NationStates Jolt Archive

And I can quote leading scholars who think the opposite. Or I could quote Paul, who said nothing of the sort you're implying.

"1 Cor 7:5-9

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman...Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency...7:7 or I WOULD THAT ALL MEN WERE EVEN AS MYSELF. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I, But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

read your own holy book.

Well, you certainly didn't answer my question, did you?

If you believe that God went through the trouble of pushing every Scripture writer's hand - don't you think God would have made sure that everything important was included in the Bible?
"It's obviously too much to expect that a Bronze Age demagogue should have remembered to condemn drug abuse, drunken driving, or offenses against gender equality, or to demand prayer in the schools. Still, to have left rape and child abuse and genocide and slavery out of the account is to have been negligent to some degree, even by the lax standards of the time."
-By Christopher Hitchens

Men and women are the same mentally? Clearly, you have no understanding of psychology. Hormones are chemical things that affect thought processes, humans are biologically predisposed to differing on sexual lines.

Read Timothy. Women are not allowed to be in positions of spiritual authority over men. Women were put here to serve God, men were put here to serve God. They just do so differently.


If women have a different neurological make-up to men, how does it follow that men have a greater political, moral and spiritual position than them?

Man, I really hope that the Rapture comes soon. Then every single Christian (and, hopefully, every other religious person) can be whisked away to heaven, where they can gain eternal happiness. Leaving the earth for us secularists, who do not have to put up with their self-righteous, antiquated beliefs. Everybody wins!

Allow civil unions. I couldn't care less about that.

However, they're not taking my religious traditions and making them sacrilege by marrying.

yeah, because for millenia the men in europe who traded their daughter to a men she'd never met for a goat or two were doing a holy thing. marriage is such a sacred institution...

ADDENDUM:
you know, I do understand the concept of duality and why the union of it is holy. The melding of both sexes into a holy androgyny is a holy thing and all cultures have allways understood that. That's why most of them thought androgynously gay men and women were holy, until the advent of patriarchal, politically motivated religions. *sigh*

From the proposed Amendment recently before Congress (the language of which can be reasonably assumed to parallel the language in other such acts at state levels):

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and
a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall
be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be
conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

OK, so, this eliminates homosexual marriage and civil unions as options.

HOWEVER, we have this wonderful little passage from the Bill of Rights:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."

So, what we have here, is what philsophers would call a logical inconsistency and lawyers will call a problem. The only way to keep BOTH statements without creating a Constitutional contradiction is for the Supreme Court to rule that government CAN NOT endorse or regulate marriage. No government sanctioned marriage at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

It's either that, or all those "protection of marriage" acts are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It's the ultimate act of equality: If homosexuals can't have equal protection under the law for engaging in relationships, neither can anyone else. Problem solved! Everyone files taxes separately, there's no "spousal" privilege anymore, and the government isn't put into the position of endorsing a religious institution. Yay!

From the proposed Amendment recently before Congress (the language of which can be reasonably assumed to parallel the language in other such acts at state levels):

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and
a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall
be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be
conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

OK, so, this eliminates homosexual marriage and civil unions as options.

HOWEVER, we have this wonderful little passage from the Bill of Rights:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."

So, what we have here, is what philsophers would call a logical inconsistency and lawyers will call a problem. The only way to keep BOTH statements without creating a Constitutional contradiction is for the Supreme Court to rule that government CAN NOT endorse or regulate marriage. No government sanctioned marriage at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

It's either that, or all those "protection of marriage" acts are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It's the ultimate act of equality: If homosexuals can't have equal protection under the law for engaging in relationships, neither can anyone else. Problem solved! Everyone files taxes separately, there's no "spousal" privilege anymore, and the government isn't put into the position of endorsing a religious institution. Yay!
total agreement. the US government should not have any place in marriage at all, straight or gay.

It's the ultimate act of equality: If homosexuals can't have equal protection under the law for engaging in relationships, neither can anyone else. Problem solved! Everyone files taxes separately, there's no "spousal" privilege anymore, and the government isn't put into the position of endorsing a religious institution. Yay!

if that happened they'd yell at the gay people for ruining their marriage rights by existing.

From the proposed Amendment recently before Congress (the language of which can be reasonably assumed to parallel the language in other such acts at state levels):

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and
a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall
be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be
conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

OK, so, this eliminates homosexual marriage and civil unions as options.

HOWEVER, we have this wonderful little passage from the Bill of Rights:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws."

So, what we have here, is what philsophers would call a logical inconsistency and lawyers will call a problem. The only way to keep BOTH statements without creating a Constitutional contradiction is for the Supreme Court to rule that government CAN NOT endorse or regulate marriage. No government sanctioned marriage at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nada.

It's either that, or all those "protection of marriage" acts are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It's the ultimate act of equality: If homosexuals can't have equal protection under the law for engaging in relationships, neither can anyone else. Problem solved! Everyone files taxes separately, there's no "spousal" privilege anymore, and the government isn't put into the position of endorsing a religious institution. Yay!
That would work. But it's not just tax. It's various other rights aswell, such as adoption or inheritance and others.

I know lesbians can have kids, but gays CANT. Atleast, not biological children.

So, by your logic, straight couples that cannot procreate due to biological difficulty, or who choose not to have children, should not be allowed to marry as well.

So much for the party of individual freedoms.

if that happened they'd yell at the gay people for ruining their marriage rights by existing.
so? they're doing that anyway. the idiots are free to bitch as much as they please, so long as all persons are held equal under the law.

So, by your logic, straight couples that cannot procreate due to biological difficulty, or who choose not to have children, should not be allowed to marry as well.

So much for the party of individual freedoms.
also, if child-bearing is the criterion we use to assign marital rights then my (hetero) marriage would be outlawed, because i don't intend to ever have kids. what a lovely and holy thing marriage is: nothing to do with love, commitment, or the actual relationship between the participants, just a contract to breed!

so? they're doing that anyway. the idiots are free to bitch as much as they please, so long as all persons are held equal under the law.

yeah, I was joking.

also, if child-bearing is the criterion we use to assign marital rights then my (hetero) marriage would be outlawed, because i don't intend to ever have kids. what a lovely and holy thing marriage is: nothing to do with love, commitment, or the actual relationship between the participants, just a contract to breed!

you know there are millions of orphaned children in this world that for all their "family values" christians continue to leave out on the streets. what's the single greatest way to take care of homeless children? GAY MARRIAGE. we don't have kids because we're for improving the society we allready have, not starting new ones.

We should not ban GAY marriage. To do so would be to appease TERRORISM, since banning GAY marriage is what GOD wants, and GOD is a TERRORIST.

Don't BELIEVE me? Let's HEAR the big man speak for HIMSELF - 'if you fail to keep all these commandments, I shall bring upon you sudden TERROR (!), wasting DISEASE [clearly a reference to NUCLEAR fallout], recurring FEVER and PLAGUES that dim the sight and cause the appetite to fail [clearly a reference to biological weapons]. I shall make the sky above you like iron, the earth beneath you like bronze. Your land will not yield its produce, nor the trees in it their fruit [again, a clear reference to land rendered infertile by NUCLEAR WAR]. I shall HERD you into your CITIES, where I shall send PESTILENCE among you [man, this guy does not fuck around!]. I shall demolish your SHRINES [and what was the WTC if not a SHRINE to CAPITALISM?], I will make your cities DESOLATE, your lands will be DESERT and your cities heaps of RUBBLE [does this remind anyone of a certain American City, around three years ago? Hint - starts with 'N', ends in 'ew York?]'. (leviticus, 26 - 27)

um...yeah...god's a nice guy. does that scripture remind you of any OTHER cities? like...thousands of them over the last 6000 years? *gasp* he's OBVIOUSLY talking about the one that matters deeply to US!

if that happened they'd yell at the gay people for ruining their marriage rights by existing.

OK, so, by your logic, marriage is a RIGHT. Under the US Constitution, the government cannot abridge the rights of one group by granting rights selectively. This is why we had a Civil Rights movement, why we have a Bill of Rights. By government selectively giving out rewards for encouraging one form of social/religious institution over another, it is violating the basic natural rights of groups that don't practice it. Your logic, is then, circular. Either all people can have these rights or none can - all other answers violate the principle of the Bill of Rights.

total agreement. the US government should not have any place in marriage at all, straight or gay.

There are compelling reasons for the government to recognize a union, what they call it is besides the point.

Oh, wait, I think we've had this discussion before ::head explodey:: =)

yeah, because for millenia the men in europe who traded their daughter to a men she'd never met for a goat or two were doing a holy thing. marriage is such a sacred institution...

According to Arammanar, that was just the daughter paying the father back for raising her and all that. Perfectly sensible.

it is rather hard to define, but it is kind of like putting the batteries in your flashlight backwards to evene suggest gay "marriage";If a group of people tried to ban putting batteries backwards in flashlights I would think they were off their rockers. Depending on the flashlight it might even still work.
civil unions are fine, but marriage is between you and your god.The word does have secular meanings...



a question...

how would anyone here feel if they were told they could not marry the person they love because its not the norm?
I'd be outraged! How dare you prevent me from marrying my 8 year old daughter!Not because it's not the norm; but rather because 8-year-olds do not have the necessary mental machinery to be competant to make such decisions. Contracts with 8-year-olds are not necessarily binding for the same reason.

