Oh come on, that is nonsense. Thousands of years of history and you are saying it is "cherry-picking" to not include the last ten or so years as part of that history? I am including it, of course, but as an ongoing process of changing the traditional and historic meaning of marriage that has existed for the previous thousands of years.
Not what I was doing, but just pointing out that even the polygamous marriages were taken as being between a man and a woman. The women were not married to each other. Each was married individually to the man.
Such laws had nothing to do with the institution of marriage and everything to do with general hostility towards race-mixing. It was opposition to the mixing of black and white blood. Nothing arbitrary about saying marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. That is a clear bright line.
Yet, those traditions had more than their fair share of prominent opposition and faced bans throughout history. Abolition of slavery goes back thousands of years. Many contemporary countries had banned slavery decades prior to the U.S. or even earlier.
The problem is not the government, but the people in charge of it. Enforcing the constitution, like all law, is great so long as people are committed to an honest and faithful interpretation. When people abuse their position of authority over the law to push their political views on society, that is when I have a problem.
I don't have a problem with the amendments. What the **** are you talking about? You are now being completely dishonest in attacking my position. My point is actually that the amendment did not somehow require recognition of gay marriage.
Except, legal recognition means they do have to accept it on some level. I mean, are their businesses not now going to be required take part in any gay marriage ceremony at request? They can only avoid it by coming up with some non-religious excuse. Any argument that "it is against my beliefs" will be promptly met with a lawsuit saying this photographer has to take photos at my gay wedding no matter how they feel about it or this person has to bake my wedding cake even if it goes against everything in their religion. You can say that is not being "forced to accept" gay marriage, but it is in effect putting people in a position where they either take some part in the celebration of the union or lose their livelihood. People are, in effect, being forced to accept it as lawsuits and financial penalties are a form of coercive force.
Do you really support that?
Again with the illogical retorts. People are going to have to accept it when it is legalized and that would be fine if this was the choice of the people. When it is the choice of certain activist judges then they are being forced by a small group of individuals to accept that marriage no longer means what it has meant for thousands of years. No one needs to be forced to marry anyone for the change to be forced on society.
Orwellian does not inherently mean "oppressive", but merely something that is akin to the world in Orwell's writings. By arguing that the 14th Amendment requires legal recognition of gay marriages, they are effectively reinventing history, because even those who wrote it most assuredly did not think it applied in such a manner and only in the past few years has anyone taken it that way. The law should be firm, not subject to the whims of judges. Interpretation of the law should be limited in scope and not become a way to perpetually move the law closer to a position favoring a political end not even remotely envisioned by its authors. When the law is seen to have deficiencies that prevent a certain political goal it should be revised in accordance with the appropriate procedures, not perverted through arbitrary decisions by partisan judges.
Wikipedia fail. Even if the stories are true, you should play closer attention as it explicitly says such unions were not recognized under the law. Anyone can have a ceremony, but we are talking about legal recognition.
Oh come on, that is nonsense. Thousands of years of history and you are saying it is "cherry-picking" to not include the last ten or so years as part of that history? I am including it, of course, but as an ongoing process of changing the traditional and historic meaning of marriage that has existed for the previous thousands of years.
Not what I was doing, but just pointing out that even the polygamous marriages were taken as being between a man and a woman. The women were not married to each other. Each was married individually to the man.
Such laws had nothing to do with the institution of marriage and everything to do with general hostility towards race-mixing. It was opposition to the mixing of black and white blood. Nothing arbitrary about saying marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman. That is a clear bright line.
Yet, those traditions had more than their fair share of prominent opposition and faced bans throughout history. Abolition of slavery goes back thousands of years. Many contemporary countries had banned slavery decades prior to the U.S. or even earlier.
The problem is not the government, but the people in charge of it. Enforcing the constitution, like all law, is great so long as people are committed to an honest and faithful interpretation. When people abuse their position of authority over the law to push their political views on society, that is when I have a problem.
I don't have a problem with the amendments. What the **** are you talking about? You are now being completely dishonest in attacking my position. My point is actually that the amendment did not somehow require recognition of gay marriage.
Except, legal recognition means they do have to accept it on some level. I mean, are their businesses not now going to be required take part in any gay marriage ceremony at request? They can only avoid it by coming up with some non-religious excuse. Any argument that "it is against my beliefs" will be promptly met with a lawsuit saying this photographer has to take photos at my gay wedding no matter how they feel about it or this person has to bake my wedding cake even if it goes against everything in their religion. You can say that is not being "forced to accept" gay marriage, but it is in effect putting people in a position where they either take some part in the celebration of the union or lose their livelihood. People are, in effect, being forced to accept it as lawsuits and financial penalties are a form of coercive force.
Do you really support that?
