Why Gay Marriage Matters

Why Gay Marriage Matters

There are 196 comments on the EDGE story from Oct 4, 2012, titled Why Gay Marriage Matters. In it, EDGE reports that:

On one aspect of whether same-sex couples should have the right to marry, both sides agree: The issue defines what kind of nation we are.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#67 Oct 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
You only THINK you have "tons" for your position.
SHOW ME THE EXACT WORDS!!!!!
What you don't understand is it doesn't matter what you think or what I think it says. It only matters what the AG thinks it says, because he will be the one instructing the various federal agencies how to implement any ruling from the SCOTUS on DOMA.
So if you want to quote someone who supposedly supports your interpretation, at least quote the AG.
at some point, you have to understand that CASES say what they say and that is not up for debate...
how courts will address them may be, but what was said rarely is...

if you want to deny Baker says procreation is the basis for marriage you are not giving a point of view, you are just being delusional...

why don't you quote anyone?
I am sure you would love to show me up...why not provide anything that says baker did not decide on procreational grounds...
I know why...

I mean even wiki says you are delusional:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
"This familiar restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage."

but please do note your tack of needing specific words, and how it has no bearing on the legal realities here...

so again, you attack the poster and not the position...

so, will anything convince you that baker relies on procreation?
I already know the answer is no...
its textbook delusion.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#68 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
at some point, you have to understand that CASES say what they say and that is not up for debate...
how courts will address them may be, but what was said rarely is...
if you want to deny Baker says procreation is the basis for marriage you are not giving a point of view, you are just being delusional...
why don't you quote anyone?
I am sure you would love to show me up...why not provide anything that says baker did not decide on procreational grounds...
I know why...
I mean even wiki says you are delusional:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson
"This familiar restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage."
but please do note your tack of needing specific words, and how it has no bearing on the legal realities here...
so again, you attack the poster and not the position...
so, will anything convince you that baker relies on procreation?
I already know the answer is no...
its textbook delusion.
Of course the cases say what they say, but how people INTERPRET what they say is an entirely different thing. That's why the EXACT WORDS MATTER.

If you're going to claim it says procreation is the basis for marriage, then since gay people DO procreate we'd STILL be able to marry under that standard.

If you're now going to claim it means only procreation solely between the 2 individuals involved in the marriage, then a lot of opposite sex couples would be denied the ability to marry as well.

If you're now going to claim it means exceptions can be made for opposite sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate solely between themselves, then the same exceptions can be made for same-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate solely between themselves.

So which meaning is it?

That's why the EXACT WORDS MATTER.

If it is so clearly understood that procreation solely between the 2 individuals is the basis for marriage, then the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, & California would never have ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry.

If Baker so clearly states that procreation solely between the 2 individuals is the basis for marriage, then the federal court and the 9th circuit would never have ruled Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

Obviously it's NOT clearly understood to mean that, which is EXACTLY the point.

Now feel free to cut & paste something ELSE you THINK so clearly supports your point.

Btw, I DID quote Brown v Board of Education.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#69 Oct 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the cases say what they say, but how people INTERPRET what they say is an entirely different thing. That's why the EXACT WORDS MATTER.
If you're going to claim it says procreation is the basis for marriage, then since gay people DO procreate we'd STILL be able to marry under that standard.
If you're now going to claim it means only procreation solely between the 2 individuals involved in the marriage, then a lot of opposite sex couples would be denied the ability to marry as well.
If you're now going to claim it means exceptions can be made for opposite sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate solely between themselves, then the same exceptions can be made for same-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate solely between themselves.
So which meaning is it?
That's why the EXACT WORDS MATTER.
If it is so clearly understood that procreation solely between the 2 individuals is the basis for marriage, then the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, & California would never have ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry.
If Baker so clearly states that procreation solely between the 2 individuals is the basis for marriage, then the federal court and the 9th circuit would never have ruled Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
Obviously it's NOT clearly understood to mean that, which is EXACTLY the point.
Now feel free to cut & paste something ELSE you THINK so clearly supports your point.
Btw, I DID quote Brown v Board of Education.
again, you think supporting yourself is a sign of weakness?

separate but equal applies only to schools and eyebrows...

again, is it your contention that baker was not decide on procreation grounds?
then you need to support this since it goes against the consensus of the legal community...

