The merged Gay Marriage thread - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 02-13-2004, 01:50 AM

Thirty eight states have to radify an ammendment before it becomes constitutional law.

I don't think they can get 38. (I don't know that for sure, just my feeling.)

seretogis · 02-13-2004, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
Gotta agree. Government has no business regulating what is essentially a religious institution. "Marriage" should be an issue between a couple and their church; people who want to be committed to each other should have the same government-protected legal rights and responsibilities regardless of the genders involved. This has been pretty much argued to death around here, I think, but let's see if anybody has anything new to add.

Lurkette, let's make babies?

oberon · 02-13-2004, 04:47 AM

I'm all for the separation of church and state. Marriage should never have been a state-sanctioned or sponsored organization.

Quite frankly, I think whoever made it one in legislation brought this issue upon themselves, since it couldn't have been introduced by a non-religious entity. (I'm making assumptions here -- would like to be corrected if not entirely true.)

losthellhound · 02-13-2004, 05:43 AM

I find it funny that the government can say that "marriage is a sacred ritual that has to be protected", yet I'm sure half those who say that went home and watched "Married by America".. Sacred my ass.. If two gay people want to get married and have equal rights, then I feel they should have it. (but then again, Im Canadian *g*)

FoolThemAll · 02-13-2004, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
Ya all realize if we had socialized medicine this wouldn't even be a problem.

Because then we'd all be dead. DEAD, I TELL YOU, DEAD!!!!

123dsa · 02-13-2004, 06:34 AM

For thousands of years marriage has existed as an instituion in which children can be raised. It has always implied a relationship between a man and a woman. (Although often more than one woman per man.) The idea that people get married in order to be able visit each other in the hospital or receive health benefits or as a public demonstration of their committment is bogus. It is an argument that gays use to try to make my heart bleed with compassion. If people want to be in same-sex relationships let them do it like it has always been done-hidden from the mainstream. Lets not legitimize the deviency of a SMALL minority of our population. In short two people of the same-sex cannot marry because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It's commonsense.

LSD

Prince · 02-13-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 123dsa
For thousands of years marriage has existed as an instituion in which children can be raised. It has always implied a relationship between a man and a woman. (Although often more than one woman per man.) The idea that people get married in order to be able visit each other in the hospital or receive health benefits or as a public demonstration of their committment is bogus. It is an argument that gays use to try to make my heart bleed with compassion. If people want to be in same-sex relationships let them do it like it has always been done-hidden from the mainstream. Lets not legitimize the deviency of a SMALL minority of our population. In short two people of the same-sex cannot marry because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It's commonsense.

Guess I have none, then, because I really don't understand how anyone, other than die-hard religious nuts, can say that with a straight face in this day and age.

Marriage is a man-made institution of Christian origin that to me is a union of two people who love each other. I married my wife because I love her, and marriage to many means commitment, it means a promise. I see no reason to deny this from any two people that love each other.

While I would not agree with opinions to the contrary based on any arguments that I have heard so far, I would respect them. However I find it difficult to respect an opinion such as yours that is based on ignorance and prejudice.

lurkette · 02-13-2004, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
Marriage is a man-made institution of Christian origin that to me is a union of two people who love each other. I married my wife because I love her, and marriage to many means commitment, it means a promise. I see no reason to deny this from any two people that love each other.

w00t!

Prince is wise.

filtherton · 02-13-2004, 08:42 AM

I think that if the defense of marriage act was really about defending the sanctity of marriage it would expressly outlaw divorce. Really, what is a bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than the easy access to divorce? I would also offer that anyone who truly claims to support the sanctity of marriage in the heterosexual, traditional, promise-before-god sense who doesn't support the prohibition of divorce is full of shit.

Lebell · 02-13-2004, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
I think that if the defense of marriage act was really about defending the sanctity of marriage it would expressly outlaw divorce. Really, what is a bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than the easy access to divorce?

Don't you think they know that and that they are trying to outlaw it as well?

Mehoni · 02-13-2004, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
Marriage is a man-made institution of Christian origin

AFAIK, people of other cultures, ie non-christians, also gets married. Is it really a Christian tradition?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-13-2004, 09:33 AM

Yeah that really was a stupid comment, seeing how marriage predates the christian institution.