Again with the illogical retorts. People are going to have to accept it when it is legalized and that would be fine if this was the choice of the people. When it is the choice of certain activist judges then they are being forced by a small group of individuals to accept that marriage no longer means what it has meant for thousands of years. No one needs to be forced to marry anyone for the change to be forced on society.
Orwellian does not inherently mean "oppressive", but merely something that is akin to the world in Orwell's writings. By arguing that the 14th Amendment requires legal recognition of gay marriages, they are effectively reinventing history, because even those who wrote it most assuredly did not think it applied in such a manner and only in the past few years has anyone taken it that way. The law should be firm, not subject to the whims of judges. Interpretation of the law should be limited in scope and not become a way to perpetually move the law closer to a position favoring a political end not even remotely envisioned by its authors. When the law is seen to have deficiencies that prevent a certain political goal it should be revised in accordance with the appropriate procedures, not perverted through arbitrary decisions by partisan judges.
Wikipedia fail. Even if the stories are true, you should play closer attention as it explicitly says such unions were not recognized under the law. Anyone can have a ceremony, but we are talking about legal recognition.
Actually, the introduction of no-fault divorce was regarded with some controversy. Divorce was certainly not considered a very good thing a few decades ago. People have just become so accustomed to it that it is much less contentious.
Indeed, a September poll this year found that 85% of Massachusetts voters saw a positive or little to no impact from gay marriages in the commonwealth. In the poll, voters in the state support legalizing gay marriage 60% to 29%. Nationally, support for marriage equality has almost doubled since 1996 when a Gallup poll found 27% of Americans thought same-sex marriage should be legal. In 2013, that figure jumped up to 53%.
But marriage equality has not turned society inside out, nor has the promised parade of horribles has not come to pass. Massachusetts now has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, same-sex families now enjoy full legal protections, and the Boston Red Sox have the best record in Major League Baseball.
Your talk of intent is ad hominem.
You are attempting to dismiss my constitutional argument based on this notion that you think I have some kind of ulterior motives.
No, that's your deal. You're the one obsessing over original intent, not me.
You're right, whether gay marriage should be legally recognized has nothing to do with science. Nor does it have anything to do with the personal opinion of a bunch of people whom you outright admit never even considered the possibility.
Classifications of gender require that the state demonstrate that the classification is substantially related to an important state interest. That's the constitutional test. You either provide that interest and pass the test, or the law gets canned. Just because our snail-paced court system hasn't accomplished that yet doesn't render the argument void.
Interracial marriage was illegal until it wasn't. Sodomy was illegal until it wasn't. Are you saying both of those things should still be illegal because the people who wrote the 14th amendment hadn't overturned those laws?
What grounds, in the Const, do you see for recognizing marriage? (If you do)
Can you please give some specifics on how the institution of marriage is being changed? Besides gender?
And so it shall be with same sex marriage. And, in fact, so it already is in a number of places now.
Are you suggesting that is not a significant change that would impact all of society?
I don't think the Constitution ever had anything to say about marriage explicitly or implicitly.
Are you suggesting that is not a significant change that would impact all of society?
.
I agree, the Const. didnt and doesnt. However it does cover discrimination and due process and equality. So I see SSM as the right thing to do.
And how will it impact all of society? It will be recognized by all society but aside from that, what impacts will it have?
Well, to be fair, any positive change toward civil liberties will have an impact on society, albeit a positive one.
I agree, the Const. didnt and doesnt. However it does cover discrimination and due process and equality. So I see SSM as the right thing to do.
And how will it impact all of society? It will be recognized by all society but aside from that, what impacts will it have?
Equal protection under the law is mentioned in the constitution.I am dismissing the notion that it is a constitutional argument. Everything you mention is a reference to a previous court ruling, not anything contained within the Constitution.
They can't have an intent about a subject they never considered. I didn't say their intent was irrelevant, you said they didn't have an intent at all.Are you not paying attention? The point is not whether they considered the possibility, but that it was not some completely alien concept. Homosexuality was around back then too, unlike nuclear weapons and the Internet. If your argument is that because they did not think something they never considered unconstitutional would one day be considered unconstitutional on the basis of their wording and therefore it is fair game then you are really just dismissing the whole idea that their intent mattered. You are not arguing that the constitution or the law matters, but that what the judges decide matters.
If you think defining marriage as between a man and a woman is anything but a classification of gender, you are free to explain that.Usage of "gender" in this case is just a comical distortion of even the original court rulings, never mind the Constitution.
You are reading an intent to only apply to freed slaves, but that is unwarranted. Equal protection was written broadly, intentionally. To you, apparently, it doesn't apply to anything because it doesn't actually say anything specific. People argued that it was still equal protection to punish blacks more than whites for the same crime, because you were punishing all blacks equally and all whites equally. According to you, that's apparently constitutional because the 14th amendment doesn't say it's unconstitutional.Actually, those who were from the Republican Party and the North generally opposed laws against interracial marriage and many Northern states did not even pass such laws. However, the original intent question is not whether they thought it applied to a specific thing, but how it applied to any issue. The time it was created the law was about insuring laws did not single out freed slaves for unusual punishment or restrictions under the law.
