Texas to vote on banning gay marriage

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Finally. :thumbsup:

Yeah, because this is such a huge, plaguing problem that must be immediately addressed and stopped. :roll:

:thumbsdown:

Actually it is, if it wasn't you wouldn't see many states rushing to curb the problem before it becomes a bigger mess. The overwhelming majority of people are against gay marriage, it shows whenever the issue is voted on. This country has always been based on majority rule so if you do not like it there are plenty of extremely liberal countries you can move to....I hear France takes in just about anyone.

This country is *not* based on majority rule. Or are you one of those who think Gore really won the 2000 presidential election? Individual rights and personal liberties should always trump majority rule.

And please explain this "mess" that the lack of an explicit ban on same-sex marriage is going to cause. I'm interested in what this could be. Hellfire and brimstone, perhaps? :laugh:

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: mOeeOm
Finally. :thumbsup:

Yeah, because this is such a huge, plaguing problem that must be immediately addressed and stopped. :roll:

:thumbsdown:

Actually it is, if it wasn't you wouldn't see many states rushing to curb the problem before it becomes a bigger mess. The overwhelming majority of people are against gay marriage, it shows whenever the issue is voted on. This country has always been based on majority rule so if you do not like it there are plenty of extremely liberal countries you can move to....I hear France takes in just about anyone.

Explain this "mess" that the lack of an explicit ban on same-sex marriage is going to cause. I'm interesting in what this may be. Hellfire and brimstone, maybe? :laugh:

Don't even bother.

This country does not take majority rule when it infringes other rights.

A common argument they have is that it's "immoral" and that it's a choice. Such an argument would require that everyone be bisexual. I don't know about you guys, but I sure as hell can't choose to be attracted to men. It just doesn't happen.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Legend

This country does not take majority rule when it infringes other rights.

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

This country does not take majority rule when it infringes other rights.

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

Call it whatever you want, but if you need an amendment, it will happen one day. If it takes another generation of breeding out hatred, it will be done. We've done it before, it'll happen again.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

This isn't an issue about a "right to marriage," per se, but rather it is an issue of gender discrimination -- something that is guarded against in the Constitution. Remember, from the standpoint of the government, marriage is a contract. The currently proposed bans on homosexual marriage propose basically that the goverment should disallow certain persons from entering into a contract based solely on that person's gender.

In other words, the legislation would say that Mary cannot enter into a marriage contract with Susie because Mary is a woman. John, on the other hand, would be permitted to enter the same contract with Susie because he is male. That's gender discrimination, and it's forbidden by the 14th amendment.

-Garth

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

This country does not take majority rule when it infringes other rights.

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

Of course marriage is not a constitutional right, but neither are many of the other "privileges" we are accustomed to. But why does that make it acceptable to arbitrarily limit the access to such entitlements?

If the "majority" of people voted that your wife should be the town courtesan, does that mean you should just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, that's the will of the people." I mean, nowhere in the Bill of Rights is [your wife's sexual activities] mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

An absurd example, to be sure, but one that seems to fundamentally "OK" by your puerile definition of "majority rule."

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

This country does not take majority rule when it infringes other rights.

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

Call it whatever you want, but if you need an amendment, it will happen one day. If to takes another generation of breeding out hatred, it will be done. We've done it before, it'll happen again.

You are not going to get an amendment to the BoR that would take away a state's right. Marriage is a state's rights issue....PERIOD. The state, and the voters within that state, determine these types of things. Ever wonder why prositution is legal in Nevada? Because it is a state's rights issue. The Federal Govenment will not tread in this area as it has no LEGAL right to do so.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Ronstang

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

This isn't an issue about a "right to marriage," per se, but rather it is an issue of gender discrimination -- something that is guarded against in the Constitution. Remember, from the standpoint of the government, marriage is a contract. The currently proposed bans on homosexual marriage propose basically that the goverment should disallow the certain persons from entering into a contract based solely on that person's gender.