Bill O'Rights · 02-13-2004, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by losthellhound
I find it funny that the government can say that "marriage is a sacred ritual that has to be protected"

Sacred ritual? Sacred ritual? Sounds kinda pagan to me. I don't see the government stepping up to protect any of my sacred rituals.

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince
Marriage is a man-made institution of Christian origin that to me is a union of two people who love each other. I married my wife because I love her, and marriage to many means commitment, it means a promise. I see no reason to deny this from any two people that love each other.

Correct, my insightful friend. Who the hell am I, or any one of you, for that matter, to prevent two people, that truly love one another, from bonding in marriage. Does it affect my life in the least? No, it does not. It does not because I do not feel threatened by it.

For crying out loud, it hasn't been all that long ago that interacial marriages were looked upon as some sort of unholy abhoration. I'm talking not long ago as in within my memory. I'm "only" 41 folks. Most of you here are a heck of a lot younger than I am, that's no secret. But if someone of my "advanced years" can keep an open mind about this, then can't some of you at least try?

Bill O'Rights · 02-13-2004, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Yeah that really was a stupid comment, seeing how marriage predates the christian institution.

Hold the phone!!! Are you actually admitting that if you take the Christianity part out of it...something makes more sense?!? You heard it here first, folks!! Straight from the horses mouth.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-13-2004, 09:49 AM

No, I'm not admitting that. All I said was that marriage predated Chrisitianity. However in context of the arguement Christianity does play a big role in marriage, especially here in this country.

Prince · 02-13-2004, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Yeah that really was a stupid comment, seeing how marriage predates the christian institution.

As does homosexuality.

Nevertheless, I was referring to marriage as this society understands and upholds it, in general. Our understanding of what marriage is about and the values related to it are closer to the Christian view of it than, say, those of some African tribes.

Charlatan · 02-13-2004, 10:16 AM

My wife and I were not married in a church or with anyone of religious affiliation in attendance. We didn't sign any license from the government that says we are married.

We had a simple ceremony where we stood infront of our friends and family and (to keep the story short) announced that we were married.

We've been married for going on 11 years now. Under the law we are considered common law spouses. We have two kids and a nice house in an nice neighbourhood...

Yet, if my wife shared the same gender as me, we would not have the same legal rights. That just doesn't make sense. At all.

123dsa points out that marriage has been what it is (man and woman) for thousands of years. Yep... no denying that. I've said it before though, things change. You may not like it but they do change over time.

In our society there is an increasing number of people of the same sex that want the same rights as hetero couples. They aren't saying that the church (take you pick of religions) needs to change only that secular law needs to change.

Does changing this law in anyway effect the lives of those who disagree with same sex marriage? Perhaps it is an affront to their belief but does it force them to change their belief in any way? No. They can continue to believe it is wrong just as they believe that it is wrong to take prayer out school.

Time to move on. This battle was over before it began.

Up with secular government!

Charlatan · 02-13-2004, 10:18 AM

By the way... I can't believe that no one has commented on the fact that the original message came from something called, "Ernie's House of Whoopass."

That's just too comical...

pan6467 · 02-13-2004, 10:32 AM

Does anyone else see that compared to our dying schools, our crumbling infrastructure and the fact that 1000's upon 1000's of good paying jobs are being lost and replaced by 100's of minimum wage temp jobs this marriage thing is a pimple?

The powers that be and the press prefer us fighting over this minutia because it takes our eyes off the more serious problems that are not getting solved but are being made worse.

Personally, if you truly hold marriage that sacredly and deem anything other than man-woman as sick. Fine. But ask yourself if you are truly willing to give up more rights.

If we took the energy we used defending positions on this ONE topic of little consequence and used that energy to constructively work together trying to figure out how to revive the schools or the jobs it would be a much better nation.

brianna · 02-13-2004, 10:40 AM

I think it's sad that over 60% of the country wants to deny basic rights to other citizens based on prejudice. And while I usually respect the will of the people sometimes the people are wrong. The people have been wrong before and they have been over ruled by the government for the sake of the common good before -- the most obvious example of this is school desegregation during the civil rights movement -- the large majority of the national population was against this -- i think we can look back and say that the majority was wrong and thank our constitution for correcting them. Similarly the majority of the population in the south would love to stop teaching evolution in public schools. For years the majority of people didn't support allowing minorities or women to vote or own land. Part of the reason why our government is not a straight democracy is that often the will of the people is out of line with the will of the constitution.

Tomservo · 02-13-2004, 10:52 AM

I heard a pretty decent argument regarding the 62% majority this morning- in past history, we've had a majority of citizens who believed slavery was okay (it was not), segregation was necessary (It was not), and interracial marriage should be illegal (It shouldn't be).

This country has always thrived on being forward-thinking. There will always come a time when ACTUAL morality wins out over racist/sexist/homophobic morality. Why delay this by 10, 20, 50 years? Get over your self-righteousness now.

In this country, it's legal to CHEAT on your spouse. It's legal for a woman to become pregnant by another man while married to her husband. It's legal for a couple to swap partners for the weekend and engage in hardcore BDSM while shuffling their kids off to grandma's house. Are any of these actions morally correct? Would 62% of Americans say so?

There are many valid arguments that show exactly how hypocritical folks can be when it comes to same-sex relationships. Amending our constitution to support prejudice is simply asinine.

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
Does anyone else see that compared to our dying schools, our crumbling infrastructure and the fact that 1000's upon 1000's of good paying jobs are being lost and replaced by 100's of minimum wage temp jobs this marriage thing is a pimple?

The powers that be and the press prefer us fighting over this minutia because it takes our eyes off the more serious problems that are not getting solved but are being made worse.

You ever take part in municipal planning? I have. Many municipalities across america, like in Pennsylvania, where we have the commonwealth system) have very specific rules regarding things like screens.
A screen is a row, or several rows of trees to block a development such as a factory, warehouse, or housing development from the people across from it.

The "proper" planting trees can actually spark discussion. Developers don't care. Trees are relatively cheap. But the developers and their lawyers make a big deal out of the planting of screens. Some municipalities will require 5 rows of screen. The developer says "Well, We only want to plant two rows. And they will only be 5% coniferous, 22% maple instead of 15% coniferous and 7% maples etc...." Well the munic and the residents of course don't like the developers skirting the rules so they start to argue. And arguments about Screens can last HOURS.
In the end the developer always gives in and promises to do the required screening. By then everyone is tired and the plan gets passed just so everyone can go home. In the meantime, becasuse of a lengthy debate that sapps everyones energy and just doesn't leave time for it, the stormwater retention basin may be just a little bit too small or the building setbacks may be a few feet too close to the property boundary. Or the developer is putting 350 subdivisions on X acres when the subdivision/land development ordinance for the municip clearly states only 275 subdivisions on X acres are allowed.
But by then, after it is passed and someone remembers what the real concerns were, it's too late, there isn't anything you can do about it now.
I see this in different forms every week or so, but most often the bait is screening. And it almost always works.

Now I think allowing gays to get benefits is an important issue. But we all know that this amendment has no chance of passing, and I am sure the backers of the amendment know that as well.
And we are missing the bigger picture of the state of the nation. unemployment, jobs leaving america forever, crushing debt, 2/3 of our military entangled in an unnecessary war leaving us unprepared for a real emergency....
Bush is trying to divide the nation and get them to vote on the single issue of gay marriage.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-13-2004, 10:54 AM

The Gay movement isn't going anywhere. Even if they get awarded the right to marry under the state, it still won't be recognized in 39 states or the federal government.

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 10:56 AM

I believe it is the equal protection clause of the Constitution that will force the other 39 states to recognize Californias lesbian couples.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-13-2004, 10:58 AM

I do believe Defense of Marriage Act deals with that.

brianna · 02-13-2004, 10:58 AM

Tomservo: dude i think we were channelling each other -- good to know we have ESP on our side.

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 11:03 AM

Constitution trumps the DOMA after one state (California) starts marrying people.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights and Discrimination.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-13-2004, 11:05 AM

But I do believe what they are doing in California is not legal. I see what you are saying though, thanks for enlightening me.

