Another judge finds law against gay marriage unconstitutional

[Stace]

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

Why? Just because it's between two members of the same sex rather tahn two people of different races? Sorry, but I'm not bigoted enough to think that one should be allowed while the other should not.

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?

Uh....because I'm not the one that makes the laws or the definitions. Webster's defines marriage as the legal union of two people in wedlock, so the law already doesn't match up to the textbook definition.

Besides, if a man and two women want to get married, or even a woman and two men, so what? How is that interfering with your life?

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

How so? By simply taking the "man and a woman" part out, it would still be defined as between two people.

And even if it did open it up to allow for polygamy, so what?

 

[Navy Pride]

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....

Nope, I judge no one......Its not up to me to say what is immoral or not.....There maker will take care of that......I do think the sex act they engage in are abnormal......That is just my opinion, and again I could care less what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.........Now write that down becasue I don't want to repeat it again.......

 

[Navy Pride]

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.

if you want to get technical there are 38 states with DOMAs Defense of Marriage acts and there are 19 states with approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage with several other states pending...........The narrowest margin they passed by was I beleive 55 percent in Oregon, one of the most liberal states in the union..........

A lot of people have said the reason President Bush got reelected was because of the constitutional Amendment in Ohio which passed by a huge majority......

 

[Stace]

Nope, I judge no one......Its not up to me to say what is immoral or not.....There maker will take care of that......I do think the sex act they engage in are abnormal......That is just my opinion, and again I could care less what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms.........Now write that down becasue I don't want to repeat it again.......

Now see, you just said that you think the sex acts they engage in are immoral. What makes it immoral and/or abnormal for them to engage in anal or oral sex, and not for heteros? I asked you this before and you still have not provided a response.

 

[Navy Pride]

Now see, you just said that you think the sex acts they engage in are immoral. What makes it immoral and/or abnormal for them to engage in anal or oral sex, and not for heteros? I asked you this before and you still have not provided a response.

It is abnormal for any straights that engage in it too..I have stated that about a dozen times............

 

[Stace]

It is abnormal for any straights that engage in it too..I have stated that about a dozen times............

Really? 'Cause I haven't seen you say that anywhere, you only say that it's abnormal in relation to homosexuals.

Anyone else think that anal and oral sex are abnormal? Most people that I know enjoy at least the latter, if not the former.

 

[Navy Pride]

Really? 'Cause I haven't seen you say that anywhere, you only say that it's abnormal in relation to homosexuals.

Anyone else think that anal and oral sex are abnormal? Most people that I know enjoy at least the latter, if not the former.

stace with all due respect that is a little more information then I need......

Oh and I have said it a dozen times, a couple of them in this thread.....

 

[floridaguy]

It is abnormal for any straights that engage in it too..I have stated that about a dozen times............

Most people would think it's abnormal for you to think that.

 

[Navy Pride]

Most people would think it's abnormal for you to think that.

You think so huh? Well let me give you a little lesson in the make up of the body...The anus was designed as and outtake not and intake.......Maybe you enjoy putting your penis in there but I would venture to say the vast majority of Americans don't.........

 

[Stace]

You think so huh? Well let me give you a little lesson in the make up of the body...The anus was designed as and outtake not and intake.......Maybe you enjoy putting your penis in there but I would venture to say the vast majority of Americans don't.........

Well, seeing as how half of the population don't own penises, that point is kinda moot, don't you think? If you don't own a penis, you can't put it in anything, much less enjoy doing so.

 

[Navy Pride]

Well, seeing as how half of the population don't own penises, that point is kinda moot, don't you think? If you don't own a penis, you can't put it in anything, much less enjoy doing so.

You have to understand when I put this argument forward I am speaking spcifically of gay men.......When it comes to women its a whole different ball game........You have women that are sworn lesbians one day, Ann Heche comes to mind, and the next day they are getting married and raising a family and are as straight as you are...........

