Marriage is NOT a Constitutional Right!

Originally posted by murphy22
reply to post by DarknStormy

 

Totally agree with you! The deal is, We have a group of people trying to change the definition of words and their traditional meaning. Two women calling each other "wife" or "husband". Two men calling each other "husband" or wife".

Then they want to call their twisted relationship a "marriage". You can't argue with this "enlightened" thinking.

They'll even tell you "but animals do it". Animals eat their own crap also.... but, oh well. If thats your thing... have at it.

Yeah, it's going to hell in a handbasket.

Haha. Indeed a terrible argument. Animals also kill each other, at will, without consequence. So shall we legalize murder on the same premise?

reply to post by EarthCitizen23


awesome post - odin was of course reknowned as a practicer of seidr and there is even evidence from stone age burials that leads archaeologists to speculate that not only were homosexual partnerships repected regarding burial rites, but that "transgender" practices existed due to grave goods and ritual items etc.... it really is as old as the hills, and the people who have most trouble recognising this seem to be those who work under the misapprehension that their sect invented the concept of joining two people together - no more than 2 or 3 thousand years ago most hilariously.

utterly bizarre and entirely misinformed

Originally posted by SamaraTen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by SamaraTen

 

Then what gives people the right to marriage and how does it affect the legal agreement between them? You can't extend special privileges to a group of people simply because they are a majority and you can't strip other citizens of rights afforded everyone else because they are in a minority. Marriage is a civil right which the Constitution guarantees everyone of us gay or straight.

Marriage isn't a US Constitutional civil right. Straight either. It's a state issue.

California already gave it's vote. But, that wasn't good enough.

That's why we're at the US Supreme Court today. And the state of California refused to defend it's own laws because the leaders didn't Luke the way the vote turned out.

That's not Constitutional Federalism, that's democratic tyranny.

Originally posted by SamaraTen

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by SamaraTen

 

Have you heard of a man named Ted Haggard?

Seemed like he was making these same religious based claims about homosexuality and how evil it Is for society. Funny huh?

Let me ask you this: if everyone suddenly became "gay"...where would our species be?

Answer: EXTINCT!

"Suddenly became gay?"

Pardon my bluntness, but that is probably the dumbest argument against gay marriage I have ever heard, because the probability is so far out there that it makes the argument invalid.

And even if everyone "suddenly" became gay, does this include children in the womb? I wager that a world filled with gay people would be smart enough to know that they'd (eventually) need artificial insemination or "arranged" impregnations to keep the species alive. And they'd be fine with that.

Better question is, what if everyone suddenly became stupid...where would our species be?



*************

But I get your problem with gay marriage, you said it best in the post I quoted above and in the one where you feared that acceptance of gay marriage would bring about a collective wrath of God akin to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Yeah, I get it. "They're destroying the fabric of society."

No point in further arguing with you.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


What makes no sense is people say gay couples are denied rights?

So what rights are being denied?

WHAT?

Anyone or anything keeping them apart? Nope
Are they denied love or affection or initmate contact from the partner? NOPE
Anyone busting down their doors throwing them in jail? NOPE

In fact they are living their lives pretty much how they see fit,.

So explain it for all us "haters".

reply to post by SamaraTen

Having read the op's point of view and what is written, the following can be stated:

While the OP is correct that marriage is not in the original concept of the constitution as it is written, however, there are as his sources would indicate there are many things that are not in the constitution at all. Though many of these ideas and rights that we take for granted, may not been per say written or mentioned, they are covered by the protection that the constitution would provide under one form or another.

The Op, however is incorrect in his aspect and view of marriage, as that would ultimately, if it is what we take to be the only reason for marriage would invalidate those marriages that are childless, or even though where the couple is too old to bear children, does it then invalidate their marriage? How about a couple who is infertile or incapible of having children? Or where one person is steril, does that mean that person does not have the right to marry another of their choice? Or even what if both persons are not of sound mind or handicapped in one way or another? Do we now tell the returning vetrans, that due to their injuries they can not get married or that their marriages are now invalidated, cause the injuries may have made them steril or incapible of having children?

The main reason why the 14th admendment is used when it comes to ideas and concepts that are not covered under the constitution, such as marriage is that it deals with the equal protection under the law of the United States of America. In short, you can not ask one group to do what everyone else does, yet deny them the same rights and freedoms under the same law, that is the very essence of discrimination. So is it fair and when you take out all of the other factors in the question it all boils down to the following:

When 2 people get married, what defines it as a marriage in the eyes of the law where it is equal for all? Is it in the control and perview of the religious aspect, or that of the state?

Those 2 questions will have to be weighed and determined before the court can proceed in its decision.

Take out gender, take out all other factors and go from there, use no religious conotations, but in straight black and white aspects.

This one of the first times I have ever heard of a court case being so complex that the Supreme Court is split in equal parts, that means that all of the Justices are at a lose, and ultimately, have to decide based on their conscious and what the law would represent, and how they would view the law. We can not know what is or is not on their mind or how they will rule in this aspect. Nor can we tell how things are going to come out. The court may even decide not to rule, as it is looking at this as it is not within its perview to decide if it can make this kind of decision. We will not know for the time being. In any case the opinion and decision will make for an interesting read.

Honestly... grown men and women, running around as though it's the coming of the anti-christ if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional. I can assure you all, your lives will move on as per usual if the supreme court rules against your favor.

