I just finished the 22-page "Gay Marriage, Do you think it should be legalized?", and recognized that the situation that the thread was talking about is finally becoming reality. Unlike many debates that are purely theoretical, this one is already in action, and we have an opportunity to debate and decide what we think will happen in the next few years concerning this subject, and then see for ourselves if what we said would become reality.

Just recently, Missouri voters decided to make an Amendment to their Constitution banning the marriage of same-sex couples.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/p...assesinmissouri





http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08...e.ap/index.html



From a remarkably neutral article in the Christain Science Montor:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0805/p01s02-ussc.html?s=rssu



So, in the light of recent events:
Will the gay minority's rights continue to be abbreviated by majority rule and Constitutional Amendments, even making an Amendment to the US Constitution, or will this become a national policy failure, reminiscent of the repeal of the 18th Amendment (prohibition).

Edit: for format stuff

Will the gay minority's rights continue to be abbreviated by majority rule and Constitutional Amendments, even making an Amendment to the US Constitution, or will this become a national policy failure, reminiscent of the repeal of the 18th Amendment (prohibition).

That is a good question, and I'm going to say that in the end gay rights will win out.

Right now the entire United States is pretty much a battleground. You have states like Missouri passing amendments to their Constitution, and other states which already have similar laws. On the other hand, you have states like California, Massachussetts, Vermont and now Washington which are leading the charge for gay rights as they relate to marriage.

An amendment to the US constitution will never pass the country is too sharply divided on it for the super majority necessary to be in place. What I do see happening is eventually one of these cases (Mass, Washington or California) is going to make it up to the Supreme Court and they are going to have to decide in favor of homosexual marriage because there is nothing in the Constitution preventing it.

Then, due to the 14th amendment all states will be forced to comply with that ruling and the issue will be put to rest. Married couples will wake up the next day and the world won't be coming to an end after all. Extremists will have to find something else to blame the evils of the world on.

In the final analysis what we are going to remember about these next few years is that it was a time of incredible hatred, bigotry and polarization in our country and the reactions were completely unecessary. I think that historians will look back upon us very strangely on this issue, probably with the same curiosity I have looking back at the 1950s and wondering how people could ever think, act or behave the way they did to minorities and african americans especially.

Its clear from your formulation of the question which side you come down on

What of the majority's rights? Have you given them any thought? Or even exactly what are these "minority rights" to which you refer?

Um, Bikerdad, the last time I checked, the majority - heterosexuals - had the right to marry the person they loved. So... I'm not quite sure the point you're trying to make here. If you're talking about their "right" to not be offended, or the "right" to not have their delicate religious sensibilities contradicted, well thankfully there are no such rights.

As for the question, of course gay rights will continue to be abbreviated by the majority. The majority of America consists of ignorant, intolerant Christians, and that will be reflected in who they elect into office and how that elected official votes. With the Christian dogma fundamentally opposed to equal - not special - rights for homosexuals, gays really don't have a chance.

As a resident of Missouri I am ashamed to admit that my state voted this way, especially in such overwhelming numbers. I expected it to pass, but not by such a margin.

It is my hope, that as they younger generation moves into positions of power that this now legalized (at least in my state) discrimination will be finally eliminated.

Many here have heard me speak of my old neighborhood in Kansas City that 10 years ago had a dozen crack houses, prostitutes walking the streets, trash all over the place, where you could by a 3 floor, four bedroom Victorian, 10 minutes from downtown KC for less then $25,000.00.

Now 10 years later the prostitutes are gone, the crack houses are gone, the area is a spotless historic district, and the neighborhood group is still very active. You can't get the same houses unless you are willing to spend 3-4 times the cost of them just 10 years before.

The 2 men behind the formation of the neighborhood group were dismissed and ignored by a larger neighborhood group that once encompassed that area. That larger group simply wrote off that section of the neighborhood as beyond redemption. And of course the two men being gay lovers who had been in a monogamous relationship for about 5 years at the time (now 15+) meant that most of the group wouldn't even listen to what they had to say. They preferred to whisper behind their backs.

It was these two gay men that motivated all the other neighbors, including myself to work hard, take risks and fight for their neighborhood. It was these two gay men whose actions got and kept the ball rolling to eventually make that neighborhood safe for children and attractive to young married couples.

It is these same two gay men who can't enjoy the same protections of marriage.

They can't even be sure that one will be able to see the other if they are seriously ill in the hospital since they are not legally considered family.

This discrimination is simply a travesty. It is perpetrated by bigoted zealots who have the audacity to claim to be members of the same religion that was founded on teachings of the individual who once said "judge not, lest ye be judged".

Thankfully, the majority of the young seem to have minds impervious to the poisoning of the old. That being said I think this discrimination has a life expectancy of at worst another decade. After that, the next generation will be in charge, and based of the actions of this one, I am confident that it will be for the better.

Oh, I almost forgot. I support same-sex marriage.

No they don't, not if that person is their opposite sex parent, or a sibling, or cousin, or minor, to name just a few of those who a heterosexual may love but is prohibited from marrying.

