IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
Who has a right to refuse bisexuals or sisters/brothers from marrying each other then? Who has a right to exclude me from a club I want to join just because I'm a man?
When has marriage ever been the societal norm as what marriage is? Tell me. Otherwise you're just tossing out insults and trying to minimize facts you cannot refute.
It's only irrelevant now because you don't want to address it.
What gives the special right to change what the definition of marriage is over any other sexual group?
Not all traditions are meant to be broken. Marriage as a traditional institution serves a specific purpose. It's like a club. Nobody is barred from joining the club as long as you follow the rules.
I can't marry a man right now.
Why should gay people have that special right?
Especially when other sexual interest groups want to marry men too? Why are only gays allowed to marry men?
The founders conceived of National Security as a technical necessity for the survival of the country.
IMHO, Prop 8 was an act of 70% of the voters of California and the Fed courts should never have become involved. Less than 2% of Californians are trying to overturn the will of the majority. Is this what this nation has become?
You not understanding what a "right" is isn't my problem, it's yours.
In THIS Country everyone has a RIGHT to free speech. That free speech includes advocating for and pushing for the passage of laws, the changes to legal definitions, and requesting judicial overview for constitutionality. Gays don't have a RIGHT to change a definition arbitrarily on their own just like straights don't have a RIGHT to refuse to change the definition. The only RIGHTS each side has is this is the RIGHT to vocalize their view and belief of what should happen and to go about the constitutional process for changing laws and challenging them within the court system.
Societal norm is irrelevant when talking about a LEGAL TERM. Something being "traditional" or a "societal norm" is minor at best, and irrelevant at worst, to it's legal standing. Why should I bother wasting my time with an argument you keep making that is ignorant of it's unimportance and of reality?
No, it's irrelevant now because "Well, it wasn't like that before" is not a sound legal reasoning for either stopping legislation OR ruling on constitutionality.
Since I've said this COUNLTESS Times now, let me try to make it so you can't POSSIBLY miss it.
No. One. Has. A. Special. Right. To. Define. A . Term.
Gays don't. STRAIGHTS don't either. Bi sexuals don't. Dogs don't. NO ONE has a special right to define a term. You're making up a retarded argument within your own head and banging it again and again while ignoring what anyone else is saying...and the argument DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
What is being done here is not a group magically being granted a "special right" to "change a definition". What a group is doing is using their rights as CITIZENS....not as gay people, not as straight people, but as citizens....to speak their support for a political issue, to push for the passage of laws supporting their political position, to advocate for changing legal terms, and to challenge the constitutionality of law within the court system.
That's not a "Special right" of Gay People. Those are rights EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN CITIZEN has.
So if you want to continue this facade of "Special right to change a definition" and continue to show your utter, complete, and unquestionable ignorance on the topic and on what a "right" is in this country be my guest. I'm not continuing to frustrate myself by talking to a brick wall on this issue.
However, it's NOT a club. Not in it's present state. In it's present state, it's a government contract. And as a government contract, it must follow the laws of the land in terms of barring people from joining it and establishing what those "rules" are. If marriage was a purely societal term that was no involved in government what so ever you'd be 100% correct. However, it's not in the case being discussed. It's a government term, a legal definition, and as such it must be lawful and constitutional in its exclusion of other groups.
They would have no special right. The anti-SSM activists own argument blows this out of the water. They claim that things are "equal now" because a Gay Person could "marry the opposite sex". Well, if SSM is legalized then the same applies in reverse...straight people could "marry the same sex". No "special right" being granted.
You're.....you're serious? Really? This is your understanding of this debate? I mean...I honestly can't tell if you're joking.
If the marriage laws are struck down and same sex marriage is legalized......ANY other person, straight, bi, or gay could marry a person of the same gender.
And they concieved of the ability to amend the constitution to cover issues that the country felt was important as well and established a Supreme Court. Those abilities led to the 14th and the EPC. It's wonderful how you like to pick and choose what parts of the constitution are important to think about the founders intent and which parts you like to **** on.
Can someone point me to a site that has the transcripts and arguments? I am NOT going to read 31 pages to find out.
Thanks in advance.
Tim-
Hopefully we see the them overturn Prop 8. It's time for the United States to live up to its own democratic expectations. SSM should have been legal years ago.
How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?
So if, say Kentucky, decided to vote to reinstate slavery and 99% of the people voted yes, they should be able to do it? Think carefully before you answer.
How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?
If the federal government doesn't exist to provide coverage of basic human rights, why the hell is it there?
Entering into a voluntary contract with another sovereign human being is a basic human right. For the government to step in and say: "NOPE, Jesus said no!" is certainly overstepping its bounds.
A person cannot own another legal person in America. However, the traditional definition of marriage is not unconstitutional. States issue marriage certificates and they can set policy. Voters have every right to exercise democracy on issues of policy like redefining marriage.
The government isn't saying "Jesus said no." You can't enter into a voluntary contract that is illegal nor does the government need to recognize every contract.
Yet at one point in time, they could. See, you're arguing that if the voters in California want it, they should get it. It's no different than the voters in Kentucky, why shouldn't they get what they want? Hint for you... both fail for exactly the same reason.
And Civil rights were corrected and women's rights violations were corrected after the Constitution was amendment by the people. It was perfectly legal until the law changed. The law doesn't say a state cannot uphold the traditional definition of marriage. It's not illegal regardless of what people want to believe.
The government isn't saying "Jesus said no." You can't enter into a voluntary contract that is illegal nor does the government need to recognize every contract.
How can we live up to democratic expectations when the answer is to kill a state and voters democratic right to legally uphold the traditional definition of marriage?
Let's face it, SSM ISN'T really about the rights of two people of the same sex to form a bond.
It's about $$$$$!
It's all about legal definitions whereby a couple may qualify for government and insurance benefits. That's what SCOTUS has to determine. That and the right of individual states to determine that legal definition. :roll:
Let's face it, SSM ISN'T really about the rights of two people of the same sex to form a bond.
It's about $$$$$!
It's all about legal definitions whereby a couple may qualify for government and insurance benefits. That's what SCOTUS has to determine. That and the right of individual states to determine that legal definition. :roll:
The question before the court is whether it was legal to uphold that "tradition". Voters do not get to vote to break the law.
I understand that, although I don't think it's breaking the law to uphold the traditional definition and be forced to change it. I think the law breaking would come in violating a states rights and their constitutions. I view SSM as an issue of policy with it being legally changing the definition of marriage.
What about individual rights?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?