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.
I don't consider those "marriages" to be valid marriages.
No ****, Einstein. What do you think this whole debate has been about?
That said, I love that you finally admitted that those marriages aren't valid, thus taking a blowtorch to the "no one is being denied any rights" crap you've been spewing. I was wondering how long it would take for you to do that. You actually took longer than I thought you would, if that makes you feel any better.
Quote:
Why should they be recognized?
That's not how this works. The pro-gay marriage group has made their argument for why that recognition should be given to them. If you want to argue against that, it's up to YOU to back up your beliefs. If you can't do that, then **** and get out of the way while the rest of us hash this out.
Quote:
You people are like a broken record. Frankly, it's getting old.
Then answer the simple question and put it to rest.
Calvin, why should same sex marriage not be recognized?
By your logic the state should give an employed person unemployment, or a non-US citizen welfare.
Its clear that you don't understand how Constitutional doctrine is developed by the Supreme Court.
Regarding the two things you mention above, the state would have a RATIONAL BASIS for denying them! So they would pass Constitutional muster.
Moreover, you are comparing something that is decided by statute (providing unemployment benefits and citizenship requirements) to a question that is decided on the basis of Constitutionality.
IF the things you listed were somehow guaranteed by they constitution (which they are NOT) then the states would have to follow that mandate.
In the case of gay marriage, those who support gay marriage are arguing that the right to marry as spelled out by the Supreme Court includes the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. And if the Supreme Court agrees then all the anti-gay marriage legislation and policy is illegal.
Its as simple as that. I'm really not sure why the is difficult to follow.
You act as though the legal question is a decided issue. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but it is not! I'm not sure if it will ever be.
You keep going back to this whole "special rights" theory. That is the whole discussion here. NO ONE HAS DETERMINED WHETHER GAY MARRIAGE WOULD BE A SPECIAL RIGHT OR IF ITS A GUARANTEED RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Its up for debate, so please please please quit just assuming that its a "special right" because its not allowed in this state. State law is inferior to the federal constitution.
And as far as interracial marriage goes, I make those comparisons as legal analogies. And they are absolutely the closest thing in terms of legal doctrine to the issue of gay marriage.
The bottom line is you simply don't like gay relationships. And that's completely your right. But quit acting like your position is supported by the Constitution. It is not. And neither is mine. That's the point. Its up in the air. Argue against gay marriage from a policy perspective until you're blue in the face, but don't tell me you have the Constitution on your side. You do not.
Dude. Marriage and marriage benefits are 2 different things. I've said this time and time again. I agree 100% that marriage is a civil right. . And again and again, I've said the benefits of that marriage are not.
Its clear that you don't understand how Constitutional doctrine is developed by the Supreme Court.
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution, they don't develop it. They certainly don't develop marriage law for the states, that would be a clear overstepping of their powers.
Quote:
Regarding the two things you mention above, the state would have a RATIONAL BASIS for denying them! So they would pass Constitutional muster.
Moreover, you are comparing something that is decided by statute (providing unemployment benefits and citizenship requirements) to a question that is decided on the basis of Constitutionality.
Marriage benefits are also decided by statute. Federal law states that the states have the right to do so. .
Quote:
IF the things you listed were somehow guaranteed by they constitution (which they are NOT) then the states would have to follow that mandate.
Ok. . but benefits of a marriage are not guaranteed by the constitution either. Gay or straight. They are a benefit provided by the state, not an inherent right.
Quote:
In the case of gay marriage, those who support gay marriage are arguing that the right to marry as spelled out by the Supreme Court includes the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. And if the Supreme Court agrees then all the anti-gay marriage legislation and policy is illegal.
Its as simple as that. I'm really not sure why the is difficult to follow.
The right to marry has nothing to do with the benefits of a marriage. There is no law banning gay marriage or making it illegal. The statue simply outlines what is and isn't recognized for the purpose of benefits.
Quote:
You act as though the legal question is a decided issue. Well, sorry to burst your bubble but it is not! I'm not sure if it will ever be.
Actually it is a decided issue. Each state arrived at their laws in different ways, but Nebraska put it on the ballot. The people voted to not to have the state recognize gay marriages. This was of course challenged in court and the state Supreme Court sided with the people stating that this was in the best interest of the state. This ruling created a precedence making it very difficult to overturn. Courts rely on precedence to make future rulings. So basically every time this goes to the state, they side with precedence. The court doesn't like contradicting itself, it makes them look bad. Naturally one would say that this can be overturned by the SCOTUS, but I say nay nay. The federal government cannot force a state to change it's marriage laws, this violates the US Constitution in soooo many ways.
