Why gay marriage bans are unconstitutional

[CriticalThought]

No , You got the point and I do suggest that to SOME - Nothing is more Important than Gay Rights no matter what the ongoing controversy is.

This is a gay rights thread! People are going to debate gay rights in a gay rights thread! Sorry if that offends your sensiblities somehow!

 

[Ned Racine]

This is a gay rights thread! People are going to debate gay rights in a gay rights thread! Sorry if that offends your sensiblities somehow!

Actually , I'm not offended BUT It did appear that this thread was going to just slip away. You want it otherwise.

 

[CriticalThought]

Actually , I'm not offended BUT It did appear that this thread was going to just slip away. You want it otherwise.

Feel free to address my argument Ned.

Marriage is a law. Due process and equal protection applies to all laws. As such, either marriage law has to apply equally to everyone regardless of their gender or there needs to be no marriage law. You can argue that there is no such thing as marriage between people of the same sex, but that does not apply to marriage law, which strictly has to do with the contract of marriage, which the state is obligated by due process and equal protection to recognize despite the gender of the participants.

 

[Ned Racine]

Feel free to address my argument Ned.

Marriage is a law. Due process and equal protection applies to all laws. As such, either marriage law has to apply equally to everyone regardless of their gender or there needs to be no marriage law. You can argue that there is no such thing as marriage between people of the same sex, but that does not apply to marriage law, which strictly has to do with the contract of marriage, which the state is obligated by due process and equal protection to recognize despite the gender of the participants.

In other words Generations of County Clerks all over the Good old USA had it wrong and were in Violation all along concerning existing law. In other words long held custom, Traditions etc. do not effect any ongoing Law (???) Seems rather cut & dried to me.

BTW - less than 30 years ago most Gays if openly asked would have settled for Domestic Partner arrangements if Lergal - but now it's the Whole Enchilada. This is WHY it will not end even if every State permits sAme Sex Marriage, and the majority of people accept and digest it.

The appetite of some will never be satisfied. It's their passion.

 

[CriticalThought]

In other words Generations of County Clerks all over the Good old USA had it wrong and were in Violation all along concerning existing law. In other words long held custom, Traditions etc. do not effect any ongoing Law (???) Seems rather cut & dried to me.

Appeal to tradition fallacy.

BTW - less than 30 years ago most Gays if openly asked would have settled for Domestic Partner arrangements if Lergal - but now it's the Whole Enchilada. This is WHY it will not end even if every State permits sAme Sex Marriage, and the majority of people accept and digest it.

Probably. All or nothing is usually how law works.

The appetite of some will never be satisfied. It's their passion.

Sorta like how it is your passion to portray gays as a purely politically motivated group that has no interest in providing for their families but rather is only interested in forcing total acceptance of their lifestyle down people's throats?

Your views about gay people say a lot more about you than they do about gays.

 

[Your Star]

To all of those people saying we have to define marriage, then why can't we define it as a contract between two consenting adults who wish to get married? That way you know, no ones rights are being violated.

I do not see the harm in me getting married, seriously, what societal harm would I cause if I got married? I have yet to hear a logical answer for that.

 

[Ned Racine]

CT is hung up on "the Law" seeing it in terms devoid of Historical context or precedent . Obviously that view is a tactic which some believe will solidify Same Sex Marriage eventually and make it immune to future challenge. Gee, that's swell.


Now, certain Gays in the recent past have broken the Law. The Big incident coming to mind was in St.Patrick';s Cathedral in NYC in 12/89 when a few dozen disrupted services and behaved in an abominable way . About 3 dozen were arrested and Many Progressive's supported their actions including siding with them in Court even though there was no legal basis for such behavior.

Some cited a "Higher Moral Calling" such as in terms of Gandhi or MLK. This was their view and MANY have never backed away from it.

Having "The Law" as some shining beacon is Fine - but it should apply to all , and we shouldn't Cherry Pick as to what Law should be obeyed, therefore I would think that anyone really being in the forefront here and wanting Same Sex Marriage totally established should also hold that certain Property Rights are important including Religous Rights and these cannot be Violated regardless of the justness or passion of any protests.

