Ninerfan1 Wrote:

jh Wrote:The supreme court has already ruled that benefits, such as NEA grants, can't be awarded (or restricted) arbitrarily. There is a rational basis for the examples you cite (not that I necessarily agree with the government). By arbitrarily denying benefits to gays the government is not providing them equal protection under the law, a constitutional right. The state has no compelling intrerest in preventing gays from marrying.

Equal protection means a right is being denied. What right is denied? Marriage is not a right the state grants or denies. If tomorrow the state said we don't recognize marriage at all, that wouldn't prohibit anyone from getting married.

If you're going to argue equal protection you have to give a right being denied that thus requires state protection. The California Supreme court when they ruled on this last time couldn't even give a specific right denied by no allowing gay marriage.

The 14th Amendment does not only govern the protection of rights. It also applies to the issuance of benefits. The government can not issue benefits arbitrarily, even if noone has a right to the benefits in the first place.

Are you arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn laws against interracial marriage (they ruled that marriage was indeed a right & that such laws were a violation of the 14th Amendment)? Would it be ok to ban atheists from marrying? After all, atheists getting married should be even more offensive to religious types than gays.

Quote:

Quote:It's also a restriction on their liberty. The state has no right to restrict their available choices in such a manner as to prevent them from marrying.

The state says you can't marry more than one person. The state says you can't get married if you're under 18 without parental consent. The state restricts people from marrying a blood relative. Why are these groups of people not entitled to the same rights you believe gays are?

The state restricts any number of choices a person can make. Filing a joint tax return is not a right.

Your argument would be more effective if I believed that laws against polygamy or marrying a blood relative were justified (I don't know about 18 but I have no problem with having an age of consent). It's really none of my business who anyone else marries, as long as everyone consented.

The state does a lot of things it shouldn't. The burden of proof when liberty is being restricted must always fall to the state. The state has to prove why it has a right to prevent gays from marrying and that it has a compelling interest to do so. I've yet to see an argument for either.

Quote:

Quote:Rights are not granted to anyone, merely recognized. The rights are already in existance. Legitimate governments exist to protect our rights, not to grant them.

Valid point. So tell me what right is being denied. You've said equal protection, yet protected from what?

Perhaps a good starting point for a view on this would be to ask why exactly does the state recognize heterosexual marriage in the first place?

I've said equal protection of the laws, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (all Constitutional rights). The equal protection would be from discrimination. The discrimination would be having the benefits of marriage arbitrarily denied to them. Such laws treat gays as second class citizens. The very founding principle of our government is that the power of government comes from the consent of the governed, that the government exists to serve it's citizens. Why would gays consent to be treated as second class citizens?

Being different and treated as such doesn not mean a person is a 2nd class citizen. If a person is so big that he can't fit through a traditional door opening does that mean he's being treated as a 2nd class citizen? He's free to enlarge the opening but the building code for the rest of the country doesn't need to be changed just because of him.

jh Wrote:The 14th Amendment does not only govern the protection of rights. It also applies to the issuance of benefits. The government can not issue benefits arbitrarily, even if noone has a right to the benefits in the first place.

Then explain how the benefits associated with marriage are "arbitrary." The history of state sponsored benefits associated with marriage indicate that it wasn't arbitrary at all.

Quote:Are you arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn laws against interracial marriage (they ruled that marriage was indeed a right & that such laws were a violation of the 14th Amendment)?

No, they were right. However, they didn't change the meaning of marriage in doing so.

Quote:Would it be ok to ban atheists from marrying? After all, atheists getting married should be even more offensive to religious types than gays.

Illogical example. Marriage has a specific meaning that isn't governed by a person's religious views. It is, however, an established union that means something specific in this society. A man and a woman.

Quote:Your argument would be more effective if I believed that laws against polygamy or marrying a blood relative were justified (I don't know about 18 but I have no problem with having an age of consent). It's really none of my business who anyone else marries, as long as everyone consented.

The argument is still an effective, you just happen to be someone who doesn't believe the state should have any restriction on marriage.

Quote:The state does a lot of things it shouldn't. The burden of proof when liberty is being restricted must always fall to the state. The state has to prove why it has a right to prevent gays from marrying and that it has a compelling interest to do so. I've yet to see an argument for either.

States have numerous compelling reasons for not recognizing gay marriage. Money being chief among them. Another being the role of the traditional family and procreation. It's in the state's interest for people to marry and procreate. That's why marriage incentives were started in the first place. Gays cannot procreate within their union, therefore there's no benefit to the state.

Quote:I've said equal protection of the laws, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (all Constitutional rights). The equal protection would be from discrimination. The discrimination would be having the benefits of marriage arbitrarily denied to them.

