Americans and Same-Sex Marriage

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.

the "framers" would definatley not be for same sex marriage.

Originally posted by no1marauder
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.

it wouldn't apply since the definition of marriage is a union between 2 people of the opposite sex. if the two chess players were of the opposite sex then they could get married.

Originally posted by newdad27
it wouldn't apply since the definition of marriage is a union between 2 people of the opposite sex. if the two chess players were of the opposite sex then they could get married.

The definition of marriage is set by law not by you. That definition must comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Simply repeating the definition you prefer over and over and over again is not a legal argument. Marriage is legally a contract between individuals entitling them to certain benefits and imposing on them certain obligations. Saying one group can enter into such a contract but not another based on no compelling State purpose is invidious discrimination.

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

That's what I fear; maybe the Senate will vote on that Constitutional Amendment next.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The definition of marriage is set by law not by you. That definition must comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Simply repeating the definition you prefer over and over and over again is not a legal argument.

well the legal def. is man/woman

Originally posted by newdad27
the "framers" would definatley not be for same sex marriage.

Nor would the framers have been for a woman's right to vote, among other things. This is a poor argument for your position.

-JC

Originally posted by newdad27
well the legal def. is man/woman

Actually, there was no such definition in most states until recently. Even assuming that is the present legal definition, you need to square it with the EPC test I gave in the other post; what "compelling state purpose" does such a definition serve?

Originally posted by Churlant
Nor would the framers have been for a woman's right to vote, among other things. This is a poor argument for your position.

-JC

well i can point out that Thomas paine argued for a woman's right to vote and the framers made it a state decision.

So can you point out to me where Paine and/or the framers argued for same sex marriage or the states right to settle that issue?

Originally posted by Churlant
Nor would the framers have been for a woman's right to vote, among other things. This is a poor argument for your position.

-JC

The Framers put in place principles that were meant to endure. They also believed in "evolution" in the sense that they thought human society could (and would) advance in its definition of liberty. They left our institutions flexible with the intention that the US would progress towards greater freedom and respect for rights, not be frozen in the attitudes of 1787. They would find a contrary argument bizarre.

Originally posted by newdad27
well i can point out that Thomas paine argued for a woman's right to vote and the framers made it a state decision.

So can you point out to me where Paine and/or the framers argued for same sex marriage or the states right to settle that issue?

See my post above. The prejudices of people 200+ years ago does not "settle the issue" nor would they have expected it to.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually, there was no such definition in most states until recently. Even assuming that is the present legal definition, you need to square it with the EPC test I gave in the other post; what "compelling state purpose" does such a definition serve?

its not an epc issue since the def is man/woman. epc would only apply if you opened it up to alternative lifestyles. Besides everyone on Earth (with a couple possible exceptions) is either a man or a woman. So marriage between a man and a woman applies to everyone.

Originally posted by no1marauder
See my post above. The prejudices of people 200+ years ago does not "settle the issue" nor would they have expected it to.

i consider our country well founded. You want a progressive society with no standards. That's just a difference we won't get past in a debate.

Originally posted by newdad27
its not an epc issue since the def is man/woman. epc would only apply if you opened it up to alternative lifestyles. Besides everyone on Earth (with a couple possible exceptions) is either a man or a woman. So marriage between a man and a woman applies to everyone.

That's the same argument made unsuccessfully in the interracial marriage case by Virginia. It's a foolish one for obvious reasons.

I'm sorry you don't understand the philosophy behind this country. That is your loss.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Framers put in place principles that were meant to endure. They also believed in "evolution" in the sense that they thought human society could (and would) advance in its definition of liberty. They left our institutions flexible with the intention that the US would progress towards greater freedom and respect for rights, not be frozen in the attitudes of 1787. They would find a contrary argument bizarre.

No argument from me on this. The whole concept of "what would the framer's do?" is invalid speculation as far as current-day law and constitutional interpretation is concerned. They understood this point then as much as most of us do today.

-JC

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's the same argument made unsuccessfully in the interracial marriage case by Virginia. It's a foolish one for obvious reasons.

I'm sorry you don't understand the philosophy behind this country. That is your loss.

one can't help there race. race is not a decision.