Gay marriage

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman. Full Story
Nine Ball

Harrodsburg, KY

#20985 Jan 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
Do you notice how they went out of their way to be inclusive of all people, not merely black people or freed slaves? You see, they had the foresight to see that other groups could be discriminated against in the future, and this foresight proved to be correct. This is proven by the myriad of cases, not in any way involving slavery that this amendment has been applied in legal decisions.
It appears that the court seems to think all people means all people, and that the context of the amendment's passage is not relevant to the equal protection guaranteed within.
That ammendmant was put in to protect black people. They wrote all people because they wanted to make sure that blacks were talked about because until the civil war many white people did not thank that blacks were reel people. Ain't no place does it say that gays should marry up. Only some gays and liberal judges like them what is put on there by Obomber thinks that. This marrying stuff ain't about rites, they has got jest about all the rites of normal people now, it is about trying to be normal which they ain't.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20986 Jan 23, 2014
FrankieRizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
When I talk of marriage I am talking about consenting adults. Please try to remember that, otherwise it's impossible to continue this discussion.
Yet you STILL refuse to support a law banning anyone from marrying a child.

You can't limit marriage to consenting adults under current state laws.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20987 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
It's only a right if it's legally recognized.
That's a matter of differing opinion. For instance, the Iowa Supreme Court in their unanimous ruling overturning their ban stated the right to marry for same-sex couples existed all along, but was simply being unconstitutionally denied all these years.

That aside, the right of same-sex couples to marry IS legally recognized, by 17 states and the federal govt.

Which means the right exists, but can only be exercised in 17 states.

Soon to be 18, or 19, or 20, etc......

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#20988 Jan 23, 2014
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can never explain what polygamy has to do with gay folks getting married to ONE person.
Questy

It rather simple. Take a step back and look at marriage law from a larger perspective, as a matter of public policy. The basic definition of marriage has remained pretty much the same throughout American history. One man and one woman as husband and wife. The prospective husband, and wide, must be of the age to consent, able to consent, not currently married, and not closely related by blood. All standard requirements that apply to all men and women.

Now, we have some folks with a self professed same sex attraction, "gay", who want the state to drop the conjugal, or opposite sex requirement so they can "marry" someone of the same sex. In other words redefine marriage from an exclusive union of husband and wife, to one of spouses for life regardless of gender composition.

There's this other group of folks who practice a form of marriage, although common throughout time and place, is not common here, and it was viewed as "unChristian", and "barbaric". It's called polygamy, or plural marriage.

Two forms of marriage, each request the state drop a fundamental component of legal marriage in order that their respective form of marriage is legally recognized. SSM advocates want the nature, conjugal or opposite sex changed, polygamists want the number, monogamy as in two, changed.

So why is monogamy so important, if conjugality, isn't?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20989 Jan 23, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Knowing this Socialist government, probably. However, the Supreme Court has no business creating laws so individual State laws can only be sent to the Supreme Court one at a time for interpretation.
The REAL question is whether Congress will all get together and create legislation protecting gay marriage. Since they never had the kahunas to push through the Equal Rights Amendment, I doubt that they would ever do so with gay anything. They'll just create a token effort that has no teeth and let you all fade away in a withering crossfire.
On the other hand, Conservatives, if they ever get the support again, THEY would do their best to create an amendment excluding anything but the traditional definition the first chance they get to control a super majority. Almost had one a few years ago but they wasted their efforts on bonehead gestures like creating a flag burning amendment. They continue to be their own worst enemies.
No new law is necessary.

The existing state marriage laws remain intact. The only thing being removed by the courts is ONE particular restriction on those able to marry. The remaining marriage law is still valid after that one restriction is removed.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#20990 Jan 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Pssst, Politix is hardly a valid poll.
None the less, it does indicate an increase in approval. Plus the fact the question is even being posed, is significant. It's quite possible that the "marriage equality" movement based on the belief that conjugality is expendable as the basis for legal marriage, will expand to include the belief that monogamy is also expendable as it relates to marriage.

Who knows, maybe the state will at some point, no longer issue marriage licenses.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20991 Jan 23, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Equality doesn't apply says who?
If gays can't get married because it's illegal, then shut your gop and get back to work, you lazy malcontent!
Intolerant, bigoted, hate speech! You've learned to mimic the best!
The courts say so.

It's not illegal to marry someone of the same sex in any state.

It may not be ALLOWED in all 50 states yet, but it's certainly not illegal. You can't be arrested for being married to someone of the same sex.

But you CAN be arrested in EVERY state for being married to more than one person at a time, which makes polygamy ILLEGAL rather than not allowed.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#20992 Jan 23, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
That ammendmant was put in to protect black people. They wrote all people because they wanted to make sure that blacks were talked about because until the civil war many white people did not thank that blacks were reel people.
If what you are saying is true, that would be all the more reason to specifically address the amendment at black people or free slaves. They didn't do so, they included all people.

