Another judge finds law against gay marriage unconstitutional

[Busta]

I think Billo was saying that the whole same sex marriage issue is no one's business in that it should be a private issue between two people. I don't think he was telling you to mind your own business.

The relationship is a privet matter. The legal standing of that marriage, is a matter of public policy; and if you will note, I am discussing public policy, not the realationship.

You know, I have received allot of grief on another thread for having abstained my vote in the last pres. election; having been accused of not knowing or not caring about public policy.

But now, I come here, and I'm being told to but-out.

How does allowing two members of the same sex warp marriage? No one's marriage has any impact on my marriage or the sanctity of my marriage. Are you married? If a friend of yours (female) had a husband who was beating the crap out of her, would that have any impact on your marriage? If a friend of yours had a spouse who was an alcoholic, would that impact your relationship? I find it rather sad when people argue that allowing gay people to marry will somehow diminish the meaning of marriage. The divorce rate is 50%. My parents have been married for almost 40 years. The divorce rate hasn't affected them. Marriage is what the two individuals make of it--not what others outside the marriage make of it. I don't get this argument at all.

*sigh*
Haven't I screamed this loud enough yet?
Allow me to reiterate......
My primary issue with same-sex marriage does not have to do with sexual orientation, or even an additional legal allowance for what marriage can be legally defined as.
My primary issue with same-sex marriage has to do with how it is being sought. The 14th. Amendment will simply warp marriage into little more than a Living Will by stripping away nearly all of the requirements which make marriage a special union.

It is not the goal, but the miens being used to achieve that end, which I have a problem with.

By invoking the 14th., in addition to the gender requirement, 'you' are eliminating the familial relation requirement, the age requirement, the number of-contractual-signers requirement, etc.

You're right--no other argument is strong enough because the other arguments are based upon small-mindedness. "Oh, if we allow gay people to marry, what will happen next? People marrying 2 other individuals, or people marrying their pets?? OMG, it will just make marriage go down the tubes." Oh brother. To me, the 14th Amendment is a very valid reason for allowing gay people to marry. Why are you and I entitled to this benefit just because we are heterosexuals?

Er, I said.....
"Ironically, the only way to realize same-sex marriage is through the 14th. Amendment, because absolutely no other argument is strong enough to make it through the legislature."

Other arguments for same-sex 'marriage could be oriented around the creation of family, with a heavy $$$ accent.

But now you are telling me that arguing in favor of same-sex 'marriage on the bassis of family is "small mindedness"?
I'm suppose to be persuaded by your view?

As to the slippery-slope, yes, that is exactly what is currently happening.

Again, I just don't get this mentality. No one's relationship, outside of the relationship with my spouse, has any impact on me and the hubster's committment. While I believe we have a very strong marriage, I don't think our dedication to one another is unique. Maybe people are less strong than I am, so it's hard for me to even fathom that allowing two members of the same sex to marry somehow denigrates my own marriage. It doesn't even make sense.

Not your marriage....not my marriage.....the institution of marriage.....the codified legal representation of marriage.

By reducing marriage to a "strictly legal contract", 'you' are taking out the core of the institution, 'you' are removing that from which the codified legal representation came, 'you' are removing the client, leaving only the lawyer.

Marriage is being turned into a cell without a nucleus, a solersystom without a son.

 

[jallman]

jallman, my feelings are hurt.......I thought we were buds.....

We are, but jeeze you have some opinions are so typically neocon it kills me. And that whole "you're a liberal, so I win" thing you do is typical of some of the people around here. I do find it a little unfair that you are the only one that takes any grief about that. By the way, you were such a good sport in that whole navy pride bashing thread. I wouldnt have been so gracious.

 

[Stace]

The relationship is a privet matter. The legal standing of that marriage, is a matter of public policy; and if you will note, I am discussing public policy, not the realationship.

You know, I have received allot of grief on another thread for having abstained my vote in the last pres. election; having been accused of not knowing or not caring about public policy.

But now, I come here, and I'm being told to but-out.

First off, could you please quote me correctly? My name is Stace.

