We can't exclude groups of people from the Civil Rights act. That is unconstitutional. And inclusion of everyones equal rights under the law was the intent of the Civil Rights Act. So yes the 14th amendment does cover homosexual rights.

DOMA isn't worth the paper it was written on once it runs counter to the 14th amendment. There will be a small fight but when a simple act runs up agaisnt a constitutional amendment in a court of law, the act gets trashed.

Without a new Constitutional Amendment specifically prohibiting homosexual marriage, the DOMA was conceived as and will be discarded as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW The only reason it lasted so long is that no state had yet enacted a homosexual marriage so the DOMA had not yet taken effect.

No, it is not possible.

But ultimately the Supreme Court decides if a state law is unconstitutional (if it gets that far).

Not until and unless it's challenged in court, to be specific. That's why absurd laws are discovered each year that aren't enforced ("No whistling while you're walking down the street on a Sabbath" kind of thing)

Um, sorry. A courts primary guideline is the constitution. The constitution can only be altered by the legislature unless the constitution is contradicting itself, which it has to this point never done.
Those stupid laws you cite like no whistling while you're walking down the street on a sabbath are not constitutional laws. No court in the country will or is even able to strike down the CONSTITUTION.
Only a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress plus the presidentials favor will ever change the constitution.
And the homophobes don't have the 2/3 majority.

I think the point meembo was making is that a law isn't unconstitutional until it is challenged in court and declared so by that court and up held by a higher court.

This is technically true.

Ooh, I guess I misunderstood him.

Well the DOMA has just been activated yesterday for the first time. It was a dormant law that was intended to lurch forward when one state started marrying people. Now it has. And now it comes to loggerheads with Equal protection. And now we get to see DOMA die.

It will get challenged in federal courts over the next several months. Federal justices will have no choice but to strike it down.

Ill get right to it..

the mandatory "In Sweden"-answer:
http://www.google.se/search?q=cache:...hl=sv&ie=UTF-8

An article about Sweden and gay marriages/rights for gaycouples from the Baltimore Sun.

Are you sure Bush said he would allow civil unions? I thought he was against that as well...

I do believe shrub said he was in favor of "some form of civil union".

Actually, it's the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. It's the same rule that, when applied, says that if you have a driver's license in California you get to drive in Vermont, too.

FYI, as I noted above, it's the full faith and credit clause that is implicated by this, not the 14th amendment. well maybe the 14th, too, but that's a different argument and you need to get through a ton of legal hurdles before getting 14th amendment coverage.

Also FYI, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, so it could repeal it if it wanted to.

The argument that DOMA isn't unconstitutional (double negative!), as I understand it, is that the Constitution says that "the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." Which arguably suggests that it has some say in the what states have to recognize and what they don't (though I don't buy it).


*EDIT* By the way, lest there be some misunderstanding, I support gay marriage as a civil concept. (I support it as a religious concept too, but the government can't force that....pesky 1st amendment)

Personally, I think I should be able to marry a 9 year old. Who can really judge if a child can consent to something like a marriage? What about an animal? My pets sleep in my bed everynight, I feed and water them, play with them, etc. When I let them outside, they are free to run away, but they always come back. Sounds like a marriage to me.

We should just let anybody do whatever they want. We're already destroying the basic building blocks of civilization. Who gives a brown turd what homosexuals will do if they are married? They may actually help speed up the downfall of civilization, so we can start the rebuilding a lot sooner.

This country is going down the shitter at a record pace. Just turn on the damn TV and tell me that you would let your kids watch it. But most of you probably wouldn't see a problem with your 5 year old knowing what a "rim job" is.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the real problem lies.

As I said, he allows people to be in "civil unions," but he favors an amendment that prevents such people from getting any additional rights from that designation.

In a sense, he does oppose what civil unions are supposed to be.

umm
children are still protected under law. sorry

as for everything else, umm...dude, people hve been saying "This generation is bringing about the downfall of society" since socrates...seriously...society changes, sorry. happens. as for what you say will happen...probably not what you think.

relax

Well, i think if "the defenders of marriage" came out and actually said, "Oh yeah, and we're going to outlaw divorce too," they would find that they had a lot fewer than 60% of the people at their backs.

I have heard a great many homophobic comments rationalized in religious terms. Fortunately, most religious arguments against homosexuality don't really hold any water (unless you're allowed to pick and choose which verses are god's word and which aren't important.) This whole "We've got to save marriage" sentiment i think amounts to nothing more than rationalized bigotry, since i think most people aren't really concerned with the sanctity of marriage. People just don't want "the gays" to be able to get married.
Does anybody not see the incredible irony required for the hetero community to exclude homosexual marriages under the pretense that gay marriage will ruin the institution of marriage? Over half of all marriages end in divorce. How could gay marriage possible make marriage any worse off than it already is?

