NationStates Jolt Archive

But a legislature has the inherent right to make laws, and they are supposed to make laws with the constitution in mind. If the legislature thinks that a current law as it stands violates the constitution, they are supposed to change it. It's only when the legislature fails in this job that the court has to step in.

The legislature CANNOT make laws about marriage, even to enforce the constitution, because it is a violation of the constitution. You know that little part about rights not enumerated in the Constitution being reserved to the people or the states. Thus, they either have to amend the Constitution or they have to let the SCOTUS do it's job which is to interpret the Constitution and to deal with legislation, from federal on down, that is unconstitutional. This legislation is unconstitutional but it is not being made by the federal legislature. Thus the only way to fix it once and for all is to attack it with the SCOTUS. It's not making legislation. It's domonstrating that the current legislation (the US Constitution) already protects that right. The federal legislature should not violate the constitution to enforce the constitution.

Because when you're in a position of elected leadership, you sometimes have to make unpopular decisions that go against what your constituency has said it wants because it's the morally right thing to do. Denying the equal protection of the laws to a group of citizens because of their sexual orientation is not only unconstitutional, but it's flat out wrong.

If our lawmakers had strictly followed "what the people want," without even remote consideration of doing the right thing, we might only now be allowing interracial marriage. Hell, we might only now be ending racial segregation. Those weren't right, and neither is denying two people who love each other and are willing to commit their lives to one another the right to have all legal protections available to them just because they happen to be two men or two women.

The people decide what is morally right. Not the government. Government SERVES the people. If the people say they want something in a certain way it should be that way.

I hear people squealing about "tyranny of the majority" but what they're really talking about is wanting "tyranny of the minority" which would be even worse.

The people decide what is morally right. Not the government. Government SERVES the people. If the people say they want something in a certain way it should be that way.
1. The government not only serves the people but it also protects them from opression from other people. Thats why the government takes away certain rights and protects others.
2. If people says something should be a certain way that does not make it right. I dont suppose you still support slavery, segregation, not allowing women to work, and I guess your still against interacial marriage?

I hear people squealing about "tyranny of the majority" but what they're really talking about is wanting "tyranny of the minority" which would be even worse.
How is one group wanting the same rights as another a tyranny? How is making the government recognize that they are married and giving them the rights that are associated with marriage a tyranny?

The people decide what is morally right. Not the government. Government SERVES the people. If the people say they want something in a certain way it should be that way.

I hear people squealing about "tyranny of the majority" but what they're really talking about is wanting "tyranny of the minority" which would be even worse.

No one wishes for tyranny of the minority or the majority. The people decided a long time ago that we wished for equal rights for all US citizens (with very rare exception, i.e. criminals, children). When we decided that, the onus fell on the government to enforce equal rights and to continue toward making this a reality. So even if tomorrow the majority people say, "hey, we think people who worship Allah are wrong and should not be allowed to do so," the government says, "sorry, but that is a violation of the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and we won't allow that." The job of the government is to protect the rights of everyone, not to trump the rights of the majority with the rights of the minority or the other way around.

Here the minority is simply asking for the same rights as everyone else and the government is responsible for ensuring that this occurs.

1. The government not only serves the people but it also protects them from opression from other people. Thats why the government takes away certain rights and protects others.
2. If people says something should be a certain way that does not make it right. I dont suppose you still support slavery, segregation, not allowing women to work, and I guess your still against interacial marriage?


How is one group wanting the same rights as another a tyranny? How is making the government recognize that they are married and giving them the rights that are associated with marriage a tyranny?

You didn't read the original post very well.

Civil Unions in Califronia already HAVE the legal rights of a marriage. Apparently that's not enough. Now they want to redefine marriage.

The people of California have spoken and now their elected leaders, who are supposed to act in accordance with their constituency, are trying to do an end run around the will of the people.

Sorry, but that's just shady.

If homosexuals want a redefinition of marriage they'll have to wait until enough people support them to make it happen. Period.

Civil Unions in Califronia already HAVE the legal rights of a marriage. Apparently that's not enough. Now they want to redefine marriage.

If marriage and civil unions are the same thing for the state, why should the state use different words for them ?

If marriage and civil unions are the same thing for the state, why should the state use different words for them ?

Your argument is just as effective in the other direction.

If there is no difference between marriage and civil union, why do homosexuals care so much?

You didn't read the original post very well.

