Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage: State, Federal, Community

children need a mom and dad

often the surrogate isn't nearly (not even close actually) as the real thing

Even if we accept that proposition, we don't force divorcees to give their children to their closest married relative. Why should we have a double standard with gay couples?

 

Cheveyo said

If you want the law to be legal, you must ammend the constitution as it stands currently. Period. That, Trips, is how the law works.

Wow, say good bye to Roe-V-Wade, shouldn't we?

 

rechedelphar: children need a mom and dad

The question of whether or not childen need a mom and dad is moot as long as the government does not mandate dual-gender biological parenting as the only viable family dynamic.

Convince Congress or your state legislature to pass a law that states only dual-gendered couples are allowed to bear and raise children, and you will have a pretty solid case. Until then, the family dynamic is so diverse that the "mom and dad are best" argument is entirely irrelevant.

J_M_A: True Fire, but often the surrogate isn't nearly (not even close actually) as the real thing.

Again, irrelevent until laws are passed that restrict parenting to dual-couple biological families only.


Trips: Wow, say good bye to Roe-V-Wade, shouldn't we?

You betcha. The USSC has ruled that, according to the Constitution, abortion is a woman's medical right. So, if Congress and then the public majority (simplified) were to pass an ammendment that said, for example: life begins and is recognized under law at the point of conception; no person's rights may trump the rights of another (woman's right to abort vs embryo's right to live)...

Well, then you have yourself a popular vote that successfully and legally overturns Roe v Wade.

 

but under your views, ROE V WADE would have enver been made in teh first place.

 

but under your views, ROE V WADE would have enver been made in teh first place.

I don't follow.

Roe v Wade happened because the government tried to pass a law that denied a woman her basic human rights. It went to the USSC, who identified the right to govern a woman's body as a woman's right alone, not the state's. The constitution grants women (and men) the basic human right to giovern their own bodies, you see.

Now, were we as a nation to ammend the constitution so as to specifically identify the "choice" of child bearing as not a basic human right, then Roe v Wade would be overturned.

The lesson here is that we rule in the here and now. Right now, it is unconstitutional to deny a woman the right to choice whether or not to carry her fetus to term. By comparison, it is currently unconstitutional to have a law denying rights to a select group (gay monogomous couples) without just cause. Yes, I am saying that DOMA is unconstitutional.

The only way to keep an unconstitutional law is to make it constitutional--via the passing of an ammendment.

Get it?

 

TripleB has mistaken your civics lesson for one promoting the idea that the only way to change the constitution is through the amendment process, suggesting that when Judges carry out their constitutional duty to review the law, they are "changing" the constitution, rather than going through the amendment process like you just discussed.

TripleB hasn't yet figured out that the judiciary has the responsibility of interpreting the constitution and the precedent, and that judicial decisions like Roe v. Wade, while he may not like it, is still not a change to the constitution but an interpretation of the constitution as it stood that day.

 

children need a mom and dad


I have to disagree. I was raised without a father, and I don't feel I ever needed him. My mother and the many other women who raised me did a good job, and I thank them for it. A child need loves, and if a gay couple can provide love to that child who is to deny that child that?

 

Cheveyo

The court did its job. It's job is never "to let the people weigh in on the issue themselves." Their job is to interpret the letter of the law as pre-determined in the state constitution...

Brilliant stuff my friend.

JFT

Thanks for sharing that article, it is indeed ridiculous. You and FID summed up my views quite well.

 

Sgt_Schultz: Well you obviously needed a father, if you had one you might not sprout useless retoric like you do today. What kind of love do you think a gay couple would be giving a child? Do you think that is healthy to a child's mental and social development, having 2 dads... who live with each other?? For goodness sakes, people.

That was a sarcastic joke, right? Tell me you just forgot to add the " " at the end.

 

TripleB hasn't yet figured out that the judiciary has the responsibility of interpreting the constitution and the precedent, and that judicial decisions like Roe v. Wade, while he may not like it, is still not a change to the constitution but an interpretation of the constitution as it stood that day.

The Constitution doesn't change its stands from one day to the next. Like any other written document, it has a meaning established at the time it is written, and that meaning does not change.

The court did its job. It's job is never "to let the people weigh in on the issue themselves." Their job is to interpret the letter of the law as pre-determined in the state constitution...

If you limit yourself to only the "letter of the law", then the law is meaningless, because you can always change the meaning by picking and choosing definitions to suit your wishes.

It is not the letter of the law, but the meaning behind it as it was written that a judge should use in interpreting the law. Otherwise, the judge is changing that law's meaning, which is in effect creating a new law.

