[FrostyThe2nd]

I wonder if the dance clubs would then be more lenient about the guys to girl ratio that they are so worried about. TAO denied us entrance because we had 2 gay couple and 1 straight. Only the guy and girl couple was let in.

[tazz]

Originally Posted by NLVgal

I saw a comment about this issue that was the most logical comment on this hot-button issue. He said, " you have to take a step back and look at what marriage is. It's a legal contract between consenting adults, and to deny someone the ability to enter a legal contract based on their gender, is violation of equal protection under the law."

I could not believe id read something that logical and insightful in the comments section of the RJ. Of course, the next idiot started babbling about people marrying animals , and it snapped me back to reality.

The slippery slope slides silly people into doofus land.

[BBMW]

In that rare case, I'd let them pick one, but then they have to stick with it. Other than that, biology dominates.

Originally Posted by NLVgal

OK, answer this. A local patient was what would be considered a hermaphrodite, only he/she had no sexual characteristics (usually hermaphrodites have some equipment for both sexes). He / she had no penis. No vagina. No uterus. No ovaries. No testicles. This patient had a urethra (found in both sexes) and that's it.

No, I'm not making this up. When you've been in medicine for a while, you encounter things.

Can you tell me which local judge is qualified to make the decision as to whether this patient could enter into a legal contract with another consenting adult? Does it have to be a man, or a woman? Who makes the rules? The local judge that was just indicted?

[BBMW]

How about just biology. Marriage was created to codify the biological imperative to pair up to reproduce. Of course social needs and norms have pushed it way beyond that. But at it's most basic, that's what it's for. I think this is a case where law should follow nature.

Now if the legislature wants to vote, and decide explicitly to allow gay marriage, that's one thing. But for the courts to spontaneously decide that there is some sort of constitutional right to it, is just out of line.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

Leviticus. Too many people are content to follow the orders of 3,000-year old misogynists with big freakin' beards. Now let's saddle up those dinosaurs and commute to our night job under starlight that is, at maximum, 6,000 years old.

Las Vegas is rife with such people, hence "activist judges" will likely be the only way we're dragged (kicking and screaming) to do the right thing.

[lvoc]

Originally Posted by BBMW

How about just biology. Marriage was created to codify the biological imperative to pair up to reproduce. Of course social needs and norms have pushed it way beyond that. But at it's most basic, that's what it's for. I think this is a case where law should follow nature.

Now if the legislature wants to vote, and decide explicitly to allow gay marriage, that's one thing. But for the courts to spontaneously decide that there is some sort of constitutional right to it, is just out of line.

Actually pretty common. See separate but equal or laws against miscegenation.

[ScoopLV]

Originally Posted by BBMW

How about just biology. Marriage was created to codify the biological imperative to pair up to reproduce. Of course social needs and norms have pushed it way beyond that. But at it's most basic, that's what it's for. I think this is a case where law should follow nature.

Now if the legislature wants to vote, and decide explicitly to allow gay marriage, that's one thing. But for the courts to spontaneously decide that there is some sort of constitutional right to it, is just out of line.

That's the "thinking man's homophobia." There were similar arguments about keeping apartheid that attempted to do so in a thoughtfully-racist way. Homosexuality is in evidence all over the natural world. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't change the fact that any two people should be able to enter into a property-rights and power of attorney contract. That's all marriage is, legally -- a bundle of property and POA rights.

This fight is over. The gays have won. The tide turned years ago. It's just a question of mopping up the more backwards and ignorant areas of this country (and then the world). What we're seeing right now is the backlash of the religious troglodytes who see their secure, hateful world crumbling around them. Of course they cling to their guns, their prejudice and their religion. It's all they ever had.

[BBMW]

Until it hits the the Supreme Court directly (the last batch were more about state rights than anything else) and they sign off, no. A lot of these state by state cases could very well get slapped down.

As I said, if the state legislature passes it I'm fine with it. I just have a problem with ever self aggrieved group running to the courts asking to have their particular whine declared a constitutional right.

As far as race goes, the remedies for that were explicitly written into the constitution. It took a while for the courts to catch up, but they did. None of that was ever meant to be used for sexual orientation.

Are you saying that the concept of marriage did not form around reproduction? Are you saying there isn't a direct biological imperative? Because if you do, you're dead wrong.

Originally Posted by ScoopLV

That's the "thinking man's homophobia." There were similar arguments about keeping apartheid that attempted to do so in a thoughtfully-racist way. Homosexuality is in evidence all over the natural world. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't change the fact that any two people should be able to enter into a property-rights and power of attorney contract. That's all marriage is, legally -- a bundle of property and POA rights.

This fight is over. The gays have won. The tide turned years ago. It's just a question of mopping up the more backwards and ignorant areas of this country (and then the world). What we're seeing right now is the backlash of the religious troglodytes who see their secure, hateful world crumbling around them. Of course they cling to their guns, their prejudice and their religion. It's all they ever had.

[EA]

Supposing that marriage exists for the advancement of procreation, then why are we allowing barren people to marry?

As I've stated, we should not be having this discussing. Gay marriage has been constitutional for as long as marriage is legal. The 9th amendment guarantees it.

[NLVgal]

Originally Posted by BBMW

How about just biology. Marriage was created to codify the biological imperative to pair up to reproduce. Of course social needs and norms have pushed it way beyond that. But at it's most basic, that's what it's for. I think this is a case where law should follow nature.

Now if the legislature wants to vote, and decide explicitly to allow gay marriage, that's one thing. But for the courts to spontaneously decide that there is some sort of constitutional right to it, is just out of line.

What you have to ask yourself, is "why do I care"? Is it going to hurt you, or anyone you care about?

I'm pretty libertarian on most issues. If it's not affecting me or my community in any negative way- knock yourself out. It's the same way I feel about open-carry laws. If you can legally own a weapon and feel the need to do that, as long as you are not hurting anyone, I don't care.

It's none of my business.

[BBMW]

It's not the issue of gay marriage per se. NYS passed it through the legislature, and I didn't have a problem with it.

It's that out of complete left field, the gay lobby conjured up this fallacy that there's a constitutional right to gay marriage.

Originally Posted by NLVgal

What you have to ask yourself, is "why do I care"? Is it going to hurt you, or anyone you care about?

I'm pretty libertarian on most issues. If it's not affecting me or my community in any negative way- knock yourself out. It's the same way I feel about open-carry laws. If you can legally own a weapon and feel the need to do that, as long as you are not hurting anyone, I don't care.

It's none of my business.