Quoting B2707SST (Reply 85): Remind me again who wrote the Emancipation Proclaimation? Which party controlled the Congresses that passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? Which party did everything in its power to subvert those amendments?

And the Republican party was also for strong federal power, anti-trust and pro-union. They switched places

Quoting B2707SST (Reply 85): As for civil rights: Percentage of Congressional Democrats voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 64% Percentage of Congressional Republicans voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964: 80%

And the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act are now all Republicans

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 88): I made a comment on activist judges for which I was called a bigot. My commentary on the issue has nothing to do with my opinion on gay marriage, and everything to do with my opinion of judges legislating from the bench.

Except that you are wrong. This judge was just using his power to interpret the constitution and make sure laws follow it, a power that is reserved for the judiciary.

Caution Lowrider... Your decision to voice your opinion on the matter has caused you to enter... "the bigot zone". Yes my friend, you and all your anti gay marriage buddies are self centered, shallow and stupid for not seeing the light. YOU MUST OBEY!

What light, I'm not really sure. Everytime I see a judge change a law from the bench I see a light going dim.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100): And the Republican party was also for strong federal power, anti-trust and pro-union. They switched places

Taking lessons from Falcon again? You ought to know better.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100): And the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act are now all Republicans

Nice try again.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100): Except that you are wrong. This judge was just using his power to interpret the constitution and make sure laws follow it, a power that is reserved for the judiciary.

A local politician authorizing Marriage is not a constitutional question, which is what this is about. Had you actually done a little research you'd know that. From the story:

The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week same-sex marriage spree started by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

How about you focus on your own laws (and crooked politicians) and let us grubby SUV driving gas guzzling Americans deal with our own.

[Edited 2005-03-16 06:23:57]

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 99): Any man and any woman can wed provided they are not violating incest statutes. How much more equal do you want? What is being demanded is additional, special rights for a certain subgroup.

How exactly are they special? It is the same concept. Thats like getting a lifetime supply of Reese's when youre allergic to peanuts.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 99): If there is to be a ruling on a national level, then I will fight tooth and nail against gay marriage.

To be honest, I find that very sad. If i were you I would find something more worthwhile to waste your time and energy on. Honestly, how would it negatively effect you?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 101): Everytime I see a judge change a law from the bench I see a light going dim.

Every time you talk I see you have no regard for the judicial branch- a necessary part of the balance of power.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 101): Your decision to voice your opinion on the matter has caused you to enter... "the bigot zone"

More like the smartass zone

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 103): Every time you talk I see you have no regard for the judicial branch- a necessary part of the balance of power.

And every time you defend this issue it's clear you don't understand what the judicial branch's job is. Kind of like the judge. Again. This issue is not a constitutional question. You might like it to be, but it's not. Therefore his rulling is not judicial, it's legislative in nature.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 103): More like the smartass zone

I think that happend right about the time someone dropped the word bigot.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 99): What is being demanded is additional, special rights for a certain subgroup.

There is nothing sub about this group and these are not special rights. Heterosexual Americans already have these "special rights" and homosexual Americans want the same protection.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 99): I disagree, it seems to be the best way to keep one group from forcing thier set of values and morals on the other

Read the Federalist Papers and see about that. This is exactly how minorities get together to force their values and morals on others.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 102): Taking lessons from Falcon again? You ought to know better.

Falcon and I do not agree on everything and I don't take lessons from anyone

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 102): Quoting N1120A (Reply 100): And the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act are now all Republicans Nice try again.

No trying there.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 102): A local politician authorizing Marriage is not a constitutional question, which is what this is about. Had you actually done a little research you'd know that. From the story: The ruling came in response to lawsuits filed by the city of San Francisco and a dozen gay couples a year ago after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week same-sex marriage spree started by Mayor Gavin Newsom.

I am very well aware about Mayor Newsome's part in this. This is, first off, not about his action. This suit is about the law banning gay marriage in California and the judge found that law unconstitutional

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 102): How about you focus on your own laws (and crooked politicians) and let us grubby SUV driving gas guzzling Americans deal with our own.

Do a shread of research about me and they see if you can edit that post

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 104): I think that happend right about the time someone dropped the word bigot.

OK, so let me get this straight.

I call you bigot.

You come back and call me ass pirate.

You try to defend yourself as not being a bigot.

Hmmm...

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 102): How about you focus on your own laws (and crooked politicians) and let us grubby SUV driving gas guzzling Americans deal with our own.

HAHA! User profiles are there for a reason, dude. N1120A is a California native living in New Orleans.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 105): This suit is about the law banning gay marriage in California and the judge found that law unconstitutional

What was ruled unconstitutional was the stopping of the actions prepetuated by the mayor. Not California law. But if you want to re-write history go ahead. Liberals seem to be doing so a lot lately.

HAHA! User profiles are there for a reason, dude. N1120A is a California native living in New Orleans.

Oooooh! You got me Superman! You my hero!

[Edited 2005-03-16 08:04:32]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 108): What was ruled unconstitutional was the stopping of the actions prepetuated by the mayor. Not California law.

Mayor Newsome was stopped using the law banning gay marriage in California. That is what was ruled unconstitutional

Oh, and are you sure you want to be calling an "ass pirate" superman? He may get ideas   

Quoting N1120A (Reply 105): There is nothing sub about this group and these are not special rights. Heterosexual Americans already have these "special rights" and homosexual Americans want the same protection.

That is my point, we all currently enjoy the exact same protection under the current law. Any man and woman can marry. Seems equal to me.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 105): Read the Federalist Papers and see about that. This is exactly how minorities get together to force their values and morals on others.

