Government Laws on Marriage

[AB_Shorts_Momma]

The issues, as I see them, are:

1.) Insurance Needs: by recognizing same sex marriage, the partners can insure each other (as in health insurance through work, etc).

2.) Recognition: homosexuals want their unions recognized in the same manner as the heterosexual unions.

I don't know that it matters if a church recognizes it as much as the government, and thereby the insurance companies recognize it.

 

[AeolusDallas]

How so are my arguments illogical?

For a start, if you would have read the thread in it's entirety, you would have found out that the subject being debated is not a "Right", but merely an "expectation". They do not have a right, just as no one else has a right to flout the law of the land. This is a debate about the law as it stands, not religion or personal desires, all of which has been previously covered. If you don't agree with it, try to change it by all means but until then....

I did not say that homo marriage should be denied because they do not make children,... read what I said,.. not what you would like to think I said. Of course that would suit your argument, but I'm too old and have seen your method of twisting the words of others before. In short, I argued that homos should not be entitled to the monetary benefits paid to those who are populating our respective countries, breeding tax payers and workers. It was more that that, but that i suppose is the nub of it.

I will not keep repeating past debate. This mode of wearing people down, has been tried many times before. You will find that I just give the same answer as previously. I will certainly ignore you should you continue, but don't be of the opinion that you have changed anything, or perhaps silenced me, as my opinion still remains here, where those who have a genuine interest can still see and read it.

So you don't actually have any logical arguments then.
Loving vs Virginia established that marriage is a right and I have already taken apart your breeding argument. If only people who breed can marry then anyone who are not breeding should be barred from marriage as well.
You also have not responded to the fact that forbidding 2 people from signing a contract ,when 2 other people who other than their sex are identical can sign said contract is sex discrimination.

 

[Chukpike]

So you don't actually have any logical arguments then.
Loving vs Virginia established that marriage is a right and I have already taken apart your breeding argument.

Loving vs. Virginia established that discrimination by race could not be used to keep to people from marrying.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Quoted from Supreme court decision Loving vs. Virginia.

Sexual preference has not been established as a right protected by the Constitution. The gay rights movement does not want to have the Supreme Court hear cases on gay marriages for this reason.

 

[AeolusDallas]

Loving vs. Virginia established that discrimination by race could not be used to keep to people from marrying.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Quoted from Supreme court decision Loving vs. Virginia.

Sexual preference has not been established as a right protected by the Constitution. The gay rights movement does not want to have the Supreme Court hear cases on gay marriages for this reason.

I said marriage was a right.
Loving vs Virginia said this "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," So marriage is a civil right. Therefore denying people marriage without compelling interest is taking away one of their rights.

 

[Chukpike]

I said marriage was a right.
Loving vs Virginia said this "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"
So marriage is a civil right.
Therefore denying people marriage without compelling interest is taking away one of their rights.

You have totally misread the quote.

First marriage is a concept, it can not be a civil right.
Marriage is a right belonging to man.(man meaning men and women). It is one of man's civil rights.

It does not stop the states from determining who can and can't marry. It meant it had to be applied equally. Until equal rights based on sex was recognised women in California could marry at 16 while men could not marry until they were 18. In applying the 14th amendment equal protection clause it was necessary for all states to modify their laws on marriage so that both male and female could marry at the same age.

If you are saying that because marriage is a basic civil right that state governments can not regulate, you are wrong. Thirty states have banned gay marriage. All states have age limits. Federal government while not out right banning gay marriage does not recognize It.


When and if sexual preference is determined to be a right under the Constitution then it will be protected by the 14th amendment. This would require an amendment to the Constitution. Given the current overwhelming states view against gay marriage it would not be ratified.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Not correct.

Missing anything? Same thing as the scarecrow in The Wizard of OZ.

Bravo, we can insult... Now answer the question... What in that scenario is missing?

 

[AeolusDallas]

You have totally misread the quote.

First marriage is a concept, it can not be a civil right.
Marriage is a right belonging to man.(man meaning men and women). It is one of man's civil rights.

It does not stop the states from determining who can and can't marry. It meant it had to be applied equally. Until equal rights based on sex was recognised women in California could marry at 16 while men could not marry until they were 18. In applying the 14th amendment equal protection clause it was necessary for all states to modify their laws on marriage so that both male and female could marry at the same age.

