One question only--How would allowing gay marriage affect YOUR marriage?

[RightinNYC]

The Legislature would decide the law.

There's a few constitutional issues with allowing the legislature to tell a couple that they are not allowed to breed, or with creating separate classes of citizens.

A licensed psychotherapist, neurologist or similar.

And what if two disagree? Either way, people could just go to doctors they know would give them the answer they want.

 

[Jerry]

There's a few constitutional issues with allowing the legislature to tell a couple that they are not allowed to breed...

Well, I didn't speak of laws forbidding breeding.
However, could you give a constitutional example of why a couple should not be prevented from breeding?

....or with creating separate classes of citizens.

I wasn't speaking of creating 'separate classes of citizens' either.

And what if two disagree?

I didn't say that there needed to be 2 opinions. There could be only one opinion needed.

If such a statute is to vague or to cumbersome, it will be over-ruled by SCOTUS just as R-W brushed aside bland Texas anti-abortion statutes on those grounds.

Either way, people could just go to doctors they know would give them the answer they want.

Sure. They can do that to get pain killers too

 

[FallingPianos]

Well, I didn't speak of laws forbidding breeding.
However, could you give a constitutional example of why a couple should not be prevented from breeding?

it would be possible to do on the state level, but not the federal level because that power is not granted to the congress in the constitution.

 

[RightinNYC]

Well, I didn't speak of laws forbidding breeding.

You said that the legislature could create laws that would prevent people from having children.

However, could you give a constitutional example of why a couple should not be prevented from breeding?

Sure. Skinner v. Oklahoma, for one.

This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race-the right to have offspring.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

This case establishes the right to procreate as a fundamental right. The only time the government can infringe on a fundamental right is in the case of an overwhelming compelling interest. In this case, sterilization, even for violent criminals, was outlawed. If preventing violent criminals from breeding is not compelling enough to warrant limiting the right, no psychological diagnosis will be.

I wasn't speaking of creating 'separate classes of citizens' either.

You're proposing legislation that would infringe on the basic rights of citizens based on whether they were classified by an outside party to belong to a certain group. That is the exact same thing.

If such a statute is to vague or to cumbersome, it will be over-ruled by SCOTUS just as R-W brushed aside bland Texas anti-abortion statutes on those grounds.

No, the statue would be over-ruled no matter what by even the most junior district court member. You can't pass a law that goes directly against precedent.

 

[RightinNYC]

it would be possible to do on the state level, but not the federal level because that power is not granted to the congress in the constitution.

No, the 14th Amendment means that the state cannot infringe on constitutional rights anymore than the feds can.

 

[zymurgy]

No, the 14th Amendment means that the state cannot infringe on constitutional rights anymore than the feds can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.


I mean come on, how crooked is that?

 

[Gilluin]

Wouldn't bother me or my wife a bit. We are not threatened by homosexuality in the least. We are quite comfortable being hetrosexuals. We do not require a law keeping us that way.

Would you be willing to have your marriage annuled? If as you say you do not need a law to keep you that way.

 

[Gilluin]

SWould it affect your relationship with other people?
Yes.
I can not refer to a man's legal male spouse as a husband, nor a woman's legal female spouse as a wife, as that, when compared to objective truth, would be a lie.

That may create tensions with people.

It comes down to tact. I'll just have to learn more of it. However, unless I completely comply with every popular idea forced upon me I'll be labeled and defamed. That is, after all, the third step in propagandizing an issue: Label all those left who refuse to comply.

My wife and I would not look at the further legitimizing of the tradition from which our marriage comes and choose to divorce. That would be illogical beyond compare.

So why as a gay man am I forced legally to accept heterosexual marriage?

 

[ProudAmerican]

I think a better question is, why does it have to negatively affect my marraige in order for me to be against it?

 

[RightinNYC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.


I mean come on, how crooked is that?

Slavery was ended under military duress as well, is that "crooked" too?

It doesnt matter how it happened, its still settled case law.

 

[RightinNYC]

I think a better question is, why does it have to negatively affect my marraige in order for me to be against it?

It doesnt. That's not the question the post is asking.

However, as a side note, if it doesn't affect your marriage, why do you oppose it?

 

[Jerry]

You said that the legislature could create laws that would prevent people from having children.

Sure. Skinner v. Oklahoma, for one.

This case establishes the right to procreate as a fundamental right. The only time the government can infringe on a fundamental right is in the case of an overwhelming compelling interest. In this case, sterilization, even for violent criminals, was outlawed. If preventing violent criminals from breeding is not compelling enough to warrant limiting the right, no psychological diagnosis will be.

You're proposing legislation that would infringe on the basic rights of citizens based on whether they were classified by an outside party to belong to a certain group. That is the exact same thing.

No, the statue would be over-ruled no matter what by even the most junior district court member. You can't pass a law that goes directly against precedent.

Look west out a window from where you are right now. Look way up in the sky. Hopefully it's a clear day where you are so that you can see the shrapnel and smoke trail as my argument falls to the earth having been thoroughly blown out of the sky :2wave:

Now that is a debate. Good job. I concede the point.

Thank you also for that legal case. I'll add it to my "slippery-slope" as it establishes reproduction as a 'fundamental right'. All I need to do is a bit of research on genetically inherited defects from inbreeding and I'll have a case defending incest; as genetic defects not related to inbreeding do not bar others from having children either.

 

[Jerry]

Wouldn't bother me or my wife a bit. We are not threatened by homosexuality in the least. We are quite comfortable being hetrosexuals. We do not require a law keeping us that way.