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 11:07 AM

See? The amendment is gonna fail. States on both coasts are about to start marrying homosexuals, Equal protection is set to gear that up to nationwide acceptance whether the majority likes it or not.

Might as well just go with the flow.

{edit} just saw your message above mine. Why do you think the marriages are not legal?

johnnymysto · 02-13-2004, 11:09 AM

The majority of the people don't agree with allowing same-sex marriages, but the Democrats (pretty much) are saying that the majority is wrong and the laws need to be changed.

At the end of the Bush/Gore election, the Democrats were saying that the "majority" of the people voted for Gore, and that the minority was wrong and the laws need to be changed.

So which is it? Are we to have majority or minority rule?

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 11:12 AM

The best way to explain what this country is, is through an analogy I read somewhere. I believe it may have been here. I repeated it here once before as well.

"In a democracy two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.
In a republic two wolves, and a sheep with an assault rifle vote on what's for dinner."

Majority rule, minority protection.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-13-2004, 11:12 AM

Don't laws in place in California define marriage as between a man and woman? I realize it doesn't restrict homosexual marriage.

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 11:14 AM

I don't know, and I also don't know how exactly this marriage was done. We will see how it pans out.

Mass is actually going to have to restructure their laws to allow for homosexual marriage, so even if Cali doesn't work out it will still happen.

Prince · 02-13-2004, 11:15 AM

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Constitution, so forgive my ignorance, but can someone with the knowledge tell me this... I've heard that if two people get married in one state, and that marriage is legal in that particular state, then all states are supposed to recognize it? Is this true?

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 11:15 AM

That's the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

pan6467 · 02-13-2004, 11:20 AM

Yes, although there are some states now (Ohio included) that are trying to pass laws that will disavow that. But right now yes, every state recognizes legal marriages from other states.

Prince · 02-13-2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
Yes, although there are some states now (Ohio included) that are trying to pass laws that will disavow that. But right now yes, every state recognizes legal marriages from other states.

Even gay marriages?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-13-2004, 11:24 AM

Legal Hetero marriages. I still don't know if the 14th affords protection to homosexual marriage. Here the wording in the bill of DOMA...

Quote:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the " Defense of Marriage Act" .

SECTION 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.-CHAPTER 115 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, IS AMENDED BY ADDING AFTER SECTION 1738B THE FOLLOWING:

"1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.".

Now its really confusing, and I think what I'm seeing is that states don't have to recognize. I could be wrong though. Here is an article on the bill from when it was passed in 1996
http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/10/gay.marriage/

Note:

Quote:

The Senate gave final congressional approval Tuesday to a bill that would deny federal recognition of same-sex marriages and give states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

Quote:

The measure would not bar states from legalizing gay marriages within their borders, but states would not be obligated to recognize such marriages performed in another state.

brianna · 02-13-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
Yes, although there are some states now (Ohio included) that are trying to pass laws that will disavow that. But right now yes, every state recognizes legal marriages from other states.

is it even possible for a state to pass a law that essentially disavows part of the consitution? wouldn't this be by definition illegal?

Superbelt · 02-13-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prince

Quote:

Originally posted by pan6467
Yes, although there are some states now (Ohio included) that are trying to pass laws that will disavow that. But right now yes, every state recognizes legal marriages from other states.

Even gay marriages?

It won't work though. A state can hold nothing legally binding if it runs counter to the US Constitution.

02-13-2004, 01:50 AM	#121 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Thirty eight states have to radify an ammendment before it becomes constitutional law. I don't think they can get 38. (I don't know that for sure, just my feeling.) __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-13-2004, 04:47 AM	#123 (permalink)
oberon Quadrature Amplitude Modulator Location: Denver	I'm all for the separation of church and state. Marriage should never have been a state-sanctioned or sponsored organization. Quite frankly, I think whoever made it one in legislation brought this issue upon themselves, since it couldn't have been introduced by a non-religious entity. (I'm making assumptions here -- would like to be corrected if not entirely true.) __________________ "There are finer fish in the sea than have ever been caught." -- Irish proverb

