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.
There is no such thing as homosexual "marriage". There never has been and there never will be, regardless of any law that may be passed saying otherwise. Likewise, if a law is passed stating that the moon is made of green cheese, that will not make that so either.
Sorry, can't resist -
"There is no such thing as "Spartacus713." There never has been and there never will be, regardless of any law that may be passed saying otherwise. Likewise, if a law is passed stating that the moon is made of green cheese, that will not make that so either."
See? My statement carries as much social and legal weight as yours does. Like none.
In this country, it is civil government that is responsible for conferring the benefits and enforcing the responsibilities that are governed by the marriage contract. That being the case, government gets to set the basic terms regarding who is able to enter into that contract. It seems very clear to me that an American government should not pick and choose which adult citizens, free of other marriage contracts, should be afforded the opportunity to enter into marriage contracts. No different than any other civil contracts.
"There is no such thing as "Spartacus713." There never has been and there never will be, regardless of any law that may be passed saying otherwise. Likewise, if a law is passed stating that the moon is made of green cheese, that will not make that so either."
See? My statement carries as much social and legal weight as yours does. Like none.
In this country, it is civil government that is responsible for conferring the benefits and enforcing the responsibilities that are governed by the marriage contract. That being the case, government gets to set the basic terms regarding who is able to enter into that contract. It seems very clear to me that an American government should not pick and choose which adult citizens, free of other marriage contracts, should be afforded the opportunity to enter into marriage contracts. No different than any other civil contracts.
But here is the thing when marriage under the law gives you rights (some call privileges) such as hospital visitation, next of kin, estate tax protection, social security survivor benefits, etc., can they legally not allow citizens this when they are to be treated as equals under the law according to the 14th amendment? Asking to institute gay marriage bans is unconstitutional due to the inability for gays to have access to these benefits because of sexual discrimination.
"There is no such thing as "Spartacus713." There never has been and there never will be, regardless of any law that may be passed saying otherwise. Likewise, if a law is passed stating that the moon is made of green cheese, that will not make that so either."
See? My statement carries as much social and legal weight as yours does. Like none.
Actually, both the statement that there is no such thing as homosexual "marriage" and never will be, and your statement are both valid.
Spartacus713 is my user name here on this message board. On some other boards, I have different user names. They are made up. Fictional. Concocted at my whim out of proverbial thin air.
In fact, I exist, but Spartacus713 does not. Neither does homosexual "marriage" Say what you want to, it never will, as that is just not what marriage is.
Likewise, you can claim to be married to your house cat, your iphone, or your season tickets to your favorite sports team - and maybe a law will be passed declaring such a marriage valid. But it is not a real marriage, because that is not what marriage is.
You need a third option, which is that the Supreme Court will rule that it is up to the states to make this determination, which is the Federalist position, and basically the status quo that was in effect before the left began filing suits in the courts of leftist judges with a view towards stacking up favorable rulings without any negative ones.
This third option is the most likely, partisan leftist "experts" opinions on the subject notwithstanding.
Under that ruling, some states will have it, and some states won't.
By that logic it would be up to to the states to determine if blacks and whites can marry. However, the SCOTUS decided such a law violates Equal Protection and Due Process.
LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA.
No. 395.
Argued April 10, 1967.
Decided June 12, 1967.
Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 4-12.
...
By that logic it would be up to to the states to determine if blacks and whites can marry. However, the SCOTUS decided such a law violates Equal Protection and Due Process.
How can you even tell who is "black" and who is "white"? By looking at their skin color? LOL. Good luck.
But you can tell who is a man and who is a woman.
Besides, homosexuals are given equal protection under the law to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want to, which is what legitimate marriage actually is. So, there is no problem here.
In fact, what homosexuals and advocates of homosexual "marriage" want to do is change the definition of marriage, not obtain equal access to it, which they already have.
How can you even tell who is "black" and who is "white"? By looking at their skin color? LOL. Good luck.
But you can tell who is a man and who is a woman.
Besides, homosexuals are given equal protection under the law to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want to, which is what legitimate marriage actually is. So, there is no problem here.
In fact, what homosexuals and advocates of homosexual "marriage" want to do is change the definition of marriage, not obtain equal access to it, which they already have.
Why would a homosexual want to marry someone they have no attraction or feelings to? That is such a dumb argument. By encouraging gays to marry the opposite-sex, you're directly supporting the further destruction of marriage.
Why would a homosexual want to marry someone they have no attraction or feelings to? That is such a dumb argument. By encouraging gays to marry the opposite-sex, you're directly supporting the further destruction of marriage.
Not to give the argument credence but you did see some homosexuals like Rock Hudson get beard marriages to cover the fact they were in fact gay. Luckily the suns to being gay is not as big as it was then when you could be arrested for allegedly picking up a cop at a bar.
Why would a homosexual want to marry someone they have no attraction or feelings to? That is such a dumb argument. By encouraging gays to marry the opposite-sex, you're directly supporting the further destruction of marriage.
I am not encouraging them to marry at all. Nor am I encouraging any heterosexuals to marry anyone they do not believe they can make a lifelong commitment to.
The definition of marriage has been established for millennia. Now it is a fad to want to change it. This is the question that the supreme court will be ruling on. Does the equal protection clause of the US Constitution require the re-definition of a fundamental institution of human civilization, which has been in existence since before recorded history began, to accommodate the pairing together of people of the same sex?
A redefintion that was in 2001, for the first time ever, recognized by a nation (the Netherlands) as legal?
Last edited by Spartacus713; 05-15-2015 at 09:11 AM..
Besides, homosexuals are given equal protection under the law to marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want to, which is what legitimate marriage actually is. So, there is no problem here.
In fact, what homosexuals and advocates of homosexual "marriage" want to do is change the definition of marriage, not obtain equal access to it, which they already have.
That same logic was already laughed out of the courtroom in Loving v. Virginia and California's Prop 8 case.
You're close. There is "marriage" and in some states, there is "gay marriage". That should satisfy everyone. I am anxious for the ruling and I still say they kick it back to the states based on what I have read about the history of decisions.
No, there is marriage. People don't talk about straight couples as "Hetero marriage". Why should gay people be singled out over it?
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.
