Another judge finds law against gay marriage unconstitutional

[Engimo]

I can only imagine how polygamy might affect general society. Yes, there would need to be some reworking of tax-code, custody/parental rights, inheritance law, etc. I suppose that any legal counter argument to polygamy would need to be based in economics. A Nuclear Family is the most efficient family structure for an industrialized society. However, even if an economic guru could assemble a sollid economic counter argument, all that one would need to point out is that polygamists are a minority, and quote some relevant statistics, and that would be that.

When, on gay-marriage threads, I have opposed the 14th. Amend. pro. GM argument, I was trying to convey the message that if (the proverbial) 'you' use that argument to grant gay-marriage, 'you' must be prepared to allow for polygamy as-well.

If 'you' do not have a problem with polygamy, then 'you' are free to use the 14th. without worry. If, however, 'you' do have a problem with polygamy, then 'you' should not use the 14th. too bring about gay-marriage; because the 14th. protects polygamy just as much as it would protect gay-marriage.

My overall purpose in using that "slippery-slope" is to show that yet another proficy is unfolding before us (Matthew 24:37, referring to Genesis 6:1-6), as the meaning and specialty of marriage is being reduced to nothing more than a "strictly legal contract"; and to warn people that unimaginably hard times are ahead of us, so get prepaired.

galenrox, I know that you, yourself, are not one such person who wishes to see marriage devalued. I refer only to the popular, or 'main-stream' GM movement, and the "powers and principalities" which seem to drive it.

And what is wrong with polygamy, exactly? This is what I fail to understand. It seems entirely against conservative ideals and "small government" ideology for the government to be dictating what sort of contracts can be entered between consenting adults.

 

[Busta]

And what is wrong with polygamy, exactly? This is what I fail to understand. It seems entirely against conservative ideals and "small government" ideology for the government to be dictating what sort of contracts can be entered between consenting adults.

I don't have a problem with polygamy, per se. I have concern for where all of this is going.
The problem lays within your last post: "...the government to be dictating what sort of contracts can be entered between consenting adults".

That attitude devalues marriage by reducing it to little more than the equivalent of a cell phone contract or Power of Attorney. A "strictly legal contract".

 

[Engimo]

I don't have a problem with polygamy, per se. I have concern for where all of this is going.
The problem lays within your last post: "...the government to be dictating what sort of contracts can be entered between consenting adults".

That attitude devalues marriage by reducing it to little more than the equivalent of a cell phone contract or Power of Attorney. A "strictly legal contract".

How is marriage any more valuable than that, exactly? Atheists can get married, can they not? It obviously has no inherent religious meaning to the state, so what exactly gives marriage this "higher meaning"?

 

[KCConservative]

Most of the gays and lesbians that I know would be more than willing to accept civil unions, but most of your conservative, right-wing buddies are banning any possibility of those, as well. I'm confident that equal protection will win out in the end, but frankly, it's a long road ahead and we'll just have to wait and see.

I agree with you and I do not side with the majority of my party on this issue. But to try and flame with the use of 'conservative, right-wing buddies' isn't really necessary.

 

[Busta]

How is marriage any more valuable than that, exactly? Atheists can get married, can they not? It obviously has no inherent religious meaning to the state, so what exactly gives marriage this "higher meaning"?

Marriage existed long before, and currently outside of, U.S. code, so it's meaning must transcend such illusionary boundaries.

Atheists get married, yes. That proves that marriage also transends the man-made church, as well as most predispositions and biases given to one by their life experiences.

"The laws of God" are written in everyone's hearts. It is our conscience. It is our common moral core.

That is how we can have perfectly moral atheists and Gnostic's.

This common moral core, or common conscience, or common sense of right and wrong, does not override -choice-; and we use our free will to make choices which are heavily influenced by our predispositions. Such predispositions as being attracted to the same gender as our own, or having been taught that multiple wives is perfectly OK, or that women are almost allways victims of male aggression, or that women are little more than sex-objects.

That is how we can have abusive 'God-fearing' folks.

It is upon this common sense of right and wrong, this common moral core, which gives marriage it's higher meaning.

Take a child, for example. She couldn't give a rat's @$$ what "strictly legal contracts" her parents did or did not sign; she just wants a -loving- *stable* +intact+ home.

A "strictly legal contract" can not make a home loving.
A "strictly legal contract" can not make a home stable.
A "strictly legal contract" can not keep a home intact.
No law can ever do that.
A loving, intact, stable home can only be made by the people who are in it, and the only way that they will know how to do that is by seeing through their predispositions, their ego, and following their conscience/sense of right and wrong/ moral core.