 

[roguenuke]

CT is hung up on "the Law" seeing it in terms devoid of Historical context or precedent . Obviously that view is a tactic which some believe will solidify Same Sex Marriage eventually and make it immune to future challenge. Gee, that's swell.


Now, certain Gays in the recent past have broken the Law. The Big incident coming to mind was in St.Patrick';s Cathedral in NYC in 12/89 when a few dozen disrupted services and behaved in an abominable way . About 3 dozen were arrested and Many Progressive's supported their actions including siding with them in Court even though there was no legal basis for such behavior.

Some cited a "Higher Moral Calling" such as in terms of Gandhi or MLK. This was their view and MANY have never backed away from it.

Having "The Law" as some shining beacon is Fine - but it should apply to all , and we shouldn't Cherry Pick as to what Law should be obeyed, therefore I would think that anyone really being in the forefront here and wanting Same Sex Marriage totally established should also hold that certain Property Rights are important including Religous Rights and these cannot be Violated regardless of the justness or passion of any protests.

In '89, I was 9 years old and pretty certain that I really didn't know that there were gay people in the world, let alone side with them if they were trespassing in a church for whatever reason.

But, more to the point, laws that are unfair usually get changed eventually. And the more people that see them as unfair, the more likely they are to be changed. I haven't heard very many people on this board and especially not in this thread, that have advocated breaking laws or who are advocating to make churches or anyone else perform gay marriages or even accept gay people into their congregations and/or their homes/lives. You really should stick to what is being said in this thread. Our side didn't bring up anything about violating laws to win gay marriage rights, you did. You should stop assuming things and actually debate what is being posted.

 

[CriticalThought]

CT is hung up on "the Law" seeing it in terms devoid of Historical context or precedent . Obviously that view is a tactic which some believe will solidify Same Sex Marriage eventually and make it immune to future challenge. Gee, that's swell.


Now, certain Gays in the recent past have broken the Law. The Big incident coming to mind was in St.Patrick';s Cathedral in NYC in 12/89 when a few dozen disrupted services and behaved in an abominable way . About 3 dozen were arrested and Many Progressive's supported their actions including siding with them in Court even though there was no legal basis for such behavior.

Some cited a "Higher Moral Calling" such as in terms of Gandhi or MLK. This was their view and MANY have never backed away from it.

Having "The Law" as some shining beacon is Fine - but it should apply to all , and we shouldn't Cherry Pick as to what Law should be obeyed, therefore I would think that anyone really being in the forefront here and wanting Same Sex Marriage totally established should also hold that certain Property Rights are important including Religous Rights and these cannot be Violated regardless of the justness or passion of any protests.

I was 4 years old in 89.

Anyways, you said they were arrested, so what is the big deal? They chose to break the law and they faced consequences.

 

[Ned Racine]

Now they use the term ***** "Our Side" ******* Also the question Why certain Progressive types and affiliated others do NOT condemn such lousy behavior by Militant Gays. I presume the reason is that it takes courage OR they get a certain "Kick out of it" . I suggest this attitude will continue well past overall acceptance of Gay Marriage by the larger society. I predict certain new laws will be enacted, or the attempt will be made.

Also the litagation will never end.

 

[CriticalThought]

Now they use the term ***** "Our Side" ******* Also the question Why certain Progressive types and affiliated others do NOT condemn such lousy behavior by Militant Gays. I presume the reason is that it takes courage OR they get a certain "Kick out of it" . I suggest this attitude will continue well past overall acceptance of Gay Marriage by the larger society. I predict certain new laws will be enacted, or the attempt will be made.

I'm sorry that "militant" gay rights protesters exist. Does that make you feel better? I don't hear you offering up any apologies for militant anti-gay people existing. Where are your condemnations of their behavior?

Seriously old man, develop some critical thinking skills.

Also the litagation will never end.

Well we wouldn't need courts if we didn't have litigation.

 

[Ned Racine]

I really doubt if 1/100th of 1% of Conservatives agree with the Westboro Church bunch over anything . I do suggest however that a substantial portion of Gays in the US do get a charge over the antics of Act Up/Queen Nation etc.

There does that make you feel better , being offered a chance to define yourself further ????

