5 Constitutional Misconceptions About Same-Sex Marriage

Dec 21, 2012 Full story: www.huffingtonpost.com 152

Just when liberals had begun to appreciate the virtues of federalism in the efforts to secure the right to same-sex marriage in states where the courts, legislatures and voters are most hospitable to it, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision that held that California's Proposition 8 -- defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Full Story
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Dec 21, 2012
So should I take it that these authors are less than optimistic about our chances?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#2 Dec 21, 2012
snyper wrote:
So should I take it that these authors are less than optimistic about our chances?
Did u read teh article ?! Where did u get that idea ?!

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#3 Dec 21, 2012
Myth number 6: That such a legal concept as "same-sex marriage" -- much less that a right to it -- even exists.

"Same-sex marriage" is as legally a valid concept as "interracial marriage" or "interfaith marriage." None of these are legal constructs. They are social constructs.

The legal issue is the right to obtain a civil marriage, and what limitations government may place on the persons seeking to enjoy that right.

Limitations on age, number, citizenship, close relation, and the ability to consent, enter into, and understand the contractual rights and obligations are all reasonable restrictions.

Limitations based on race, religion, and sex are not.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#4 Dec 21, 2012
Jerald wrote:
Myth number 6: That such a legal concept as "same-sex marriage" -- much less that a right to it -- even exists.
"Same-sex marriage" is as legally a valid concept as "interracial marriage" or "interfaith marriage." None of these are legal constructs. They are social constructs.
The legal issue is the right to obtain a civil marriage, and what limitations government may place on the persons seeking to enjoy that right.
Limitations on age, number, citizenship, close relation, and the ability to consent, enter into, and understand the contractual rights and obligations are all reasonable restrictions.
Limitations based on race, religion, and sex are not.
I agree.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#5 Dec 21, 2012
Jerald wrote:
Myth number 6: That such a legal concept as "same-sex marriage" -- much less that a right to it -- even exists.
"Same-sex marriage" is as legally a valid concept as "interracial marriage" or "interfaith marriage." None of these are legal constructs. They are social constructs.
The legal issue is the right to obtain a civil marriage, and what limitations government may place on the persons seeking to enjoy that right.
Limitations on age, number, citizenship, close relation, and the ability to consent, enter into, and understand the contractual rights and obligations are all reasonable restrictions.
Limitations based on race, religion, and sex are not.
I agree......."GAY" or "SAME-SEX" Marriage simply doesn't exist, just like "INTERRACIAL" or "INTERFAITH" Marriages don't exist........what does exist is that Marriage has been deemed a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, and if it can not be denied based on the skin color of the participates, or their religious preferences......then I seriously doubt it can be denied strictly based on the gender of the participates!!!
Ray

Lincoln City, OR

#6 Dec 22, 2012
Myth: The government can redefine marriage.

Truth: Marriage will always be between a man and woman no matter what the "gay rights" activists would like you to believe.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#7 Dec 22, 2012
Ray wrote:
Myth: The government can redefine marriage.
Truth: Marriage will always be between a man and woman no matter what the "gay rights" activists would like you to believe.
Marriage ISN'T being redefined......it's just being inclusive instead of exclusive!!!

Since: Mar 07

United States

#8 Dec 22, 2012
Ray wrote:
Myth: The government can redefine marriage.
Truth: Marriage will always be between a man and woman no matter what the "gay rights" activists would like you to believe.
So, you believe that only people who hate and fear gay couples and their families should be able to establish legal definitions?

Why?

Dear, YOUR marriage would be between a man and a woman - simply because you are heterosexual.

A gay person's marriage should only be with someone of the same gender. That's simple logic.

Unless, of course, you believe that gay folks should stay in the closet and marry only unsuspecting heterosexuals for the benefits, like your son, or your daughter.

Is that the case?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#9 Dec 22, 2012
snyper wrote:
So should I take it that these authors are less than optimistic about our chances?
They, like me seem to be optimistic. But they're concerned by the very fact that SCOTUS chose to review Perry. We had expected them to duck if affirmation was the likely outcome.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#10 Dec 22, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
They, like me seem to be optimistic. But they're concerned by the very fact that SCOTUS chose to review Perry. We had expected them to duck if affirmation was the likely outcome.
Well, don't throw in the towel just yet on having a good outcome with the Prop 8 case.......I myself remain hopefully optimistic at the same time as being cautiously realistic.......but Ted Olson does have a successful record when arguing in front of SCOTUS and has won at the 2 lower Courts.......Charles Cooper(attorney for the proponents of Prop 8) has not done a good job defending this and he now has to argue the same evidence.......and the arguments have failed already.

