Can you be anti-gay marriage

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

i'm waiting for polygamy to be legal so i can be mc's other husband

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The slippery slope is a legitimate concern, because, whether you are aware of it or not, there are arguments before the courts demanding marriage rights for other groups, and, in time, the barriers that gays are trying to break will also break for them too.

The key word being "in time".

As I said, it shouldn't be assumed that societies are static.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The key word being "in time".

As I said, it shouldn't be assumed that societies are static.

It also shouldn't be assumed that court rulings are controlling. Courts tend to be incremental and specific about making change. That's why there is court case after court case trying to create any particular circumstance in law. Also true is that courts can only rule; they cannot enforce their rulings. It is up to the executive branches on the city, county, state and federal levels to apply enforce them (or not), which they do according to budget, temperment, and with varying strengths of political will.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/usa.htm

The thing that most do not understand is how the SCOTUS could, in 1986, regard sodomy as unconstitutional, then, in 2003, determine it to be constitutional. States have and do resist such rulings, even now, without penalty, due to the capricious nature of the Court. The military, a fundamental branch of government, ironically charged with aggressive defending our interests and values, defies the Court and is not challenged in any substantive way for doing so.

From what I understand, the court recognizes that military and civilian society follow separate rules and conventions that are mutually exclusive. So the military is not "defying the court", rather it would require a broader SCOTUS ruling to take away the military's "specialized" status.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

From what I understand, the court recognizes that military and civilian society follow separate rules and conventions that are mutually exclusive. So the military is not "defying the court", rather it would require a broader SCOTUS ruling to take away the military's "specialized" status.

SCOTUS cannot take away the military's special status, but the President, as commander in chief, can modify its allowance. The current reconsideration of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, put in place during the Clinton administration, is an example of how the whims of the day can be applied to the armed services.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Another caveat re special cases is the reservation system for federally recognized Indian tribes. The application of federal law and consitutional protections are not the same as what the courts can apply on the rest of the population due to the quasi-sovereign nature of those tribes.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

REPOST

U.S. Supreme Court

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)

Bowers v. Hardwick

No. 85-140

Argued March 31, 1986

Decided June 30, 1986

478 U.S. 186

Syllabus

After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.

Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-196.

(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 478 U. S. 190-191.

(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 478 U. S. 191-194.

© There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 478 U. S. 194-195.

(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, distinguished. Pp. 478 U. S. 195-196.

(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 478 U. S. 196.

760 F.2d 1202, reversed.

Page 478 U. S. 187

Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/186/index.html

This is currently legal precedent.

No, it is not. Your superior analytical skills and intellectual capacity just happened to fail you again. As was pointed out earlier, the 1986 ruling you claim to be "current legal precedent" is no such thing. Lawrence vs. Texas specifically overturned the above decision in 2003. The court found that "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

Edited March 5, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Staashi 371]

I'm pro gay marriage. If anyone wants to join my bliss (or lack there of) then so be it. Furthermore, communities could make a lot of money off of licensing fees for marriages. It would be an excellent revenue source.

[mawilson 2,133]

Embracing Homosexuality is merely a symptom of a declining culture, again take note of those who embrace it and compare their birthrate.

Let's do that.

List of Countries By Birth Rate

United States: 14.0

South Africa: 22.3

Nepal: 23.18

Norway: 12.0

Sweden: 11.3

[mawilson 2,133]

It baffles me how people can believe that "climate change" can destroy a society, but willfully weakening family structures can't.

Climate change destroys the planet, not "society".

Our planet could lose a few billion people and "weakening the family structure" is a good start.

Most of the blame for overpopulation falls on religion, which is responsible for most of the

ignorance in the world. Say what you like, but gays are still widely discriminated against

*primarily* because of religion. Religious faith is ignorance, and planet earth has a long way

to go before the intellect triumphs over the hogwash of religion.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Religious faith is ignorance, and planet earth has a long way to go before the intellect triumphs over the hogwash of religion.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No, it is not. Your superior analytical skills and intellectual capacity just happened to fail you again. As was pointed out earlier, the 1986 ruling you claim to be "current legal precedent" is no such thing. Lawrence vs. Texas specifically overturned the above decision in 2003. The court found that "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

Don't you wonder about the analytical skills and intellectual capacity of the SCOTUS members, who, in one decade, determine this privacy issue one way, then another way in another decade? Are they about following perceived trends or crushing precedent in favor of political pressures, as I heve noted before? This doesn't bode well for your side either.

My analytical skills and intellectual capacity are fine and dandy, thank you. I got my info from a SCOTUS source, rather than Wikipedia, so I find it interesting that it cited Bowers as currently controlling re gay marriage. Gay civil rights isn't my forte, so I'll be looking more into why that is the info given.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm sure your work as a legal secretary is interesting VW, but you do know that merely pushing the papers around doesn't make you a lawyer?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm sure your work as a legal secretary is interesting VW, but you do know that merely pushing the papers around doesn't make you a lawyer?

Hey, my dental hygienist thinks she's a dentist. It's a common problem.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Embracing Homosexuality is merely a symptom of a declining culture, again take not of those who embrace it and compare their birthrate.

Let's do that.

List of Countries By Birth Rate

United States: 14.0

South Africa: 22.3

Nepal: 23.18

Norway: 12.0

Sweden: 11.3

mawilson: 1

Danno: 0

Danno just doesn't know how not to fail.