This is where we disagree fundamentally. The history of marriage benefits granted by the state illustrate very well that it is not arbitrary. The state has a vested interest in marriage. An interest that by definition is not met by gay marriage.

Quote:Such laws treat gays as second class citizens.

By your definition such laws treat polygamists and relatives as second class citizens as well. The only basis for it is they aren't afforded state recognition of marriage.

Quote:The very founding principle of our government is that the power of government comes from the consent of the governed, that the government exists to serve it's citizens. Why would gays consent to be treated as second class citizens?

The governed have voted time and time again to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Why doesn't the government have a responsibility to honor that?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:Are you arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong to overturn laws against interracial marriage (they ruled that marriage was indeed a right & that such laws were a violation of the 14th Amendment)?

No, they were right. However, they didn't change the meaning of marriage in doing so.

Why were they right? You have argued that marriage isn't a right, that the benefits granted by the government can be taken away on a whim. You have also argued that the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment doesn't apply to marriage because the government is granting benefits rather than restricting rights. If noone's rights were being violated, why was the Supreme Court justified in overturning the will of the people?

And in some ways they did change the definition of marriage in doing so. At least one of the arguments made in favor of the ban was tradition (another was that God originally put the races on different continents so they shouldn't mix).

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:The state does a lot of things it shouldn't. The burden of proof when liberty is being restricted must always fall to the state. The state has to prove why it has a right to prevent gays from marrying and that it has a compelling interest to do so. I've yet to see an argument for either.

States have numerous compelling reasons for not recognizing gay marriage. Money being chief among them. Another being the role of the traditional family and procreation. It's in the state's interest for people to marry and procreate. That's why marriage incentives were started in the first place. Gays cannot procreate within their union, therefore there's no benefit to the state.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by money. I can't see allowing gay marriage to be a significant drain on the treasury. The tax implications are unclear & there would be some additional social security costs, but I think they would be a drop in the bucket. Not that I think it matters - financial considerations are not a justification for discrimination.

Marriage is not required for procreation, nor is procreation required for a marriage to be valid. The traditional family stopped being the dominant family dynamic a long time ago. Divorce and premarital sex have had a far greater impact in changing that (and damaging the institution of marriage) than gay marriage ever will. Generally changes to those laws have been to make them less restrictive, to increase the level of individual freedom allowed.

Also, gays can and do procreate, typically through artificial insemination (and surrogate mothers for the fellas). Gay couples can also adopt, helping relieve a drain on the governement's resources created almost entirely by the heterosexuals.

Finally, the state exists to benefit us. We do not exist to serve the state.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:The very founding principle of our government is that the power of government comes from the consent of the governed, that the government exists to serve it's citizens. Why would gays consent to be treated as second class citizens?

The governed have voted time and time again to keep marriage between a man and a woman. Why doesn't the government have a responsibility to honor that?

Our government was enacted to protect our rights. Not to enforce the will of the majority, the morality of the times, or anything else.

You yourself have no right to determine who can and cannot marry. Even if you were the pastor of a church, you still couldn't keep two people from marrying at a different location, as long as they could find someone willing to marry them. If you, as an individual, do no have a right, how can you transfer this right to the governement?

jh Wrote:Why were they right? You have argued that marriage isn't a right,

No, I haven't. I've argued state recognition of marriage and the providing of benefits for it are not a right.

Quote:that the benefits granted by the government can be taken away on a whim.

There is nothing in the Constitution or the DoI that says the state is required to offer tax incentives, benefits or anything else to married couples. The state made the decision, in it's own self interest, to offer those things because encouraging marriage is good for the state. They are perfectly free to take that incentive away at any point, and one could never argue their "rights" were violated by doing so.

Quote:You have also argued that the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment doesn't apply to marriage because the government is granting benefits rather than restricting rights. If noone's rights were being violated, why was the Supreme Court justified in overturning the will of the people?

At what point did any vote take place on interracial marriage? That is how this whole thread got started.

If you believe marriage is soley defined by the two being married, then you have no problem with gay marriage. However, the court has defined it by far more than that. The court has said:

Quote:It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.

The court clearly believes that marriage is an institution designed for the nurturing of procreation within the family. It's not something strictly defined to just the two being married. It's an institution that serves a purpose.

Quote:And in some ways they did change the definition of marriage in doing so. At least one of the arguments made in favor of the ban was tradition (another was that God originally put the races on different continents so they shouldn't mix).

Disagree. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. Period. Overturning laws against intrracial marriage didn't change that.

Quote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean by money. I can't see allowing gay marriage to be a significant drain on the treasury. The tax implications are unclear & there would be some additional social security costs, but I think they would be a drop in the bucket.

The tax implications are not unclear. Married couples receive a tax break. There would be far more that "some" additional social security costs, especially when talking about survivor benefits.

Quote:Not that I think it matters - financial considerations are not a justification for discrimination.