False.No one is penalized by the mere lack of recognition for a gay marriage.
And none of those concerns have ANYTHING to do with Same Sex Marriage, because whether marriage is allowed for Same Sex Couples or not they can STILL raise children regardless. So the "Oh please think of the children" excuse doesn't fly.
Are you seriously saying that Adam and Steve being married is going to be worse than Adam and Steve the Same Sex couple in raising children? If not, your concerns don't matter because regardless they can raise children together LEGALLY whether SSM is legal or not.
You are never going to make it illegal for gays to raise children. It simply isn't going to happen.
I think that signing DOMA into law, however horrible that law was, may have really saved us from a Constitutional Amendment banning same sex marriage. I could be wrong, and really we can't know what would have happened, but the support existed for a Constitutional Amendment in Congress at the time, and likely in the states as well. That would have been much harder to get gone than DOMA was. It would have taken more effort on the part of ban supporters, but there were votes for it when Bush was in office in Congress, and during that time was when many states were putting into place their own state bans.
Wrong. Any ruling by the SCOTUS can be overturned via an Amendment to the US Constitution. If you actually have the support, you can change the Constitution.
We do not live in a democracy, but a constitutional republic that has a system of checks and balances, which includes the SCOTUS.
The reality is....those who oppose marriage equality really only have themselves to blame. If they hadn't fought so hard to deny gays domestic partnerships, we probably wouldn't be here today where marriage equality will be the law of the land. Many gays were fine with domestic partnerships having equal footing to straight marriage...but that was before the right-wing fought tooth and nail to deny those. Now....all of sudden, the right-wing is crying "Why aren't domestic partnerships enough.....why do you have to take our word away from us". To that supporters of marriage equality say...."Sorry.....too little too late....you can take your "domestic partnerships" and shove them where the sun doesn't shin....because marriage equality will be nationwide within a couple of years."
Confusion about her ruling continues – because she did not give counties guidance on whether they should begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples immediately.
Some counties are issuing licenses, as Wisconsin’s Attorney General has issued his appeal through the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
Hicup said:Call me old fashioned if you like, but although I can't put my finger on any one glaring benefit and articulate why a child is better suited for having both biological parents involved and attentive, I do KNOW it when I see it. I don't see why gays or polygamists or any other consensual relationship can't enjoy civil unions, but I think marriage should be held to a higher standard, and reserve that standing for those that perpetuate the best model for success, and that's heterosexual marriages.
Tim-
That sure would be nice...if anyone had/has done that. But since heterosexuals have not....I'd say that ship has sailed. Gays and polygamists, etc etc have not remotely sullied marriage the way that straight people have over the centuries.
So there's really no point in reserving anything...since straight people seem to take marriage for granted and abuse the crap out of it, the legal system, each other, and their kids at the drop of a hat.
A marriage is what the couple make of it. Gays will participate in it the same as straight people have...for better and for worse. But their track record with their kids has not been shown to be inferior to that of straight couples.
I think homosexuals should be very happy with civil unions. It's the state that might not be happy with them. Hey, in my lifetime we went from homosexuality being illegal to civil unions. What's not to be happy about that for homosexuals?
Perhaps but his oath is to uphold the constitution and the so-called DOMA was a complete utter failure at that.
So then what happens if they passed such an amendment but without repealing other amendments it would violate like the 14th? Talk about a farce in that case.
Reveals the extent of their bigotry quite nicely doesn't it and yeah, it's definitely laugh in their faces time. Although i really think DPs would have just slowed down the fight for marriage, since the significance is more than a word. The federal govt grants over 1000 rights based on marriage license, not DPs, and the federal govt can never agree on anything. Consequently, some of the first states to have DPs now have marriage equality.
DPs are also absurdly easy to deny rights to, even when they're legal. For instance, the bigot governor in my state opted to prevent partner benefits to state employees who got a DP, in one of the cities that allows those. He said too bad, we require marriage license. It seems close to impossible to make DPs equal with all the legal wrangling that would require, compared to a federal judge simply striking down a state marriage ban.
Oh that's just silly.... Gay's who have children, guess what? The bio parent wins... Just like in hetero child rearing.. Oh wait..
Tim-
While looking for more information on the upcoming November elections I cam across this which I thought was a very interesting article.
Latest Same-Sex Marriage Rulings Prove That Scalia Was Right
Latest Same-Sex Marriage Rulings Prove That Scalia Was Right | FiveThirtyEight
So what you are saying is that homosexual should be happy it is no longer illegal to be themselves. wow just wow.
Are you saying that homosexuals define themselves entirely by their sex acts? Well, now that you mention it, I guess they do.
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?