Kimball Kinnison

 

KK: The Constitution doesn't change its stands from one day to the next.

You are absolutely correct, which is why OWM was absolutely correct in citing the importance of legal precedence when interpretting the constitution.

Like any other written document, it has a meaning established at the time it is written, and that meaning does not change.

To an extent, you're correct again. The meanings in the laws of the Constitution do not change (without ammendment); however, the Constitution does not (nor could it ever) spell out the ruling of every single article, action, instance, circumstance, or behavior in the world throughout time. Which is why we have the Judiciary--to interpret the law in direct regards to the circumstance placed before them for judgement.

Rather than continue in my own words, I'll let the government speak for me:

QUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW..These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence. A century and a half ago, the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville noted the unique position of the Supreme Court in the history of nations and of jurisprudence.

"The representative system of government has been adopted in several states of Europe," he remarked, "but I am unaware that any nation of the globe has hitherto organized a judicial power in the same manner as the Americans. . . . A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people."

The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part, from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government. The United States has demonstrated an unprecedented determination to preserve and protect its written Constitution, thereby providing the American .experiment in democracy. with the oldest written Constitution still in force.

The Constitution of the United States is a carefully balanced document. It is designed to provide for a national government sufficiently strong and flexible to meet the needs of the republic, yet sufficiently limited and just to protect the guaranteed rights of citizens; it permits a balance between society's need for order and the individual's right to freedom.

To assure these ends, the Framers of the Constitution created three independent and coequal branches of government. That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government. The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.
www.supremecourtus.gov

 

To an extent, you're correct again. The meanings in the laws of the Constitution do not change (without ammendment); however, the Constitution does not (nor could it ever) spell out the ruling of every single article, action, instance, circumstance, or behavior in the world throughout time. Which is why we have the Judiciary--to interpret the law in direct regards to the circumstance placed before them for judgement.

Are you then claiming that the Constitution has always redefined marriage in a legal sense to be simply between two people (regardless of gender)? Are you claiming that as part of the original meaning (as currently amended)?

Because if not, then you have effectively argued that the judges can change the Constitution.

If the meaning of the Constitution has not changed, then the interpretation should not change either.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Um, a Texan reporting in... we're not all backward hicks toting shotguns and bibles. Some of us are katana-toters, but that's besides the point. While we do have a large number of religious people hanging around here (and I find nothing wrong with having religon as long as you don't follow it slavishly and never think for yourself, which sadly a lot of people do) not all of them are of the "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" variety. There are a lot of us here who do support gay rights, etc. but we're having a hard time making our voices heard over the constant name-calling from all sides.

 

Overall Texas is pretty bass ackwards. I know there are some that are trying to think differently, but that place is a bastion for ultra-conservative thought if I ever saw one.

 

Um, a Texan reporting in... we're not all backward hicks toting shotguns and bibles. Some of us are katana-toters, but that's besides the point. While we do have a large number of religious people hanging around here (and I find nothing wrong with having religon as long as you don't follow it slavishly and never think for yourself, which sadly a lot of people do) not all of them are of the "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" variety. There are a lot of us here who do support gay rights, etc. but we're having a hard time making our voices heard over the constant name-calling from all sides.

Is it really necessary to stereotype people so much?

For example, how do you know that the people who you claim "follow [religion] slavishly and never think for yourself" actually do that? I'm a fairly devout Christian (LDS), but I follow it because I have studied it out for myself. I know of many other CHristians (of varous denominations) who have similarly studied things out for themselves.

Such stereotyping of anyone (be it on the basis of religion, residency, or other factor) doesn't help the discussion.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Stereotypes work. They sum up your thoughts on a group and fit it into a simple framework. Exceptions are not always the rule, so while you may be an exception, KK, that doesn't mean that you're the rule. And if there's a reason why people use such stereotypes it's because they're usually true in some fashion or that's how the group, collectively, comes across.

 

Stereotypes work. They sum up your thoughts on a group and fit it into a simple framework. Exceptions are not always the rule, so while you may be an exception, KK, that doesn't mean that you're the rule. And if there's a reason why people use such stereotypes it's because they're usually true in some fashion or that's how the group, collectively, comes across.

Let me put it this way:

Avoid generalizing about or labeling the beliefs of those who disagree with you.

That comes directly from the Senate rules. Sterotyping Christians accomplishes nothing except to serve as a basis for mocking them. In the same way, stereotyping homosexuals also serves nothing except to ridicule.

Such stereotypes are inappropriate for the Senate and will end NOW.