Civil Unions in Califronia already HAVE the legal rights of a marriage. Apparently that's not enough. Now they want to redefine marriage.
And there was also a group of people in California who felt that the people should have a say in the legal rights Civil Unions in California have, specifically revoking them. Apparantly for people in califorina them having the rights is too much. And what is wrong with redefining marriage? We have redefined things all the time in this country. Blacks were originally property now they are citizens.

The people of California have spoken and now their elected leaders, who are supposed to act in accordance with their constituency, are trying to do an end run around the will of the people.

Sorry, but that's just shady.
Just because the majority says so does not make it right. You need to understand that point there bud. The majority at one point said slavery was great. The majority at one point said women's role was in the kitchen. The majority once believed that keeping blacks and whites seperate was amazing. See what I'm getting at her bud.

If homosexuals want a redefinition of marriage they'll have to wait until enough people support them to make it happen. Period.
I don't agree. Just because the majority supports something does NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. If a group is being denied rights because its different the government should step in and make sure that discrimination stops.

You didn't read the original post very well.

Civil Unions in Califronia already HAVE the legal rights of a marriage. Apparently that's not enough. Now they want to redefine marriage.

The people of California have spoken and now their elected leaders, who are supposed to act in accordance with their constituency, are trying to do an end run around the will of the people.

Sorry, but that's just shady.

If homosexuals want a redefinition of marriage they'll have to wait until enough people support them to make it happen. Period.
You haven't read legal precedent very well. Seperate but equal is not equal on its face. You cannot create a seperate institution for a minority and say it's equal. Seperation is inequality per the Supreme Court.

The legislature is enforcing the rights of the minority and it's about time too.

Marriage is a civil institution and thus defense of it's spiritual implications is not the job of the government. Even if they give people the right to marry same-sex they cannot and will not require any church to offer or accept any such union. The church may not recognize certain marriages for religious reasons, but the government has no such luxury.

If you want to protect the institution of marriage you should be railing against shows like the Bachelor, Joe Millionaire and Married by America. You should be railing against all those divorced people and people who cheated on their spouses who said no to Gay marriage because it will weaken our infallible institution. The argument that gays can do anything worse to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals have already done is as laughable as it is sad.

Your argument is just as effective in the other direction.

If there is no difference between marriage and civil union, why do homosexuals care so much?

Because the use of two different words implies there *is* a difference.

Your argument is just as effective in the other direction.

If there is no difference between marriage and civil union, why do homosexuals care so much?

Because they know that this is how "seperate but equal" started for racial reasons. "If there is no difference between our [educational] institutions, why do [blacks] homosexuals care so much?" Same weak argument. Same unconstitutionality.

They know that if they have seperate names they can be treated differently. Laws could specifically be written to apply to one and not the other. Insurance companies could apply to one and not the other. Employee benefits could apply to one and not the other. And so on.

But even if none of that happens, 'Seperate but Equal' has already been struck down.

And there was also a group of people in California who felt that the people should have a say in the legal rights Civil Unions in California have, specifically revoking them. Apparantly for people in califorina them having the rights is too much. And what is wrong with redefining marriage? We have redefined things all the time in this country. Blacks were originally property now they are citizens.


Just because the majority says so does not make it right. You need to understand that point there bud. The majority at one point said slavery was great. The majority at one point said women's role was in the kitchen. The majority once believed that keeping blacks and whites seperate was amazing. See what I'm getting at her bud.


I don't agree. Just because the majority supports something does NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. If a group is being denied rights because its different the government should step in and make sure that discrimination stops.

1. Were they the majority? Obviously not, since Civil Unions HAVE those rights. That's an example of why majority rules is correct.

2. And that makes the minority more "right"? Who makes the decision what is right and what is wrong? Are you really willing to set that kind of precedent where the minority can dictate policy?

3. Yep, they did. And as time went on and people became more educated that paradigm changed. Same with the whole "women in the kitchen" thing, though that wasn't protected by law, it was simply tradition.

Traditions change in time. Paradigms shift. But you want to enforce the tyranny of the minority. The precedent is horrible and can't be allowed.

You haven't read legal precedent very well. Seperate but equal is not equal on its face. You cannot create a seperate institution for a minority and say it's equal. Seperation is inequality per the Supreme Court.

The legislature is enforcing the rights of the minority and it's about time too.

