NationStates Jolt Archive

Hmm, are you SURE you're not just repeating what the anti-gay-marriage people are saying? That any definition change means it’s not marriage anymore?

No, because I haven't said any such thing.

However, it is rather clear that the types of protections applied to two people in a relationship couldn't possibly be applied exactly the same way to 10. It simply doesn't work that way.

Thus, under the legal definition of marriage, the only way to recognize polygamy would be to create an entirely new institution. If enough people want said recognition, and can find a state interest in doing so, then such recognition will probably be given - but by necessity would require new laws.

There are no new laws necessary in saying that a legal marriage occurs between two people rather than "a man and a woman". None of the marriage laws say "The man in the relationship gets X and the woman in the relationship gets Y." If such laws were part of the legal institution of marriage, then there might be an argument against recognizing SSM in the same way - as one of them would have to be male and the other female. Of course, there would also be arguments against a marriage law that delineated different treatment for the different spouses...

There are no new laws necessary in saying that a legal marriage occurs between two people rather than "a man and a woman". None of the marriage laws say "The man in the relationship gets X and the woman in the relationship gets Y." If such laws were part of the legal institution of marriage, then there might be an argument against recognizing SSM in the same way - as one of them would have to be male and the other female. Of course, there would also be arguments against a marriage law that delineated different treatment for the different spouses...


Actually, without looking, I bet every single law that addresses marriage at all will have to be changed, because in them it will say something like, husband and wife, or, man and woman, etc. Every legal form, every marriage law, every license and birth certificate and methodology will have to be changed, et al., to apply marriages for SSM.

Actually, without looking, I bet every single law that addresses marriage at all will have to be changed, because in them it will say something like, husband and wife, or, man and woman, etc. Every legal form, every marriage law, every license and birth certificate and methodology will have to be changed, et al., to apply marriages for SSM.
If that is what has to be done to make things equal … so be it

If that is what has to be done to make things equal … so be it

I agree if it is decided to go that way. But she was saying that for the reason that it all needs to be changed is reason enough to not allow polygamy.

BTW, side note: How does it make it equal to have, or not have, SSM? It's equally applied now. More restrictive or less restrictive marriage stipulations doesn't make it more or less equal, equal means to equally apply the stipulations. We can't really pretend that if it's not applied the way "I" want it applied, and dismissing every other definition, then it's not equal.

Actually the issue was adultery; and the "leaders" were not following the specific law regarding such...

The claim layed was that there were "witnesses" which caught the adultress "in the very act"...

The law requires that both the adulterer and adulteress be stoned.... They were stoning the adultress (where was the adulterer)... So their claims to "following the law" were in fact wrong in the first place.

Following part of the law; is akin to not following any of it...

And that has anything to do with this because? The point is "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Was he, in fact, saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone, unless we were following all of the law and not part of it, in which case, cast away, sinners?"

You do know that you can get Second Mortgages, correct? And not even necessarily from the bank that issued you the first.....

I can't get a second mortgage at a new bank without notifying both banks. I also can't sell my house without notifying the bank. Why is this so difficult a concept for you to understand?

That's besides the issue.... Second mortgages exist as they are; secondary to the first contract.... Liability is concerned where such secondary contract loans exist which cause violation of the first; thereby inducing liability in violation by the offending party upon the first; and would be equally applicable to a marrital contract. Entering into a second marrital contract does not negate responsibilities entailed in the first; and does not excuse liability in either contract.... If situation arrises whereby the offending party fails his liability in an existing contract; both parties (or more) with contracts; can seek joint or seperate suit against the offender under infringement of their induties under said contract (would likely be seperate suit). Thus, rather than resultant liability be enforced via civil law; it would be enforced via civil suit...

Way to not address the point. A person has violated the contract when they enter into another marriage contract, as it is accepted that marriage is a contract based on monogamy to the point where adultery is considered breach of contract. Why is THIS so difficult a concept for you to understand?

