Same Sex marriage - my view point

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

Bit dense are we?

xjohnx is saying that they all should be called civil unions, in which case the government would then put said box for "civil unions" on the 1040 (actually they would just replace the marriage box with a civil union box). He said nothing about what the status quo is, just what he thinks it *should* be in the future.

Can I read his fucking mind...no but from what I read I sure as hell didn't come up with your take. I was commenting on just the quotes above not the entire fucking conversation.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
The legal definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Life is not fair, Nothing is equal and truth is stranger then fiction.

Them Bigoted Founders... Them near sighted nincompoops... Didn't they realize that some day folks would reject the notion that their god was god and accept that everyone's god is someone's god except for them non god watchamacallits...

The real God!
their god is false and they are heathens who worship say'tan.
Apart from the right to bear arms, poor little bears! their arms must taste good or something!
Your constitution is ambiguous to say the lest, that's why I am glad Australia doesn't have one.
Constitution! it's for the birds!
Everyone is a bigot it's just some haven't come out and embraced their bigotry.
Stick a cock up the arse of bigotry! and you got buggery!
Principals, morals and ethics.
Recognition- 1
Rights-2
Control-3
We'll stop *them at 2, because when your a person that puts cock in arse you have very few of Principals, morals and ethics and don't qualify for any control.
Why do homo's jamb cocks in an arse?
This is the real question, tell me its sane behavior!
Look like people need another hell banger war to remind them about, what's it's all about!
And it ain't about a cock in ure arse ffs!
* dirty buggers
So I take bigotry over buggery any day of the week.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

Bit dense are we?

xjohnx is saying that they all should be called civil unions, in which case the government would then put said box for "civil unions" on the 1040 (actually they would just replace the marriage box with a civil union box). He said nothing about what the status quo is, just what he thinks it *should* be in the future.

Can I read his fucking mind...no but from what I read I sure as hell didn't come up with your take. I was commenting on just the quotes above not the entire fucking conversation.

I was inferring based on other posts he has made in this thread.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

There could be if you could stop trying to stick it to the "religous assholes", and compromise and get the same rights.

GOP=obstruction not compromise...I guess you missed the memo.

It's hard to get memos from an organization you're not a part of. I know you've been told before, but someone not agreeing with you doesn't mean they are part of the GOP, that's just the ugly face of partisian hackery showing from under the mask.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
gingermeggs

modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Where do you get that? I don't think you have a solid grasp of history.

Any Gospel quotes in the Declaration of Independence?

How many of the Bill of Rights amendments quote the Christian bible?

How many Christians contributed to each? Religion determines many people's values and morals, which largely determine the law. Just because it wasn't directly cited doesn't mean it lacks influence. Christianity is indirectly responsible for large portions of Western culture.

All those founders' documents reek of the values of the Masons, No God named but a "Creator", equality of men, etc. Com'on do some research!

And beyond the founding documents, what was the governmental representation of Masons (many only "suspected") as opposed to Christians? US has been around for a while, and the predominant religion is some form of Christianity. That in large part determines everything about our governmental system. How people vote, what's considered right/wrong under the law, etc.

Yeah, they believed in it so much that they found it necessary to guarantee us protection from that religion.

The bottom line is the government has no business being in the marriage business at all. I honestly don't understand why ANY religion would want the government controlling one of their sacraments. We have seen many times in history that what the government givith it can taketh away. Seriously, do you guys really want the government to have the power to deny you and your heterosexual spouse a marriage license for whatever reason they see fit? I guarantee yall will be screaming that the government needs to get out of your church and I agree.

Leave marriage up to the church where the church can make up any and all the rules they want. If the .gov sees fit to grant rights or privileges to consenting adults entering into a social contract then the government should not discriminate based on sex, religion, or race.

BTW, for the slow folk, this isn't about pedophilia or beastiality or any other dumb shit you want to try and associate with gays (ironically, almost every single news story I have read involving beastiality it was committed by a male in a heterosexual, traditional, church approved marriage). The conversation is about two consenting adults. If you have some urge to talk about boning animals this isn't the thread.

I never said I agreed with it. Suffice to say it's a simple truth. Separation of church and state is a laughable guarantee. Sure it prevents most direct interaction, but as I said, a country where the majority of the population are Christian is going to have a more Christianized culture and probably government. Simply a matter of who votes for whom on what grounds.

There are many politicians on both sides of the aisle who's decisions are influenced by their own morals. These morals more often than not include, however indirectly, some form of Christianity.

That is my one and only point. I learned a long time ago that voicing my opinions on same-sex marriage gets me nowhere in P&N. (I'll let you ponder my position while I go chill with some of my dormmates. )

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

That's complete bullshit, millions of couple have been married and it wasn't a religious ceremony.

How about "its a term that has deep roots in religion"?

Look, if gays are willing to put off actually getting the rights they deserve to fight over a dumbass word than more power to them. If they want to have actual equal rights than they need to get the government out of marriage. Its that simple. It may be wrong but thats reality and I personally see nothing wrong with changing the stupid term and applying it equally.

If I was the one being discriminated against this would be a perfectly acceptable compromise. Hell, you can start your own church that marries gay folk if you want to (might not be a bad business idea).

The only way we can get religion out of government is to get rid of the GOP.

Yeah because the Dems are full of agnostics and atheists... oh wait they aren't. What religion does our current president practice again?

There are some Dems who are religious but they don't ram their ideals down your throat like the religious right does.

Oh thx for pointing out the obvious :thumbsup:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....breathe...................BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....riiiiiight, guess you never heard of the PMRC.

Don't get your g-string in a bind.

You made an erroneous statement that I found funny so somehow now I'm wearing a g-string, and it's in a twist? Your eagerness to attempt to insult people that don't agree with you is pretty ugly, but hey, I've come to expect nothing less from the caricatures of the looney left here.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the defniition of bigotry.

That is not exactly true... A synonym for bigotry is discrimination. Bigotry is defined as having a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own. I don't think bigotry is codified in law anywhere so we are sort of left with a basic usage of the term... To discriminate is to practice bigotry.

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

Bit dense are we?

xjohnx is saying that they all should be called civil unions, in which case the government would then put said box for "civil unions" on the 1040 (actually they would just replace the marriage box with a civil union box). He said nothing about what the status quo is, just what he thinks it *should* be in the future.

Can I read his fucking mind...no but from what I read I sure as hell didn't come up with your take. I was commenting on just the quotes above not the entire fucking conversation.

I was inferring based on other posts he has made in this thread.

Oh next time look at my post read the quotes and then go from there...

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Protip: so would a civil union.

I wasn't aware there a box to check for civil unions on a 1040.

There could be if you could stop trying to stick it to the "religous assholes", and compromise and get the same rights.

GOP=obstruction not compromise...I guess you missed the memo.

It's hard to get memos from an organization you're not a part of. I know you've been told before, but someone not agreeing with you doesn't mean they are part of the GOP, that's just the ugly face of partisian hackery showing from under the mask.

So explaining the obvious makes me a partisan hacker...well here's a newsflash this who fucking forum is full of them.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the defniition of bigotry.

That is not exactly true... A synonym for bigotry is discrimination. Bigotry is defined as having a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one's own. I don't think bigotry is codified in law anywhere so we are sort of left with a basic usage of the term... To discriminate is to practice bigotry.

Fine, but everyone is a bigot in some way.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

You bigotry towards conservative and religious "assholes" is noted. How's it feel being exactly what you claim to hate?

I'm not, I'm not trying to deny them any rights they should have as American Citizens.

Ah the usual bullshit response from the left. Tell us, since no one else ever has, what "right" gays dont have now?

Protip: marriage is not a right.

(And for the record I couldnt care less whether or not gay marriage was legal or not. Either way is fine by me)

If it's not a right then what is it, a privilege like being able to drive?:roll:

Dont put words into my mouth.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Protip: marriage is not a right.

Protip: Marriage affords participants certain rights, which are currently unavailable to a group of people.

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Denying rights isn't the defniition of bigotry.

But, like I said above, it's not exactly kosher with the highest court in the land.

It's called compromise. Civil unions is a win/win, homosexuals get to have the partnerships recognized, religous assholes get to keep their "sanctity of marriage", and if homosexuals want to have an official ceremony in a church that will marry gay couples, than they can have a ball.

What you're proposing is against jurisprudence, namely Brown v Board of Education. What you are claiming is that we can have two separate but equal institutions, which is not constitutional.

I'm not even speaking my opinion on the issue, just the facts. Marriage has to be extended to gay folk simply because of the equal protection clause. Done. Over. End of argument.

Like? Tax benefits and survivor benefits are not rights.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
The real God!
their god is false and they are heathens who worship say'tan.
Apart from the right to bear arms, poor little bears! their arms must taste good or something!
Your constitution is ambiguous to say the lest, that's why I am glad Australia doesn't have one.
Constitution! it's for the birds!
Everyone is a bigot it's just some haven't come out and embraced their bigotry.
Stick a cock up the arse of bigotry! and you got buggery!
Principals, morals and ethics.
Recognition- 1
Rights-2
Control-3
We'll stop *them at 2, because when your a person that puts cock in arse you have very few of Principals, morals and ethics and don't qualify for any control.
Why do homo's jamb cocks in an arse?
This is the real question, tell me its sane behavior!
Look like people need another hell banger war to remind them about, what's it's all about!
And it ain't about a cock in ure arse ffs!
* dirty buggers
So I take bigotry over buggery any day of the week.