In other words, the legislation would say that Mary cannot enter into a marriage contract with Susie because Mary is a woman. John, on the other hand, would be permitted to enter the same contract with Susie because he is male. That's gender discrimination, and it's forbidden by the 14th amendment.

-Garth

Yes. If government is going to offer a "contract" to its citizens, then disallowing certainly persons from entering into this contract on the sole basis of gender is discrimination, plain and simple. The gov needs to allow it, or get rid of the contractual arrangment altogether.

Hell Ron, this is the exact argument then turned be from mildly anti-"gay marriage" to pro "same-sex marriage." It's a reasonable and logical deduction that sucessfully removes all extraneous information (religion, morality, etc,) and get to the undeniable core of the matter.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

This country does not take majority rule when it infringes other rights.

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

Call it whatever you want, but if you need an amendment, it will happen one day. If to takes another generation of breeding out hatred, it will be done. We've done it before, it'll happen again.

You are not going to get an amendment to the BoR that would take away a state's right. Marriage is a state's rights issue....PERIOD. The state, and the voters within that state, determine these types of things. Ever wonder why prositution is legal in Nevada? Because it is a state's rights issue. The Federal Govenment will not tread in this area as it has no LEGAL right to do so.

According to you.

The rights of the people preceed the rights of the government.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

This country does not take majority rule when it infringes other rights.

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

Call it whatever you want, but if you need an amendment, it will happen one day. If to takes another generation of breeding out hatred, it will be done. We've done it before, it'll happen again.

You are not going to get an amendment to the BoR that would take away a state's right. Marriage is a state's rights issue....PERIOD. The state, and the voters within that state, determine these types of things. Ever wonder why prositution is legal in Nevada? Because it is a state's rights issue. The Federal Govenment will not tread in this area as it has no LEGAL right to do so.

According to you.

The rights of the people preceed the rights of the government.

According to me? You people just don't get it. From your perspective it should be your right to do whatever you want, unfortunately society does not work that way. The main thing you seem to not understand is that marriage IS NOT A RIGHT. It really is that damn simple.

 

[judasmachine]

voting to outlaw their right to marriage will not stop them from being gay. it will not stop them from walking down the street holding hand. it will not stop them from going to college and being successful. it will not stop them from living together. it will not stop them from hitting on you in bars. it will not stop them from checking you out as they walk through the mall. it will not stop them in away way shape or form. it will piss them off, and keep them further from your god, and your beliefs, and your political party.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Legend

This country does not take majority rule when it infringes other rights.

But this is where the argument SHOULD fall apart but nobody seems to understand that marriage is NOT a right, it is a PRIVELEGE....which means certain criteria must be met. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is marriage mentioned and I doubt you would have any success having it amended to do so.

Call it whatever you want, but if you need an amendment, it will happen one day. If to takes another generation of breeding out hatred, it will be done. We've done it before, it'll happen again.

You are not going to get an amendment to the BoR that would take away a state's right. Marriage is a state's rights issue....PERIOD. The state, and the voters within that state, determine these types of things. Ever wonder why prositution is legal in Nevada? Because it is a state's rights issue. The Federal Govenment will not tread in this area as it has no LEGAL right to do so.

According to you.

The rights of the people preceed the rights of the government.

According to me? You people just don't get it. From your perspective it should be your right to do whatever you want, unfortunately society does not work that way. The main thing you seem to not understand is that marriage IS NOT A RIGHT. It really is that damn simple.

Yes, according to you. You believe this is a state right issue. You compare it to prostitution which implicitly infers a comparison of equal morality, which shows your real agenda. If it's not, please explain why you would be so eager to discriminate against a group of people.