The Federalist papers do have interesting things to say about the role and scope of the federal govenment, and I think we would do well the use them as a stricter guideline than we currently do. If they were strictly applied, I think the federal court system would have a drastically reduced scope and we would see much more power retained, and many more issues decided at the state level. I understand what I am suggesting would be a very fine balancing act between individual rights and the constitutional protection of contracts, but it is one that needs to be struck in the interest of all.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 103): How exactly are they special? It is the same concept. Thats like getting a lifetime supply of Reese's when youre allergic to peanuts.

It is special because it is demanding a right which does not currently exist for any person or group within the US. I do not have it, and neither does anyone else. I would think you would be more receptive to the comprimise I proposed.
It may not get you everything you want, but it allows you to have most of it in a form which would acceptable to most people. On the reverse, I would prefer if gay marriage was never recognized. Instead of flatly refusing to listen, I am trying to find away to seperate my personal beliefs from my political beliefs and propose a way to accomadate.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 103): To be honest, I find that very sad. If i were you I would find something more worthwhile to waste your time and energy on. Honestly, how would it negatively effect you?

Quite simply, I think it is morally repugnant. But I understand that some people will insist on having thier way and I am willing to allow them to go thier way. I just don't want to be dragged along.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 109): Mayor Newsome was stopped using the law banning gay marriage in California. That is what was ruled unconstitutional

The 2000 law, not the 1977 law which was not even in question and he opted to rule on anyway. Odd how a law that's been on the books for nearly 30 years all of a sudden becomes unconstitutional. Perhaps there is hope for the end of Row v Wade, nah... never happen. All the activists are Liberals.

The only things unconstitutional was a Mayor undermining State Law and the will of the people in order to attempt to push a new Federal Law to satisfy a personal agenda.

[Edited 2005-03-16 12:40:50]

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 110): It is special because it is demanding a right which does not currently exist for any person or group within the US. I do not have it, and neither does anyone else.

Everyone would have that right. Straight people would have the right to gay marriage too. Doesn't sound like it makes any sense but it does if you argue gay people have the same rights to marriage right now. That may be true but it doesn't do any good to them, it doesnt matter.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 110): I just don't want to be dragged along.

Yeah, how exactly would you be dragged along?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 111): The 2000 law, not the 1977 law which was not even in question and he opted to rule on anyway.

That's just not true. The ruling in this opinion is limited to Family Code Section 300 and Family Code Section 308.5. Perhaps you should consider actually reading the opinion so that you understand the relevant facts.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 111): Odd how a law that's been on the books for nearly 30 years all of a sudden becomes unconstitutional.

That’s not odd at all. Constitutionality rulings are made all the time regarding statues that have been on the books for many years. There are thousands and thousands of examples of this in the history of the American Judiciary.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Judiciary in our system of government. When a petitioner with appropriate legal standing brings a case before an appellate court on a question of constitutionality, it is not only the right of the court to rule, it is the obligation of the court to rule on that question. That is what appellate courts do. It is their function in our government. You may disagree with the ruling of the Superior Court in this case, but it is absurd to suggest that it has no right to rule in this case.

You also seem to think that the statutes of a legislature or the results of a referendum are final and immutable regardless of the Constitution. That simply is not the case. All statutes and regulations are subordinate to the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 110): Quoting N1120A (Reply 105): There is nothing sub about this group and these are not special rights. Heterosexual Americans already have these "special rights" and homosexual Americans want the same protection. That is my point, we all currently enjoy the exact same protection under the current law. Any man and woman can marry. Seems equal to me.

Except if they want to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal protection. It is like saying "well, black people can marry other black people so they are equally protected even though they cannot marry white people" Same thing.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 110): The Federalist papers do have interesting things to say about the role and scope of the federal govenment, and I think we would do well the use them as a stricter guideline than we currently do.

Yes, that it must be a strong role or you have chaos and inequality

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 110): If they were strictly applied, I think the federal court system would have a drastically reduced scope

Wrong. The Constitution, which the Fed. Papers were promoting, gives Congress the power to make the federal court system as large or small as it wants. In theory, they could abolish all federal courts and all claims would go to the Supreme Court, or create a circuit for every state.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 110): and we would see much more power retained, and many more issues decided at the state level.

Not at all. Madison specifically wrote that the reason for strong federal power and limitation of state power is that we need to keep small minorities from banding together and usurping democracy.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 111): All the activists are Liberals.

Riiiiight. Hence you have Garcia, Thomas and Rhenquist

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 111): The 2000 law, not the 1977 law which was not even in question and he opted to rule on anyway. Odd how a law that's been on the books for nearly 30 years all of a sudden becomes unconstitutional

Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books for 62 years. Perhaps that should not have been unconstitutional  

As much as I am opposed to gay marriage, I think this is an issue which should be kept out of the federal courts and federal legislature. Let the states decide for themselves whether or not this is something they want. . . . Everyone gets what they want in that case. I think this is the best way to keep one group from oppressing another.

I agree that a patchwork of states for and against gay marriage will be the final outcome. In fact, only recently did a federal court rule that the state of marriage in one state (MA) should not force another state to accept that marriage within its own jurisdiction. I think the case is up for appeal.

However, I am also curious as to why you use the term oppression? As a gay man who does not have the right to marry a member of the same sex, I do not feel oppressed. I find laws against gay marriage to be hypocritical, especially coming from an overprivileged majority that takes its own right to marry for granted, but I cannot call it oppressive. Of course, I also live in a progressive East Coast city, so I cannot speak for those stuck in places where the anti-gay marriage rhetoric is emblematic of a wider pattern of oppression against gays.