Well, aside from the obvious contradictions that sexual harrassment laws and speech codes present to your argument that there is no right to not be offended, I have to agree with your sentiment that thankfully there shouldn't be such rights. However, those aren't the rights I'm speaking about.

Legal marriage is a privilege that imposes obligations upon third parties. In this case, it the rights of the majority to not bear the onus of those obligations that you seek to abrogate. The only reason society permits it in the case of heterosexual marriage is because the benefits to society outweigh the costs.

On a related subject, do you support or oppose the use of genetically modified crops? Trust me, the subjects are related...

Don't forget the ignorant, intolerant Jews who oppose you. And the ignorant, intolerant Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, agnostics and atheists.

I find this an interesting irony.

All of those, without a single exception, and even those that fall outside of the "ignorant, intolerant Christian" reference came from the same place. A Male/Female coupling. Not one came from a male/male or a female/female "coupling". Yet the union between a Male/Female is no different then the union between a Male/Male or Female/Female couple?

Are they not incredibly different?

It's a bit like saying that an airplane and a bicycle are the same because both will get you from point "A" to point "B".

I have to admit Redliner that you are correct to point out that not a single one of us come from a male/male or female/female coupling. In fact I thing we were all reproduced from a female/male coupling as you assert. However, I have known people that have had children out of wedlock... quite a few people. So what I am wondering is... How does the science of our reproduction system relate to marriage?? Here a tough curve ball for you. Should a women or man incapable of having children be allowed to marry?? Why?? They can't reproduce!!!




Good point Biker Dad, don't forget polygamists. The point I do concede to people against Gay marriage is that it opens the flood gates. But my take on it is so what. Who does it hurt if a brother marries his sister. Hell, kings and Queens used to do it. Keeps the bloodline pure, or something like that.

There is an easier solution to this mess. STOP making marriage a matter of the state. Keep marriage to the church and make civil unions a matter of the state. Then the Gays are on equal ground with heterosexuals and the heterosexuals don't have to see their precious religious beliefs disecrated by homosexuals.



Yeah O.K. I thought it was due simply to tradition. So how would homosexual marriage costs outweigh the benefits???

This is another struggle for a minority group that will take years to unfold. Change does not come easy, and we are entering a period of time that will literally alter lives and relationships on both sides of the sexuality coin. Each side will win small battles here and there, but I believe the side of equality will win out in the long run. It will take time, as it is difficult to change the minds of others, but it will happen.

Deflecting from the debate? What does what single individuals do outside of marriage have to do with a debate about marriage? Does Jeff Gordon need a Drivers Licence to drive at Daytona?





"They can't reproduce" In some cases yes, that would be true. Yet in EVERY case involving a Male/Male, or Female/Female coupling this is an absolute fact.

Can you say you know of no Male/Female cases, that reproduction was "impossible" that, oops, a pregnancy occurred or a live birth happened? I know of quite a few.

So you have a relationship in which childbirth is possible vs. Impossible.

The Male/Female "coupling" remains unique. Would you not agree?

LOL... you ol'spin master, that was the point I was making. What does how we reproduce have to do with marriage or the reason why people are against gay marriage. It doesn't, since we can reproduce outside of marriage. But that was a nice try...


I totally agree now where do we go from here?? Should we or should we not allow people incapable of reproducing from marrying. Is the fact that a couple can not reproduce a sufficient reason to ban marriage.

Sure, if you don't have the discovery channel or animal planet.

Droop:

Love, commitment and THE ADDED Factor of Childbirth! Makes this FAR AND AWAY a unique relationship.

Now, again explain to me why Jeff Gordon would need a Drivers Licence to drive at Daytona.



You may indeed require fertility tests to be a requirement, that doesn't help your argument though. Given that a .00000001 probability is still far and away greater then a 0% possibility.

And the male/female "coupling" remains unique.

Actually Red, you're quite right. But that doesn't make the other side wrong. It all really comes down to the criteria you are using.

For instance, If your criteria in your example is type of propulsion, then of course they are not the same. If your criteria is safety then they are also not the same (Planes are far safer statistically). However, if you criteria is the fuel consumption, then bikes win out.

You insist on using procreation as apparently your only criteria to determine a true marriage. I know a few barren couples that would disagree, but that is really irrelevant.

I choose to use Love as the criteria for a true marriage (between consenting adults).

To me the tax benefits (if only one person works), legal protections, etc function to the benefit of a married couple with or without children.

The earned income tax credit and child tax credit (both require children), etc only benefit parents and do not distinguish between married and unmarried ones.

To me there are two ways to make these governmental benefits / responsiblites equal. Either allow all consenting adult couples, regardless of sex access to marriage and thus these benefits / protections or remove these benefits / protections from everyone.

Now this really is a classic example of the disconnect between those that support and those that oppose gay marriage. It's similar to the abortion debate. Until both sides can agree on why homosexuals and / or marriage exist, a consensus cannot possibly be reached.

However, a far higher percentage of older Americans oppose gay marriage, while a much smaller percentage of young Americans do. So, in all likelihood this issue will be decided simply in a matter of time.

