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.
My preference is to scrap all civic marriage benefits, but since that's not happening...
The Nevada judge cited Justice O'Connor from Lawrence v. Texas ---
"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations--the asserted state interest in this case--other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."
I think Slate simplified the judge's reasoning. Anyway, there are more cases that offer other state legitimate interests that passed constitutional muster.
Who are you or any judge to use their morals to deny someone marriage rights? What makes you think that your morals are better and to force them with law upon the general population. Heterosexual relationships are not immoral and neither are homosexual relationships. What state interest is there in preventing gays from marrying? Be specific. Moral dissaproval of an excluded group is wrong. Ever heard of minding your own business, take care of your own house, such as the rampant divorce rate, which obviously those against gays marrying seem to ignore. There is no legitimate reason for the state or the federal government to prevent us from marrying, we are US citizens too, we pay taxes too, we deserve the same rights too, not second class rights imposed by the majority.
Marriage is not of or about homosexuality. You already have the same rights and equal access to marriage as everybody else and you demand that society redefine marriage and expand its definition such that marriage and society accommodates the homosexual.
Legal same-sex marriage is already a fact in 9 states and the District of Columbia. Legal same-sex marriage is not some kind of theoretical concept ... it is already a reality. Not only in some US states but in some countries around the world.
The definition of "citizen" was expanded when slavery was abolished. The definition of "voter" was expanded when women's suffrage passed.
Same sex couples who cannot enjoy the full benefits that are given heterosexual opposite sex couples, are unequal and second class.
Could be bad news for anti gay marriage advocates, the case law is going to be tough to overcome, the SCOTUS has already ruled that marriage is a fundamental human right.
Who are you or any judge to use their morals to deny someone marriage rights? What makes you think that your morals are better and to force them with law upon the general population. Heterosexual relationships are not immoral and neither are homosexual relationships. What state interest is there in preventing gays from marrying? Be specific. Moral dissaproval of an excluded group is wrong. Ever heard of minding your own business, take care of your own house, such as the rampant divorce rate, which obviously those against gays marrying seem to ignore. There is no legitimate reason for the state or the federal government to prevent us from marrying, we are US citizens too, we pay taxes too, we deserve the same rights too, not second class rights imposed by the majority.
Blah, blah, blah. It's not my fault you're incapable of distinguishing between my personal opinion [support ssm] and my disagreeing with some other supporters on a bunch of the legal issues. I'll beat my head against the wall again with an example of what I mean.
The 8th Circuit Appeals Court said this in upholding a ban against ssm ---
"The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in “steering procreation into marriage... such laws “encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children... it is also based on a “responsible procreation” theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State’s justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."
I personally believe those benefits should extend to gay couples, many of whom raise children through procreation or adoption. The state interest Should be in child-raising more than than procreation. But I recognize that the state's argument has Legal validity as a legitimate state interest.
You'll consider the judges who wrote that decision and me as haters and bigots. Your problem, not mine.
Marriage protects women and children. In old days most women did not work and could not make money.
Marriage is far beyond "love" and sex. In many cultures, romance is not recognized and the bride and the groom do not meet till they get married.
Marriage no longer protects women and children.
And this is not another culture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim
Hopefully the Supreme Court will get to it and just make a decision on this already. I also hope they do the right thing and prohibit it.
Only if they prohibit all marriage.
Denying people their "rights" is the "right" thing?
Why, yes, it is: I believe that the "right" wing and self-"right"eous religious do it.
You promote discrimination?
Who would jebus hate?
No one is stopping gay marriage. Same sex marriage is up to the states.
That is actually something that I could live with, as one stepping stone to the end goal of equality for all in all states. However, DOMA must be repealed, so that marriages performed in, say, New York will have to be RECOGNIZED by the knuckledragger states.
That's how it is in Mexico, with just a couple states currently having gay marriage, but ALL states have to recognize those marriages performed in D.F. and Quintana Roo.
And at that point it's REALLY an acceleration to the inevitable.
Homosexuality is not a race. A different, separate and non applicable issue entirely. Homosexuality involves attraction to the same sex, a behavior, not by any stretch of the imagination a race or racial issue. The court did NOT rule, infer, comment, imply or mention as to whether marriage was appropriate, about or even applicable to homosexual behavior or same sex partnerships whereas Loving v. Virginia did establish and affirm heterosexual marriage between races.
You're right. The more appropriate analogy would be that homosexuality is comparable to religion. How so? Well, for those who want to claim that one "chooses" to be gay, a person can "choose" to be a member of just about any religion that will have them. Some religions have an anscestral component, for example, Ashennazi Jews, that also have inherited physical attributes (and diseases) because of intermarriage. But an individual Jew *could* leave that religion or be shunned (for whatever offense) and be no longer considered a Jew.
You tell me: is that individual *still* Jewish if s/he left because s/he no longer believed the tenants of the faith or was kicked out because s/he violated a core tenant of the faith, like declaring s/he's gay?
In reality, no one *chooses* to be gay anymore than one *chooses* to believe in God or a particular religious set of rules. Beliefs are emotions and you cannot *choose* your emotions. Emotions choose you. Religion is also cultural cudgel. Kids are dragged to whatever house of worship for years and get brainwashed into the culture of belief. Fortunately, because of the Internet and increasing cultural diversity, there is an entire universe outside of the most restrictive of religious cultures so more and more young people can absorb different ideas and sort it out for themselves.
That's why fewer young people are identifying themselves as members of a particular faith. They see the cruelty and hypocrisy of faith leaders and want no part of it. They know LGBT people as friends, family members, teachers, co-workers, neighbors, etc., and do not accept the arcane reasoning as to why Mary and Sue shouldn't have the rights and responsibilities of legal, civil marriage.
full faith and credit clause of the United states constitution... essentially some states won't have to give out same sex marriage licenses but they will have to recognize other states. The problem is when a married gay couple is transferred by their job to another state, essentially their marriage is null and void.. doma is what allows this to happen. if doma is ruled unconstitutional (which it is) then the country should get use to gays being married because whether your state give them out or not, the neighboring state might and your state will have to recognize it if it wants to be a part of the Union.
^ This.
I think it was great strategy for DADT to be rescinded before the DOMA challenge came to the Supreme Court for exactly the reasons stated above. Currently because of DOMA, the above scenario is exactly what is happening to same sex married servicemembers, as well as said servicemembers cannot put their spouses on their government issued health benefit plans. This is a major hurdle tha will be vanquished when DOMA Section 3 is found unconstitutional.
FYI. Last week, the U.S. District Court for Nevada upheld the ban against ssm using the rational basis review. Another bigoted and hateful judge.
This case will be appealed to the extremely progressive Ninth Circuit.
Last edited by inahandbasket; 12-05-2012 at 07:32 AM..
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.