 

[CriticalThought]

I really doubt if 1/100th of 1% of Conservatives agree with the Westboro Church bunch over anything . I do suggest however that a substantial portion of Gays in the US do get a charge over the antics of Act Up/Queen Nation etc.

There does that make you feel better , being offered a chance to define yourself further ????

Meh. Until gay rights protesters are marching their kids out in the streets wearing "I hate the straights" T-shirts and waving signs insinuating the hanging of heterosexuals in order to protest military funerals or strip away rights, then I'm not all that bothered by your accusations. You see, when a handful of young gay people die by their own hands in a matter of a few weeks because of bullying and gangs in New York are beating up people just because they perceive them as gay, you don't have much room to argue that gay rights group's anger isn't a little justified when they protest.

Nope, my side isn't drawing blood and your side is. My conscience is clean.

 

[cpwill]

To all of those people saying we have to define marriage, then why can't we define it as a contract between two consenting adults who wish to get married? That way you know, no ones rights are being violated.

actually their rights are being violated. what about muslims or mormons who have a religious history of polygamy? what right do you have to 'violate their right to a mariage liscence' ? what about people who wish to marry themselves, animals, or minors whose parents consent? what right do you have to violate their rights?

ANY definiton of marriage means that you will 'discriminate' against some relationships by not including them in the definition of marriage.

I do not see the harm in me getting married, seriously, what societal harm would I cause if I got married? I have yet to hear a logical answer for that.

frankly i think the harm to the institution would be minor at this point. the spread of no-fault divorce has done immeasurably more damage. my issue with the homosexuality marriage advocacy movemnt is much less their intent than their means.

 

[cpwill]

As an individual citizen of the United States, I have a right to Due Process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments. Marriage is a legal contract regarding rights inherent to life, liberty, and property between individuals. As an individual citizen of the US, I also have a right to equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Same sex marriage bans deny me, a citizen, the right to form a legal marriage contract with someone of certain sex based on my gender. Gender happens to fall under the second level of scrutiny when it comes to meeting due process...

there is the leap that doesn't follow. you as an individual have the right to enter into any relationship you please, and if that relationships falls under the definition of marriage then you cannot rightfully be denied it. what you don't, as an individual, have is the right to force the people to alter their definition of marriage against their will.

 

[CriticalThought]

there is the leap that doesn't follow. you as an individual have the right to enter into any relationship you please, and if that relationships falls under the definition of marriage then you cannot rightfully be denied it. what you don't, as an individual, have is the right to force the people to alter their definition of marriage against their will.

What you are not getting is that the state has no right to define marriage as between a man and a woman because it is taking gender into consideration. When it comes to the law, marriage is first and foremost, a license. It is a legal document, and as such, it is governed by the Constitution. The state has no right to create a license that violates an individual's Constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection by restricting them from obtaining it on the basis of their gender. A marriage license, in a state with a same sex marriage ban, would restrict me from marrying a man on the basis of my gender.

There is no "leap". I, as a citizen, have the Constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection, and I cannot be denied those rights in any legal document, solely on the basis of my gender.

 

[Ned Racine]

Meh. Until gay rights protesters are marching their kids out in the streets wearing "I hate the straights" T-shirts and waving signs insinuating the hanging of heterosexuals in order to protest military funerals or strip away rights, then I'm not all that bothered by your accusations. You see, when a handful of young gay people die by their own hands in a matter of a few weeks because of bullying and gangs in New York are beating up people just because they perceive them as gay, you don't have much room to argue that gay rights group's anger isn't a little justified when they protest.

Nope, my side isn't drawing blood and your side is. My conscience is clean.

That's your perception based on the view that almost ANY tactic is justified and it's Payback time towards the LARGER society because of past injustices and abuse. This is WHY eventually the Church's will be target by LAMBDA and other organizations to force some compliance.

 

[CriticalThought]

That's your perception based on the view that almost ANY tactic is justified and it's Payback time towards the LARGER society because of past injustices and abuse. This is WHY eventually the Church's will be target by LAMBDA and other organizations to force some compliance.

Meh. I can be the bigger man. Only bullies and tyrants live with fear in their hearts of reprisal.

 

[Ned Racine]

Meh. I can be the bigger man. Only bullies and tyrants live with fear in their hearts of reprisal.