Remember that with regards to Prop 8, the right to marry and California's DP laws..........this is going to probably come down to what most didn't want it to.......Can a right be granted, then removed, yet doesn't affect 18,000 legal marriage and a title?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#11 Dec 22, 2012
Ray wrote:
Myth: The government can redefine marriage.
Truth: Marriage will always be between a man and woman no matter what the "gay rights" activists would like you to believe.
You are dead wrong.

The fact is that each state government defines civil marriage. here's the beginning of the marriage statute for your state, Oregon:

106.010 Marriage as civil contract; age of parties. Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS 106.150.[Amended by 1965 c.422 §1; 1975 c.583 §1]
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/106.html

Here is the beginning of the text of the marriage statute in New York state, which specifically includes same-sex couples contrary to your claim:

Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Marriage Equality Act".
S 2. Legislative intent. Marriage is a fundamental human right. Same-sex couples should have the same access as others to the protections, responsibilities, rights, obligations, and benefits of civil marriage.
http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/...

Congress defined marriage for federal purposes in DOMA. Here's the text of Section 3, which is the subject of the Windsor case that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this spring:

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D... ::

The US Supreme Court will most likely rule this section to be unconstitutional in June.

These are facts, no matter what anti-gay bigots choose to believe. You are losing this fight, and I'm enjoying seeing you lose.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#12 Dec 22, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, don't throw in the towel just yet on having a good outcome with the Prop 8 case.......I myself remain hopefully optimistic at the same time as being cautiously realistic.......but Ted Olson does have a successful record when arguing in front of SCOTUS and has won at the 2 lower Courts.......Charles Cooper(attorney for the proponents of Prop 8) has not done a good job defending this and he now has to argue the same evidence.......and the arguments have failed already.
Remember that with regards to Prop 8, the right to marry and California's DP laws..........this is going to probably come down to what most didn't want it to.......Can a right be granted, then removed, yet doesn't affect 18,000 legal marriage and a title?
Well, rights CAN be granted and then later taken away. For instance, many Americans mistakenly belive that until the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, women NEVER had teh right to vote in the U.S. This is untrue. Some women had teh right to vote in teh U.S. going all the way back to the 17th century. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, women HAD TEH RIGHT TO VOTE in New Jersey. This right was revoked by New Jersey in 1807. There are other examples as well.

So it is PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL to deny a group of people a right that they once possessed.

And incidentally, prior to the ratification of teh 19th Amendment, Pennsylvania, generally thought of as a "liberal eastern state" granted NO sufferage at all to women, while states such as Oklahoma, Kansas, and South Dakota, generally thought of as "conservative midwestern states" granted FULL SUFFERAGE to women.

TRIVIA QUESTIONS:

1. Which state was teh first state to grant women the right to vote and in what year ?(BONUS: What is that state's nickname ?)

2. Which word is NOT in the U.S. Constitution ? a. gold. b. silver c. sex d. congressman

GOOD LUCK !

:)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#13 Dec 22, 2012
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, rights CAN be granted and then later taken away.
If that were true.....then there would have been NO LEGAL challenge to Prop 8......so, obviously you are incorrect in my opinion!

Voting rights are different than FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.........one can be removed if one has been convicted of a felony.......the other has been ruled 14 times to be fundamental and can not be denied without a specific or compelling state interest!!!

If you are going to make a comparison......try and do so with things that are the same!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#14 Dec 22, 2012
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
If that were true.....then there would have been NO LEGAL challenge to Prop 8......so, obviously you are incorrect in my opinion!
Voting rights are different than FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.........one can be removed if one has been convicted of a felony.......the other has been ruled 14 times to be fundamental and can not be denied without a specific or compelling state interest!!!
If you are going to make a comparison......try and do so with things that are the same!!!
I disagree with your analysis here. Is it your contention that voting is NOT a "fundamental right" in the U.S.?