Remember, all it takes to overturn a constitutional amendment is another amendment.

O.K. I am intrigued by your first statement ...care to expound on it a little bit and tie it in to how this unique relationship between opposites sexes and "child birth" relates to the subject of Gay Marriage.

I don't want to dodge your question since you posed it twice. I don't watch Nascar but I have always been under the impression that you wouldn't need to have a license to drive the course. My guess is it is the same reason why you wouldn't need a license for bumper cars and go-karts.

At the end of the day you are trying to rationalize the irrational. The reasons why gays should not be married is because the Bible, Koran or whatever other religion tells us so. Let's just leave it like that. Trying to find some scientific or logical reasoning will just come up full of huge gaping holes in whatever theory that is presented. At least when using religion you're not required to make sense because we mere mortals can not fathom the plans and mindset of the Great Mastermind(s) in the sky.

Keep marriage in the church and out of the State and we never have to have a debate on whether Gays have a legal right to marry. I doubt there are many people here who support Gay Marriage that would support allowing a priest of a certain faith to be forced to marry people of the same sex.



I wouldn't require it, would you? If the point you are making is that someone has to be able to procreate to get married, would you require test. If the woman a man loves had an hysterectomy would you be willing to ban them from getting married?
My argument is that Gays should have the legal right to marry as long as heterosexuals do. The fertility of a woman or the incompatibility of gays to reproduce pose no factor whatsoever in my arguments.

Anybody want to take a shot, por favor, at my genetically modified crops question? Please, purdy, purdy pleeeeezzz?

How would these "civil unions" differ in any way from a current marriage performed by a Justice of the Peace? Or are "civil unions" simply a different word for the same obligations foisted upon third parties?

Just as a point of consideration, considering the hypothetical that your "civil union" or the equally non-differentiated "civil marriage" is permitted of gays, what is your position for when an Orthodox Jewish congregation fires their rabbi who has come out of the closet and entered into one of these new fangled civil unions with his gay paramour? What if its the cantor? The janitor?

Here's another interesting one: Suppose Tom Moynihan (Domino's Pizza) inserts into his will a clause that if one of his children enters into a same-sex civil union, they are disinherited?

Not to put too fine a point on it, nor reveal my next flurry of rapier wit, but we don't really have much of a handle on the costs OR the benefits, do we? Oh, we can assess the costs and benefits of heterosexual marriage, and we can be pretty sure that the direct costs for others of homosexual marriage (i.e., the same obligations one has to a married hetero couple) will be the same, but what are the indirect costs, and furthermore, what are the benefits to society and the third parties that justify imposing the obligations. I'll remind you, that in the normal order of argument, the individual advocating changing the status quo has to prove his case. Trying to trump out on the "civil rights" card doesn't prove your case, because a classical liberal defines rights as freedom from interference by others, not imposition of obligations on others. So please, lay out what benefits will accrue to society and our third parties.

BTW, I'll try to get back to respond with indirect costs of homosexual marriage at some point after you lay out the benefits case.

Then, please, for the sake of common decency, give your anticipated consensus time to develop. This country has gone through two deeply divisive splits that were hurried along by activists forcing things through the courts rather than developing consensus. The first split cost more than 400,000 Americans their lives, and the ramifications are still echoing today.... The second you've already mentioned. Methinks the pro-choice elements have no idea how much damage they inflicted on the body politic by ignoring the electorate and effecting profound social change by judicial fiat. Gays activists are so blinded by moral indignation that they are clueless of the damage they risk by their methods. The costs are not social costs of homosexual marriage, but rather costs of methods. So I don't count them against homosexual marriage, which means I don't expect you to come up with benefits to balance them. Of course, if you believe that judicial fiat is an acceptable method of achieving same-sex marriage, then you will have to account for these costs as well.

No, I don't care to expound. Remember, I am defending the status quo. I simply need to state the obvious and show the weekness of the arguments of the opposition.

You want to make the ability for a couple to reproduce as a mundane aspect of the male/female "coupling"? I say its and integral part of the relationship.

You make your sales pitch. I'll make mine.

Wonder why the Missouri vote passed by such a wide margin?



The difference is clear then. The relationship between the driver and the course and the driver and Highway. HUGE DIFFERENCE

Like I said before, you can call two things "modes of transportations" (my previous example being an Airplane and a bicycle). You can package them in an attempt to convince the public that "They both are transportation, therefor equal", but the sales job is a tough one, and the average individual will see the difference. Margin of victory?



And where exactly did that come from droop? Look over ALL of my posts, IN ANY of the forums, and attempt to show where I have tried to convince others that my opinions are from any form of religion?

Trouble is, it is not religion that made an inequity in these "types" of relationships, it's nature. So bash Nature. I don't care.





Hey Droop, your the one that brought up the fertility issue, not me. (Religion, Fertility, what next)

The Government, or the people in a State wide vote, can clearly make the distiction between male/female possibilty, and the impossible that is present in male/male or female/female couplings. (Airplane vs. Bicycle)

But lets, just because you like to turn things around, try it this way. What did you call it? Oh yeah, the old curve ball, was that it?