02-13-2004, 05:43 AM	#124 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	I find it funny that the government can say that "marriage is a sacred ritual that has to be protected", yet I'm sure half those who say that went home and watched "Married by America".. Sacred my ass.. If two gay people want to get married and have equal rights, then I feel they should have it. (but then again, Im Canadian g) __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

02-13-2004, 09:33 AM	#132 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Yeah that really was a stupid comment, seeing how marriage predates the christian institution. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-13-2004, 09:49 AM	#135 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	No, I'm not admitting that. All I said was that marriage predated Chrisitianity. However in context of the arguement Christianity does play a big role in marriage, especially here in this country. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-13-2004, 06:34 AM	#126 (permalink)
123dsa Crazy Location: KY	For thousands of years marriage has existed as an instituion in which children can be raised. It has always implied a relationship between a man and a woman. (Although often more than one woman per man.) The idea that people get married in order to be able visit each other in the hospital or receive health benefits or as a public demonstration of their committment is bogus. It is an argument that gays use to try to make my heart bleed with compassion. If people want to be in same-sex relationships let them do it like it has always been done-hidden from the mainstream. Lets not legitimize the deviency of a SMALL minority of our population. In short two people of the same-sex cannot marry because marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. It's commonsense. LSD

02-13-2004, 08:42 AM	#129 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think that if the defense of marriage act was really about defending the sanctity of marriage it would expressly outlaw divorce. Really, what is a bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than the easy access to divorce? I would also offer that anyone who truly claims to support the sanctity of marriage in the heterosexual, traditional, promise-before-god sense who doesn't support the prohibition of divorce is full of shit.

02-13-2004, 10:16 AM	#137 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	My wife and I were not married in a church or with anyone of religious affiliation in attendance. We didn't sign any license from the government that says we are married. We had a simple ceremony where we stood infront of our friends and family and (to keep the story short) announced that we were married. We've been married for going on 11 years now. Under the law we are considered common law spouses. We have two kids and a nice house in an nice neighbourhood... Yet, if my wife shared the same gender as me, we would not have the same legal rights. That just doesn't make sense. At all. 123dsa points out that marriage has been what it is (man and woman) for thousands of years. Yep... no denying that. I've said it before though, things change. You may not like it but they do change over time. In our society there is an increasing number of people of the same sex that want the same rights as hetero couples. They aren't saying that the church (take you pick of religions) needs to change only that secular law needs to change. Does changing this law in anyway effect the lives of those who disagree with same sex marriage? Perhaps it is an affront to their belief but does it force them to change their belief in any way? No. They can continue to believe it is wrong just as they believe that it is wrong to take prayer out school. Time to move on. This battle was over before it began. Up with secular government! __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-13-2004, 10:18 AM	#138 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	By the way... I can't believe that no one has commented on the fact that the original message came from something called, "Ernie's House of Whoopass." That's just too comical... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-13-2004, 10:32 AM	#139 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Does anyone else see that compared to our dying schools, our crumbling infrastructure and the fact that 1000's upon 1000's of good paying jobs are being lost and replaced by 100's of minimum wage temp jobs this marriage thing is a pimple? The powers that be and the press prefer us fighting over this minutia because it takes our eyes off the more serious problems that are not getting solved but are being made worse. Personally, if you truly hold marriage that sacredly and deem anything other than man-woman as sick. Fine. But ask yourself if you are truly willing to give up more rights. If we took the energy we used defending positions on this ONE topic of little consequence and used that energy to constructively work together trying to figure out how to revive the schools or the jobs it would be a much better nation. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-13-2004, 10:40 AM	#140 (permalink)
brianna Addict Location: nyc	I think it's sad that over 60% of the country wants to deny basic rights to other citizens based on prejudice. And while I usually respect the will of the people sometimes the people are wrong. The people have been wrong before and they have been over ruled by the government for the sake of the common good before -- the most obvious example of this is school desegregation during the civil rights movement -- the large majority of the national population was against this -- i think we can look back and say that the majority was wrong and thank our constitution for correcting them. Similarly the majority of the population in the south would love to stop teaching evolution in public schools. For years the majority of people didn't support allowing minorities or women to vote or own land. Part of the reason why our government is not a straight democracy is that often the will of the people is out of line with the will of the constitution.

