that are denied by bigotry and long custom have to be challenged in oder to be liberated. Our long legal history is nothing more than the expression and refinement of justice for all.

Bigots are blind. It is the rule of law, that all people are equal, that forces the transcendence of bigotry. And it's just a matter of TIME.

How do you feel about having multiple partner marriages, say like a guy and two women, or any combination thereof? After all, afaik, it's not illegal to have multiple partner sex. So do we extend the traditional definition of marriage to include them as well? After all it would appear that we would be denying them something that could argued is constitutionally guaranteed.

 

[First]

You have to be severely mentally handicapped to not see that the 14th Amendment applies here. Though it's irrelevant in the long-run since gay marriage will without question be legal in our lifetimes as older generations die out.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

How do you feel about having multiple partner marriages, say like a guy and two women, or any combination thereof? After all, afaik, it's not illegal to have multiple partner sex. So do we extend the traditional definition of marriage to include them as well? After all it would appear that we would be denying them something that could argued is constitutionally guaranteed.

You're right, maybe we should. The important part would be to determine if the government can demonstrate a manifest detriment to society due to this marriage arrangement. Currently the areas in which polygamy are practiced there appear to be much higher than normal rates of child and spousal abuse. If this is somehow contributed to by the unequal distribution of partners in the family relationship, then by all means.

At this point it appears like marriage is viewed by a lot of people as some sort of tree house that they are furiously trying to exclude people from. Who cares?!! If you can't show how an action hurts someone else, then let people do it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess it could be argued that that "basic biological instinct" also applies to those who are into having sex with children or sex with animals too? What about when Billy Joe Bob want to get hitched to Mary Sue Ellen, who just happens to be his sister? Yet we have laws against those very things. So apparently we can legislate based on sexual orientation and proclivities that don't meet a socially acceptable litmus test. We do it all the time. At least most States no longer have sodomy laws on the books.

States issue a marriage license only after two people meet certain conditions. You can't marry an underage person, you can't marry your sister, you can't marry the next-door neighbor's sheep, you can't marry more than one person at a time, and so on. The right to marry is saddled with restrictions. Imagining that marriage is an unasailable right that is enjoyed by all without any restrictions or preconditions is silly, at best. It's a wonderful idealism that doesn't come close to being grounded in reality.

That's an irrational argument considering that having sex with children or animals (and every other slippery slope nonsense you just spewed) is a CHOICE, whereas being gay is NOT a choice. Apparently, you missed that rather huge distinction.

It's a choice? You mean people one day decide that they are attracted to children or rover? I think arguing that is just as silly as the people who claim being gay is a CHOICE.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

The right to marry has got to be about as fundamental as the right to life: I don't know where you get this shit.

A Constitutional Right To Marry
The Fourteenth Amendment: "'No state... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'
"While this (Supreme) Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely state. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
- Meyers v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

LOL. In 1923 you can bet that judge's idea of marriage was between a man and a woman. Even today the vast majority of judges are loathe to overturn any laws that prohibit gay marriage. So if the 14th Amendment truly covered gay marriage it would have been made legal long before today.

The 14th amendment was made with the rights of blacks explicitly in mind, yet it was about a hundred years of civil strife far in excess of what we've seen with the gay marriage debate before something approaching equal protection under the law was made for them. Gay rights in general have only been on the radar for 10-15 years, and gay marriage rights only for the last 5 or 6.

The 14th amendment definitely covers gay marriage, it's just a matter of time. I think most people who watch this issue know that sooner or later there will be a USSC ruling on this issue, and by far the most likely outcome is a nationwide legalization of gay marriage. (particularly after an Obama victory)

Exactly. As LunarRay has pointed out, it is not illegal to be gay and therefore rights applied to one group of legal status can't be denied to another similarly legal group. That is in the constitution. But rights that are denied by bigotry and long custom have to be challenged in oder to be liberated. Our long legal history is nothing more than the expression and refinement of justice for all.

Bigots are blind. It is the rule of law, that all people are equal, that forces the transcendence of bigotry. And it's just a matter of TIME.

Actually, then can. It happens quite often. When one group, say the elderly, is legally protected and the other group, say the young, are not then the protected group has rights the other does not. It has been held that age discrimination DOES NOT apply to the young workforce. Thus, two legal groups have separate rights as assigned by law.

As it applies to the 14th Amendment, I hate to do it, but let me point you here.

"However, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the Amendment was limited to "state action" and thus did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and in fact have been specifically reaffirmed several times."

