Same Sex marriage - my view point

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: 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

SCOTUS already ruled... they said there is no compelling Federal issue... on a State case I think is Nelson.. they let the court's decision sit..

Baker v Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

 

[LunarRay]

Hopefully in Baker v Nelson you can see why the State of California must refer to same sex unions as Marriage!

SCOTUS recognizes the Constitution imposes some mandates on the States because it left stand the Mn case.
"The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". "

That SCOTUS let stand the Baker case means that it is binding on all Federal Courts... and That Mn Supreme court indicated the RIGHT to marry exists IT IS A RIGHT!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Hopefully in Baker v Nelson you can see why the State of California must refer to same sex unions as Marriage!

SCOTUS recognizes the Constitution imposes some mandates on the States because it left stand the Mn case.
"The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". "

That SCOTUS let stand the Baker case means that it is binding on all Federal Courts... and That Mn Supreme court indicated the RIGHT to marry exists IT IS A RIGHT!

Hm. No mention of number of spouses. Wonder why its never stood up in SCOTUS. Since its a right.

Just a thought.

Good thing we dont follow our founding fathers on this!

"?Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least.?
~Thomas Jefferson 1779

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Hopefully in Baker v Nelson you can see why the State of California must refer to same sex unions as Marriage!

SCOTUS recognizes the Constitution imposes some mandates on the States because it left stand the Mn case.
"The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". "

That SCOTUS let stand the Baker case means that it is binding on all Federal Courts... and That Mn Supreme court indicated the RIGHT to marry exists IT IS A RIGHT!

I think you bolded the wrong word.

"The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". "

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Hopefully in Baker v Nelson you can see why the State of California must refer to same sex unions as Marriage!

SCOTUS recognizes the Constitution imposes some mandates on the States because it left stand the Mn case.
"The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". "

That SCOTUS let stand the Baker case means that it is binding on all Federal Courts... and That Mn Supreme court indicated the RIGHT to marry exists IT IS A RIGHT!

I think you bolded the wrong word.

"The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". "

No... the guy I was directing my post to indicated Marriage was not a right.. but it is deemed to be a right...
Your bold of 'but' is confusing to me... why you bold that...
I know the case law on the subject and said SCOTUS already decided the Federal issue..

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Hopefully in Baker v Nelson you can see why the State of California must refer to same sex unions as Marriage!

SCOTUS recognizes the Constitution imposes some mandates on the States because it left stand the Mn case.
"The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". "

That SCOTUS let stand the Baker case means that it is binding on all Federal Courts... and That Mn Supreme court indicated the RIGHT to marry exists IT IS A RIGHT!

I think you bolded the wrong word.

"The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex". "

No... the guy I was directing my post to indicated Marriage was not a right.. but it is deemed to be a right...
Your bold of 'but' is confusing to me... why you bold that...
I know the case law on the subject and said SCOTUS already decided the Federal issue..

Sorry, mis-read your post. I was thinking you were applying it to this discussion.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: 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.

Spousal privilege is one example, but this is a straw-man argument.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that black people had a right to go to school with white people, nor did the Constitution state that they had a right to ride on the same bus seats, nor in the same train cars, nor drink from the same water fountains. Despite that fact, the Supreme Court ruled that not only did segregated schools create psychological harm (which was pretty shaky legal ground), but also that "separate but equal" was inherently unequal because white students received superior educational resources.

Same story here.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Denying marriage to a group of people based on arbitrary criteria creates a situation in which gay people are not afford equal protection of the laws. They cannot get the same benefits and they cannot be protected by the same laws that protect heterosexual couples. Not only does this include spousal immunity, but it includes all the tax benefits and everything else that comes with marriage.

 

[LunarRay]

Denying marriage to a group of people based on arbitrary criteria creates a situation in which gay people are not afford equal protection of the laws. They cannot get the same benefits and they cannot be protected by the same laws that protect heterosexual couples. Not only does this include spousal immunity, but it includes all the tax benefits and everything else that comes with marriage.