In the same vein, how does gay marriage oppress heterosexuals? You may find it distasteful or immoral, and that is something you can always believe in. But how is it oppressive? Many find the sight of an inter-racial couple distasteful. Some even find it immoral. How is that oppressive? Individuals are always free to have their own views on these matters. You can even tell your children that you find it morally wrong, even though others engage in it, and you can instill these values in your children while they are under your care. There are reasonable ways to co-exist with others in what is a very diverse country, without backing down from your beliefs, but while others to practice their own.

Or are you just engaging in hyperbole?

To be against abortion, for instance, it's not the same as be against women's rights or women's suffrage. Your rhetoric is good for a campus activist's meeting, but it's a disservice for real liberalism.

And if your rhetoric involves attributing false comments to others, then its not rhetoric. Its just bordering on libel.

If you even bothered to notice, I never once mentioned abortion. I believe that being against abortion does not a bigot make. Being against women's suffrage, equality in the workplace does. And social conservatives have always been on the wrong side of such basic rights.

Civil partnership is a legal contract that most americans support which in the end will give gay couples the same rights than straight ones.

Agreed.
However, most social conservatives are even against that. Recent legislation in VA is so draconian, that it not only bars recognition of civil unions, but also civil contracts on inheritance and visitation rights. For instance, it would make any inheritance by a gay partner illegal. The state could essentially step in and take ownership of a deceased's assets.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 117): To be against abortion, for instance, it's not the same as be against women's rights or women's suffrage. Your rhetoric is good for a campus activist's meeting, but it's a disservice for real liberalism. And if your rhetoric involves attributing false comments to others, then its not rhetoric. Its just bordering on libel. If you even bothered to notice, I never once mentioned abortion.

That's why I wrote for instance, I used it in my argument. I never immplied that you said it before.   

Wow what a mess this thread has turned in to.

Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 77): So now you have to go to an American school to learn about American history

Never said that. Your ignorance of U.S. history indicated that you don't know jack about women's rights, women's suffrage, voting rights for people of color, basic human rights for gays as Jaysit pointed out.

Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 77): Of course, you don't seem to be angry

So I am angry?
No one in these forums makes me angry. Not even MaverickM11.

Quoting SFOMEX (Reply 77): I won't go down to your level here. If going personal is part of your liberal values, I don't want to share it.

Sorry if I offended you. That was not my intent. Perhaps I should have used a different choice of words.
Whare about in the Bay Area did you live?

Quoting Airlinerfreak (Reply 91): By promoting same sex marriage we are promoting to children that it is ok to be gay and lesbian.

Also, don't forget that by watching SpongeBob your children will become gay, so make sure you boycott all of Nickelodeons advertisers until the show gets cancelled. Note the sarcasm. Your statements do suggest that you believe homosexuals choose to be gay and they make that choice based on society.

Quoting Airlinerfreak (Reply 91): In this country children are not born to be racist, they are not born to be polite, they are not born to be strait or gay, we teach them what is right.

Wrong. Homosexuals are born Homosexuals. If a choice is made, you must remember making that choice that "made" you straight.

Maybe we should be teaching our children acceptance of other people, but instead we are protesting educational videos that teach that acceptance - which is absent in most people's heads.

N1120A
Apparently we disagree on what a strong federal government would look like. I think it should be strong, but but not limitless in scope. That is, within the powers granted to it by the Constitution and subsequent ammendments, there is no overlap in jurisdiction with the states. All powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government are retained by the states. There should likewise be no overlap in jurisdiction. Some people cite the equal protection clause as a case for gay marriage, but there is no precedent to support that interpretation. Marriage is not an inalienable right. If it was so, then laws denying marriage between cousins, relative, and such could then be challenged on the basis of thier constitutionality. Since laws regarding marriage do not fall under the enumerated powers, nor do they fall under any list of rights, it becomes one of those nonspecified issues relegated to the states. Given the wide range of opinions and beliefs, I belief this more flexible approach is the best way to handle it and satisfy the largest number of people.

You are right that Congress has great flexibilty in what the federal court system looks like and how it functions (or malfunctions, depending on your views), but as a branch of the federal government, it has the same limitations that the other branches do.

Might I suggest that non-gay people everywhere refrain from making assertions as to who made what choice regarding their homosexuality? I highly suspect that those of us who are gay are significantly more qualified to argue that point, having lived it.

Do not presume to argue that gay marriage will in some way "oppress" straight people. There's no basis for that argument aside from that your views may be challenged.

You may challenge my views... but as they do you no harm, you may not attempt to prevent me from acting on my views. Your views, on the other hand, harm my ability to lead the life I choose. So, how is it fair that your views should be the ones that back up the law?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 90): In this country children are not born to be racist, they are not born to be polite, they are not born to be strait or gay, we teach them what is right.

Hmmm, what on earth is that supposed to mean?? Racism and manners are things that are learnt, they are obversved in and taught by adults, and therefore taken on by the child. Sexuality is not learnt, and how does 'how is right' come into this argument?

Quoting Airlinerfreak (Reply 91): By promoting same sex marriage we are promoting to children that it is ok to be gay and lesbian.

So it is wrong to be gay or lesbian?? And therefore of course it must be wrong to give the message to children that it is anything but wrong??
I guess in your ideal world, it would be best to go on igonoring that homosexuality exists, or perhaps persecuting those who might happen to be gay.
An besides, if you're really that agains homosexuality, I doubt you have any gay or lesbian connections, therefore, how does what gay or lesbian individuals happen to do with THEIR lives (included declare their love and commitment though marriage) affect you?