My religion permits me to eat the flesh of other people's dead relatives. How dare you interfere with my dietary laws.For better or worse, people have the right to dictate to some extend what happens to their bodies after death. But so long as the dead relative gave permission, I don't see what business it is of the government to interfere.

Genocide-I don't think anyone would sweat too many tears if we wiped out every single Nazi.I would, and I'm no fan of Nazis. Not all Nazis deserve death, and in any event they should be given due process now that it's practial to do so.

We should not ban GAY marriage. To do so would be to appease TERRORISM, since banning GAY marriage is what GOD wants, and GOD is a TERRORIST.Quality troll, bravo!

OK, so, by your logic, marriage is a RIGHT. Under the US Constitution, the government cannot abridge the rights of one group by granting rights selectively. This is why we had a Civil Rights movement, why we have a Bill of Rights. By government selectively giving out rewards for encouraging one form of social/religious institution over another, it is violating the basic natural rights of groups that don't practice it. Your logic, is then, circular. Either all people can have these rights or none can - all other answers violate the principle of the Bill of Rights.

is circular logic a bad thing? I'm gay, I support gay marriage (duh), and I was making a sardonic comment, I didn't mean much anything by it except to take away the other marriage provisions from straight people would be stupid, so the better solution is to give it to GLBT people.

Not every issue requires that we take a stand on. Gay marraige is not a huge issue if only 10% of the people are affected.
Interestingly enough, during the 60s 10% of the population was black in the U.S.
Go figure.

Hello. New poster here at NationStates. I have a few comments I'd like to voice regarding one of the earlier posts, and then I'll be happy to submit to the local hazing process, haha.

--------------------
Originally posted by Biff Pileon:
It is a "non-issue" for me. If ANYONE gets married it does not affect my life one bit. However, I am against ANY government trying to legislate morality. So for those who think I am some rabid Bush supporter....I disagree wholeheartedly with this and ANY other program that tries to legislate morality.

This position is a bit too close to Stephen A. Douglas's argument in favor of strict popular sovereignty, isn't it? I agree that government ought not to "legislate morality"; however, I also believe that within its orbit of power lies the ability to secure the natural right principles upon which the regime is founded. If popular sovereignty can be used to decide the issue of something as crucial as "gay marriage," then it can also be used to decide (or re-decide) such issues as slavery or anything else that hinges on morality.

Douglas argued that man has the power to choose between right and wrong; therefore, in a politically free regime, the citizens -- through popular sovereignty -- must be allowed to determine the morality of the body politic. In his opinion, anything less would be a violation against the principles of political liberty.

To quote Harry Jaffa: "Lincoln, however, insisted that the case for popular government depended upon a standard of right and wrong independent of mere opinion and one which was not justified merely by the counting of heads." [emphasis is my own]

I tend to agree with both Jaffa and Lincoln. We do little service to our country and to ourselves if, upon the issue of every moral dilemma, we simply throw caution to the wind. In my opinion, this might be one of the quickest paths to ensuring a tyrannical regime.
--------------------

Regarding the subject of this thread, I don't see how prohibiting "gay marriage" is unconstitutional. Many of the pro-homosexual arguments I read are ones I've seen before, e.g., it offers orphaned children an alternative to life in an orphanage, etc. But I'm not convinced that such peripheral benefits are enough to legalize something as counterproductive as "gay marriage." I once read a Calvin & Hobbes comic wherein Calvin asked Ms. Wormwood if cannibalism could be considered legitimate to the extent that it was less wasteful than burying bodies. The obvious joke here is that some "solutions" aren't really all that helpful inasmuch as their undesirable elements outweigh whatever problems they purportedly fix. Defending "gay marriage" therefore simply because it might offer orphans an alternative -- and not necessarily a better one -- to life in an orphanage doesn't hold much water with me.



Flaming to commence in 5… 4… 3… 2… Now. =D

I've stopped rebelling against homosexuals. In the end, I still think it's stupid and gross and un-christain, but shouting out against it only makes it worse. In fact, gay people really didn't affect my life, so I don't give a shit now.

It's like stirring an ant pile. Stirring it more makes em' pissed off more......Don't stir it, leave it alone, and go about you business. It's only when they get into MY life and start pissing me off because I'm strait and I feel happy being strait. Then, only thing we'd need is a 'ant killer'.

Regarding the subject of this thread, I don't see how prohibiting "gay marriage" is unconstitutional.

Most of the discussion fell to the fact that a law from one state which prohibits recognizing the marriage of another is unconstitutional. This is clearly so based on Article IV of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

As for why prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional, one must simply go to the 14th Amendment. If laws are to be made that provide certain rights, responsibilities, and priviledges, said laws cannot discriminate against any class of citizens without due process of the law. It has been upheld that discrimination based on race, creed, color, or sex (under which sexual orientation falls) is unconstitution unless the level of government passing such law can provide a damn good reason why it should be allowed to discriminate. I have yet to see such a reason put forth yet.

The obvious joke here is that some "solutions" aren't really all that helpful inasmuch as their undesirable elements outweigh whatever problems they purportedly fix.

Point out a single viable "undersirable element" of gay marriage that doesn't involve "my God said so" or "I think it's icky," and I'll give your argument consideration. However, unless you've got something other than the scientifically disproven arguments I've seen several times before, you are unlikely to find a true reason here.

Defending "gay marriage" therefore simply because it might offer orphans an alternative -- and not necessarily a better one -- to life in an orphanage doesn't hold much water with me.

You are kidding right? Life in an orphanage is better than living with people who want, love, and care for the child. What planet are you from?

I'm strait and I feel happy being strait.

and i'm happy being fjord.

fun with homonyms! oops, wait, can't have fun with homonyms, only heteronyms, because homonyms make baby Jesus cry...

This is for the homophobic bible thumping Christian conservatives who say "God says homosexuals are evil", "They are living in sin", etc.

Luke 6:37-42

[37] "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. [38] Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

[39] He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? [40] A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

[41] "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? [42] How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I'm a Christian, raised Presbyterian, and I'm heterosexual for the record. It pains me to see what other Christians are doing to make the lives of others more difficult. Do gay marriages really have any bearing on your lives at all? Why does it matter to you so much that homosexuals just want to be treated equally? As Christians aren't we supposed to show compassion to others rather than pure hatred? Homosexuality may be an abomination in the eyes of God, but it is not for us to decide. God will sort it all out when the time comes. Until then I suggest that those of you who call yourselves Christians, yet promote hate, to worry about your own sins. To God sin is sin, whether it be from homosexuality or from the little white lies one tells.

This is for the homophobic bible thumping Christian conservatives who say "God says homosexuals are evil", "They are living in sin", etc.

Luke 6:37-42

[37] "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. [38] Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

[39] He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? [40] A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

[41] "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? [42] How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

I'm a Christian, raised Presbyterian, and I'm heterosexual for the record. It pains me to see what other Christians are doing to make the lives of others more difficult. Do gay marriages really have any bearing on your lives at all? Why does it matter to you so much that homosexuals just want to be treated equally? As Christians aren't we supposed to show compassion to others rather than pure hatred? Homosexuality may be an abomination in the eyes of God, but it is not for us to decide. God will sort it all out when the time comes. Until then I suggest that those of you who call yourselves Christians, yet promote hate, to worry about your own sins. To God sin is sin, whether it be from homosexuality or from the little white lies one tells.
You've got my support on this. At last a religious statement that is not totally condemning homosexuality and actually takes the 10 commandments and other fundamental laws of society serious and considers them more important than the hatespeech most other "christians" spread. I can live with religious people like you who do not try to oppress others with the help of the bible. "Live and let live" is a wonderful ideal to follow :) *applaud*

First of all, I'd just like to note that everyone who posts in support of gay marriage with a disclaimer that they, personally, are not gay is not really as tolerant as they could be. Unless you're trying to use this site for internet dating, someone else's guess about your sexuality is irrelevant.

Next, I'd like to try to get some of the religion out of the debate. There's no religion involved in marriage law. It happens that most people choose to enter into the contract of marriage in a religious building, but that's irrelevant.
Getting legally married is people entering into a contract wherein they receive some legal rights pertaining to each other (and they may lose other rights and gain some responsibilities). Nothing more.

If you really must debate with religion, let me state that I'm pretty sure that God didn't condemn legal gay marriage. He may have condemned homosexuality, or sodomy, or some related topics (these are debatable). However, I'm pretty sure He didn't say unto us, "And no man shall have the right to see another man in a hospital" or "no two women shall file their taxes jointly."

If you want marriage to remain holy in the eyes of God, set church law. As it is, I don't imagine it would take too much searching to find a priest/minister/person-of-the-cloth (I don't know exactly which Christians are allowed to join people in Matrimony) who is willing to hold a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple whether they have a marriage license or not. Outlawing same-sex marriage will not change this, and God will still be just as Pissed. On the other hand, if the government allowed anyone to marry and the Christian Church didn't allow same-sex couples to have a Christian marriage ceremony, everyone would be happy (except the Christian homosexuals who are annoyed at the Church law, but they could probably find a more tolerant sect).

First of all, I'd just like to note that everyone who posts in support of gay marriage with a disclaimer that they, personally, are not gay is not really as tolerant as they could be. Unless you're trying to use this site for internet dating, someone else's guess about your sexuality is irrelevant.That's a really, really good point. Whenever someone says this, they're furthering the idea that being gay is bad, and that they personally would never stoop so low.

