Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[GeneralHankerchief]

This is not the first time the issue has been overturned in CA, btw.

In what way has it been overturned? Court ruling? Law passed? Other ballot initiatives?

And for the record, there are two arguments against gay marriage: "sanctity of marriage" and "judicial activism". Judicial activism holds more water IMHO but it's not as effective a message to the masses (and the religious right) as Sanctity of Marriage.

[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...

[Koga No Goshi]

In what way has it been overturned? Court ruling? Law passed? Other ballot initiatives?

And for the record, there are two arguments against gay marriage: "sanctity of marriage" and "judicial activism". Judicial activism holds more water IMHO but it's not as effective a message to the masses (and the religious right) as Sanctity of Marriage.

If memory serves, in 2004 we had the same damn ballot over the same damn issue. Overturning it. And it will probably happen again this year. Hooray, the state is safe from gay people wrecking marriage for four more years. Now, let's get back to the latest Paris Hilton sex tape and the documentary on Britney and K-Fed.

[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?

[GeneralHankerchief]

Wait... which party just had two turns to stuff the court and the justice department with hardliner ideological cronies?

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.

If memory serves, in 2004 we had the same damn ballot over the same damn issue. Overturning it. And it will probably happen again this year.

So, in this case, the Court overturned a direct popular vote? Well, I can see why it's so unpopular among the Right now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I suspect that we will have civil unions -- termed marriages -- between same sex couples in many states in the not-to-distant future. In practice, this will spread to all states.

The issue is emphatically NOT addressed in the U.S. Constitution, therefore the 10th ammendment notes that it is up to each state to decide such things for itself in accordance with its laws, so long as those laws/decisions do not contravene the rights of another U.S. citizen. Since extending "marriage" to include your same-sex couple does not impinge on my rights directly (doesn't make my marriage any less meaningful/beneficial), states may decide to make such unions legal.

Where it will get interesting is the "full faith and credence" clause to the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that -- absent some compelling data that same-sex marriage somehow debases and harms traditional marrriage (thus constituing a impingement of another's rights) -- ALL states will be required to treat such marriages as legal unions with all rights, duties, and privileges thereunto apertaining EVEN if the state in question opposes such unions and does not allow them to be performed in that state.

I suspect that the court would have to rule thus even now based upon Massachusett's decision alone.

[Xiahou]

I suspect that the court would have to rule thus even now based upon Massachusett's decision alone.

Don't you think that the DOMA should provide cover given the "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." part of the full faith and credit clause?

[drone]

The issue is emphatically NOT addressed in the U.S. Constitution, therefore the 10th ammendment notes that it is up to each state to decide such things for itself in accordance with its laws, so long as those laws/decisions do not contravene the rights of another U.S. citizen. Since extending "marriage" to include your same-sex couple does not impinge on my rights directly (doesn't make my marriage any less meaningful/beneficial), states may decide to make such unions legal.

Where it will get interesting is the "full faith and credence" clause to the U.S. Constitution. I suspect that -- absent some compelling data that same-sex marriage somehow debases and harms traditional marrriage (thus constituing a impingement of another's rights) -- ALL states will be required to treat such marriages as legal unions with all rights, duties, and privileges thereunto apertaining EVEN if the state in question opposes such unions and does not allow them to be performed in that state.

In this case, the interstate commerce clause actually has some teeth though. There are too many legal/monetary benefits and implications with "marriage" to deal with these unions state by state. A generic "civil union" compliance law at the federal level might cover it, each state can comply with it's rules and has flexibility, but must accept other states' contracts regardless of the type of union.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't you think that the DOMA should provide cover given the "And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." part of the full faith and credit clause?

Possibly. It would certainly allow all marriages to be labeled something else or provide some other means of making it seem more palatable; but I don't think it would allow for any substantive difference. Even if another state specifically denies such unions, the legal rights/duties/etc. would have to be honored -- even if not labeled a "marriage" by the other state.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I would personally love to see what will go down if they try to connect marriage to interstate commerce. Hoo boy.

[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?

[Devastatin Dave]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's one unfortunate looking woman.

Ahhh

This reminds me of a great joke about 4 nuns that die and go to heaven....

If you would like to hear the rest please PM me.

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

How dare you judge the love between a man and his toaster? I'd bet the toaster would have professional knowledge about when it was time to pull the plug...

Marriage is special because it is between a man an a woman. Because it exemplifies the ideal it has been allotted special recognition and privileges. A union between two men or two women is not the same kind of special and shouldn't be allotted those privileges. It is not mystical. You can't put a piece of your body in one end of their body and then 9 months later a human being comes out. You have to admit that action is pretty freaking unique and worthy of note.