Actually, without looking, I bet every single law that addresses marriage at all will have to be changed, because in them it will say something like, husband and wife, or, man and woman, etc. Every legal form, every marriage law, every license and birth certificate and methodology will have to be changed, et al., to apply marriages for SSM.

Actually, not all of them (or even most of them) say husband and wife or man and woman. Most of them either talk about the married couple (as an entity) or about individual spouses, with no gender specification made. This is because, as I pointed out before, none of the marriage laws give different rights to the husband and to the wife - the rights are the same for both spouses. ((Note that Mass. hasn't seemed to have any problems this past year))

However, changing "husband and wife" to "spouses" doesn't change the purpose or spirit of the law. When I say laws would have to be rewritten for polygamy, I don't mean that two or three words would have to be changed. I mean that the entire code would have to be rewritten. Civil marriage laws were written in response to a joining of two people into a single entity. There are protections and regulations that simply wouldn't make sense for a larger group - nor would a larger group need those protections. In the end, it would be better for a polygamous marriage to write up a contract under corporate law.

BTW, side note: How does it make it equal to have, or not have, SSM? It's equally applied now. More restrictive or less restrictive marriage stipulations doesn't make it more or less equal, equal means to equally apply the stipulations. We can't really pretend that if it's not applied the way "I" want it applied, and dismissing every other definition, then it's not equal.


Well, right now, if you are in a heterosexual couple living as a single entity, you can get protections, etc. that a homosexual couple living as a single entity cannot. In other words, it is not applied equally. Only people who end up in a heterosexual relationship (ie. heterosexuals/bisexuals or homosexuals forced into the closet) can possibly have access to these protections.

A heterosexual couple married for 1 day has access to protections a homosexual couple married for 50 years does not. You call that equal?

I can't get a second mortgage at a new bank without notifying both banks. Yes you can do it without notifying the first bank

I also can't sell my house without notifying the bank. That's true.

In another thread someone claimed that the definition and purpose of marriage is 'self-evident'. I suggest it's not or at least, if it is, the definition is not what he/she is expecting. Would you mind stating specifically what you think the definition of marriage is? I would prefer it if this not become another same-sex marriage debate, but I suspect it will eventually degrade into that. I just ask that before you start tearing apart the definitions of others, could you please, in your first post, define marriage. We're not looking for a dictionary definition. Just your personal view of what marriage is.

My definition: the union of two people in love.



How about, the union of two consenting adults in love?

Gee, this has largely spiralled out of hand.

Particularly the arguments over the "contract" analogy and the

Let me make a few points for clarification.

1. Marriage is the legal union of two people.

2. Marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.

3. Denying same-gender marriage is discriminating on the basis of gender and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

4. There are other moral and legal arguments for why denying same-gender marriage is wrong.

5. Although one can argue that society should not prohibit consensual polygamous marriages, their are rational distinctions that can be drawn between polygamy and same-gender marriage. Allowing same-gender marriage does not compell allowing consensual polygamy.

6. Denying consensual polygamy does not discriminate on any suspect basis.

7. Denying consensual polygamy does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rational distinctions may be made between marriage and polygamy.

8. #6 and #7 are not to say that banning polygamy is just or the best policy.

9. To be clear, saying that the ban on same-gender marriage is unconstitutional does not require agreeing that polygamous marriage is unconstitutional.

10. Although a contract is a useful analogy for a marriage, there is more to civil marriage than a simple contract.

11. No other single contract or legal relationship does or could possibly confer the same rights, benefits, privileges, and responsibilities as marriage -- even just between the people in the marriage.

I can't get a second mortgage at a new bank without notifying both banks. I also can't sell my house without notifying the bank. Why is this so difficult a concept for you to understand?

I however you can still get a second mortgage... Sure, you have to notify existing contract holders; but you can still do it. So, what's the difference in a multi-party marriage? Answer: None... In order to honor existing contracts; all parties in contract must agree before new contract is signed... Duh!