SCOTUS has said that the States control marriage laws in Baker v Nelson. The Congress has said that States need not recognize the just laws of a State as it goes to 'Gay Marriage' and the Congress does have the 'power' to define what that means, I think. Regarding Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution... The only exception to that that I'm aware of is where a Court Judgement is ordered in one State and sought to be enforced in another... had to do with Statute of Limitations as I recall. It seems that it is a toss up as to what SCOTUS will find regarding the Federal Marriage Law.
So, it seems that Gays being allowed to Marry in one State may not produce equality for them in ALL States (And the Federal Government) and unless SCOTUS decides to act... (not too likely) Gays will not be equal until SCOTUS does.

 

[Robor]

Why? If it's about a word than why isn't "Civil Union" with the same rights good enough? Is it about the rights? Or is it about a statement? A word?

Sounds like 'separate but equal' to me. Why not just equal? :\

 

[blackangst1]

Spousal privilege is one example, but this is a straw-man argument.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that black people had a right to go to school with white people, nor did the Constitution state that they had a right to ride on the same bus seats, nor in the same train cars, nor drink from the same water fountains. Despite that fact, the Supreme Court ruled that not only did segregated schools create psychological harm (which was pretty shaky legal ground), but also that "separate but equal" was inherently unequal because white students received superior educational resources.

Same story here.



Denying marriage to a group of people based on arbitrary criteria creates a situation in which gay people are not afford equal protection of the laws. They cannot get the same benefits and they cannot be protected by the same laws that protect heterosexual couples. Not only does this include spousal immunity, but it includes all the tax benefits and everything else that comes with marriage.

Fair enough. Hopefully this will lead to a greater openness and freer society.

Legalize multiple partner marriages and lower AOC laws and we'll be good.

 

[Corn]

Sounds like 'separate but equal' to me. Why not just equal? :\

Could you explain the inequities between a "civil union" and a "marriage" assuming all of the rights bestowed upon each are identical? Is it simply the wish to be called "married" or is there something deeper, such as the desire to force religious institutions to sanctify homosexual relationships?

 

[LunarRay]

Are you speaking Intra State? We know there exists a myriad of 'rights' not enjoyed Interstate nor under the Federal umbrella.

 

[Corn]

When I think of "rights", I'm thinking on a federal level. There should be no discrimination of rights in civil unions whether the couples are married or homosexual unions. That's my opinion. Arguing for the label of "marriage" for homosexual couples seems silly in my opinion, a rose by any other name.......which piques my curiosity regarding the "we must call it marriage, nothing else will do" opinion. What is the practical difference? There is something else to this desire than the simple lable. I'd like to know what that is.

 

[xj0hnx]

When I think of "rights", I'm thinking on a federal level. There should be no discrimination of rights in civil unions whether the couples are married or homosexual unions. That's my opinion. Arguing for the label of "marriage" for homosexual couples seems silly in my opinion, a rose by any other name.......which piques my curiosity regarding the "we must call it marriage, nothing else will do" opinion. What is the practical difference? There is something else to this desire than the simple lable. I'd like to know what that is.

I asked the same thing at the beginning of the thread, apparently that made me a bigot.

 

[Corn]

I asked the same thing at the beginning of the thread, apparently that made me a bigot.

You're not a bigot, at least I don't think so based on what I've read from you in this discussion, but I haven't read every single post either. Don't pay too much attention to the bigot brigade here, they are some of the most irrational and unrepentant bigots themselves.

 

[sportage]

A lot of discussion. wow!
First... comparing sex orientation to skin color is going to be hard to explain.
In that, ones skin color is obvious, but their interior makeup is not.
So its easy to say "Gay" is just a lifestyle, not comparable to race.
In fact (my opinion), people that are Gay are as hard coded internally as someone that has black skin.
Yes, sure, hetros can have gay sex, but that does not make them gay.
Being Gay goes far beyond any sex thing, but most people can not separate the two issues. They do not believe someone can actually be "gay".

As to my opinion that state progress is pointless, my reasoning is that on the state level married same sex still can not file federal joint taxes, their marriage is not recognized in most other states, and what happens legally when the couples children come into the mix?
Legal rights for same sex couples as to their children could become a nightmare if they moved to a different state. True?