The government does it all the time. You make more money, you pay higher taxes. You make less money, you get government subsidies for food stamps and healthcare. The term "discrimination" is highly subjective. The government denies certain benefits of government to everyone all the time based on qualifications it sets forth.

Quote:Marriage is not required for procreation, nor is procreation required for a marriage to be valid.

Both are true. However, that doesn't change the fundamental role marriage plays within a culture. And that role isn't confined to two people but the family unit as a whole by setting the norms around procreation. The fact that those norms aren't adhered to in every single instance doesn't invalidate the intent of marriage within a society, nor does it act as a basis for changing it.

Quote:The traditional family stopped being the dominant family dynamic a long time ago. Divorce and premarital sex have had a far greater impact in changing that (and damaging the institution of marriage) than gay marriage ever will.

So the solution is to damage it further? There is something to be said by striving for the ideal.

Quote:Also, gays can and do procreate, typically through artificial insemination (and surrogate mothers for the fellas).

Doesn't change the fact that within the confines of their "union" they cannot procreate. They have to revert back to the norm to do so.

Quote:Gay couples can also adopt, helping relieve a drain on the governement's resources created almost entirely by the heterosexuals.

They don't have to be married to do that.

Quote:Finally, the state exists to benefit us. We do not exist to serve the state.

True. But there is absolutely nothing saying the state has to provide one single incentive to marriage. But it does, and there are reasons for that. And the primary reason for that is that marriage is broader than just the two getting married. It is the structure for the family unit in a society that is built through procreation. Therefore the state has a vested interest in it.

Quote:Our government was enacted to protect our rights. Not to enforce the will of the majority, the morality of the times, or anything else.

Our government was also enacted as a representative republic where each person has a vote. The people have voted on this. And there has yet to be a compelling argument made as to why marriage should be extended to same sex couples.

Quote:You yourself have no right to determine who can and cannot marry. Even if you were the pastor of a church, you still couldn't keep two people from marrying at a different location, as long as they could find someone willing to marry them. If you, as an individual, do no have a right, how can you transfer this right to the governement?

EXACTLY!!! And since that's true then gays already have the right to marry don't they? They just don't have the right to the benefits the state affords married couples.

Ultimately we won't agree on this because I have a specific view of the role of marriage within a society and the role of the state as it pertains to it. But the state is not arbitrary in it's reasons for giving benefits to married couples, contrary to your assertion.

In the future can you make the effort to respond in one post?

jh Wrote:Our government was enacted to protect our rights. Not to enforce the will of the majority, the morality of the times, or anything else.

Then how in hell did we ever end up with Affirmative Action - something liberals never seemed to have a problem with? That was legalized discrimination and the lefties loved it.

tigertom Wrote:FWIW ... I had a friend that turned to a "different" lifestyle. He didn't let his friends, including me, know about it until he left town and moved to New Orleans. He's buried in his old hometown now and has been for many years, because:

1. He turned/selected his lifestyle.
2. He moved to a city that condoned it more readily
3. He was MURDERED by his "other".
4. He WAS a good guy.

His choice. His/our loss. He was TAKEN at the age of 28... way to young to go.

It's a lifestyle that is way beyond the pale. I just don't want anything to do with it or it's participants. You can call me anything you wish. I don't care !

Love 'em and the horse they ride in on anywhere ! !

NEXT !

It's not a choice. I guess if my post a couple pages back didn't clear it up I'll say it again. I didn't choose my sexual orientation and neither did a lot of people. Many people go through a lot of angst and problems because being gay is not an acceptable choice among peers and social sets. I was a varsity football and lacrosse player, where I would have been guaranteed pariah status if I even hinted at my sexual orientation.

Not necessarily a great advantage.

You can have your opinions on marriage all day. Like it or not as my generation (18-25 year olds) has a much more enlightened view on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. This is probably because many people grew up with or knew someone who came out. While it is still not a social norm, it is much more socially acceptable nowadays to come out... where in the past it was almost unthinkable. Things will change, eventually.

While I disagree with prop 8 and the marriage laws, I truly consider the adoption laws to be a slap in the face. As I said earlier I have a good number of friends and acquaintances who grew up in same-sex parent households with no ill-effects.

If you try to argue it's a choice I'm going to vehemently disagree with you.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:My theory is that America simply cannot function as a nation without being bigoted towards some minority.

Blacks ---> Women ---> Japanese ---> Gays ---> ? (Atheists? Muslims?)

.
To go back a ways and try to set this straight (no pun intended I swear !!!).

BEING GAY is NOT ... I REPEAT, NOT a Minority Issue ..... Gay people are White Black, Asian, Arabic, African (not the same as Blacks et al), Slavic, Bolshevik, Ukrainian, European, Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere, Equatorial, GLOBAL Members of the HUMAN RACE ALREADY!!!!