EVEN WIKI!

your tack is to simply bury your head to it so you can continue to claim your opposition is based on bigotry...

in short, you are merely creative writing...

for example you said:

"If you're now going to claim it means exceptions can be made for opposite sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate solely between themselves, then the same exceptions can be made for same-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate solely between themselves."

Way to ignore that Baker already addresses this...see how you use ignorance as a weapon?

"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

so you are saying, "it must mean", but clearly it DOESN'T....
you are merely taking an exception and trying to use it to devour the rule...no one is buying, and it IS SIGNIFICANT that the scotus denied your very argument as much as you want to pretend it did not...

So again, you want to say Baker's precedential value is limited and not applicable, go ahead, but to claim its not based in procreation is just being ignorant...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#70 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
again, you think supporting yourself is a sign of weakness?
separate but equal applies only to schools and eyebrows...
again, is it your contention that baker was not decide on procreation grounds?
then you need to support this since it goes against the consensus of the legal community...
EVEN WIKI!
your tack is to simply bury your head to it so you can continue to claim your opposition is based on bigotry...
in short, you are merely creative writing...
for example you said:
"If you're now going to claim it means exceptions can be made for opposite sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate solely between themselves, then the same exceptions can be made for same-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate solely between themselves."
Way to ignore that Baker already addresses this...see how you use ignorance as a weapon?
"Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
so you are saying, "it must mean", but clearly it DOESN'T....
you are merely taking an exception and trying to use it to devour the rule...no one is buying, and it IS SIGNIFICANT that the scotus denied your very argument as much as you want to pretend it did not...
So again, you want to say Baker's precedential value is limited and not applicable, go ahead, but to claim its not based in procreation is just being ignorant...
Nope, I said the same exceptions can be made for same-sex couples.

Where did the SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY say the same exceptions which are made for opposite-sex couples can't be made for same-sex couples?

Again, you're reading what you WANT to read, not what's ACTUALLY in the text.

If Baker's precedental value wasn't limited, then the Prop 8 case would have been thrown out; instead the federal judge & 9th circuit ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional.

If Baker's precedental value wasn't limited, then the couples suing to marry in Minnesota would have been thrown out; instead the Minnesota Supreme Court ordered the trial to go forward.

Obviously Baker's precedental value IS limited, but now I'm sure you'll cut & paste something which you think proves otherwise.

Maybe you should have cut & pasted some of that to Judge Walker & the 9th Circuit and the Minnesota Supreme Court!!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#71 Oct 11, 2012
Btw, my quote of Brown v Board of Education are as relevant as your quotes (let's see if you can figure that one out on your own).........
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#72 Oct 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I said the same exceptions can be made for same-sex couples.
Where did the SCOTUS SPECIFICALLY say the same exceptions which are made for opposite-sex couples can't be made for same-sex couples?
BAKER:

""Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

can you really not follow this quote?

Yes, it says what I am saying it does and there is total consensus on that!
EVEN on WIKI!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#73 Oct 11, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Btw, my quote of Brown v Board of Education are as relevant as your quotes (let's see if you can figure that one out on your own).........
right, the 14 marriages cases are not relevant except when you guys claim they provide marriage for you, right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#74 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
BAKER:
""Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."
can you really not follow this quote?
Yes, it says what I am saying it does and there is total consensus on that!
EVEN on WIKI!
Wrong again.

It says an exception CAN be made for opposite-sex couples.

It does NOT say the same exception can't be made for same-sex couples.

Once again you're reading into it what you WANT to see, not what is actually there!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#75 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
right, the 14 marriages cases are not relevant except when you guys claim they provide marriage for you, right?
Of course they're relevant, just not the way YOU interpret them.
nuts

Ingleside, TX

#76 Oct 11, 2012
dances with weebles wrote:
<quoted text>
that's just masturbation. i've seen women hump a out of balance washing machine, too. so what?
I didn't expect that reply here on Topix, I'm impressed. Tell me why a dog would masturbate.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#77 Oct 11, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
why do you keep pretending you are talking to me?
I made a joke about using ANIMALS as EXAMPLES...
its a stupid tack.
How about you just badger me for being religious AGAIN...
but I will not pretend you are speaking to anything I have said...(except the tenth post now on a STUPID JOKE that was on a valueless tangent...)
You said that being gay is unnatural.
I provided proof against your claim.
You did not deny it, but instead "made a joke" to avert our eyes from your errors?

