Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional

[CriticalThought]

I think it benefits us to win people over to gay marriage rather than to force them over. Lawrence versus Texas resulted in a very muted opposition in the end because everyone could relate to keeping the government out of the bedroom. If you force it down people's throats, you tend to get more of a Roe versus Wade result, and it never stops being controversial. It also doesn't make you much better than the religious nuts who pushed the gay bans, because then you are pushing your own moral view down people's throats.

 

[cpwill]

I think it benefits us to win people over to gay marriage rather than to force them over. Lawrence versus Texas resulted in a very muted opposition in the end because everyone could relate to keeping the government out of the bedroom. If you force it down people's throats, you tend to get more of a Roe versus Wade result, and it never stops being controversial. It also doesn't make you much better than the religious nuts who pushed the gay bans, because then you are pushing your own moral view down people's throats.

from the other side of the aisle, i could not have said it better; and you have highlighted my major beef with the homosexual advocacy movement. Americans are generally a pretty straightforward people; once convinced of the moral rightness of doing something, they tend to have a hard time not doing it. CONVINCE your fellow Americans (a'la MLK) rather than coerce them, and you will find yourself facing a much easier time. you will also happen to be not overthrowing the representative government and freedom that we human beings have shed so much blood for, and who's mantle you claim.

As an American conservative, if you manage to convince the majority of my fellows to alter the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions, I will probably vote the other way, grumble for about 10 minutes, and then move on. Does it weaken the institution of marriage as a bedrock of our society? I think so; but not nearly so much as other trends which have done so much more. the rise and spread of no-fault divorce, for example; the "me-first" pleasure-centric instant-gratification culture that teaches us to discard our spouses if they do not fulfill us in all the ways we would like, or even expects us to get married, get divorced, get married again... frankly, even in my (conservative Christian) eyes, expanding the definition to include homosexual unions would hardly do that significant an amount of damage to the institution as she exists today.

So, I will grumble, shrug, and be on my merry way. certainly no hard feelings: i lost and the American people made their decision; I am bound to honor them and that.

BUT.

If it is my representative form of government you wish to overthrow. If you declare that you do not care about whether or not law is put into practice based on the will of the people or the preferences of an unaccountable elite few. If you are willing to overthrow that last bastion we have to defend true freedom.


Then I will gun you down in the streets; and throw your corpse on the mangled heap of would-be-tyrants that have come before.

 

[cpwill]

Why do we need your respect when we can take our equality by force in the courts?

I actually wish that the gay rights movement would pay PR even less attention than it does now. We don't need you to agree with us; you'll do as we tell you whether you like it or not.

see, the American people tend to take a very, very dim view of attitudes like that.


we tend to shoot people like that.






though to be fair, in this case, it probably won't go that far. more likely you will simply spawn a counter-reaction capable of crushing you via numbers; and then your 'rights' which you think you have won will be taken away from you, and their lack enshrined in permanent law, never to be yours. ever.


remember your newton .

 

[winston53660]

see, the American people tend to take a very, very dim view of attitudes like that.


we tend to shoot people like that.






though to be fair, in this case, it probably won't go that far. more likely you will simply spawn a counter-reaction capable of crushing you via numbers; and then your 'rights' which you think you have won will be taken away from you, and their lack enshrined in permanent law, never to be yours. ever.


remember your newton .

Ah tyranny of the majority what a wonderful thing to be a part of the group.

 

[cpwill]

Yep, I tolerate bigots.

evidently you don't tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with you. a virtul paragon of today's modern left. Diversity in everything, except for thought.

I also find it ironic that they will go to hell. Same deal with the earily American Christians who burnt 'witches' at the stake.

Those Christians will be roasting in hell for murder and I find the irony delicious. You will too, someday. You know they used to burn homosexuals too, but they put them in with the kindling, which is called a "faggot." That's where you get the term "fag" from burning homosexuals in Christian rituals. It's all terribly hilarious to me.

