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.
If it was granted by the 14th Amendment, then I have a right to privacy. What exactly is your argument?
It was granted by what you call "The Supreme Court legislating from the bench". There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. My argument is, you're whining that same-sex marriage being granted by the Supreme Court is wrong because it's legislating from the bench, and yet your entire right to privacy or not having the police raid your house at 3 AM without a warrant is based on the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench."
Our judicial system has always been based on Common law.
Based on the rights given by our creator, under the Constitution.
Not based on previous rulings.
They went to precedence law, because there were so many wanting to change laws, that they could not, under the constitution. If it isn't challenged it is law, even if it is unconstitutional. Many have been challenged on different arguments and many have never been.
Now a judge looks at past decisions to determine the verdict, not what the constitution actually says about it.
It was granted by what you call "The Supreme Court legislating from the bench". There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. My argument is, you're whining that same-sex marriage being granted by the Supreme Court is wrong because it's legislating from the bench, and yet your entire right to privacy or not having the police raid your house at 3 AM without a warrant is based on the Supreme Court "legislating from the bench."
The people who passed the 14 Amendment put in explicitly 'without due process' to cover this. This is not legislating from the bench, this affirming what the people who wrote the amendment intended it for. There is a big difference. Do you honestly think the people who wrote the 14th Amendment intended it to apply it to Homosexual marriage?
Lets see how this poll will turn out. Are you in favour of Federal law allowing gay couples to marry anywhere in United States?
As for now gay mariage is legal in 9 states - Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusets, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the DC. And California is next in line, Illinois is planniing on legalising gay marriage too.
It is also legal in Canada since 2005.
I'm all in favor of gay marriage. No ifs ands or buts.
The people who passed the 14 Amendment put in explicitly 'without due process' to cover this.
And the Supreme Court is the one who determined what that statement means. It doesn't say so in the Constitution.
Quote:
This is not legislating from the bench, this affirming what the people who wrote the amendment intended it for. There is a big difference. Do you honestly think the people who wrote the 14th Amendment intended it to apply it to Homosexual marriage?
They probably didn't intend it to apply to a lot of things, including privacy. Interracial marriage was not their intention either since it was illegal when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
They probably didn't intend it to apply to a lot of things, including privacy. Interracial marriage was not their intention either since it was illegal when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
They intended to apply it to interracial unions which is why they extended citizenship to freed black slaves and extended to them equal protection as US citizens. Interracial marriage laws came later.
Regardless of what many want to believe, we live in a secular country. It has to be, in order to function with so many distinct religions represented here. Therefore the best thing to do by such a government is to pass laws that function to serve the "secular" needs of its constituents.
This means that homosexuality shouldn't have a single influence on what laws are passed. This may rub some of you in a completely wrong way, but so be it. You cannot dictate morality to others, unless you'd like to be classified along with other extremists such as the Taliban.
Gays should have the same secular rights as hetero's - again, regardless of your moral indignation. They should have the same rights to healthcare coverage, hospital visitation/authority, inheritance rights etc. as every other married couple. These are secular rights, not based on any particular religion or morality. If you don't like this, tough. There's many things about this world the rest of us don't like that we have to live with. This world is filled with 7 BILLION other people that do not have to share your worldview, so stop being so arrogant as to assume everyone needs to look, speak, worship, act, and think exactly like you do. In order to get along in this world with such disparate people, compromise is necessary. And again, if you don't have the intelligence to see this, there's a region in Afghanistan that would suit you well.
And the above rant comes to you directly from someone who thinks homosexuality is a sin. But what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own closet is none of my business, nor is it any of yours. My religion also states that "judge not, that ye be not judged." Some of you might need to remember this from time to time.
Last edited by Starman71; 03-25-2013 at 10:19 AM..
The issue is simple. Homosexuals should be able to have civil unions with all the legal rights of marriage, but 2% of the population should not be able to dictate to the rest of the population what the definition of marriage is, which is exactly what they are trying to do.
This is not about being fair, it is a political agenda to place homosexual relationships on the same plane as heterosexual relationships. The truth is they are not. They are the opposite of a natural relationship.
It is no difference than celebrating the kleptomaniac for their thievery because they were "born that way".
first of all, its 5% not 2. And homoseksual relationship are the same as straight ones, please tell me that gay couples dont love each other the same as straigth couples... What a ignorant statement.
The issue is simple. Homosexuals should be able to have civil unions with all the legal rights of marriage, but 2% of the population should not be able to dictate to the rest of the population what the definition of marriage is, which is exactly what they are trying to do.
This is not about being fair, it is a political agenda to place homosexual relationships on the same plane as heterosexual relationships. The truth is they are not. They are the opposite of a natural relationship.
It is no difference than celebrating the kleptomaniac for their thievery because they were "born that way".
What you are describing is a violation of the 14th Amendment, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause. "Separate but equal is inherently unequal." Brown v. Board of Education, 1954.
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.