By reflecting marriage as a "strictly legal contract" you are turning the People's attention away from the true function and purpose of marriage: family.

*Family* is not the focus of the current mainstream pro. GM movement, as reflected by their arguments.
The focus of the mainstream pro GM movement is "rights".

The focus of the pro. polygamy movement is not *family*, as reflected by a couple sites I quoted earlier.
The focus of the pro. polygamy movement is "rights".

If mainstream gay-marriage supporters were oriented around -family- (= selfless) instead of "rights" (= selfish), there would be little, if any, problem.

 

[Navy Pride]

I dunno, I think they both might be in the closet.
Especially Sammy. He didn't even comfort his wife when she was crying.
And I think I saw a few Rev. Jim Baker looks too during the hearings.. :mrgreen:

And Santorum too.

Hmm....


http://www.borowitzreport.com/archive_rpt.asp?rec=1298&srch=

You think huh, well we shall see I will put my money on them being very strong conservatives and strict constructionists.....


Did you know that when questioned Alito's mother said he was very stronly pro life?

 

[Navy Pride]

OK so how many states allow civil unions?

I am not sure, I think Vermont and New Hampshire do........The problem is with the few militant gays and feel good liberals ranting and raving about changing the definition of marriage they are turning a lot of people off that would have supported civil unions............I am not to that point yet but a lot of my friends are getting that way...........

 

[Engimo]

Marriage existed long before, and currently outside of, U.S. code, so it's meaning must transcend such illusionary boundaries.

Atheists get married, yes. That proves that marriage also transends the man-made church, as well as most predispositions and biases given to one by their life experiences.

"The laws of God" are written in everyone's hearts. It is our conscience. It is our common moral core.

That is how we can have perfectly moral atheists and Gnostic's.

This common moral core, or common conscience, or common sense of right and wrong, does not override -choice-; and we use our free will to make choices which are heavily influenced by our predispositions. Such predispositions as being attracted to the same gender as our own, or having been taught that multiple wives is perfectly OK, or that women are almost allways victims of male aggression, or that women are little more than sex-objects.

That is how we can have abusive 'God-fearing' folks.

I'm sorry, we can't use morality or religious ideas as a basis for our laws - we have a secular country. Not only that, current marriage has no contingency that says that only good parents/wives/husbands can get married. All you need to do is go to the courthouse and get a license, and you're married.

It is upon this common sense of right and wrong, this common moral core, which gives marriage it's higher meaning.

Take a child, for example. She couldn't give a rat's @$$ what "strictly legal contracts" her parents did or did not sign; she just wants a -loving- *stable* +intact+ home.

A "strictly legal contract" can not make a home loving.
A "strictly legal contract" can not make a home stable.
A "strictly legal contract" can not keep a home intact.
No law can ever do that.
A loving, intact, stable home can only be made by the people who are in it, and the only way that they will know how to do that is by seeing through their predispositions, their ego, and following their conscience/sense of right and wrong/ moral core.

By reflecting marriage as a "strictly legal contract" you are turning the People's attention away from the true function and purpose of marriage: family.

But there is no current prerequisite that heterosexuals that are getting married be compatabile to have a stable family, is there? Need I point out the marriages of people like Britney Spears? Are they contributing to the creation of a stable, loving family?

 

[Navy Pride]

Most of the gays and lesbians that I know would be more than willing to accept civil unions, but most of your conservative, right-wing buddies are banning any possibility of those, as well. I'm confident that equal protection will win out in the end, but frankly, it's a long road ahead and we'll just have to wait and see.

I disagree, most of the consevatives I know have no problem with civil unions but they are getting turned off by militants gays and liberals in your face postion when it comes to marriage........

 

[galenrox]

I disagree, most of the consevatives I know have no problem with civil unions but they are getting turned off by militants gays and liberals in your face postion when it comes to marriage........

yeah, but then think of it from our position. Most people who find homosexuality immoral view it as such due to religious reasons, and thus percieve these bans on gay marriage as being people trying to legislate their religious values, which we both can agree in and of itself is wrong.
It took a year for the "what about polygamy" talking point to arise, for that year beforehand when the debate was prevelant there was no actual debate against gay marriage other than "I find it immoral" (and some little turds of arguments like "dudes might marry a buddy for tax reasons", etc.). That shows that most are not opposed to gay marriage out of fear of legalized polygamy, most are opposed solely because of their stance on the morality of homosexuality, which many find to be absolutely proposterous to be legislated.