:shrug: first, it's not given to anyone to condemn another to hell. that decision is made by a committee of one (or three, depending i suppose on how you count) and you aren't Him. as for witches i couldn't say; i know that if i were to honestly believe that a group of people i had access to were murdering innocent children; well, the results would not be good for them.

as far as 'faggots' is concerned, The oft-heard statement that male homosexuals were called faggots in reference to their being burned at the stake is an etymological urban legend. i used to think the same thing, but when my little sister came out of the closet i ended up doing some research into the history of homosexuality.

A. Who says that?

who claims that churches would be forced to act in disobedience to their belief structures, and who claims that this would/could never ever ever we pretty promise happen? really?

B. Who gives a crap what the Churches think? This is about equality in the Law, not in religion.

no, it's not. else, again, you would be satisfied with legal equality. what you don't have and what your movement is pursuing is social equality, and that is a different beast alltogether.

 

[cpwill]

Ah tyranny of the majority what a wonderful thing to be a part of the group.

representative government is many things, tyranny in this case isn't one of them.

and yeah. we Americans tend to take a very dim view of the intention to use coercion to force us to take action against our will. why do you need the public when you can take what you want by force? because we live in a nation that - at least notionally - bows to public soveriegnty and the rule of law. here in this country we have decided to govern ourselves by deliberation, debate, consensus, and adherence to legal process. we learned long ago how to deal with people who want to rule via coercion and force, that is a game we know well how to play. but be advised before you throw in an ante, that is a game played for keeps and there is no second place.

 

[cpwill]

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots... The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.
-Thomas Jefferson

Why do we need your respect when we can take our equality by force in the courts?... We don't need you to agree with us; you'll do as we tell you whether you like it or not.

bingo.

 

[CriticalThought]

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots... The Constitution... meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.
-Thomas Jefferson

That is why we have an amendment process. The final word does come down to the people. If the Supreme Court rules that same sex marriage is unconstitutional and the people rally and pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment, then that is the final word. However, until the people do so, the Supreme Court is responsible for protecting our Constitutional rights as they are now written, not upholding majority votes in states, and so if the Supreme Court finds that "traditional marriage" definitions are a violation of due process, the Supreme Court is obligated to overturn them.

"Though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable;...the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression"'
-Thomas Jefferson

In other words, if the will of the majority is to be rightful and not a tyranny on the minority, then it must be reasonable. That is why we have an independent judiciary.

 

[winston53660]

representative government is many things, tyranny in this case isn't one of them.

and yeah. we Americans tend to take a very dim view of the intention to use coercion to force us to take action against our will. why do you need the public when you can take what you want by force? because we live in a nation that - at least notionally - bows to public soveriegnty and the rule of law. here in this country we have decided to govern ourselves by deliberation, debate, consensus, and adherence to legal process. we learned long ago how to deal with people who want to rule via coercion and force, that is a game we know well how to play. but be advised before you throw in an ante, that is a game played for keeps and there is no second place.

Homosexual marriage really scares you huh?

 

[joe six-pack]

evidently you don't tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with you. a virtul paragon of today's modern left. Diversity in everything, except for thought.

Not to be rude, but who cares what your opinion of the "left" is? Honestly, I don't see how it relates to the conversation.

I don't represent a political identity. I'm a person arguing for the equal "legal" treatment of homosexuals in American society.

first, it's not given to anyone to condemn another to hell. that decision is made by a committee of one (or three, depending i suppose on how you count) and you aren't Him.

What's your point? Murder is against the ten Commandments. I'm almost positive a lot of Christians will be going to hell for it.

As for being a bigot? Don't be so sensitive. I don't really think people go to hell for being an a-hole. I said I "hope" they do. Get better reading comprehension.

as for witches i couldn't say; i know that if i were to honestly believe that a group of people i had access to were murdering innocent children; well, the results would not be good for them.

Who said witches murder children or that the witches early Christians killed hurt anyone?

as far as 'faggots' is concerned, The oft-heard statement that male homosexuals were called faggots in reference to their being burned at the stake is an etymological urban legend. i used to think the same thing, but when my little sister came out of the closet i ended up doing some research into the history of homosexuality.

It might be a "urban legend" but the term has been around long enough.

The Bible says to kill homosexuals as well as 'witches' so I have no doubt homosexuals were also put to death by people doing "God's work."

who claims that churches would be forced to act in disobedience to their belief structures, and who claims that this would/could never ever ever we pretty promise happen? really?

What the hell are you talking about?

The issue of "Gay Marriage" is about the Law not the Church. Homosexuals have been getting married in gay-friendly churches since the 1970's. (This is documented fact) So no one is arguing we create Laws which "force" a church to preform a ceremony it doesn't want to. No one. Besides the Law and the Constitution state that we cannot make Laws which force "religion" to change, it's called First Amendment rights. This issue has never, ever, ever, ever been about forcing religion to have fag ceremonies and throw rainbow parades.

Jesus Christ. Is that what you honestly think?!

no, it's not. else, again, you would be satisfied with legal equality. what you don't have and what your movement is pursuing is social equality, and that is a different beast alltogether.

Again, I'm not a "movement."

I'm a heterosexual, who respects the institution of marriage, but also respects the US Constitution and it's protection of civil Liberties. Anyone can preform a religious ceremony. Anyone can preform a public or private "wedding." Any gay couple can "get married" with a priest or rabbi or monk in any US State in America. This isn't about "society" or "religion" or "ceremonies;" this is about a small set of Laws in the US legal code that deal with legal bonds of matrimony.

Legal matramony is a legally binding contract that makes two people "next-of-kin" with all the penalties, benefits and privileges that go with it.

Does that clear things up now? What possible harm are you trying to prevent by advocating for the unequal legal treatment of a minority?

 

[cpwill]

Homosexual marriage really scares you huh?

no, it doesn't. what some of the homosexual advocacy movement are willing to do in order to get their way scares me. it's the equivalent of a six year old insisting that because Timmy down the street got ice cream, he should get ice cream... except that this six year old is making his demands while waving a condition 1 weapon.

the havoc wreaked to the process is all out of proportion with the intended result. there are some things you should demand - and at the point of a gun if necessary. but ice cream is not one of them.

 

[CriticalThought]

what some of the homosexual advocacy movement are willing to do in order to get their way scares me.

There are a lot of passions on both sides of this issue. And both sides plan to use the state to enforce their views. The GOP in Texas wants to make it a felony if someone issues a marriage liscense to a couple of the same sex. Your side, through groups like NOM, has advertised that gays are out to strip people of religous liberties and indoctrinate school children if they get marriage. You don't find that a little extreme?

To my knowledge, nobody has asked for gay rights at the point of a gun.

 

[middleagedgamer]

I think it benefits us to win people over to gay marriage rather than to force them over. Lawrence versus Texas resulted in a very muted opposition in the end because everyone could relate to keeping the government out of the bedroom.

Not everybody saw it as keeping the government out of the bedroom.

Antonin Scalia wrote a very sharply worded dissent. You should check it out.

If you force it down people's throats, you tend to get more of a Roe versus Wade result, and it never stops being controversial. It also doesn't make you much better than the religious nuts who pushed the gay bans, because then you are pushing your own moral view down people's throats.

Ok, let me try this approach:

They're going to accuse us of shoving our belief down their throats, anyway. No matter what we try to do, the homophobes are going to say that we're shoving it down their throats.

Look, I was like you, once. I believed that trying to persuade the general population that gay marriage was right was the right thing to do. Then, I realized that it doesn't work.

Show me how persuading the general public to take our side can be just as effective (emphasis on that last word) as taking it to the courts, and I will be convinced.

Until then, it's like asking a KKK-member who owns a small business to set his personal feelings aside and give blacks equal opportunity. You're not going to convince him that the law is justified, so the only thing left to do is sue him.

To me, it's results, first, and everything else second.

 

[CriticalThought]

As I recall, there was a man who stood up to people like the KKK and said that he believed in a day that people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

The general public was pretty sympathetic to his message and he didn't have to resort to forcing his views down people's throats.

 

[middleagedgamer]

As I recall, there was a man who stood up to people like the KKK and said that he believed in a day that people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.

The general public was pretty sympathetic to his message and he didn't have to resort to forcing his views down people's throats.

I don't think you get it.

Show me some evidence that people in the South (here racism was most prominent) was sympathetic to MLK's message at the time that he said it.

Yes, most people are sympathetic to MLK now, many decades after the battle against racism has already been won.