 

[Deegan]

You have to understand when I put this argument forward I am speaking spcifically of gay men.......When it comes to women its a whole different ball game........You have women that are sworn lesbians one day, Ann Heche comes to mind, and the next day they are getting married and raising a family and are as straight as you are...........

OUCH, that's not fair................

 

[Busta]

*Mod*
Please delete this post.

 

[Busta]

I'm sorry, we can't use morality or religious ideas as a basis for our laws - we have a secular country.

Yes, that is true. I do not dispute that.
However, I was not speaking of legal foundations.
My answer was in context to your question.....
"How is marriage any more valuable than [a strictly legal contract], exactly?...........so what exactly gives marriage this "higher meaning"?"
Given your question, I told you what gives marriage it's "higher meaning".....and U.S. law is not it.

Not only that, current marriage has no contingency that says that only good parents/wives/husbands can get married.

Er, I think you missed the point.
You don't have to be a good husband before you get married, you have to be a good husband once you are married. Too do otherwise may result in spousal abuse/assult charges, homelessness, psychological abuse (constent fighting/hostile home) and divorce.

Even if you only go to a courthouse and get married by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge, you must still exchange vows, because you must still fullfill the Full Faith and Credit claws of the legal aspect of marriage.

When you violate your vows, you are in Breech of Contract. If your vow said, fore example, "...too love, honer and cherish....", then as soon as you speak or do ill to your spouse, you are in Breach of Contract.

Of course, your spouse will have to prove such a breech "beyond a reasonable doubt", should she wish a divorce.

***
Being a good parent is not contingint upon marriage. Being a good parent is contingent upon having a child.
Not being a good parent may result in a visit from Social Services, Child Protective Cervices, revocation of parental rights, criminal charges of, say, neglect, abuse, assult, abandonment, etc.

All you need to do is go to the courthouse and get a license, and you're married.

My wife and I were married for @ 3 years before we made it legal.

But there is no current prerequisite that heterosexuals that are getting married be compatible to have a stable family, is there?

Potential Civil and Criminal penalties aside, the existence of a marital prerequisite too form and maintan a stable family largely depends on the vows taken.

As for compadability, I can not find any rational reason why two incompadable people would marry. I don't even see how the thought would cross their minds.
Using your example of Britany Spears, she and.....whats-his-face.....were drunk, and if I recall it correctly, their reason for doing it was (to paraphrase) "It was a spure-of-the-moment thing. We thought, 'why not?'."

Need I point out the marriages of people like Britney Spears? Are they contributing to the creation of a stable, loving family?

Britany Spears is a good example of what marriage will become once it is reduced to a meer "strictly legal contract".

 

[Engimo]

Yes, that is true. I do not dispute that.
However, I was not speaking of legal foundations.
My answer was in context to your question.....
"How is marriage any more valuable than [a strictly legal contract], exactly?...........so what exactly gives marriage this "higher meaning"?"
Given your question, I told you what gives marriage it's "higher meaning".....and U.S. law is not it.

That may be true, but we're discussing the legality of homosexual marriage, not the morality or anything relating to that meaning. I meant to be asking "what gives marriage a higher status under the law?"

 

[Stinger]

Why? Just because it's between two members of the same sex rather tahn two people of different races? Sorry, but I'm not bigoted enough to think that one should be allowed while the other should not.

You asked what the difference is and it's a big one and no one is trying to "not allow" homosexual behavior. You make no sense.

Uh....because I'm not the one that makes the laws or the definitions. Webster's defines marriage as the legal union of two people in wedlock, so the law already doesn't match up to the textbook definition.

Since gays have been demanding marriage they have, but the law and society don't and that's what matters.

Besides, if a man and two women want to get married, or even a woman and two men, so what? How is that interfering with your life?

Well then admit that you don't want ANY definition to marriage.

How so? By simply taking the "man and a woman" part out, it would still be defined as between two people.

No you would have to insert that for it to be restricted to just two people. But again why limit it then. Don't three people have just as much "right" as two to marry each other?