(I'll offer no opinion on this for the moment).
Larry

San Jose, CA

#15 Dec 22, 2012
Doctors Say Same-Sex Marriage Will Give False Impression Gay Sex is Safe

Illinois– The looming legalization of same-sex marriage has pushed several doctors to begin speaking out on the harmful medical consequences of homosexual sex. In addition to the group of physicians who presented their findings to Parliament in a referenced brief last week , two other doctors presented evidence but requested anonymity based on fear of retribution from homosexual activists. The doctors noted that they are concerned for individuals practicing dangerous homosexual sex practices but also for society in that the normalization of such sex practices through same sex ‘marriage’ legislation will result in a major added burden on health care.“Legalization of same sex marriage by the government would give the false message that homosexual sex practices, such as anal intercourse, as long as ‘practiced safely’, are not endangering the health of the partners,” said Dr. C. Providing rather explicit details which she felt the public must be aware of, she explained,“Anal intercourse causes abrasions of the relatively fragile rectal wall, especially in the receptive partner. The penetration of E.coli, always present in the stool, and other bacteria, viruses and parasites penetrate through such lesions into the deeper body tissues. This leads to the suppression of the immune system of such individuals even if there is no exposure to HIV. The immune suppression increases the risk to develop certain cancers, opportunistic infections, to which otherwise one would be resistant, and other health problems including the risk of premature death.” Information on the health risks of gay sex is available from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA). A survey by members of the GLMA released in August 2002 listed the main health problems affecting homosexual men. According to Christopher E. Harris, MD, GLMA President and Vincent M.B. Silenzio, MD, MPH, there are increased health risks for homosexual men. The most common health problems in homosexual men are:

1. Increased incidence of infectious diseases - HIV/AIDS*- syphilis - gonorrhea - chlamydia - pubic lice - hepatitis A - hepatitis B - hepatitis C - anal papilloma 2. Increased incidence of cancer especially - colon/rectal - prostate - testicular 3. Increased incidence of eating disorders - bulimia - anorexia nervosa - obesity 4. Increased incidences of other psychological problems - anxiety - depression - suicide 5. Increased incidence of addiction problems especially - tobacco - alcohol - street drugs - amyl nitrates (poppers) See also Physician Says Science of Medical Consequences of Homosexual Behavior is Being Trumped by Political Agenda
.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#16 Dec 22, 2012
Larry wrote:
...doctors presented evidence but requested anonymity based on fear of retribution from homosexual activists...
Yeah, that's how science is done in conservative anti-gay world.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#17 Dec 22, 2012
Larry wrote:
Doctors Say ... a whole ton of crap.
Did these "doctors" have anything to say about lesbian couples? They have among the lowest rates of STDs. Using their logic, government should be actively promoting civil marriage for these same-sex couples.

Did they include this fact in their "anonymous" testimony?

Thought not.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#18 Dec 22, 2012
Larry wrote:
Doctors Say Same-Sex Marriage Will Give False Impression Gay Sex is Safe
Illinois–
Why do you folks copy and paste BS without providing a source link to your information?

ALL sexual practices or behavior comes with risks.....EVEN for heterosexuals......we don't site it nor concern our selves with it.....YET, every anti-gay marriage person feels some need to mention sexual practices between Same-Sex Couples as an excuse to prevent them from being able to legally marry!!!

That's simply DISCRIMINATION!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#20 Dec 22, 2012
Larry wrote:
Doctors Say Same-Sex Marriage Will Give False Impression Gay Sex is Safe
.
In the context of monogamous relationships, gay sex is quite safe. Any doctor who says otherwise should have his license revoked.
Chance

Grove City, PA

#21 Dec 22, 2012
Ray wrote:
Myth: The government can redefine marriage.
Truth: Marriage will always be between a man and woman no matter what the "gay rights" activists would like you to believe.
Marriage will always be a man and a woman, even if they succeed in changing the definition. Man can no more change the actual meaning of marriage than they can turn a dog into a cat just by calling it a cat.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Judges Hear NSA Snooping Cases Thu SmokingSalmon 2
US court reconsiders order to have YouTube remo... Dec 23 barefoot2626 46
Sea Shepherd 'in contempt of US court' Dec 19 Your Ex 1
Immigrants Closer to Driver's Licenses in Arizona Dec 19 Guess Who 1
Immigrants closer to driver's licenses in Arizona Dec 19 Guess Who 10
Young immigrants allowed to get driver's licenses Dec 18 OId Sailor 1
Supreme Court Justices reject Arizona bid over ... Dec 16 Sterkfontein Swar... 3
More from around the web