On a side note, this site is a pretty great place for internet dating. :D

That's a really, really good point. Whenever someone says this, they're furthering the idea that being gay is bad, and that they personally would never stoop so low.

On a side note, this site is a pretty great place for internet dating. :D
I didnt get the impression that being gay was bad. I got the impression that, not being gay, he was expressing his support for gay marriage.
Sort of the "not all straights are bad" kinda thing

I didnt get the impression that being gay was bad. I got the impression that, not being gay, he was expressing his support for gay marriage.
Sort of the "not all straights are bad" kinda thing
Yeah--that's about where I come down on it too.

10 pages in 3 hours

10 pages in 3 hours
See what happens when I go to work? I miss out on all this. :D

Sort of the "not all straights are bad" kinda thingNot when it becomes a constant, it sounds more negative than positive. I mean... you're either trying to make your argument more valid because of your sexual preference, or you're unintentionally undermining your argument with that statement.

See what happens when I go to work? I miss out on all this. :D
i would read it all, but there are more new pages now than total pages when i left

And I never said that. What I said was that if Nebraska gives a certain legal document (driver's license or marriage), Georgia (which also gives a driver's license or marriage) is Constitutionally required to recognize that Nebraska has given said document and give that person the rights and priviledges that Georgia places on it.

Granted, that is correct. States agree the fact that a person is qualified to drive regardless of which state they've learned in. That's a universal issue.

And the Constitution, Article IV, gives the United States the power to enforce the idea that one State must recognize the legal proceedings and documents of another State. There is no contradiction here. This Amendment does not say "And we do away with Article IV of the Constitution." It is an addition, and does not take away the Constitutionally-granted right of the US to make one state recognize the legal documents and proceedings of another.

However, Article IV does say that the state of Maine has to abide by something the state of Oregon has done, if it is a legal document or proceeding. And Article IV outlines the powers given to the Federal Government. Thus, you must interpret Amendment 10 in light of all of the powers designated to the federal government by the Constitution. This is clearly one of them.

This is where the ground gets shaky. While you are quoting from Article IV, you are missing the point behind the rationale for the 10th Amendment. If you'll recall, the Amendments to the Constitution were written as an addendum to the Constitution itself. The 10th Amendment was written after Article IV, meaning the creators were thinking that this issue needed further clarification.

Basically, this is where the debate breaks down. While Article IV states that each state must recognize the legal proceedings of other states, it also states that this is enforceable by the federal government. So in issues that are federal matters, the states must abide by decisions made by other states.

However, the 10th Amendment specifically states that issues that are not already decided by the federal government are left up to the states to decide. Article IV addresses universal standards that are enforceable by the feds. That leaves each individual state broad powers to make and interpret their own laws. Which means that in matters, such as marriage, that are not federally enforceable, each individual state has the right to interpret their own legal guidelines.

The state of Oregon opened up their adoption files several years ago. A resident of West Virginia that was adopted in Oregon can therefore follow Oregon law to receive their original birth certificate. However, this same resident can not go to California and say that since Oregon has done it they need to abide by the same legal ruling. This issue is not federally enforceable and therefore does not fall under Article IV of the Constitution. Rather, it falls under the 10th Amendment, which allows that each state has the right to make and follow their own laws that haven't already been dictated by the federal government. Do you see the difference between Article IV and the 10th Amendment with that example?

This is not applicable. In your own example, Georgia initially recognizes the right of a Nebraskan to drive. When they break the GA driving law, however, such priviledges are revoked and the person is punished, just as they would be for a GA citizen.

To apply this to marriage, suppose GA had a law that said your marriage was annulled if you beat your spouse up. Initially, GA would recognize a marriage from Nebraska. However, once one spouse beat the other up, the marriage would be terminated.

The marriage laws of a given state refer to whom that state will issue a marriage license to. The Constitution says nothing about marriage laws directly, so the states have the power to determine this. The states do not have the power (since it was given to the federal government in Article IV) to determine under what conditions they will accept a legal document from another state. Thus, a state does not have to issue a gay marriage license (yet), but if a Mass couple were in GA, GA would be Constitutionally required to recognize the marriage of said couple.

Ah, but see, the federal government is not involved in marriage. Therefore, this is not an issue for Article IV, but rather the 10th Amendment. This is a state right and not a federal issue. Therefore, it is left up to each individual state to define and enforce their individual rules.

Driving may not be the best example. Perhaps issuing medical licenses is a better example:

Article IV issue: A student attends medical school in at the University of Virginia. The federal guidelines state that the state of Ohio must accept the training of this student from the University of Virginia, even if Ohio doesn't want to. Because there are federal guidelines in place for this, Ohio doesn't have a choice in this matter.

10th Amendment issue: The same student has graduated medical school and has been certified to practice medicine in the state of Virginia. The doctor now moves to Ohio and wishes to open practice here. While Ohio has no choice to accept the training offered the student by the University of Virginia (which is an incredible school so no offense here), they do have the right to require this person to pass an exam to receive a license to practice medicine within their state. The federal government has left this issue to the states to decide and therefore, Ohio does not have to follow the legal document issued by the state of Virginia allowing that person to practice medicine within the confines of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

By that same token, the Commonwealth of Virginia has every right to chose not to revoke medical privileges to a doctor with a license to practice there, even if Ohio has revoked said doctor's medical privileges. The ruling in Ohio has no legal persuasion upon Virginia's decision.

Your problem, however, is that you are not interpreting the 10th Amendment in light of the powers already granted to the federal government. It refers only to powers not already granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution grants the federal government the power to force states to recognize each other's legal documents and proceedings and gives the US Congress (not the individual states) the power to determine how such documents will be proved.

Granted all of that. But what I think you're missing is the fact that Article IV only applies to said laws that are not left solely to individual states to interpret. Therefore, I think you're missing the importance of what powers the 10th Amendment grants states.

On a side note, I'm royally enjoying this debate and the cordial nature of it all. Despite how ugly the rest of this thread has become.

i would read it all, but there are more new pages now than total pages when i left
I don't even bother--it's been my experience that there's rarely anything new added. It's generally the case that it's just the same arguments recycled over and over again.

Granted, that is correct. States agree the fact that a person is qualified to drive regardless of which state they've learned in. That's a universal issue.

Marriage is pretty much a universal issue as well. The states have agreed that marriage licenses from one state are just as valid as another's. And the federal government has agreed (up until recently) to recognize said marriages for its purposes, regardless of what state they come from.

This is where the ground gets shaky. While you are quoting from Article IV, you are missing the point behind the rationale for the 10th Amendment. If you'll recall, the Amendments to the Constitution were written as an addendum to the Constitution itself. The 10th Amendment was written after Article IV, meaning the creators were thinking that this issue needed further clarification.

The creators were worried that the states wouldn't sign anything that didn't limit the power of the federal government in a specific way. However, it does say "those powers not already given to the US." One of the specific powers was to enforce that legal proceedings and documents be recognized between states. I don't see how this is a contradiction?

Basically, this is where the debate breaks down. While Article IV states that each state must recognize the legal proceedings of other states, it also states that this is enforceable by the federal government. So in issues that are federal matters, the states must abide by decisions made by other states.

However, the 10th Amendment specifically states that issues that are not already decided by the federal government are left up to the states to decide. Article IV addresses universal standards that are enforceable by the feds. That leaves each individual state broad powers to make and interpret their own laws. Which means that in matters, such as marriage, that are not federally enforceable, each individual state has the right to interpret their own legal guidelines.

Actually, marriage is federally enforcable - and there are federal laws pertaining to marriage. Otherwise the whole (unconstitutional) "DOMA" wouldn't have been needed in the first place. The exact definition of what rights and priviledges each state will provide marriage is up to the state, as is which persons the state will give a license to. However, the states agreed when they signed the Constitution to acknowledge the marriages performed in another state. Part of that was the whole reason they made Utah outlaw polygamy - the states didn't want to have to recognize polygamous marriages ((never mind that the fact that the two are essentially two different institutions didn't really enter their minds)).

The state of Oregon opened up their adoption files several years ago. A resident of West Virginia that was adopted in Oregon can therefore follow Oregon law to receive their original birth certificate. However, this same resident can not go to California and say that since Oregon has done it they need to abide by the same legal ruling.

True. This is an Oregon law, and thus only applies to birth certificates given by Oregon. However, the birth certificate itself would be accepted as proof of birth in California, would it not?

This issue is not federally enforceable and therefore does not fall under Article IV of the Constitution. Rather, it falls under the 10th Amendment, which allows that each state has the right to make and follow their own laws that haven't already been dictated by the federal government. Do you see the difference between Article IV and the 10th Amendment with that example?

It actually makes my point. California does not have to give its birth certificates out based on an Oregon law. However, West Virginia and California have to recognize Oregon birth certificates. ((Giving a brith certificate that has previously been locked to someone and granting it in the first place are not the same thing)).

Ah, but see, the federal government is not involved in marriage. Therefore, this is not an issue for Article IV, but rather the 10th Amendment. This is a state right and not a federal issue. Therefore, it is left up to each individual state to define and enforce their individual rules.

The federal government has laws pertaining to marriage and how it will recognize it - I would say that means that the federal government *is* involved in said marriage. Also, as a legal document provided by all of the 50 states, Article IV still tgive Congress the right to determine what a person has to do to prove to the new state that they are married.

