Massachutsetts spits on Defense of Marriage Act...

Caz-I didn't realize this thread was still active. So I'll be your huckleberry.

Originally posted by CazMedia
The US supreme court supports this contention....Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al., Petitioners v. James Dale

The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law. Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said.

If groups can "legally discriminate" in this fashion,
then again, why is the "group" of marriage any different? (not everyone chooses to marry nor is it manditory or nessissary in life)

You missed a very significant point in this decision. The Boy Scouts of America are considered a private/public organization similar to that of "whites" or men only golf courses, rotary clubs, etc. There is no "group of marriage" as you state. All the orgs/groups cited in the SCOTUS decision were private or public organizations under IRC 501(c)(3) or similar status.

If we were to take a huge leap in logic and create a "group of marriage" then the State would no longer issue marriage licenses. Additionally, civil unions would probably result in the interest of property/domestic right issues.

Doesn't sound so bad to me. If you remember from my earlier post if marriage is deemed to be a religious tradition only to be entered into by a man and a woman, then the State has no business being involved in it. Let marriages be conducted in a house of worship and civil unions be regulated by the States.

As to International opinions, I'll tell you the same thing I told Toelint. International law should have no bearing on whether a US laws is constitutional. International law should only be applied to International matters.

I finally figured out where your signature came from!

(From one Frank Herbert fan to another)

[edit on 2-9-2004 by Toelint]

Originally posted by CazMedia
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.... here is some exerpts.....
Lets notice a few things
(1) says men and women, not men and/or women. It doesnt say people, citizens, or any other gender nutral thing...it says men and woman.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

OMG...the UN has decreed that the family unit is NATURAL and entitled to be protected??? Furthermore, this man/woman/family idea has been determined as a FUNDAMENTAL UNIT in a society by the UN!!!

Doesnt that bring me back to my original idea?
ANY CULTURE has the rights to set the boundaries for what they feel is acceptable for them, as well as to define themselves from the rest of the cultures out there. If the society or state wish to protect traditional family values then the UN thinks this appropriate.

Point #1: Of course it says men and women, those are the only 2 genders (outside of hermaphrodites) that exist within our species. "Men and women" simply means that both sexes "are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." It is not stating that men & women can ONLY marry each other. That's sort of like saying ONLY men (as in more than one man) can marry women (as in more than one woman) since it refers to the 2 sexes in their plural forms.

Point #2: Yes the family is a natural and fundamental group unit within our society. It doesn't, however, give it's definition of what a family is.

family
1: a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head 2: the basic unit in society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their own or adopted children; also : any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family b : spouse and children

Families are a natural part of the of human civilization, whether they consist of 1 mom/1 dad/2.5 kids; 1 mom/5 kids; 1 woman/1 man; 2 moms or dads/ 2 kids, etc. Are you willing to tell everyone, not in a "traditional" family, that they're not entitled to equal protection and rights because they don't conform to the majority's standards?

some "groups" can and do get bennifits that others do not.
Why is marriage any different of an "exclusive" situation?

The US supreme court supports this contention....Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al., Petitioners v. James Dale

The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law...
Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed. He said for the court majority that applying a state public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit a gay troop leader violates the group's constitutional right of expressive association.

He added, however, "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teaching with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong."

The Supreme Court was absolutely correct in their decision, because private organizations have the right to be as opinionated and discriminatory as they choose, as long as they do not receive any support from the government.

Neither the State nor the Federal government has the right to tell a private organization who they may or may not exclude. The government was meant to protect the people from violations of their Constitutional rights at the hands of others, not to make laws based on the latest moral or social sentiments.

If we were a Democracy, then you would be right in saying majority rule is what determines whether something is legal or not. Since we are not a Democracy, but a Constitutional (representative) Republic however, the majority does not have the power to deny the rights of the few. The determining factor is the Constitution, not the mob.

"For in a Republic, who is "the country?" Is it the Government which is for the moment in the saddle? Why, the Government is merely a servant--merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them." --Mark Twain

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another; shall leave
them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement"- Thomas Jefferson

(back to me here) This appears to be 20/(2) in a reverse fashion....no one can be forced to become a part of the group, THUS the group then cant be forced to accept someone either.

If groups can "legally discriminate" in this fashion,
then again, why is the "group" of marriage any different? (not everyone chooses to marry nor is it manditory or nessissary in life)

Ive only tried to apply these ideas to one democratic nation (the USA, as others have the right to determine their cultural values themselves)
I was EXTATIC when i came across the fact that the worlds "savior" organization had put these same ideas INTO CHARTER....wow,
So im not alone in the WORLD with these ideas eh?

You cannot discriminate against an individuals right to marry the adult of their choosing, because "marriage" is not a private oganization or club. No one can claim authority over someone else's marriage. In America, the decision to marry or not to marry is made by the 2 people who must take the vows, the government should have no say in the matter.

It seems like people assume that if gays are allowed to marry, then churches or pastors who oppose gay marriage will be forced to perform marriage ceremonies or allow them into their congregation. This seems like more of a fear that the government will use the legalization of gay marriage to violate the people's rights to freedom of religion/speech, than a fear that homosexuals will force those who are opposed to their marriages, to actively support them. If a government cannot be trusted to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all the people, then we have the right and obligation to replace it with one that will.

"...all men are created equal" does not mean that all people are economically, physically, or mentally equal, as had been suggested in an earlier post. All men are created with the same inherrent freedoms, and are equal in the eyes of the Law. The Laws must not be decided based on subjective, personal beliefs but through objective analysis and consideration.

"May [our Declaration of Independence] be to the world, what I
believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but
finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains
under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them
to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of
self-government... All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights
of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Roger C. Weightman, 1826.

"Freedom is essentially a condition of inequality, not equality. It recognizes as a fact of nature the structural differences inherent in man - in temperament, character, and capacity - and it respects those differences. We are not alike and no law can make us so." --Frank Chodorov

I do not have the proper moment with which to respond.
However,

Finally, a response to many of my points Ive questioned, that was intelligent, deep, non emotion laden, focused, detailed, and knowlegable.

Jezebel's responce is an excellent example of worthy debate here on ATS.

Mods should be dishing out some applause points all around in his thread for several including myself for the calibre of this discussion.
(Especially with the recent restrictions on the MudPit...ehrr ahh... i mean the Restricted political debates.) Jezebel should at least get points here.

I shall retire and ponder, observe some others contributions to this forum, and return to reply.