Reprisal is not the Right word here BECAUSE - Believe it or Not - Most Americans have never discriminated against or hassled Any Gays. Also there is a segment among Gays that actually wants a degree of deference and/or REALLY enjoys offending others.

 

[Your Star]

Reprisal is not the Right word here BECAUSE - Believe it or Not - Most Americans have never discriminated against or hassled Any Gays. Also there is a segment among Gays that actually wants a degree of deference and/or REALLY enjoys offending others.

This is awesome right here. In one post you completely play down homophobia because you claim most Americans haven't discriminated against LGBT people, then in the next sentence you complain about LGBT people in general because you say a segment of them like offending others. Wow, just wow.

 

[Ned Racine]

This is awesome right here. In one post you completely play down homophobia because you claim most Americans haven't discriminated against LGBT people, then in the next sentence you complain about LGBT people in general because you say a segment of them like offending others. Wow, just wow.

You are therefore unfamiliar with some of the more colorful participents in Various Gay Pride parades. Is that correct (???)

 

[Your Star]

You are therefore unfamiliar with some of the more colorful participents in Various Gay Pride parades. Is that correct (???)

Yet you seem unfamiliar with the "God Hates Fags" crowd. Seriously, how can you reason that just because you don't like someone that they don't deserve equal protection under the law? I absolutely loath, and think the "God Hates Fags" crowd are extremely horrible people. But I will always stand up for their right to free speech. You are obviously posting nothing more anti-LGBT rhetoric, and are not interested in having a actual conversation. So unless you would like to actually post something constructive, there really is no reason discussing with you further.

 

[cpwill]

What you are not getting is that the state has no right to define marriage as between a man and a woman because it is taking gender into consideration.

actually the people of this country have the right to define marriage however they please.

When it comes to the law, marriage is first and foremost, a license. It is a legal document, and as such, it is governed by the Constitution. The state has no right to create a license that violates an individual's Constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection by restricting them from obtaining it on the basis of their gender.

and nobody is. no one is denied a license because of their gender. people are denied licenses because the relationships they seek to have licensed do not meet the qualifications. for example, perhaps they are also siblings. or perhaps they are already married to someone else. or perhaps they are both from the same gender.

A marriage license, in a state with a same sex marriage ban, would restrict me from marrying a man on the basis of my gender.

yes but it would not restrict you from marriage, and to claim that it would is disingenuous. the law equally forbids straight men from receiving marriage licenses with other men as it does homosexuals. it is applied equally to each; that the people involved may want (or not want) to marry (or not) is their own issue; the state does not take into account whether or not someone is attracted to the person they marry.

There is no "leap". I, as a citizen, have the Constitutional rights to Due Process and Equal Protection, and I cannot be denied those rights in any legal document, solely on the basis of my gender.

and you are not.

 

[cpwill]

Meh. I can be the bigger man. Only bullies and tyrants live with fear in their hearts of reprisal.

exactly. the problem being that this kind of stuff is bullying and tyrannical.

We don't need you to agree with us; you'll do as we tell you whether you like it or not.

 

[Ned Racine]

Yet you seem unfamiliar with the "God Hates Fags" crowd. Seriously, how can you reason that just because you don't like someone that they don't deserve equal protection under the law? I absolutely loath, and think the "God Hates Fags" crowd are extremely horrible people. But I will always stand up for their right to free speech. You are obviously posting nothing more anti-LGBT rhetoric, and are not interested in having a actual conversation. So unless you would like to actually post something constructive, there really is no reason discussing with you further.

Actually I WILL NEVER stand up for the Westboro Church bunch. A few years ago in Pennsylvania as they descended and took advantage of the Murders of those Amish Girls I think Gov. Ed Rendell should have instructed the State Police to Arrest them on a Disturbing the Peace charge and hold them overnite or longer - then tell the Bastards to sue the State.

Rendell was too Yellow for a move like that, and I personally believe NO Jury would have given them a dime.

As to your other point - the God Hates fags group(s) are a tiny sub percentage of Conservatives.While the offensive flagellent types and Flaming Queens & Nambla Boys and Rest room loiterers are surely a Minority of Gays they still are a bit larger percentage.