- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Weak pal, very weak. When you say "scoff", what you really mean is that you have no logical reason to deny any marriage between 100 people if they so choose. To do so exposes the weakness of the "gay marriage as a fundamanetal right's", issue.
You're not fooling anyone..
Tim-
I respectfully disagree. If the government can pick and choose which marriages to give benefits to, then it has violated the 14th Amendment, and therefore it's business is not being conducted in a constitutional way.
It is discriminatory based on gender, because the definition of marriage is a union between only a man and woman. The definition discriminates against allowing homosexual unions to be put under the same definition. However, this is not wrong. One could also argue that it's discrimination to not include animals into the definition of marriage and say its a union between a human and any consenting organism. Not all discrimination is unjust, we discriminate against the action of murder by making it illegal. I am not morally equating homosexuality, murder, and bestiality. What I am doing is showing how discrimination isn't always a wrong thing and that we discriminate against things all the time. Would it be discrimination to define marriage as a union between a man and woman but then also allow civil unions with equal benefits to be in place for other sexualities?And thus it is discriminatory based on gender by my argument, as a man can marry a woman, and a woman can marry a man, but a man can't marry a man and ditto for woman and woman. Gender discrimination is unconstitutional if it doesn't meet a rather high standard of necessity and proof, which it doesn't.
I support being Constitutionally consistent and ruling on the document based on how it is written and original intent. In all honesty, pretty much every judge is an activist judge because they make rulings based on their interpretation of the Constitution. However, what the case may be is that many interpret the Constitution according to law, others according to political philosophy and wishful thinking.I understand all this. However, I am speaking specifically of many of the conservatives on this thread who are simultaneoulsly calling this judge an "activist" while advocating for activist judging by ignoring that constitutionally as of now marriage is a constitutional right.
So Zyphlin, if I am reading you correctly, you don't believe marriage is a fundamental right? Only a constitutional right? Am I missing something?
Oops, sorry posted at the same time. Ok so I was correct. I need to go smoke a cigarette, I'll be back.
Tim-
the question remains the same. what gives you the voter the right to impose your morality on marriage?
Tex
Listen to me as I type very....very...slowly.
I've not made the argument, once, anywhere in this thread, that any group at all has a FUNDAMENTAL right to marry.
I am arguing that as it stands today MARRIAGE in general is a CONSTITUTIONAL right.
I am arguing that the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause protects individual classes of people from discrimination in regards ot the law, including constitutional rights.
I am arguing specific to my stance, that there is gender discrimination in the current marriage system and since gender is a clearly defined unquestionable subset under the equal protection clause, that it is unconstitutional to deny men from marrying men and women from marrying women when men can marry women and women can marry men.
I am also saying that due to the significant amount of evidence supporting the notion that sexual orientation in the large majority of homosexuals can be attributed as "natural" or "born with" that there is a far greater case to be made for that being worthy of EPC on the same level of gender if not race than polygamy which has no evidence of being an orientation or something people are "born" with.
Finally I am stating that "number of people", which is where the inequality comes into play with polygamists as they feel that if they can marry 1 person its discrimination to not allow them to marry 2, is not a recognized protected group under EPC like gender NOR has anyone presented any argument let alone a strong argument as to why it should be covered under EPC similar to the arguments made for sexual orientation.
Actually, pal, the argument is clear if you know anything about the case law surrounding marriage. First and foremost, all legal assertions point to the marriage contract being one in which you name "one person irreplaceable" (Perez v Sharp) and to hold a "place of unique and singular value" (Perez v Sharp) to you. A polygamous relationship, by its very definition, precludes this arrangement from ever taking place and, thus, has no relevance to the gay marriage debate.
Now that's all I am going to say about your red herring and I am going to let the rest of your snarky post slide for now because I can see that you are getting your ass handed to you on all fronts and, being the civilized chap that I am, see no reason to further add insult to your injury.
morality has nothing to do with it since it is subjective. Equality under the law has everything to do with it since that is objective. I don't give a flying **** what people consider normal or abnormal.Just another sign that gays want their immoral behavior to be seen as normal
And for the 1000th time, we're talking about gender. Sexuality really has nothing to do with it.Again for the thousand time, Blacks are a race of people....They can't change that.........Gays are a class of people defined by their sexual preference..............They can and have done that..........
And allowing a man to marry a woman but a woman not to marry a woman, and vise versa, is discrimination under the law based on gender.
I grow weary of this thread............I think there is one thing we all can agree on.......This issue will go to the SCOTUS to be decided........In the end I am willing to abide by their decision............To all you "Feel good Libs" and gays out there are you willing to do the same????????????????????
Ah, I see, so you're with Zyphlin on this. Marriage is not fundamental, but it is constitutional? You realize that rights not enumerated are considered fundamental, right?
Thanks for handing me me one.. Right back atcha..
Tim-
Well I posted this 6 pages ago trying to get a commitment from you lefties to abide by the decision of the SCOTUS on this issue and let it die in peace........Why am I not surprised that not one of you took me up on my offer? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites......
Actually, pal, the argument is clear if you know anything about the case law surrounding marriage. First and foremost, all legal assertions point to the marriage contract being one in which you name "one person irreplaceable" (Perez v Sharp) and to hold a "place of unique and singular value" (Perez v Sharp) to you. A polygamous relationship, by its very definition, precludes this arrangement from ever taking place and, thus, has no relevance to the gay marriage debate.
what were perez' and sharp's genders?
which means that the government can not issue marriage lisences.
which is sacrificing functionality for form.
Well I posted this 6 pages ago trying to get a commitment from you lefties to abide by the decision of the SCOTUS on this issue and let it die in peace........Why am I not surprised that not one of you took me up on my offer? Talk about a bunch of hypocrites......
I would love for you to demonstrate the somersaults and contortions in comprehension and logic that led you to believe that I voiced an agreement with Zyphlin...
Well is marriage in your opinion fundamental or isn't it? We already know that the law says it's between two people, but that's a substantive interpretation. You're logic essentially states that because the courts say so in Perez v Sharp it is so..
Answer the question. Is marriage a fundamental right or isn't it?
Tim-
Irrelevant........
I respectfully disagree. If the government can pick and choose which marriages to give benefits to, then it has violated the 14th Amendment, and therefore it's business is not being conducted in a constitutional way.
This is seriously beginning to look like baiting.
Actually, that's not entirely true, dana. The marriage contract, as it stands today, is a contract between two individual parties granting them joint power of attorney with one another. That contract can work between two people, reasonably, because there is an expected mutual designation of one another as THE spokesperson for the other in their absence (be that medical reasons, disappearance, or even death).
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?