Grow up.
Nine Ball wrote:
Ain't no place does it say that gays should marry up. Only some gays and liberal judges like them what is put on there by Obomber thinks that. This marrying stuff ain't about rites, they has got jest about all the rites of normal people now, it is about trying to be normal which they ain't.
You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?
It's about equality under the law, and allowing such equality has no impact whatsoever upon your life or your rights. Deal with it.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#20993 Jan 23, 2014
Pietro Armando wrote:
So why is monogamy so important, if conjugality, isn't?
Monogamy promotes stability within a society.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20994 Jan 23, 2014
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
See why I resent parsing out my posts? I told you in that same post. The 14th Amendment guarantees opportunity, not equality. You have the opportunity to marry a member of the opposite sex. You have your protection. This debate isn't about the 14th Amendment.
The courts keep disagreeing with your assessment....

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20995 Jan 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy is perfectly acceptable subject in any discussion of marriage equality.
My motive is marriage equality. Which you are obviously against. I support marriage equality and you don't. So climb down off your high horse and tell us why you are a hypocrite.
Marriage equality doesn't include polygamist groupings.

They're not eligible; just as children or incestuous couples aren't eligible.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20996 Jan 23, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> I done red the 14 amendment two or three times. I don't say nothing about no gays marrying up. It don't say that they can't marry up either. I reckon that them gays is jest trying to put their interpration on what they thinks it says. If you wants something bad enough you can make believe that anything says anything.
Which explains why you're not a judge.....
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#20997 Jan 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet polygamy remains illegal in every state.
No sh!t.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#20998 Jan 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
No Frankie, what is funny is that you think somehow that three or more is equal to two. If one excludes people absent a rational basis it isn't equal. If the people in question wish to join three or more people in marriage, they seek extraordinary, not equal, protection of the law.
You clearly aren't terribly bright.
Someone who insists polygamy should be illegal because three or more is not equal to two tells me I'm not bright. Priceless!
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#20999 Jan 23, 2014
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
"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."
US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1
Do you notice how they went out of their way to be inclusive of all people, not merely black people or freed slaves? You see, they had the foresight to see that other groups could be discriminated against in the future, and this foresight proved to be correct. This is proven by the myriad of cases, not in any way involving slavery that this amendment has been applied in legal decisions.
It appears that the court seems to think all people means all people, and that the context of the amendment's passage is not relevant to the equal protection guaranteed within.
Do you notice how they went out of their way to be inclusive of all people, not merely monogamous people?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21000 Jan 23, 2014
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
I call bullsh!t.
Oh, well gee, I guess since YOU called bullsh!t that MUST mean it never happened....
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#21001 Jan 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you STILL refuse to support a law banning adults from marrying children.
Why is that?
Please provide some proof that I refuse. You're lying. Why is that?
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#21002 Jan 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
...I've never said the law should only apply to polygamists.
Yes you did. When you say ONLY polygamy should be banned because children might marry you are saying the law only applies to polygamy. Duh.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21003 Jan 23, 2014
Nine Ball wrote:
<quoted text> I ain't never heard of a teacher making a left hand kid try to rite with the rite hand. I ain't saying that there was not such as a fool teacher. I reckon when you says beaten you was talking about being spanked. There is a difference. I gots some spanking and it did not hurt me. I was never beat up by a teacher. How kin being lefted hand be immoral? Don't make no sense to me. That teacher sounds crazy. Maybe you coud have told principal that leffed hand people was a speciel group that was protected by the 14 ammendmant like you gays.
No, I mean I was beaten with a ruler- my hand, arm, & head.

Religious people ARE INDEED crazy.

I was afraid to tell my parents because I thought I must have done something wrong, but of course they eventually got it out of me.

The teacher was lucky she only got fired.
Frankie Rizzo

Union City, CA

#21004 Jan 23, 2014
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Yet polygamy supporters refuse to support such a law.
Gee, I wonder why?
Because you would only enforce that law against polygamists. Duh. Would you support a law against only your freedom and equality? Don't expect anyone else to.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Realtime 1,192,720
Hillary Clinton gives base-rallying speech 4 min Festus 7
Justices will hear gay marriage cases on April 28 5 min Fa-Foxy 2
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 7 min sassyjm 308,982
Who do you side with in Ferguson? (Aug '14) 7 min MrSmith 12,101
5As House panel issues subpoenas, questions mou... 8 min Le Jimbo 7
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 9 min Thinking 4,898
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 21 min Cheech the Conser... 313,437
Senate fails to override Keystone pipeline veto 56 min Turtle Time 9
Wall Street pushes SCOTUS on gay marriage 1 hr Justin 14
House committee subpoenas Clinton emails in Ben... 3 hr Jeff Brightone 6
More from around the web