Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[m52nickerson]

My State has the most absurd abortion laws in the world. I view them as evil, but since they were unaffected by the Roe ruling and democratically enacted - They are democratically legitimate. Supreme court rulings like this rub salt into already open wounds and are no way to maintain a functional government and system.

This decision is a disgrace. I understand the idea of dialogue on the topic, but the strong-arming of the majority is unacceptable. Civil Unions were a distraction and simply fed the fire in Connecticut. The electorate in that State should feel betrayed by their government.

All well and good, but you are not answering my questions to you.

Why do we need a dialogue? Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination.

Allowing gay marriage will not adversely affect anyone. No dialogue needed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

All well and good, but you are not answering my questions to you.

Why do we need a dialogue? Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination.

Allowing gay marriage will not adversely affect anyone. No dialogue needed.

Its just that your side seems to use that argument for nearly everything. Before you know it we won't have the right to decide much at all. There will be arguments that, since incomes are not equal people are being discriminated against. Since there is discrimination, why do we need to discuss economic legislation?

Your side thinks that it is O.K. to tax the wealthy at a profoundly higher rate than everyone else. Is that discrimination? Should there be no more dialogue about tax rates? If you change one should you be constitutionally bound to change them all equally? That would go against the graded system that everyone supports.

The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.

Am I the only one who still thinks this battle is worth fighting? Is everyone else just exhausted or realize that our opinions no longer matter and that they will all be overturned anyway? We could put the ban into our State Constitution - but they would be overturned at the federal level. The misconception is that if we give them civil unions it will keep them at bay. It won't. This is appeasement for the ravenous wolves. We need to get the balls to put a silver bullet in the heart of their movement and pass an amendment now.

[Koga No Goshi]

Your side thinks that it is O.K. to tax the wealthy at a profoundly higher rate than everyone else. Is that discrimination? Should there be no more dialogue about tax rates?

When 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, and 1% of the population controls 30% of the wealth, what alternative tax structure would make sense to you? A "fair" flat tax rate would overtax people who already make barely enough, or less, than they need for basic living and secure retirement. And undertax people who have billions more than they need.

The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.

Wait... which party just had two turns to stuff the court and the justice department with hardliner ideological cronies? The Libertarians? No not them. Hmm.. the Greens? Nope. The Dems? Hmm... no, not those ones either...

[ICantSpellDawg]

When 10% of the population controls 90% of the wealth, and 1% of the population controls 30% of the wealth, what alternative tax structure would make sense to you? A "fair" flat tax rate would overtax people who already make barely enough, or less, than they need for basic living and secure retirement. And undertax people who have billions more than they need.

So it IS okay to discriminate against some people, just not people with sexual fetishes.

What if I said that most rich people were born that way?

[Goofball]

So it IS okay to discriminate against some people, just not people with sexual fetishes.

What if I said that most rich people were born that way?

You'd be correct...

[m52nickerson]

Its just that your side seems to use that argument for nearly everything. Before you know it we won't have the right to decide much at all. There will be arguments that, since incomes are not equal people are being discriminated against. Since there is discrimination, why do we need to discuss economic legislation?

Your side thinks that it is O.K. to tax the wealthy at a profoundly higher rate than everyone else. Is that discrimination? Should there be no more dialogue about tax rates? If you change one should you be constitutionally bound to change them all equally? That would go against the graded system that everyone supports.

The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.

Am I the only one who still thinks this battle is worth fighting? Is everyone else just exhausted or realize that our opinions no longer matter and that they will all be overturned anyway? We could put the ban into our State Constitution - but they would be overturned at the federal level. The misconception is that if we give them civil unions it will keep them at bay. It won't. This is appeasement for the ravenous wolves. We need to get the balls to put a silver bullet in the heart of their movement and pass an amendment now.

Again we are just talking about gay marriage. So lets have the dialog.

What are your reasons that homosexuals couples should not have the right to marry? How will it negatively affect you?

[Koga No Goshi]

Again we are just talking about gay marriage. So lets have the dialog.

What are your reasons that homosexuals couples should not have the right to marry? How will it negatively affect you?

Not having very ... hmm... "friendly" answers to these questions seems to be one of the main reasons for falling back on the "States rights, I'm a strict Constitution adherent" response.

Please don't use this argument. Every President has been doing this since FDR tried to pack the Court in the 1930s when it was overturning his New Deal legislation left and right. Do you honestly think that Obama and a heavily Democratic Senate will show the Right any mercy when it comes time to nominate appellate and Supreme Court justices? Shaping the courts is one of the president's most underrated powers.

Hey, I won't deny that. But if someone acts like it's just "liberals" "abusing" the courts for ideological advantage, that criticism works both ways.

Personally I think we have the courts to thank for a lot of very good decisions such as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Loving vs. Virginia decision which ended the continuing persecution of miscegenated (mixed race) couples. And contrary to the "go through the legislative branch" argument, I think that an impartial, unelected judiciary which then has the freedom to pursue questions of Constitutionality without immediate fear of reprisal or veto is a good thing, not a bad thing. Especially given how many watershed cases for civil rights have been decided in the courts. Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Endo Ex Parte Endo and other related laws to the Japanese American internment during WWII.