Marriage is a civil institution and thus defense of it's spiritual implications is not the job of the government. Even if they give people the right to marry same-sex they cannot and will not require any church to offer or accept any such union. The church may not recognize certain marriages for religious reasons, but the government has no such luxury.

If you want to protect the institution of marriage you should be railing against shows like the Bachelor, Joe Millionaire and Married by America. You should be railing against all those divorced people and people who cheated on their spouses who said no to Gay marriage because it will weaken our infallible institution. The argument that gays can do anything worse to the institution of marriage than heterosexuals have already done is as laughable as it is sad.

It's not separate but equal. Straight people use civil unions as well. This is not some shady corner that people are pushing homosexuals into.

And I do think that those shows you mentioned are tacky and tasteless. What's your point? My argument is that you can't let the minority dictate policy. It really doesn't have a whole helluva lot to do with Homo/Heterosexuality.

Because the use of two different words implies there *is* a difference.

Sure there's a difference. But heterosexuals use civil unions too. What's your point?

Mine is that you can't let the minority dictate policy to the majority.

1. Were they the majority? Obviously not, since Civil Unions HAVE those rights. That's an example of why majority rules is correct.
They were not allowed to vote on the issue. So that is not an example why majority rule is correct.

2. And that makes the minority more "right"? Who makes the decision what is right and what is wrong? Are you really willing to set that kind of precedent where the minority can dictate policy?
Who said anything about making the minorities more right? I simply stated that just because the majority says something is so does not make it right. The majority does not make the laws the elect people who do so. And those people have an obligation to make sure that the majority does not opress the minority. This is not about the minority dictating policy this is about giving a group of people the same rights as others.

3. Yep, they did. And as time went on and people became more educated that paradigm changed. Same with the whole "women in the kitchen" thing, though that wasn't protected by law, it was simply tradition.

Traditions change in time. Paradigms shift. But you want to enforce the tyranny of the minority. The precedent is horrible and can't be allowed.
No one is trying to push anything on the majority here. Gays aren't saying heterosexuals can't marry. They are trying to get the government to recognize them as married and give them the same rights as heterosexual couples. I fail to see how that is a tryanny over the majority.

Sure there's a difference. But heterosexuals use civil unions too.

Intruiging. Could you then please explain:
- What the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is for a straight couple ?
- Why homosexuals would qualify for one, but not the other ?

If *every* state arrangement would be called "civil union" that would be fair too. Marriage can then be reserved for the religious ceremony - but do note that there are more religions than Christianity. Muslems, Jews, Hindus, worshippers of the spaghetti monster and so on all have an equal right to refer to their ceremony as "marriage".

Mine is that you can't let the minority dictate policy to the majority.

Neither can you let the majority oppress the minority.
Fortunately there are many possibilities in between.

They were not allowed to vote on the issue. So that is not an example why majority rule is correct.


Who said anything about making the minorities more right? I simply stated that just because the majority says something is so does not make it right. The majority does not make the laws the elect people who do so. And those people have an obligation to make sure that the majority does not opress the minority. This is not about the minority dictating policy this is about giving a group of people the same rights as others.


No one is trying to push anything on the majority here. Gays aren't saying heterosexuals can't marry. They are trying to get the government to recognize them as married and give them the same rights as heterosexual couples. I fail to see how that is a tryanny over the majority.

1. If they weren't allowed to vote on the issue, how does that have any bearing on the discussion?

2. If you take a vote and the majority says one thing and their elected officials do the opposite, that is an implicit argument that the minority is right and the majority is wrong. There really isn't any other way to see it, as the very event itself is a repudiation of the beliefs held by the majority.

2b. The purpose of elected officials in a representative democracy is not to protect anyone, it is to act as the voice of the people. Period.

3. They already HAVE the same legal rights! What they really are trying to do is force the majority to accept them and their lifestyle. If the majority does not want to do that, they don't have to. If homosexuals want their lifestyle to be seen as valid or (and isn't this a murky subject) morally acceptable they can't legislate it. They have to convince people. That's the wonderful thing about freedom of speech.

1. Were they the majority? Obviously not, since Civil Unions HAVE those rights. That's an example of why majority rules is correct.

2. And that makes the minority more "right"? Who makes the decision what is right and what is wrong? Are you really willing to set that kind of precedent where the minority can dictate policy?

3. Yep, they did. And as time went on and people became more educated that paradigm changed. Same with the whole "women in the kitchen" thing, though that wasn't protected by law, it was simply tradition.

