We are Democrats .. and we're against gay marriage

[Vi-Jay 218]

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification.

and Bingo 3

This is what Mr. Dekoven is after, Marriage and Civil Rights doing a 69.

[Zero Sum 305]

Well, it's silly to argue "marriage" in regards to anything on a National level. Marriage is an institution of the state, not an institution of the Federal Government.

The only time Marriage becomes an issue on the Federal level is when it comes to taxes. That can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on where you are financially (see: marriage tax penalty). However the difference usually isn't enough to fuss over really. It's all relative to the situation you're in though. Personally I don't think the tax code should change if you're married or not. All that should matter is whether or not you are combining incomes/taxes together or filing separately. Your 'social status' should not have an effect on what you pay/not pay. It's silly really.

Outside of that, on arguing the "civil rights" side of things, it has to be looked at like this. If Person A and Person B can go down to a GOVERNMENT office and file a piece of paper that entitles them to extra benefits for being together, then Person A and another Person A should be able to do the same. Whether it's called "marriage" or not is left up to debate. Personally, a lot of issues would be solved if you called all of them "Civil Contracts" instead. Essentially that's what they are to begin with. The religious types can keep "marriage" for themselves and get "married" in a church, but if the government is to recognize if, then they need to make sure that if "marriage" is not available, then a type of contract is available that entitles ALL couples to EQUAL BENEFITS (and penalties) under the law.

Hot damn Paul... I agree. Well said.

[Zero Sum 305]

If marriage is a basic right, it's protected under the Constitution. As such, this is a federal issue. Which is why the SCOTUS will eventually rule on this and put the states that feel they can infringe on an individual's basic right into their place.

State of Federal... it really makes little difference. The only one I could rationalize is that there being some states less modern than others, they might try to uphold less modern, discrimination-prone bans. And for this you are right. The Feds definitely must be involved in preserving the rights of all, just like they defend the right of people stuck in the Ozzie and Harriet reruns to drone on about polygamy and animalsex, which have nothing to do with the subject.

[Zero Sum 305]

oh goodness gracious, its you questioning whatever I post again. I dont support homosexuality, period. Whether its bf bf, gf gf, or want to be married. I dont support it. It is what it is. Everyone believes in something and against other things.

What is your foundation for being against that something?

[Zero Sum 305]

Dude, you failing again to stay focused. Marriage being a basic civil right in this country was not an opinion of the SCOTUS but a RULING. Got it?

Paul is kind of right on the function of the SCOTUS. And I commend him for his knowledge of that.

Focus on the discriminatory nature of the laws/bans designed to be discriminatory and you get your home run, that he couldn't disagree with for the sake of his expertise on Constitutional law. Its obvious that also falls into the function of the SCOTUS.

[Zero Sum 305]

I have not claimed that the SCOTUS has that authority. I have claimed only that the SCOTUS has the right to strike down any law that infringes upon an individual's rights granted under the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. You can dislike it all you want and it won't matter a first damn bit.

Exactly.

As I even said earlier, if you want to consider yourself 'married,' then go right on ahead.

A STATE however does not have to offer any type of marriage/civil contract.

At the end of the day, marriage is an 'individual' institution, not a government one. It only becomes a government one when there are laws regarding such a thing.

Actually, if you want to get technical on what you just said, then the state cannot offer any type of contract in regards to marriage, because at that point your 'right' is being controlled by the state and not you.

Hence, government shall make no laws/bans infringing upon the individual's right/decision to marry. Such an infringement would be a violation of a civil right.

They better act quick because thanks to the Obama fail many State legislatures went Red and even more states will be moving towards heading off gay marriage.

In nearly every case... when the people choose they say HELL NO to **-marriage.

I't one thing for the Scotus to override VA, I rather doubt they will try to override the majority of states on an issue that has no simple principle.. such as "Where do we draw the line about what constitutes a marriage".

Don't worry, the brief emotional outburst that is the homophobic branch of the Tea Party won't do that much more damage to the modernization of the nation once people stop sodomizing themselves with their own heads.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul is kind of right on the function of the SCOTUS. And I commend him for his knowledge of that.

Focus on the discriminatory nature of the laws/bans designed to be discriminatory and you get your home run, that he couldn't disagree with for the sake of his expertise on Constitutional law. Its obvious that also falls into the function of the SCOTUS.