I think sometimes people forget there are three branches of government, not two, and the proper function of Constitutional democracy in our country has net benefitted from the judiciary's role in our government, not been undermined by it. But maybe people whose histories and personal experiences do not include LEGISLATIVE OPPRESSION would not see why this was a good thing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again we are just talking about gay marriage. So lets have the dialog.

What are your reasons that homosexuals couples should not have the right to marry? How will it negatively affect you?

You are asking a cyclical question. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman and is special. Two men should not be able to get married because there is not one man and one woman. A man marrying a toaster wouldn't overtly affect me in any way either.

What is marriage? Why do we have it? What are your reasons why a man shouldn't marry a toaster? Because it is ludicrous and is obviously not a marriage. I stand by the right of the people to enact ludicrous laws, but not to have them imposed on us.

I believe that society should be able to decide which types of relationships it admires most. Neither men nor women are excluded from the practice of marriage, but fetishists can't warp the institution at their leisure. There is no discrimination - marriage in the State is open to all and is a privilege - not a right.

[Koga No Goshi]

You are asking a cyclical question. Marriage is a union between one man and one woman and is special. Two men should not be able to get married because there is not one man and one woman. A man marrying a toaster wouldn't overtly affect me in any way either.

What is marriage? Why do we have it? What are your reasons why a man shouldn't marry a toaster? Because it is ludicrous and is obviously not a marriage. I stand by the right of the people to enact ludicrous laws, but not to have them imposed on us.

I believe that society should be able to decide which types of relationships it admires most. Neither men nor women are excluded from the practice, only fetishists. There is no discrimination - marriage in the State is open to all and is a privilege - not a right.

You didn't answer the question. You hinted around that there is some "reason" we want marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but you didn't make it explicit. What is it, childrearing? That argument has been brought up many times and retired. If childbearing is the only reason we affirm man-woman marriage, then should we revoke the "privilege" of marriage for barren couples, or couples which choose not to have children? IF childbearing is your hidden reason, then perhaps the marriage "privilege" should be revoked, as it's giving unfair tax advantages and rights to a couple which doesn't need them with regards to raising children.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You didn't answer the question. You hinted around that there is some "reason" we want marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but you didn't make it explicit. What is it, childrearing? That argument has been brought up many times and retired. If childbearing is the only reason we affirm man-woman marriage, then should we revoke the "privilege" of marriage for barren couples, or couples which choose not to have children? IF childbearing is your hidden reason, then perhaps the marriage "privilege" should be revoked, as it's giving unfair tax advantages and rights to a couple which doesn't need them with regards to raising children.

You are using the exception to negate the rule. A traditional marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children is something that society has deemed unique and worthy of special note. Not allowing barren couples to be wed would be discrimination based on disability and is the exception to the rule.

I'm all for the dialogue on what marriage means and why we have it if you feel it is necessary, but I think I have answered the question at hand.

He asked me why two people of the same gender shouldn't be married and I said because it would not be a union between one man and one woman and that the union of one man and one woman is unique and special. What else do you want me to say about it from a secular and legal point of view?

The government has other procedures for sharing assets and power of attorney if you are of the same gender, utilized by friends and family. You guys are saying that the government should make up a new institution without the consent or interest of the people and I fundamentally reject that idea.

Why don't you write what you wanted me to say and I will accept or reject it?

[Koga No Goshi]

You are using the exception to negate the rule. A traditional marriage between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children is something that society has deemed unique and worthy of special note. Not allowing barren couples to be wed would be discrimination based on disability and is the exception to the rule.

I'm all for the dialogue on what marriage means and why we have it if you feel it is necessary, but I think I have answered the question at hand.

He asked me why two people of the same gender shouldn't be married and I said because it would not be a union between one man and one woman and that the union of one man and one woman is unique and special. What else do you want me to say about it from a secular and legal point of view?

The government has other procedures for sharing assets and power of attorney if you are of the same gender, utilized by friends and family. You guys are saying that the government should make up a new institution without the consent or interest of the people and I fundamentally reject that idea.

Why don't you write what you wanted me to say and I will accept or reject it?

You compared man-man to man-toaster. Toaster is an inanimate object. You can't dedicate your life meaningfully to a toaster or have the toaster make hospital decisions for you when you are incapacitated. So give me a meaningful explanation of why a gay marriage doesn't need all the same "unique and special" legal recognitions of rights as a couple other than comparing gay people to inanimate objects.

[Viking]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's one unfortunate looking woman.

More wisdom you'd like to share?

What are your reasons why a man shouldn't marry a toaster?

Well for one, it's not even alive. But, I don't see the problems of someone making love to a toaster - granted that it isn't my toaster.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Awsome.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I had no idea that this issue was so cut and dry. Those 3 Constitutional scholars that dissented must need to go back to university.

You guys seriously think that in nature two animals of the same gender have that spark of life inherent to their relationship? You can honsetly say that the union between a man and woman is not special? Same gender Animals hump the legs of humans more often than I've seen them hump one another.