Maybe it's time to start growing up little boy, and open your eyes to the world, the REAL world. Perhaps one day you'll see the world can be a wonderful, accepting place, and that you'll look back on your bigoted views and be embarrassed at your so-called beliefs. At least I hope you will, for you own sake.

To this day I'm still amazed that heterosexuals think they are being "oppressed" because gays and lesbians want to marry. I don't understand this ... no one is forcing you to marry a gay or lesbian. What part of oppression don't you understand?

I notice that folks are ceasing to use the religious bullshit to validate their views too -- NOT a winning hand anymore.

If I were to get married to my partner in California, what would happen if we were driving thru some deep, dark Southern state, and one of us had to go to the hospital? Since we're married in California, no problem.

But big problem in Bubba-land.

Plus, why should I have to go thru all the extra expense of obtaining legal documents when I am married, LEGALLY, to my partner? Married heterosexuals don't have to do that.

Sometimes I swear some of you guys need to take up chanting or something. You'll bust a blood vessel in your heads some day thinking up all these evil thoughts.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 120): All powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government are retained by the states.

Except that people use the 10th ammendment to try and say Congress does not have power it actually has, especially with commerce. Also, the powers are not just reserved to the states, but also the people.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 120): Since laws regarding marriage do not fall under the enumerated powers,

Except that marriage heavily affects commerce (congressional power over interstate commerce) and not allowing a group the right to marry affects both liberty and property rights and denies them equal protection of these rights

Quoting Johnboy (Reply 123): If I were to get married to my partner in California, what would happen if we were driving thru some deep, dark Southern state, and one of us had to go to the hospital? Since we're married in California, no problem. But big problem in Bubba-land.

Actually, according to the constitution, you would be protected. States must give full faith and credit to the actions of other states, including your marriage.

Quoting Lekohawk (Reply 121): Might I suggest that non-gay people everywhere refrain from making assertions as to who made what choice regarding their homosexuality? I highly suspect that those of us who are gay are significantly more qualified to argue that point, having lived it.

Thank you Lekohawk. I completely agree.

I like how in all of these arguments against gay marriage, the best anyone can seem to come up with is some variation of "it's been done this way for years", and "it's yucky". Sorry guys, gay marriage will happen, much like interracial marriage was "legalized". A majority of people a few decades ago were against that too. Public opinion is not always (or ever) the end-all be-all of a determination of constitutionality. Thank God.

"Except if they want to marry someone of the same sex. That is not equal protection. It is like saying "well, black people can marry other black people so they are equally protected even though they cannot marry white people" Same thing."

Gotta be careful when making this argument, for two reasons:

1. Unlike race, sexual orientation is NOT a suspect classification under federal law.

2. The choice issue - people don't choose to be Black or White, but they DO "choose" to have homosexual relationships.

Hmm... Well, I "choose" to have a homosexual relationship in the same sense someone might "choose" to have a relationship with someone who is of a different race. I choose to be honest about my feelings. I do not, however, "choose" what my feelings are. Similar to how someone may fall in love with someone of a different race. The choice does not lie in what race they are, or what race the person they're interested in is a member of, or whether or not they fall in love at all, but rather whether they choose to act on that love.

Some would suggest, in the case of homosexuality, that gays should simply choose not to act on their feelings of love, and instead settle for something less ("Why don't you just go out with a nice woman, Lekohawk?"). How, praytell, does that grant equal protection and equal freedom? It doesn't.

I meant to respond to this earlier, but it must've slipped my mind:

Quoting Airlinerfreak (Reply 91): We are here to be fruitful and multiply

According to whom, Airlinerfreak? You? The Bible? God?

Y'see, none of those options apply to me, and I'm pretty sure they don't apply to most gay people (at least not those who are happy). You, your book, and your God have no business dictating what I do with my life. You have not ever had any business in it, and you will continue not to have any business in it. In the words of George Carlin, sir, "Keep thy religion to thyself".

My... our... government, however, has a duty to protect and provide for both of us equally. Your side stands nothing to lose - except your lame argument - by aquescing to gay marriage. But, because you've been arguing it for so long, and because so much money has been poured into it, you're going to keep arguing until the Supreme Court or the Legislature, or whomever, has to step in and tell you to stop acting like five-year olds and let the nice queers marry already.

Were the courts to be ruling that gay marriage was illegal, all you conservatives would absolutly love the judges ruling from their benches. But, because you're losing, you're labeling them with that dirty word "activists" and marching around trying to pass laws to destroy the system of checks and balances. Perhaps those judges are activists... but if it weren't for activists this country would still be as it was 200 years ago. Be careful the names you call people... you might just compliment them.

Lekohawk

Very well said! I am 45 and a happy gay man. I have been with my partner 11 years. We own two homes. We have three great dogs. We have great friends. We have bills. We bicker. Sounds pretty normal to me!

Most gay people, if they truly could "CHOOSE" would choose to fit into society. I guess all the straight people in the work woke up one day and said "Im deciding to be straight". Just like gay people woke up one day and said "Im going to choose a life style, that I know in my heart that is who God made me, that every one want to pick on, discriminate against and hate.

This christian right Bull Sh*%^% has to stop...oh it will in time. We will have gay marriage in time...the Arguments that the Right is using are the SAME EXACT ones they used to fight against Inter-racial marriage.
They claim to be "loving" people, yet they use religon as a mask to hate. That B.S. of "love the sinner hate the sin" is them not being honest, truly honest in their hearts.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 84): He also sent me an IM calling me an 'ass pirate' and to 'grow out of your diapers before you start shit with someone nearly twice your age' !!