If you are saying that because marriage is a basic civil right that state governments can not regulate, you are wrong. Thirty states have banned gay marriage. All states have age limits. Federal government while not out right banning gay marriage does not recognize It.


When and if sexual preference is determined to be a right under the Constitution then it will be protected by the 14th amendment. This would require an amendment to the Constitution. Given the current overwhelming states view against gay marriage it would not be ratified.

Man refers to our species. As in Mankind. The court clearly stated that they believed that marriage was a right not a privilage.

 

[senojekips]

So you don't actually have any logical arguments then.
Loving vs Virginia established that marriage is a right and I have already taken apart your breeding argument. If only people who breed can marry then anyone who are not breeding should be barred from marriage as well.

I dunno, i reckon the law of the land is pretty logical, or don't you understand what logic is? Also you did not state that I had no logical points, you stated that what I had said was illogical. You didn't read what I posted did you? How about in future before you query my "alleged" posts you quote the paragraph where I posted it?

You also have not responded to the fact that forbidding 2 people from signing a contract ,when 2 other people who other than their sex are identical can sign said contract is sex discrimination.

Just as stopping someone from committing a crime against the laws of the land or committing antisocial acts is discrimination??? C'mon, AeolusD, you'll have to do a LOT better than that collection of gobbledegook to convince the troops. Stop trying to get me repeating everything, and read the thread(s).

I don't do circle work.

From what I read on the 'net, I believe the case you so willingly quote, was between a man and a woman, and the issue at stake was based on "dissimilar Race", not "same sex". It did not set a precedent for "same sex" marriage, and as such proves nothing in this debate. You are floundering.

 

[AeolusDallas]

I dunno, i reckon the law of the land is pretty logical, or don't you understand what logic is? You didn't read what I posted did you? How about in future before you query my "alleged" posts you quote the paragraph where I posted it?
Just as stopping someone from committing a crime against the laws of the land or committing antisocial acts is discrimination??? C'mon, AeolusD, you'll have to do a LOT better than that collection of gobbledegook to convince the troops. Stop trying to get me repeating everything, and read the thread(s).

I don't do circle work.

I believe the case you so willingly quote, was between a man and a woman, and the issue at stake was based on "dissimilar Race", not "same sex". You are floundering. It did not set a precedent for same sex marriage, and as such proves nothing in this debate.

So you have no defense to the sexual discrimination argument at all do you?

 

[senojekips]

So you have no defense to the sexual discrimination argument at all do you?

Please confine your statements to me, to things I have said,... or are you reading from another page?

I have no desire to try and second guess what you want to read into my posts. But obviously we are on different wavelengths.

 

[AeolusDallas]

Please confine your statements to me, to things I have said,... or are you reading from another page?

I have no desire to try and second guess what you want to read into my posts. But obviously we are on different wavelengths.

It was in a post replying to one of your posts. Several times now you have responded to it and in each case you either ignored it or side stepped it. So i will state it again.
2 people sign a contract and it is legally binding. There are 2 other people who are identical in every way except gender to the first two people are not allowed to sign an identical contract. How is that not a clear example of gender discrimination? Can you offer any legally compelling reason to forbid the second two people from signing the contract? Clearly the ability to produce children is not one. So what other reasons are there?
Also why do you keep saying that homosexuals asking for the right to marry is lawbreaking? The right to petition the govern met for redress of grievances is enshrined in all of the western nations and therefore not illegal.

 

[AeolusDallas]

Also how do you define antisocial. If it is just your opinion than it doesn't have any legal standing at all.

 

[Chukpike]

I said marriage was a right.
Loving vs Virginia said this "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," So marriage is a civil right. Therefore denying people marriage without compelling interest is taking away one of their rights.

The court clearly stated that they believed that marriage was a right not a privilage.

I do not disagree with this. I pointed out it is not a "civil right" as you had stated.
So, what is your point? Do you mean it cannot be regulated? If so, you are few thousand years late. Marriage has been regulated since it's inception.

So you have no defense to the sexual discrimination argument at all do you?

