[Go Ne]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

People have never been questioned on sexual preference before. It's never been asked.

You are in favor of creating a form of marriage that only a small minority of people will enter into.

Well, if you think about it, isn't interracial marriage the exact same way?

[mattpoulsen]

Kdrich,

Yes, I do have the right to marry who I choose?? Provided of course I follow the standards passed by the state AND THAT HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE COURTS! (like age). The point is this standard HAS NOT been approved by the state!

Marriage means something different to everyone! The fact that it is changed is meaningless. Marriage is in the eye of the beholder. Plus, you even admit it affects a small minority. That cuts in favor of my argument because it will have a very small affect on the "institution of marriage." Further, if it isn't "devaluing" marriage then what's the problem??

Finally, the fact that it only affects a small number of people should have ZERO bearing on whether its allowed or not! Say there are 10 Estonians in the United States. Would it be okay to enslave those 10 people because it only affects 10 people??

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

Well, if you think about it, isn't interracial marriage the exact same way?

No. Marriage is not regulated based on race.

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Kdrich,

Yes, I do have the right to marry who I choose?? Provided of course I follow the standards passed by the state AND THAT HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE COURTS! (like age). The point is this standard HAS NOT been approved by the state!

You are correct--the people of Iowa did not vote to create a definition of marriage that allowed for 2 men or 2 women to get married. The court decided to change the existing definition to also include 2 men or 2 women.

What is stopping the court from deciding that a man could have 3 wives?

Marriage means something different to everyone! The fact that it is changed is meaningless. Marriage is in the eye of the beholder. Plus, you even admit it affects a small minority. That cuts in favor of my argument because it will have a very small affect on the "institution of marriage." Further, if it isn't "devaluing" marriage then what's the problem??

Marriage has been 1 man, 1 woman for a long time. I don't see where we can be justified to say that it can be different just because a small group wants it different.

Finally, the fact that it only affects a small number of people should have ZERO bearing on whether its allowed or not! Say there are 10 Estonians in the United States. Would it be okay to enslave those 10 people because it only affects 10 people??

Is slavery now allowed? By your logic we would be justified in passing a law allowing for it. After all, what effect does it have on a non-estonian?

[Go Ne]

But this involves giving people of a sexual preference the right to marry the person he/she loves, not taking rights away.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Go Ne

But this involves giving people of a sexual preference the right to marry the person he/she loves, not taking rights away.

So?

The right to marry for love is not guaranteed to anyone in our society.

[mattpoulsen]

Kdbrich,

Yes, it is! One doesn't HAVE to marry for love. But they can if they choose! Provided, of course, the other person agrees and constitutionally allowable requirements have been met.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Kdbrich,

Yes, it is! One doesn't HAVE to marry for love. But they can if they choose! Provided, of course, the other person agrees and constitutionally allowable requirements have been met.

Yes...they CAN. But it's not a guaranteed right.

In any event, nobody is denied the right to get married.

[mattpoulsen]

Kdrich,

For crying out loud?? Do you think slavery isn't allowed because all the states voted to abolish it??

You're proving my point! States and the people who make up the majority in those states ARE LIMITED IN WHAT THEY CAN do to the minority.

It is the Courts who decide where that limit is! This is basic civics class!

It is clear to me that you do not understand the actual process. You may, for moral or religious reasons, disagree with gay marriage but you clearly have no way of looking at it objectively and understanding how our country handles things within the framework of judicial and legislative checks. Mind you these checks were estabished by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, and the like. This structure and operation of the court exists because of them...NOT some secret ACLU/gay alliance.

It is this structure that has allowed for desegregations of schools, racial voting equality, women's right to vote, and nearly the entire civil rights movement. Yet, you act as though YOU are smarter than them all and think they are not wise enough to rule on the issue of gay rights. The courts have handled bigger issues and on issue that tore the fabric of this nation nearly apart. Nevertheless, they did what they thought was right, in SPITE of what the majority told them. Have an opinion...fine. But at least try to have an educated one.

[kdbrich]

I'm sorry. I don't believe that the choice of who a person has sex with is equal to the color of skin. It's not the same.

[mattpoulsen]

Kdrich,

Yes, marriage in general has been deemed a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. The court's have ruled that it IS a fundamental right to marry who you want. You don't have to say why!! So by deduction...you absolutely have a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to marry for love.

Not all guaranteed rights are explicitly written in the constitution. The constitution an open ended document. Which means fundamental rights are discerned within the contours of the constitution.

For example, what part of the bill of rights says we have a fundamental right to privacy??