You can argue that society has no right to define an ideal or give special recognition to the naturally incredible miracle of life - but I would disagree. Are you guys going to take the issue up with mother nature and sue her because the relationships that you support don't have that amazing element of surprise inherent in them?

Anybody who doesn't see how unique the 1male/1female relationship is is already at least half way out of their minds. I think it deserves its own recognition and shouldn't be crowded out by court mandated, politically charged, sexual confusion.

[Koga No Goshi]

This is getting circular very fast. Marriage is man + woman, man + woman is good, so marriage is good for man + woman.

Remember that "pursuit of happiness" business? It wasn't just for one kind of person. The "well gay people can marry too, they just have to marry someone of the opposite gender" argument is really bad, please don't repeat it.

What the U.S. hasn't mmm "gotten over yet", is that, for willing couples, same sex + same sex is good too, and so is being able to share medical decisions, and share property, and have the law recognize that as a couple, they have certain rights over their relationship and property that biological family shouldn't simply be able to step in and usurp when one partner dies, or is injured or ill.
And further, that acknowledging this in no way diminishes the good of man + woman, or in any way detracts from or harms their relationship or their legal status as married couples in the U.S.

It still comes down to, however, this is an issue of prejudice and not wanting to accept something different which in no way other than being different affects or harms or diminishes you or your rights or your marriage/future marriage.

[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.

[Redleg]

Well I dont find fault with the logic that the Court used to strike down the Civil Union law and make the definition of marriage apply to any couple.

“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

The logic of the court falls in line with the Equal Opporunity laws that have been legislated by both the United States Congress and from what I can read that most states have also legislated also.


Just to throw a bit of history into the equation the purpose of a state sanctioned marriage was never about love or emotion it was about something else entirily

[m52nickerson]

How dare you judge the love between a man and his toaster? I'd bet the toaster would have professional knowledge about when it was time to pull the plug...

Marriage is special because it is between a man an a woman. Because it exemplifies the ideal it has been allotted special recognition and privileges. A union between two men or two women is not the same kind of special and shouldn't be allotted those privileges. It is not mystical. You can't put a piece of your body in one end of their body and then 9 months later a human being comes out. You have to admit that action is pretty freaking unique and worthy of note.

You can argue that society has no right to define an ideal or give special recognition to the naturally incredible miracle of life - but I would disagree. Are you guys going to take the issue up with mother nature and sue her because the relationships that you support don't have that amazing element of surprise inherent in them?

Anybody who doesn't see how unique the 1male/1female relationship is is already at least half way out of their minds. I think it deserves its own recognition and shouldn't be crowded out by court mandated, politically charged, sexual confusion.

A toaster is not a connecting adult.

People have children without being married all the time. Some married couples don't have children. Some married couples can't have children, should we not let them get married.

You say people who share a fetish should not be able to get married. Some states still have laws that make fellatio and cunnilingus illegal. Should couples who partake in these not be allowed to marry? What about couples into S&M, or swinger?

Marriage = 1 man and 1 women and we should not change that definition is your other argument. Well in this country at one time Black = Slave.

As far as mother nature, do your research other animals in nature display gay behavior. Plus, mother nature would have people die of simple diseases, should we let people die as well. Mother nature would have men having sex with every women he could, should we applaud this behavior, which is more dangerous to marriage.

Your finale point was that marriage between a man and a women is special. How does letting gay couples marry make your or my marriage less special?

It all comes down to the fact that you don't like what gay people do, so you can't bring yourself to allow anything that would make being gay "ok".

[KarlXII]

Debate??!!! No, No, No. That's not how it works anymore. They did debate it when they decided in favor of civil unions a few years ago in order to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

The current decision was by the Supreme Court of the State who has decreed that the people of CT shouldn't have the power to decide things that the court has a strong opinion of.

The only State to legitimately allow Gay Marriages is Mass. Others only allow it because the courts decided to overturn the law.

Ever hear of "Tyranny of the mob"?

[Strike For The South]

How does this effect any of you? I understand the use of the term marriage and maybe I can see the bullying of the churches but in what honest to God way will this have a negative effect on the country? The USA has extended larger rights to smaller groups of people in the past so whats the big deal? The judicial activism I dont like but as this kind of thing should go through legislature but that doesnt seem to be what some of yall are arguing.

[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?

[ICantSpellDawg]

What is the point of the institution?

That's a good question. It is to celebrate the unique relationship between one man and one woman. If it no longer does that, it is no longer necessary for the State to be involved at all.

There are always civil unions. I think the way forward is to keep the State out of marriage and just let any two people - be they brother and sister, brother and brother, man and wife, man and other man, girl and girl, friend and friend - join into joint civil responsibility.

Religious institutions do metaphysical recognition much better anyway.

I don't believe in State marriage if it is incapable of its simple and reasonable purpose.