Which is what I told him in almost every one of my posts.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Which is what I told him in almost every one of my posts.

And which I have not disputed once. What I did dispute and continue to dispute is your patently false claim that marriage is not a basic right under the Constitution. It most certainly is. The SCOTUS has made that clear more than once.

[Zero Sum 305]

I agree with Big Dog on that about marriage- especially when you couple the discriminatory nature of banning it in very obvious circumstances. You two are arguing the same thing around the same tree. Paul, expand your Lexjuris search a bit more to define marriage for what it currently is: something between two individuals that (hopefully) love each other.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Exactly.

Hence, government shall make no laws/bans infringing upon the individual's right/decision to marry. Such an infringement would be a violation of a civil right.

Well, a 'civil right' is a very loose term at the end of the day. Without any type of Federal Law on the books, it's hardly a 'right' outside the scope of arguing the 9th & 10 amendments. However in that same regard you have to understand that in the argument for 'gay marriage' opponents are going to claim the same nuances that they always do. While they may seem absurd to those who support 'gay marriage' there's still a good chance the SCOTUS will not support it themselves based on the fact at the end of the day, the discriminatory nature is very subjecative to the idea that a homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexual couple. In other words, homosexual couples have to prove a case that there's an inherent societel benefit to them being granted the same ability to marry outside of just 'wanting' to. The opponents will come full force with proof that gay couples are just as like to get divorced, and come also with the studies that show homosexual families raising children shows a liklihood of causing the child to end up with gay tendencies as well... DO NOT take what I'm saying the wrong way, I'm only saying the arguments that are going to come forth and that this isn't a 'shoe in' for the court to rule one way...

Enhough banter... My only point here was that under that premise, then no state can make any laws with regards to that 'right.'

A state cannot require individuals to pass any type of litmus test whatsoever if they wish to be married if it's an actual 'right' to do so.

Of course, the problem with society today is we regard 'rights' in whatever is the popular movement at whatever point in time we are. Today's it's 'gay marriage' tomorrow it's maybe something like the 4th amendment. It's all about the times and what the pressing issue is. As was states earlier, civil rights changes over time, as do all things in government.

[Zero Sum 305]

"homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexual couple"

For the purpose (beyond the religion-defined purpose) of marriage, they indeed are the same.

Its only time that society moves beyond its prejudices. Which are discriminatory.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

"homosexual couple is the same as a heterosexual couple"

For the purpose (beyond the religion-defined purpose) of marriage, they indeed are the same.

Its only time that society moves beyond its prejudices. Which are discriminatory.

and that's your opinion. That's my point though. You have to prove that they are the same in court. You have to prove that it's somehow discriminatory based on the needs of society as well. Marriage enables 'family' and you have to argue against counter-arguments of why it should be treated the same as heterosexual couples.

We can agree all day long that couples are couples, but in the eyes of the government, it takes a certain burden of proof against those argue on the other side.

[Zero Sum 305]

and that's your opinion. That's my point though. You have to prove that they are the same in court. You have to prove that it's somehow discriminatory based on the needs of society as well. Marriage enables 'family' and you have to argue against counter-arguments of why it should be treated the same as heterosexual couples.

We can agree all day long that couples are couples, but in the eyes of the government, it takes a certain burden of proof against those argue on the other side.

I thought you defined marriage as an individual covenant. The only thing society would have to play in that is in tolerating it or not. Hence the current scenario where bigots discriminate using popularity as a tool to do so.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I thought you defined marriage as an individual covenant. The only thing society would have to play in that is in tolerating it or not. Hence the current scenario where bigots discriminate using popularity as a tool to do so.

I didn't define it at all. I only argued the basis of what others were saying in regards to legal status.

If marriage is a strict individual 'right' then can government prevent brothers and sisters, first cousins, etc from marrying?

The problem with 'rights' advocacy, is that people always want to define it by their own standards.

[Zero Sum 305]

I didn't define it at all. I only argued the basis of what others were saying in regards to legal status.

If marriage is a strict individual 'right' then can government prevent brothers and sisters, first cousins, etc from marrying?

The problem with 'rights' advocacy, is that people always want to define it by their own standards.

I understand what you're saying, particularly the restrictions placed on the institution by societal constraint. We can still avoid the predictable slippery slope arguments of siblings, animals, groups, etc, by being rational about what marriage means. And these don't for different reasons not in the realm of personal opinion (for the most part).