02-13-2004, 10:52 AM	#141 (permalink)
Tomservo Crazy Location: Los Angeles, CA	I heard a pretty decent argument regarding the 62% majority this morning- in past history, we've had a majority of citizens who believed slavery was okay (it was not), segregation was necessary (It was not), and interracial marriage should be illegal (It shouldn't be). This country has always thrived on being forward-thinking. There will always come a time when ACTUAL morality wins out over racist/sexist/homophobic morality. Why delay this by 10, 20, 50 years? Get over your self-righteousness now. In this country, it's legal to CHEAT on your spouse. It's legal for a woman to become pregnant by another man while married to her husband. It's legal for a couple to swap partners for the weekend and engage in hardcore BDSM while shuffling their kids off to grandma's house. Are any of these actions morally correct? Would 62% of Americans say so? There are many valid arguments that show exactly how hypocritical folks can be when it comes to same-sex relationships. Amending our constitution to support prejudice is simply asinine.

02-13-2004, 10:54 AM	#143 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	The Gay movement isn't going anywhere. Even if they get awarded the right to marry under the state, it still won't be recognized in 39 states or the federal government. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-13-2004, 10:56 AM	#144 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I believe it is the equal protection clause of the Constitution that will force the other 39 states to recognize Californias lesbian couples.

02-13-2004, 10:58 AM	#145 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I do believe Defense of Marriage Act deals with that. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-13-2004, 10:58 AM	#146 (permalink)
brianna Addict Location: nyc	Tomservo: dude i think we were channelling each other -- good to know we have ESP on our side.

02-13-2004, 11:03 AM	#147 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Constitution trumps the DOMA after one state (California) starts marrying people. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights and Discrimination.

02-13-2004, 11:05 AM	#148 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	But I do believe what they are doing in California is not legal. I see what you are saying though, thanks for enlightening me. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-13-2004, 11:07 AM	#149 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	See? The amendment is gonna fail. States on both coasts are about to start marrying homosexuals, Equal protection is set to gear that up to nationwide acceptance whether the majority likes it or not. Might as well just go with the flow. {edit} just saw your message above mine. Why do you think the marriages are not legal?

02-13-2004, 11:09 AM	#150 (permalink)
johnnymysto Overreactor Location: South Ca'lina	The majority of the people don't agree with allowing same-sex marriages, but the Democrats (pretty much) are saying that the majority is wrong and the laws need to be changed. At the end of the Bush/Gore election, the Democrats were saying that the "majority" of the people voted for Gore, and that the minority was wrong and the laws need to be changed. So which is it? Are we to have majority or minority rule? __________________ "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request." - Capt. Barbossa

02-13-2004, 11:12 AM	#151 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	The best way to explain what this country is, is through an analogy I read somewhere. I believe it may have been here. I repeated it here once before as well. "In a democracy two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. In a republic two wolves, and a sheep with an assault rifle vote on what's for dinner." Majority rule, minority protection. Last edited by Superbelt; 02-13-2004 at 11:15 AM..

02-13-2004, 11:12 AM	#152 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Don't laws in place in California define marriage as between a man and woman? I realize it doesn't restrict homosexual marriage. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-13-2004, 11:14 AM	#153 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I don't know, and I also don't know how exactly this marriage was done. We will see how it pans out. Mass is actually going to have to restructure their laws to allow for homosexual marriage, so even if Cali doesn't work out it will still happen.

02-13-2004, 11:15 AM	#154 (permalink)
Prince /nɑndəsˈkrɪpt/ Location: LV-426	I'm not familiar with the specifics of the Constitution, so forgive my ignorance, but can someone with the knowledge tell me this... I've heard that if two people get married in one state, and that marriage is legal in that particular state, then all states are supposed to recognize it? Is this true? __________________ Who is John Galt?

02-13-2004, 11:15 AM	#155 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	That's the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

02-13-2004, 11:20 AM	#156 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Yes, although there are some states now (Ohio included) that are trying to pass laws that will disavow that. But right now yes, every state recognizes legal marriages from other states. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"