Is anti-gay unconstitutional

[Naughty Nurse]

I love how you say "activist judges" (all too common conservative buzzword today) but then your going to use Judges also to try and pass an amendment.

Will homosexuals be able to call those "activist judges"

activist judge is just another way of saying people who disagree with you.

:applaud :applaud :agree

Well said, bb!

 

[Schweddy]

I love how you say "activist judges" (all too common conservative buzzword today) but then your going to use Judges also to try and pass an amendment.

Will homosexuals be able to call those "activist judges"

activist judge is just another way of saying people who disagree with you.

Congress creates laws - not judges.

 

[JustineCredible]

Yes, but it says so many other things modern day Christians do not follow.

Stoning your neighbor if he works on a sunday.
selling your daughter into slavery?
does the church prevent people who have sexual disease from approaching the altar?
A man shall be put to death if he sleeps in the same bed as a woman has had her period?

Why do you get to cherry pick things you want and don't want to follow?

It's called being a "Cafeteria Christian." An all too common phenominon.
What really gets me is when so called "Christians" bring up Mosaic law.
Last I checked, since Jesus the New Covenant replaced Mosaic laws for those who follow the teachings of Jesus.
Why these "Christians" keep attempting to use Mosaic Law as their weapon of choice again homosexuals is really lame if one bothers to stop and think about it.
It just doesn't hold water.

 

[Schweddy]

True, and judges interperet the laws. But what would you say if a judge, say, ruled that gays can't get married in a state (hypothetically speaking, of course) that had implicit laws allowing gay marriage? Would you view that as that person being an activist judge, or a judge standing up for "what's right"?

The issue at hand in Mass was that it didn't have a direct statement about marriage being defined. That was a loophole was that activist judges "interpeted" that as same sex should be allowed. It never came up before until there was a homosexual state congress rep that pushed it there.

Now many states are defining marriage as being between a man and a woman - and folks are screaming that it's against some sort of fictional rights.

If a state law explicitly says that same sex marriage is allowed - there is no argument.

 

[Pacridge]

Then I fully respect your view point. What makes me nervous about the whole anti-activist judge movement is that judges interpret the laws, and this provides a major check and balance on the legislative and executive branches, and it just sort of stinks of those two branches trying to remove the check and balance by accusing interpretations that they don't like as being "judicial activism". This is, of course, not denying the presence of activist judges, but I think that way too many people are way to quick with that term.

I'm concerned about the current movement of labeling any judges decision one is unhappy with as being done by an "activist judge." The judicial branch has been a critical ink in the checks and balance system almost from the being of the this country. I forget what ruling it was but ever since the early 1800's (1802 or 03, I think) the courts have had the authority to oversee that congresses actions do not violate the US Cons. It's never been subject to popular views. The whole point of the system is to protect people rights that maybe unpopular.

 

[Bigbird]

Then I fully respect your view point. What makes me nervous about the whole anti-activist judge movement is that judges interpret the laws, and this provides a major check and balance on the legislative and executive branches, and it just sort of stinks of those two branches trying to remove the check and balance by accusing interpretations that they don't like as being "judicial activism". This is, of course, not denying the presence of activist judges, but I think that way too many people are way to quick with that term.

What bother's me even more is that if it wasn't "activist Judges" They would come up with some other term to Slam whoever was changing something in their disapproval.

 

[Dogger807]

Now many states are defining marriage as being between a man and a woman - and folks are screaming that it's against some sort of fictional rights.

If a state law explicitly says that same sex marriage is allowed - there is no argument.

Fictional rights? Ok assuming marriage is a privilege and not a right .

How can it be constitutional to deny someone the right to that privilege based on race , religion or gender? This is discrimination.

 

[MilitantFaggot]

Well, they ban marriage for based upon age, that is ageism and age discrimination.

 

[Schweddy]

Fictional rights? Ok assuming marriage is a privilege and not a right .

How can it be constitutional to deny someone the right to that privilege based on race , religion or gender? This is discrimination.

Age is another determining factor. Why not allow a 7 year old to marry? Because states have laws that under the age of X (one state as low as 13!) cannot marry another person - even with parental consent.

Is this age discrimination?

Adding on this - what if a group of folks thought that it was unconstitutional to NOT allow a seven year old to marry. Without question, there would be an uprising. Where are the "rights" of the youngster? Again, it has to do with the states choice and not the constitution. Therefore it is not a right but a privledge granted by the state.

 

[Dogger807]

Age is another determining factor. Why not allow a 7 year old to marry? Because states have laws that under the age of X (one state as low as 13!) cannot marry another person - even with parental consent.

Is this age discrimination?

Adding on this - what if a group of folks thought that it was unconstitutional to NOT allow a seven year old to marry. Without question, there would be an uprising. Where are the "rights" of the youngster? Again, it has to do with the states choice and not the constitution. Therefore it is not a right but a privledge granted by the state.