This is not up for debate.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't know if it's right to label gays like that. Christianity is a choice...(or is it? Indoctrination anyone? Is it just a coincidence so many of our devoutly religous friends on the board are of the same faith they grew up in? Not that there is anything wrong with that, maybe its how God intended it, but it just adds credence to the idea that indoctrination from birth is the most important component in establishing faith.)

 

I'm not debating this with you. I'm telling you why people do it. Or is reading comprehension lacking? You say it's unfair to stereotype. I'm saying 'it's very fair and this is why'. That's not a debate. That's called informing someone why they do it.

EDIT: I'd also appreciate it if you don't bring up the TOS since it's rarely ever followed too closely. I can mention numerous occasions.

 

Kimball_Kinnison: Didn't mean to offend, so let me clarify. There's a significant portion of people I have religious debates with that do not research any of their arguements. They will quote passages from the bible out of context and then proceed to scream if you inform them of this. THESE are the type of people I was referring to. Personally, I'm more or less Catholic and it annoys me when people scream at me about how I am a hellbound pagan (I know a few pagans, too, and most of them are great people) because my belief system, though just as valid as theirs, is different.

 

Are you then claiming that the Constitution has always redefined marriage in a legal sense to be simply between two people (regardless of gender)? Are you claiming that as part of the original meaning (as currently amended)?

Absolutely not, nor will you ever see me argue that case specifically. I would claim (and would be correct in claiming as such) that the Constitution does not mention marriage at all.
I am claiming, though, (and am again correct in claiming as such) that the government grants rights, protections and benefits through the act of marriage, and has thus defined marriage itself as a "basic human right" (also defined as such by the Supreme Court). The Constitution does state very specifically that no person may be denied basic human rights without due process of the law, and may not be defined as a secondary class of citizen so as to deny them these rights.

For an opponent of SSM, their are two avenues to take if one wants to ban gay marriage legally and constitutionally:

1. Strip from the institution of marriage all government-granted rights, protections, benefits, and responsibilities, or


2. Ammend the US Constitution so as to distinguish marriage specifically as a "special" right to be granted under more strict and discriminating criteria than all other human rights. In other words, an ammendment to legally define the act of marriage as being only between one man and one woman.

If the meaning of the Constitution has not changed, then the interpretation should not change either.

I agree, which is why I am in favor of SSM. The law states that no person may be denied equal rights without due process of the law. In that due process of law, there must be legal justification for the denial of these rights.

Neither I, nor the public, nor the state courts who have reviewed and ruled on these cases have yet been shown legal justification. This is why State Courts who have heard these cases have ruled that denial of marriage certificates to same-sex partners violates their state constitutions.

That is why 11 states have had to pass Constitutional ammendments that specifically define the primary eligibility requirement for these rights under marriage as "a marriage between one man and one woman".

That is also why many in these 11 states and within the federal government do not want to see a federal case made of it--they don't want it to go to the USSC, because if the USSC happens to rule as the lower courts have (as it likely would, based on legal precedent pertaining to federal rulings on marriage), then their ruling trumps the constitutions of the 11 states that currently ban SSM. Why? Because state Constitutions must adhere to the laws defined already in the federal constitution. The former may not contradict the latter. Right now, there is no contradiction, because the US constitution says nothing about marriage.

An example of this: The USSC ruled that laws against sodomy were unconstitutional. As a result, sodomy laws in all states that had them were automatically stricken as unconstitutional. The same thing happens with laws stated within the state constitutions.

 

Cheveyo, FID, you guys get two thumbs up for always fighting the good fight.

 

Why are people so against same sex marriages?

It won't destroy marriage as we know, though heterosexual couples are making it a bit of a joke with the high divorce rates, same sex couples are going to have to break up because two guys want to get married, christianity has nothing against being homosexual and gay sex is only a sin because it's outside of marriage.

So why is it people make such a big song and dance about trying to ban same sex marriage?

 

Aright, now that I'm somewhat calmer about the article I posted, i think I'll try to post without getting banned.

Brownback is a jack hole who should be so lucky as to even think of getting the Republican nomination for President.

I'd just love for this insignificant little **** to try the same threats to states that have taken steps to legalize gay marriage. Give him some power and he thinks he's Jesus Christ with absolute control of D.C. This is something for D.C. and D.C. alone to decide. For him to threaten retaliation is pissing in the eye of the Home Rule Act, and he needs to get a swift kick to his non-existant balls for it.

What an *******!


Good enough.

EDIT: Yeah, as much as I love calling him somthing of that caliber, I think I'll change it for the sake of not getting banned for nothing.



b4k4^2

 

Here's my solution on the matter: How about no one be allowed to marry? No one needs to be married in order to be in love, so instead of denying the right to a certain group of people, why not deny it to everyone, and get rid of marriage all together?