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.
There is a new lawsuit filed by the flat tax crowd which contends that progressive tax rates and the preferred tax rates for married couples is unconstitutional under Article 1-8 and the 14th.
Just because you don't avail yourself to a law whereas others do, doesn't mean the law is unconstitutional because the people who do avail themselves get something out of doing so. If that were the standard, then you could basically argue every law is "technically unconstitutional."
Back to my driving example. People who avail themselves to driving laws gain the benefit of being able to drive on public roadways. People who do not avail themselves to those laws lack that benefit. That doesn't make driving laws "technically unconstitutional" simply because some people choose not to get a driver's license. During my life I will fail to avail myself toand take advantage of the benefits of the vast majority of our laws.
Now, if the law were written such that white people, or Jews, or those of Asian descent are forbidden from accessing driving laws, then you have yourself a Constitutional violation. Likewise, if the law were written such that interracial couples or gay couples are forbidden from accessing marriage laws, then you have yourself a Constitutional violation.
Sure, a religious or traditional marriage is not determined in any way whatsoever by legal status. Anybody in this country can get any kind of church or familiar marriage they want (except that some states have on the books never-enforced private association polygamy laws that I find to be egregiously unconstitutional). Any married couple can keep their marriage strictly within their particular traditions and not file paperwork with the state. And I do use the word particular because marriage means many different things to different people, different religions, and different cultures. There is not one "marriage is what it is" concept like you seem to think there is.
But for those who want to form a legally supported, joint entity that comes with a collection of rights and responsibilities, they have the option of agreeing to a governmentally enforceable civil marriage contract. That type of marriage IS ENTIRELY DETERMINED by the law, including its existence or non-existence. And as a contract defined by law, it is governed by to our Constitution which says that our laws must treat all equally and cannot discriminate. Civil marriage law is beholden to the Constitution, not anyone's particular understanding of what marriage means in his or her religion or culture.
Which brings me back to what I keep saying. I'm talking about civil marriage, whereas it seems to me you're conflating religious or otherwise traditional marriage with civil marriages. The two are separate things.
You misinterpret what I say. I simply say that what things are is not determined by law or naming convention. Let's try another hypothetical. Let's say that a law was passed that defined homosexuals as not being humans. Let's say that another law is passed that defines cats as dogs. Everyone accepts this and refuses to acknowledge homosexuals as humans, while they regularly call cats dogs. Here are my questions:
Just because you don't avail yourself to a law whereas others do, doesn't mean the law is unconstitutional because the people who do avail themselves get something out of doing so. If that were the standard, then you could basically argue every law is "technically unconstitutional."
Back to my driving example. People who avail themselves to driving laws gain the benefit of being able to drive on public roadways. People who do not avail themselves to those laws lack that benefit. That doesn't make driving laws "technically unconstitutional" simply because some people choose not to get a driver's license. During my life I will fail to avail myself toand take advantage of the benefits of the vast majority of our laws.
Now, if the law were written such that white people, or Jews, or those of Asian descent are forbidden from accessing driving laws, then you have yourself a Constitutional violation. Likewise, if the law were written such that interracial couples or gay couples are forbidden from accessing marriage laws, then you have yourself a Constitutional violation.
The entire basis the gays are using FOR legalized gay marriage is the Equal Protection Clause.
Just because you don't avail yourself to a law whereas others do, doesn't mean the law is unconstitutional because the people who do avail themselves get something out of doing so. If that were the standard, then you could basically argue every law is "technically unconstitutional."
Back to my driving example. People who avail themselves to driving laws gain the benefit of being able to drive on public roadways. People who do not avail themselves to those laws lack that benefit. That doesn't make driving laws "technically unconstitutional" simply because some people choose not to get a driver's license. During my life I will fail to avail myself toand take advantage of the benefits of the vast majority of our laws.
Now, if the law were written such that white people, or Jews, or those of Asian descent are forbidden from accessing driving laws, then you have yourself a Constitutional violation. Likewise, if the law were written such that interracial couples or gay couples are forbidden from accessing marriage laws, then you have yourself a Constitutional violation.
Or a man AND a woman to receive preferential tax treatment?
You misinterpret what I say. I simply say that what things are is not determined by law or naming convention. Let's try another hypothetical. Let's say that a law was passed that defined homosexuals as not being humans. Let's say that another law is passed that defines cats as dogs. Everyone accepts this and refuses to acknowledge homosexuals as humans, while they regularly call cats dogs. Here are my questions:
Under this scenario, are homosexuals humans?
Are cats dogs?
Are you building up to a lecture on the Allegory of the Cave and Plato's Forms Theory?
Again, I find the title of the law irrelevant. I don't give two ****s whether the law is titled Marriage, Civil Union, Domestic Partnership, Shacking-Up, or laskjdoiaj. Hell, if the law were titled "A Contract Only for Midget, Heterosexual, Muslim Couples" I'd sill demand that tall, atheist, gay couples be able to get a Contract Only for Midget, Heterosexual, Muslim Couples.
I don't care what conservative Christians consider marriage to be, I don't care what liberal Christians consider marriage to be, I don't care what the ancient Norse considered marriage to be, I don't care what Atheists consider marriage to be, and I don't care what you consider marriage to be. I care about the substance of the law and about gay couples being able to access it. We have a law inconveniently titled "Marriage," therefore I want gay marriage. I don't see why an inconvenient title should override the Constitutional promise of equal access to the law.
And as to what marriage is outside of a legal context, I'll say this. In my culture, marriage absolutely can be between two men or two women - and that's independent of any legal definitions or constructs of marriage. I've been to many private, often religious, gay marriage ceremonies. I totally reject your assertion that "marriage can only be between one man and one woman." You keep saying I'm interjection religion, but I'd like to know if not from religion, upon what do you base your assertion that "marriage is what it is" and that "marriage can only be between one man and one woman"?
they can't use the word marriage unless it is properly itemized, gay marriage. A marriage is not known or ever has been known in the context of the word including word definition to also in any way whatsoever 'refer...to a homosexual marriage. Word definition holds a required additional context for same sex marriage and defines itself as only being ' like, that of the known traditional marriage. So....does the law and provisions say...'including marriages which are 'like that of the traditional marriage...no it does not. By virtue of a solid awareness of homosexuality by the writers of these laws...the only way to argue that gay people were not intentionally omitted is by suggesting the writers had no idea what gay was or any expectations to attempt getting married in this formally recognized way. It would be a new set or configuration of marriage and would need new legal apps.
Last edited by stargazzer; 03-10-2013 at 04:06 PM..
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.
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.