Nice balderdash. You're right, full faith and credit clause is much more direct and specific to this issue.
Both are applicable I believe, but the one that will be used to actually move this nonsense along will be full faith and credit.

Its not that small a minority as you may think. When a group is oppressed there are a percentage who remain hidden. Anyway, however small you cannot deny them the same human rights as the rest of the population. There are other smaller minority groups who aren't treated like second class citizens.

I'd also like to add that things like legal issues such as inheritance and access to hospitals are not 'bogus' but can be very important to all people at some stage in their lives.

The important issue is equality and you fail to address that.

For those that argue "Majority agrees no same sex marriage" where were you when a MAJORITY elected Bill Clinton to do a job and the GOP pretty much bogged him down in bullshit scandals?

Where were you majority listeners when Al Gore was elected by a majority yet JUDGES determined who the president would be?

OOOO you say those weren't true majorities.... I see.

Where are you when a majority say the war is too expensive and did not need to happpen?

What? Oooooooooooo I see you say POLLS can can biased and misleading. But the poll in this circumstance is 100% accurate and unbiased. Because it just is.

I see. Yes you have won me over I want to be part of the majority. You show me a poll and I will blindly follow whatever it says.

Of course they won't do that, anymore than the folks who want to ban "assault weapons" will tell Joe American "and by the way, we really want to ban all guns".

They go after the emotionally charged issues first, because those are the one's easiest to get support for.

Well..If I were gay and I wanted to get married. I'll just do it, i'm breaking the law. Lets see those fucks put me in jail or fine me. IF they dare...

There's something really subtle that nobody's bothered to bring up. If you want to define marriage as between a "male" and a "female", well, you'd have to then define what it is to be "male" or "female".
Pause for a moment.
I'm supposedly male, right? Well, what happens if I cut my genitalia, and take some hormones to grow breasts. What sex am I then, and who can I marry? Am I previously male, and therefore able to marry men in my now female apparence? Am I female, and then unable to marry women in my now female apparence?
I think you understand the complexity of this. It's not just transexuals, it's intersexuals. "Hermaphrodites." Some doctors would just assume cut them up at birth, "assigning" them genders at birth, but I believe they should be allowed to live out their lives however they see fit. Seriously, who can a hermaphrodite marry? Both? Neither? We're all human. I think we should all be able to agree that we should be able to marry other sentient beings. (I'm somehow reminded of Star Trek.) I don't see why what we have between our legs should dictate what type of human we are allowed to marry.

It doesn't have anything to do with what we have between our legs. It has only to do with prejudice, fear of something different, "abnormal", different from ourselves.

Throwing sex changes and hormone treatments in people's faces won't really help. Then they'll say, let's decide the sex based on chromosomes... If it has two X chromosomes, it's a girl. If one X and one Y, it's a boy. Okay... What about cases of aneuploidy, like Turner's or Klinefelter's syndrome? What defines the sex then?

There's always a counter-opinion to each opinion, a counter-thought to each thought. I don't believe we can argue this point with logic, because the opposition's opinion is based on fear, and fear is not necessarily logical, or at least may not provide people the means to assess things logically.

I look forward to the day when gay marriage is a natural to all people

Within the same arena of having equal rights for people falls the right of any capable couple to adopt children. Not discounting love, or capable financial abilities; or even the fact that there are children from heterosexual parents get abused physically and mentally by their parents- is there any inherent problems that can arise?

This poll was done a few months ago- so far the majority are in favor of gay couples having the right to adopt.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...+couples+adopt

Gay couples should have at least an equal right to adopt, possibly a preference.

It is really very shocking to me that there are people who oppose gay marriage. Most of the time I enjoy the fact that my opinions are challenged often on this board, but it is very hard to see people arguing against what self evidentlty seems to me to be very basic human rights.

I can only agree with Nancy's post.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman who will raise children to carry on the human species. Marriage provides a legal structure for ensuring stability in our civilization. The children in a marriage get their values and beliefs largely from whoever raises them, as kids are very impressionable and can be shaped in any number of ways.

Most children have walked in on their parents having sex or seen their mom and dad exchanging affection in different ways. Children realize that it is natural for a man and a woman to do these things and in turn eventually do these same things, producing children of their own.

Homosexuals do not produce children. Nature has decided that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, but we think we know better. Imagine what would happen if children didn't realize that they're supposed to marry someone of the opposite sex. We'd eventually face an extinction as a species, because guys can probably get a lot more sex from each other than from girls, and girls can get a lot more emotional support from other girls.

Did you ever wonder why the Greeks and Romans are no longer a dominant force in the world and faced a collapse of their entire civilization? It's the same thing, history repeating itself and all that.

You assume that homosexuality is a choice, and that I could, if I wanted to, "choose" to be gay. It isn't so. Sexual preference is determined by something in the hypothalamus.