10th Amendment issue: The same student has graduated medical school and has been certified to practice medicine in the state of Virginia. The doctor now moves to Ohio and wishes to open practice here. While Ohio has no choice to accept the training offered the student by the University of Virginia (which is an incredible school so no offense here), they do have the right to require this person to pass an exam to receive a license to practice medicine within their state. The federal government has left this issue to the states to decide and therefore, Ohio does not have to follow the legal document issued by the state of Virginia allowing that person to practice medicine within the confines of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Of course, if the doctor had not moved to Virginia, but was just passing through and someone needed help - said doctor would be allowed to practice medicine based on the fact that he was licensed somewhere.

Just as in the driver's license example, once the person moved to that state permanently, they would have to pass the test for that state.

However, there are no tests (other than blood tests in some states - which have been pretty much ruled to be an invasion of privacy anyways) for marriage licenses. They are given for very different reasons. A marriage license is simply a declaration that two people are to be seen as one entity by the government. If that one entity moves, it is still one entity.

A doctor is licensed for a particular state because being a doctor is something that must be certified - that is, one must *prove* they can do the job. Each state has a compelling interest in making the doctor take their own test, as the test in the other state might not be good enough, may not include the policies that the doctor must know to do their job in the new state, etc.. An equivalent would be a lawyer - a lawyer must be recertified for practice in each state she wants to practice in because the laws are different so each state requires a different test.

However, a marriage license does not enable someone to do a service for another person, nor does it require that the couple learn new laws, it is simply a contract between two people, much like a will. If I write a will in Oregon, it will be enforced even if I move to California.

Granted all of that. But what I think you're missing is the fact that Article IV only applies to said laws that are not left solely to individual states to interpret. Therefore, I think you're missing the importance of what powers the 10th Amendment grants states.

And I think that you are forgetting that the 10th Amendment did not do away with Article IV. Unless the state can show a compelling reason (and I can think of several for every example you have brought up) to refuse to recognize a legal proceeding or document of another state, the federal government has already been given the right to make that state do so.

On a side note, I'm royally enjoying this debate and the cordial nature of it all. Despite how ugly the rest of this thread has become.

I generally try to be cordial - unless someone directly attacks me. Not being cordial kind of defeats the purpose, I think.

Most of the discussion fell to the fact that a law from one state which prohibits recognizing the marriage of another is unconstitutional. This is clearly so based on Article IV of the Constitution, the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Right, but the Constitution was not intended to be a self-destructive document. The articles and clauses of the Constitution can never be unconstitutional and, more important, they cannot violate the principles upon which they were founded and through which the regime guarantees its citizens their natural rights.

For the sake of argument, assume that a state passed a particularly harmful law (it doesn't have to be "gay marriage," it can be anything that conveniently slips below the constitutional radar). It would be unreasonable -- and indeed unconstitutional with regard to the spirit of the law -- to expect the 49 remaining states to accommodate the rogue state's bad law simply because a literal translation of Article IV appears to suggest that they do so.

Remember, the Constitution is merely the written law, which lists some of the details describing the form of the republic. But this written law is based on the theory that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with rights derived from nature and nature’s God. The Declaration of Independence is a living reminder of the political philosophy behind the American regime. If we are to understand America at all, we must come to understand her as our Founding Fathers did. Anything else, in my opinion, is something considerably less.

As for why prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional, one must simply go to the 14th Amendment. If laws are to be made that provide certain rights, responsibilities, and priviledges, said laws cannot discriminate against any class of citizens without due process of the law. It has been upheld that discrimination based on race, creed, color, or sex (under which sexual orientation falls) is unconstitution unless the level of government passing such law can provide a damn good reason why it should be allowed to discriminate. I have yet to see such a reason put forth yet.
Well, yes and no. The Founding Fathers understood our political rights to be derived from nature. Discrimination, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. In fact, a discriminating mind is often necessary. The Founders, as well as Lincoln, argued that as human beings we are entitled to our natural rights, the things with which we are inherently born: life, liberty, property through labor, etc.

Suffrage is also one of those rights because a just government constitutes a social compact: an agreement between rulers and ruled. Why? Because by nature no man is a slave. Human beings are not automatically ruled the same way the queen bee rules her beehive. It is our two singular traits, speech and reason, that separate us from all other animals. We are thus opinionated creatures. Worker bees will never hold a convention to select a different form of government, and they will never revolt. The hive of bees, the pride of lions, the gaggle of geese -- every other pack of animals on this planet will continue to do what it has always done, what it must do by nature. Unlike the beasts, however, the human mind is not predetermined. To quote Jefferson:

The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.
To prevent women, blacks or even homosexuals from voting is to commit a gross violation of their natural rights.

Nevertheless, it is entirely permissible to prevent the passage of laws that contradict the very spirit of the principles which constitute the regime. That is why, for instance, communistic legislation must never be allowed to pollute the fountain of American liberty. The destruction of private property in America will signal the destruction of the regime itself.

Point out a single viable "undersirable element" of gay marriage that doesn't involve "my God said so" or "I think it's icky," and I'll give your argument consideration. However, unless you've got something other than the scientifically disproven arguments I've seen several times before, you are unlikely to find a true reason here.
Well, I’m not particularly religious (although I probably should be!), and while I do find homosexual sex at least somewhat disturbing, my main concern is with the preservation of the family. I have been convinced by Aristotle and the thinkers who followed him (including the Founders) that the family is the first and most important building block of society. While it is entirely possible for a man to father many children through many women, he cannot escape the connection he has to his progeny. But the children are not entirely his; they also belong in part to their mothers -- their individual mothers. The family structure is most immediately a method of establishing equality: one father and one mother, and their children. In a polygamous relationship, there can be no equality. A single husband cannot equally love three wives, nor can a single wife equally love three husbands.

“Gay marriage” is, in my mind, a hollow facade. It is based on the presumption that marriage is “an expression of love.” Marriage is not an expression of love. Love happens all the time. It’s largely why we have orphanages in the first place. I’m not trying to cheapen romance, but it is a fact that it is common. Marriage is supposed to be a contract between two citizens who have agreed to dedicate their lives to the perpetuation and betterment of society. “Gay marriage” has nothing to offer as far as I am able to see.

What is the value of “gay marriage” prior to the establishment of civil society?

What sort of elements does it possess that make it a necessity to human life?

If “gay marriage” is little more than an expression of love, why should we not welcome every other conceivable relationship which meets this standard?

I hate to sound so harsh, but "gay marriage" appears merely to be a convenient vehicle for freeloaders. =\

Right, but the Constitution was not intended to be a self-destructive document. The articles and clauses of the Constitution can never be unconstitutional and, more important, they cannot violate the principles upon which they were founded and through which the regime guarantees its citizens their natural rights.

Uh... I never said they could.

For the sake of argument, assume that a state passed a particularly harmful law (it doesn't have to be "gay marriage," it can be anything that conveniently slips below the constitutional radar). It would be unreasonable -- and indeed unconstitutional with regard to the spirit of the law -- to expect the 49 remaining states to accommodate the rogue state's bad law simply because a literal translation of Article IV appears to suggest that they do so.

I never stated that one state had to recognize the laws of another. I said legal proceedings for which that state has an equivalent must be recognized. All 50 states recognize marriage, therefore marriage applies.

Remember, the Constitution is merely the written law, which lists some of the details describing the form of the republic. But this written law is based on the theory that all men are created equal and that they are endowed with rights derived from nature and nature’s God. The Declaration of Independence is a living reminder of the political philosophy behind the American regime. If we are to understand America at all, we must come to understand her as our Founding Fathers did. Anything else, in my opinion, is something considerably less.

If all people are considered equal, then homosexuals cannot be treated as second class citizens.

Well, yes and no. The Founding Fathers understood our political rights to be derived from nature. Discrimination, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. In fact, a discriminating mind is often necessary.

Discrimination without just cause is a bad thing. There is no just cause here.

Nevertheless, it is entirely permissible to prevent the passage of laws that contradict the very spirit of the principles which constitute the regime. That is why, for instance, communistic legislation must never be allowed to pollute the fountain of American liberty. The destruction of private property in America will signal the destruction of the regime itself.

Explain how allowing two people to sign a contract stating that they will hereafter be seen as one entity in the eyes of the law "contradicts the very spirit of the principles which constitute the regime."

“Gay marriage” is, in my mind, a hollow facade. It is based on the presumption that marriage is “an expression of love.” Marriage is not an expression of love.

You are right, at least in the case of civil marriage. Civil marriage is a contract between two people and the government, such that the government will recognize said couple as a single legal entity. It is nothing more and nothing less. It is a convenience to the government and (in some respects) an assurance of the rights of the two people that have chosen to so entwine themselves.

Marriage is supposed to be a contract between two citizens who have agreed to dedicate their lives to the perpetuation and betterment of society.

That is your definition of marriage, not the legal definition.

“Gay marriage” has nothing to offer as far as I am able to see.

It has the same thing that any marriage has to offer.

What is the value of “gay marriage” prior to the establishment of civil society?

How can a civil contract have any value prior to the establishment of civil society?

What sort of elements does it possess that make it a necessity to human life?

Marriage in general is not a necessity to human life, especially not the civil aspects of it.