Report him. He will get banned.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 54): A potential solution to all of this is to do away with “marriage” as a legally recognized status for everyone and replace it with civil unions that can be entered into by any two adults including gays. Then leave it up to churches as to whether or not they want to sanction a particular civil union as a “marriage”.

In my modest opinion, this is the ONLY solution.

Oddly, its a truly conservative one as well. The exit of the government from sanctioning a religious process, and mandating equivalent rights for all parties. The actual true definition of right-wing.

I wish people understood that "Republican" is so far from "conservative" that they're not even related anymore.

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 116): In fact, only recently did a federal court rule that the state of marriage in one state (MA) should not force another state to accept that marriage within its own jurisdiction.

How does that work, Jaysit. Isn't full faith and credit part of the Constitution at this point?

N

"In my modest opinion, this is the ONLY solution."

Civil unions are the absolute WORST solution to the gay marriage issue from a legal standpoint - it's the one move that actually DOES weaken the institution of marriage. IMHO, either the law allows for gay marriage or it doesn't - but establishing a civil unions regime brings us one step closer to the legal sanctioning of meretricious relationships, one of the worst fears of most judges.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 130): but establishing a civil unions regime brings us one step closer to the legal sanctioning of meretricious relationships, one of the worst fears of most judges.

I think you’re misunderstanding my point. I was suggesting that some sort of legal process and status be established that would replace “marriage” in civil law. By definition a meretricious relationship is a relationship without legal status, so that wouldn't have anything to do with it. People who entered into such a relationship would comply with all the legalities currently required by marriage. There would be a civil union license, one would need to get a legal divorce to nullify a civil union, etc., etc. It would be exactly the same thing, legally, as a marriage is under current law. It just wouldn’t be called a “marriage”. It is a semantic difference, not a legal one.

A marriage, in my scheme, would be a purely religious status that people could seek from their church, and churches would be free to marry, or not marry, people by any criteria they selected including sexual preference.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 130): Civil unions are the absolute WORST solution to the gay marriage issue from a legal standpoint - it's the one move that actually DOES weaken the institution of marriage. IMHO, either the law allows for gay marriage or it doesn't - but establishing a civil unions regime brings us one step closer to the legal sanctioning of meretricious relationships, one of the worst fears of most judges.

I was referring to the elimination of marriage from the government's purview entirely.

N

It seems to me that this has turned into largly a semantics issue. Many people are for giving gay relationships legal protection equal to that of straight people's. They're just against calling it "marriage". Personally? I don't see how including homosexuals under that blanket term is hurting anyone.

As far as the government is concerned, it would simplify things to use one word to describe the same principles applying to everyone. It reduces the paperwork. Then you don't need two seperate forms, one for straight couples, and one for gay couples to apply for what is essentially the same marriage licence. It's the K.I.S.S. principle. Keep it Simple, Straighty.  

Quoting Airbus3801 (Reply 22): it is illegal to fire someone for their sexuality or it would be legal if you had an At-Will Contract). How in the world can you say that they are not oppressed

It is totally legal to fire someone for being gay, there is no protection most states for doing it.

Quoting Adam (Reply 119): Quoting Airlinerfreak (Reply 91): In this country children are not born to be racist, they are not born to be polite, they are not born to be strait or gay, we teach them what is right.

You cannot choose sexual orientation, why would anyone choose to be disrespected by a majority of their peers?

As a gay man living in Tennessee I can tell you there are plenty of times I have wanted to move to California, but I am not going to let some ignorant person run my life.

I was MARRIED in Toronto over a year ago. My partner and I paid 64,000 in taxes to support our fellow countrymen last year , we want to adopt a child that does not have a chance at a good life, but the state is trying to stop that right now to some degree. We attend church, we contribute to our community.

Do I want special treatment? NO I want to be left alone to enjoy my constitutional rights. I would like to know that my partner is protected if something happens to me on any of the 150 or more flights I get on every year.

I was amused at Christmas time when all the "Christians" were complaining that stores would only say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

All the news reports showed angry "Christians" saying they would boycott Target and other stores that didn't say "Merry Christmas". Ironic that when they felt they were a minority how upset they became. (Maybe there is a lesson there?)

As the saying goes "What you do to the least of my brothers you do unto me"

Interesting that "Christians" seem to forget this part of Scripture.

The US is based on freedom of religion, Marriage in the government sense has nothing to do with marriage in the Church. let's not ruin our country by degrading the very thing that hundreds of thousands of lives have been given towards.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 124): Except that people use the 10th ammendment to try and say Congress does not have power it actually has, especially with commerce. Also, the powers are not just reserved to the states, but also the people.

I would tend to agree with those people who say that congress
(and the federal government as a whole) has overstepped its bounds in some areas. You are right that said right are reserved to the states and the people, but my point is that they are removed from the federal government and therefore outside that sphere of influence.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 124): Except that marriage heavily affects commerce (congressional power over interstate commerce) and not allowing a group the right to marry affects both liberty and property rights and denies them equal protection of these rights

That gets back to the point I mentioned earlier about the protection of contractual issues. Property rights are rarely the primary problem because it is a relatively simple matter to name whomever you wish on a title, registration, or deed. The exception is inheiritance. This would be an issue which would need to be resolved, but I think it would be more appropriate and simplier to tackle that instead of gay marriage. I simply do not see the liberty issue. There is enough variety in what is permissable from state to state that make the equal protection case a tough one to make. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, but not my state. Is that an equal protection issue? I am not contrasting or comparing gay marriage to prostitution, it is merely an easy example to use. Speed limits and driving laws vary from state to state, but I am expected to comply with the traffic rules for the state I am in, not the one in which I am licensed.