I understand that you find homosexuality immoral, and although I disagree with you about it, I respect that it's your personal morals that shouldn't be undermined. That being said, I feel that you should show similar respect to homosexuals, and grant that gay marriage won't hurt anyone who's opposed to it, and makes most homosexuals happy, why not make it legal?

 

[Navy Pride]

yeah, but then think of it from our position. Most people who find homosexuality immoral view it as such due to religious reasons, and thus percieve these bans on gay marriage as being people trying to legislate their religious values, which we both can agree in and of itself is wrong.
It took a year for the "what about polygamy" talking point to arise, for that year beforehand when the debate was prevelant there was no actual debate against gay marriage other than "I find it immoral" (and some little turds of arguments like "dudes might marry a buddy for tax reasons", etc.). That shows that most are not opposed to gay marriage out of fear of legalized polygamy, most are opposed solely because of their stance on the morality of homosexuality, which many find to be absolutely proposterous to be legislated.

I understand that you find homosexuality immoral, and although I disagree with you about it, I respect that it's your personal morals that shouldn't be undermined. That being said, I feel that you should show similar respect to homosexuals, and grant that gay marriage won't hurt anyone who's opposed to it, and makes most homosexuals happy, why not make it legal?

Like I said many times it more of a practical thing with me in that if you allow gays to marry then you open up marriage to all other kinds of groups who are defined by choice......

My religion teaches me that the sexual act gays engage in is immoral and a mortal sin but I don't judge gays by my religion...........I will let God handle that on judgment day................

I also believe that gays should have the same civil rights and benefits as any other American, but I don't think the defintion of marriage should be changed to do that...I think that would be and insult to every married man and woman in this country........I think that civil unions can accomplish giving the benefits that gays want..............

A lot of people feel that the marriage issue is just a front....They think it is the goal of a small vocal military sect of the gay community to try and stuff the gay marriage issue down their throats and have the gay lifestyle accepted as a suitable altarnate substitute...........I can tell you that the vast majority of Americans will never do that..........

 

[Stace]

You think huh, well we shall see I will put my money on them being very strong conservatives and strict constructionists.....


Did you know that when questioned Alito's mother said he was very stronly pro life?

But it doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are, he has to rule in accordance with the law, not based on his own personal feelings.

 

[Stace]

I disagree, most of the consevatives I know have no problem with civil unions but they are getting turned off by militants gays and liberals in your face postion when it comes to marriage........

And pray tell, what is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Because from what I can tell, they're the exact same thing, only called two different names, which is not fair or equal.

 

[Navy Pride]

But it doesn't matter what his personal beliefs are, he has to rule in accordance with the law, not based on his own personal feelings.

That is true but when there is a gray area if you don't think any judge does not let his personal beliefs influence a decision then your living in a dream world...........

Why do you think that liberals nominate liberal jusdges and conservatives nominate conservative ones............

 

[Navy Pride]

And pray tell, what is the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Because from what I can tell, they're the exact same thing, only called two different names, which is not fair or equal.

If you don't know the difference between civil unions and marriage also called holy matrimony then I can't tell you................

 

[Stace]

Like I said many times it more of a practical thing with me in that if you allow gays to marry then you open up marriage to all other kinds of groups who are defined by choice......

And so what if it does? Would it really kill this country to be more open minded?

Besides, many people agree that homosexuality is NOT a choice, that they are born that way.

My religion teaches me that the sexual act gays engage in is immoral and a mortal sin but I don't judge gays by my religion...........I will let God handle that on judgment day................

And we can all respect that, but we don't all follow the same religion as you. Besides, what is it that gays do that the rest of us don't? Anal sex? Heteros do it, too. Oral sex? Heteros do it, too. Why worry about what goes on in their bedroom? You don't see them questioning what we heteros do in there. Quite frankly, what anyone does in their bedroom is no one else's business unless they choose to make it so.

I also believe that gays should have the same civil rights and benefits as any other American, but I don't think the defintion of marriage should be changed to do that...I think that would be and insult to every married man and woman in this country........I think that civil unions can accomplish giving the benefits that gays want..............

What's the big deal about the word marriage? My copy of Webster's defines marriage as "the legal union of two people in wedlock". See? Nothing there about it being strictly between a man and a woman, so where is this change in definition? I'm married, I certainly wouldn't find it an insult to allow gays to be married as well. Like I just said, it's not fair or equal to say "Ok, well, we won't let you guys "marry", but we'll invent "civil unions" just for y'all". They didn't come up with a new term for interracial marriage, so why should they do it for gays?

A lot of people feel that the marriage issue is just a front....They think it is the goal of a small vocal military sect of the gay community to try and stuff the gay marriage issue down their throats and have the gay lifestyle accepted as a suitable altarnate substitute...........I can tell you that the vast majority of Americans will never do that..........