"At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials."

Marriage does not, currently, fall under the 14th Amendment.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess it could be argued that that "basic biological instinct" also applies to those who are into having sex with children or sex with animals too? What about when Billy Joe Bob want to get hitched to Mary Sue Ellen, who just happens to be his sister? Yet we have laws against those very things. So apparently we can legislate based on sexual orientation and proclivities that don't meet a socially acceptable litmus test. We do it all the time. At least most States no longer have sodomy laws on the books.

States issue a marriage license only after two people meet certain conditions. You can't marry an underage person, you can't marry your sister, you can't marry the next-door neighbor's sheep, you can't marry more than one person at a time, and so on. The right to marry is saddled with restrictions. Imagining that marriage is an unasailable right that is enjoyed by all without any restrictions or preconditions is silly, at best. It's a wonderful idealism that doesn't come close to being grounded in reality.

That's an irrational argument considering that having sex with children or animals (and every other slippery slope nonsense you just spewed) is a CHOICE, whereas being gay is NOT a choice. Apparently, you missed that rather huge distinction.

It's a choice? You mean people one day decide that they are attracted to children or rover? I think arguing that is just as silly as the people who claim being gay is a CHOICE.

Well, first of all, your slippery slope arguments are doing nothing to detract from the argument at hand: can gay people marry. We can sit around all day playing dumb what-if scenarios. But yes, to answer your question, I don't believe for a second that people are born with the desire to hump dogs.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

It's a choice? You mean people one day decide that they are attracted to children or rover? I think arguing that is just as silly as the people who claim being gay is a CHOICE.

I disagree. There is an awful lot of evidence to show that homosexuality is biological in origin. To me the most compelling evidence is its existence in the animal kingdom in general. (I doubt gay rams are gay because their ram dad didn't love them enough) I am aware of no evidence of pedophilia in the animal kingdom, nor any probable biological causal link as pedophilia appears to correlate with molestation, but not with heredity... and so it appears to be mental in origin.

Society has long held that things you are born with are generally to be respected to a much larger degree than conditions you develop, regardless of who's fault it is. Furthermore, pedophilia has a well documented record of severe mental trauma to the children that are involved with it, a clear harm that gay marriage does not share. So while their attraction to children may be somewhat involuntary, it is not likely to be an inescapable genetic mechanism and it clearly damages society. If someone has been driven crazy and murders people, we can recognize and sympathize with their insanity, but at the end of the day they're still in jail.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Actually, then can. It happens quite often. When one group, say the elderly, is legally protected and the other group, say the young, are not then the protected group has rights the other does not. It has been held that age discrimination DOES NOT apply to the young workforce. Thus, two legal groups have separate rights as assigned by law.

As it applies to the 14th Amendment, I hate to do it, but let me point you here.

"However, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the Amendment was limited to "state action" and thus did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and in fact have been specifically reaffirmed several times."

"At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials."

Marriage does not, currently, fall under the 14th Amendment.

That is incorrect. Marriage does in fact fall under the 14th amendment as demonstrated in Loving v. Virginia.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

The right to marry has got to be about as fundamental as the right to life: I don't know where you get this shit.

A Constitutional Right To Marry
The Fourteenth Amendment: "'No state... shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.'
"While this (Supreme) Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely state. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
- Meyers v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

LOL. In 1923 you can bet that judge's idea of marriage was between a man and a woman. Even today the vast majority of judges are loathe to overturn any laws that prohibit gay marriage. So if the 14th Amendment truly covered gay marriage it would have been made legal long before today.

The 14th amendment was made with the rights of blacks explicitly in mind, yet it was about a hundred years of civil strife far in excess of what we've seen with the gay marriage debate before something approaching equal protection under the law was made for them. Gay rights in general have only been on the radar for 10-15 years, and gay marriage rights only for the last 5 or 6.

The 14th amendment definitely covers gay marriage, it's just a matter of time. I think most people who watch this issue know that sooner or later there will be a USSC ruling on this issue, and by far the most likely outcome is a nationwide legalization of gay marriage. (particularly after an Obama victory)

Exactly. As LunarRay has pointed out, it is not illegal to be gay and therefore rights applied to one group of legal status can't be denied to another similarly legal group. That is in the constitution. But rights that are denied by bigotry and long custom have to be challenged in oder to be liberated. Our long legal history is nothing more than the expression and refinement of justice for all.

Bigots are blind. It is the rule of law, that all people are equal, that forces the transcendence of bigotry. And it's just a matter of TIME.