Heck my life will move on if the court rules to uphold DOMA, I know things will change for the better in due time.

God does not have anything against love. Nothing. Lust is a shared trait amongst all people. Evil is a trait shared amongst all people. If people find love amongst one another....that is a blessing. No one can come between it. No law, no government and no people. Nothing. God is love.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Honestly... grown men and women, running around as though it's the coming of the anti-christ if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional. I can assure you all, your lives will move on as per usual if the supreme court rules against your favor.

Heck my life will move on if the court rules to uphold DOMA, I know things will change for the better in due time.

The case before the court today had nothing to do with DOMA, that's being argued tomorrow.

Originally posted by SamaraTen

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
OP, if you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. What other people do is not your business.

History has taught us NOTHING. If it weren't my business, why do they make it so? And please, don't say they're not. They most certainly are.

Seems to be LOTS of Heterophobia running around. Next, they'll be teaching homosexuality in our school system; to kids THEY DID NOT CREATE. So, yeah, it is my business considering my kids have to be a part of this sick, twisted, perverted system.

SamaraTen, I really have no interest in changing how you feel towards your fellow human beings, that is between you and you god. Yet, a few posts back you were on the whole civil rights gig, saying gays jumped on the tailcoat of the Civil Rights movement.

I gave you evidence to the contrary regarding Bayard Rustin, and yet to see what you said about that, or for that matter the killing of gay people like Matthew Shepard. Your arguments are not based on reality. Your FEAR is very palatable and I am sure real for you, even if it is not justified by the evidence.

I have many of the same thoughts about Christians, Jews and Muslims, but I would fight to the death for their right to live according to how they see fit.

Why are we less than You in regards to seeking the bounty of what AMERICA is SUPPOSED TO BE,, not some backward looking ideal that never existed, but the reality of America NOW. Why am I less deserving than you to live my life as I see fit, and if I wish someday to form a legal contract at the Justice of the Peace, why should I not be afforded the Right YOU HAVE NOW? Tell me,,, but after you comment on Civil Rights again,, and the ''fact'' that No one is being killed for being gay today.

You are wrong on So many levels, may your heart and mind open to a more compassionate way of life someday.
America needs that right now, compassion, tolerance and logical thought.

Still awaiting your reply to the HISTORICAL FACTS I presented. I do know my history.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
[m

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


I'm glad you agree with me on the fact that marriage should be left to private institutions and individuals, it seems as though we are to some extent on the same page here Personally I feel this case does come down the rights of individuals, but oh well, we'll see how the ruling turns out.

Marriage is a union between a male and a female according to the Word of God, Period! What, do you really want fire?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ah oh well, your life will move on after this case as well

Duplicate post.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by SamaraTen

 

Then what gives people the right to marriage and how does it affect the legal agreement between them? You can't extend special privileges to a group of people simply because they are a majority and you can't strip other citizens of rights afforded everyone else because they are in a minority. Marriage is a civil right which the Constitution guarantees everyone of us gay or straight.

Marriage isn't a US Constitutional civil right. Straight either. It's a state issue.

But not being discriminated against IS a US Constitutional civil right.

reply to post by murphy22


Don't get this -- definitions clearly change -- and very often for the better. The 'traditional' definition of person excluded entire races, relegated them to property, and later on equated them to 60% of a person for purposes of representation. I'm not at all certain how evolving the definition of person -- or the definition of eligible voter to include women, or people who did not own land -- is some subversive act.

I practice law for a living, not constitutional law but certainly have had to study it. When a state or the federal government chooses to extend a series of benefits -- as they have in engineering, inter alia, estate taxes to benefit spouses, excluding swaths of people on the basis of sexual orientation is absolutely not legitimately permitted under the Constitution.

Our laws, and their defined terms are constantly evolving. Within the context of our agreed-upon system, I don't really find this to be much of a complicated legal question at all.

I've absolutely yet to hear a compelling argument in favor or restricting marriage to exist only between heterosexual couples. I've heard whispers of 'agendas' and statements that boil down to 'it's not right, because, well, it isn't right.' To me, neither of those is a valid argument that can support a system in which one group of people is afforded legal privileges by which the quality of their lives are enhanced.

reply to post by neo96


I won't characterize anyone as a 'hater'.

The 'rights' are very simple; a legally married couple enjoys:

1) tax benefit
2) insurance benefits that are pooled, such as insurance via a person's employment, as opposed to two people each having a separate policy
3) hospital visitation rights
4) the ability to make previously-agreed upon life-changing decisions, such as when a person cannot make the decisions for themselves (and I'll admit freely that this can be a contract between any people, married or not, however the system is far more geared toward married couples
5) Legal responsibility for their children (many, many gay/lesbian couples have children)
6) there are others

These are basic human ........... privileges of the legally married. I see no reason whatsoever why those ..... dare I say it.... I dare....... rights ..... should be hinged on an arbitrary variable of gender or sexual orientation. Why? Because they are legal conventions created for citizens of a nation, not genders of those citizens.

That's my take on it anyway. Your results may vary.

reply to post by skalla


Thank you,,I liked what you have to say also.

And NO, America is not a Theocracy, it is a Corporatacracy only Flavored and clothed in Theocracy.
I Know,, we are doomed.

But not for the Reasons Most would have us Believe.

CHEERS!

reply to post by kaylaluv

But not being discriminated against IS a US Constitutional civil right.

Why don't single people get the tax breaks that married people do?

Isn't that discrimination?