And even if it did open it up to allow for polygamy, so what?

So again you are willing to forego any definition of marriage, it's just what each person wants it to be, legally speaking.

 

[Busta]

That may be true, but we're discussing the legality of homosexual marriage, not the morality or anything relating to that meaning. I meant to be asking "what gives marriage a higher status under the law?"

Ah. I gotcha.

[Disclaimer]
Long ago I conceded my vote and will now support, or at least not oppose, same-sex 'marriage. If 'you' think that you and your same-sex partner can form a loving, stable home and bring some good into this rechid world, then, for my part, I support you.

In the end, the only thing that is really important is love.
[Disclaimer]

Your answer lays within Original Intent. The constitutional right to marry is interpreted from liberty, which is endowed upon each person upon their creation, by their Creator. Our Founding Fathers thought of this Creator as God, and relied on God and His "Divine Providence" for the founding authority to separate from Brittan.

Since homosexuality is against said Creator's law, same-sex 'marriage is not counted as one such liberty which can be infered or interpreted from "Liberty".
It simply is not there.

From the "Fundi" point of view, the right which is claimed to be violated does not exist, thus, a same-sex 'marriage ban violates nothing.

It is the same reasoning that I commonly hear from pro. choicers: "A fetus is not alive, so abortion murders/kills nothing".

The way I here it, a same-sex 'marriage ban is unconstitutional because it violates a person's 14th. Amend. right to "...equal protection under the law".
Basically, if a man can marry a woman, then if a man can not also marry a man, then that is gender discrimination....which is illegal.

That is a perfectly reasonable, logical argument.

Where I come in with my "Slippery-Slope" is by pointing out that if marriage laws can not discriminate against or regulate a participant's gender, then neither can they discriminate against or regulate Race, Religion, Color, National Origin or Family Status (Children); many states, such as New York and Wisconsin, also include Age and Marital Status as protected classes.

If a same-sex marriage ban is illegal, then so are polygamy, insest and underage marriage bans.
*A Polygamy ban discriminates against marital status.
*An insest ban discriminates against family status (and remember, procreation is not a requirement for marriage).
*A so-called "Dependant 'marriage" ban discriminates against age. (remember, parents/legal guardians could otherwise sign any other contract on their child's behalf......to say nothing for Mr. Judicial Bypass the Judge).

What gives marriage it's higher meaning is God, God's divine natural order, and your common sense of right and wrong/conscience/moral core; which is the divine seed/breath of life within you.

Calling on the Name of the Creator is not something that animals can do, thus, calling on the Name of the Creator to form your marriage is the literal act of giving your relationship this "higher meaning".

As with murder and theft statutes, we can reflect God's divine natural order in U.S. legal code without establishing religion.

Marriage only has this higher legal meaning if We choose it too.

 

[Engimo]

Your answer lays within Original Intent. The constitutional right to marry is interpreted from liberty, which is endowed upon each person upon their creation, by their Creator. Our Founding Fathers thought of this Creator as God, and relied on God and His "Divine Providence" for the founding authority to separate from Brittan.

Why are atheists allowed to marry? If we can agree that the modern verison of marriage has transcended a purely religious ceremony, than your argument has no legs to stand on. Whether or not your religion or any religion supports same-sex marriage is irrelevant, it's not an inherently religious institution.

If a same-sex marriage ban is illegal, then so are polygamy, insest and underage marriage bans.
*A Polygamy ban discriminates against marital status.

Don't see the problem, outside of a pragmatic one. What is the argument against polygamistic marriage other than the complications it would cause in the tax code?

*An insest ban discriminates against family status (and remember, procreation is not a requirement for marriage).

So? If sisters/brothers want to get it on, how is that our problem our right to come between them? It's not our job to legislate morality.

A so-called "Dependant 'marriage" ban discriminates against age. (remember, parents/legal guardians could otherwise sign any other contract on their child's behalf......to say nothing for Mr. Judicial Bypass the Judge).

I don't buy it. Children cannot have certain contracts signed for them by proxy, I am sure that marriage would be considered one of them.

What gives marriage it's higher meaning is God, God's divine natural order, and your common sense of right and wrong/conscience/moral core; which is the divine seed/breath of life within you.

Calling on the Name of the Creator is not something that animals can do, thus, calling on the Name of the Creator to form your marriage is the literal act of giving your relationship this "higher meaning".

As with murder and theft statutes, we can reflect God's divine natural order in U.S. legal code without establishing religion.

Marriage only has this higher legal meaning if We choose it too.

Like I said, your religion is irrelevant to our discussion of marriage.

 

[Busta]

Why are atheists allowed to marry? If we can agree that the modern verison of marriage has transcended a purely religious ceremony, than your argument has no legs to stand on. Whether or not your religion or any religion supports same-sex marriage is irrelevant, it's not an inherently religious institution.

Atheists can marry because they are complying with divine law/natural order.

Marriage, or "one flesh", as it was originally called, comes from the same authority from which our rights to liberty and life come from. It is this common authority which dictates the definitions of what is what, not religion.

Marriage is reflected in many churches, in many faith paths, but marriage did not originate within any church. Marriage did not originate within any religion.

Marriage originated simultaneously with our rights of life and liberty, which occurred upon the advent of modern Man.

Marriage is an inherently divine, though not necessarily religious, institution, and our laws can reflect that without establishing religion.
California's Prop. 22 (currently in litigation) is a perfect example of how this is don.

 

[Engimo]

Atheists can marry because they are complying with divine law/natural order.

Marriage, or "one flesh", as it was originally called, comes from the same authority from which our rights to liberty and life come from. It is this common authority which dictates the definitions of what is what, not religion.

Marriage is reflected in many churches, in many faith paths, but marriage did not originate within any church. Marriage did not originate within any religion.

Marriage originated simultaneously with our rights of life and liberty, which occurred upon the advent of modern Man.

Marriage is an inherently divine, though not necessarily religious, institution, and our laws can reflect that without establishing religion.
California's Prop. 22 (currently in litigation) is a perfect example of how this is don.

...What?

How is it possible to have something that is inherently divine but not inherently religious? The very consideration of marriage to have a divine component presupposes certain religious truths. The bottom line is that religion has been removed from the legal definition of marriage - you don't need to be religious to be married and you don't need to go to a religious leader to get married.

 

[Busta]

At this point, I am not trying to pose an argument against same-sex 'marriage, polygamy, etc. I mien to show people that using the 14th. to expand acceptable martial variations is compliant with and proves yet another end-time biblical prophecy; and because of this, my message is to warn people, regardless of individual perswation on this issue, that they need to be ready for unimaginably hard times ahead.

 

[Busta]

...What?

How is it possible to have something that is inherently divine but not inherently religious? The very consideration of marriage to have a divine component presupposes certain religious truths. The bottom line is that religion has been removed from the legal definition of marriage - you don't need to be religious to be married and you don't need to go to a religious leader to get married.

"How is it possible to have something that is inherently divine but not inherently religious?"
Because religion and divinity are not the same thing.

Divinity is universal.
Religion is meerly an individual or group's attempt to understand that divinity.
Church is the institutionalizing and officiating of a given attempt to understand divinity.

One does not need to follow official institutional rules in order to attempt to understand divinity.
One does not need to even attempt to understand divinity in order to be in-tuch with the divine.

"...you don't need to be religious to be married and you don't need to go to a religious leader to get married."
We never did....I sure didn't.
Those who asserted otherwise, lied.

An Islamic marriage is no less valid than is a Buddhist, Wiccan or Atheist marriage. All of these are compliant with the divine, so far as I know.

 

[Stace]

You asked what the difference is and it's a big one and no one is trying to "not allow" homosexual behavior. You make no sense.

I make no sense? That's funny. I said nothing about "homosexual behavior", I was talking about marriage, and obviously, people are trying to "not allow" that.