I hate to sound so harsh, but "gay marriage" appears merely to be a convenient vehicle for freeloaders. =\

Yes, because gay people should have the lives they worked for ripped out of their hands if their partner dies and gay people should have their children taken away from them just because you say so and gay people should not be given the same rights, responsibilities, and priviledges provided by our government to heterosexuals.

Why am I adamantly opposed to anything short of full legal marriage for everyone? A little something called "Seperate but Equal" is why.

Uh... I never said they could.
The Founding Fathers were students of political philosophy and they traced their cord of knowledge back to the teachings of the ancient Greeks, such as Plato and Aristotle, who stressed the importance of observing nature and using human reason to distinguish between better and worse ways of living. Prior to the regime, human beings live in a state of nature. Yet once a group of humans comes together for the purpose of establishing order through government, the principles upon which that government is founded will determine the character and quality of the regime. There is no escaping this truth: the founding principles make the regime. If the arguments are weak or faulty, then so is the regime.

To date, the primary argument in favor of the homosexual agenda, to my knowledge, appears to be based on a number of things, including the pop-psychology goal of “self-actualization” and the claim that morality is merely an historical “value judgment.” Taken together with the rallying cry that all expressions of love are to be tolerated, it becomes increasingly clear that the homosexual argument revolves around the Diet Coke slogan of “Do What Feels Good.” A regime based on such an argument is fated to destroy itself, because it is incapable -- by virtue of its own claim -- of placing restrictions on any and all practices falling under the banner of self-indulgence, so long as those indulgences are propelled, and actualized, by love.

--------------
Re: Manmade Law
I think you and I differ on the issue of the law. You seem to believe (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that positive law (i.e., manmade law) is the paramount source of guidance to which all citizens must look; whereas I believe that the law must follow, not precede, morality, because positive law is a fallible institution shaped by fallible creatures. I am not arguing that we discount all legal code merely because it is subject to error; however, I am suggesting that the law be amenable to instances where prudence and reason dictate an unlawful action to be used in the service of a greater cause.

For example, suppose that a police officer had just finished writing a ticket and was about to get into his patrol car when a driver on the freeway strafed him in a drive-by shooting. Suppose you saw the aftermath of the incident, saw the wounded police officer on the ground, and decided to help him. In his critical state, you were forced to drive 40mph over the speed limit to get him to the hospital before he dies. In this case, the greater good was saving a man’s life, not abiding by a posted speed limit.

I’m just trying to make the point that manmade might not be justly considered the ultimate code for good human behavior.
--------------

If all people are considered equal, then homosexuals cannot be treated as second class citizens.

* * *

Explain how allowing two people to sign a contract stating that they will hereafter be seen as one entity in the eyes of the law "contradicts the very spirit of the principles which constitute the regime."
As I stated before, America’s principles ensure that homosexuals be entitled to their natural rights. They are therefore protected in their rights to suffrage, property and other liberties to the extent that their actions (e.g., legislation) preserve the founding principles.

Homosexuality itself is a denial of nature. As far as I can tell, there can be only two possibilities for it: either it is a choice and thus voluntary, or it is not a choice and thus involuntary. But neither possibility is beyond remedy. Even if homosexuality is a genetic defect, both cases are nothing more than passion-based inclinations. To quote Hadley Arkes:

In the strictest sense, there is only one form of sexuality, the sexuality that is simply marked in the ineffaceable fact of gender. As the Congregation to the Doctrine of Faith once observed, there may not always be nations, there may not be a Hungary or an Italy, but there must always be men and women. The very existence of gender discloses its own purpose, grounded in nature. Sexuality in the strictest meaning refers to that part of our nature that has as its end the purpose of beginning. And in comparison, the other forms of sexuality may be taken as minor burlesques or mockeries of the true thing. [italics are my own for emphasis]

“[S]ex, in its truest sense, is the activity that has, as its natural end, the purpose of begetting . . .”

What is the purpose of homosexuality?

Be careful what you wish for. If homosexuality is condonable on the grounds that it satisfies the requirements of self-actualization and expressive love, then all other acts that satisfy those requirements are condonable as well.

The Founding Fathers were supremely worried that the passions of men would come to dominate their reason, particularly under the new American regime. They feared that over time, Americans would forget the principles of natural right and supplant those principles with doctrines of degeneracy that had no basis in reason: Enter the era of progressivism and its attendant movements of cultural and moral relativism -- modes of thought which are completely foreign to, and incompatible with, the spirit of Founding-era political philosophy.

“Gay marriage” has nothing to offer as far as I am able to see.
It has the same thing that any marriage has to offer.
Marriage offers a man and a woman the opportunity to establish themselves as an inaugural first-unit of society. Even in the absence of a marked “civil” society, marriage is a symbolic ceremony, much like other oaths that exist prior to government. The pledge of fidelity and honor between husband and wife is just as important -- if not moreso -- than their “commitment” to the legalese of manmade law. What’s more, a married couple instills within their children the natural template by which all human beings can live well.

A homosexual “couple,” on the other hand, will never have children of their own. They must acquire children either through trickery, adoption or artificial insemination. But even then, their “family” will never be more than a pathetic charade, or, as Arkes observed, a mockery of the true thing. Not only will the children of gay “parents” become instilled with a hapless artificiality, but they will also be raised on the belief that all value judgments are relative. They must, because homosexuality teaches that by creating the illusion that nature has been sidestepped, it is possible to convince others that nature has in actual fact been sidestepped; and if this deception can be employed in the service of homosexuality, so too can it be employed in the service of other forms of expressed love.

Of course, my argument may have been for naught, assuming you value positive law over prudence and reason. If you happen to believe that homosexuality is not imprudent or unreasonable, perhaps you could explain why it should be cherished. Your tone seems to suggest that you feel it serves a purpose. I would be interested in hearing what that is.

At any rate, I’ve enjoyed our conversation! I can’t promise that I’ll reply any time soon, should you post a response to this response, because I am starting a new school quarter tomorrow; however, I’ll check back from time to time to see what’s been written.

Ciao.

if your gay, why would you live in the south anyways? thats like living soviet russia as a free enterprise advocate.

To date, the primary argument in favor of the homosexual agenda, to my knowledge, appears to be based on a number of things, including the pop-psychology goal of “self-actualization” and the claim that morality is merely an historical “value judgment.” Taken together with the rallying cry that all expressions of love are to be tolerated, it becomes increasingly clear that the homosexual argument revolves around the Diet Coke slogan of “Do What Feels Good.” A regime based on such an argument is fated to destroy itself, because it is incapable -- by virtue of its own claim -- of placing restrictions on any and all practices falling under the banner of self-indulgence, so long as those indulgences are propelled, and actualized, by love.

Isn't that what love is about? Doing what feels good? I'd be willing to bet quite a lot of money that most people who are married secretly like it. And besides which, we have the rights to the pursuit of happiness-allowing us to "do what feels good." Why would we put rights against it?

As I stated before, America’s principles ensure that homosexuals be entitled to their natural rights. They are therefore protected in their rights to suffrage, property and other liberties to the extent that their actions (e.g., legislation) preserve the founding principles.

Homosexuality itself is a denial of nature.

Explain how homosexuality is a denial of nature. Please care to include the facts that many animals who exist in a wild, untamed state exhibit homosexuality. Also, consider that polygamy is the natural state for all creatures, including human beings-marrige itself is unnatural.

As far as I can tell, there can be only two possibilities for it: either it is a choice and thus voluntary, or it is not a choice and thus involuntary. But neither possibility is beyond remedy. Even if homosexuality is a genetic defect, both cases are nothing more than passion-based inclinations. To quote Hadley Arkes:

In the strictest sense, there is only one form of sexuality, the sexuality that is simply marked in the ineffaceable fact of gender. As the Congregation to the Doctrine of Faith once observed, there may not always be nations, there may not be a Hungary or an Italy, but there must always be men and women. The very existence of gender discloses its own purpose, grounded in nature. Sexuality in the strictest meaning refers to that part of our nature that has as its end the purpose of beginning. And in comparison, the other forms of sexuality may be taken as minor burlesques or mockeries of the true thing. [italics are my own for emphasis]

Ah, but men and men can bring each other to orgasm. As can a woman with another woman. in fact, a man can bring himself to orgasm. Furthermore, it is debatable that sex is meant only for procreation-and in being debatable, it automatically becomes untrue in the sense that it CAN be untrue. This ruins your argument on this end.

“[S]ex, in its truest sense, is the activity that has, as its natural end, the purpose of begetting . . .”

To repeat what I have just stated, this is questionable and debatable. it is not a supreme truth.

What is the purpose of homosexuality?

Who says there has to be a point? There are two ways of looking at it: either everything has a purpose-or, as Aristotle would put it, a function-or NOT everything has a point. If everything has a purpose, then homosexuality has one. If NOT everything has a purpose, then it does not matter weither or not homosexuality has a purpose, because as long as it least ONE other object or attitude doesn't have a point yet is still used, then it is proven that things without a purpose can still exist.

Be careful what you wish for. If homosexuality is condonable on the grounds that it satisfies the requirements of self-actualization and expressive love, then all other acts that satisfy those requirements are condonable as well.

You forget that in some cases, rules and laws WILL apply for protection. This is why a slippery slope fallacy cannot work. A minor cannot give consent. Nor can an animal, or an inanimate object. Nor will they ever be able to. Because of this, any means to wed or make love to any of these objects must immidiatly be assumed to be forced-because they cannot give consent to it, they are the victim, and therefore are innocent until proven guilty. However, because they cannot give consent, they cannot be found guilty of forcing the other to wed or have sex with them. Thus, it is impermissable to allow them to marry, because they cannot give a say in the matter.