Traditions change in time. Paradigms shift. But you want to enforce the tyranny of the minority. The precedent is horrible and can't be allowed.

Sorry, but that precedent has already been set. It's well-known that interracial marriage was HIGHLY unpopular at the time the Supreme Court allowed it. It wasn't tyranny of the minority, it was the court preventing tyranny of the majority. You want to make it an either/or proposition because you find same-sex marriage offensive. No matter how offensive you find the rights of the minority you cannot deny them those rights simply because they are a minority. Marriage is a fundamental right according to SCOTUS. It cannot be denied.

Intruiging. Could you then please explain:
- What the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is for a straight couple ?
- Why homosexuals would qualify for one, but not the other ?

If *every* state arrangement would be called "civil union" that would be fair too. Marriage can then be reserved for the religious ceremony - but do note that there are more religions than Christianity. Muslems, Jews, Hindus, worshippers of the spaghetti monster and so on all have an equal right to refer to their ceremony as "marriage".



Neither can you let the majority oppress the minority.
Fortunately there are many possibilities in between.

Oppression means denial of equal rights. Homosexuals living in civil union already have the same legal rights as married heterosexuals. They are not being denied their equal rights.

Sorry, but that precedent has already been set. It's well-known that interracial marriage was HIGHLY unpopular at the time the Supreme Court allowed it. It wasn't tyranny of the minority, it was the court preventing tyranny of the majority. You want to make it an either/or proposition because you find same-sex marriage offensive. No matter how offensive you find the rights of the minority you cannot deny them those rights simply because they are a minority. Marriage is a fundamental right according to SCOTUS. It cannot be denied.

Then let it go to the Supreme Court. What we're talking about here is the elected legislature trying to subvert the will of the people.

If the Supreme Court says the will of the people is wrong, so be it. But that is NOT the legislature's job.

You attributing to me something that I have neither said nor believe. I don't personally find same-sex marriage offensive. I don't care one way or the other, as it does not affect me. What I find offensive are the representatives of the people of the US blatantly thumbing their nose at the will of the people.

It's not separate but equal. Straight people use civil unions as well. This is not some shady corner that people are pushing homosexuals into.

And I do think that those shows you mentioned are tacky and tasteless. What's your point? My argument is that you can't let the minority dictate policy. It really doesn't have a whole helluva lot to do with Homo/Heterosexuality.

Hmmm... this all sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, right, those pesky African Americans with their wanting to be recognized as people. You can't let those minorities dictate policy. That would be... um, equal treatment! Dear God, NOOOOO!

As far as straight people using civil unions as well, sorry, but then you run into the same problem again. Opposite-sex couples have the option of marriage or civil unions and same-sex couples have only civil unions to turn to. So if a right gets extended to marriages that is not extended to civil unions, well, screw 'em. They're the minority anyway, right? What's a little oppression of minorities between friends?

Holy sarcasm, Batman!

So, in effect, you are for segregation since every black man had the right to marry, just not to a white woman... :rolleyes:

Since when is race the equivalent of sexual orientation?

I think the only reason people make this comparison is that they hope to hop on the racial equality bandwagon, and get black people and guilty liberals on their side.

There are no currently no laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying, and in fact there are plenty who are currently married; just not to partners of the same sex.

What homosexuals want is an expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. There was no expansion of the definition of marriage necessary to allow different colors of people to wed, just a striking down of prohibitions against it.

Hmmm... this all sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, right, those pesky African Americans with their wanting to be recognized as people. You can't let those minorities dictate policy. That would be... um, equal treatment! Dear God, NOOOOO!

As far as straight people using civil unions as well, sorry, but then you run into the same problem again. Opposite-sex couples have the option of marriage or civil unions and same-sex couples have only civil unions to turn to. So if a right gets extended to marriages that is not extended to civil unions, well, screw 'em. They're the minority anyway, right? What's a little oppression of minorities between friends?

Holy sarcasm, Batman!

Funny thing, no one seems to realize that the majority had to approve of rights for black people for those laws to work, otherwise the politicians who voted for those laws would have been voted out of office, and replaced with politicians who would have restored the old ways...

Bottom line-if you can't get the approval of the majority, you are screwed! :mp5:

Then let it go to the Supreme Court. What we're talking about here is the elected legislature trying to subvert the will of the people.

If the Supreme Court says the will of the people is wrong, so be it. But that is NOT the legislature's job.