Actually, then can. It happens quite often. When one group, say the elderly, is legally protected and the other group, say the young, are not then the protected group has rights the other does not. It has been held that age discrimination DOES NOT apply to the young workforce. Thus, two legal groups have separate rights as assigned by law.

As it applies to the 14th Amendment, I hate to do it, but let me point you here.

"However, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883) that the Amendment was limited to "state action" and thus did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and in fact have been specifically reaffirmed several times."

"At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials."

Marriage does not, currently, fall under the 14th Amendment.

How are the young and the old similarly legal. Youth have many rights withheld. Gay youth will not be allowed to marry.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I guess it could be argued that that "basic biological instinct" also applies to those who are into having sex with children or sex with animals too? What about when Billy Joe Bob want to get hitched to Mary Sue Ellen, who just happens to be his sister? Yet we have laws against those very things. So apparently we can legislate based on sexual orientation and proclivities that don't meet a socially acceptable litmus test. We do it all the time. At least most States no longer have sodomy laws on the books.

States issue a marriage license only after two people meet certain conditions. You can't marry an underage person, you can't marry your sister, you can't marry the next-door neighbor's sheep, you can't marry more than one person at a time, and so on. The right to marry is saddled with restrictions. Imagining that marriage is an unasailable right that is enjoyed by all without any restrictions or preconditions is silly, at best. It's a wonderful idealism that doesn't come close to being grounded in reality.

That's an irrational argument considering that having sex with children or animals (and every other slippery slope nonsense you just spewed) is a CHOICE, whereas being gay is NOT a choice. Apparently, you missed that rather huge distinction.

It's a choice? You mean people one day decide that they are attracted to children or rover? I think arguing that is just as silly as the people who claim being gay is a CHOICE.

Well, first of all, your slippery slope arguments are doing nothing to detract from the argument at hand: can gay people marry. We can sit around all day playing dumb what-if scenarios. But yes, to answer your question, I don't believe for a second that people are born with the desire to hump dogs.

That's the same argument that people use to claim that people aren't naturally born with a desire to hump the same sex. I disagree because I don't believe that sexual attraction is a choice. Heck, I'm far more sexually attracted to brunettes than blondes or redheads. I can't explain why. It's not some conscious decision I made. It's just the way it is.

What I'm saying is that being a choice or not has no real relevance to the determination of law. We make laws that say you can't have sex with children or animals because doing so is an affront to society. Blindly arguing the constitution as our only guide, both those things should be legal - equal protection for ALL. They are not legal though because our society simply won't accept it. Societal preference and acceptance DOES dictate laws, and particularly so when it comes to matters of sexual preferences.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

That's the same argument that people use to claim that people aren't naturally born with a desire to hump the same sex. I disagree because I don't believe that sexual attraction is a choice. Heck, I'm far more sexually attracted to brunettes than blondes or redheads. I can't explain why. It's not some conscious decision I made. It's just the way it is.

What I'm saying is that being a choice or not has no real relevance to the determination of law. We make laws that say you can't have sex with children or animals because doing so is an affront to society. Blindly arguing the constitution as our only guide, both those things should be legal - equal protection for ALL. They are not legal though because our society simply won't accept it. Societal preference and acceptance DOES dictate laws, and particularly so when it comes to matters of sexual preferences.

That is simply false. We do not have laws against molesting children because society is too straight laced for it. (although it certainly doesn't hurt that society hates it) The legal argument to keep those in place is the irrevocable harm it causes to children, not that it's so shocking that your grandfather's monocle will pop out. Similarly bestiality is frequently prosecuted under cruelty to animals or animal abuse statutes, not "bestiality is shocking!" statutes.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

That is incorrect. Marriage does in fact fall under the 14th amendment as demonstrated in Loving v. Virginia.

Thought I'd post this, a quote from Mildred Loving

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

That's the same argument that people use to claim that people aren't naturally born with a desire to hump the same sex. I disagree because I don't believe that sexual attraction is a choice. Heck, I'm far more sexually attracted to brunettes than blondes or redheads. I can't explain why. It's not some conscious decision I made. It's just the way it is.

What I'm saying is that being a choice or not has no real relevance to the determination of law. We make laws that say you can't have sex with children or animals because doing so is an affront to society. Blindly arguing the constitution as our only guide, both those things should be legal - equal protection for ALL. They are not legal though because our society simply won't accept it. Societal preference and acceptance DOES dictate laws, and particularly so when it comes to matters of sexual preferences.