As such, arguments that "we won't do it", because "it does not work that way now".... Are no different, at their core ideology; of arguments presented against allowing Homosexuals to marry; one racial group to marry another; and the like....

I agree if it is decided to go that way. But she was saying that for the reason that it all needs to be changed is reason enough to not allow polygamy.

BTW, side note: How does it make it equal to have, or not have, SSM? It's equally applied now. More restrictive or less restrictive marriage stipulations doesn't make it more or less equal, equal means to equally apply the stipulations. We can't really pretend that if it's not applied the way "I" want it applied, and dismissing every other definition, then it's not equal.

It is not equal now. It discriminates on the basis of gender.

A man can marry a woman, but not a man.

It discriminates on the basis of gender in the same way that the bans on innerracial marriage discriminated on the basis of race.

Well, right now, if you are in a heterosexual couple living as a single entity, you can get protections, etc. that a homosexual couple living as a single entity cannot. In other words, it is not applied equally. Only people who end up in a heterosexual relationship (ie. heterosexuals/bisexuals or homosexuals forced into the closet) can possibly have access to these protections.

A heterosexual couple married for 1 day has access to protections a homosexual couple married for 50 years does not. You call that equal?

EDIT: forwarning, While I was typing, a bunch of posts popped in... :p


Equally applied is the active wording here I think. The stipulations of the definitions are being equally applied (regardless of what the stipulations are - age, gender, competence to be able to sign and agreement etc., doesn't matter what they are as long as all citizens that qualify can do it without beings discriminated against … ).

I know where this is going though, about someone saying something about anti-race marriage laws etc., but really. Isn’t it something like 40% of the individuals applying for homosexual marriages Massachusetts are actually divorcees? Doesn’t that mean that they were not only allowed to get married before but that they did and were not discriminated against?

Changing the definition of what a marriage stipulation IS not not mean that it is more or less equal. 14th Amendment is about equally applying the benefits of a liberty, not defining what they are.

If there is a water fountain, everyone gets to use it.

If there is a family tax benefit, every family gets to use it.

If you don’t have a family, it’s not an infringement on your rights to not be given the family tax benefit…

Yes you can do it without notifying the first bank
I think that you do, but let's assume you're correct. Either way, you are borrowing against the equity (the part that does not belong to the other bank). You do definitely have to notify the second bank of the first mortgage, as by definition the second bank only has access to the leftovers. Either way, you couldn't do it if essentially the second mortgage was contractually equal to the first. I was talking about getting multiple mortgages in the first place, not second mortgages (a loan against the equity of the house). In a first loan, the bank essentially buys the house and you buy it from them. They have an expectation of being able to foreclose on the house and sell it to recoup their expenditures. If you did this with another bank with neither bank having knowledge of the other and each have the expectation that the house could be sold to recoup their losses (which for each bank is a vast majority of the value of the house), you would be guilty of fraud, just as you would be if you entered into multiple marriage contracts.

EDIT: forwarning, While I was typing, a bunch of posts popped in... :p


Equally applied is the active wording here I think. The stipulations of the definitions are being equally applied (regardless of what the stipulations are - age, gender, competence to be able to sign and agreement etc., doesn't matter what they are as long as all citizens that qualify can do it without beings discriminated against … ).

I know where this is going though, about someone saying something about anti-race marriage laws etc., but really. Isn’t it something like 40% of the individuals applying for homosexual marriages Massachusetts are actually divorcees? Doesn’t that mean that they were not only allowed to get married before but that they did and were not discriminated against?

Changing the definition of what a marriage stipulation IS not not mean that it is more or less equal. 14th Amendment is about equally applying the benefits of a liberty, not defining what they are.

If there is a water fountain, everyone gets to use it.

If there is a family tax benefit, every family gets to use it.

If you don’t have a family, it’s not an infringement on your rights to not be given the family tax benefit…

Your argument about divorce and being allowed to get married before makes no sense.

Under bans on interracial marriage, people of all races were "allowed" to get married. They just couldn't marry someone of a different "race."

