Why Gay Marriage Matters

[WeTheSheeple]

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]

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...

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

dude, this is not up for debate, the FACT is that it say your side argued that procreation must be required of all straights if gays are going to be denied on that basis and the court said, nope, that is the exception swallowing the rule...

You are denying the central holding...that's not arguing, its being ill prepared!

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

ever the uber-optimist.

You say the glass is double half full so it must be overflowing with diamonds...

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

lets start from the basics...you do agree the case is affirming a ban on gay marriages right?

On what basis do you think they affirm that ban?

What is it that the court is saying distinguishes gays such that the ban is constitutional?

If its not procreation, what is it?

If you say "bigotry" I am done with you...

[WeTheSheeple]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
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...

Of course the constitution doesn't REQUIRE gay marriage, because that itself would be unconstitutional. The constitution can't require ANYONE to get married.

As long as the constitution doesn't BAN gays from marrying, then the federal govt will be required to recognize married same-sex couples if they recognize married opposite-sex couples.

That's kinda what the whole DOMA cases are about........

[WeTheSheeple]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
dude, this is not up for debate, the FACT is that it say your side argued that procreation must be required of all straights if gays are going to be denied on that basis and the court said, nope, that is the exception swallowing the rule...
You are denying the central holding...that's not arguing, its being ill prepared!

Correct, straights can't be required to procreate.

That's ALL it says.

Show me the words- "nope, that is the exception swallowing the rule".

NOT THERE.

You can make up whatever else you want, but the words ARE NOT THERE.

It's merely YOUR INTERPRETATION of what you THINK they said. Which is why you are NEVER able to provide the EXACTS words which you keep claiming are there.

"Really, really, really, they're there. I'll hold my breath and stomp my feet......."

Try again.

[WeTheSheeple]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
ever the uber-optimist.
You say the glass is double half full so it must be overflowing with diamonds...

So you're denying gays have the right to a state issued marriage license in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, New Hamphire, Vermont, & New York?

I've always been an optimist when it comes to believing the American people will eventually support equality.

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Of course the constitution doesn't REQUIRE gay marriage, because that itself would be unconstitutional. The constitution can't require ANYONE to get married.

Dude, you are missing connections left and right...

I obviously meant the constitution does not REQUIRE the STATES to OFFER marriage to gays...(that you took it the way you did means you truly "don't get it")

do you actually dispute that is exactly what Baker says?

if not, then answer the question, on what basis are gays distinguished from straights by Baker such that straight marriage IS a right, but gay marriage is NOT A RIGHT?

if its not procreation (which is delusional) then what was it?

or you can just dodge it again...

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Correct, straights can't be required to procreate.
That's ALL it says.
Show me the words- "nope, that is the exception swallowing the rule".
NOT THERE.

"Really, really, really, they're there. I'll hold my breath and stomp my feet......."
Try again.

What do you think the court meant by rhetoric demand?
What did they mean by "ABSTRACT SYMMETRY is not required"?

please enlighten me...

And back acha, stomp your feet and provide nothing but denial, that it doesn't say that....
google anywhere and learn that it does...
you are merely being delusional....

Again, you could rationally argue that the effect of baker will be limited, but your stance that baker did not find marriage was based in procreation and hence gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage...you are just in denial...

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>

I've always been an optimist when it comes to believing the American people will eventually support equality.

Good, since we already do...
you simply do not meet the rational qualifications for the state grantee license...

there is a fine line between optimism and delusion...you are over it...

Have a significant majority of states banned your marriage by a significant majority?
Why yes, so the glass is literally less than half full, yet to you, its overflowing...

[WeTheSheeple]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
lets start from the basics...you do agree the case is affirming a ban on gay marriages right?
On what basis do you think they affirm that ban?
What is it that the court is saying distinguishes gays such that the ban is constitutional?
If its not procreation, what is it?
If you say "bigotry" I am done with you...

Assuming you're still talking about Baker v Nelson (you quote so many cases it's hard to keep track):

-The case affirmed Minnesota law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. It did NOT specifically "ban gay marriages". NOTHING in the decision banned the state of Minnesota from marrying same-sex couples. Obviously the state would have to change the current law, but they were NOT banned from doing so.

-The case did indeed say procreation & child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.