Secondly, what's with this privet thing? A privet is a type of bush. :mrgreen:

The marriage itself is a private matter, you're correct in that, and that the legal standing is a public matter...in a sense, anyway. That being said, legally, what's the problem with allowing same sex couples to marry? If you yourself want to call it a civil union, that's great, if a church only wants to recognize it as a civil union, or not recognize it at all, that's their choice as well. But if a civil union would essentially be the exact same thing as a marriage under the law, there seems to me that there's no need for different terminology. Words have often shifted meaning throughout history, so I don't see why we couldn't shift the meaning of this one as well, especially when most dictionaries already cite a marriage as being a legal contract between two persons; the dictionary doesn't specify that it's only between a man and a woman, so why should the law?

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post, because the rest of what you quoted is from a post that aps made, so I will let her respond.

 

[Busta]

First off, could you please quote me correctly? My name is Stace.

Secondly, what's with this privet thing? A privet is a type of bush. :mrgreen:

Tee-hee.....you asked for it.........

I am a nutoriusly bad speller. I think that it originates with the fact that I atended grade school in Alibama.

Telling a student to just "sound out the word", when that student, allong with the rest of the general population, has a heavy southern accent, will never work.

I mien, in the south, you can not have puples recite frazes like "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain", "The life of the wife is ended with a knif"....etc, because even the teacher, even the principal, can not say them.

It's like going to New York and trying to get students there to say "I parked my car in Harverd Yard."

It's not "coffie", it's "cwafy". It's not "car", it's "cah". It's not "car wash", it's "cah wersh".

The marriage itself is a private matter, you're correct in that, and that the legal standing is a public matter...in a sense, anyway. That being said, legally, what's the problem with allowing same sex couples to marry?

Again (this is, what, the 3rd. or 4th. time now?), I do not have a problem with same-sex 'marriage, per se.

[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]

I take issue with HOW same sex marriage is being sawt.
By invoking the 14th. Amendment's equal protection clause (..."nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"), 'you' must also allow poligamy, so-called Familial 'marriage and Dependant 'marriage, because if the current state of marriage is found to be discriminatory against gender, then it is also simpoltaniusly discriminatory against age, marital status and family realation.

Once the 14th. in placed into the discussion, the topic is no longer stricly "gay 'marriage". Once the 14th. is included, we are discussing all veriations of marriage, symoltaniusly.

Now, legaly, it is not that I have an issue with poligamy, or 3 men and 2 women marriages, or aranged marriage, or Line 'marriage, or inbread family clans, or whatever ells the 14th. allows.

My problem comes from when I here what the mainstreem pro. GM movment is saying, they are not focused on the purpus of marriage. They are focused on "anyone should be allowed to do what ever they want to do" and "if it feels good, do it".

My problem with the mainstreem pro GM movment, is the evocation of the 14th. amendment.

The 14th. Amendment will expand the institution of marriage out of recegnition. It will become nothing more then a glorified cell phone contract.

If I may expand beyond the issue of same-sex 'marriage for a moment........
Rendering marriage meaningless is the point. It is a means to an end. Nothing more then a pawn to be sactrificed for the 'greater good'.

When I place the liberal left's disrespect for marriage with their insatiable apitiet for social programs and welth redistribution, insistence that women and minorities are healpless victims who can only get ahead with the help of (place public figure here, like Rev. Jessy Jackson or Hillery Clinton), I see a power and principality at work.

That power and principality is this:

15. "Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States."

16. "Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights."

24. "Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press."

25. "Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV."

26. "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."


But hay.....at least I use the spell-checker .

 

[shuamort]

15. "Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States."

Hmm, the dems can't even control their own party. So that's not working.

16. "Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights."

The Supreme Court is mainly appointed by republicans. Can't fault the dems for that.

24. "Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press."

Tipper Gore. Remember her and her warning labels on music? :roll:

25. "Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV."

Mel Gibson's Jesus flick was quite obscene.

26. "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

'tain't nothing wrong with homosexuality. Degeneracy is subjective... and promiscuity? Well, that's more fun than anything.