Have you ever had to force a kid to eat his vegetables, only for him to admit, afterwards, that it isn't all that bad?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was highly controversial at the time that it was passed. Hell, even Brown v. Board of Education was controversial at the time it was passed. But, now that the craze has died down, the general consensus now is that it was for the better.

But, show me some evidence that the general consensus was that MLK had a valid point... at the time that he made it.

 

[CriticalThought]

Okay then.

For the sake of posterity we shouldn't force it down people's throats.

Is that better?

 

[middleagedgamer]

Okay then.

For the sake of posterity we shouldn't force it down people's throats.

Is that better?

For the sake of posterity?

What the hell do future generations have to do with it?

Listen, I couldn't care less if anyone likes me. I'm a jackass; I admit it.

However, I have found that I get much better results if I am impulsive, assertive, and pushy. Let me give you some examples.

1. I was at Wal-Mart, one day, getting some groceries. A man came up to me and told me that what I was getting wasn't good for me, and that I needed for vegetables. I got pissed off, but I ignored him. Later, as I was checking out, he came up to me and tried to give me a bag of canned vegetables. At that point, I said, "Ok, apparently, being nice hasn't worked, so let me try this approach: If you don't leave me alone, you will go to jail for harassing me."

2. A few years ago, I was terminated from an occupation for a reason that was discriminatory. I did not just take this sitting down; I filed charges with the EEOC. At the EEOC mediation, I managed to get a contract for employment that was so good, that, normally, only celebrities and executives typically get clauses like this (e.g. instead of the law telling me what I can't be fired for, the contract told me what I can be fired for), all because I was prepared to "shove" my beliefs about equal employment opportunity "down his throat."

He probably hated me (and probably still does; I later quit on my own accord), but I didn't give a rats ass about that. I cared about results.

Crit, believe it or not, I'm not that hard to convince. I'd be happy to adapt your approach... if you can show me how being "nice" about it and waiting for the general public to become convinced will get the same results as taking it to the court.

Keep in mind, it's about results.

RESULTS!

F*CKING RESULTS!

 

[CriticalThought]

Well don't be surprised if the result you get is a Federal Constitutional amendment.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Well don't be surprised if the result you get is a Federal Constitutional amendment.

They don't have the votes.

They've tried to pass that, on numerous occasions. They have all failed miserably, to even make it past one house, much less both, much less 3/4 of the state legislatures.

And, even if it does get passed to the states, keep in mind that it is the state legislatures, not the people themselves, who must ratify a federal amendment. This means that states like California, New York, and Nevada, who's government supports same-sex marriage, but the people have bypassed that government, are still fair game to disapprove of the amendment. You need 37 state legislatures to pass a federal amendment.

Even if that does happen, if all the people had to do was pass a federal amendment like that, don't you think they would have done so a long time ago, regarding abortion? I mean, shouldn't they have at least passed an amendment giving each state the right to decide for itself whether abortion is legal?

If the people were going to just pass a constitutional amendment like that, don't you think they would have done so a long time ago, regarding flag burning? That's another one that was actually attempted, but never passed.

I would not be supporting taking the bull by the horns like I am if I saw a reasonable chance at a federal amendment. But, even if it does come to that, passing an amendment is a slow, tedious process, and, by the time it has happened, most people will realize, wait, gay marriage is not that bad!

If it is any consolation, I do not expect to simply bypass the public opinion, in its entirety. Rather, I expect to show the people how their fears are unmerited.

 

[roguenuke]

no, it doesn't. what some of the homosexual advocacy movement are willing to do in order to get their way scares me. it's the equivalent of a six year old insisting that because Timmy down the street got ice cream, he should get ice cream... except that this six year old is making his demands while waving a condition 1 weapon.

the havoc wreaked to the process is all out of proportion with the intended result. there are some things you should demand - and at the point of a gun if necessary. but ice cream is not one of them.

I don't agree with everyone on the SSM side when they make their arguments but they are not much different then the ones on your side. The ones who were so scared that states would actually have to allow the 14th amendment to give SSMs the same federal rights (Equal Protection) and Full Faith and Credit that they passed DOMA to begin with. Or the ones, such as the group from Utah, who have to make up things about gay marriage and gays, such as child indoctrinization and how gay marriage will somehow ruin traditional marriage, to get their bill to pass in the first place. Forget the fact that both of these things should have been considered changes to Amendments (1 federal and 1 state), but neither actually went throught the proper methods to enact such a change.