Our government exists to ensure that all citizens have equal rights (or "priveleges") and protection (no discrimination). My belief is that there is no reason not to allow it, and that a government that puts "state rights", which your using as a technicality to promote your ambiguous beliefs, above the rights of it's citizens, has failed miserably.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
voting to outlaw their right to marriage will not stop them from being gay. it will not stop them from walking down the street holding hand. it will not stop them from going to college and being successful. it will not stop them from living together. it will not stop them from hitting on you in bars. it will not stop them from checking you out as they walk through the mall. it will not stop them in away way shape or form. it will piss them off, and keep them further from your god, and your beliefs, and your political party.

Who cares? I never said they should not be gay. I simply said that marriage is not a right, becuase it isn't. What political party are they going to support? When bans on gay marriage are voted on they overwhelmingly pass in most places by ~70% or higher margin so there is no way all those people can be from just one politcal party. Your threats are hollow.

 

[judasmachine]

One of my main points with this thread is that Texas was supposed to be a hand's off state. They were never supposed to tell us how to live. Texas was supposed to be a bastion of liberty. I guess the nutcase authoritarians have ruined this once well concieved state. The Lone Star is now just another piece of crap star on a rag that means less and less every day.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Maybe DonVito (or someone else with a law background) can help me out on this.....if this passes and is then overturned in court, would that basically make gay marriage legal in Texas by virtue of statute?

no. the situation you've described (where that is overturned) would leave the texas constitution exactly as it is now.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
One of my main points with this thread is that Texas was supposed to be a hand's off state. They were never supposed to tell us how to live. Texas was supposed to be a bastion of liberty. I guess the nutcase authoritarians have ruined this once well concieved state. The Lone Star is now just another piece of crap star on a rag that means less and less every day.

Move to Boston. Liberty does not mean "free for all" or "do whatever you want". The liberty you refer to is present and alive and well because this issue is going to a vote as we speak, you see that is how liberty is implemented in a free society. No one person or the government is shoving anything down your throat. It is being put to a vote for everyone to voice his opinion. You vote on issues where not eveyone agrees and accept the outcome of the vote. That is how things work. A free society does not give you the right to do whatever you want. You seem to misunderstand the concept of liberty.

 

[misle]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Let there be no doubt I am sure Texas will show how discriminatory and full of hatred they are.

Yes, right along with:
Oregon
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Ohio
Utah

Here's a better list:
Link to PDF

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: judasmachine
One of my main points with this thread is that Texas was supposed to be a hand's off state. They were never supposed to tell us how to live. Texas was supposed to be a bastion of liberty. I guess the nutcase authoritarians have ruined this once well concieved state. The Lone Star is now just another piece of crap star on a rag that means less and less every day.

Move to Boston. Liberty does not mean "free for all" or "do whatever you want". The liberty you refer to is present and alive and well because this issue is going to a vote as we speak, you see that is how liberty is implemented in a free society. No one person or the government is shoving anything down your throat. It is being put to a vote for everyone to voice his opinion. You vote on issues where not eveyone agrees and accept the outcome of the vote. That is how things work. A free society does not give you the right to do whatever you want. You seem to misunderstand the concept of liberty.

what you are talking about is a tyranny of the majority. this is a non issue, it is telling people how to live. there is nothing wrong with two men or two women choosing to get married. it's more smoke and mirrors to distract us from greater issues. in 30 years, after another civil rights movement, we'll look back and consider this time the dark ages. and you're right in that liberty doesn't mean a free for all, but it does mean that ALL HUMANS ARE TREATED EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: judasmachine
One of my main points with this thread is that Texas was supposed to be a hand's off state. They were never supposed to tell us how to live. Texas was supposed to be a bastion of liberty. I guess the nutcase authoritarians have ruined this once well concieved state. The Lone Star is now just another piece of crap star on a rag that means less and less every day.

Move to Boston. Liberty does not mean "free for all" or "do whatever you want". The liberty you refer to is present and alive and well because this issue is going to a vote as we speak, you see that is how liberty is implemented in a free society. No one person or the government is shoving anything down your throat. It is being put to a vote for everyone to voice his opinion. You vote on issues where not eveyone agrees and accept the outcome of the vote. That is how things work. A free society does not give you the right to do whatever you want. You seem to misunderstand the concept of liberty.