You attributing to me something that I have neither said nor believe. I don't personally find same-sex marriage offensive. I don't care one way or the other, as it does not affect me. What I find offensive are the representatives of the people of the US blatantly thumbing their nose at the will of the people.

Actually, it is the legislature's job. The legislature is an elected body that makes laws and IS NOT required to put them to a vote of the people. Or did we vote on the Patriot Act and I missed it?

And you do know the difference between the representatives of the people of CALIFORNIA and the representatives of the people of the UNITED STATES, don't you? Yes? Good. Your post does not reflect that knowledge.

Oh, and don't worry, we have this thing called elections in order to weigh in on such things. That's why it's a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, but you knew that too, didn't you? Yes? Good. Your posts also do not reflect this knowledge.

Funny thing, no one seems to realize that the majority had to approve of rights for black people for those laws to work, otherwise the politicians who voted for those laws would have been voted out of office, and replaced with politicians who would have restored the old ways...

Bottom line-if you can't get the approval of the majority, you are screwed! :mp5:

Really? I didn't know the majority could vote the SCOTUS out of office. Must have missed the memo (referring to Seperate but Equal as I have the entire thread).

Oppression means denial of equal rights. Homosexuals living in civil union already have the same legal rights as married heterosexuals. They are not being denied their equal rights.

That doesnt answer his questions. He asked

- What the difference between "marriage" and "civil union" is for a straight couple ?
- Why homosexuals would qualify for one, but not the other ?

Since when is race the equivalent of sexual orientation?

I think the only reason people make this comparison is that they hope to hop on the racial equality bandwagon, and get black people and guilty liberals on their side.

There are no currently no laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying, and in fact there are plenty who are currently married; just not to partners of the same sex.

What homosexuals want is an expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. There was no expansion of the definition of marriage necessary to allow different colors of people to wed, just a striking down of prohibitions against it.

Same-sex unions on their face are NOT about orientation, since gays are already permitted to marry, just not someone of the same SEX. This issue is about sex. And sexual discrimination is very much the equivalent of racial discrimination in the eyes of the law. There is no expansion of the definition of marriage is necessary here. The law says that you cannot use the comparison of the races of the partners in a marriage as a basis for denying them the right of marriage. It should also say that you cannot use the comparison of the sexes of the partners in a marriage as a basis for denying them the right of marriage. No redefinition is necessary.

Really? I didn't know the majority could vote the SCOTUS out of office. Must have missed the memo (referring to Seperate but Equal as I have the entire thread).

Sorry, I was referring to the civil rights laws of the mid-1960's USA.

And the legislators can write new laws to try to circumvent the SCOTUS decisions anytime they want to.

Same-sex unions on their face are NOT about orientation, since gays are already permitted to marry, just not someone of the same SEX. This issue is about sex. And sexual discrimination is very much the equivalent of racial discrimination in the eyes of the law. There is no expansion of the definition of marriage is necessary here. The law says that you cannot use the comparison of the races of the partners in a marriage as a basis for denying them the right of marriage. It should also say that you cannot use the comparison of the sexes of the partners in a marriage as a basis for denying them the right of marriage. No redefinition is necessary.

Marriage=male(s)+female(s)
(I am including polygamy/polyandry)

redefinition=male(s) or female(s)+male(s) or female(s)

Also, what about age discrimination? Why are there minimum age laws for marriage?

And lets make a precedent-what about species discrimination? or was that another thread?

Marriage=male(s)+female(s)
(I am including polygamy/polyandry)

redefinition=male(s) or female(s)+male(s) or female(s)

Also, what about age discrimination? Why are there minimum age laws for marriage?

And lets make a precedent-what about species discrimination? or was that another thread?

Civil marriage is the union of two people for the purpose of being recognized by the state a new entity that conveys special rights and priveleges to the pair.

Sorry, but trying to turn it into a math equation does not make it one. At best, when including your polyandry/polygamy, you could say marriage is the union of one or more males and one or more females under the eyes of the law. It's still silly and the law says sex is a protected class. You cannot convey rights on the basis of sex without a strong government interest.

Species and age are not protected classes. Age minimums are not protected under the EPC, nor are other species. Great slippery slope argument, though. Oh, wait, not really great. Kind of mediocre really. Can you at least argue a strong government interest as that's at least defendable legally even if it's based on spurious statistics and ridiculous premises? These arguments were weak when people made them fifty years ago about interracial marriage. They're still weak now.

