Americans and Same-Sex Marriage

Originally posted by newdad27
because marriage is between a man and a woman (the two sexes that can reproduce). Homosexuals want change the definition to allow their minority group, and lifestyle, to get legally married too. If one alternative lifestyle is allowed so must all others or you're discrimination against them. At present "marriage" in our law refers to a man and a woman getting married, which is the natural majority. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Just because marriage has always been a man and a women up till now is no arguement why it should continue to be so.

Society moves on.

It is perfectly reasonable for society to accept gay marriages while still rejecting polygamy or marriage to hamsters. Are they not capable of framimg legislation in the US? Here we have highly paid people whose job is to do just this.

We have legislation to outlaw discrimination in wages between genders, races etc. But nobody argued that we should extend this to cats.


I guess you can't get any studies to back up your earlier claims then?

Originally posted by Churlant
It clearly has. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage two years ago, based largely upon equal protections within the MA constitution.

However, I do not agree that equal protection can be applied to marrying red herrings, pun intended.

-JC

Mass. found a loop hole because of the semantic ambiguity in the language of the law. but as of march non -residents of mass. cannot be married (same sex)

Originally posted by Redmike
Just because marriage has always been a man and a women up till now is no arguement why it should continue to be so.

Society moves on.

It is perfectly reasonable for society to accept gay marriages while still rejecting polygamy or marriage to hamsters. Are they not capable of framimg legislation in the US? Here we have highly paid people whose job is ...[text shortened]... xtend this to cats.


I guess you can't get any studies to back up your earlier claims then?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Originally posted by newdad27
Mass. found a loop hole because of the semantic ambiguity in the language of the law. but as of march non -residents of mass. cannot be married (same sex)

"Semantic ambiguity" eh? Right.

You must have missed my question. Do you believe that reproduction is the requirement for marriage, or only that the couple be of opposing sex?

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
"Semantic ambiguity" eh? Right.

You must have missed my question. Do you believe that reproduction is the requirement for marriage, or only that the couple be of opposing sex?

-JC

i'm saying the "natural" definition of marriage would be for a man and a woman. That is obvious since that combination of sexes is what reproduces. You can over-analyse it all you want, but it is pretty basic.

Originally posted by newdad27
i'm saying the "natural" definition of marriage would be for a man and a woman. That is obvious since that combination of sexes is what reproduces. You can over-analyse it all you want, but it is pretty basic.

I'm not over-analyzing - I am requesting your requirement for marriage.

I assume you accept that a man and woman incapable of having children should still be afforded the right to marry. Is this correct?

-JC

Originally posted by newdad27
it doesn't make it strong because you cannot prove a homosexual is born that way. That's your opinion.

My point referes to numerous studies that shows that in legal same sex marriage countries the marriage rates went down signnificantly. That is not good for society.
We can debate all day long wether they should be able to get legally married, but t on a ballot to vote on, and gets passed, then great...it will not be against the law anymore.

It is the job of the courts in particular to protect the fundamental rights of minorities. Interracial marriage was forbidden in states until 1967 and it was not put to a vote to abolish it in the states that still had this blatant discrimination; the US Supreme Court did it in Virginia v. Loving (ironic title, of course).

In order for a discrimination against ANY group (be they "lifestyles" or not) to pass constitutional muster under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the State must have a "compelling state purpose" for the discrimination and the discrimination MUST be the least restrictive available. You have given no legitimate state purpose at all; your claims that countries with legal gay marriage experience huge drops in marriage rates is false and I think you know it (which is why you've presented no links or data to support it). You might not understand our system, but the Framers did not believe in unfettered democracy and put in place safeguards to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. The Supreme Court and the idea of judicial review was the most important. To rave against that is to oppose what the country is all about.

Originally posted by no1marauder
. The Supreme Court and the idea of judicial review was the most important. To rave against that is to oppose what the country is all about.

Keeping in mind that "judicial review" is not inherent to the constitution itself, but an interpretation of separation of powers later adopted by the court. Many still do not see the practice as a legitimate extension of judicial independence.

-JC

Originally posted by Churlant
I'm not over-analyzing - I am requesting your requirement for marriage.

I assume you accept that a man and woman incapable of having children should still be afforded the right to marry. Is this correct?

-JC

of course, you don't define the institution of marriage on a million case by case specific examples. The definition of Marriage pertains to a man and a woman because that union is obviously the only one that produces offspring.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is the job of the courts in particular to protect the fundamental rights of minorities. Interracial marriage was forbidden in states until 1967 and it was not put to a vote to abolish it in the states that still had this blatant discrimination; the US Supreme Court did it in Virginia v. Loving (ironic title, of course).

In order for a discr ...[text shortened]... ew was the most important. To rave against that is to oppose what the country is all about.

as usual #1 does not know what he is talking about, and comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage proves it. You can't compare someone's race to a sexual Preference/lifestyle.

Originally posted by newdad27
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

This article is uninintentionally amusing. First, it fails to show that there has been ANY overall decline in marriage rates in the few countries it discusses in the time period since gay marriages have been legalized (early 1990's). Second, it blithely ignores that at the same time, these countries introduced "domestic partnerships", an alternative to traditional marriage though one with somewhat less legal rights and obligations. Of course, the introduction of domestic partnerships might affect the marriage rate, though the evidence that it has is inconclusive.

Originally posted by newdad27
of course.

Based on this conclusion, can we say it should be legal for a man who obtains a sex-change operation, then becoming a woman, to marry another man?

-JC

Originally posted by newdad27
as usual #1 does not know what he is talking about, and comparing same sex marriage to interracial marriage proves it. You can't compare someone's race to a sexual Preference/lifestyle.

Please try to read and understand the Constitutional test for a violation of the EPC. Your argument was supposed to based on the "will of the majority" but the majority are all too often perfectly willing to oppress the minority. Whether that minority is a "lifestyle" in your opinion is irrelevant; the test remains the same. The same analysis would apply if the State said that two chess players couldn't marry.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The same analysis would apply if the State said that two chess players couldn't marry.

Careful. I know for a fact that allowing chess players to marry increases the overall divorce rate.

-JC

Originally posted by no1marauder
The same analysis would apply if the State said that two chess players couldn't marry.

Please tell me they wouldn't - just think of the mutants they would spawn!