The Founding Fathers were supremely worried that the passions of men would come to dominate their reason, particularly under the new American regime. They feared that over time, Americans would forget the principles of natural right and supplant those principles with doctrines of degeneracy that had no basis in reason: Enter the era of progressivism and its attendant movements of cultural and moral relativism -- modes of thought which are completely foreign to, and incompatible with, the spirit of Founding-era political philosophy.

The Founding Fathers also believed that things would change, and thus created a system in which things CAN change. They realized that thigns were much different then they were several years ago, and that life is inevitable change. Because of this, they made sure that the government they created was flexable enough to handle any changes neccisary. Also note that many things they would consider normal, many now would consider being radical and horrible-for example, the belief that a woman was lowed to the point of property, or that skin pigment made a person less human then another. Because of their set up, however, the US was able to solve this issues. To say that changes in society is foreign to their spirit and political philosophy is simply incorrect.


Marriage offers a man and a woman the opportunity to establish themselves as an inaugural first-unit of society. Even in the absence of a marked “civil” society, marriage is a symbolic ceremony, much like other oaths that exist prior to government. The pledge of fidelity and honor between husband and wife is just as important -- if not moreso -- than their “commitment” to the legalese of manmade law. What’s more, a married couple instills within their children the natural template by which all human beings can live well.

The legalization of divorce automatically nullifies this reasoning. Two people are not bound forever if they are married. Thus, the "unit of society," as you called it, can easily crumble. However, society did NOT crumble and fall after the legalization of divorce, leading to the argument that the family is not, in fact, the unit of society. Once again, recall that the natural state of mind is, in fact, polygamy-to have as many mates as possible to ensure a large amount of children.

A homosexual “couple,” on the other hand, will never have children of their own. They must acquire children either through trickery, adoption or artificial insemination.

I'm going to interrupt your paragraph for a moment. You have now proved yourself wrong-artificial insemination is a means for having children. Therefore, a homosexual couple can indeed have children.

But even then, their “family” will never be more than a pathetic charade, or, as Arkes observed, a mockery of the true thing. Not only will the children of gay “parents” become instilled with a hapless artificiality, but they will also be raised on the belief that all value judgments are relative. They must, because homosexuality teaches that by creating the illusion that nature has been sidestepped, it is possible to convince others that nature has in actual fact been sidestepped; and if this deception can be employed in the service of homosexuality, so too can it be employed in the service of other forms of expressed love.

I've already answered most of these, but I'll repeat myself. First of all, you assume that a family MUST be a man, woman, and child. That is incorrect. A family can be a vast multitude of different things. It can be a man, a woman, and a pet. Do you disagree with that? If not, then you have already proven yourself incorrect once again. To accept a family as ANYTHING but a man, woman, and any number of children would be wrong according to your system.

Furthermore, depending on who's philosophy you follow, values may or may not be relative. The decisive factor is this: because there is an opposing view that cannot immidiatly be eliminated, your point is immidiatly untrue in the sense that it CAN be untrue. As long as at least one factor shows your premise CAN be false, it is not a universal truth. What this shows, is that values may or may not be relative-however, it is impossible to know for sure, so any thoughts on the subject must be theory and theory alone, as there is no proof.

I have already discussed multiple times that homosexuality is not unnatural. You most prove-without a SINGLE doubt-that it is in order for your belief to stand water.

Lastly, once again, other forms of love MUST exist withen consent. What this means, is that if the legal age is 16, then a 15 year old can NOT give consent. In general terms, this means that, for example, an 80 year old man can wed a 20 year old woman. However, a 17 year old man is not allowed to wed a 15 year old girl. The gender in these issues is reversible, and does not truly matter either way.

Of course, my argument may have been for naught, assuming you value positive law over prudence and reason. If you happen to believe that homosexuality is not imprudent or unreasonable, perhaps you could explain why it should be cherished. Your tone seems to suggest that you feel it serves a purpose. I would be interested in hearing what that is.

As stated before, there are two-and ONLY two-ways of looking at things. Either everything has a function, or everything does NOT have a function. Either way, it matters none. If not everything has a function, and a single exmple of something without a function existing is shown, then other things without function are allowed in the scope of logic.

[qoute]At any rate, I’ve enjoyed our conversation! I can’t promise that I’ll reply any time soon, should you post a response to this response, because I am starting a new school quarter tomorrow; however, I’ll check back from time to time to see what’s been written.

Ciao.[/QUOTE]

I know I'm not who this was posted too, but I'd be grateful if you replied anyways ^_^

if your gay, why would you live in the south anyways? thats like living soviet russia as a free enterprise advocate.
If you were a Jew, why would you live in Germany in the early 40's?

That's what your argument is. Blaming the victim.

The Founding Fathers were students of political philosophy and they traced their cord of knowledge back to the teachings of the ancient Greeks, such as Plato and Aristotle, who stressed the importance of observing nature and using human reason to distinguish between better and worse ways of living.

Makes sense to me. [Of course Aristotle lived at a time when homosexual love was considered the *highest* form of love, so I don't know if you want to use him as an example]

Prior to the regime, human beings live in a state of nature. Yet once a group of humans comes together for the purpose of establishing order through government, the principles upon which that government is founded will determine the character and quality of the regime. There is no escaping this truth: the founding principles make the regime. If the arguments are weak or faulty, then so is the regime.

Sounds good so far.



I never stated any of that. Homosexual love is simply as pure a form of love as heterosexual love. If we are going to ban homosexual love, then we have to logically ban all love. It has much less to do with "what feels good" than with "what is natural and right for that person." Having sex with a cow may "feel good," but we all know that the cow cannot consent to such an act. However, consentual homosexual sex harms no one.

--------------
Re: Manmade Law[/B]
I think you and I differ on the issue of the law. You seem to believe (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that positive law (i.e., manmade law) is the paramount source of guidance to which all citizens must look; whereas I believe that the law must follow, not precede, morality, because positive law is a fallible institution shaped by fallible creatures. I am not arguing that we discount all legal code merely because it is subject to error; however, I am suggesting that the law be amenable to instances where prudence and reason dictate an unlawful action to be used in the service of a greater cause.

You are quite wrong. I believe that laws can be (and often are) incredibly wrong. Manmade law means nothing if it is not based on something. However, that something does not need to be tradition (otherwise we would still have slaves), nor does it need to be religion. There are subjectivities to every person's morality. However, the state need only enforce objective morality. And the determinant of objective morality is simple - you ask one question: Does it hurt anyone? If it does, then it can logically and reasonably be made illegal without issue. If it does not, you are basing your law on what may be faulty morality - and oppressing those who (although they do not hurt you by doing so) disagree.

As for whether or not law should be broken if there is a greater cause - I absolutely believe this to be true. If the risk of not performing an action is greater than the risk taken by performing it (even if it may generally be harmful), then the action should be taken. Your example of speeding to get someone to a hospital works just fine.



And I never stated that it was.

[QUOTE=Penultimate HopeAs I stated before, America’s principles ensure that homosexuals be entitled to their natural rights. They are therefore protected in their rights to suffrage, property and other liberties to the extent that their actions (e.g., legislation) preserve the founding principles.

By not allowing the a way to legally marry, we deny them the rights to their property. Why do spouses automatically get much of the property of someone who dies - and tax free to boot? Simple - those two people have entwined themselves to the point that, from a legal standpoint, they are a single entity. The belongings that automatically fall to a spouse are generally pretty much theirs anyways (except in cases of prenuptial agreements and that sort of thing). Although homosexual relationships are often just as close, and assets are just as entwined - we deny them the right to keep what is rightfully theirs if their partner dies.



(A) It is not a choice. People do not actively choose who they will and will not be attracted to.

(B) It is not a "genetic defect."

(C) It is most definitely not a denial of nature. It is within a human being's nature to have sexual desires. For most, those desires are mostly directed towards member of the opposite sex. For others, those desires are directed towards members of the same sex. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to human beings either. If we truly and objectively observe nature, it becomes clear that sex is more often than not (in higher order animals anways) more than simply procreation.

[QUOTE=Penultimate HopeTo quote Hadley Arkes:

*Snip*

Hadley Arkes was either clearly an idiot, or someone who had not been exposed to the truth of nature.

ex, in its truest sense, is the activity that has, as its natural end, the purpose of begetting . . .”

See above.

purpose[/i] of homosexuality?

What is the purpose of art? What is the purpose of philosophy? What is the purpose of a clitoris? Why do you assume that everything that humans do (or even everything in nature) has a specific purpose that you can understand?

That said, there can be many purposes for homosexuality. One is a natural, built-in mechanism for popultation control. Another is the increase in the survival of progeny in a pack-oriented society due to there being members who are not having their own progeny, but are instead helping to raise and take care of others'. Another purpose for homosexuality has been proposed to be the role of the storyteller or medicine man - who was often homosexual in tribal societies.



At the moment, I can think of no consentual act that is an expression of love that would not be condonable. But that is besides the point. Homosexuality is condonable because it is natural for those who are homosexual and because it harms no one. Period.

[QUOTE=Penultimate HopeThe Founding Fathers were supremely worried that the passions of men would come to dominate their reason, particularly under the new American regime.

