U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:23 PM
 
920 posts, read 476,771 times
Reputation: 638

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
For how long after the 14th Amendment passed were blacks blatantly discriminated against by the government? How was such discrimination justified? By arguing that blacks were lesser than.

You said black people were not considered people until the passage of the civil rights act. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. I never denied that discrimination against black people existed or still exists. You said they weren't considered a person.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:23 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,742,596 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
So you are not FORBIDDEN to marry. You cannot marry your fiancé who is of the same sex, correct? I agree with you that if you want to marry your same sex fiancé in Mississippi, it would not be legally recognized.

I don't agree with, not would I support any law that denies gay people the same rights afforded to everyone else. You and your partner should not be precluded from having a civil union, domestic partnership or any other contractual agreement that would confer all those rights and benefits upon you.

If I were you, I would fight the law denying you the ability to enter into a civil union, domestic partnership or other contractual arrangement with your fiancé as that is clearly a constitutional violation.
Legal marriage is all about the legal recognition. So yes I am prohibited from getting married to my fiancee.

Civil unions are not federally recognized.

Civil unions were banned at the same time as marriage.

Discrimination of the laws based on sex/gender is also unconstitutional. That is what these marriage bans are about discriminating based on the sex of the people getting married.

You ARE supporting laws that deny me the same rights afforded everyone else. Marriage in the US is a legal institution. It has legal protections that no other civil union etc has. So by supporting the denial of marriage to me you are in fact supporting laws that deny me equal rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:25 PM
 
920 posts, read 476,771 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
The only contract which confers all the rights and benefits of marriage is.....marriage.

Wrong. The Everything but marriage law in WA state conferred all the rights and benefits without redefining marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,742,596 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Okay Justice jjrose - you keep on trucking!
Can't respond when called out on your "obtuse" ideas that marriage laws have nothing to do with marriage?

I accept your surrender.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:26 PM
 
29,805 posts, read 15,208,051 times
Reputation: 15584
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
If that were the case, then every city could define what "marriage" means.
Yeah, I was being imprecise there. For local jurisdiction, read "state jurisdiction". Family law resides on the state level, staying within the framework set down on a Federal level, of course

Quote:
Local jurisdictions can set requirements, like age or like blood tests to confirm consanguinity, but not local jurisdiction can redefine marriage to include adult children and their parent or an elderly brother or sister.
Blood tests to confirm consanguinity (well, lack of same, I rather hope) is a new one for me - where is this done? Wouldn't this require quite a bit of DNA analysis?

Quote:
The understanding of marriage has existed since biblical times,
Many, many things existed since biblical times until people took a closer look and decided that perhaps it could be done better.

Quote:
but the actual legal definition has probably existed since at least the 14th century and has always remained consistent in the Western world.
Ehm - really? The laws and rules that made it possible to establish the legal distinction between "married" and "unmarried" didn't change for 600+ years? I rather doubt that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Sunrise
10,869 posts, read 13,638,218 times
Reputation: 8987
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post

I don't agree with, not would I support any law that denies gay people the same rights afforded to everyone else. You and your partner should not be precluded from having a civil union, domestic partnership or any other contractual agreement that would confer all those rights and benefits upon you.

If I were you, I would fight the law denying you the ability to enter into a civil union, domestic partnership or other contractual arrangement with your fiancé as that is clearly a constitutional violation.

Ahhhh.... so as long as it isn't called m-a-r-r-i-a-g-e, you're OK with it? The same property rights, power of attorney provisions, tax rules and similar. All OK. Just don't call it marriage. Is this EXACTLY how you feel? Because I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth.

But if this is the case, denying people rights over a word has got to be the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. That is exactly like saying, "I don't mind if women go to a booth, select a candidate, and pull a lever -- just don't call that action 'voting.' Because then it's special treatment! I'm OK with women selecting representatives. Really! But I don't want them to vote."