That's a strawman argument if ever I heard one. What's wrong with wanting to be accepted? People with learning disabilities want to just be accepted. People with physical handicaps want to just be accepted. Why shouldn't gays expect the same equal treatment as everyone else? Again, what goes on in their bedrooms is their business, not yours. I'm pretty sure that if I showed you pictures of 10 men, you wouldn't be able to pick out which ones were gay and which weren't. So what's the problem?

 

[Stace]

If you don't know the difference between civil unions and marriage also called holy matrimony then I can't tell you................

Marriage is only called HOLY matrimony in church services. I wasn't married in a church, does that make my marriage any less significant? Nope.

 

[Stace]

That is true but when there is a gray area if you don't think any judge does not let his personal beliefs influence a decision then your living in a dream world...........

Why do you think that liberals nominate liberal jusdges and conservatives nominate conservative ones............

Because everyone loves partisan politics and ticking off the other side.

 

[Navy Pride]

And so what if it does? Would it really kill this country to be more open minded?

Besides, many people agree that homosexuality is NOT a choice, that they are born that way.




And we can all respect that, but we don't all follow the same religion as you. Besides, what is it that gays do that the rest of us don't? Anal sex? Heteros do it, too. Oral sex? Heteros do it, too. Why worry about what goes on in their bedroom? You don't see them questioning what we heteros do in there. Quite frankly, what anyone does in their bedroom is no one else's business unless they choose to make it so.



What's the big deal about the word marriage? My copy of Webster's defines marriage as "the legal union of two people in wedlock". See? Nothing there about it being strictly between a man and a woman, so where is this change in definition? I'm married, I certainly wouldn't find it an insult to allow gays to be married as well. Like I just said, it's not fair or equal to say "Ok, well, we won't let you guys "marry", but we'll invent "civil unions" just for y'all". They didn't come up with a new term for interracial marriage, so why should they do it for gays?



That's a strawman argument if ever I heard one. What's wrong with wanting to be accepted? People with learning disabilities want to just be accepted. People with physical handicaps want to just be accepted. Why shouldn't gays expect the same equal treatment as everyone else? Again, what goes on in their bedrooms is their business, not yours. I'm pretty sure that if I showed you pictures of 10 men, you wouldn't be able to pick out which ones were gay and which weren't. So what's the problem?

do you read anything anyone posts? I told you I could care less what anyone does in the privacy of their bedrooms whether they be straight or gays and I told you why I am against gay marriage and why a huge portion of the American people are against it................

 

[Navy Pride]

Because everyone loves partisan politics and ticking off the other side.

I don;t know if it has much to do with partisan politics......Its just that people have different beliefs and morals...........

 

[Stace]

do you read anything anyone posts? I told you I could care less what anyone does in the privacy of their bedrooms whether they be straight or gays and I told you why I am against gay marriage and why a huge portion of the American people are against it................

Well, you sure do spend a lot of time talking about the fact that you think the sexual acts they perform are immoral......and I do find it odd that that's the only part of my rebuttal you chose to address....

 

[Stace]

I don;t know if it has much to do with partisan politics......Its just that people have different beliefs and morals...........

Exactly. Different parties have different beliefs and morals. Come on NP, you said it yourself...liberals nominate liberals, and conservatives nominate conservatives.

 

[hipsterdufus]

If you don't know the difference between civil unions and marriage also called holy matrimony then I can't tell you................

I was married by a Justice of The Peace. There was/is nothing religious about it. Yet, I'm married, just the same as you.

 

[floridaguy]

I am not sure, I think Vermont and New Hampshire do........The problem is with the few militant gays and feel good liberals ranting and raving about changing the definition of marriage they are turning a lot of people off that would have supported civil unions............I am not to that point yet but a lot of my friends are getting that way...........

Massachusetts started letting gay couples marry in May 2004. Since then, more than a dozen states -- not including Indiana -- have approved constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Vermont and Connecticut allow civil unions for gays.

Not too many considering that there are 50 states.

 

[Stinger]

So what is it that makes gay marriage so much different from interracial marriage?

You really have to ask? It's quite apparent.

By your logic, polygamy and incestual relationships should have been allowed when that ruling passed, as well. Changing the law to allow gay marriage would not in and of itself have to allow for polygamy or incestual relationships.

If you have a right to define marriage as YOU see fit then why doesn't someone who wants to define it as one man and two women?

It is simply a matter of taking the "between a man and a woman" out of the text of the law.

And then between a man and two women is no longer prohibited either.