Courts Rule Against Gay marriage....

[MobBoss]

Hate to say I told you so, but: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stgay0707,0,5118918,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines and http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/06/D8IMII100.html

But 45 states have specifically barred same-sex marriage through statutes or constitutional amendments. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage, although Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples.

Seventy-six percent of Georgia voters approved the ban when it was on the ballot in 2004.

I have said time and time again that a vast majority of people believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman in this country and this supports that statement even further. The fact that such laws and statutes are being held as consitutional indicates further that no one "rights" are being violated by such laws either.

Again, 45 out of 50 states, polls in the landslide range......as I have said before democracy = majority rules. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Is there anyone out there that still thinks such rulings "unconstitutional?

 

[GenMarshall]

@MobBoss - Just to clarify. The Courts struck down same-gender marriage?

 

[MobBoss]

@MobBoss - Just to clarify. The Courts struck down same-gender marriage?

No, they upheld laws that stated marriage is only between a man and a woman in NY...I think the Georgia one was an outright ban.

 

[Tulkas12]

Hate to say I told you so, but: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny-stgay0707,0,5118918,print.story?coll=ny-top-headlines and http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/06/D8IMII100.html





I have said time and time again that a vast majority of people believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman in this country and this supports that statement even further. The fact that such laws and statutes are being held as consitutional indicates further that no one "rights" are being violated by such laws either.

Again, 45 out of 50 states, polls in the landslide range......as I have said before democracy = majority rules. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Is there anyone out there that still thinks such rulings "unconstitutional?

Ummm, we are a constitutional republic btw. . . Until this hits the supreme court I wouldn't worry one way or the other. . .Can't we just frickin compromise already?

 

[GenMarshall]

No, they upheld laws that stated marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Well then, can we celibrate on this rulling that a marriage is between a man and a woman?

I can just hear it now that the supporters of gay marriages are going to say "Well the bigots are having their cake now" .

 

[MobBoss]

Ummm, we are a constitutional republic btw. . . Until this hits the supreme court I wouldn't worry one way or the other. . .Can't we just frickin compromise already?

It wont go to the supreme court. And if it did, I can almost gurantee that they wouldnt hear it.

 

[GenMarshall]

It wont go to the supreme court. And if it did, I can almost gurantee that they wouldnt hear it.

I just have to keep praying that this issue does not get there. If it does then I pray that the Supreme Court Judges make a rulling that marriage is between one man and one woman.

 

[YNCS]

From the Newsday article:

New York's highest court ruled Thursday that gay marriage is not allowed under state law, rejecting arguments by same-sex couples who said the law violates their constitutional rights.

The Court of Appeals in a 4-2 decision said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Any change in the law should come from the state Legislature, Judge Robert Smith wrote. [emphasis added]

Same sex marriages haven't been ruled out. One court in one state has said that the proper remedy for same sex marriage is having the law changed by the legislature.

 

[Urederra]

But if two gays want to live together you can't, or you shouldn't interfere. Neither the state.

And passing laws about how other people's private lives should be is not democratic, it is more what a dictatorship would do.

 

[GenMarshall]

But if two gays want to live together you can't, or you shouldn't interfere. Neither the state.

I would simply suggest to them to abstain from sex and live in chasity and treat the other SO as if he/she was like her brother/sister. Same kind of viewpoint Catholics have when heterosexual couples wish to live with eachother before marriage. The Church frowns uppon that action when unmarried couples move in together before they marry

And passing laws about how other people's private lives should be is not democratic, it is more what a dictatorship would do.

I dont know how passing laws in regards on limiting the marriage definition is interfearing with people's private lives be a dictatorship .

 

[Urederra]

If the law doesn't prevent gay people from living together then it doesn't interfere with private lives. I don't know the extent of the law, or if there is a real law or not. I just said that to express my opinion about how a democracy should be.

 

[newfangle]

This is precisely the sort of thing that should not be democratic.

 

[Taliesin]

I am inclined, uncharacteristically, to agree in a qualified sense with MobBoss's view of the matter. Insofar as marriage is a legally defined thing, apart from its legal and fiscal implications, it is essentially society's recognition of a certain special kind of relationship. Since the vast majority of people in our society think of marriage as a special relationship between two human beings, over a certain age, that is how marriage is defined. If a reasonable majority of people in our society think of marriage as a special relationship between a man and a woman, then I'm not sure what calling same-sex unions "marriage" means exactly. It certainly can't mean "a special kind of relationship which society recognises;" but I'm not sure that we would want marriage to mean anything other than that.

So I find myself increasingly uneasy about gay marriage. Civil unions are another matter, and I certainly support their existence. But calling same-sex unions "marriage" may actually devalue the word, though by this I do not imply that it would devalue the practical relationships themselves.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

so mobboss, since segregation was favored by the majority until the 50s it was ethical right?

can you not come up with a better argument.

america was founded on people's freedom and right to live how they want. if they want to be gay, suck it up and let them get married. its not your soul to save

 

[garric]

This is precisely the sort of thing that should not be democratic.

... I love liberal logic.

And I am glad that the people are showing their opinion in disagreement of this vile act.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

... I love liberal logic.

And I am glad that the people are showing their opinion in disagreement of this vile act.

i just love the way those crazy conservatives generalize people

 

[skadistic]

Just 'cause its law and a majority want it this way doesnt make it right.

 

[garric]

Just 'cause its law and a majority want it this way doesnt make it right.

It doesn't make it wrong, either.

There's no such thing as right and wrong in a democracy, it's about the rule of the majority, not a dictatorship by a minority.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

It doesn't make it wrong, either.

There's no such thing as right and wrong in a democracy, it's about the rule of the majority, not a dictatorship by a minority.

well if you just said it isnt right or wrong why is gay marriage wrong in your eyes?

edit: just saw you said the majority supports this.

like i said. explain the majority that was anti-civil rights. was that right?

 

[skadistic]

It doesn't make it wrong, either.

There's no such thing as right and wrong in a democracy, it's about the rule of the majority, not a dictatorship by a minority.

So if the majority wanted all left handed people killed its not wrong?

Marrige is a buisness transaction so only straight people should be al;lowed commerce rights?