It is not sexual discrimination. Sexual disrimintation would be if only men or only women were allowed to marry. Men and women are allowed to marry. Only two sexes that I am aware of.
It would be discrimination of sexual preference if sexual preference was a right. It is not.

 

[senojekips]

Also how do you define antisocial. If it is just your opinion than it doesn't have any legal standing at all.

You said earlier that you had read the lead up to this debate? I suggest you read it again.

Over the years, I have been asked (several times) why I did not like homosexuals. I compared it with my distaste at watching someone pick their nose and eat it.

The person doing it is not harming anyone else, and obviously they enjoy it.
Mucous is a perfectly natural bodily fluid, almost exactly the same as saliva which we swallow by the pint daily.
When we "sniffle" we swallow that same mucous, and no one bats an eyelid.
Logically there is little if any reason why we shouldn't actually do it. But like homosexuality the thought of it, makes my skin crawl.

Pretty simple really.

The comparison is obvious to most people. Picking one's nose and eating it is generally recognised as an anti social act,... well, it is here in Australia.

 

[AeolusDallas]

I do not disagree with this. I pointed out it is not a "civil right" as you had stated.
So, what is your point? Do you mean it cannot be regulated? If so, you are few thousand years late. Marriage has been regulated since it's inception.



It is not sexual discrimination. Sexual disrimintation would be if only men or only women were allowed to marry. Men and women are allowed to marry. Only two sexes that I am aware of.
It would be discrimination of sexual preference if sexual preference was a right. It is not.

I never claimed that marriage cannot be regulated. My claim is that there is no legally compelling reason to forbid homosexuals from marrying. It is sexual discrimination you are saying one couple can sign a contract but another couple identical in every way except sex cannot sign an identical contract.

 

[AeolusDallas]

You said earlier that you had read the lead up to this debate? I suggest you read it again.

The comparison is obvious to most people. Picking one's nose and eating it is generally recognised as an anti social act,... well, it is here in Australia.

And you have the right to disapprove of them. Nose pickers, Homosexuals, or for that matter even people who wear really tacky outfits. Heck you have every right to tell them how you feel even.
What you don't have is a legally compelling reason to force your disapproval on them. As you said it's not like they are doing you any harm.

 

[Chukpike]

I never claimed that marriage cannot be regulated. My claim is that there is no legally compelling reason to forbid homosexuals from marrying. It is sexual discrimination you are saying one couple can sign a contract but another couple identical in every way except sex cannot sign an identical contract.

Where do you get sexual discrimination from? Gay's are not claiming sexual discrimination. They are claiming bias against sexual preference.

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:
“[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude

 

[AeolusDallas]

Where do you get sexual discrimination from? Gay's are not claiming sexual discrimination. They are claiming bias against sexual preference.

The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Robles rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage, holding that:
“[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries — at first by a few people, and later by many more — as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude

I am making the claim of sexual discrimination. it is very simple the contract in my example is being denied because of the sex /gender of the signers. Quite simple. I would also point out that was the reasoning by the court in California as well. Tradition alone is not a valid argument.

 

[senojekips]

I have never forced anything upon them, I merely stating my approval of the fact that California is trying to make it illegal.

Not all anti social acts are illegal, but many of these acts do become illegal because of their impact on society. The whole idea being that the human race should advance not stagnate or die out. Many countries have laws against persons who are judged by society to be anti social, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_Behaviour_Act_2003
http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Changes+to+Public+Housing/Antisocial+Behaviour+Strategy.htm
http://archives.tcm.ie/westernpeople/2006/12/13/story34531.asp

 

[AeolusDallas]

I have never forced anything upon them, I merely stating my approval of the fact that California is trying to make it illegal.

Not all anti social acts are illegal, but many of these acts do become illegal because of their impact on society. The whole idea being that the human race should advance not stagnate or die out. Many countries have laws against persons who are judged by society to be anti social, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_Behaviour_Act_2003
http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Changes+to+Public+Housing/Antisocial+Behaviour+Strategy.htm
http://archives.tcm.ie/westernpeople/2006/12/13/story34531.asp

I don't understand your use of this phrase The whole idea being that the human race should advance not stagnate or die out" Are you still trying to use the excuse that marriage exists only for the creation of children?