[DTO Luv]

If marriage state benefits aren't in the constitution then why do heterosexual couples get them and why are homosexual couples denied them?

[pheaton]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

If marriage state benefits aren't in the constitution then why do heterosexual couples get them and why are homosexual couples denied them?

Oops. Let me clarify. Gun ownership and religious freedoms are federally protected by the US constitution. Laws regarding marriage benefits are defined under the state constitution. The states have the power to set the conditions for a valid marriage. The benefits would be denied in a gay marriage because they don't satisfy the conditions of a valid marriage according to state law.

[DTO Luv]

You understand those things are civil rights issues that the government upholds but you don't understand how marriage (which I'll say it again, is a civil right as determined by the SCOTUS) isn't the same thing?

[mattpoulsen]

Pheaton,

That's a misstatement of the law.

Marital rights ARE protected by the U.S. Constitution, its just not an enumerated right. The U.S. Supreme Court HAS ruled that the Constitution supplies an implicit fundamental right to marry.

You'll argue that that amounts to the Court legislating. However, you should note that the right of privacy, the right of marriage, the right to have children, the right to live where you choose, and the personal right to carry again were all "inferred" rights and set out by the Court.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

So because we don't buy your silly arguments we're obviously just dumb or stubborn? Cut the ad hominems and give me a legitimate reason why gay people do not have the EXACT same rights I do. Otherwise, please just stop. You're getting really annoying with the continued nonsense.

Step 1: Find the closet pair of vice grips and attempt to pull your head out of your ass.

Step 2: Look up the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) California's Prop 8 (2008) and Nebraska Initative Measure 416 (2000). All of these laws banned gay marriage in some form or another.

I am a libertarian on some issues.

Just on the ones that suit you, right? Kinda like alot of bible thumpers are selective in which parts of the scripture they want to enforce?

I'm seeing a trend here.

On the issue of redefining marriage, I think it's better to just leave it alone.

If you were truly a libertarian, you'd believe that the government should stay out of it.

I'm sorry if that offends you.

No, your stupidity doesn't offend me. Personally I'm not too worried about it because as I've said before, I believe the SCOTUS will take up the issue soon enough and will follow the trend of just about every state Supreme Court and rule same-sex bans to be unconstitutional and just like on slavery, civil rights, interracial marriage and abortion, you'll once again be forced to join the modern ages.

Except that you are attempting to redefine an institution that has been in existence for awhile? And you're attempting to define a special version of it that fits only a very small minority?

Let's do it my way then. Take marriage out of the equation completely. Allow for any two consenting adults to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership which will be granted and protected by the same rights and privileges that were previously granted to marriages.

Now for those who wish to have a religious marriage ceremony, they would be free to do so and their respective churches would be free to refuse those services to gays if they so please.

THAT is a true Libertarian solution right there.

[pheaton]

Originally Posted by DTO Luv

You understand those things are civil rights issues that the government upholds but you don't understand how marriage (which I'll say it again, is a civil right as determined by the SCOTUS) isn't the same thing?

I understand marriage is a civil right. I have never said it isn't. I'm saying the state benefits of that marriage are not civil rights. The state could decide tomorrow to not provide straight people with benefits. Then what?

Originally Posted by mattpoulsen

Pheaton,

That's a misstatement of the law.

Marital rights ARE protected by the U.S. Constitution, its just not an enumerated right. The U.S. Supreme Court HAS ruled that the Constitution supplies an implicit fundamental right to marry.

You'll argue that that amounts to the Court legislating. However, you should note that the right of privacy, the right of marriage, the right to have children, the right to live where you choose, and the personal right to carry again were all "inferred" rights and set out by the Court.

The right to marry and the right to obtain state benefits of that marriage are 2 totally different things. That's what I'm saying. The right to marry is a right that the federal government recognizes. However the states are the ones that determine the benefits of marriage and what types of marriages qualify for those benefits. The only reason the federal government has their own defintiion of marriage is for legal purposes and tax reasons.

[pheaton]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Look up the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) California's Prop 8 (2008) and Nebraska Initative Measure 416 (2000). All of these laws banned gay marriage in some form or another.

Show me the language that says it's banned? The only language I see is the language that defines what the state recognizes as as a marriage for determining benefits. If you can find someone to marry you, you can get married. You just don't qualify for the benefits.

Personally I'm not too worried about it because as I've said before, I believe the SCOTUS will take up the issue soon enough and will follow the trend of just about every state Supreme Court and rule same-sex bans to be unconstitutional and just like on slavery, civil rights, interracial marriage and abortion, you'll once again be forced to join the modern ages.

What do you mean, join most states? You know that most states don't recognize same sex marriages right? And the state supreme courts have ruled in favor of those laws creating a legal precedence? That federal law can't touch the states rights in defining marriage? That a federal law telling states how to define marriage would get slapped down by even the most liberal SCOTUS? That is a blatant overstepping of federal law and I don't see it happening so easily as you make it sound.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Step 1: Find the closet pair of vice grips and attempt to pull your head out of your ass.

I'm sorry if your arguments are lacking, but resorting to personal attacks is kind of lame.

Step 2: Look up the Defense of Marriage Act (1996) California's Prop 8 (2008) and Nebraska Initative Measure 416 (2000). All of these laws banned gay marriage in some form or another.

Do they? Or do they define marriage as 1 man, 1 woman?

Just on the ones that suit you, right? Kinda like alot of bible thumpers are selective in which parts of the scripture they want to enforce?

I'm seeing a trend here.

If you were truly a libertarian, you'd believe that the government should stay out of it.

Most of us are not totally pure in our political beliefs. I'd be willing to bet you contradict what your "label" is.

However, I never claimed to be "a libertarian". I merely said I was "pretty libertarian". For the most part, I want to live and let live. That includes you trying to ram your morals down my throat.

No, your stupidity doesn't offend me.

Again, your argument breaks down so you resort to personal attacks.

Personally I'm not too worried about it because as I've said before, I believe the SCOTUS will take up the issue soon enough and will follow the trend of just about every state Supreme Court and rule same-sex bans to be unconstitutional and just like on slavery, civil rights, interracial marriage and abortion, you'll once again be forced to join the modern ages.

Not like the SCOTUS has NEVER been wrong on anything, but if they decide 2 guys can marry, so be it--that's the law of the land.

Let's do it my way then. Take marriage out of the equation completely. Allow for any two consenting adults to enter into a civil union or domestic partnership which will be granted and protected by the same rights and privileges that were previously granted to marriages.

They already can. Get a lawyer and draw up a contract. I don't much care.

Now for those who wish to have a religious marriage ceremony, they would be free to do so and their respective churches would be free to refuse those services to gays if they so please.

THAT is a true Libertarian solution right there.

I don't have an issue with that. There are plenty of squishy churches out there that will perform a "wedding" for just about anyone that walks through the door.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

Step 1: Find the closet pair of vice grips and attempt to pull your head out of your ass.

Come on man, you're a bigger person than that.

[pheaton]

If Benson becomes a gay district. Can we straight people make the rest of the city a "straight" district?