I don't want to live in a society where gay marriage occurs, but I know I will have agree to disagree with some people. If they will respect my beliefs and allow me a place in this society where I am at home, I am willing to allow them the same. The state by state method is the best way I can come up with to allow this comprimise.

Let me create a hypothetical situation for everyone, and then I'd like to hear (read) some responses from those of you against gay marriage:

Even if homosexuality *were* a choice, is it not our choice, in this wonderfully free country, to make? And... to take that a step further, should we not be allowed to fully indulge ourselves in that choice, as it hurts no one? And, before you say it, I have been arguing this issue with very intelligent people for a long time without ever having heard a case where someone was hurt as a direct result (ie: no extenuating circumstances) of someone else's homosexuality.

If we look at it this way, we can compare it to the choice to consume intoxicants. Whether or not to consume alcohol is a personal choice. When done responsibly, it hurts no one but perhaps oneself. By the logic of the anti-gay people, however, these folks... responsible, upstanding members of society who do nothing to harm anyone... should not be allowed to associate and form lifelong bonds with people who are of a similar mindset. Lifelong bonds that their government and their society will recognize. Is the absurdity of this logic beginning to become a bit more clear?

The point I'm trying to make is that the "homosexuality is a choice" argument really brings up a non-issue. Regardless of the whether or not it's a choice (and I'll continue to maintain that it is, in fact, not a choice... and that I'm more qualified to make that assertion than someone who has never lived it) Gay Marriage is an equality issue that must be addressed, and it must be addressed in a manner that makes my relationship with my man-to-be just as valid and just as legally binding as anyone else's.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 135): Prostitution is legal in Nevada, but not my state. Is that an equal protection issue?

The concept of the Equal Protection Clause has nothing to do with differences between the laws of various states. The Equal Protection Clause stipulates that laws must be applied equally to individuals within a given jurisdiction, either state or Federal, unless there is a compelling governmental interest to do otherwise. It has nothing to do with one state forbidding an activity that some other state may allow.

To use your prostitution example, let’s say in the State of Idaho that all adults except those with red hair are allowed by law to participate in prostitution. That would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the State of Idaho could not show that it had a compelling reason to prevent redheads from doing something that everyone else was permitted to do.

Conversely, let’s say in the State of Idaho that all adults except those who are known to be HIV positive are allowed by law to participate in prostitution. That would not be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the State of Idaho could, in fact, show that it had a compelling reason, based on a public health risk, to prevent HIV positive individuals from participating in prostitution.

You make my point for me. Just as there is no equal protection issue with my Nevada example, I submit there is no equal protection issue with the gay marriage issue.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 138): I submit there is no equal protection issue with the gay marriage issue.

The State of California has decided to apply it marriage laws to one group of people (heterosexuals) and not another (homosexuals). Do you agree that is true?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 135): I don't want to live in a society where gay marriage occurs,

How does a gay person committing to a stable loving relationship hurt you or our society? I really cannot understand how that can interfere with your own "pursuit of happiness".

I can respect your opinion as it is your right in this country to express your opinion freely.

Lowrider,

Its very sad that I have to live in a country where 53% of HETEROSEXUALS are getting divorced. I don't like living in a country where 95% of CHILD ABUSERS are HETEROSEXUAL.

It so sad that you would not want to live in a society that allows love. Commitment. Independence. Respect. Diversity. Openness. Compassion.

I have been with my partner 11 years now. We own two homes. We have debit. We bicker. We laugh. We cry. We do laundry. We pay taxes. We vote. We pray. We take care of each other. But I have no legal rights nor does he over me. After spending about $5,000 on lawyers, we are legally tight. But then any person can marry and have all legal rights all at the moment of "I do".

Yea, I guess my life is pretty scary isn't it.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 138): Just as there is no equal protection issue with my Nevada example, I submit there is no equal protection issue with the gay marriage issue.

There is an equal protection issue, though, because there is no social or governmental interest in preventing gay people from marrying, aside from protecting the ignorance of the so-called "Moral Majority", a group to which you apparently subscribe, Lowrider. I don't mean to insult your tastes... but I'd ask that you don't try to push the governments (state/federal) into insulting mine.

Further, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution says, basically, that one state must honor any contract issued in another state. As marriage is, in this sense, a legal contract... it is subject to Full Faith and Credit... and therefore a marriage license issued in one state must be valid in all of the other states of the union, regardless of who it's issued to. That works out well for you, because that means your marriage is valid in all 50 states without you needing to go get a seperate license in each of the fifty states (That'd be a way to spend your honeymoon, eh?). That also means that if I go to Massachusetts to get married... all of the other 49 states have to honor that legal contract. If they have a law that says otherwise, I can challenge that law as unconstitutional... and if the court I challenge it in has genuine constitutional scholars in it they will rule that a contract is a contract is a contract... and that every state in the union must honor said contract, regardless of the state of issuance. Effectively, that court case (which we will probably all witness in the next 10 to 15 years, if not sooner) will be what legalizes recognition of gay marriage in America. Soon thereafter, the more liberal states will begin to legalize the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples within their own borders... and the more conservative states will, although forced to recognize the licenses of others states, be very slow in issuing their own "gay marriage" licenses.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 139): The State of California has decided to apply it marriage laws to one group of people (heterosexuals) and not another (homosexuals). Do you agree that is true?

No. As I have said earlier, everyone has the same rights currently. Refer to what I have said earlier. The equal protection I was refering to is that clause which is contained in the Constitution of the United States. I am not familiar enough with California's constitution to comment on it. However, should the state of California decide it wants to allow gay marriage, then I think the state legislature is the proper venue to decide this as opposed to a federal venue.