So you admit that you were wrong?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#78 Oct 11, 2012
nuts wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't expect that reply here on Topix, I'm impressed. Tell me why a dog would masturbate.
You're kidding, right?
God is Merciful and Just

Dallas, TX

#79 Oct 11, 2012
nuts wrote:
Back to the subject, I have seen the same male dog try to have sex with a female leg, a piece of furniture, and another male dog. Is that evidence that the dog homosexual?
Stupid remarks! What has any of this have to do with two consenting adults wanting a committed, monogamous relationship?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#80 Oct 11, 2012
nuts wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't expect that reply here on Topix, I'm impressed. Tell me why a dog would masturbate.
The same reason he licks his balls- because he CAN!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#81 Oct 12, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again.
It says an exception CAN be made for opposite-sex couples.
It does NOT say the same exception can't be made for same-sex couples.
Once again you're reading into it what you WANT to see, not what is actually there!
its says an exception is not constitutionally required!
are you dense?

Its a decision affirming a ban!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#82 Oct 12, 2012
God is Merciful and Just wrote:
<quoted text>Stupid remarks! What has any of this have to do with two consenting adults wanting a committed, monogamous relationship?
you do get they can do that without marriage, right?
so what you said has nothing to do with GOVT RECOGNITION which is what you seek...

In short, you are already free...but your freedom does not entitled you to a STATE GRANTED license...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#83 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its says an exception is not constitutionally required!
are you dense?
Its a decision affirming a ban!
Right, an exception is not REQUIRED.

That's obviously different than saying an exception is not ALLOWED.

The current exception is ALLOWED (not required, but allowed) for heteros unable or unwilling to procreate. NOTHING in their ruling says a similiar exception can't be ALLOWED (not required, but allowed) for same-sex couples who are unable or unwilling to procreate.

NOTHING.

You keep trying to add words to he decisions WHICH ARE NOT THERE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#84 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its says an exception is not constitutionally required!
are you dense?
Its a decision affirming a ban!
To reiterate:

It says heteros can't be REQUIRED to prove an ability or willingness to procreate.

It say NOTHING about gays not being ALLOWED the same exception.

NOTHING.

The language simply IS NOT THERE.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#85 Oct 12, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you do get they can do that without marriage, right?
so what you said has nothing to do with GOVT RECOGNITION which is what you seek...
In short, you are already free...but your freedom does not entitled you to a STATE GRANTED license...
Heteros can do that without marriage as well, so according to your logic there is no need for govt recognition of hetero marriages either.

Actually, in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, & DC were ARE entitled to a state granted license, to the same extent opposite-sex couples are. If I remember correctly, we even went to court in 3 of those states to force that states live up to that entitlement.

You can add California, Maine, Maryland, and Washington to that list after the election, and Illinois, Delaware, Hawaii, & Rhode Island next year.

Wow, that takes us to 14 states with 1/3rd of the population of the US.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#86 Oct 12, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, an exception is not REQUIRED.
That's obviously different than saying an exception is not ALLOWED.
Dude, are you serious?

No one is arguing the constitution PREVENTS gay marriage, it just doesn't REQUIRE it!
IE, you have no RIGHT to it...

goodness you are off the deep end now...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Appeals court rejects challenge to gay marriage... 5 min Truth 13
News Nikki Haley and her son heckled during NYC gay ... 6 min Frogface Kate 43
News How does the anti-gay cakemaker in Denver do on... 15 min Truth 17
News Young less likely to suffer bullying over sexua... 20 min Frogface Kate 18
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 33 min neighbor 1,866
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 51,589
News Vacaville council tables pride month proclamations 1 hr Mannwoman 4
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 7 hr Frindly 6,929
News Supreme Court to decide whether a Colorado bake... 8 hr The Troll Stopper 82
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 8 hr Aurora Borealis 115
More from around the web