That's a weak apples and oranges argument. we all know through growing up ourselves that someone that young is not yet ready to make a decision on that level. yes there are 16 yr olds with enough maturity for such a commitment, but at same time there 23 yr olds who are not. But more importantly .. age is a temporary statistic. Eventually these children will become adults. Their right to the privilege of marriage was never denied. It's there waiting for them to become old enough to understand it.

"age discrimination" is such a poor item to use in these arguments because it implies we are doing just that discriminating against one for their age. Could it be we are just acknowledging that all humans have to age to learn and certain things need an arbitrary level of life experience , motor skill and maturity?

This does in no way distract from the fact that disallowing gays to marry is discriminating against them. which is against the constitution.

You can rationalize the rightness of this discrimination all you want but it puts you in the same category as Nazi vs Jew.. White vs black Men vs feminism etc

 

[MilitantFaggot]

Who are you to judge a 13 year old that wants to marry whomever, whatever and what ever age they decide? What about their civil rights? How does it hurt you personally if a 13 year old boy wants to marry a 40 year old male?

Remember, homosexuality is still illegal in many states!

 

[Schweddy]

That's a weak apples and oranges argument. we all know through growing up ourselves that someone that young is not yet ready to make a decision on that level. yes there are 16 yr olds with enough maturity for such a commitment, but at same time there 23 yr olds who are not. But more importantly .. age is a temporary statistic. Eventually these children will become adults. Their right to the privilege of marriage was never denied. It's there waiting for them to become old enough to understand it.

"age discrimination" is such a poor item to use in these arguments because it implies we are doing just that discriminating against one for their age. Could it be we are just acknowledging that all humans have to age to learn and certain things need an arbitrary level of life experience , motor skill and maturity?

This does in no way distract from the fact that disallowing gays to marry is discriminating against them. which is against the constitution.

You can rationalize the rightness of this discrimination all you want but it puts you in the same category as Nazi vs Jew.. White vs black Men vs feminism etc

I was not rationalizing the "rightness" of age distrimination. I was rationalizing the "rightness" of the state allowing or disallowing such actions. Albiet if it's age, gender, or even sexual orientation - the state has that right. If I don't like it, I can leave my state.

It may be discrimination, but it is NOT against the constitution.

 

[JustineCredible]

I was not rationalizing the "rightness" of age distrimination. I was rationalizing the "rightness" of the state allowing or disallowing such actions. Albiet if it's age, gender, or even sexual orientation - the state has that right. If I don't like it, I can leave my state.

It may be discrimination, but it is NOT against the constitution.

Why should I be forced to leave my state? For many of us, our home states are where we grew up, where we want to raise a family and grow old.
I moved BACK to my home state because I wanted to raise my son here, where I new he would get a better education, where my family resided and I knew I would have a network of friends and family members.
It's not fiscally feasible for me to just up and leave because my state doesn't allow me to marry my partner of almost nine years.
I'd have to move to a state where I know no one, am related to no one, my partner has never even visited and knows nothing about, has not family or friends.
We'd be forced to move to a state which would become more over crowded than it is already, a state where jobs would be hard to come by.
Forcing all gays to move to the one and only state which allows gay marriages would create such a horrendously welfare state due to lack of housing, lack of jobs, lack of state finances.

It's simply ridiculous to even suggest such a crazy thing.

 

[MilitantFaggot]

Well, NAMBLA members don't want to have to move to a country that allows men to marry 14 year old boys

 

[Schweddy]

Forcing all gays to move to the one and only state which allows gay marriages would create such a horrendously welfare state due to lack of housing, lack of jobs, lack of state finances.

It's simply ridiculous to even suggest such a crazy thing.

No one is forcing anyone to leave any state. I didn't suggest it - I said if I don't like it - I can leave. :spin:

United States doesn't mean that all states have the same laws - it means they are "united" under one form of government. To say that Texas has to change its laws to allow 13 year olds to marry (with consent - like the state of Mass) is as equally rediculous a statement. Is it not?

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Defining the meaning of the contractual term marriage is not inherently unconstitutional as long as it is done at a state level. However, if homosexual couples are not given a contractual option to be afforded with the same rights, benefits, and protections of marrital unions... that would most likely defined as unconstitutional by the current "proggressive" supereme court. Which is why most people at the very least support adding in a contractual "civil union" option for homosexual couples. Because the "civil union" option would have the same rights, benefits, and protections, it would be constitutional. For those of you who think the "Brown V. Board of Education" "seperate is inherently not equal" decision applies here, you're wrong. That decision was founded upon the physical inadaquacies and differences found in the comparison of the white, and black school systems. Two sepereate contracts which only difference would be the definitions of the participants of said contracts would not be unequal.. just different terminology.