If you're going to be oppressive, can you come up with some new material just to make it fun for those of us who believe in equal rights and justice? Or could you make your arguments rhyme or something?

Sorry, I was referring to the civil rights laws of the mid-1960's USA.

And the legislators can write new laws to try to circumvent the SCOTUS decisions anytime they want to.

Not new law. They would have to amend the Constitution which is a tad more difficult.

Actually, it is the legislature's job. The legislature is an elected body that makes laws and IS NOT required to put them to a vote of the people. Or did we vote on the Patriot Act and I missed it?

And you do know the difference between the representatives of the people of CALIFORNIA and the representatives of the people of the UNITED STATES, don't you? Yes? Good. Your post does not reflect that knowledge.

Oh, and don't worry, we have this thing called elections in order to weigh in on such things. That's why it's a representative democracy and not a direct democracy, but you knew that too, didn't you? Yes? Good. Your posts also do not reflect this knowledge.

1. It is NOT the legislature's job to act independently of the will of its constituents. The very reason senators and house members exist in the first place is to represent the people who elected them into office. How much simpler could this be?

2. Yes, I'm quite aware that the representatives of the people in California are different than the representatives of the US in general. And this bears any relevance to the discussion how, again? My argument is that the people of California have made clear what they want. Their representatives in the State legislature tried to do an end run around the will of the people.

3. Yes, we do have elections. Those elections are for people to choose who represents their interests in the House and Senate. They also have referendums to allow for a certain amount of direct democracy as well. In both cases the entire object is to uphold the will of the people.

Since when is race the equivalent of sexual orientation?
Since they are both protected under the EPC.

I think the only reason people make this comparison is that they hope to hop on the racial equality bandwagon, and get black people and guilty liberals on their side.
:rolleyes:
You are entitled to your opinion. It is, however, wrong in this instance.

There are no currently no laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying, and in fact there are plenty who are currently married; just not to partners of the same sex.
Funny, DOMA says you can't marry the person you love since you can only marry someone of the opposite sex. That is discrimination based on sex.

What homosexuals want is an expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. There was no expansion of the definition of marriage necessary to allow different colors of people to wed, just a striking down of prohibitions against it.
All we ask of you is to give us a compelling reason why we shouldn't change the definition to include same-sex union. No such reason exist.

In the meantime, same-sex couples are being denied their right to be treated as equals.

The legislature CANNOT make laws about marriage, even to enforce the constitution, because it is a violation of the constitution. You know that little part about rights not enumerated in the Constitution being reserved to the people or the states. Thus, they either have to amend the Constitution or they have to let the SCOTUS do it's job which is to interpret the Constitution and to deal with legislation, from federal on down, that is unconstitutional. This legislation is unconstitutional but it is not being made by the federal legislature. Thus the only way to fix it once and for all is to attack it with the SCOTUS. It's not making legislation. It's domonstrating that the current legislation (the US Constitution) already protects that right. The federal legislature should not violate the constitution to enforce the constitution.

Either I don't understand what you are saying or you don't understand what I'm saying.

My point is that the state legislature has the power to make laws about marriage, which is what is going on right now. Are you saying that the state of California is violating the US Constitution by passing a law that allows gay marriage? Because I would have to say you are wrong about that.

I agree that the Congress has no power to make marriage laws, although something like a Civil . Frankly, I don't think that the Supreme Court is going to decide that gay marriage is a fundamental right any time in the next decade or two. Most likely any moves towards gay rights in the near future will have to come from state legislatures.

1. It is NOT the legislature's job to act independently of the will of its constituents. The very reason senators and house members exist in the first place is to represent the people who elected them into office. How much simpler could this be?


You really are wrong about this. Politicians talk a lot about the will of the people and a good legislator takes this into account, but ultimately Representatives are not elected to be mouthpeices for their consituents, but are elected to be leaders. Part of that is taking difficult and unpopular stands.

Hmmm... this all sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, right, those pesky African Americans with their wanting to be recognized as people. You can't let those minorities dictate policy. That would be... um, equal treatment! Dear God, NOOOOO!

As far as straight people using civil unions as well, sorry, but then you run into the same problem again. Opposite-sex couples have the option of marriage or civil unions and same-sex couples have only civil unions to turn to. So if a right gets extended to marriages that is not extended to civil unions, well, screw 'em. They're the minority anyway, right? What's a little oppression of minorities between friends?