And then consider the last name issue. When married, one can take the name of the spouse legally. So there you are, the state recognizes your “new” name, while the federal government does not. How screwed up, confusing could that be?

On the state level, I would think the constant threat from opponents, those groups dead set on overturning same sex marriage rights, would give legally married same sex couples little confront in settling into their comfort zone, that married state of mind.
You know, that state of mind hetro married couples take for granted.
Hetro married couples can not imagine some outside group or politician could come along and say "hey, Im going to dissolve your marriage, and if I can not, I will put your rights up for a public vote on the ballot”.

Is this not insane? The ultimate insult to personal rights?
Why should ones “legal” marriage become some debatable issue up for
public opinion? I can tell you… if hetro married couples had to put up that, there would be violence in the streets. Such approval from society on such a personal level of ones
private life would/should not be tolerated.

But… in Maine on Tuesday 11/3, just that will happen once again…

So I ask what is the point, on the state level, of granting same sex marriage rights?
Obviously, granting such rights will become a short lived victory.
And the insult, the attacks on same sex marriage, will continue state after state over and over. Here must be a better way a right way to protect state granted marriage rights.
And what is worse, in all cases where states granted same sex marriage rights, the rights were granted by state courts after interpreting the law of the land.
Law of the land, the very foundation I “thought” our country was built upon.
Supporting public ballot voting on such issues, to me, seems unpatriotic.

 

[BeauJangles]

Fair enough. Hopefully this will lead to a greater openness and freer society.

Legalize multiple partner marriages and lower AOC laws and we'll be good.

Your diversionary tactics are admirable, but we're talking about marriage between two consenting adults, nothing else. You can try and divert, pervert, and draw out ridiculous comparisons all you want, but you cannot deny gay couples equal protection of the law.

If it makes you happier, then let's legally change the name of marriage to civil union and apply that legal definition to both gay and straight couples. That way, religious people can keep 'marriage' as a religious ceremony and everyone can enjoy equal rights in civil unions.

 

[LunarRay]

When I think of "rights", I'm thinking on a federal level. There should be no discrimination of rights in civil unions whether the couples are married or homosexual unions. That's my opinion. Arguing for the label of "marriage" for homosexual couples seems silly in my opinion, a rose by any other name.......which piques my curiosity regarding the "we must call it marriage, nothing else will do" opinion. What is the practical difference? There is something else to this desire than the simple lable. I'd like to know what that is.

I, personally, would like to see the term "marriage" denote the religious event of 'Coupling' performed in a facility of that religion's worship. Or what ever is appropriate in that context.

I would like to see the Law of the various States term the contract now referred to as marriage something with less 'religious' linkage. Maybe something like 'Coupling Contract'. And all the States and all the kings horsemen go cook eggs.

As it stands, however, I suppose some folks feel marriage is between a boy and girl and anything else demeans their 'coupling'... and the Gays feel that if the Hetero folks feel that way then they ain't equal to them if they ain't married too...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Could you explain the inequities between a "civil union" and a "marriage" assuming all of the rights bestowed upon each are identical? Is it simply the wish to be called "married" or is there something deeper, such as the desire to force religious institutions to sanctify homosexual relationships?

Pretty sure the gays aren't going to be beating down the doors of the Catholic church demanding that the bishop oversee their marriage. Churches are legally allowed to refuse marriages between couples that are legally allowed to marry now; the marriage in the eyes of the law is completely separate from the marriage in the church. Gay marriage will not affect church marriage. At all. Period. And to immediately jump to the conclusion that gay people are going to want to jump into a church that villifies their lifestyle and demand that they officiate the ceremony... can you see the tremendous leap of logic you just took? How many gay pentecostals do you know? "Well, I'm going to head down to Steve and Dave's wedding at the mosque." It's not going to happen, and it's a complete misrepresentation of the issue to even bring religion into a discussion about the legal act of marriage as recognized by the secular state.