Since gays have been demanding marriage they have, but the law and society don't and that's what matters.

Huh? That has nothing to do with what you quoted before this. I've had this copy of Webster's since long before gay rights was such a huge issue, so I highly doubt the friendly folks at Webster changed the definition just because of that.

Well then admit that you don't want ANY definition to marriage.

Why would I admit to a thought I don't possess?

No you would have to insert that for it to be restricted to just two people. But again why limit it then. Don't three people have just as much "right" as two to marry each other?

Not really. If it's already restricted to two people, all you have to do is take out any mention of gender and voila! It's still between two people. Not that hard to comprehend.

But yeah, if you want to get really technical, three people have just as much right to marry if that's what they want to do.

So again you are willing to forego any definition of marriage, it's just what each person wants it to be, legally speaking.

Hardly. Don't make assumptions. Read what is put forth. We haven't even discussed incestuous relationships, nor anything regarding the legal age of consent. Oh, and let's not forget barnyard animals.

 

[Engimo]

"How is it possible to have something that is inherently divine but not inherently religious?"
Because religion and divinity are not the same thing.

Divinity is universal.
Religion is meerly an individual or group's attempt to understand that divinity.
Church is the institutionalizing and officiating of a given attempt to understand divinity.

My point is that you cannot use this "divinity" as a basis for enacting legislation or withholding the right of homosexuals to marry. There is an inherent religious acknowledgement of the existence of a God inherent to the acceptance of the "divine" nature of a marriage - there is nothing universal about it and it has no place in the justifications of a secular government.

 

[Busta]

My point is that you cannot use this "divinity" as a basis for enacting legislation or withholding the right of homosexuals to marry. There is an inherent religious acknowledgement of the existence of a God inherent to the acceptance of the "divine" nature of a marriage - there is nothing universal about it and it has no place in the justifications of a secular government.

I don't think that you understand your opposition's argument.

1st. There is no "right of homosexuals to marry". It simply does not exist. There is nothing too "withold". It can not be interpreted from Liberty, or anything ells. It's existence can not be prooven because it is virtually imposable to prove a negative.

When a "strictly legal contract" requires it's signers to be of opposite genders, it violates nothing. The gender requirement is simply a condition, a term. You can either chose to comply, or you can choose not to sign.

To allow a third option is to warp that "strictly legal contrat" out of recognition and render it meaningless.

2nd. A body does not need to acknowledge divinity in legal code in order to prevent same-sex 'marriage; as was the case in California's Prop. 22.

3rd. There is a "Compelling State Interest" in the mental health of it's citizens.
Issuing the blanket notion that homosexuality is normal, natural and healthy
is to condone some of the first causes of the manifested homosexuality.
These causes may include sexual confusion during puberty, a lifestyle choice made due to abuse, and varying degrees of Gender Identity Disorder (not to be confused with the formerly recognized Psycosexual Disorder: Homosexuality).

Rather than clarifying ones sexual identity, healing psychological trauma resulting from abuse, or treating/managing Gender Identity Disorder, allowing homosexuality to go unfettered regardless of what caused it is to condone sexual confusion, some psychological scaring/trauma and mental disorder.

That is how homosexuality hurts the individual. It robs a person of their right to Liberty. Liberty of identity. Liberty of mental health.
On that basis alone can same-sex 'marriage be denied.

***
One does not need to acknowledge any given religion in order to acknowledge the divine. The divine predates and transends religion. It is what makes you alive.
What make the divine universal is the fact that everyone, regardless of belief, race, language, etc., has a piece of it inside them.

***
One does not need to say "divine", "God", "religion", etc., in order to pose such a justification. Instead, the Court and the Legislature may use words like "inherent" and "fundamental".
Even our Deist Founding Fathers saw fit to dare use the term "self-evident".

***
It is legally OK to acknowledge the divine, so long as the law does not -establish- religion when it does so.

Remember, religion and divinity are two totally different things.