RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:48:51 PM)

you're right, marriage isn't a right, but having the law apply equally regardless of gender is. so if a man cannot marry a man, neither can a woman.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:53:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou
you're right, marriage isn't a right, but having the law apply equally regardless of gender is. so if a man cannot marry a man, neither can a woman.


Like I said; that argument (using the 14th) is absolutely spot-on. Those three parts of the constitution that I mentioned can be used to make a very valid argument for gay marriage; it makes it almost a de facto right once one state has the balls to do it.

What really bothers me is that in a free society, we shouldn't need to make an argument to make something legal, the government should need to find a reason to make something illegal.



Peace and comfort,



Michael




tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:54:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou
you're right, marriage isn't a right, but having the law apply equally regardless of gender is. so if a man cannot marry a man, neither can a woman.


Like I said; that argument (using the 14th) is absolutely spot-on. Those three parts of the constitution that I mentioned can be used to make a very valid argument for gay marriage; it makes it almost a de facto right once one state has the balls to do it.

What really bothers me is that in a free society, we shouldn't need to make an argument to make something legal, the government should need to find a reason to make something illegal.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



They just need to find a reason to keep it "not legal" and so far they have.




Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:55:49 PM)

quote:

What really bothers me is that in a free society, we shouldn't need to make an argument to make something legal, the government should need to find a reason to make something illegal.
i agree 100%. and that was the original premise of the thread i believe, asking for some rational argument for the prohibition. none of which has been put forward as far as i can see.




Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:58:36 PM)

quote:

They just need to find a reason to keep it "not legal" and so far they have.
but they haven't found a reason, they have refused to budge for the most part, but have yet to give a valid reason. sooner or later they all fall back on religious beliefs, and in this country, that just is not a valid reason.




DaddySatyr -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:02:57 PM)

I'm just wondering (and I don't feel like doing the research for myself) ... is there a state that has made same-sex marriage illegal ? I understand that there are sodomy laws and such but we can't legally assume that someone might commit a crime so we should charge them, in advance. So, I'm not talking about sodomy laws but has any state written a law that says: "Men can't marry men and women can't marry women"?

Hell, there was a guy, a few years back that married his freakin' horse! He wasn't charged with bestiality.



Peace and comfort,



Michael




tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:05:32 PM)

http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15576

A pretty comprehensive look. But older.

Twenty-nine states have constitutional amendments that define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and 12 have laws that ban recognition of same-sex marriage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/28/us/politics/28doma.html?_r=1

More current.




Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:06:29 PM)

there are a whole slew of states that have some clause in their constitutions limiting marriage to a man and a woman, but i don't think you can actually go to jail for marrying same sex, the state simply ignores your marriage and deems you unmarried. with all the various issues and problems that entails.




ScatteredRose -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:10:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

I'm just wondering (and I don't feel like doing the research for myself) ... is there a state that has made same-sex marriage illegal ? I understand that there are sodomy laws and such but we can't legally assume that someone might commit a crime so we should charge them, in advance. So, I'm not talking about sodomy laws but has any state written a law that says: "Men can't marry men and women can't marry women"?

Hell, there was a guy, a few years back that married his freakin' horse! He wasn't charged with bestiality.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



I know for Louisiana it's not that it is illegal, it is more that it just is not recognized as marriage and thus doesn't get any of the benefits of being "married".

Plus, Louisiana also has a law that is very cruel and prevents gay couples from adopting.
Because of the fact that Louisiana doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, that means they are technically "single" parents. Louisiana law states that single parents cannot adopt children.
So that prevents gay couples from adopting kids...
And also people who are just SINGLE and want children.





DaddySatyr -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:23:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou
there are a whole slew of states that have some clause in their constitutions limiting marriage to a man and a woman, but i don't think you can actually go to jail for marrying same sex, the state simply ignores your marriage and deems you unmarried. with all the various issues and problems that entails.


... and that is where the 14th Amendment definitely comes into play. The government (state and federal), itself, is in violation of the 14th and they should be brought to task for it. Stop asking for a law for gay marriage and start asking the Supremes to rule on the government violating its own constitution.

Unfortunately, I think the government has the "right" to say: "We're not going to marry you. No judge, mayor, JoP, or County Clerk will perform the ceremony" but, there is, at least, one church (Episcopal?) that marries people of the same gender. If a state refuses to recognize that marriage, they are in violation of the 14th and should be sued on that basis. It would have to go to the Supremes because, ostensibly, no state appeals court is going to rule against the state if the state constitution defines marriage as " ... a man and a woman ..."

I am a bit interested in this because of my lifestyle. I am noticing different businesses that seem to be not too friendly to polyamorous relationships. As for the government? Fuggetaboudit! God forbid I wind up in a hospital and my ladies wish to be with me because they're concerned. While a "wife" is generally given some lee-way in such situations, I have heard horror stories about partners being excluded from their mate's bedside by idiot nursing staff. (Some might ask why I started this off with "government"? Show me a hospital that doesn't either have a police officer on duty there or where the police dept. wouldn't easily be moved to support the hospital's position once the hospital invokes the old: "interfering with hospital services")

I am searching for a decision by the Supremes. I only have a small snipette of the opinion in my sieve-like brain ... "If something is not specifically illegal then I am at my liberty to enage in the activity" I think it was written by Marshall but I could easily be mistaken.



Peace and comfort,



Michael




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:26:14 PM)

I really have to take exception to your characterization of the gay community as "whiners", because discrimination against gay people, particularly gay parents, happens every day. They are discriminated against by the courts, they are discriminated against by individuals and they are discriminated against by Children's Services. This week on the court docket, I witnessed a case where the Agency was so obviously bigoted against a gay couple who had adopted infant twins that it made me sick. The attorney for the dads demolished the State because the bigotry and homophobia was so blatant.
The Doctor for the State made a determination of abuse through examination of an XRay, without even examining the child. Not only that, but he was able to determine which dad did it! Rrriiigghhttt. It wasn't hard to make him look like a bigoted asshole, especially when it came out that in every case he is involved with when a gay couple is involved, he ALWAYS finds abuse. Even though the incidence of child abuse in lesbian households is practically non existent. The social worker also was obviously lying, since she insisted that on a home visit, the child talked to her. The kid is 4 months old. Rrrriiiggghhtt.
What possible motive could these people have, except bigotry against gays? And shit like this happens every day, even in a state with an EBM law.
So, I can hardly blame gays for not wanting to be treated like second class citizens. If they are willing to except anything less than the same exact rights that hetero couples have, they will continue to be treated that way. Why should gays be expected to accept that their relationships are somehow inferior, any more than blacks should have accepted that they were not being accorded equal rights? While racism still exists in this country, it is nothing like the institutionalized and pervasive racism that existed before the black community said that it was not going to take it anymore, and demanded that they at least be treated equally under the law.
The gay community has to do the same thing, if they ever expect to abate the homophobia that exists in this country. 20 years would feel like a lifetime if you were being treated like a second class citizen.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Clickofheels

I always have to chuckle, albeit sadly, how many people think they are soooooo "abused" by society in this country! They are abused not only because of their sexual orientation, but because of their ancestors, or their kids tongue ring, or the kind of car they drive, or because their "neighborhood society" says they have to paint their house sky-blue pink like everyone else's. We are a country of WHINERS!!! And if there isn't enough to whine about, people are picking things out of thin air to make SURE there's something new to whine about when they've exhausted something else. It's inevitable!

As far as I'm concerned, if same-sex marriage becomes legalized, there will just be something new gays will find to shout "abuse" about. Because the citizens of our country don't know how to live any differently.

Respectfully, in full body armor, and waving a white flag,
Ms Click





tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:48:24 PM)

quote:

The Doctor for the State made a determination of abuse through examination of an XRay, without even examining the child. Not only that, but he was able to determine which dad did it! Rrriiigghhttt. It wasn't hard to make him look like a bigoted asshole, especially when it came out that in every case he is involved with when a gay couple is involved, he ALWAYS finds abuse. Even though the incidence of child abuse in lesbian households is practically non existent. The social worker also was obviously lying, since she insisted that on a home visit, the child talked to her. The kid is 4 months old. Rrrriiiggghhtt.


Had a case in the hospital of a green stick fracture on a newborn. We knew who, we knew when, we had proof of when, an xray, an exam, a screaming kid.... and we still almost lost the case. Cant believe that court even attempted something so flimsy as what you described, but it doesnt surprise me.





Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 2:00:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

that was the original premise of the thread i believe, asking for some rational argument for the prohibition. none of which has been put forward as far as i can see.

Your belief omits to notice that the OP also asked, "Conversely, why isn't an 'everything but marriage' law good enough?" for which your argument that a rose by any other name wouldn't smell the same is transparent nonsense.

Additionally, the broad conceit that this is about the right to marry is nonsense. It's only about gaining the right to marry for a particular group, and even then only for the monogamous members of that group. Everybody else can go to hell.

Personally, I think we should all be able to marry any person or group of persons that we choose, and that those who seek only to further the interests of a single special group need to find a shorter horse to ride in this parade.

K.




farglebargle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 4:35:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Clickofheels

Not when it comes to a Living Will. sorry Taz



Try telling that to the nurse who throws you out of your partner's hospital room after public visiting hours are over. You know -- because you're not 'immediate family' and have no rights to be there.





tweakabelle -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 6:42:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Clickofheels

Not when it comes to a Living Will. sorry Taz



Try telling that to the nurse who throws you out of your partner's hospital room after public visiting hours are over. You know -- because you're not 'immediate family' and have no rights to be there.



... or to the families of men murdered by thugs who deploy the Homosexual Panic Defence to walk free from murder charges or be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder for their hate crimes. "I killed him with a brick but what he did to me [made a gay advance] was worse". said one thug in his own 'defence'.

Just another double standard of course: imagine how quickly the world's population would be halved if women killed all those who made unwanted advances towards us ........ Double standards are the oxygen hate breathes to survive, without double standards trans/homophobia cannot exist .

When we institutionalise double standards, we're well on our way towards institutionalising hate.




Musicmystery -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 7:09:20 AM)

quote:

is there a state that has made same-sex marriage illegal ?


Since they wouldn't be able to get a legal ceremony done in places not recognizing it, irrelevant. Can't get arrested for what not's possible to do. Or for doing something that's not recognized.






Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 7:59:54 AM)

In this case, the dads had the money to hire lawyers and experts to emphatically refute the agency's case. Couples with less wherewithal simply lose their children, since the courts view gay parents with suspicioun anyway. It's fucked up and I don't blame the gay community for not taking it any more. So much for everything but marriage.
I imagine a similar debate to what has taken place here will happen in the WA legislature, with the same facile arguments. I certainly hope my state can do the right thing.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

The Doctor for the State made a determination of abuse through examination of an XRay, without even examining the child. Not only that, but he was able to determine which dad did it! Rrriiigghhttt. It wasn't hard to make him look like a bigoted asshole, especially when it came out that in every case he is involved with when a gay couple is involved, he ALWAYS finds abuse. Even though the incidence of child abuse in lesbian households is practically non existent. The social worker also was obviously lying, since she insisted that on a home visit, the child talked to her. The kid is 4 months old. Rrrriiiggghhtt.


Had a case in the hospital of a green stick fracture on a newborn. We knew who, we knew when, we had proof of when, an xray, an exam, a screaming kid.... and we still almost lost the case. Cant believe that court even attempted something so flimsy as what you described, but it doesnt surprise me.






tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 8:16:54 AM)

quote:

In this case, the dads had the money to hire lawyers and experts to emphatically refute the agency's case. Couples with less wherewithal simply lose their children, since the courts view gay parents with suspicioun anyway. It's fucked up and I don't blame the gay community for not taking it any more. So much for everything but marriage.
I imagine a similar debate to what has taken place here will happen in the WA legislature, with the same facile arguments. I certainly hope my state can do the right thing.


I never said they should just take whatever treatment they are given. But, for example, using this issue - adoption. Is it better to wait until the relationship is identified as a marriage, for states like Louisiana that do not allow singles to adopt, or is it better to change that law, making it mandatory not to discriminate against singles in adoption procedures?





TheFireWithinMe -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 8:17:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

i disagree. i think accepting anything but full equality would be a mistake and will slow down the process, as people will say things like they have on here, that they have all the same rights so they should be satisfied.

i guess to me the underlying principle is more important.



No it isn't, it's taking what they can get now and continuing to fight for the rest of it. Who says that accepting CU now means giving up the fight for full marriage? It isn't a one or the other thing. I agree with Tazzy, get the rights associated with marriage and then fight for the right to marry.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/13/2012 8:21:21 AM)


Ok. Well, in my state, gays have everything but marriage. So, according to your reasoning, it is now time for them to demand the right to marry, which they are doing. Were they supposed to wait longer?
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou




No it isn't, it's taking what they can get now and continuing to fight for the rest of it. Who says that accepting CU now means giving up the fight for full marriage? It isn't a one or the other thing. I agree with Tazzy, get the rights associated with marriage and then fight for the right to marry.





Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875