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.
Look, if it was just about rights, then Civil Unions would be what they are fighting for. But the reality is that, they want marriage. Because Civil Unions aren't good enough for them. It isn't about whether or not Suzy can visit Sally in the hospital. It is about them wanting to feel like homosexual marriages are somehow exactly the same as a heterosexual marriages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The desire for marriage is for social reasons, not legal reasons.
Nonsense. I want gay marriage for entirely legal reasons. There are two laws at issue. First is the 14th Amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Then there is marriage law - a law made and enforced by my State that confers privileges and immunities.
All I want is for my State to stop enforcing marriage law in a manner that abridges gay people from accessing its associated privileges and immunities. This is true regardless of the name of the law. If the law is 'marriage', then I want gay marriage. If the law is 'civil union', then I want gay civil unions. If the law is 'lkjoi', then I want gay lkjoi. If the law is 'driving on the public roadways', then I want gay driving on the public roadways.
Nothing social or moral there. It's entirely legal.
Quote:
Regardless of the fact that the government treats them both exactly the same.
But then, you don't think the Supreme Court will ever strike down all same-sex marriage bans. That shows how detached from reality you are.
I've gone back and read your posts on this topic. In almost every one, you protest that you really don't oppose same-sex marriage, then go on and on concern-trolling about how you're 'just not optimistic'. I can only wonder if you think anyone buys that you don't oppose same-sex marriage.
[snip]
And you? Nothing but vague allusions to doubt and pessimism. All you've got is obfuscation.
Boy, are you thick, unable to follow the distinction between my personal opinion supporting ssm and my opinion that a Supreme Court ruling against ssm bans isn't a sure thing. I won't be shocked, or even surprised, no matter how the court eventually rules.
Is there a ssm advocate handbook that declares advocates must be optimistic about a favorable SC ruling ?
So it is all about the normal and equal .. It isn't normal or equal . A man and woman are a marriage. Not a man and another man. or a woman with another woman. It is an abomination to their creator.
If need be marriage will be devinely married or secular ungodly married. How is that?
Why are you bringing your superstitions into this? Your "creator" means very little to many people.
Seems to me that people are all for "a pragmatic solution to wording change" and "a name change to avoid confrontation", as long as it's their side that doesn't have to do the conceding.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Look, in order for you to argue that the equal protection clause guarantees same-sex marriage. You would have to argue that the people who created the equal protection clause intended it to guarantee same-sex marriage. The 14th amendment was written in 1866 and passed in 1868. Was there even a single state which allowed same-sex marriage in 1868? Or even, would any of the people who drafted the 14th amendment have supported same-sex marriage?
Considering that in 1868, not a single state in the union even allowed women to vote. It is highly doubtful that the people who drafted the equal protection clause actually meant equal protection in all things.
Everyone who understands the history of the 14th amendment understands it would be unimaginable to believe that it was ever intended to support same-sex marriage. And I can guarantee you that Antonin Scalia will say just that. In what will most likely be a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Which to me is about as valid as you flipping a quarter.
Look, in order for you to argue that the equal protection clause guarantees same-sex marriage. You would have to argue that the people who created the equal protection clause intended it to guarantee same-sex marriage.
Nonsense. I want gay marriage for entirely legal reasons. There are two laws at issue. First is the 14th Amendment:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Look, if the 14th amendment actually guaranteed same-sex marriage. Wouldn't you think it would have taken less than 150 years for that to happen? Hell, it took about 100 years for the equal protection clause to even strike down interracial marriage bans.
My point is, you can't confer a meaning to the 14th amendment that the people who created it didn't intend for it to have.
Look, in order for you to argue that the equal protection clause guarantees same-sex marriage. You would have to argue that the people who created the equal protection clause intended it to guarantee same-sex marriage. The 14th amendment was written in 1866 and passed in 1868. Was there even a single state which allowed same-sex marriage in 1868? Or even, would any of the people who drafted the 14th amendment have supported same-sex marriage?
Considering that in 1868, not a single state in the union even allowed women to vote. It is highly doubtful that the people who drafted the equal protection clause actually meant equal protection in all things.
Everyone who understands the history of the 14th amendment understands it would be unimaginable to believe that it was ever intended to support same-sex marriage. And I can guarantee you that Antonin Scalia will say just that. In what will most likely be a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Which to me is about as valid as you flipping a quarter.
No, I don't all I have to prove is what is clearly written in the 14th amendment.
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
2.No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
3.nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
1. homosexuals are part of the ALL PERSONS who are citizens of the US.
2. No state shall abridge privileges or immunities of those citizens that include homosexuals.
3. homosexuals are people within state jurisdictions, so we can not be denied equal protection of the laws. Marriage is a law, and it provides legal protections.
I would expect a left winger to say that...thing is. I only agree with "right wingers" really on 3 things. Abortion,Homosexuality and Gun Rights. That's it.
What about tax cuts, a small government and the death penalty?
Look, if the 14th amendment actually guaranteed same-sex marriage. Wouldn't you think it would have taken less than 150 years for that to happen? Hell, it took about 100 years for the equal protection clause to even strike down interracial marriage bans.
Hahaha. You do realize that your second sentence totally discounts your first.
Yes - even though it will have taken 150+ years, the 14th Amendment does prevent banning gay couples from accessing marriage laws. The fact that it took 100+ years for it to strike down interracial marriage bans - something you pointed out - just goes to prove that sometimes it works very slowly.
Quote:
My point is, you can't confer a meaning to the 14th amendment that the people who created it didn't intend for it to have.
You can't say that the constitution guarantees people protections which the people who drafted it never intended them to have.
Look, the reason why we have a constitution, is to limit the authority of the government. The constitution provides the government a list of things it can do, and a list of things it cannot do. These limitations are specific and intentional by the people who drafted it. To insist that the government should either be limited in ways it was never intended to be limited, or that it has powers which were never intended. Is basically to say that the constitution is meaningless. Or at least that its meaning can be interpreted to mean whatever the Supreme Court justices declare it should mean, regardless of what the framers actually intended.
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.