Holy sarcasm, Batman!
The whole marriage vs. civil unions issue is important to both sides because other states are required by the constitution to recognize marriages in other states, but no civil unions. If five or six large states begin performing gay marriages, it's in effect legalized everywhere as people can merely go out of state for the weekend and get married and come back and have their marriage recognized. There is certainly a lot at stake for both sides.

To be honest, I agree with the general idea that taking the state out of marriage altogether is a better idea. I don't really see why the government should be subsidising marriage so much.

The whole marriage vs. civil unions issue is important to both sides because other states are required by the constitution to recognize marriages in other states, but no civil unions. If five or six large states begin performing gay marriages, it's in effect legalized everywhere as people can merely go out of state for the weekend and get married and come back and have their marriage recognized. There is certainly a lot at stake for both sides.

To be honest, I agree with the general idea that taking the state out of marriage altogether is a better idea. I don't really see why the government should be subsidising marriage so much.

Actually other states are required to honor all civil proceedings of other states which would include civil unions. That is in the constitution, Article IV, which the DOMA violates, by the way.

1. It is NOT the legislature's job to act independently of the will of its constituents. The very reason senators and house members exist in the first place is to represent the people who elected them into office. How much simpler could this be?

It will be simple enough to find out if they acted against the will of their constituents in the next election. Representative democracies are designed so the representative can make decisions about what's best for the people without asking the people. They are doing exactly that. The constituents have a way to correct the situation if need be, in an election, next term.

2. Yes, I'm quite aware that the representatives of the people in California are different than the representatives of the US in general. And this bears any relevance to the discussion how, again? My argument is that the people of California have made clear what they want. Their representatives in the State legislature tried to do an end run around the will of the people.

Good. Make that argument. You tried to extend it the entire US.

3. Yes, we do have elections. Those elections are for people to choose who represents their interests in the House and Senate. They also have referendums to allow for a certain amount of direct democracy as well. In both cases the entire object is to uphold the will of the people.

In both case the entire object is to elect a representative and that representative is to represent all of his constituents, not just the ones that voted for him. The system is designed to prevent tyranny of the majority and does so quite well in most cases. You seem to think it's one or the other, but this is a case where the minority is simply asking for equal rights, rights to the 1,159 benefits of being married. You would deny them those rights, fortunately the individual legislators recognize their responsibility to all constituents and not just the majority. They deserve to be applauded.

And from now on when you say 'the people' can you just say 'the majority' since it's actually what you mean. You don't really care for equal rights. You just think the majority should be satisfied and damn the minorities.

Either I don't understand what you are saying or you don't understand what I'm saying.

My point is that the state legislature has the power to make laws about marriage, which is what is going on right now. Are you saying that the state of California is violating the US Constitution by passing a law that allows gay marriage? Because I would have to say you are wrong about that.

I agree that the Congress has no power to make marriage laws, although something like a Civil . Frankly, I don't think that the Supreme Court is going to decide that gay marriage is a fundamental right any time in the next decade or two. Most likely any moves towards gay rights in the near future will have to come from state legislatures.

No, I'm saying that the federal legislature cannot fix this issue and since it is an issue across the US the only way to fix the problem on a federal level is through SCOTUS. I think perhaps we aren't disagreeing, really. I'm saying state legislatures are failing and SCOTUS must fix it.

Telegram me your bar number and I will gladly verify your license.

Since my bar number will give you access to my full name, address, email and phone number, you'll need to make a pretty good case for how that information wouldn't jeopardize my safety.

Well if you are a lawyer, nomally such a claim would have the post where it was said. I don't recall it as I am all for adoption. Usually my claims of adopting older children revolve about the abortion debate as adoption is the solution to everything and yet there are many kids that are in the system. Fact remains; most people want the cuddily baby. We digress as this has no bearing to the topic at hand.



You are a Whittier puppet aren't you? That is the same kind of things he would way.



See that didn't hurt didn't it.



Compromising your safety? Wow. Sorry to dissapoint you as I am tad busy to be stalking people one the Net.



Ok serously. Are you Whittier? That sounds like something he would say as well.


I am well past 13. :)



I don't know. Anybody else think this sounds like Whittier?

Ahh well. Just a guess I usualy suck at detection of puppets/aliases......

Is Whitter a person in this forum? I've never heard of him/her.