 

[shuamort]

Defining the meaning of the contractual term marriage is not inherently unconstitutional as long as it is done at a state level. However, if homosexual couples are not given a contractual option to be afforded with the same rights, benefits, and protections of marrital unions... that would most likely defined as unconstitutional by the current "proggressive" supereme court. Which is why most people at the very least support adding in a contractual "civil union" option for homosexual couples.

Well, several states in their "wisdom" in the 2004 elections, banned not only gay marriage, but ANY contract that would be similar to marriage. In some cases, overwhelmingly.

Because the "civil union" option would have the same rights, benefits, and protections, it would be constitutional. For those of you who think the "Brown V. Board of Education" "seperate is inherently not equal" decision applies here, you're wrong. That decision was founded upon the physical inadaquacies and differences found in the comparison of the white, and black school systems. Two sepereate contracts which only difference would be the definitions of the participants of said contracts would not be unequal.. just different terminology.

So, back to the "colored" drinking fountains?

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Two sepereate contracts which only difference would be the definitions of the participants of said contracts would not be unequal.. just different terminology.

So what, really, would be the point? If I have 2 cups in front of me I shall call them both cups. I won't call one of them something different just because you have some strange objection to one of them being called a cup.

Personally I don't care what you call things as long as I get equal treatment. But goodness - what a storm in a tea cup!

 

[Naughty Nurse]

THE SECOND CUP IS NOT A CUP! GOD HATES THE SECOND CUP!

:rofl And doesn't that just about sum it up, cuddly one?

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Well, several states in their "wisdom" in the 2004 elections, banned not only gay marriage, but ANY contract that would be similar to marriage. In some cases, overwhelmingly.

something which they have a right to legislate... which the supreme court will eventually probably overturn.

So, back to the "colored" drinking fountains?

you obviously didn't read my brown v board of education comments.. that ruling applied to physical facilities... I'd say a waterfountain is a physical facility, wouldn't you?

 

[shuamort]

something which they have a right to legislate... which the supreme court will eventually probably overturn.

When they overturn DOMA.

you obviously didn't read my brown v board of education comments.. that ruling applied to physical facilities... I'd say a waterfountain is a physical facility, wouldn't you?

My point was figurative, not literal.

 

[JustineCredible]

What? Matthew 24:11-99 "God hate's the second cup, and don't you forget it ******!"
See, it's in the freaking BIBLE!

That's IT...time to use the HOLY HANDGRENADE OF ANTIOCH!

 

[Stherngntlmn]

My point was figurative, not literal.

your figurative point had no bearing on any literal legal commentary... homosexuals have a tendancy to liken themselves to the oppressed african american masses which were brought to the forefront of the civil rights turmoil of the 1960's. They romanticize their "victimization". Well, the only public schools i see to seperate homosexuals from heterosexuals were forced open by gay advocasy groups http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/07/28/gay.school.ap/ I don't see anyone proposing that homosexuals can't eat at a lunch counter or that homosexuals can't own land. If anything I'd say in today's society, the fear of being politically ostricizied or socially deemed a bigot, has reated a sense of unwarranted oversensitivity and public protectionism over the entire homosexual population.

I'm tired of the government side stepping and rolling over on every issue for homosexual advocasy groups. I'm tired of a few single judges overruling the completely constitutional legislation implimented by a popular vote with overwhelming majority simply because of their own personal bias. Just because you feel victimized doesn't mean you are. Welcome to the real world, where you don't always get your way with sad puppy dog eyes and threats of discrimination lawsuits.

 

[Dogger807]

I'm tired of the government side stepping and rolling over on every issue for homosexual advocasy groups. I'm tired of a few single judges overruling the completely constitutional legislation implimented by a popular vote with overwhelming majority simply because of their own personal bias. Just because you feel victimized doesn't mean you are. Welcome to the real world, where you don't always get your way with sad puppy dog eyes and threats of discrimination lawsuits.

And sometime, when you feel victimized it's because you are. The whole christian "I feel your sins threaten my religion so I'm gonna stomp your rights out." thing has those of us on the sidelines totally sickened. Hasn't history taught us that you can't justify taking away one groups civil liberties just because you don't agree with them?

Back in the day the majority of a certain country thought it would be a keen idea to throw all Jews in concentration camps. Popular vote doesn't equal morality. For that mater ..religion doesn't equal morality either.

 

[Stherngntlmn]

And sometime, when you feel victimized it's because you are. The whole christian "I feel your sins threaten my religion so I'm gonna stomp your rights out." thing has those of us on the sidelines totally sickened. Hasn't history taught us that you can't justify taking away one groups civil liberties just because you don't agree with them?

Back in the day the majority of a certain country thought it would be a keen idea to throw all Jews in concentration camps. Popular vote doesn't equal morality. For that mater ..religion doesn't equal morality either.

Nobodies taking away anybody's rights... nobody's locking anyone up in concentration camps. If marriage is defined as a union between people of opposite sexes, and that definition applies to every member of the population, how is that discrimination? that's a definition that applies to everyone.