You have yet to demonstrate reason in this debate, however. You have proposed only one reason for being anti-homosexual - that you believe it to be unnatural. However, in the face of all evidence, this is a completely unreasonable conclusion.



Again, the only basis for objective morality is to state that anything that harms another unduly is objectively immoral.

[QUOTE=Penultimate HopeMarriage offers a man and a woman the opportunity to establish themselves as an inaugural first-unit of society. Even in the absence of a marked “civil” society, marriage is a symbolic ceremony, much like other oaths that exist prior to government. The pledge of fidelity and honor between husband and wife is just as important -- if not moreso -- than their “commitment” to the legalese of manmade law. What’s more, a married couple instills within their children the natural template by which all human beings can live well.

All of this could apply to married homosexual couples as well. What is your point?

acquire[/i] children either through trickery, adoption or artificial insemination. But even then, their “family” will never be more than a pathetic charade, or, as Arkes observed, a mockery of the true thing.

This is unsubstantiated opinion. Animals raised by same-sex parents have no problem in the wild, and human beings raised by same-sex parents have every bit as much of a family as those raised in what you would personally consider to be a normal family.



Well, since nature hasn't been sidestepped by someone doing what is natural, your argument falls apart at the seams. Homosexual parents are every bit as capable of instilling objective morality in their children as heterosexual parents.

[QUOTE=Penultimate HopeOf course, my argument may have been for naught, assuming you value positive law over prudence and reason.

Well, I don't. Your argument is for naught because it is hopelessly flawed, being based entirely on the false claim that homosexuality is unnatural.

[QUOTE=Penultimate HopeIf you happen to believe that homosexuality is not imprudent or unreasonable, perhaps you could explain why it should be cherished. Your tone seems to suggest that you feel it serves a purpose. I would be interested in hearing what that is.

See above. There is no reason to state that homosexuality is imprudent or unreasonable, at least none that you have named. As for why homosexuality should be cherished - it should be cherished only as much as any sexuality is cherished.

For purposes, see above. Also realize that, for the homosexual involved in a long-term relationship, the purpose is the same as for a heterosexual involved in a long-term relationship. Human beings crave contact and love from other human beings. We tend to form long-term bonds that strengthen our lives, make us happier (and thus more productive in society), and fulfill many more of our needs.

if your gay, why would you live in the south anyways? thats like living soviet russia as a free enterprise advocate.

Yes, because you choose where to be born, where your parents live, and where you can best find a job.

The Louisiana thing is most likely irrelevant anyway. SUch a law or amendment can be ruled ultimately in violation of the Tenth Amendment if the First Amendment were ever used to protect gay marriage.

The bottom line is: Marriage is a dual-entity. It's a religious ceremony and a legal contract. On the legal contract: Is the government going to decide that two men can't enter a legal contract? On the religious ceremony: The government has no say in the matter. The First Amendment guarantees that religion has the freedom to decide who to marry and not to. So if a church decides to marry a gay couple, the government has no say in the matter.

The Louisiana thing is most likely irrelevant anyway. SUch a law or amendment can be ruled ultimately in violation of the Tenth Amendment if the First Amendment were ever used to protect gay marriage.

The bottom line is: Marriage is a dual-entity. It's a religious ceremony and a legal contract. On the legal contract: Is the government going to decide that two men can't enter a legal contract? On the religious ceremony: The government has no say in the matter. The First Amendment guarantees that religion has the freedom to decide who to marry and not to. So if a church decides to marry a gay couple, the government has no say in the matter.

I think you have your Amendments mixed up. The 10th Amendment, if it were not for Article IV of the Constitution would allow this law - however, it can be deemed unconstitutional based on that.

As for the denial of civil marriage to homosexuals, it will most likely be defeated based on the 14th Amendment, not the 1st.

May God strike you all down for your evil homosexuality.

May God strike you all down for your evil homosexuality.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Very well, smite me then. Its for the good of the world!

I think you have your Amendments mixed up. The 10th Amendment, if it were not for Article IV of the Constitution would allow this law - however, it can be deemed unconstitutional based on that.

As for the denial of civil marriage to homosexuals, it will most likely be defeated based on the 14th Amendment, not the 1st.

Actually, the Tenth Amendment lets the state make laws as long at they don't negate federal laws and the Constitution.

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So if Gay Marriage were protected by the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment would forbid the states from preventing it.


As for the First Amendment:

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It specifically says that the government will make no laws that favor some religious beliefs over others. Marriage is a religious belief.

The fourteenth amendment:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment."

I assume you refer to Section 1. ANd yes, it'll be interesting to see that in conjunction with the First too.

actually, the dictionary includes the union of same sex couples under the definition of marriage, the Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about same-sex marriage, and the majority of American citizen support granting gay people equal legal rights to unions (though many prefer that not be called "marriage," but that it be given a different name even though it has equal legal status).

so congrats, all three of your claims were dead wrong! that takes talent.

The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about privacy rights either so I suppose the government should be aloud to invade our privacy because of the lack of a definitive line when they should stop? Of course not, the Supreme Court has recognized privacy rights that are "within the penumbra" of the ninth amendment. How this applies to the gay-marraige debate is that the Supreme Court needs to decided whether marraige is a state or federal issue. Frankly, unless the Supreme Court can decipher a right for homosexuals somewhere within the Constitution, they will leave it to the states. The Supreme Court has read "between the lines" of the Ninth Amendment many times and has never enumerated a homosexual marraige right, only a hederosexual right (Griswold v. Connecticutt). This insinuates that states may regulate marraige as they please with Heterosexual marriage being the MINIMUM right granted the people of the United States. As such one state has now spoken and overwhelmingly disagreed with your assertion that "the majority of American citizen support granting gay people equal legal rights to unions." Believe it or not, there is a whole country between New York/Boston/Washington and Los Angeles/SanFrancisco that does not agree with the specious idea that this country is predominately liberal in their thinking.

So if Gay Marriage were protected by the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment would forbid the states from preventing it.

However, the 10th Amendment isn't necessary for that conclusion. If the 10th Amendment weren't there, laws made by the states that were unConstitutional would still be forbidden. The 10th Amendment, on the other hand, protects the states from being encroached upon by the federal government, which must be held only to those things which the Constitution has endowed it with.

It specifically says that the government will make no laws that favor some religious beliefs over others. Marriage is a religious belief.

Civil marriage is not a religious belief. If it were, this conversation would be completely moot - since the government would have no say in it in the first place. Civil marriage is a legal construct by which two people become one entity under the government - it has nothing to do with religion.

I assume you refer to Section 1. ANd yes, it'll be interesting to see that in conjunction with the First too.

Yup, that's exactly what I mean. The 1st really has nothing to do with it. Civil marriage is an option that is currently offered by the government to some couples and not to others, without a compelling reason to do so. Thus, the only options that the government has are to stop granting civil marriages altogether or to offer them to couples equally, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex (under which sexual orientation falls).

The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about privacy rights either so I suppose the government should be aloud to invade our privacy because of the lack of a definitive line when they should stop? Of course not, the Supreme Court has recognized privacy rights that "within the penumbra" of the ninth amendment. How this applies to the gay-marraige debate is that the Supreme Court needs to decided whether marraige is a state or federal issue. Frankly, unless the Supreme Court can decipher a right for homosexuals somewhere within the Constitution, they will leave it to the states. As such one state has now spoken and overwhelmingly disagreed with your assertion that "the majority of American citizen support granting gay people equal legal rights to unions." Believe it or not, there is a whole country between New York/Boston/Washington and Los Angeles/SanFrancisco that does not agree with the specious idea that this country is predominately liberal in there thinking.

The courts have already determined that homosexuals have penumbric rights to equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment. Thus, a state cannot make a law specifically discriminating against homosexuals, nor can it offer legal benefits to anyone that it will not offer to homosexuals without showing a compelling interest. It has yet to do so.

However, the 10th Amendment isn't necessary for that conclusion. If the 10th Amendment weren't there, laws made by the states that were unConstitutional would still be forbidden. The 10th Amendment, on the other hand, protects the states from being encroached upon by the federal government, which must be held only to those things which the Constitution has endowed it with.



Civil marriage is not a religious belief. If it were, this conversation would be completely moot - since the government would have no say in it in the first place. Civil marriage is a legal construct by which two people become one entity under the government - it has nothing to do with religion.



Yup, that's exactly what I mean. The 1st really has nothing to do with it. Civil marriage is an option that is currently offered by the government to some couples and not to others, without a compelling reason to do so. Thus, the only options that the government has are to stop granting civil marriages altogether or to offer them to couples equally, regardless of race, creed, color, or sex (under which sexual orientation falls).

Well, I disagree with your categorization of marriage as entirely non-religious.
But other than that, I think we're on the same page. The bottom line is that the government has no authority to pick and choose who can get married as long as they can both enter a legal contract.

Well, I disagree with your categorization of marriage as entirely non-religious.

Don't get me wrong - marriage itself is not entirely nonreligious. Civil marriage is. If it were not, civil marriage itself would be a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

The courts have already determined that homosexuals have penumbric rights to equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment. Thus, a state cannot make a law specifically discriminating against homosexuals, nor can it offer legal benefits to anyone that it will not offer to homosexuals without showing a compelling interest. It has yet to do so.