Well, I never threw many curves, I through the "old high hard one".

Is your side saying, that millions of Women MUST potentially die, because to have a hyserectomy, could void there right to "marry", and marriage is something they dreamed of there entire life? It does seem that that isyour argument afterall.

Tough Marketing Job ya got there.

So Gays get to Marry, and women die because of it? hmmmmmm

Am I serious? Nope, but afterall, this IS your argument. Not All male/female couples can have children, therefor gays should have a right to "marry?'

[quote]No, I don't care to expound. Remember, I am defending the status quo. I simply need to state the obvious and show the weekness of the arguments of the opposition.[/quote]

So since your defending what is established you have no need to provide coherent arguments only tell me why mine aren't good enough?? I'm confident I can still manage.

[quote]You want to make the ability for a couple to reproduce as a mundane aspect of the male/female "coupling"? I say its and integral part of the relationship.[/quote]

If this was truly the case Redliner than a marriage would be void upon menopause of a woman. After all, the ability to reproduce is an interegal part of a relationship. If they can't reproduce are they missing a vital part of their relationship??

[quote]You make your sales pitch. I'll make mine.[/quote]

How am I doing so far?

[quote]Wonder why the Missouri vote passed by such a wide margin?[/quote]

Wow this is a tough question... maybe I can answer it in one word. Bigotry. That was too easy, I'd rather use a case and point. They say those who do learn history are doomed to repeat it. I believe we are doomed to repeat history, regardless, because human nature remains the same.

Take a look at this history. It deals with the events almost fifty years ago. The desegregation of a school in arkansas. The important point of this history lesson and the one that relates to your question is this:

[quote]September 27, 1958: Voters overwhelmingly oppose integration by a vote of 7,561 for and 129,470 against.[/quote]

Talk about a margin of victory.... that's 90+ percent of Americans opposed to allowing blacks to learn in the same school of whites. Do you think they had it right?? Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Bigotry was the reason the were against integration, change was what they feared. The majority were whites. Why should they give something good like their schools, their separation, in truth their beliefs in their superiority to inferior negroes?? They neither sympathized or empathised with the plight of blacks because they weren't blacks and they were raised in a world were racism was O.K. and even "right" in many cases.
You see the parallels, I hope. Many heterosexuals neither sympathize or empathize with the inequality suffered by homosexuals. On one side, they aren't gay they will never have to understand what it's like, on the other they are raised with people screaming "what's happening to our country, they want to let fags marry each other.... oh lord, the sky will be raining brimstone soon." Yet truth comes slow and so does change.
71 percent isn't that big of a number Redliner and I think you know it. This is a midwest state at 71% In a land that acclaims to be the freest nation on the planet...how long will it take for bigotry to lose out. We both know that we are on a snowball effect with this issue. It going to be 10-20 years at the max before Gay marriage is fully allowed regardless of a vote. Even conservative don't want to touch a constitutional amendment.

[quote]The difference is clear then. The relationship between the driver and the course and the driver and Highway. HUGE DIFFERENCE[/quote]

I'll take your word for it. It's too cryptic for my feeble mind to comprehend. Either you are being extremely profound or simply baffling, my guess is profound... I hope.

[quote]Like I said before, you can call two things "modes of transportations" (my previous example being an Airplane and a bicycle). You can package them in an attempt to convince the public that "They both are transportation, therefor equal", but the sales job is a tough one, and the average individual will see the difference. Margin of victory?[/quote]

Agreed, mine is the tougher sale. But what do they say about things that come easy?? Fighting bigotry is always, ALWAYS an uphill battle Red, but it is worthwhile. What your selling is something they know, something they are familiar with.

[quote]And where exactly did that come from droop? Look over ALL of my posts, IN ANY of the forums, and attempt to show where I have tried to convince others that my opinions are from any form of religion?[/quote]

You haven't Red which is why I said you were trying to "rationalize the irrational." Instead of taking the road of simply saying "my God said so" you start talking about transportation...bicycles and airplanes.... or you start talking about how male/male, female/female relationships can't reproduce. How does this advance your ideas??? I have no clue, but I like to debate so here I am debating about trains, planes and automobiles... Nascar and driver licenses and hysterectomies Your so cryptic a part of me expects that in a minute your going to say I was arguing that gay marriages SHOULD be allowed So you tell me with out spin If you are against homosexuals getting married... is your religion the root reason?

[quote]Trouble is, it is not religion that made an inequity in these "types" of relationships, it's nature. So bash Nature. I don't care.[/quote]

Look laws are created by society, religions is created by society, the institute of marriage is created by society. If we were living by nature's rules we wouldn't have marriage.

[quote]Hey Droop, your the one that brought up the fertility issue, not me. (Religion, Fertility, what next)[/quote]

Do you recall why I brought it up??? You started talking about the reproductive system and how only a man and woman could reproduce. I inferred from this that you must be implying that Gays shouldn't be able to get married due to the fact the are unable to reproduce. I then challenged that with a counter argument of should women who could not reproduce also not be allowed to get married..

[quote]The Government, or the people in a State wide vote, can clearly make the distiction between male/female possibilty, and the impossible that is present in male/male or female/female couplings.[/quote]

Are you even suggesting that the reason why 71% of missouri is against homosexual marriage is because they realize it is possible for men to impregnate other women and that men can't have kids by other men.

[quote]Is your side saying, that millions of Women MUST potentially die, because to have a hyserectomy, could void there right to "marry", and marriage is something they dreamed of there entire life? It does seem that that isyour argument afterall.[/quote]

No, my side is saying that a person's ability to reproduce should have no bearing on their right to be married.

From the USSC's majority opinion in Loving v. Virginia, the decision that ended state prohibitions on interracial marriage:



Marriage is a right, not a privilege. In order for a state to impose restrictions on a right there must be a substantial state interest in restricting that right. Felons can be restricted from having weapons, siblings can be prevented from marrying. But when, not if, the gay marriage issue reaches the USSC it will be the burden of the state to show a substantial state interest in preventing gay marriage.

Our founding fathers wisely put in the Constitution obstacles to pure democracy. They recognized that the tyranny of the majority could be as tyrannical as any other tyranny. The Court is the branch of government furthest removed from the people, it is the job of the USSC to protect minorities from the whims of a temporary majority. In the absence of an amendment prohibiting gay marriage it is the duty of the USSC, when the gay marriage issue gets to their docket, to extend gay Americans the same rights as every other American, the equal protection under the law required by the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment Section 1:



I don't see an exception for gays in there.

I'm FOR genetically modified food. So what?

And who are these nefarious "third parties" you keep referring to? Marriage is a state-sanctioned contract between two people. Who else is involved?

As for your other off-topic examples, I would be severely disappointed with the congregation, but I also live in a "right to work" state, so they can use any excuse they want to fire their rabbi. Or cantor. Or janitor. However, most jews in this country understand bigotry -- having been driven to this country by years of abuse in Europe and other places -- so I doubt the example would be anything other than the exception and not the rule.

And the Domino's guy can do anything he wants with his money. That's his right.

So who are all these "third parties" who are suddenly obligated to do something once gay marriage is a reality?

As for the "costs" you brought those up first, but aren't willing to explain what they are. How cool is that?

As for waiting for a "consensus" to develop, there's already more consensus for equal rights for gays than when the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling came down. Time's up for the dinosaurs to get with the program.

Thats how it works droop. You want the change, make your play. Oh, and I have, point by point explained why yours aren't good enough, and so did the people who voted in Missouri.



We are talking about current statute Droop. A marriage licence, unlike a drivers licence is not renewed every so many years.



As well as can be expected I suppose. You probably are doing almost as well as your side in Missouri did.



More likely poor salesmanship Droop. You want to make an argument that the people don't agree with, and instead of honing your "marketing skills" to win the majority of votes you resort to calling people who can make a clear distinction "bigots".

Go ahead, you simply make my job easier.

I am a bit surprised you didn't say "religious bigots".



I would simply point to the above "bigotry quote". YOU are repeating the failed marketing scheme of a failing position.



History would point out that blacks did not choose to be black. Can you make the same claim about gays. If so, please explain the current situation of the sitting New Jersey Governor.

"I'm Gay, I'm Not Gay, I'm Gay, I'm Not Gay, I'm Gay".

hmmmmm, fathers two children then decides to be Gay?





Really? There are none, unless you contend, that like Gov "I will be Gay when I choose to be gay", a black man can choose to be white, then black, then white.




I wouldn't bet the farm on it, seeing that the movement is already losing steam.



Close, I am saying that the people of Missouri can easily see that a male/male relationship, or a female/female relationship is FAR different then a male/female relationship on a number of levels.

If you don't see that, I simply can't help ya'll.



Then sell it. And an airplanes ability to fly is no different then a bicycles ability to move. Tough sell, maybe impossible.

They absolutely wouldn't. Civil unions would be the legal recognition of people becoming partners so that they can get all the tax breaks and legal benefits of being next of kin. Marriage would be relegated to a simple religious ceremony, which it should be. I'm wondering about this third party too... I am sure you aren't trying to show too much of your hand, so please drop the bomb on me already.



A rabbi is a religious position, so yes. The janitor, no. Do they hire cantors??



That's too easy... disinherit away.



I don't know of any benefits to be honest. I'm not even going to pretend that I do. I see no benefits I see no costs. My mind have thought indirect costs and benefits, but they are so indirect I feel like I will be reaching. You see I don't see it as why does society have to GIVE equality, I see it as why does society have the right to TAKE it. So though you are the status quo you seek to withhold rights from a group of people. Why??



I am prepared.

Lets see here..."equal". Well, every man in this country is allowed to marry any woman in this country....and any woman in this country can marry any man in this country...seems "equal" to me.

"But they cannot marry the person they love." Love is not a requisite to marriage in the eyes of the state. It is not as if the government tests each couple to see if they are really in love before they marry them. Basically, homosexuals are a secular group who want special privileges and in order to get that they will have to have the law changed.



Can you please direct me to the part of the Constitution where it says that marriage is a natural born right? Cant seem to find it in there. It is a privilege, much like being able to buy a house or being able to drive. As long as you meet certain legal requirements...you can do it.

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, despite the fact that is doesn't explictly appear in the written text of the constitution. You've failed to take into account constitutional case law, lederuvdapac.

Yes, between a Man and a Women. As lederuvdapac pointed out and the Sitting Governor of New Jersey has proven, the current statute denies no one this right under the Supreme Court ruling.

No, the Supreme Court rulings at issue do not make that distinction.

Will the gay minority's rights continue to be abbreviated by majority rule and Constitutional Amendments, even making an Amendment to the US Constitution, or will this become a national policy failure, reminiscent of the repeal of the 18th Amendment (prohibition).

This question is couched in langauge that infers that homosexuals have the natural right to marry. It seems that the heart of this question is whether homosexuals have or should have the right to marry.

I believe that homosexual marriage should be a right for several reasons. First, in regulating who people are allowed to marry, the government limits our freedoms. However, this approach does have the negative side effect of saying that polygamy and multiple marriage should not be restricted.

I don't think our society has the high-ground to hold on to the sanctity of marriage argument for long. One comedian or commentator (I don't remember) I watched made this argument more-or-less in a scathing and effective manner. When we are airing "reality" television shows that make marriage a contest, we are not upholding the sanctity of marriage. Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, Joe Millionaire, Marry My Dad, etc. Las Vegas, Rodman, J Lo, Brittany.

Marriage has little sanctity today. It is what the participants make out of it.

I also think that we expect religion to have a strong role in defining marriage. What happens when a religion comes into being that says its members should be married and that the marriages should be homosexual. Will the first amendment be overruled by a new amendment?

I think this debate will rage on and there will be an attempt to suppress the wishes of a minority community. It will play well in some areas much like laws banning the teaching of evolution have in the past distant and near. (Kansas?)

I think the campaign will fail. The majority seems to be against gay marriage, but not for an amendment using the constitution to deny rights of individuals. It will likely remain a hot wedge issue in politics and I think Kerry's position and not Bush's on this issue is crafted to keep the most votes while losing the least. (I say this not in thinking Kerry has the moral high ground or low ground, but that his mixed policy best represents the current political landscape surrounding this issue.

I am sure it does to you.Similar to the argument in Loving v. Virginia when it was argued that since blacks and whites were equally discriminated against by the states that the laws opposing interracial marriage were constitutional. A man who wants to marry another man should have the same equal right as a woman who wants to marry a man. The argument that that man can marry a woman while the woman cannot and that, therefore they are equally discriminated against will not be held valid under the 14th.




First, it makes little difference, constitutionally. I am certain that if states forbid gays from driving, or buying houses, that too would be unconstitutional. Personally, we seem to differ greatly on natural rights. IMO, the right to buy a home stems out of the natural right to own property, the right to marriage comes out of the natural right of two parties to engage in contracts.

The fact is our government infringes too darn much on our natural rights. Marriage should not even be a function of government. I don't see any right documented in the constitution as a natural right. This does not mean our founding father's did not weave their ideas on natural law into the Constitution.

I would point out that the couple involved were Male and Female, not Male and Male, or Female and Female.

At issue was the ability of THIS COUPLE to marry, thus the ruling.

Now, in todays world we have a sitting Governor that says he can be both homosexual AND free to marry. This would indicate that no discrimination exists.

In the ruling that you reference, neither of the couple could voluntarily change thier nature to avoid discrimination.

Please explain then where the discrimination, or violation of civil rights, occurs as it relates to this "marriage" debate.

The Gov PROVES that homosexuals can AND do openly participate in marriage under the current statute.

From the Decision paper written by Chief Justice Warren regarding USSC case: Loving Vs. Virginia source



This case was covered the issue of Inter-racial marriage, and focused on the issue of race. However, among other things the Chief Justice clearly defined Marriage as a basic civil right.



Though the decision it'self does not touch on the concept of a man and a woman, it does say that this civil right is necessary for our survival which would seem to reference procreation. Also, case law cited to support it being a civil right mentions procreation as well.

So, I agree, current case law can easily be taken as referencing / supporting marriage as being between a man and a women. However, I have not as yet found any references in case law (on the federal level) specifically restricting it in this mannor.

Though that all really means very little. It would seem obvious to me that at the time of these cases (mid 20th century) no one really imagined the possiblity of state approval of same-sex marriage or even the existance of one.

As a result. this issue is not so clear cut, in legal terms. Many of the arguements made supporting marriage as a civil right could be equally appllied to same-sex unions. It the end, it will come down to a Supreme Court decision once again.

It is anyones guess how that will turn out.

It occurs the moment a man is denied permission to marry another man simply because he is a man. Gender discrimination, pure and simple.

Maybe it should be... but that's a different discussion.

Are we playing dodgeball. There ARE women that get married after menopause. Their husbands die, the get divorced, the finally decide to do it. Should they be allowed to get married?? Can they have a meaningful marriage?



But don't you see my argument shouldn't have to be sold to people, because it does not affect people. If Bill and Joe get married, does it increase the likelihood of your marriage failing?? Or is it a fear it increase the chance someone's children will be gay. When you sale something you are saying.... here is what I have for you and here is what it can do for you. I can't do that. So I guess it is poor salesman ship when I have nothing to offer. I don't live in a bubble nor do no every person, but every person I know that is against gay marriage to include very close relatives, like my father, are against it for one of two reasons. They hate homos, there religion tells them it is wrong. I'm talking every single person I know falls into this category. So that is why I call them bigots. I don't call them religious bigots because I recognize the other group that hates just to hate.



Why yes I can. Tell me Red was there a time in your adolescent when you were attracted to both male and females? A time in your life when you found men just as attractive as women?? The reason i ask is because there has been no such time in my life. In essence, I've always like the opposite sex. I don't recall this great time of choice, where I sat down and had to make a decision to whether I wanted to be gay or straight. Maybe it happened to you and you could enlighten me on that process.




You're absolutely wrong. The fact of the matter is people will hide within the status quo in order to achieve certain goals in life, including blacks. Check out this story It's a bout a fair skinned black man who pretended to be white in order to bypass the bigotry of the military. Jews, Irish, even blacks, pretend to be what they are not to bypass bigotry... when they can. Hiding ones sexuality is extremely easy compared to hiding ones race so you are more likely to find it. So was the guy in the story going

I'm Black, I'm not Black, I'm white, I'm not white, I'm BLACK!!

No, Redliner he always knew he was not white, but others didn't. But regardless of his status in life I am sure he always knew he was Black
Does this draw some parallels to the governor issue??



No you don't have to help me, I admit I can see the difference. One has two penises, another has two vaginas , the last has one a piece. See I can do basic math, too.

There is a VAST difference between disqualifying oneself and discrimination.



I thought it was baseball?

Women after menopause have conceived.

Meaningful? Most likely. Ask them, it has yet happened to me.

If one post menopausal women conceived it leaves us in the realm of the possible. Your side still lays in the realm of impossible, and what remains is a difference that is a mile wide.



droop, if I did I wouldn't be debating you.





Not relevant to the debate as to if the existing statute requires change. If Bill & Joe rob a bank it wouldn't effect me either.




Attractive? in what way? Sexually? Nope, never been "that" time in my life.





Yet the black man remained black, birth records would uncover the deception.

Yet you make an interesting argument, not that it helps you. This Governor was incredibly dishonest if he deceived a women into believing he was straight, then allowing her to go through childbirth. Yet we ARE TO BELIEVE him when he said he was gay all along?

Not a compelling argument at all that he was simply hiding a fact and not making a choice.

When one chooses, he discriminates against himself, and there is no problem with that.




Distinct differences then. Yet no value is given by you to those differences.

These differences exist elsewhere and NOBODY cries foul. Check the times for the Gold medal in the 400 meter run in athens. Then go check the top 20 times in the mens 400. Based on your argument the gold in the womens 400 should go to who?

If not a Man, then IT MUST BE DISCRIMINATION.

Actually, AC, the Supreme Court does make that distinction.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Nobody, repeat, nobody advocating gay marriage has indicated how it is fundamental to our survival. Clearly, the Court cannot be talking about how it is fundamental in the sense of food and water. Denied food or water, I will die. Denied marriage, I will not. Denied sexual relations with the opposite sex, I will not die, but my children will never exist. The continuation of my personhood through my children, the survival of my genetic contribution to humanity, will not occur.

The SC has explicitly linked marriage to procreation in its formulation of marriage as a basic civil right.





What's the point of renaming it then? I don't care whether you call it a hoagie, grinder, po'boy, torpedo, bomber, or sub, a sandwich is still a sandwich. Or, as another whit once said long ago, "a rose by any other name..." So stop playing a shell game.

Now, my question for both of you, which, when you answer it, will identify the "nefarious" third parties, is who provides the legal benefits and tax breaks?



Europe's Marriage Meltdown






You're willing to commit this country to more decades of division similar to the abortion debacle, if not another civil war (unlikely though that is, its not impossible)?

Without offering any benefits that will accrue to society, without any clue of the costs, you're willing to have your will imposed upon this country by 9 unelected people in black robes backed up by more power than the world has ever seen.

So... you're saying that it's not a "choice" for you to be heterosexual, but it IS a choice for a gay person to be homosexual. Seems like an unequal standard is being applied. Please try to be consistent... or at least put yourself in the shoes of those you are willing to deny what they want.

AMF Wrote:



Heterosexuality is NOT a choice. Without Heterosexuality AMF, you would not be typing out that question, would you.

Heterosexuality is inate. Opting out of it is choice.

Again, the "choice" creates the inequity, not me.

But, please, be my guest and explain how the Governor of New Jersey was Straight, then Gay (he does afterall have children). Is this the "I dunno gene".

Do you have any proof of this? Any studies showing that "opting out" is a choice? Or is this just your opinion?

Point of Clarification.

Do you consider some one a homosexual if they are attracted to the same sex or if they merely commit a homosexual act??

For instance, Johnny goes to jail where he has often sexually assaulted inmates. When jhonny is released he only has sex with women. Johnny was never attracted to the men he assaulted he merely enjoyed the power and sexual release. Is Johnny a homosexual in your book.

OMG, do I HAVE PROOF!

Look in the mirror, you, and everyone else is a product of Male + Female.

Yet, we move away from the debate don't we. I need no proof, I am defending the Missouri vote, it is YOU that must provide the proof that Homosexuality is not a choice.

No proof, no need to change.

Got a gene that proves it ain't a choice?

You duck the question.

You made an assertion that being gay was a choice and held up numerous times the Governor of NJ as an example. You can't seem to back up that assertion (except with that one example or to point out that I was created by someone else's heterosexuality, which doesn't prove anything other than I was created by someone else's heterosexuality), yet it's the basis for your entire argument. But you're unwilling to show any substantial evidence that your position is right, so I'm going to assume your position is poppycock.

And we've already been thru why procreation isn't the basis for marriage, so no need to re-fight that battle.

Or are you arguing that because heterosexual relations produce new life that that is the only "natural" order?

I'm trying to understand which argument you're trying to put forth and you're not being clear.

No, I am actually placing the question back to it's original intent. That being to show that Homosexuals have the same right to marry members of the opposite sex just as heterosexuals do.

The case in point is New Jersey Governor James (it's Tuesday therefor I must be gay McGreevey). One day he "chooses" to be straight, the next he "chooses" to be gay.

All very confusing, especially when this whole debate centers around a percieved discrimination, that, well, obviously does not exist.

And we can all thank New Jersey Governor James (It's thursday therefor I am straight) McGreevey for clearing that up for us.

edited to correct typo

Just a reminder of what this topic was supposed to be about. I stopped reading it a page ago because it degenerated into a completely different discussion, as this area of discusion seems to always do, regardless of how the topic was framed. I can be guilty of this myself, but it seems that some always manage to take any topic related to the subject of homosexuality and turn it into a debate about the origins of homosexuals. In this particular topic, I simply do not see how that is relevant. But hey, that's just me., and we all know I am good for a tirade or two on occasion.

So, lets try to get back to the topic:

Thanks OS,

Yet, by saying "Will the gay minority's rights continue to be abbreviated", we should first establish whether or not any "rights" are being abbreviated.

If so, then how so? Do we not have, as the ultimate right, the right to opt out of any given right?

Hey Red, I'll look for some clarification on this line later . . .

But are you inferring that gay marriage will force you as an individual to marry someone of your gender.

Because using government to block a certain type of social relationship is using the group to deny things from individuals.

No, not at all. 1. Forced marriage is illegal, and 2. Marriage as defined is between members of opposing sex.

Now, what rights are being abbreviated?

And marriage used to be defined as being between two members of the same race.

Thankfully, we've changed from those archaic thoughts.

Your definition is going to be out of date soon enough.

Ok I will take a stab at this, without getting into the origins or morality of homosexuality as IMHO those are for another topic.

Facts:
Marriage is a civil right as defined by federal legal precedent as outlined earlier in this thread.

The pursuit of happiness is clearly defined as a right in the constitution. (I doubt a source is necessary, but if one requires try a google search for "constitution" )

Miles of legal code define various types of illegal activity as not covered by constitutional rights. (Source is wide spread, take a few years to read US legal code )

Homosexuality, and Homosexual relationships ARE legal in Missouri. (I am the source, I live here, and there are no laws on the books against homosexual relationships between consenting adults )

Based on the above facts It would seem logical to suggest that this LEGAL relationship being banned by the majority is an abbreviation of rights.

Ultimately that will fall to the Supreme Court to decide, since this amendment vote took the issue out of the hands of the state courts.

Please, give us the Constitutional text. My google is goggled at the moment. like shooting fish in a barrel

Yes, but in Missouri, the pertinent code relating to marriage is not in the US legal code, its in the Missouri Constitution.

The activities in the bedroom are not being prohibited by the denial of marriage, so which right is it that's being denied?

Your logic corresponds to a Vulcan's

during pon farr

Which, it should be noted, was part of the purpose of the voters. If 2/3s or more of the state constitutions are amended by the voters, which certainly seems like a possibility at the rate things are going, gay activists will forever destroy their chances if they get this into Federal Courts and DOMA is ignored.

You can be sure that a Federal Amendment will sail through in near record time. The voters will not allow imperial courts to dictate to them contrary to their recent and explicit will. Then, having truly hardened the opposition against you, with a Constitutional Amendment astride your path, any hopes for nationwide gay marriage will end for decades, if not generations.

Pursuasion of the public is your hope, not the courts.

No, the Supreme Court did not. If they had explicitly made that distinction, it would have been in the text of the decision. You are reading "existence and survival" to mean that if it doesn't promote the survival of the species, the right no longer exists. Such an interpretation would allow the prohibition of marriages between infertile couples and women past the age of menopause. You have also conveniently overlooked the fact that the cited text begins by asserting that marriage has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the pursuit of happiness by free persons.