Acceptance of homosexuality does not mean suddenly we'll all be gay. Besides, there's enough people on the earth as it is. We could use a lot more homosexuals to bring down the net population. It's better than war or disease.

I dont think the government has a right to tell you who you can and can not sleep with or marry. I think its discuting that they concern themselves with something that is none of their business. The goverment talks about the freedom that you have by being a citizen well thats BS considering that gays and lesbians are citizens and they dont have the freedom. Or is it for only the "straight" americans that have the freedom.
Religious groups are falling back on the words of the bible saying this is wrong shouldnt be allowed well depending on what theory of evolution you believe in which would depend on religion as well look at Adam and Eve. Eve was created by the rib of Adam. They were told by god to populate the world well if everyone came from Adam and Eve thats just nothing but total incest if you ask me. Personally I think Incest is a lot more discusting then 2 people of the same sex being together.
I think that same sex couples should have the same rights as any straight couple. In Blacks42 post he quoted "And suppose for the sake of argument, that while the three of them were driving home from the hospital, there was a car accident and the birth mom was rendered brain dead. If it were a husband and wife deal, the surviving spouse would have legal control over medical treatment (or ceasing of it) for their injured partner, plus have no problem securing sole custody of the baby. But in this case, the surviving lezbo would have no legal recourse despite having just as much time and energy invested as a male partner would". Heres another view on that. A man and woman get married. Man finds out that hes got a medical problem that doesnt allow him to produce sperm. The man cant inpregnate his wife so they talk about insimintation. They go through all the steps so they use her eggs and doner sperm. Well hubby has no ties to that child other then its going to be carrying his last name. The mother dies and all of a sudden the "father" has is a single parent. Its not his kid but in the goverments eyes it is, why wouldnt they take it away from him? Doesnt make sense at all.
It just seems like there is a whole new set of rules for same sex couples wanting to be together and I personally think its unfair.

1, I dont believe gay marriage was especially popular in ancient Rome or ancient Greece

2, they failed for the same reason that every empire fails - in their power they became corrupt and weak. No empire has ever survived indefinitely, regardless of how virulently heterosexual its citizens are.

Do child molesters choose to be so? Serial killers? Necrophiliacs?

We all have natural urges that we do not choose, but which we must control. I have the urge to bash in the heads of stupid people who piss me off everyday, but should I do it? Would society be a better place if I acted on my impulses?

If we are in favor of giving people the freedom to do whatever strikes their fancy, no matter the cost to our civilization, I want to be included.

And where do homosexuals come from anyway? If there was a gene for homosexuality, it wouldn't have survived the first generation.

You're assuming that sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is an urge we should purge, that this urge is somehow "bad".



Honestly, I have no idea. But I do know that there are a number of species of animals that are pretty gay. We're just one of them.

That's the first time I heard the fall of the Roman Empire being blamed on the gays... heh.

Seriously though, if you have any knowledge about the rise and fall of the Roman empire, you would be laughing at your own comments right now.

Kids are also quite apt to learn intolerance from their parents too. That being said, i think you'll have a difficult time finding any solid evidence that having gay parents damages the morality of a child.

I guess you're implying that a child with homosexual parents will never be able to realize that reproduction requires sperm and an egg because said child will walk in on daddies or mommies having sex. Stunning. I never walked in on my parents, yet i think i know where babies come from. Maybe i just lack your expertise when it comes to childhood development and sexuality.

Homosexuals do produce children. I am aware of many people with gay daddies. I am also aware of sperm banks and fertility doctors. Both are as natural as a birds nest, so don't try to claim that it isn't natural. Nature decided that it takes sperm and an egg to produce children. It cares not about a man and a women.

Are you really attempting to imply that the broad acceptance of homosexual marriage will result in our extinction as a species? Because children won't realize how to reproduce?

I suppose the aztecs were a bunch of homos too. Atlantis? It was really a giant gay resort that was sunk by some kind of gayness.

Yeah, and World War 2 was started cause Hitler thought Jews were "really gay." Whateva.

The chinese emperorers were homos as well, that's why the fell to the commies.

Same thing with Irans Shah.

And Italy is just rampant with gays. Their government has fallen about 40 times in the last century.

Rome didn't fall until Christianity became an accepted part of Roman society.

In the words of Peter Griffin, taken out of context, "UH OH!"

well, when the barbarians invaded and sacked rome, all the flaming gay romans wanted to do was offer some tea and allow themselves to be "sacked."

You know Victor Emmanuel III, Gieseppi and Couvour were so having a gay three way, the redshirt thing was the first "queer eye for the straight guy" in modern history.

*obscure history reference for the day*

Pu Yi was gay?? I watched that movie about the last emperor of china and no where did they mention that Pu Yi was gay. U sure about this? I watch a lot of chinese "dysnastic movies" (the one with swords and heroes with big ass fancy robes) and they didn't seem to mention anything about gay emperors...odd....

Can you tell me where u find this? I'm interested to know :)