The ban was "equally applied." It merely defined marriage as being between two people of the same race in the same way you define marriage as being between two people of different genders. So it must have been fair and constitutional, right?

WRONG.

I however you can still get a second mortgage... Sure, you have to notify existing contract holders; but you can still do it. So, what's the difference in a multi-party marriage? Answer: None... In order to honor existing contracts; all parties in contract must agree before new contract is signed... Duh!

As such, arguments that "we won't do it", because "it does not work that way now".... Are no different, at their core ideology; of arguments presented against allowing Homosexuals to marry; one racial group to marry another; and the like....

You missed the point. I was arguing that you cannot, even if polygamous marriages were legal, commit fraud in the way you suggested SHOULD be allowed. It was not an argument that polygamous marriage should not be allowed, only not informing all parties. Glad you finally agree with me.

As far as your points about polygamous marriage being no different than marriage is currently, see Cat's post. http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9232494&postcount=261

By the way, well-said, Cat.

I think that you do, but let's assume you're correct. Either way, you are borrowing against the equity (the part that does not belong to the other bank). You do definitely have to notify the second bank of the first mortgage, as by definition the second bank only has access to the leftovers. Either way, you couldn't do it if essentially the second mortgage was contractually equal to the first. I was talking about getting multiple mortgages in the first place, not second mortgages (a loan against the equity of the house). In a first loan, the bank essentially buys the house and you buy it from them. They have an expectation of being able to foreclose on the house and sell it to recoup their expenditures. If you did this with another bank with neither bank having knowledge of the other and each have the expectation that the house could be sold to recoup their losses (which for each bank is a vast majority of the value of the house), you would be guilty of fraud, just as you would be if you entered into multiple marriage contracts.

You're talking about Fraud, not polygamy (the two terms are not inclusive to one another)

I'm talking about a legal contract make persuant to all existing obligations.

If one marries a another persuant to private contract...

Then, later, decides on marrying another; notifies the existing contract holder persuant to such; gets permission, ammends existing contract; and engages in a second contract... There is no "fraud" and your argument is moot (which is what it was to begin with anyway)...

It is not equal now. It discriminates on the basis of gender.

A man can marry a woman, but not a man.

It discriminates on the basis of gender in the same way that the bans on innerracial marriage discriminated on the basis of race.

I understand what you are saying. I'm not convinced that the SCOTUS will see it that way though, I think they 'might' be convinced by your #7 reason in your other post...

7. Denying consensual polygamy does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rational distinctions may be made between marriage and polygamy.

That they might determine that SSM does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rational distinctions may be made between husband and wife and husband and husband...

Your argument about divorce and being allowed to get married before makes no sense.

Under bans on interracial marriage, people of all races were "allowed" to get married. They just couldn't marry someone of a different "race."

The ban was "equally applied." It merely defined marriage as being between two people of the same race in the same way you define marriage as being between two people of different genders. So it must have been fair and constitutional, right?

WRONG.


I think the race card is different because there is no such thing as race (genetically speaking, there is heritage, but not race) BUT that there is a difference between Gender. Thus, 'race' was never a valid definition of stipulation.


Again though, I'm just saying that I think that reasonable people can differ on the interpretation of rational distinction about gender and marriage etc.

My guess is that SSM will be allowed, but I'm not convinced the SCOTUS will force it by the 14th amendment clauses...

You're talking about Fraud, not polygamy (the two terms are not inclusive to one another)

I'm talking about a legal contract make persuant to all existing obligations.

If one marries a another persuant to private contract...

Then, later, decides on marrying another; notifies the existing contract holder persuant to such; gets permission, ammends existing contract; and engages in a second contract... There is no "fraud" and your argument is moot (which is what it was to begin with anyway)...

Someone wasn't paying attention. I agree with everything you said other than my argument being moot. The point of my argument was fraud (not polygamy).

Do you understand that I can't enter into a mortgage contract with one bank and then got to seven other banks and enter into seven other mortgage contracts with the same house as collateral? This constitutes fraud. You're aware of that, yes? You are also aware that multiple marriages without notifiying all people involved would also be fraud, yes?

That is the post you replied to. I was always talking about it being fraudulant to enter into a marriage contract with multiple people without notifying them. It was in reply to a post that Ph33rdom wrote that said it should be permitted. You made basically the same objection to Ph33rdom's post only without the analogy.

I understand what you are saying. I'm not convinced that the SCOTUS will see it that way though, I think they 'might' be convinced by your #7 reason in your other post...

7. Denying consensual polygamy does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rational distinctions may be made between marriage and polygamy.

That they might determine that SSM does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rational distinctions may be made between husband and wife and husband and husband...

If we allow those forms of "rational distinctions" then we have to allow "rational distinctions" that say: Only a man can be a firefighter and only a woman can be a kindergarten teacher.

I understand what you are saying. I'm not convinced that the SCOTUS will see it that way though, I think they 'might' be convinced by your #7 reason in your other post...

7. Denying consensual polygamy does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rational distinctions may be made between marriage and polygamy.

That they might determine that SSM does not necessarily violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rational distinctions may be made between husband and wife and husband and husband...

Well, neither of us thinks that the word of SCOTUS is the end of any constitutional dispute -- particularly a single decision on a new issue.

Regardless, you apply the wrong standard.

A distinction between polygamy and marriage does not rely on any suspect categories. Thus, it needs only a rational basis to survive Equal Protection Clause scrutiny.

A distinction between different-gender and same-gender marriage discriminates on the basis of a suspect category: gender. Thus, a far more compelling interest is required and the distinction must be more narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

I think that you do, but let's assume you're correct. Either way, you are borrowing against the equity (the part that does not belong to the other bank). You do definitely have to notify the second bank of the first mortgage, as by definition the second bank only has access to the leftovers. Either way, you couldn't do it if essentially the second mortgage was contractually equal to the first. I was talking about getting multiple mortgages in the first place, not second mortgages (a loan against the equity of the house). In a first loan, the bank essentially buys the house and you buy it from them. They have an expectation of being able to foreclose on the house and sell it to recoup their expenditures. If you did this with another bank with neither bank having knowledge of the other and each have the expectation that the house could be sold to recoup their losses (which for each bank is a vast majority of the value of the house), you would be guilty of fraud, just as you would be if you entered into multiple marriage contracts.

Yes, you have to notify the second bank.... The first bank gets first dibs on any foreclosure, second bank takes a lot more risk. Especially on sencond mortgages that go over the house value (like 125% over value to give you a bigger loan, but of course, they charge you more interest on those loans to make it worthwhile to them).

We're hi-jacking this thread though (even though I tried and failed to bail out of it awhile ago! :p , we should stop the bank talk stuff )

I think the race card is different because there is no such thing as race (genetically speaking, there is heritage, but not race) BUT that there is a difference between Gender. Thus, 'race' was never a valid definition of stipulation.

So it is ok to make a law stating that only men can be Senate members and only women can be House members?

After all, there is a difference between gender.

So it is ok to make a law stating that only men can be Senate members and only women can be House members?

After all, there is a difference between gender.

It's okay to make a law that says you can't force women and men to share locker rooms because there is difference in gender.

Well, neither of us thinks that the word of SCOTUS is the end of any constitutional dispute -- particularly a single decision on a new issue.

True enough that!

Regardless, you apply the wrong standard.

A distinction between polygamy and marriage does not rely on any suspect categories. Thus, it needs only a rational basis to survive Equal Protection Clause scrutiny.

A distinction between different-gender and same-gender marriage discriminates on the basis of a suspect category: gender. Thus, a far more compelling interest is required and the distinction must be more narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

You may be right, they very well could go that way. I honestly can imagine reading a ruling that goes either way.

It's okay to make a law that says you can't force women and men to share locker rooms because there is difference in gender.

Not really. A private entity can decide to only have unisex bathrooms/locker rooms.

However, separate bathrooms/locker rooms are allowed because a compelling interest in doing so can be posited.

We can't offer special male and female driver's licenses, can we?

If we allow those forms of "rational distinctions" then we have to allow "rational distinctions" that say: Only a man can be a firefighter and only a woman can be a kindergarten teacher.


They still do that in the military, how much longer they will be able to do that, I don't know.

You will likely always have some right to privacy based on gender though, I can't really see that one disappearing any time soon.

They still do that in the military, how much longer they will be able to do that, I don't know.

Not long, I hope. Making such distinctions is idiotic and does nothing but weaken the trust the soldiers have for each other.

You will likely always have some right to privacy based on gender though, I can't really see that one disappearing any time soon.

Most likely - because there is a compelling reason to do so.

You are missing the distinction here. Yes, there is a difference between male and female. However, that doesn't mean the government can start making random laws based on gender. They have to have a compelling interest to do so. There is no demonstrable interest in refusing to provide a same-sex couple with the same protections afforded to a comparable heterosexual couple.

I don't know, if we re-institute a draft and equally draft women and men.

Will we expect American families to send us their girls/women so that we can send them to the front lines of a combat zone with rifles and hand grenades?

Allowing a woman to do it because she wants to is one thing, but forcing ALL women to do it? It’s equal, but will we do it?

Not long, I hope. Making such distinctions is idiotic and does nothing but weaken the trust the soldiers have for each other.



Most likely - because there is a compelling reason to do so.

You are missing the distinction here. Yes, there is a difference between male and female. However, that doesn't mean the government can start making random laws based on gender. They have to have a compelling interest to do so. There is no demonstrable interest in refusing to provide a same-sex couple with the same protections afforded to a comparable heterosexual couple.

I know you know it, but the argument will be that it takes one of each to make a baby, anything else is not compelling interest. (again, just pointing out the argument, not saying that it will work or not)

Marriage is a tax break

I don't know, if we re-institute a draft and equally draft women and men.

Will we expect American families to send us their girls/women so that we can send them to the front lines of a combat zone with rifles and hand grenades?

Allowing a woman to do it because she wants to is one thing, but forcing ALL women to do it? It’s equal, but will we do it?

I don't like the entire idea of the draft.

However, if it is to be used, it must be used equally. And yes, I would expect that I would be drafted and sent to a combat zone just as much as my boyfriend might.

I know you know it, but the argument will be that it takes one of each to make a baby, anything else is not compelling interest. (again, just pointing out the argument, not saying that it will work or not)

That's nice. It could only be possibly used as an argument if the protections afforded to marriage couples had anything at all to do with making a baby. Unfortunately, they don't, so that argument is out the window.

Marriage is a tax break

Funny. In the US, married couples generally end up paying more in taxes each year than they would unmarried.

No, that’s not a problem. That's no different than an elderly man with four children, all equally his own and all equally entitled to the same properties.

As far as a will goes at least cildren are entitled to NOTHING unless they are specificly written in.

You have lost the Lords teachings, by accepting homosexuality as right, I view 'Christians' such as you, as either seriously deluded or agents of Satan,

No, no , no. I'M the agent of Satan, wait no . . . agent of SATIN, or was it the Bavarian Illuminati?











Who am I the agent of again?

I don't know, if we re-institute a draft and equally draft women and men.

Will we expect American families to send us their girls/women so that we can send them to the front lines of a combat zone with rifles and hand grenades?

Allowing a woman to do it because she wants to is one thing, but forcing ALL women to do it? It’s equal, but will we do it?

But you're OK with forcing all MEN to do it?

Not really. A private entity can decide to only have unisex bathrooms/locker rooms.

However, separate bathrooms/locker rooms are allowed because a compelling interest in doing so can be posited.

We can't offer special male and female driver's licenses, can we?

A drivers license can be very, very specific... You need glasses or else this isn't valid, you have a hearing problem you need additional training, you are only allowed to drive for so many hours (over the road truck drivers), you have a class A or B or C license (for the type of vehicle you are allowed to drive)...


And you protest because the marriage license requires a simple man and woman clause? :confused: :D

A drivers license can be very, very specific... You need glasses or else this isn't valid, you have a hearing problem you need additional training, you are only allowed to drive for so many hours (over the road truck drivers), you have a class A or B or C license (for the type of vehicle you are allowed to drive)...


And you protest because the marriage license requires a simple man and woman clause? :confused: :D

But in your drivers licence example there are good, logical reasons. Marriage licenses requireing one member of each gender is based on nothing but biggotry, usualy having a religious basis. So in effect passing laws against gay marriage would violate the 1st amendment.

But in your drivers licence example there are good, logical reasons. Marriage licenses requireing one member of each gender is based on nothing but biggotry, usualy having a religious basis. So in effect passing laws against gay marriage would violate the 1st amendment.


Okay, you peaked my interest, how does it violate the 1st amendment again?

A drivers license can be very, very specific... You need glasses or else this isn't valid, you have a hearing problem you need additional training, you are only allowed to drive for so many hours (over the road truck drivers), you have a class A or B or C license (for the type of vehicle you are allowed to drive)...


And you protest because the marriage license requires a simple man and woman clause? :confused: :D

All people have the same requirements for vision. The hearing training is to increase safety, for that person as well. The type of license is based on your level of training. But in all cases, people are treated equally. Again, you make the case for equality with marriage licenses. Keep talking and maby we can just cut and paste your posts and send them to our senators to make our point.

All people have the same requirements for vision. The hearing training is to increase safety, for that person as well. The type of license is based on your level of training. But in all cases, people are treated equally. Again, you make the case for equality with marriage licenses. Keep talking and maby we can just cut and paste your posts and send them to our senators to make our point.

All people have the same man and woman requirements for marriage... No reason to even talk about anything past that...

All people have the same man and woman requirements for marriage... No reason to even talk about anything past that...

Really? Are you sure? All people are allowed to marry men? All people are allowed to marry women? If we followed the constitution they would. But you understand this, which is why you wish for their to be an amendment.

Really? Are you sure? All people are allowed to marry men? All people are allowed to marry women? If we followed the constitution they would. But you understand this, which is why you wish for their to be an amendment.

Because things like private property and eminent domain do not stop a local mayor and mall contractor from stealing your ancestral home. Thing like that about the SCOTUS makes me nervous!?!? :D

Because things like private property and eminent domain do not stop a local mayor and mall contractor from stealing your ancestral home. Thing like that about the SCOTUS makes me nervous!?!? :D

I don't mind giving a complement. You are amazing at avoiding the point.

Okay, you peaked my interest, how does it violate the 1st amendment again?


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.

Bold mine.

If one acknowledges the fact that the bias against gay marriage is 99.9% religious in basis (specificly Christian) then it becomes clear that laws against it "respect an establishment of religion".

Before someone makes an argument about murder or something equal absurd laws against murder are not "religiously based" despite being one of the ten comandments; laws against murder are based on the fact that it is clearly and demonstrably bad for people to go out an kill each other and because it infringes on the clearly deliniated right to life our constitution contains.

Because things like private property and eminent domain do not stop a local mayor and mall contractor from stealing your ancestral home. Thing like that about the SCOTUS makes me nervous!?!? :D
Ok, why do we keep having to do this? You already know that the only reasons for violating rights is for a compelling, demonstrated government interest. The town receives a definit benefit from building a mall. You have yet to prove or ever really show a compelling government interest in abridging people's rights in regards to marriage and even if you did, it would would have to be narrowly tailored. I'll just save this post and repost it when you bring the same thing up in another thread. Or I could just wait for somebody else to put you in your place. Do you actually think by proving yourself ignorant of the constitution over and over, you're driving people to agree with you?