That is simply false. We do not have laws against molesting children because society is too straight laced for it. (although it certainly doesn't hurt that society hates it) The legal argument to keep those in place is the irrevocable harm it causes to children, not that it's so shocking that your grandfather's monocle will pop out. Similarly bestiality is frequently prosecuted under cruelty to animals or animal abuse statutes, not "bestiality is shocking!" statutes.

So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal? In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal. If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

 

[LunarRay]

There is yet another legal focus that applies here...

I've propounded it in another thread but it is a reality as I see it and it is the 'Full Faith and Credit Clause' and the 14th Amendment's EPC as it has been applied. Federal law currently allows States to NOT recognize Gay Marriage laws of the States that have 'legalized' Gay Marriage. As well as not recognizing Gay Marriage regarding the 1138 or more Federal 'benefits' that are provided to married individuals.

Now then... Suppose a Massachusetts Gay couple traveling in Utah are denied a right afforded a Hetero couple and they sue Utah and as the case moves along Massachusetts joins the case in Federal Court... That then becomes a "Compelling Federal Issue" requiring the SCOTUS to grant cert and make a decision on the narrow issue and by inference the wider issue. The current 'controlling' case is a Minnesota one in which Gay Marriage was not visited by the SCOTUS meaning States CAN deny Gay Marriage... but can the States deny other States just laws?!... AND do so by Federal Law...??

The issue in California's Prop 8 is now about Revision vs Amending... My little mind has concluded that the Prop, in fact, revised the California Constitution and therefore should be struck down. The legislature must Revise... not a majority of the voters... Imagine 50.1% of the voters being allowed to enact an otherwise non US Constitution conflicting change to the California Constitution... The hurdles to change stuff is/are very high so that a majority cannot force its will on the minority...


Edit: It is always the minority that is protected and a Gays are a minority group who have been denied a fundamental right...
The most interesting thing about it all is that the courts have sorta indicated that the Right to Marry by Gays is implied and the States have to specifically ban it.... that is way important....

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

That's the same argument that people use to claim that people aren't naturally born with a desire to hump the same sex. I disagree because I don't believe that sexual attraction is a choice. Heck, I'm far more sexually attracted to brunettes than blondes or redheads. I can't explain why. It's not some conscious decision I made. It's just the way it is.

What I'm saying is that being a choice or not has no real relevance to the determination of law. We make laws that say you can't have sex with children or animals because doing so is an affront to society. Blindly arguing the constitution as our only guide, both those things should be legal - equal protection for ALL. They are not legal though because our society simply won't accept it. Societal preference and acceptance DOES dictate laws, and particularly so when it comes to matters of sexual preferences.

That is simply false. We do not have laws against molesting children because society is too straight laced for it. (although it certainly doesn't hurt that society hates it) The legal argument to keep those in place is the irrevocable harm it causes to children, not that it's so shocking that your grandfather's monocle will pop out. Similarly bestiality is frequently prosecuted under cruelty to animals or animal abuse statutes, not "bestiality is shocking!" statutes.

So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal? In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal. If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

To tie both of your points together, the reason society is not accepting of pedophilia and the like is because it causes irreparable harm. You can't load the question by saying "what if society no longer felt pedophilia was taboo" when the very reason it is taboo is society's reaction to the harm it causes. For society to become fully accepting of pedophilia, you'd first have to remove the harm it causes to children.

 

[Moonbeam]

TLC: So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal?

M: Who cares? We don't.

TLC: In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal.

M: We are talking about out Constitution.

TLC: If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

M: Not everybody cares. We do.

TLC: We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

M: Who cares, we are talking about what is and who we are.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

That's the same argument that people use to claim that people aren't naturally born with a desire to hump the same sex. I disagree because I don't believe that sexual attraction is a choice. Heck, I'm far more sexually attracted to brunettes than blondes or redheads. I can't explain why. It's not some conscious decision I made. It's just the way it is.

What I'm saying is that being a choice or not has no real relevance to the determination of law. We make laws that say you can't have sex with children or animals because doing so is an affront to society. Blindly arguing the constitution as our only guide, both those things should be legal - equal protection for ALL. They are not legal though because our society simply won't accept it. Societal preference and acceptance DOES dictate laws, and particularly so when it comes to matters of sexual preferences.