Gay PEOPLE ARE ALREADY COVERED UNDER ALL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW !!!!!! Just simply by being ALIVE.

We do not NEED to Create the Gay Race ,,,, THERE IS NO SUCH THING !!!!

And the more we water it down with B.S. Laws, the more we take away from any power the law has to Protect True Races from Harm or Civil and Hate Issues.

Creating a Race of People Who are ALREADY A RACE OF PEOPLE "IS FOOKING STUPID" ..... because you Shag someone in the Corn Hole or you Muff Dive to 30 Fathoms DOES NOT MAKE YOU A FOOKING RACE OF PEOPLE !!!!! IT MAKES YOU "GAY" !!!!!!!!

AND THAT IS ALL IT MAKES YOU !!!!!! No different than you were the day you were born as a MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RACE !!!!!!

I used to love to sniff gas fumes from my Grandfathers old 1955 Chevy Pick-Up .... I WANT SPECIAL RIGHTS AS A "GAS HUFFER" and I WANT ALL "GAS HUFFERs" CREATED INTO a NEW RACE so WE CAN FILE JOINT TAX RETURNS !!!!!!!!!!!

STOP THE STUPIDITY .... when you piss on people, they tend to get "PISSED OFF" and the Radical Gay Movement Leaders have an Agenda that goes beyond just wanting "wittle old Marriage Licenses" ... THEY WANT TO DOMINATE A SECTOR OF GOVERNMENT and LOBBY IT ON THEIR BEHALF for more than just so-called "Civil Rights"......

Blacks in America EARNED the right to be Human Beings by, FIRST, being Born, and SECOND, standing up for THE RACE THEY WERE BORN INTO !!!!!!

Gay People !!! Do not think your selves to be equal with American Black's and the Struggle they had in this Country to get the simple Right to Vote, Eat, Drink Water, and not BE HUNG ...... DO NOT DO IT ..... I was THERE and I saw First Hand the Racial Riots and other crap that Haunted us because of THEIR DETERMINATION TO FIGHT FOR HUMAN EQUALITY !!!!! Do NOT Dumb them Down to a Standard of a Homosexual Lifestyle !!!!!!! YOU ARE WRONG FOR IT !!!!!

I watched the "Ku Klux Klan" march in my Towns more times than I can remember and IT WAS UGLY !!!!!!

The KKK just reared their ugly head here a week or so ago and MURDERED A WHITE WOMAN !!!!! Can't even murder the People they So Hate and Despise .... the whole Nation is in an Uproar over this foolishness to the Point that the New Black Panther Party is supposed to March in this Town on Dec. 5th ..... THAT IS ALL WE NEED .... BOTH ENDS of the Stupid Sections coming together to STIR SHYTE and throw it in the FAN ..... we DON'T NEED IT !!!!

Go rent the movie "Deacons of Defense" ..... the School and the Town that movie is based on is 15 MILES FROM MY HOUSE and I WAS THERE TO SEE IT HAPPEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In another Town Close to me, back in the Early 60's, Saturday was the Day the Blacks could come into the City Limits and Buy Food and Shop and Be HUMAN BEINGS ...... you know what the Day Was Called ????????? That's Right, "Nig*er DAY" and the Fair we have every year here and have had for 100 Years …. It is only the #1 Largest Free Fair/Carnival in the ENTIRE UNITED STATES of AMERICA and the only day the Black's could come to the Fair and not be Beaten, Hung, Raped, Murdered WAS ON SATURDAY and you know what that day was CALLED ???? DO YA ????? That's RIGHT AGAIN, it was "Nig*er DAY" !!!!!!!

Gays were ALWAYS ALLOWED AT THE FAIR and COULD GO SHOP IN TOWN 24/7/365 …. DO NOT DIMINISH the Black American CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE SO YOU CAN BE GAY !!!!!! DO NOT Diminish ANY REAL RACES STRUGGLE SO YOU CAN SHAG ANOTHER MAN Oh Man and YOU CAN SHAG ANOTHER Woman Oh Woman ..... You're WRONG !!!!!

These People Fought for RACIAL EQUALITY .... You Gay Activist are ALREADY a RACE and Already are Covered under that blanket of FREEDOMS TRULY EARNED by the SPILLING OF BLOOD of HONEST RACES of OPPRESSED PEOPLE .... what you are doing is pissing on their graves.

I have a "Close Family Member that is GAY" and she hates all you Protesting, Screaming, Whining, Moaning, Pissed Off with Chip-On the Shoulder Activist Gays, who make her Life Miserable !!!!! She Hates You and SHE IS GAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SUCK ON THAT !!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH - - Charles Darwin, YOU ARE A WANKER !!!!!!

.

This thread is now.....