-The error in the case was saying the procreation exception was irrelevant for opposite-sex couples but somehow relevant for same-sex couples. Making an exception for opposite-sex couples who can't or won't procreate, but not allowing the same exception for same-sex couples who can't or won't procreate does indeed violate the 14th amendment.

So YES, the Baker decision was based primarily (and incorrectly) on the procreation argument. But that was over 40 years ago.

Courts change, society changes, and federal & state laws change.

We'll have to wait and see how much precedental value the Baker case still has. It didn't have much value in the Prop 8 case nor the current DOMA cases.

[WeTheSheeple]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude, you are missing connections left and right...
I obviously meant the constitution does not REQUIRE the STATES to OFFER marriage to gays...(that you took it the way you did means you truly "don't get it")
do you actually dispute that is exactly what Baker says?
if not, then answer the question, on what basis are gays distinguished from straights by Baker such that straight marriage IS a right, but gay marriage is NOT A RIGHT?
if its not procreation (which is delusional) then what was it?
or you can just dodge it again...

If that's what you meant, then that's what you should have SAID.

Again, words matter. That's how you get into trouble claiming a court decision says something which it doesn't.

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
If that's what you meant, then that's what you should have SAID.
Again, words matter. That's how you get into trouble claiming a court decision says something which it doesn't.

so, is procreation the basis for the courts affirming a gay marriage ban in Baker?
Only someone very far off the mark would think i was saying people would be required to get married. Any reasonably knowledgeable person would know I meant the state is not required to offer benefits...

so, are you going to answer about Baker? What is the basic holding of Baker?

[Jane Dough]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>

-The case did indeed say procreation & child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.
-The error in the case was saying the procreation exception was irrelevant for opposite-sex couples but somehow relevant for same-sex couples. Making an exception for opposite-sex couples who can't or won't procreate, but not allowing the same exception for same-sex couples who can't or won't procreate does indeed violate the 14th amendment.
So YES, the Baker decision was based primarily (and incorrectly) on the procreation argument. But that was over 40 years ago.
Courts change,

The court specifically found that this classification, like ALL classifications is merley imperfect...the exceptions don't mean the rules don't apply...which is exactly what you are arguing...

Everyone has to pay taxes, except those that don't...does that mean no one should have to pay taxes?

I am telling you, your argument will not fly...

and since you admit that procreation being related to marriage is the STANDING LAW, why is relying on it bigotry instead of acknowledging reality?

Indeed you are seeking a CHANGE, and you are not entitled to change via the court...
to legislate from the bench like that would be JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

[Lacez]

Jeez, Jane Dough is not one to argue about what marriage is because she doesn't even know the history of marriage.
Marriage has been redefined many times, and many of those times were for the better.
Look at the following link to get a little more understanding of what the "traditional" marriage was, before it was redefined ten times over.

http://youtu.be/OFkeKKszXTw

[Mona Lott]

Jane Dough wrote:

Indeed you are seeking a CHANGE, and you are not entitled to change via the court...
to legislate from the bench like that would be JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.

Oh really? And when did we get stripped of our 1st Amendment rights?

[Jane Dough]

Mona Lott wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh really? And when did we get stripped of our 1st Amendment rights?

explain what the heck you mean, if you can...
but first, how about you answer what you did for a living before you retired...

you seem to think our jobs matter so much, how about being consistent and telling us what you do?

[Jane Dough]

Lacez wrote:

Jeez, Jane Dough is not one to argue about what marriage is because she doesn't even know the history of marriage.
Marriage has been redefined many times, and many of those times were for the better.
Look at the following link to get a little more understanding of what the "traditional" marriage was, before it was redefined ten times over.
http://youtu.be/OFkeKKszXTw

great way to pretend you are talking to me...

As if I said "traditional".

You made it up, attributed it to me and commented...

strawman someone else...
post all you want, but stop prentending we are having a conversation...

[WeTheSheeple]

Jane Dough wrote:

<quoted text>
Good, since we already do...
you simply do not meet the rational qualifications for the state grantee license...
there is a fine line between optimism and delusion...you are over it...
Have a significant majority of states banned your marriage by a significant majority?
Why yes, so the glass is literally less than half full, yet to you, its overflowing...

Considering same-sex couples were once banned from marrying in all 50 states, I'd say we're making pretty good headway.

We now have the right to marry in 6 states with more to come.