So... based on this we've to create a separate term for Lesbians.. I mean, your terms above don't include them... and what of them guys who do what you suggest but to a female... is that being Gay.... ??
OK>>> let's see how many Hetero guys have played being a homosexual???

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Sigh, I do understand it but half the country does not and will not accept it. Either you want equality or you want to spend a few extra decades fighting over a dumb fucking word. Get that through your thick skull.

And by the way, I actually do care about the issue. I have friends that are flat out discriminated against and its socially and politically acceptable. Dumbasses hung up on a fucking word are going to cost them another decade of discrimination because of what? I truly think that somewhere deep down the people hung up on the word just want to stick it to the religious assholes that have screwed them over for so long. Can't say that I blame em but I damn sure wouldn't endure another day of discrimination over it.

Part of the problem of this line of thinking is that the word is important. If gays can have access to all the same privileges as married straight people, but can't use the word, then their relationship is still defined by a different term, and that makes it inherently unequal. If gay people settle for equal rights now with civil unions, then push for the word marriage, people can say "why do you care, you've already got the same rights, get over it," and thus push back any hope of gay people getting access to marriage (for at least a few decades at any rate). The endgoal is the same regardless of scenario; the people pushing for the word marriage just aren't satisfied with taking "baby steps" towards that goal because they feel that risks pushing the endgoal farther out timewise. It's simply an argument of strategy.

Who would they be fighting for the word "marriage" if it no longer exists in the eyes of the government? I can found a church today that marries gay folk if they want to be "married". As long as everyone, gays and straights, get the same civil union what is there left to fight for?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah the usual bullshit response from the left. Tell us, since no one else ever has, what "right" gays dont have now?

Protip: marriage is not a right.

(And for the record I couldnt care less whether or not gay marriage was legal or not. Either way is fine by me)

The Supreme Court felt differently when overturning anti-miscegenation laws in the 60s: Loving v. Virginia.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Marriage is a right.

Sorry, fail. The courts opinion in this case is race related.

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

context is everything.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Which is why we should abolish the term "marriage" from the governmental contract that is made, and instead replace it with "civil union".

Religious people cannot get upset because their religion defines it as only between a man and woman.

Conservatives cannot get upset because it somehow breaks the "sanctity of marriage" or some other bullshit like that (meanwhile these same politicians who say that stuff are involved in cheating on their wife, or even better having gay sex).

GLBT people cannot get upset because they have the exact same thing that straight couples have, and there is not even a different term for it.

Now, I'm sure that all of these goups still will bitch but they really don't have any footing to stand on if it's called a "civil union" instead of "marriage".

Why change the name. it's a marriage. So what if the Conservative and Religious Bigots don't like it, nobody should ever concede anything to those assholes.

Thank you for illustrating my point. You would much rather see my friends be discriminated against for another 10 years just so you can stick it to the conservatives rather than compromise and give everyone equal rights much sooner.

You are perfectly willing to deny people their rights simply to feed your partisan hate. You are a disgusting excuse for a human being and are no better than those you hate. Congrats on being no different than the religious bigots.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah the usual bullshit response from the left. Tell us, since no one else ever has, what "right" gays dont have now?

Protip: marriage is not a right.

(And for the record I couldnt care less whether or not gay marriage was legal or not. Either way is fine by me)

The Supreme Court felt differently when overturning anti-miscegenation laws in the 60s: Loving v. Virginia.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Marriage is a right.

Sorry, fail. The courts opinion in this case is race related.

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

context is everything.

You said "marriage is not a right." The Supreme Court said "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'" Yes, they were talking about interracial marriages, but they specifically said that marriage is a right. This is the entire basis for the argument that gays have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anybody, which is true. But the point stands: marriage is a right. Your "protip" was incorrect. The definition of marriage on a Federal level simply doesn't include same-sex unions... yet.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Darwin333
Who would they be fighting for the word "marriage" if it no longer exists in the eyes of the government? I can found a church today that marries gay folk if they want to be "married". As long as everyone, gays and straights, get the same civil union what is there left to fight for?

The word "marriage" is not going to leave the realm of government any time soon. The existing definition of marriage is far more likely to be updated to include same-sex unions than marriage is to be completely replaced by civil unions. This makes the argument purely academic, which is a fun exercise for the mind, but in the end, utterly pointless as it simply will never reflect reality (at least, not in our lifetimes). Since you're never going to see straight marriages redefined as civil unions in the eyes of government, it's far more productive for gay rights activists to fight for gay marriage than some rebranding system to achieve equality.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ah the usual bullshit response from the left. Tell us, since no one else ever has, what "right" gays dont have now?