How politically correct can we be? It's gotten to the extent that we deny basic realities. Perception is reality then, eh?

Redleg, you support this ruling, huh? They've gotten to you too? You are now signing off on one more domino fallen to to judicial activism.

[m52nickerson]

I had no idea that this issue was so cut and dry. Those 3 Constitutional scholars that dissented must need to go back to university.

You guys seriously think that in nature two animals of the same gender have that spark of life inherent to their relationship? You can honsetly say that the union between a man and woman is not special? Animals hump the legs of humans more often than I've seen them hump one another.

How politically correct can we be? It's gotten to the extent that we deny basic realities. Perception is reality then, eh?

Redleg, do you support this ruling?

Again how will gay marriage take away from the union of a man and a woman? It will not.

This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with allowing people to enjoy the rights regardless of who they love.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Again how will gay marriage take away from the union of a man and a woman? It will not.

This has nothing to do with being PC. It has to do with allowing people to enjoy the rights regardless of who they love.

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

[Strike For The South]

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

What is the point of the institution?

[m52nickerson]

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

No it would not make the marriage of a man and a woman any less special. A marriage is special becasue of the people in it.

So what is the point of the institution? If it is for children, should we not allow a women who can't have kids not marry, what about a man. Should we not allow couple who do not want children to marry.

If children is not the point what is?

By the way the sanctity of marriage argument has been used before.

[Koga No Goshi]

Like it has been said, marriage has historically rarely been about love. It is a nice compliment, but that has never been the point.

When marriage recognizes the union between one man and one woman as special - allowing two men to or two women to get married says that the union between one man and one woman is not special. It nullifies the whole point of the institution as it stands.

Does that not make sense? It is special now, if you open it up further it will not be special? The whole concept worthy of note is demolished. We should all just go to civil unions if that is the case, because marriage has lost its meaning in the state. I don't like the idea of the State acknowledging "love". They have no business in metaphysical concepts. As it stands now, marriage is special for the physical reality. After it's wings are clipped it will be special for love, and love is metaphysical and faith based - out of their jurisdiction.

So wait.... the "point" of marriage is to give special privileges to heterosexual couples? There is no other purpose? And allowing every kind of consenting adult couple to have the same legal rights will take away that special privileged status? You realize the same argument was made for the special racial status of white people in not recognizing white marriages with other races. My genealogy, for instance, dead-ends with my great-grandparents. Because my great-grandmother was white and my great-grandfather was Blackfeet, and their marriage was illegal at the time they married in Arkansas.

I'm trying to keep up with your arguments, Tuff, but they're chameleoning on me.

I suspect that you will think it is fine once a few happy animals walk in front of you with loving and committed owners.

You don't see a trend in favor of more rights for animals? When do you think it will cross that logical line that gay marriage did into the land of reality?

Did you say years ago that gay marriage would be a reality? I doubt it.

So in other words, you oppose this only because you find it disgusting and on par with humans engaging in bestiality. Even though the issues of hospital and medical decisionmaking, property rights and inheritance rights utterly don't apply in the case of an animal.

If that's really your stance, just come out and say it. You've hinted as much but why pretend this is a legally righteous point you are defending?

That I dont agree with. One mans freedom ends where another begins. They church can decline any wedding it does not want to take on. Not to mention most gays are areligious anyway. I dont think that'll be a problem

Strike is correct. (And great points you've been making btw STFS.)

Don, your argument is bunk and it's sheer fear tactics from the religious right and people who oppose gay marriage. Churches have NEVER been coerced to conduct marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs or traditions. My friend at work, for instance, was just telling me a story about how her friend from Japan married a Mormon guy in Utah. The parents came out for the wedding but, because it was a very traditional Mormon Church, they were not allowed inside the actual ceremony, because they were not Mormons.

Churches will never be "forced" to conduct gay marriage ceremonies. Individual preachers and priests break with their denomination and do them privately all the time, but I don't see how that's any concern to anyone but him/her.

[Andres]

I really can't see the problem with allowing legal marriage for two (three, four, five,...?) consenting adults

And if the use of the word "marriage" is the problem, well fine, call it "legal banana juice" for my part and keep the word "marriage" for religious marriage.

Surely, there are more important matters at hand in the world right now?

This is a luxury problem.

[Artorius Maximus]

Am I the only one here who is against this? Seriously, the government is taking this matter too seriously. Marriage should be defined as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. I'm tolerant of civil unions, but don't go calling it "marriage," that butchers the original meaning of it.

[Strike For The South]

Am I the only one here who is against this? Seriously, the government is taking this matter too seriously. Marriage should be defined as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. I'm tolerant of civil unions, but don't go calling it "marriage," that butchers the original meaning of it.

So does a 50% divorce rate WHY AM I STARTING AGIAN@!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Am I the only one here who is against this? Seriously, the government is taking this matter too seriously. Marriage should be defined as it always has been, a union between a man and a woman. I'm tolerant of civil unions, but don't go calling it "marriage," that butchers the original meaning of it.

Okay.

Now, tell me why.