Would you be willing to have your marriage annuled? If as you say you do not need a law to keep you that way.

If I may....

If my 'marriage' were annulled tomorrow it would not affect my marital covenant between my wife and I. All it would mean is that we would have to file some paper work which, really, we should have anyway.

 

[Jerry]

So why as a gay man am I forced legally to accept heterosexual marriage?

I wasn't speaking legally.

However, how are you being forced legally to accept stright 'marriage? Even if you were a cop or an employer you would only be required to tolerate heterosexual marriage, not accept it.

 

[FallingPianos]

No, the 14th Amendment means that the state cannot infringe on constitutional rights anymore than the feds can.

breeding is not a constitutional right.

 

[RightinNYC]

breeding is not a constitutional right.

Yea, it is.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/332197-post54.html

 

[FallingPianos]

Yea, it is.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/332197-post54.html

When the law lays an unequal hand on those who have committed intrinsically the same quality of offense and sterilizes one and not the other, it has made as an invidious a discrimination as if it had selected a particular race or nationality for oppressive treatment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra; Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 , 59 S.Ct. 232. Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination.

this is what the decision was based on. it had nothing to do with a constitutional right to breed, though a side note was later made about the importance of putting any such laws under strict scrutiny.

 

[Gilluin]

I wasn't speaking legally.

However, how are you being forced legally to accept stright 'marriage? Even if you were a cop or an employer you would only be required to tolerate heterosexual marriage, not accept it.

The fact that I have to tolerate heterosexual marriage in any form while not being extended the same consideration is not acceptable. If I own a business I am legally compailed to allow you to file taxes as married. I am legally compailed to extend FMLA to you. Heterosexuals expect and demand that the world accept their marriages but are unwilling to accept gay marriage. I say if I am not accepted I will not accept. I will accept only those that accept me.

 

[Gilluin]

If I may....

If my 'marriage' were annulled tomorrow it would not affect my marital covenant between my wife and I. All it would mean is that we would have to file some paper work which, really, we should have anyway.

Which in the state of virgina, come november, will not be recogised. The new costitutional amendment will stop all contracts between non married people and people of the same sex. So in the state of virgina no more wills, powers of attorney, business contracts, or any other legal contacts between any non married person or people of the same sex.

 

[RightinNYC]

this is what the decision was based on. it had nothing to do with a constitutional right to breed, though a side note was later made about the importance of putting any such laws under strict scrutiny.

Huh? It was a unanimous decision that in the majority opinion affirmed the constitutional right to procreate. It doesn't get much more clear cut than that.

 

[RightinNYC]

Which in the state of virgina, come november, will not be recogised. The new costitutional amendment will stop all contracts between non married people and people of the same sex. So in the state of virgina no more wills, powers of attorney, business contracts, or any other legal contacts between any non married person or people of the same sex.

?? I think you might wanna check that one again...

 

[ProudAmerican]

It doesnt. That's not the question the post is asking.

However, as a side note, if it doesn't affect your marriage, why do you oppose it?

Ive gone into that in another thread. I dont oppose equal rights for everyone under the constitution regardless of sexual orientation. I simply oppose calling it "marraige"

gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ive gone into that in another thread. I dont oppose equal rights for everyone under the constitution regardless of sexual orientation. I simply oppose calling it "marraige"

gays should be afforded the same rights as everyone else.

Would you be opposed to a proposal that got the government out of the business of marriage? Say, one that returned marriage to where it came from, the church, and instead allowed any two consenting adults to enter into a civil union conveying the same benefits as the previously existing "marriage." Each church would of course be permitted to allow or restrict marriage between whoever they wished.

Basically, moves the name around, protects "marriage," doesnt encroach on the churches, and gives equal rights (under the government) to everyone.

 

[FallingPianos]

Huh? It was a unanimous decision that in the majority opinion affirmed the constitutional right to procreate. It doesn't get much more clear cut than that.

it wasnt the right to procreate. it violated the equal protection clause because white collar crimes were excluded.

 

[Jerry]

The fact that I have to tolerate heterosexual marriage in any form while not being extended the same consideration is not acceptable.

I wonder if polygamists would say the same.....

If I own a business I am legally compailed to allow you to file taxes as married.

It's not a matter of "allow" or "deny". If I am your employee then you are required to confirm my ID and file my W2. That's it. I can claim dependants I don't have, I can claim married when I'm single, etc. When the tax man comes to collect his due it will not then be your head put on a pike but mine.

I am legally compailed to extend FMLA to you.

One does not have to be married to take advantage of FMLA, but yes I know what you mean regarding the use of FMLA for a spouse.

Heterosexuals expect and demand that the world accept their marriages but are unwilling to accept gay marriage.

Who? Like Kelzie? Go say that to her face, figuratively speaking.

I say if I am not accepted I will not accept. I will accept only those that accept me.

1. The difference between accepting and tolerating is objection. To accept is to let something be without objection or contestation. To tolerate is to let something be while objecting and with contestation.

I do not have to accept homosexual marriage in order to tolerate it and treat legally married same-sex couples with respect. I do not have to silence my objection in order to let it be.

2. It's not a matter of tolerating "you", but your legal standing with the state. My marriage was formed independent of law, so why you apparently think marriage is nothing but law alarms me.

3. By that logic these " heterosexuals" you elude to are justified in not accepting homosexual marriage because you will not accept heterosexual marriage. Intolerance begets intolerance. Go talk to galenrox.