Civil marriage, the marriage that comes with the government issued license, is a contract between two people and the government. It should not be limited without good reason to do so. Public disgust of the two people's relationship is not a good reason. And claims that it will harm the institution of marriage have to be proven. It will certainly change the institution of marriage, at least civil marriage, but no one has shown any proof that it will actually cause it harm.

Also, no one on the SSM side is holding anything against anyone to try to change the laws such as DOMA and the state constitutional amendments against SSM. They are going through the same legal methods that it took to get interracial marriage laws changed. They are having just doing it in greater numbers due to the fact that unlike interracial marriage, no one was arrested for it (although there are certainly some who would like to have gays arrested and/or put in mental institutions or sexuality therapy). The fact that homosexuals can't be arrested for being homosexual in any state actually makes it more difficult for them to get equal protection. Marriage, as a civil institution, is just a contract. It should either include every couple who would cause no harm or none at all. And it is fiscally stupid and irresponsible to have two different legally recognized institutions (civil unions and marriages) that are essentially the same thing except one is for same sex couples and one is for opposite sex couples.

 

[middleagedgamer]

no, it doesn't. what some of the homosexual advocacy movement are willing to do in order to get their way scares me. it's the equivalent of a six year old insisting that because Timmy down the street got ice cream, he should get ice cream...

No, it's a matter of "You're discriminating against me. STOP the damned discrimination!"

except that this six year old is making his demands while waving a condition 1 weapon.

Litigation is a condition 1 weapon? :?

the havoc wreaked to the process

What process?

there are some things you should demand - and at the point of a gun if necessary. but ice cream is not one of them.

We're not demanding ice cream. We're demanding equal marriage rights.

 

[cpwill]

There are a lot of passions on both sides of this issue. And both sides plan to use the state to enforce their views. The GOP in Texas wants to make it a felony if someone issues a marriage liscense to a couple of the same sex. Your side, through groups like NOM, has advertised that gays are out to strip people of religous liberties and indoctrinate school children if they get marriage. You don't find that a little extreme?

school children are already being indoctrinated; need we revisit the fisting seminars and 'queering of America's schools' debate? and i have no doubt that many in the same movement that is willing to exercise tyranny and overthrow self-government in order to force social acceptance in the political arena would be willing to do so in the religious arena.

To my knowledge, nobody has asked for gay rights at the point of a gun.

that's what government is, CT.

 

[middleagedgamer]

The GOP in Texas wants to make it a felony if someone issues a marriage liscense to a couple of the same sex.

Ok, can you show me some citation for something as extreme as that?

Even if you can show me some documentation to prove that, I still have another counterargument against it.

school children are already being indoctrinated

Prove it. Show some citation.

and i have no doubt that many in the same movement that is willing to exercise tyranny

The only ones exercising tyranny are the homophobes who use politics to keep LGBT persons at the bottom of the bell.

and overthrow self-government

We are not "overthrowing" anything. We are expanding liberties by expanding marriage to include gays.

in order to force social acceptance

So, you don't want gays to be socially accepted?

would be willing to do so in the religious arena.

Prove it. Prove that we are trying to force the churches to change their systems.

 

[Ned Racine]

Well, I'm not going to read 8 pages on this . However IF it is ever part of the US Constitution then it is there for all time probably and not too likely to change. Also while for Two Centuries nobody thought at all about such an amendment NOW the Gay activists have been the catalyst in making some (admittedly some with bias) think there is no other option. They believe the overall society is under assault because others cannot perceive anything else being anywhere as important.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Well, I'm not going to read 8 pages on this . However IF it is ever part of the US Constitution then it is there for all time probably and not too likely to change. Also while for Two Centuries nobody thought at all about such an amendment NOW the Gay activists have been the catalyst in making some (admittedly some with bias) think there is no other option. They believe the overall society is under assault because others cannot perceive anything else being anywhere as important.

Ok, clarify something for me.

What IS your stance on same-sex marriage?