Wrong. Due Process and equal protection would apply if the Constitution granted marraige to all people. The constitution has been interpreted to protect only the right of heterosexual marraige (Griswold v. Conn.). This creates a minimum right that is protected, Due Process and equal protection would be violated if two heterosexual people were denied the ability to marry, however the decision not to allow homosexual marraige is permissable because to allow it would be the expansion of the marraige right, it is not mandatory.

It's sad, but it's not surprising. Same-sex marriage will be another issue--like civil rights--that will be handled by the courts while the population at large kicks and screams about it, until after it's been going on for a while, most people will suddenly wake up, realize that their lives either haven't been affected by it or have been changed for the better by it, and will wonder what all the fuss was about. There will still be a loudmouthed minority who will claim that it's destroying the community, etc (think of an anti-gay specific Klan) but in the end, we'll be better off as a society for the struggle.

Maybe I'm just confused about what you mean...but the courts aren't handling this situation. It's being put to a popular vote one state at a time. And it's not like the entire country was like "Wow, glad we have this slavery thing." Most people were against slavery from the beginning. (i.e. Underground Railroad, the North, and all the white people behind the civil rights movements) I would like to say that the whole idea of civil rights for African Americans was started and championed by white men. Check into Jefferson. The only reason that slavery was included in the original charter was that the Southern States had to be behind the North to seceed from Britain. And if this was a minority, it would've passed in every state. I have not yet seen one legislation that has made it a crime to be homosexual. These bills simply legislate the state's viewing of such a marriage. I hate how some people sit back and somehow think their voice matters more than the majority against them. If louisianna wants to ban it, or Missouri, or the boy scouts, it is their choice, and maybe (tho you may not agree with it) the right one.

May God strike you all down for your evil homosexuality.

So you're saying there's good homosexuality as well? And neutral homosexuality?
When is it evil? Or good?

So you're saying there's good homosexuality as well? And neutral homosexuality?
When is it evil? Or good?

Good homosexuality: Naked Erotic Wrestling Clubs.

Evil Homosexuality: Prison rape.

Maybe I'm just confused about what you mean...but the courts aren't handling this situation. It's being put to a popular vote one state at a time. And it's not like the entire country was like "Wow, glad we have this slavery thing." Most people were against slavery from the beginning. (i.e. Underground Railroad, the North, and all the white people behind the civil rights movements) I would like to say that the whole idea of civil rights for African Americans was started and championed by white men. Check into Jefferson. The only reason that slavery was included in the original charter was that the Southern States had to be behind the North to seceed from Britain. And if this was a minority, it would've passed in every state. I have not yet seen one legislation that has made it a crime to be homosexual. These bills simply legislate the state's viewing of such a marriage. I hate how some people sit back and somehow think their voice matters more than the majority against them. If louisianna wants to ban it, or Missouri, or the boy scouts, it is their choice, and maybe (tho you may not agree with it) the right one.
Ah, but the courts will be handling it soon enough. Massachussetts has same-sex marriage now, and soon, some couple will challenge DOMA in federal court under the equal protection statute and the full faith and credit clause, and even Justice Scalia noted in his dissent to Lawrence v Texas that there would be no legal theory to stand in the way of same-sex marriage short of a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment will never even get out of the House, much less get the two-thirds it needs to get sent to the states for ratification, and so the issue will eventually die, effectively killed by the courts, just like segregation was killed.

One last point--Lawrence v Texas overturned a piece of legislation that outlawed homosexual conduct. Not only do they exist--they've existed for years. You might try researching it sometime.

*gasp* you mean the South is removing Constitutional rights from a minority group in order to forward a right-wing Christian agenda?! i never thought i would see the day!

No, there is no such a constitutional right. The constitutional right you may be thinking of is the one that allows states to have their own marraige rights. Which this state is not violating at all, only using to ban this status.

Remember Bottle that this vote had an overwhelming 79% majority vote. There really is no reason to stop it from happening, as, as i pointed out, there is nothing wrong with it.

Conversley, there is also nothing wrong with a state allowing such unions.

I'm kinda wondering how 'ok' it is to leave leadership decisions to a largely uninformed populace overfed on the shrill simpleminded religious rhetoric such as Dr. Dobson, Dr. Satinover (NARTH), Rev. J. Swaggart, etc., etc.

I'm kinda wondering how 'ok' it is to leave leadership decisions to a largely uninformed populace overfed on the shrill simpleminded religious rhetoric such as Dr. Dobson, Dr. Satinover (NARTH), Rev. J. Swaggart, etc., etc.

Isn't it obvious? I mean, the populace is WAY to stupid to elect a president on their own, but apparently just smart enough to create laws that strip away the rights of others. Common man, get with the program.

I'm kinda wondering how 'ok' it is to leave leadership decisions to a largely uninformed populace overfed on the shrill simpleminded religious rhetoric such as Dr. Dobson, Dr. Satinover (NARTH), Rev. J. Swaggart, etc., etc.

Well I think Churchill said it best

"the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

Remember Bottle that this vote had an overwhelming 79% majority vote. There really is no reason to stop it from happening, as, as i pointed out, there is nothing wrong with it.

Conversley, there is also nothing wrong with a state allowing such unions.
in my opinion, there is plenty wrong with allowing a majority to take basic legal rights away from a minority...and the framers of the Constitution agreed with me.

that said, i fully support the rights of a state to ban gay marriage, if that state follows correct procedures for doing so. i think they did that in this case, so i don't have any beef with them, nor did i say i did. i was merely expressing my utter lack of surprise that the region which brought us a battle to maintain racism is now fighting for their right to be homophobes...it makes perfect sense, and is yet another good reason for people of education, compassion, and common sense to avoid setting up residence in the South.

please, PLEASE, you Southerners: rise again. rise again, now, pretty please? we'll let you go! here's your hat! let me get that door for you!

I'd like to know why any gay person cares whether or not the state will give them a piece of paper to show that it has officially noticed that they are in a relationship. It's not as if it makes a sod of difference. Are there tax breaks or something?

If "marriage" means a state-recognised unification of two persons for the purposes of tax and property law, I'd like to know why a person can't marry their landlord, cousin, sister, whatever? If two siblings have shared a house for 40 years, and one looks after the other one's kids (because they divorced or something) and the other goes to work, and they have only one pension, bla bla bla, why can't they get the tax breaks too?

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.


<tangent>
So the 14th amendment rules out indians as people represented in the legislature? wow.
</tangent>

No, there is no such a constitutional right. The constitutional right you may be thinking of is the one that allows states to have their own marraige rights. Which this state is not violating at all, only using to ban this status.

Remember Bottle that this vote had an overwhelming 79% majority vote. There really is no reason to stop it from happening, as, as i pointed out, there is nothing wrong with it.

Conversley, there is also nothing wrong with a state allowing such unions.Well, the moment the federal government offered benefits to married couples that they didn't offer to unmarried people, marriage became a federal issue instead of a state issue. Now if Congress wants to back off and remove all those benefits and get out of the marriage business completely, that's cool with me, but as it stands, it's not purely a state's rights issue and hasn't been for a long time.

thats great!! down with gay marriage!

I'd like to know why any gay person cares whether or not the state will give them a piece of paper to show that it has officially noticed that they are in a relationship. It's not as if it makes a sod of difference. Are there tax breaks or something?

If "marriage" means a state-recognised unification of two persons for the purposes of tax and property law, I'd like to know why a person can't marry their landlord, cousin, sister, whatever? If two siblings have shared a house for 40 years, and one looks after the other one's kids (because they divorced or something) and the other goes to work, and they have only one pension, bla bla bla, why can't they get the tax breaks too?

If it was only tax breaks...
It's inheritance (and it's taxes), it's power of attorney, etc.

Someone once posted the complete list of benefits. It should be fairly easy to find it on the net.

Wrong. Due Process and equal protection would apply if the Constitution granted marraige to all people.

Wrong. Due process and equal protection apply any time the government makes laws - basically, it cannot make laws that single out and apply only to a certain group of people without showing a compelling interest. It has not done so in this case.

The constitution has been interpreted to protect only the right of heterosexual marraige (Griswold v. Conn.).

I can't find the exact decision here to examine it right now - but it seems to relate to civil unions - which are a different thing altogether than marriage.

Either way, the court ruled that separate but equal was fine too, not too many years before they rightfully found that separate but equal is never equal.

This creates a minimum right that is protected, Due Process and equal protection would be violated if two heterosexual people were denied the ability to marry, however the decision not to allow homosexual marraige is permissable because to allow it would be the expansion of the marraige right, it is not mandatory.

There is no "marriage right." Civil marriage is a contract between two people and the government so that the government views those two people as a single legal entity. To allow this to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples is clear discrimination based on sexual orientation (and the courts have ruled more than once that sexual orientation falls under due process and equal protection). Thus, the states must provide a compelling interest in banning homosexual unions.

And they have a perfect right to pass laws as they see fit.

And it may be overturned by some tyranical minority.

And that's fine. :D

Keep fighting for your point of view.

And they have a perfect right to pass laws as they see fit.

And it may be overturned by some tyranical minority.

And that's fine. :D

Keep fighting for your point of view.
Out of curiosity... does the size and font of your blabber have any function? Like do you think it adds credibility to your argument - if you have any at all - or do you just want to make your posts stand out? Do you have low self esteem or are you member of the government trained in propaganda spreading?