Quoting Lekohawk (Reply 142): Further, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution says, basically, that one state must honor any contract issued in another state

Again, I have addressed this earlier. Marriage is part legal contract, part social convention. A balance needs to be struck. I would rather the federal government spend its time resolving the contractual issues, and leave the social ones to the various states.

Quoting 1MillionFlyer (Reply 140): How does a gay person committing to a stable loving relationship hurt you or our society? I really cannot understand how that can interfere with your own "pursuit of happiness".

Quoting NWAFA (Reply 141): It so sad that you would not want to live in a society that allows love. Commitment. Independence. Respect. Diversity. Openness. Compassion

Respectfully, it is not really important why I hold the opinions I do. I am opposed to gay marriage. You want to live the way you want to live, and I am quite willing to let you go your way and do that. However, does not tolerance include my views as well? If I am willing to have a place in society for people who hold to your particular viewpoint to do as you see fit, can there not also be a place for people of my viewpoint? I have not rammed my moral views down anyone's throat. I attempt to state them in a clear, concise manner. I have only asked that a way for both opionions to be accomodated found. You want to vote in gay marriage in CA, MA, ME, FL, WA, or even TX, be my guest and have a good time. If we vote against it in AK, WI, TN, or NH, you will of course be welcome to live, visit, do business and anything else that is legal there, but we will have chosen a slightly different set of laws. No amount of browbeating, lecturing, or force feeding will ever get me to agree with you though. I simply want to be able to chose a place to live where my viewpoint is not excluded.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 143): I simply want to be able to chose a place to live where my viewpoint is not excluded.

That's a Civil war argument buddy. You a confederate? Not wanting to live somewhere where there is just something that doesnt go your way is quite sad..not that it would be a huge loss.

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 143): No. As I have said earlier, everyone has the same rights currently.

OK, they have the same rights. Anyone can marry a person of the opposite gender. Of course that means shit to gays, but oh well. If there was same sex marriage, everyone would STILL have the same rights, they would just be more encompassing to the needs of everybody. Not that difficult. Special rights? no.... they belong to everybody... just like it does now.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 144): That's a Civil war argument buddy. You a confederate? Not wanting to live somewhere where there is just something that doesnt go your way is quite sad..not that it would be a huge loss.

Funny, no one made that arguement when people wanted to move the Canada after the election. I have really tried to take a rational approach to the whole matter and have tried to find a way to reconcile beliefs that I hold dear with what I percieve to a trend which is gathering momentum. I am frustrated with the demand that I accept the values and beliefs of others while these same people would show contempt and disregard for the values that I hold dear. It is more than not having things go my way. It is a trend in society which I am concerned with. Gay marriage is but a drop of water in a much larger pond. I am not that old, but even I have seen some changes in my lifetime that concern me. So, how do I reconcile my belief in individual rights with a concept which I cannot accept as right? I have always believed that if you truly find some city, county, or state unacceptable, move to one that is or change the one you are in. Family is an integral part of culture, and the family unit tends to play a large part in defining local culture. So where do I go if I find that a federal court or legislature has imposed upon the entire county a definition of family which contradicts my beliefs. I don't know how much of a difference in day to day life it will make, and I am not interested in finding out. I am simply a person trying to figure out how to best bring up a family in what I percieve as a decaying society. You accuse me of being a confederate, which is far from true. I do have a certain sympathy for some residents of the confederacy in the twilight days. They were not all evil bigoted slave owners. Most were typical folks who watched thier towns burn and way of life disappear. They saw themselves stereotyped as ignorant racists by people who had never set foot south of the Mason-Dixon line. Right or wrong, they saw the rebuilding of thier lives dictated by people who were effectively absentee landlords. So I may not have a Confederate flag on my cheap little foriegn car, and I do not believe that there is just a temporary cease fire in the war of southern independence, but I do have a certain sympathy for those southerners who survived the Civil War. You may think that I may not be a huge loss to a society and you may be right. I would say that it is sad that you would devalue me to that point because I do not agree with you.

I don't think anyone's excluding your views, Lowrider... they're questioning them. You've questioned ours, and we've presented reasons for why we feel the way we do which go beyond simply "because we want to". While "because we want to" is, and ought to be, legally/governmentally sufficient, you owe a better answer than that if you're going to argue your opinion with individuals. We've argued our side... why aren't you willing to address our points? Do we make too much sense?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 143): Marriage is part legal contract, part social convention.

That's exactly the point. The legal contract is all we're asking for from the government (that's the only thing the government has jurisdiction over, anyway). We've already got venues for the social component... commitment ceremonies happen every day.

An overarching federal desicion is in order here because while I am allowed to marry in Massachusetts... that doesn't mean a damn thing in the other states, according to their laws. For instance, say I'm a Mass. resident and I marry my partner. Several years later, I get a job offer in Oregon. I move to Portland to start working with a new company for twice as much money. I bring my family - Mr. Lekohawk included - with me. Too bad, however, Oregon doesn't recognize gay marriage. My partner is now cohabitating with a legal stranger. All the credit we've built as a couple, the ability to file taxes jointly and all of the other financial benefits that go along with our marriage... they're gone. Essentially, I'm forced to chose. Take an awesome new job, or stay where I'm at to maintain my credit. That's not a choice I should be forced into. Especially not because I'm honest about my feelings for someone who doesn't happen to be the person you think I should be with.

No one is saying you can't feel the way you do... but you can feel however you want while still being permisive and accepting of other people. The same way that I don't have to like you to permit and accept that you're a functioning member of our society with just as much right to get married and have kids and live a happy life as anyone else... including homosexuals.