That is simply false. We do not have laws against molesting children because society is too straight laced for it. (although it certainly doesn't hurt that society hates it) The legal argument to keep those in place is the irrevocable harm it causes to children, not that it's so shocking that your grandfather's monocle will pop out. Similarly bestiality is frequently prosecuted under cruelty to animals or animal abuse statutes, not "bestiality is shocking!" statutes.

So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal? In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal. If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

And the irrevocable harm protection comes from the concept of equal protection for all. What would you like to bet that these societies you mention where marriage/sex with children is legal also are societies where women are not afforded the same rights as men? We don't legislate morality, we legislate equality. Basically I'm saying, don't be a dick to try to prove your wrong point.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TLC: So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal?

M: Who cares? We don't.

TLC: In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal.

M: We are talking about out Constitution.

TLC: If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

M: Not everybody cares. We do.

TLC: We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

M: Who cares, we are talking about what is and who we are.

In other words, TLC asks a lot of irrelevant questions and dances around the subject. Hmmmm, go figure.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

That's the same argument that people use to claim that people aren't naturally born with a desire to hump the same sex. I disagree because I don't believe that sexual attraction is a choice. Heck, I'm far more sexually attracted to brunettes than blondes or redheads. I can't explain why. It's not some conscious decision I made. It's just the way it is.

What I'm saying is that being a choice or not has no real relevance to the determination of law. We make laws that say you can't have sex with children or animals because doing so is an affront to society. Blindly arguing the constitution as our only guide, both those things should be legal - equal protection for ALL. They are not legal though because our society simply won't accept it. Societal preference and acceptance DOES dictate laws, and particularly so when it comes to matters of sexual preferences.

That is simply false. We do not have laws against molesting children because society is too straight laced for it. (although it certainly doesn't hurt that society hates it) The legal argument to keep those in place is the irrevocable harm it causes to children, not that it's so shocking that your grandfather's monocle will pop out. Similarly bestiality is frequently prosecuted under cruelty to animals or animal abuse statutes, not "bestiality is shocking!" statutes.

So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal? In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal. If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

To tie both of your points together, the reason society is not accepting of pedophilia and the like is because it causes irreparable harm. You can't load the question by saying "what if society no longer felt pedophilia was taboo" when the very reason it is taboo is society's reaction to the harm it causes. For society to become fully accepting of pedophilia, you'd first have to remove the harm it causes to children.

I think if you asked people why they are against pedophilia or bestiality the answers you'd get would range from "It's disgusting." to "It ain't natural." Few would claim irrevocable harm. It could be argued that a dog licking peanut butter off some women's snatch does no harm to the animal, yet it's still illegal. It can be argued that that 14 year old girl was more than willing to engage in sex with that 26 year old guy and felt there was no harm at all, yet it's still illegal (at least in most states under most circumstances).

Until the majority moves past the opinion that gay marriage is either disgusting or unnatural, or any of the other stupid opinions the majority use to justify their bias, I don't think you'll see it approved by law in any widespread fashion. Once it is widely accepted, gay marriage won't be an issue, except to the few hard-cores in the disgruntled minority.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
TLC: So if society fully accepted those sexual proclivities we would still keep them illegal?

M: Who cares? We don't.

TLC: In certain societies around the world, marriage/sex with what we in the west define as "children" is perfectly legal.

M: We are talking about out Constitution.

TLC: If it were as simple as irrevocable harm then why haven't we all adopted identical, or at least very similar, legislation?

M: Not everybody cares. We do.

TLC: We may wave irrevocable harm about as a legal justification but if our society accepted sex with "children," as others still do, irrevocable harm would never come into play.

M: Who cares, we are talking about what is and who we are.

In other words, TLC asks a lot of irrelevant questions and dances around the subject. Hmmmm, go figure.

Irrelevant? No. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies in our beliefs and how they affect the laws of this nation. If you want to wear blinders and pretend this is purely about constitutionality, go right on ahead and do so. I'm demonstrating that making our laws just aren't that cut and dried.

 

[Acanthus]

Gay marriage is the last stand for the institution of marriage.

It used to be a life long bind that could only be absolved by the pope. Then it was a rare occurance where irreconcilable differences had to be proven in court. Then it was more commonplace. Now it can simply be annuled if you were drunk and/or stupid at the time, you can cheat on your husband/wife and have no legal repurcussions... Marriage has slowly gone from a doctrine to an annoyance, even a liability. Many women are now shedding the "purity" bullshit they have been spoonfed for 2000 years and pursuing careers instead of getting married at 17-20.

The man-woman marriage war is about a lot more than persecuting gays. It's about pushing marriage into total obscurity.