 

[Corn]

Talk about bigotry. I know and am friends with several homosexuals who are members Catholic and Protestant churches. Homosexuality does not turn one into an athiest or agnostic. At all. Period.

Why not take a crack at answering the question I posed that you quoted.

 

[actuarial]

Could you explain the inequities between a "civil union" and a "marriage" assuming all of the rights bestowed upon each are identical? Is it simply the wish to be called "married" or is there something deeper, such as the desire to force religious institutions to sanctify homosexual relationships?

I know my wife would be pretty pissed if you told her we weren't "married" because no priest was involved in our ceremony, and that has nothing to do with some evil agenda against religion. Do you correct your atheist friends who are married and tell them they are actually in a civil union because marriage is a religious institution? If the basis for not allowing them to use a word is a 'based in religion' argument I don't see why you wouldn't.

This has always been my test for gender equality: if you can switch the word "man" with the word "woman" and the rights are removed, you don't have gender equality.

Example: A "man" wants to marry Veronica....OK
A "woman" wants to marry Veronica....NOPE

As far as I'm concerned, not allowing same sex marriages is a gender equality issue.

 

[Corn]

I know my wife would be pretty pissed if you told her we weren't "married" because no priest was involved in our ceremony, and that has nothing to do with some evil agenda against religion. Do you correct your atheist friends who are married and tell them they are actually in a civil union because marriage is a religious institution? If the basis for not allowing them to use a word is a 'based in religion' argument I don't see why you wouldn't.

This has always been my test for gender equality: if you can switch the word "man" with the word "woman" and the rights are removed, you don't have gender equality.

Example: A "man" wants to marry Veronica....OK
A "woman" wants to marry Veronica....NOPE

As far as I'm concerned, not allowing same sex marriages is a gender equality issue.

Just something to think about for a moment, but your wife would be pissed if you told her you weren't married because you *are* married. She wouldn't have been pissed to say you weren't married when you were only dating, right?

I can't control how people use the language, but the very definition of marriage specifically requires a man and a woman. My 3 year old son often immitates our cat, but he is still a boy and not a cat no matter how much he wants to be a cat.

 

[Bird222]

Could you explain the inequities between a "civil union" and a "marriage" assuming all of the rights bestowed upon each are identical? Is it simply the wish to be called "married" or is there something deeper, such as the desire to force religious institutions to sanctify homosexual relationships?

As previously stated, people want to be EQUAL in every way. Allowing a difference in terms even if it was possible to have both groups have the exact same rights (enforced equally and everything) is allowing an establishment of a 'second-class' group. I don't think that is what most Americans want America to be. We want all people to be equal.

 

[Red Irish]

Just something to think about for a moment, but your wife would be pissed if you told her you weren't married because you *are* married. She wouldn't have been pissed to say you weren't married when you were only dating, right?

I can't control how people use the language, but the very definition of marriage specifically requires a man and a woman. My 3 year old son often immitates our cat, but he is still a boy and not a cat no matter how much he wants to be a cat.

Definitions can be changed. Indeed, the word "gay" no longer possesses its original meaning. The definition of marriage can easily be extended to take in non-heterosexual couples and it entails no requirements other than those we collectively place.

Incidentally, your son is a cat, his perception is perfect: it is your own that should be called into question.

 

[actuarial]

Just something to think about for a moment, but your wife would be pissed if you told her you weren't married because you *are* married. She wouldn't have been pissed to say you weren't married when you were only dating, right?

I can't control how people use the language, but the very definition of marriage specifically requires a man and a woman. My 3 year old son often immitates our cat, but he is still a boy and not a cat no matter how much he wants to be a cat.

Who's definition requires that? Webster's specifically includes same-sex marriages as an alternative definition. What you are saying is either a) YOUR definition includes it, or b) the traditional religious definition includes it.

Obviously there is no point in talking about a), as anyone can come up with anything for their own definition. For b) the point from my original post stands: If we are clinging to the traditional religious definition, why do we only exclude SOME non religious uses of the word 'marriage'. And technically the very definition of the word marriage if you go far enough back is the union of a man and a woman before god, which is what I was alluding to.