Aye, we should be able to do whatever we want; so let's start by repealing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964! Damn feds telling us what to do! :roll:

Somtimes the people don't know what is best for them and the government does need to intervene. Then again, there are also cases of the opposite. Personally, I think all of this fuss about gay marriage is a joke. How does gay marriage affect you? Oh right, it doesn't.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
One of my main points with this thread is that Texas was supposed to be a hand's off state. They were never supposed to tell us how to live. Texas was supposed to be a bastion of liberty. I guess the nutcase authoritarians have ruined this once well concieved state. The Lone Star is now just another piece of crap star on a rag that means less and less every day.

Do you know who Kinky Friedman is ?
He's running for Governor of Texas.

He made an interesting comment last week,
"Texas is a state that consists mostly of Democrats. Somehow Republicans took it over for their own use,
and it's time to take it back for the people who actually live there." - or something like that.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: judasmachine
One of my main points with this thread is that Texas was supposed to be a hand's off state. They were never supposed to tell us how to live. Texas was supposed to be a bastion of liberty. I guess the nutcase authoritarians have ruined this once well concieved state. The Lone Star is now just another piece of crap star on a rag that means less and less every day.

Do you know who Kinky Friedman is ?
He's running for Governor of Texas.

He made an interesting comment last week,
"Texas is a state that consists mostly of Democrats. Somehow Republicans took it over for their own use,
and it's time to take it back for the people who actually live there." - or something like that.

Yeah I don't agree with everything Kinky says, but he's the real deal. A real Texas man, he says what means and means what he says.

Oh and I forgot to add, Kinky, why the hell not?

 

[sandorski]

Government should not grant "Priviledge".

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk

Originally posted by: judasmachine
One of my main points with this thread is that Texas was supposed to be a hand's off state. They were never supposed to tell us how to live. Texas was supposed to be a bastion of liberty. I guess the nutcase authoritarians have ruined this once well concieved state. The Lone Star is now just another piece of crap star on a rag that means less and less every day.

Do you know who Kinky Friedman is ?
He's running for Governor of Texas.

He made an interesting comment last week,
"Texas is a state that consists mostly of Democrats. Somehow Republicans took it over for their own use,
and it's time to take it back for the people who actually live there." - or something like that.

Yeah I don't agree with everything Kinky says, but he's the real deal. A real Texas man, he says what means and means what he says.

Oh and I forgot to add, Kinky, why the hell not?

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard. If you people actually believe that you are not very bright. The Democrats he is referring to would be called Republicans anywhere else. It has always been this way in Texas, the Republicans are ULTRA conservative and most of the Democrats are CONSRERVATIVE.....a Demcorat as you define it as compared to the rest of the country is in the extreme minority in Texas. The majority of this state ALWAYS votes Republican in any Federal election.

 

[OFFascist]

I voted for prop 2, that being said it really doesnt matter because gay marriage is already not legal in Texas.

Most people who are going to vote on these amendments are probably just going because they want to vote for or against prop 2.

In reality though all the rest of the amendments will probably have a far bigger effect on everyone's lives than prop 2 but they get no news coverage or discussion.

FWIW I voted no to almost all of the other amendments.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

The Democrats he is referring to would be called Republicans anywhere else. It has always been this way in Texas, the Republicans are ULTRA conservative and most of the Democrats are CONSRERVATIVE.....a Demcorat as you define it as compared to the rest of the country is in the extreme minority in Texas. The majority of this state ALWAYS votes Republican in any Federal election.

OK - to clarify: the Texan Republican is an arrogant, ignorant, insecure, blowhard -
who doesn't let facts prevent them from being pompus self-serving liars.
Tom DeLay is the Poster Boy for the GOP.