If you're so easily upset by gay marriage, there are two questions you need to ask yourself:

1. Is living across the state line really going to make you feel any better?

It seems to me that if you're going to get upset by it at all, shouldn't the fact that it happens anywhere upset you? If you're going to allow Vermont to have it, Alabama has to have it, too. That's the idea behind a union of states, rather than a union of countries. This is not simply a pooling of collective resources... this is a pooling of societies.

2. Where are your priorities?

Honestly... if what two complete strangers, who are probably going to remain complete strangers, do with their lives is that big of a concern to you, you really need to reevaluate where you're focusing your attentions.

Quoting Lekohawk (Reply 146): We've argued our side... why aren't you willing to address our points? Do we make too much sense?

Fair enough. Why I think the way I do is no mystery, I'm just another conservative Christian. I see all people as having value in the eyes of God, even if I cannot agree with some of the things that they do. That said, I also know that no amount of preaching, citing of biblical text, or arguing is going to change anybody's mind. You, for example, seem to be in support of gay marriage, and I am unlikely to move you off your position. I do not resent homosexuals, nor do I support anything that dehumanizes them. (ref. my value in the eyes of God remark). If He can see value in you, then I will see it. I will continue to believe that despite differences of opinion and belief, you are a uniquely created being with various gifts, talents and an immortal soul.

Now, I have made no secret of my opinion of gay marriage. I think it is impossible to put this genie back in the bottle. Just as it came to be legal in MA, other states will follow. Of this I have no doubt. Given my beliefs, is it so hard to understand why I would hope for areas where conservative values are continue to dominate? I understand that in some parts of the country, people with my beliefs are the minority, and therefore will not prevail. From the legal standpoint, this is probably how it should be. Even I do not want to see the US turn into a theocracy. File your federal taxes jointly, pass a law saying that a credit rating which is joint in one state is joint in all. These are relatively minor points of law which can be quickly resolved. But allow states to retain control over thier taxes and marriage licenses. There is too much regional variation in this country to try and force a one size fits all solution. Yes it may require some tough choices for some, such as your job. Life is full of tough choices, for gays and straights both. As you mention, it does come down to priorities. I too, have had to turn down jobs I really wanted because my wife was not willing to put up with some of the things that went with them. Welcome to marriage. If you thought you would never have to comprise for the sake of a marriage, you were misinformed.

Quoting Lekohawk (Reply 146): 1. Is living across the state line really going to make you feel any better?

In a nutshell, yes. It is a matter of principle. It is a way for me to say, "I refuse to support this and refuse to give my tax dollars to a state that supports this. If this is what you choose, then do it without me." Call me petty, but the ability to do something constructive is a balm. To me, it is similar to the choice to put my children in private schools, even if it costs me more. If I disagree or am dissatisfied with the public schools in my area, I can move them to one which more accurate reflects the the things I value. It may be a sacrifice, but prinicples are worth it, aren't they?

Quoting Lekohawk (Reply 146): 2. Where are your priorities? Honestly... if what two complete strangers, who are probably going to remain complete strangers, do with their lives is that big of a concern to you, you really need to reevaluate where you're focusing your attentions

Contrary to what this thread may lead you to believe, this topic occupies a relatively narrow slice of my attention. I have participated more than usual because it has been a long time since anyone has been willing to engage in any sort of debate for this long, without it disolving into petty name calling. That and the terrible weather has put many of my projects on hold recently.
My priorities are simple. My God, my family, my job, me. I don't always do a perfect job, but I try. These strangers you mention, they matter too. If for no other reason then I work with them, they teach my kids, and they live down the street. They may be strangers, but they have an impact on the community they live in. The slippery slope threat is a real one. No man is and island and all that, right? If being concerned about what is happening in my community is wrong, so be it. If I do not advocate what I whole heartedly believe is right, does that make me a hypocrite? If I do not speak up on thing that I think matter, what sort of example do I set?

Quoting Lowrider (Reply 143): Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 139): Quote: The State of California has decided to apply its marriage laws to one group of people (heterosexuals) and not another (homosexuals). Do you agree that is true? No. As I have said earlier, everyone has the same rights currently.

It's a little hard to have a meaningful conversation about this if you aren’t willing to admit a self-evident truth.

Look, I know you’re not comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, and to be honest with you I’m not either, but that’s an emotional response that prevents an honest and logical reaction to this court decision and any rational analysis of the issue.

In the end, it’s more important to me that I live in a country that treats everyone fairly than it is to have our courts and legislatures telling people what their morals should be. My girlfriend and I have a fine relationship, and I cannot imagine that it could be affected in any way whatsoever by a gay couple being married. It is simply not relevant to me and my life.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 148): It's a little hard to have a meaningful conversation about this if you aren’t willing to admit a self-evident truth. Look, I know you’re not comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, and to be honest with you I’m not either, but that’s an emotional response that prevents an honest and logical reaction to this court decision and any rational analysis of the issue.

I have tried to be as rational about this issue as it permits. California has decided to define marriage a certain way. That law applies to everyone, gay or not. If the law read, "gays can't get married", I would be more inclined to agree with you. The law does not read that way. The law currently makes no distinction among sexual preference. What is emotional about that? If the law was written differently, then I would have to accept it as such. I have said repeated that the states can choose to define marriage how ever they choose, just let them choose. Allow the various populations to decide what sort of definition of marriage they want to live with. Some will choose one way, others the other way. Certainly there will be other issues to resolve, but it is a comprimise that both sides are more likely to be more satisfied with instead of forcing a complete whitewashing of the entire country.