 

[Stace]

Tee-hee.....you asked for it.........

I am a nutoriusly bad speller. I think that it originates with the fact that I atended grade school in Alibama.

Telling a student to just "sound out the word", when that student, allong with the rest of the general population, has a heavy southern accent, will never work.

I mien, in the south, you can not have puples recite frazes like "The rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain", "The life of the wife is ended with a knif"....etc, because even the teacher, even the principal, can not say them.

It's like going to New York and trying to get students there to say "I parked my car in Harverd Yard."

It's not "coffie", it's "cwafy". It's not "car", it's "cah". It's not "car wash", it's "cah wersh".

LOL....this gave me a good laugh. But I must say, I attended schools in South Carolina for six yesrs (second through eighth grades), and I certainly never learned anything like that.....

Must just be Alabama. :mrgreen:

Again (this is, what, the 3rd. or 4th. time now?), I do not have a problem with same-sex 'marriage, per se.

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that you specifically had a problem with it, I was just ranting in general.

I take issue with HOW same sex marriage is being sawt.
By invoking the 14th. Amendment's equal protection clause (..."nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"), 'you' must also allow poligamy, so-called Familial 'marriage and Dependant 'marriage, because if the current state of marriage is found to be discriminatory against gender, then it is also simpoltaniusly discriminatory against age, marital status and family realation.

Once the 14th. in placed into the discussion, the topic is no longer stricly "gay 'marriage". Once the 14th. is included, we are discussing all veriations of marriage, symoltaniusly.

I've never tried to use the 14th, or any other, Amendment to support my reasoning for same sex marriages. The only thing I've ever used is the part in the Declaration of Independence where it says "pursuit of happiness".

Personally, I don't see allowing same sex marriage opening the flood gates for other sorts of marriage. There are already specific laws in place against things like incestual marriages, each state has their own age of consent, etc. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the only thing stopping same sex marriage is the wording of the laws in saying that marriage is between one man and one woman. Simply change that text to say "between two consenting persons of legal age" or something, and there you'd have it.

Now, legaly, it is not that I have an issue with poligamy, or 3 men and 2 women marriages, or aranged marriage, or Line 'marriage, or inbread family clans, or whatever ells the 14th. allows.

My problem comes from when I here what the mainstreem pro. GM movment is saying, they are not focused on the purpus of marriage. They are focused on "anyone should be allowed to do what ever they want to do" and "if it feels good, do it".

Well, as far as I'm concerned on this issue, I'm strictly speaking about same sex marriage. I do think that certain restrictions are necessary in a catch all kind of phrase like "anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to do" or "if it feels good, do it". Statements and attitudes such as that tend to open up a lot of cans of worms.

My problem with the mainstreem pro GM movment, is the evocation of the 14th. amendment.

The 14th. Amendment will expand the institution of marriage out of recegnition. It will become nothing more then a glorified cell phone contract.

Well, heck, in some cases, it already is pretty much a glorified cell phone contract. There are plenty of people out there that don't marry for love. It's sad, but if they feel that the benefits marriage affords them outweigh being in a loveless marriage.....I guess it's their life and their problem.

If I may expand beyond the issue of same-sex 'marriage for a moment........
Rendering marriage meaningless is the point. It is a means to an end. Nothing more then a pawn to be sactrificed for the 'greater good'.

When I place the liberal left's disrespect for marriage with their insatiable apitiet for social programs and welth redistribution, insistence that women and minorities are healpless victims who can only get ahead with the help of (place public figure here, like Rev. Jessy Jackson or Hillery Clinton), I see a power and principality at work.

That power and principality is this:

15. "Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States."

16. "Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights."

24. "Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press."

25. "Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV."

26. "Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."


But hay.....at least I use the spell-checker .

You kinda lost me here, but then again, I'm dying for a nap. I'll revisit this section later if I remember.

 

[aps]

The relationship is a privet matter. The legal standing of that marriage, is a matter of public policy; and if you will note, I am discussing public policy, not the realationship.

You know, I have received allot of grief on another thread for having abstained my vote in the last pres. election; having been accused of not knowing or not caring about public policy.

But now, I come here, and I'm being told to but-out.

*sigh*
Haven't I screamed this loud enough yet?
Allow me to reiterate......
My primary issue with same-sex marriage does not have to do with sexual orientation, or even an additional legal allowance for what marriage can be legally defined as.
My primary issue with same-sex marriage has to do with how it is being sought. The 14th. Amendment will simply warp marriage into little more than a Living Will by stripping away nearly all of the requirements which make marriage a special union.

It is not the goal, but the miens being used to achieve that end, which I have a problem with.

By invoking the 14th., in addition to the gender requirement, 'you' are eliminating the familial relation requirement, the age requirement, the number of-contractual-signers requirement, etc.

Er, I said.....
"Ironically, the only way to realize same-sex marriage is through the 14th. Amendment, because absolutely no other argument is strong enough to make it through the legislature."

Other arguments for same-sex 'marriage could be oriented around the creation of family, with a heavy $$$ accent.

But now you are telling me that arguing in favor of same-sex 'marriage on the bassis of family is "small mindedness"?
I'm suppose to be persuaded by your view?

As to the slippery-slope, yes, that is exactly what is currently happening.

Not your marriage....not my marriage.....the institution of marriage.....the codified legal representation of marriage.

By reducing marriage to a "strictly legal contract", 'you' are taking out the core of the institution, 'you' are removing that from which the codified legal representation came, 'you' are removing the client, leaving only the lawyer.

Marriage is being turned into a cell without a nucleus, a solersystom without a son.

Okay, Busta, I see what you're saying. I disagree that allowing gay marriage removes the core of the marriage institution. The ONLY thing that can remove thr core of marriage is/are the people within that marriage. So a husband cheating on his wife with another woman isn't removing the core of the marriage institution? I don't need a marriage license, I don't need to say vows about wanting to spend the rest of my life with my husband to believe that our the core of our marriage is solid.

I don't mind if you don't see my view, but I stand by what I said about your reasons for not wanting gay people to have the ability to marry are small-minded, and that is purely my opinion.

I disagree that if we allow gay people to marry under the exact criteria that allows two members of the opposite sex to marry that it will eliminate the "familial relation requirement" or the "age requirement."

 

[Busta]

Okay, Busta, I see what you're saying. I disagree that allowing gay marriage removes the core of the marriage institution. The ONLY thing that can remove thr core of marriage is/are the people within that marriage. So a husband cheating on his wife with another woman isn't removing the core of the marriage institution? I don't need a marriage license, I don't need to say vows about wanting to spend the rest of my life with my husband to believe that our the core of our marriage is solid.

I don't mind if you don't see my view, but I stand by what I said about your reasons for not wanting gay people to have the ability to marry are small-minded, and that is purely my opinion.

I disagree that if we allow gay people to marry under the exact criteria that allows two members of the opposite sex to marry that it will eliminate the "familial relation requirement" or the "age requirement."

Well, back in the day when interracial marriage was the issue, it's supporters used the 14th. to bring it about.
Opponents of interracial marriage said that doing so would open the door for 2 men too marry each other, etc.

And look where we are now.

 

[aps]

Well, back in the day when interracial marriage was the issue, it's supporters used the 14th. to bring it about.
Opponents of interracial marriage said that doing so would open the door for 2 men too marry each other, etc.

And look where we are now.

LOL I just don't see the age or the familial relationship requirements changing. So did you not support interracial marriage?

 

[aquapub]

There is nothing in the Constitution that even makes REGULAR marriage a right, let alone gay marriage.

It is a privelege. It is licensed by the government, and just as the government has the right to deny driver's licenses to people who defy the definition of a driver (like a blind man), the government also has the right to deny marriage licenses to people who contradict the definition of marriage.

Forcing gays into a Judeo-Christian ritual is like forcing blacks into the Klan. It's stupid.

Let them have civil unions. When they ask for more than that, they clearly are asking for SPECIAL, not EQUAL rights. No one else who defies the definition of marriage gets to be married.

And I challenge anyone to find me any part of the Constitution that even vaguely implies any right to marriage, or any right that not being able to marry violates. And I am talking about ACTUAL rights, not the hallucinatory fabrications typical of liberal interpretation.

 

[shuamort]

Let them have civil unions. When they ask for more than that, they clearly are asking for SPECIAL, not EQUAL rights. No

Yeah, why should whites share drinking fountains with blacks? There are just as good drinking fountains that THEY can have.

Seriously, that's what your argument sounds like.

 

[Stace]

Forcing gays into a Judeo-Christian ritual is like forcing blacks into the Klan. It's stupid.

There is also nothing strictly Judeo-Christian about marriage. We are talking about the legal aspects, not religion.

Not to mention, there are homosexuals that follow Judeo-Christian religions anyway, regardless of what it may or may not say regarding homosexuality as a sin.

 

[Busta]

LOL I just don't see the age or the familial relationship requirements changing. So did you not support interracial marriage?

I'm sure that, 50 years ago, folks didn't see the gender requirement changing either.

No, I do not oppose interracial marriage. Race was not a part of marriage's origin, and is irrelevant to the marital union.

I find it exceedingly clever that 'the powers that be' used interracial marriage too establish the use of the 14th. Amendment. That event founded my "Slippery-Slope", it was seen for what is was then, and continues to snowball now.

 

[Busta]

There is nothing in the Constitution that even makes REGULAR marriage a right, let alone gay marriage.

It is a privelege. It is licensed by the government, and just as the government has the right to deny driver's licenses to people who defy the definition of a driver (like a blind man), the government also has the right to deny marriage licenses to people who contradict the definition of marriage.

Forcing gays into a Judeo-Christian ritual is like forcing blacks into the Klan. It's stupid.

Let them have civil unions. When they ask for more than that, they clearly are asking for SPECIAL, not EQUAL rights. No one else who defies the definition of marriage gets to be married.

And I challenge anyone to find me any part of the Constitution that even vaguely implies any right to marriage, or any right that not being able to marry violates. And I am talking about ACTUAL rights, not the hallucinatory fabrications typical of liberal interpretation.

I apologize in advence for this.......but whan I spank someone, I make it hurt (otherwise, what's the point?).

Skinner v. Oklahoma 1942 first to declare marriage a “basic civil right”.

Loving v. Virginia 1967 interracial couples have a fundamental civil right to marry.

Zablocki v. Redhail 1978 “deadbeat dads” have a fundamental civil right to marry.

Adams v. Howerton
(US Court Of Appeals) 1975-1982: Immigration rules do not apply to same-sex couples (appeal from US District Court, apparently appealed from US Board Of Immigration Appeals, 1975).

Turner v. Safley 1987: Prisoners have a fundamental civil right to marry.

Romer v. Evans 1996 State constitutional amendment is unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

Lawrence v. Texas 2003: Friend-of-the-court brief opposing sodomy laws.
Gay people have a civil right to privacy (end of sodomy laws).

Citizens For Equal Protection v. Nebraska
(US District Court) 2005 State constitutional amendment is unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

Smelt v. Orange County
(US District Court) 2005 The fundamental right to marry does not extend to same-sex couples, and even though the federal DOMA does harm homosexuals as a class, it is within the bounds of congressional powers to do so.

Source.

 

[shuamort]

Any reason you skipped this one from your site?
consolidated cases (Woo, etc.) 2005 lower court: same-sex couples have a fundamental civil right to marry

 

[Busta]

Any reason you skipped this one from your site?
consolidated cases (Woo, etc.) 2005 lower court: same-sex couples have a fundamental civil right to marry

Actually, yes.
That case, or cases rather, is specific to California.
Thought it is just as relevant as anyother state case, and the issue in general, I wanted to show marriage as a Fundamental Civil Right per the Federal Constitution, ie: Federal Supreme Court.

If I didn't want anyother cases shown other that the ones I sited, I would not have given that website.

It is a personal rule of mine to be as transperant as possable.