I'm not sure even the most foolish men in the early 20th century would have said something THAT preposterous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:27 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,196 posts, read 2,351,854 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
You said black people were not considered people until the passage of the civil rights act. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. I never denied that discrimination against black people existed or still exists. You said they weren't considered a person.
They weren't considered people. The "3/5 of a person" mindset carried forward for centuries. How was discrimination against blacks legal, despite them being American citizens? They were less than whites. How was segregation legal despite blacks being promised equal rights under the law? Blacks couldn't help but behave like animals so they had to be kept away from whites.
That was government policy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,742,596 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Yup, you cannot be denied.....life, liberty or property, without due process of law or .... be denied the equal protection of the laws of the jurisdiction in which you reside.
Yep, and my liberty to have a legal marriage is being denied as well as my equal protection of the laws.

If a man can get legal protections of marriage with a woman, I am not being treated equally since I can not have the legal protections of marriage to a woman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:28 PM
 
3,454 posts, read 1,695,480 times
Reputation: 2201
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
It doesn't bother me on a religious level. It bothers me on a logical level.

I have no issue with gay people entering domestic partnerships in which every legal benefit they seek is conferred upon them.

I agree that a stable society is better for everyone.

I do not agree that equality is the issue. If equality were the issue, then gays would be fighting to legalize polygamy, too. If the issue is to make all coupling equal, then there should be no distinction at all with regard to number of individuals, ages, sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

Currently, any male is equally free to marry any female and vise versa. The fact that a male is not attracted to a female, does not constitute inequality under the law. The fact that a male demands that the law recognize his preference to marry another man is preferential treatment under the law.
That is the ostrich defense if I ever saw it. Believe it or not, your rule is unsatisfactory to gay people, who do not generally want to marry people of the opposite sex. The equivalent would be upholding miscegenation laws because everyone would have the right to marry someone of their own race. It makes no sense on a logical level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
This case had nothing to do with the definition of marriage. It was based on whether their marriage violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which prohibited marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored".

See, it wasn't about changing the existing definition of marriage, it was about the law that was racist and unconstitutional.

There are no laws prohibiting a gay man from getting married, it is the fact that a gay man wants to marry another man and thus is demanding that marriage be redefined. Special privilege.
Loving v. Virginia did, in fact, have to do with the definition of marriage. It found that States were not allowed to recognize only same-race marriages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus View Post
Whites marrying blacks was illegal because blacks were not viewed as people. Blacks were 3/5 of a person. Interracial marriage was commonly referred to as bestiality in the legislative process back then. More than the definition of marriage had to be changed to allow interracial marriage. And even still, who cares if the definition of marriage has to be changed to allow for equal rights? It's a government definition, not Jesus' definition.
That's not correct. The 3/5 compromise ended with the Civil War. For the next 100 years, some states prohibited interracial marriages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
If that were the case, then every city could define what "marriage" means. Local jurisdictions can set requirements, like age or like blood tests to confirm consanguinity, but not local jurisdiction can redefine marriage to include adult children and their parent or an elderly brother or sister.

The understanding of marriage has existed since biblical times, but the actual legal definition has probably existed since at least the 14th century and has always remained consistent in the Western world.
It is state, not local power that is exercised over marriage. A state, if it chose, could choose to allow familial marriages. I would not expect that any time soon.

The legal definition of marriage has not remained consistent in the Western world since the 14th century. Divorce was not recognized in the western world until the mid-19th century. Until then, marriage was defined as a lifelong commitment, by law. Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Ireland only started recognizing divorce after 1970. Utah used to recognize polygamous marriages. There have been substantial changes in age and familial relationship rules surrounding marriage. Marriage has not been static.

Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Blacks were NOT 3/5ths of a person. SLAVES were counted as 3/5 a person in the CENSUS for purposes of apportioning electoral votes.

When slavery ended, so did this method of census calculations. The definition of marriage was not changed, the unconstitutional law that banned interracial couples from marrying was struck down.

Jesus didn't define marriage. LOL Neither did the government.
Paul said that it is better to remain unmarried, but marry if you cannot control yourself. The government has, though, defined marriage.

The definition of marriage in many states after the civil war required the partners to be of the same race (or sometimes certain races could not marry with another race). That definition was struck down in 1967 by Loving v. Virginia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 05:28 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,742,596 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
Wrong. The Everything but marriage law in WA state conferred all the rights and benefits without redefining marriage.
And were not federally recognized with the 1100+ legal protections of marriage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top