Quote:
You keep going back to this whole "special rights" theory. That is the whole discussion here. NO ONE HAS DETERMINED WHETHER GAY MARRIAGE WOULD BE A SPECIAL RIGHT OR IF ITS A GUARANTEED RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. Its up for debate, so please please please quit just assuming that its a "special right" because its not allowed in this state. State law is inferior to the federal constitution.
I don't assume or suggest that marriage is a special right. The benefits of a marriage not the marriage itself are special rights that are handed out at the discretion of the state. Saying gay marriage is "banned" is a miss statement of the law. Gay marriage is not banned, it's simply not recognized. If a gay person finds a church to marry them, they will no go to jail, they will not get fined. They just haven't fulfilled the requirements to obtain benefits of that marriage. There are only specific areas where state law is inferior to federal law. Marriage is not one of them, the federal law states just the opposite, actually.
Quote:
And as far as interracial marriage goes, I make those comparisons as legal analogies. And they are absolutely the closest thing in terms of legal doctrine to the issue of gay marriage.
Interracial marriage is sooo much different. According to the law at the time, if a white person married a African American person you would get into trouble. There were legal ramifications. There are no such ramifications for 2 gay people getting married. Now if 2 gay people got married and were thrown in jail, then it would be a civil rights violation. But until that happens, it's not the same.
Quote:
The bottom line is you simply don't like gay relationships. And that's completely your right. But quit acting like your position is supported by the Constitution. It is not. And neither is mine. That's the point. Its up in the air. Argue against gay marriage from a policy perspective until you're blue in the face, but don't tell me you have the Constitution on your side. You do not.
Regardless of how I feel about gay marriage. The law isn't there to give people warm fuzzy feelings. It's there to protect the interest of the people of the state. Whether or not this is in the best interest of the state is the part that is debatable. However, the right to legislate marriage is the right of the state. The federal government cannot legally touch that without rewriting the constitution. Which takes more votes than I believe they will ever have.
Dude. The fact that you say they are different doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court will treat them nearly identically. And if you don't think so and really think the distinction can be made purely on the "benefits" issue as you claim then apply your logic to an interracial marriage.
Would it be constitutional to deny marriage benefits to an interracial couple, even if the marriage itself was "recognized??" No. Absolutely not! But according to you the state is free to divvy out benefits as it sees fit. No, I'm not saying interracial marriage is "identical" to gay marriage. I'm saying its constitutionally analogous and if your theory is valid then it should hold up in the interracial marriage example. It will not.
The first thing the Court would likely conclude in your little construct is that purporting to recognize a marriage while not supplying the marriage benefits that would typically go along with it is simply a facade. And therefore if marriage benefits are not provided in a manner similar to straight marriage then no true marriage is actually being granted. If the allowance of gay marriage is mandated then the benefits that go along with typical marriage must be provided. The state would, however, be free to trim back all marriage benefits but it can't do so only to one group.
Your benefits theory is pretty weak. And you can try to bring up things like unemployment benefits and welfare, but those do not implicate fundamental rights and thus can be limited freely by the state - provided the limitation doesn't amount to some sort of illegal discrimination such as racial, gender, and etc.. But if the right to marry includes the right to marry a member or either sex then the state will have NO right to asymmetrically provide benefits.
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution, they don't develop it. They certainly don't develop marriage law for the states, that would be a clear overstepping of their powers.
Ok. Its very clear you don't have a firm understanding of our system. I said the Supreme Court develops Constitutional DOCTRINE. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the federal government and state governments interact and how a common law system works.
Yes, the states have the right to develop marriage laws. But that right is limited and that does NOT give them the right to develop laws that are unconstitutional. Sure, the states have written statutes relating to marriage.
In fact, states have in the past written laws banning interracial marriage. Are you suggesting that is or should be the state of the law simply because a state legislature decided it was proper? The Supreme Court held that marriage is a fundamental right. Period. That was not written in a statute and that was not passed down by Congress. That was determined BY the Court. As a result, strict scrutiny (that's a term of art) will apply in most marriage regulation cases. The question is how broad is the fundamental right to marry. And that's not a decision for Congress, its only the Court's decision.
The Supreme Court dictates a very large amount of law. To simply say they "interpret" it is laughably simplistic. The constitution has no marriage clause. It has no privacy clause. It has no miranda clause. It has no abortion clause. So where did the various boundaries for the rights under these areas come from?? They came from the Supreme Court!
If you don't understand that the Supreme Court has the ultimate say on this then you really are fighting an uphill battle. No, the law is not decided. I don't give a hoot if a state has an anti-gay marriage law. Ultimately, the Supreme Court will determine whether that law is constitutional or not and that ruling will determine the new state of the law.
And, again, you are right that the constitution does not guarantee benefits of marriage. But it does guarantee marriage. And if a state provides benefits to straights and does not provide benefits to gays then the Court will almost definitely conclude that the benefit-less "marriage" provided for gays is not actually a marriage at all. That reasoning isn't all that dissimilar to the separate but equal analysis. So the state is free to strip marriage benefits from its citizens, but it can only do so symmetrically (provided gay marriage is deemed a fundamental right).
Dude. The fact that you say they are different doesn't make it so. The Supreme Court will treat them nearly identically. And if you don't think so and really think the distinction can be made purely on the "benefits" issue as you claim then apply your logic to an interracial marriage.
The state supreme court has already treated them seperately. There is no "will treat" they already have.
Quote:
Would it be constitutional to deny marriage benefits to an interracial couple, even if the marriage itself was "recognized??" No. Absolutely not! But according to you the state is free to divvy out benefits as it sees fit. No, I'm not saying interracial marriage is "identical" to gay marriage. I'm saying its constitutionally analogous and if your theory is valid then it should hold up in the interracial marriage example. It will not.
The first thing the Court would likely conclude in your little construct is that purporting to recognize a marriage while not supplying the marriage benefits that would typically go along with it is simply a facade. And therefore if marriage benefits are not provided in a manner similar to straight marriage then no true marriage is actually being granted. If the allowance of gay marriage is mandated then the benefits that go along with typical marriage must be provided. The state would, however, be free to trim back all marriage benefits but it can't do so only to one group.
Ok, back to the interracial thing. Lets put this to sleep. Since you won't take my word for it that they are different.
As you mentioned, anti-miscegenation laws had no legal precedence in the English laws that we inherited. Legislation had to be written to make interracial marriages illegal. They were legal at common-law.
However, in common-law a required condition for a legitimate marriage was male female complementarity. A condition for which race has no bearing. This resulted in anti-miscegenation laws being overturned.
So why did they make anti-miscegenation laws in the first place? Racial purity.
Here is the big hitter. The people that wrote the anti-miscegenation laws knew that marriage was between a man and woman and that a marriage would result in children. They didn't want people of mixed races having children, because they would grow up and participate in society and affect the culture. So they decided to take the legal status from a marriage based on race, something that had no precedent in common law. So the marriage (in the male/female sense) was the main reason why the racial laws came to be in the first place.
Quote:
Your benefits theory is pretty weak. And you can try to bring up things like unemployment benefits and welfare, but those do not implicate fundamental rights and thus can be limited freely by the state - provided the limitation doesn't amount to some sort of illegal discrimination such as racial, gender, and etc.. But if the right to marry includes the right to marry a member or either sex then the state will have NO right to asymmetrically provide benefits.
But marriage benefits are not fundamental rights either. The marrige itself is, but not the benefits. The state has decided with the help of the voting public that it's not in the best interest of the state to provide the benefits. There is no federal law that denies the state the right to do that. In fact there is federal law that specifically gives the states the power to do that. Furthermore there is now court precedence that upholds all of these rulings.
No ****, Einstein. What do you think this whole debate has been about?
No reason to get worked up over it.
Quote:
That said, I love that you finally admitted that those marriages aren't valid, thus taking a blowtorch to the "no one is being denied any rights" crap you've been spewing. I was wondering how long it would take for you to do that. You actually took longer than I thought you would, if that makes you feel any better.
How so? They still have the right to get married, as long as they do it within the rules. Their "marriage" is no more valid than 1 man and 6 women.
Quote:
That's not how this works. The pro-gay marriage group has made their argument for why that recognition should be given to them. If you want to argue against that, it's up to YOU to back up your beliefs. If you can't do that, then **** and get out of the way while the rest of us hash this out.
And they have whined about discrimination, which does not currently exist. Please come up with a new argument, as this one is bad.
Quote:
Then answer the simple question and put it to rest.
I did. Something tells me you won't shut up unless we tell you what you want to hear.
Calvin, why should same sex marriage not be recognized?
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.