Protip: marriage is not a right.

(And for the record I couldnt care less whether or not gay marriage was legal or not. Either way is fine by me)

The Supreme Court felt differently when overturning anti-miscegenation laws in the 60s: Loving v. Virginia.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Marriage is a right.

Sorry, fail. The courts opinion in this case is race related.

Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

context is everything.

You said "marriage is not a right." The Supreme Court said "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.'" Yes, they were talking about interracial marriages, but they specifically said that marriage is a right. This is the entire basis for the argument that gays have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex as anybody, which is true. But the point stands: marriage is a right. Your "protip" was incorrect. The definition of marriage on a Federal level simply doesn't include same-sex unions... yet.

Then why the need for a constitutional amendment if its already inherently given? Why wouldnt the SCOTUS just say "Sorry, this has been ruled on"?

 

[Fern]

Hehe. I see people boldly engaged in forcasting the SCOTUS's decision on one set of circumstances by analogizing to a different case. Predicting SC case outcomes is a sure way to make oneself look foolish.

Not too long ago a huge group of people got embarrassed by their prediction the 2nd amendment only apllied to the collective right, and used previous SCOTUS cases to "prove" their POV. Didn't work out that way, at all.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then why the need for a constitutional amendment if its already inherently given? Why wouldnt the SCOTUS just say "Sorry, this has been ruled on"?

It was the religious right and social conservatives seeking a Constitutional Amendment a few years ago to specify marriage was strictly between one man and one woman. The reason to get a Constitutional Amendment is because right now the right to marry is based around a Supreme Court decision; it's the law of the land for the moment, but another Supreme Court decision could overturn it. If a Constitutional Amendment were passed for either side, the Supreme Court would be taken out of it, as they can't declare the Constitution unConstitutional, and it would be on legislators to draft an amendment repealing it (which has only happened once and it took 14 years in a time where government was much more efficient than today). So basically, the first side to get a Constitutional Amendment will effectively win the debate forever (or at least for a very, very long time).

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then why the need for a constitutional amendment if its already inherently given? Why wouldnt the SCOTUS just say "Sorry, this has been ruled on"?

It was the religious right and social conservatives seeking a Constitutional Amendment a few years ago to specify marriage was strictly between one man and one woman. The reason to get a Constitutional Amendment is because right now the right to marry is based around a Supreme Court decision; it's the law of the land for the moment, but another Supreme Court decision could overturn it. If a Constitutional Amendment were passed for either side, the Supreme Court would be taken out of it, as they can't declare the Constitution unConstitutional, and it would be on legislators to draft an amendment repealing it (which has only happened once and it took 14 years in a time where government was much more efficient than today). So basically, the first side to get a Constitutional Amendment will effectively win the debate forever (or at least for a very, very long time).

Fair enough. In the meantime, marriage is not a right.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then why the need for a constitutional amendment if its already inherently given? Why wouldnt the SCOTUS just say "Sorry, this has been ruled on"?

It was the religious right and social conservatives seeking a Constitutional Amendment a few years ago to specify marriage was strictly between one man and one woman. The reason to get a Constitutional Amendment is because right now the right to marry is based around a Supreme Court decision; it's the law of the land for the moment, but another Supreme Court decision could overturn it. If a Constitutional Amendment were passed for either side, the Supreme Court would be taken out of it, as they can't declare the Constitution unConstitutional, and it would be on legislators to draft an amendment repealing it (which has only happened once and it took 14 years in a time where government was much more efficient than today). So basically, the first side to get a Constitutional Amendment will effectively win the debate forever (or at least for a very, very long time).

Fair enough. In the meantime, marriage is not a right.

Balderdash. It's a right with restrictions placed on it. Just because something isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a "right."

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Then why the need for a constitutional amendment if its already inherently given? Why wouldnt the SCOTUS just say "Sorry, this has been ruled on"?

It was the religious right and social conservatives seeking a Constitutional Amendment a few years ago to specify marriage was strictly between one man and one woman. The reason to get a Constitutional Amendment is because right now the right to marry is based around a Supreme Court decision; it's the law of the land for the moment, but another Supreme Court decision could overturn it. If a Constitutional Amendment were passed for either side, the Supreme Court would be taken out of it, as they can't declare the Constitution unConstitutional, and it would be on legislators to draft an amendment repealing it (which has only happened once and it took 14 years in a time where government was much more efficient than today). So basically, the first side to get a Constitutional Amendment will effectively win the debate forever (or at least for a very, very long time).

Fair enough. In the meantime, marriage is not a right.

Balderdash. It's a right with restrictions placed on it. Just because something isn't explicitly laid out in the Constitution doesn't mean it isn't a "right."

We'll agree to disagree then Cheers

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
We'll agree to disagree then Cheers

:beer: