Tune in Dec. 6 to watch prop. 8 be struck down

[Arakhor]

That's all that matters, right? SCOTUS have the power to refine the current legal implementation of the Constitution?

 

[civver_764]

The day Dommination supports gay marrages would be the day hell fezzes over.

There's a chance he'll be a libertarian socialist by age 18 I think. Or shortly there after. No doubt his parents' views are what's holding him back.

 

[holy king]

Unless it's a man and a man. Or a man and a genderqueer person. Or a man and two women. Or two women, a man, and a genderqueer person. Or Three genderqueer people. Etc.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/typo-in-proposition-8-defines-marriage-as-between,6506/

Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between 'One Man And One Wolfman'

SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California's Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between "one man and one wolfman," instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner. "The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God's eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse," state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law. But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. "I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband," Millard said. "We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination." On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I dunno. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

Yeah probably. I feel less strongly about it then certain people I know, but I oppose it.

Still I just destroyed your argument so the only logical thing for you to do is support gay marriage now.

That may be true, but I never claimed to have my decision on this issue backed by logic

However, I just don't feel marriage is a right. There will be nobody legally punished for going through a ceremony or for calling their relationship a "Marriage." But I find it insulting to marriage to call it that, because a gay marriage is not a marriage.

If they wanted to take marriage out of the law books completely, I'd favor that. Unnecessary red tape anyway.

The day Dommination supports gay marrages would be the day hell fezzes over.

No the day I support SOCIALISM or ABORTION will be the day hell freezes over. I don't really have all that strong an opinion on gay marriage, I just don't exactly support it. I don't buy conservative rhetoric that its going to "Destroy America."

And besides, in certain religious systems, hell IS frozen

Because only the minority of religious groups will marry gays, and of course, minorities can be thrown under the bus when a specific majority sees fit.

Though yes, I always asked the same question. They may not be as rampant as the anti-gay churches, but there are pro-gay religious groups that have their rights infringed upon by big government conservatism.

They have every right to undertake whatever ceremony it feels like. Now, the FEDERAL government cannot ban it from being legal, but the state government can.

Actually, CivG, people's views can change a lot over the course of their life - the deeply religious can become atheists, liberals can become conservatives, conservatives liberals... it's very possible that someday Dommy's views will change, just as mine, yours, or anyone else's would.

Of course, reverse psychology dictates that people will make a point to resist change if you indicate that it's likely to happen. So, best to keep quiet on changes.

Many of my views have changed, but I will ABSOLUTELY NEVER become an atheist.

And if we let blacks marry whites the white race/marriage will be destroyed! Oh. Wait.

Human rights trump religious doctrine, you know. Unfortunately, many people don't know that.

Agreed. But marriage isn't a human right. Yet people pretend it is.

I'm pretty sure it's already been ruled once that bans on gay marriage aren't unconstitutional.

Possible. But SCOTUS rulings aside (Since I don't give them any legitimacy anyway except when they actually interpret the constitution rather than judicial activism) a FEDERAL ban of gay marriage is absolutely unconstitutional. The 10th amendment makes that clear. But a STATE ban is legitimate.

 

[Thedrin]

(@ Onion article)

 

[Mr. Dictator]

That may be true, but I never claimed to have my decision on this issue backed by logic

So you're an irrational libertarian?

That's....not that unheard of and completely rational for my mind to grasp.

 

[Arakhor]

Agreed. But marriage isn't a human right. Yet people pretend it is.

Marriage might not be, but refusing to grant gay people the legal entanglements thereof is clear discrimination for no reason other than religious prejudice.

 

[JollyRoger]

As Baker v. Nelson is still binding precedent, that makes it kind of hard for any court other than SCOTUS to say that bans on gay marriage violate the U.S. Constitution.

Actually, it's kind of easy since Baker v. Nelson was merely a summary dismissal and its binding effect is narrower than a typical Supreme Court case. Lots of ways to distinguish a fact pattern from the fact pattern in Baker, which is all that is really needed to get around a summary dismissal.

 

[Cutlass]

One shouldn't expect the Roberts Court to rule based on the Constitution. They haven't read it. And don't know what's in it.

 

[Bei1052]

Actually, it's kind of easy since Baker v. Nelson was merely a summary dismissal and its binding effect is narrower than a typical Supreme Court case. Lots of ways to distinguish a fact pattern from the fact pattern in Baker, which is all that is really needed to get around a summary dismissal.

Arguing that bans on gay marriage violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment ain't gonna' do it.

 

[Traitorfish]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/typo-in-proposition-8-defines-marriage-as-between,6506/

They have every right to undertake whatever ceremony it feels like.

What good is that, if the state chooses to deny the legitimacy of such ceremonies? Since when did the majority have the right to dictate the beliefs and practices of the minority?

 

[civver_764]

That may be true, but I never claimed to have my decision on this issue backed by logic

Oh boy..

However, I just don't feel marriage is a right. There will be nobody legally punished for going through a ceremony or for calling their relationship a "Marriage."

Marriage is a right because it comes with other rights(and actually the UN calls marriage a right in their universal declaration of human rights, which we signed). We've already learned from the past(*cough*segregation*cough*) that enforcing "separate but equal" policies is a bad idea.

But I find it insulting to marriage to call it that, because a gay marriage is not a marriage.

Really, that insults you? Ok then.

If they wanted to take marriage out of the law books completely, I'd favor that. Unnecessary red tape anyway.

Sure but in the mean time we have to make sure people are being treated equally.

 

[GenMarshall]

However, I just don't feel marriage is a right. There will be nobody legally punished for going through a ceremony or for calling their relationship a "Marriage." But I find it insulting to marriage to call it that, because a gay marriage is not a marriage.

It IS a human right to marry whomever you want with no legal bounderies telling you that you cannot based on numerous reasons.

I don't really have all that strong an opinion on gay marriage, I just don't exactly support it. I don't buy conservative rhetoric that its going to "Destroy America."

You seem rather joyful to see any bans on gay marriages to stay. To me you seem to have a strong opinions on gay marrages

And besides, in certain religious systems, hell IS frozen

Not on this planet. The magma and the core are HOT!!!

Agreed. But marriage isn't a human right. Yet people pretend it is.

Ok, lets ban Christians from marrying.

 

[JollyRoger]

Arguing that bans on gay marriage violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment ain't gonna' do it.

Perhaps - though one could attempt to turn to Equal Protection jurisprudence since the early 1970's to try and overcome the relatively weak precedential value of Baker in that regards.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Just make marriage an informal institution with no legal standing. Churches can decide who to marry, and even if gays couldn't find anybody to marry them they could still call themselves married.

HOWEVER, THE CATCH!

Gays will enjoy equal legal rights with heterosexuals - division of property, adoption rights, tax benefits, etc. Call it a civil union, call it whatever, but everyone will have it. It won't be "separate but equal." Each couple will have equal legal standing, and marriage can remain as it has always been - something decided by individuals rather than any binding law.

This means the guy down the street can say he's married to his pig, but that won't have any legal standing apart from an investigation to ensure there's no abuse going on.

 

[SuperJay]

Ok, lets ban Christians from marrying.

You can't do that, Christians invented marriage, which is why they get to define what it is and isn't for the rest of the world. It's proven in the Bible, you know.

 

[GenMarshall]

You can't do that, Christians invented marriage, which is why they get to define what it is and isn't for the rest of the world. It's proven in the Bible, you know.

Then do you agree that Marrage is a human right that should not be denied?

 

[MobBoss]

and marriage can remain as it has always been - something decided by individuals rather than any binding law.

When, in our nations history, was it anything but as it is now? And how accurate is it to describe what you do as 'as its always been' when it factually hasnt?

 

[civver_764]

You can't do that, Christians invented marriage, which is why they get to define what it is and isn't for the rest of the world. It's proven in the Bible, you know.

I suspect you're being sarcastic but no they didn't.

 

[civver_764]

When, in our nations history, was it anything but as it is now? And how accurate is it to describe what you do as 'as its always been' when it factually hasnt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws