NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/06/gay.marriage.reut/index.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- New York's top court upheld Thursday a state law that effectively bans same-sex marriage and ruled it is up to the state Legislature to decide whether to allow gays to marry.

The ruling by the New York State Court of Appeals was a disappointment to gay activists across the United States who have championed a divisive state-by-state fight for marriage rights and the issue could be in play in the November congressional elections.

Backers of same-sex marriage vowed to take the fight to the Albany statehouse and took heart in one judge's dissent filed in the 4-2 ruling.

Forty-four gay and lesbian couples, including Dan O'Donnell, a state lawmaker and the brother of entertainer Rosie O'Donnell, sought to overturn as unconstitutional a 97-year-old state law that defines marriage as between a man and woman.

They claimed it violated the state's constitution because it amounted to sex discrimination.

In a 70-page opinion the court said: "We hold that the New York Constitution does not compel recognition of marriages between members of the same sex.'

"Whether such marriages should be recognized is a question to be addressed by the Legislature."

Judge Robert Smith wrote in his opinion, "The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right. The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not 'deeply rooted'; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times.

A lawyer for the couples called the decision "extremely disappointing, even tragic."

"I believe what Chief Judge Judith Kaye said in the last sentence of her dissent is absolutely true that she is confident that it is an unfortunate misstep," said Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who argued on behalf of the couples.

"The next fight will be before the state Legislature, and we believe we will get enough votes to pass a marriage statute in the Legislature," she said.

In February, New York's law was upheld in a lower appeals court, forcing the fight to the State Court of Appeals.

Massachusetts is the only state to permit gays to marry, while Vermont allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage but calls them civil unions.

In the November 2004 election, ballot measures were passed in 11 states to ban gay marriages. The Republican-led Congress is considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between a man and a woman, but analysts say it lacks the votes to pass it.

Congrats to the NY Supreme Court for upolding the state constitution.

And now for the GA one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202360,00.html

ATLANTA — The state Supreme Court reinstated Georgia's constitutional ban on gay marriage Thursday, just hours after New York's highest court upheld that state's gay-marriage ban.

The Georgia Supreme Court, reversing a lower court judge's ruling, decided unanimously that the ban did not violate the state's single-subject rule for ballot measures. Superior Court Judge Constance Russell of Fulton County had ruled that it did.

Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.

Ok now that I got my 2 cents in and approve of both decisions, what say the people of NS General?

Hmmm don't you support amending the Constitution to define marriage?

Hmmm don't you support amending the Constitution to define marriage?

Not at the Federal Level I don't since I believe that this is a state issue and not a federal one.

Judge Robert Smith wrote in his opinion, "The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right. The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not 'deeply rooted'; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times.
What a dipshit. The incompetency laden within that statement is overwhelming.

Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.
Georgia made no ruling on the legality of same sex marriage. They made a ruling on whether a ballot was purposefully confusing to stop a vote on approving same sex marriage rights. And knowing Georgia, it probably was illegal and was solely upheld because the people on the courts are old pompous windbags who are still probably racist and said it was legal so there would be no other vote that might pass and give gay couples rights. I would suggest to take that to a higher court.

I say - didn't you just post a thread that said you were taking your uninformed bullshit elsewhere for a week?

Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.

Ok now that I got my 2 cents in and approve of both decisions, what say the people of NS General?

Congrats?! Are you stupid?! Those laws should have been REPEALED! GAAH! I'm surprised New York went through with it, but then again more and more states are doing it- Ohio did, I think Virginia might have but I'm not entirely sure, NC didn't as far as I know, now NY and Georgia. I'm VERY surprised California hasn't.

GO MASSACHUSETTS!!!! :fluffle:

TPH,

If you are as informed as you think you are, you would notice that since the Court UPHELD that the amendment DID NOT violate the Constitution, they in fact upheld banning gay marriage.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/06/gay.marriage.reut/index.html

Congrats to the NY Supreme Court for upolding the state constitution.

And now for the GA one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202360,00.html

Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.

Ok now that I got my 2 cents in and approve of both decisions, what say the people of NS General?
All I can do is just shake my head that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than fight over whether gays should be allowed to marry, just as if there were nothing more pressing to be concerned about. Sigh. :(

Congrats?! Are you stupid?! Those laws should have been REPEALED! GAAH! I'm surprised New York went through with it, but then again more and more states are doing it- Ohio did, I think Virginia might have but I'm not entirely sure, NC didn't as far as I know, now NY and Georgia. I'm VERY surprised California hasn't.

GO MASSACHUSETTS!!!! :fluffle:

California actually passed a referendum BANNING IT! Go figure.

As for Massachusetts, theirs was done by the courts and not by a ballot as was the case in Vermont where they allow for Civil Unions.

All I can do is just shake my head that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than fight over whether gays should be allowed to marry, just as if there were nothing more pressing to be concerned about. Sigh. :(
Then you might want to ride the people's ass who are forcing people to have to defend themselves. You can't proactively defend yourself against something, that isn't a defense, despite what the US would have you think.

Not the worst rulings in history, par for the course for somewhere like georgia.

The NY courts simply said that the state constitution doesnt itself demand gay marriage.


My oh-two-see is that it is an equal protetion issue and therefore demanded by the US cosntitution, but the judges don't all agree just yet.

California actually passed a referendum BANNING IT! Go figure.

As for Massachusetts, theirs was done by the courts and not by a ballot as was the case in Vermont where they allow for Civil Unions.
After the ruling was made, public support for it started increasing.
Let's also forget the fact that nowhere near 100% people participate in voting. On the large scale - presidential elections - we are lucky to get 50% participation. On the local scale, 30-40% would be very lucky.

What? Gays getting married? That's just gross. What next, blacks marrying white women? People marrying their pets? Let's make sure marriage maintains it's biblical roots as our Christian founding fathers intended. As it says in the bible, Deut. 7:1-3
When Jehovah thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; and when Jehovah thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them: thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them; neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son
Clearly god doesn't want miscegenation.

and Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
Nor does he approve of gays.

All I can do is just shake my head that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than fight over whether gays should be allowed to marry, just as if there were nothing more pressing to be concerned about. Sigh. :(

Didn't you get the memo?

If gays are allowed to marry then the institution of marriage (which has a 50-60% divorse rate) will be torn asunder.

People will start marrying their siblings and their pets!

Guess whats going to happen in NY. The legislature is going to amend the constitution. The majority of the state approves of same sex marriage.

Didn't you get the memo?

If gays are allowed to marry then the institution of marriage (which has a 50-60% divorse rate) will be torn asunder.

People will start marrying their siblings and their pets!
It's too late. We've brought this upon ourselves by letting people flout God's authority and marry outside their race.

All I can do is just shake my head that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than fight over whether gays should be allowed to marry, just as if there were nothing more pressing to be concerned about. Sigh. :(
I find myself in rare agreement with the Eut on this one. :eek:

California actually passed a referendum BANNING IT! Go figure.

As for Massachusetts, theirs was done by the courts and not by a ballot as was the case in Vermont where they allow for Civil Unions.


More recently, california's legislature passed a law legalizing gay marriage which their governor vetoed.

Hmmm don't you support amending the Constitution to define marriage?

No reason that a state can't amend their Constitution. But NY and GA have not done so.

In this case, the courts have said as much.

Guess whats going to happen in NY. The legislature is going to amend the constitution. The majority of the state approves of same sex marriage.

Where? In the Major Cities? I bet ya people are more indifferent than anything else. I also doubt that the amendment will pass.

Congrats?! Are you stupid?! Those laws should have been REPEALED! GAAH! I'm surprised New York went through with it, but then again more and more states are doing it- Ohio did, I think Virginia might have but I'm not entirely sure, NC didn't as far as I know, now NY and Georgia. I'm VERY surprised California hasn't.
So far as I know, this site keeps track of the latest rounds fired over this issue in North Carolina: http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/index.html

The page referrenced displays a map of the US showing the status of "Defense of Marriage Act" in each state.

Guess whats going to happen in NY. The legislature is going to amend the constitution. The majority of the state approves of same sex marriage.
Shh, the neocons want to believe that the legislature is always voted in with 100% participation and always represents the views and will of the people.

More recently, california's legislature passed a law legalizing gay marriage which their governor vetoed.

Heaven forbid that the Governator actually vetoed legalizing something that the people themselves voted to ban.

No reason that a state can't amend their Constitution. But NY and GA have not done so.

In this case, the courts have said as much.

Marriage equality should just be legalized and the matter closed. It's not a matter for debate, it is a fundamental human right and cannot be abridged by anyone, especially for non-secular reasons, as this is prohibitied by the Constitution.

The Constitution is alive and changes based on who reads it last, it MANDATES marriage equality.

We need to talk about how the government can pay for healthcare, childcare, education, higher education, leisure, housing, dentalcare, food, and a reasonable amount of recreation FOR ALL. We need an immediate tax increase to block the wealth gap from increasing.

I hate our Congress, I hate USA. I wish there was equality as required by the Ninth Amendment. :rolleyes: :( :eek: :confused:

No reason that a state can't amend their Constitution. But NY and GA have not done so.

In this case, the courts have said as much.

Actually Georgia voted overwhelmingly to ban it.

I find myself in rare agreement with the Eut on this one. :eek:
Heh! :fluffle:

I suspect that we agree on far more than you realize, but I know it's hard to see past my frequent outbursts of bombast. Sorry. :(

Heaven forbid that the Governator actually vetoed legalizing something that the people themselves voted to ban.
So now you are saying the legislature is untrustworthy? Then who should be creating laws if the representatives of the people can't be expected to rule the way yo- I mean, the "people" want them to?

Actually Georgia voted overwhelmingly to ban it.
On the average bullshit ballot, which was what the case was about which you would know if you pulled your head out of your ass and paid attention.

So far as I know, this site keeps track of the latest rounds fired over this issue in North Carolina: http://www.domawatch.org/stateissues/index.html

The page referrenced displays a map of the US showing the status of "Defense of Marriage Act" in each state.

PA's initiative to ban gay marriage constitutionally is coming up probably next year if what I'm reading right. Its been banned by a state law already.

Marriage equality should just be legalized and the matter closed. It's not a matter for debate, it is a fundamental human right and cannot be abridged by anyone, especially for non-secular reasons, as this is prohibitied by the Constitution.

The Constitution is alive and changes based on who reads it last, it MANDATES marriage equality.

We need to talk about how the government can pay for healthcare, childcare, education, higher education, leisure, housing, dentalcare, food, and a reasonable amount of recreation FOR ALL. We need an immediate tax increase to block the wealth gap from increasing.

I hate our Congress, I hate USA. I wish there was equality as required by the Ninth Amendment. :rolleyes: :( :eek: :confused:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interpretation_of_the_Ninth_Amendment

I don't see where the Ninth Amendment says that we all should have the same amount of money and property. No wonder you're confused.

Marriage equality should just be legalized and the matter closed. It's not a matter for debate, it is a fundamental human right and cannot be abridged by anyone, especially for non-secular reasons, as this is prohibitied by the Constitution.

The Constitution is alive and changes based on who reads it last, it MANDATES marriage equality.

We need to talk about how the government can pay for healthcare, childcare, education, higher education, leisure, housing, dentalcare, food, and a reasonable amount of recreation FOR ALL. We need an immediate tax increase to block the wealth gap from increasing.

I hate our Congress, I hate USA. I wish there was equality as required by the Ninth Amendment. :rolleyes: :( :eek: :confused:

And if you bothered to listen to an actual wedding ceremony, they pastor says BY THE STATE OF _________ and not by the United States. Therefore, this falls under the 10th Amendment and not the 9th :rolleyes:

You silly americans need to stop wasting your time trying to prevent gays and lesbian from marrying. We Canadians decided to let them do it if they wanted to, and *surprise* no chaos, no end of the world, rains of fire or masses of teenagers confused about their sexuality. Didn't affect anyone's life in a negative manner.

Stop being jerks and adopt "live and let live".

And if you bothered to listen to an actual wedding ceremony, they pastor says BY THE STATE OF _________ and not by the United States. Therefore, this falls under the 10th Amendment and not the 9th :rolleyes:
No, the federal government doesn't authorize legal standards per state. However, this can easily fall under Ammendment IX, not to mention Article IV.

Stop being jerks and adopt "live and let live".
Don't expect American to respect their own basis of law.

Heaven forbid that the Governator actually vetoed legalizing something that the people themselves voted to ban.


Not everyone is incapable of changing his mind, Corny.

Actually Georgia voted overwhelmingly to ban it.

That kind of falls under a "DUH" statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interpretation_of_the_Ninth_Amendment

I don't see where the Ninth Amendment says that we all should have the same amount of money and property. No wonder you're confused.
He does indeed have that problem. Have you noticed that every time he posts that long list of things that should be "free," he adds another one? This last one says that "a reasonable amount of recreation" should be free as well. Can you say "bread and circuses," boys and girls? Sigh. :(

You silly americans need to stop wasting your time trying to prevent gays and lesbian from marrying. We Canadians decided to let them do it if they wanted to, and *surprise* no chaos, no end of the world, rains of fire or masses of teenagers confused about their sexuality. Didn't affect anyone's life in a negative manner.

Stop being jerks and adopt "live and let live".
Yeah, but if there was no gay marriage to distract the public from real issues neocons might not be able to get elected.

No, the federal government doesn't authorize legal standards per state. However, this can easily fall under Ammendment IX, not to mention Article IV.


Don't expect American to respect their own basis of law.

More under the 10th since marriage is a state issue and the 10th deals with states.

He does indeed have that problem. Have you noticed that every time he posts that long list of things that should be "free," he adds another one? This last one says that "a reasonable amount of recreation" should be free as well. Can you say "bread and circuses," boys and girls? Sigh. :(
Oh no, socialism by the government! Socialism! Communism! Stalin! Progroms! End of world!


More under the 10th since marriage is a state issue and the 10th deals with states.
Then it falls under Article IV and back to Ammendment IX.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/06/gay.marriage.reut/index.html



Congrats to the NY Supreme Court for upolding the state constitution.

And now for the GA one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202360,00.html



Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.

Ok now that I got my 2 cents in and approve of both decisions, what say the people of NS General?

FINALLY! Judges who realize they're judges and not legislators.

Props to the majorities on both courts for getting it right :D

He does indeed have that problem. Have you noticed that every time he posts that long list of things that should be "free," he adds another one? This last one says that "a reasonable amount of recreation" should be free as well. Can you say "bread and circuses," boys and girls? Sigh. :(


I dont know who else has noticed, but the guy is trolling.

Yeah, but if there was no gay marriage to distract the public from real elections neocons might not be a ble to get elected.
Good point :rolleyes:

What are you guys waiting for to have them debate the real issues, instead of the smoke and mirrors strategy of gay marriage and abortion and stuff?

I dont know who else has noticed, but the guy is trolling.
Good point. Thanks. :)

FINALLY! Judges who realize they're judges and not legislators.

Props to the majorities on both courts for getting it right :D
Remember kids, when the judges make a ruling that institutes a legislative like effect (as in the case of the Georgia court) that supports the neocons, it isn't judicial activism.

Remember kids, when the judges make a ruling that institutes a legislative like effect (as in the case of the Georgia court) that supports the neocons, it isn't judicial activism.
Of course not. What part of "conserve" do you not understand? :D

Of course not. What part of "conserve" do you not understand? :D
I think its the regressive part.

Of course not. What part of "conserve" do you not understand? :D
Puh-lease. Don't insult the respectable fiscal conservatives by comparing them to those nutty neocons.

How can anyone argue that marriage is a sacred institution in America? The divorce rate is 50 to 60 percent depending on the year. Plus, we have tv shows like Who Wants to Marry a Millionare? and others like it that trivialize marriage. A sacred institution? Puh-Leeze.
People also say that marriage between men and women is what has kept our society together since the dark ages. Well, that's just dumb. Anyone who has read anything credible about the history of human social development will tell you that the most common form of marriage in human history is marriage between one man and several women, a harem for lack of a better word (check with the anthropology department at NYU if you don't believe me). Historically, marriage in early civilizations had more to do with solidifying land deals and preventing wars. It had little or nothing to do with love or family.
Gay marriage should be legal and one day it will be.
It is the established pattern of our country that as soon as the government imposes a barrier on civil liberties- in this case same-sex marriage- people rally to knock that barrier down. Freedom, people, is what this all about. You may not like gay people but they're here to stay, they're citizens and they deserve equal rights. Anything less would be unAmerican.:fluffle:

Heh! :fluffle:

I suspect that we agree on far more than you realize, but I know it's hard to see past my frequent outbursts of bombast. Sorry. :(
Well, I don't know if I concur on the first part of your statement because I know that you are you and I are me. :D

However, I too have my moments of bombast, none of which are meant to do any harm. I consider those moments more akin to driving in a nail with a sledge hammer. :p

I am sorry if you have taken offense.

Well, I don't know if I concur on the first part of your statement because I know that you are you and I are me. :D

However, I too have my moments of bombast, none of which are meant to do any harm. I consider those moments more akin to driving in a nail with a sledge hammer. :p

I am sorry if you have taken offense.

Ok now you guys are freaking me out!

If you don't stop, I am going to have to run for the bunker as the world is about to end!

Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.

Never mind that the GA ruling clearly broke the laws of the state. Anyone with half a brain can tell that the amendment covered more than one issue - and that only one issue was actually voted on.

Georgia made no ruling on the legality of same sex marriage. They made a ruling on whether a ballot was purposefully confusing to stop a vote on approving same sex marriage rights.

Actually, it wasn't even a ruling on whether the ballot was purposefully confusing - that is a different case on the docket. This was a ruling that basically said, "This amendment that clearly has two subjects doesn't break a constitutional rule stating that any measure must have only a single subject."

In other words, it is complete and utter bullshit. It's like saying, "Yeah, I know how to add, but 2+2 really does equal 8!"

Never mind that the GA ruling clearly broke the laws of the state. Anyone with half a brain can tell that the amendment covered more than one issue - and that only one issue was actually voted on.

GA Court says differently.

Actually Georgia voted overwhelmingly to ban it.

Georgia voted overwhelmingly on something that did not even begin to describe the actual amendment.

How can anyone argue that marriage is a sacred institution in America? The divorce rate is 50 to 60 percent depending on the year. Plus, we have tv shows like Who Wants to Marry a Millionare? and others like it that trivialize marriage. A sacred institution? Puh-Leeze.
People also say that marriage between men and women is what has kept our society together since the dark ages. Well, that's just dumb. Anyone who has read anything credible about the history of human social development will tell you that the most common form of marriage in human history is marriage between one man and several women, a harem for lack of a better word (check with the anthropology department at NYU if you don't believe me). Historically, marriage in early civilizations had more to do with solidifying land deals and preventing wars. It had little or nothing to do with love or family.
Gay marriage should be legal and one day it will be.
It is the established pattern of our country that as soon as the government imposes a barrier on civil liberties- in this case same-sex marriage- people rally to knock that barrier down. Freedom, people, is what this all about. You may not like gay people but they're here to stay, they're citizens and they deserve equal rights. Anything less would be unAmerican.:fluffle:

And then considering Massachucetts, the whole centre of the gay marriage universe, has the third (http://www.999-life.com/marriage-divorce-us.htm) lowest divorce rate. If only the red states weren't so busy sinning. However, I agree with your post. As far as I can see, America was founded under the banner of freedom, and it's a little ironic that those freedoms are and have been eroded under the name of religion and the moral authority of the state.

TPH,

If you are as informed as you think you are, you would notice that since the Court UPHELD that the amendment DID NOT violate the Constitution, they in fact upheld banning gay marriage.
Not the Georgia Court. It overturned a ruling by a lower court in Metro Atlanta. In the lower court ruling, it was held that the Constitutional amendment violated the Georgia single subject law. Seventy five percent of Georgians voted, last November, to make marriage between homosexuals illegal. We're who opposed it, not the court and not the legislature.

Just wanted to set things straight.

Georgia voted overwhelmingly on something that did not even begin to describe the actual amendment.
It was pretty clear to me when I voted agin it. Against amending the constitution, that is. This is a huge non-sequitar, but as long as we trail the nation in SAT scores and high school graduates, the legislature should be worried about more important things than whether or not a couple of homosexuals can be married.

GA Court says differently.
Too bad you don't pay attention.

GA Court says differently.

Yes, they do. By making illogical leaps. "The court says so," doesn't really hold much weight when the court's ruling is completely illogical.


It was pretty clear to me when I voted agin it. Against amending the constitution, that is.

Was it? Considering that the entire wording of the amendment was neither on the ballot nor even available at the polling place, were you aware of what all it did? If so, how did you find out?

The problem is that most of GA didn't vote on the amendment in question. They voted on a statement that was only a fraction of what the amendment actually did.

It would be like me proposing a law that said, "We're going to make ice cream free on Saturdays. We're also going to raise the price of ice cream by 3000%." On the ballot, however, I would only say, "Do you want ice cream to be free on Saturdays?"

It was pretty clear to me when I voted agin it. Against amending the constitution, that is. This is a huge non-sequitar, but as long as we trail the nation in SAT scores and high school graduates, the legislature should be worried about more important things than whether or not a couple of homosexuals can be married.
An education reform platform doesn't turn you into a career politician.

Well, I don't know if I concur on the first part of your statement because I know that you are you and I are me. :D

However, I too have my moments of bombast, none of which are meant to do any harm. I consider those moments more akin to driving in a nail with a sledge hammer. :p

I am sorry if you have taken offense.
Not at all, I haven't. As a matter of fact, I suspected you might have taken offense at me. I confess that I've not been myself of late. :(

Where? In the Major Cities? I bet ya people are more indifferent than anything else. I also doubt that the amendment will pass.

The 6 judges as well as governor Pataki are for it. If legislation is introduced, it will pass.

The 6 judges as well as governor Pataki are for it. If legislation is introduced, it will pass.

The Amendment process does not involve the Judicial process.

Shh, the neocons want to believe that the legislature is always voted in with 100% participation and always represents the views and will of the people.

Well I live in Maryland, which is a fairly liberal state, or atleast quite progressive (despite our local government being conservative) but a lot of people I know are against gay marriage.

The whole issue is not a "neocon conspiracy." There are a lot of people who despise gay marraige, whether its them being religious, or just wanting to defend the union of marriage and its purpose.

Hi.

While I found the quoted New York Justice's opinion to be just slightly ridiculous ("it's doesn't appear to be deeply rooted to me...so it's not a legal right...":rolleyes: ), I have to ask if, while admittedly not having read each of the New York Court's opinions in full, if they made the wrong decision. The pro-gay rights side of this debate is very adamant that marriage is a legal contract without any implicit obligations about family, pro-creation, or tradition, and thus, deciding marital rights should be looked at from a purely legal perspective -- a respectable philosphy, no doubt. However, it is because of this approach that I'm questioning whether or not gay marriage can be mandated by the judiciary.

From a legal, technical perspective that ignores all other factors, the perspective that the gay rights side are arguing to be used, aren't all people equally protected when it comes to laws that define marriage as a union between a man and woman? Again, consider this from a blind, legal perspective. Any man and any woman can get married -- neither party has to be straight and the two don't have to be in a relationship with one another, much in the same way that they don't have to intend to adopt/procreate or get married in a traditional fashion. So aren't such laws protective of all different types of people because, despite its limiting parameters, anyone can engage in them? Yes, such laws do exist in a way that inconviences gays/lesbians, but does that change the fact that gays/lesbians still have the right to get married? That being said, doesn't the judiciary, who must study the case from a purely legal perspective, have no choice but to uphold the constitutionality of such laws, thereby leaving the issue up to the legislature to decide?

Now, the legislative side of this is a whole other story. They can and should write marital laws in such a way that respects gays/lesbians. However, it appears to me that it is the sole role of the legislature or the voters to mandate gay marriage. It seems to me that the judiciary has no legal obligation to mandate marriage laws that respect the status of the gay community, and that this is a purely legislative/voter issue.

Was it? Considering that the entire wording of the amendment was neither on the ballot nor even available at the polling place, were you aware of what all it did? If so, how did you find out?

This is what I read when I went to vote.

Proposed Amendment: "Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship."

This was sufficiently clear for me to understand that a yes vote would amend the Georgia Constitution to prohibit same sex marriages. We aren't all ignorant crackers down here, you know. And it appears that the State Supreme Court agrees with me.

Well I live in Maryland, which is a fairly liberal state, or atleast quite progressive (despite our local government being conservative) but a lot of people I know are against gay marriage.

The whole issue is not a "neocon conspiracy." There are a lot of people who despise gay marraige, whether its them being religious, or just wanting to defend the union of marriage and its purpose.
The problem is many people are resistant to change until forced to accept it. See racial discrimination.

This was sufficiently clear for me to understand that a yes vote would amend the Georgia Constitution to prohibit same sex marriages. We aren't all ignorant crackers down here, you know. And it appears that the State Supreme Court agrees with me.
It also bans civil unions and goes against Article IV of the Constitution. Also, that is two parts. By Georgia law, it can only be one part. Hell, the second part has a number of individual parts which among them is the going against Article IV and binding of the hands of the judiciary.

It also bans civil unions and goes against Article IV of the Constitution. Also, that is two parts. By Georgia law, it can only be one part. Hell, the second part has a number of individual parts which among them is the going against Article IV and binding of the hands of the judiciary.
We could argue that point until hell freezes over. But it doesn't matter. Ever hear of an issue becoming moot? That's what happened today. There is no further appeal, since it's a state matter.

From a legal, technical perspective that ignores all other factors, the perspective that the gay rights side are arguing to be used, aren't all people equally protected when it comes to laws that define marriage as a union between a man and woman? Again, consider this from a blind, legal perspective. Any man and any woman can get married -- neither party has to be straight and the two don't have to be in a relationship with one another, much in the same way that they don't have to intend to adopt/procreate or get married in a traditional fashion. So aren't such laws protective of all different types of people because, despite its limiting parameters, anyone can engage in them? Yes, such laws do exist in a way that inconviences gays/lesbians, but does that change the fact that gays/lesbians still have the right to get married? That being said, doesn't the judiciary, who must study the case from a purely legal perspective, have no choice but to uphold the constitutionality of such laws, thereby leaving the issue up to the legislature to decide?

You forget something important. Marriage licenses are not granted to individuals. They are granted to couples. In fact, they are granted to couples who have chosen to live as a single legal entity. As such, you cannot look at the issue as, "Don't all men have the right to marry women and all women have the right to marry men?" From a logical standpoint, your argument is no different than the arguments against miscegenation - "All people can marry someone of their own race, therefore everyone is treated equally." However, since couples are what is recognized by marriage law, all couples must be treated equally, unless a compelling interest not to do so can be shown. And homosexual couples are clearly treated differently from heterosexual couples.

Now, the legislative side of this is a whole other story. They can and should write marital laws in such a way that respects gays/lesbians. However, it appears to me that it is the sole role of the legislature or the voters to mandate gay marriage. It seems to me that the judiciary has no legal obligation to mandate marriage laws that respect the status of the gay community, and that this is a purely legislative/voter issue.

This argument is also an argument in favor of banning miscegenation.


This is what I read when I went to vote.

Read it where? That language was not on the ballot.

This was sufficiently clear for me to understand that a yes vote would amend the Georgia Constitution to prohibit same sex marriages.

Of course, it also bans *any* construct which might be a marriage-like arrangement for same-sex unions (ie. civil unions). It also states that (in direct contradiction to the US Constituion), Georgia will not give full faith and credit to marriages from other states.

We aren't all ignorant crackers down here, you know.

I'm well aware of that, considering that I am "down here". But the truth of the matter is that most voters never saw the full text of the amendment. Most only saw what was printed on the ballot which was only a fraction of what the entire amendment did. And many people, when confronted later with the entire text of the amendment were very angry, because they don't want same-sex marriage, but do support civil unions and the like.

Hell, even though I had already read it and decided to vote against it, I *asked* for a copy of the full text at my polling place. They didn't have one. I asked to complain. They gave me a number. The person I called said, "It was in the paper." Yeah, because everyone reads the papers these days....

And it appears that the State Supreme Court agrees with me.

Actually, what the State Supreme Court said was, "Banning marriage and banning all of the rights associated with marriage are the exact same thing." Never mind that they aren't - as evidenced by the support of many people for civil unions.

We could argue that point until hell freezes over. But it doesn't matter. Ever hear of an issue becoming moot? That's what happened today. There is no further appeal, since it's a state matter.

Not entirely true. It can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

We could argue that point until hell freezes over. But it doesn't matter. Ever hear of an issue becoming moot? That's what happened today. There is no further appeal, since it's a state matter.

First of all, it isn't moot. There is another case on the docket concerning this matter that has still not been ruled on - and it comes from a slightly different angle.

Second of all, this could be appealed to the US Supreme Court, if the people who brought it wish to.

I dont know who else has noticed, but the guy is trolling.

New Granada, I know that you, like me, really want a Democratic victory in November, but I, unlike you, strongly support our Democratic values and don't run away from them.

All of the rights I mentioned are guaranteed by the Democratic party platform, which in an ideal world, would actually be what we have in the Constitution, and specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights II, as proposed by the much loved President Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Bill of Rights II:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

We could argue that point until hell freezes over. But it doesn't matter. Ever hear of an issue becoming moot? That's what happened today. There is no further appeal, since it's a state matter.
Then they can argue it can be taken to a higher court under Section B there. It is directly in conflict with Article IV of the Constitution. It could've left it out because any state not recognising gay marriage is already in violation of it, but they are being blatant.

Not entirely true. It can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Not what our AG is saying. Again, it's a state issue, not a federal one.

Not what our AG is saying. Again, it's a state issue, not a federal one.

Then your AG needs to study the Judiciary more for this can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/06/gay.marriage.reut/index.html



Congrats to the NY Supreme Court for upolding the state constitution.

And now for the GA one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202360,00.html



Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.

Ok now that I got my 2 cents in and approve of both decisions, what say the people of NS General?

I am ashamed to live in a state that does not afford equal opportunities to all consenting adults.

When it comes right down to it, the entire Georgia decision is circular reasoning. First, they use Section B to determine the objective of Section A. After already doing that, they ask the question, "Is Section B germane to Section A?" Well, duh! If you use Section B in order to determine the objective, then you have already stated that Section B is germane to the objective.

An example would be the following:

A: I want to define apples as a fruit.
B: Oranges are like apples, so they are also a fruit.

Court:
First, we must determine the objective of Section A. The objective is clearly to define apples and oranges as fruit. Now, we ask, "Is Section B germane to the objective of Section A?" The answer is that, since Section A clearly meant to define both apples and oranges as fruit, then Section B, in which oranges are defined as fruit, is clearly germane.

You forget something important. Marriage licenses are not granted to individuals. They are granted to couples. In fact, they are granted to couples who have chosen to live as a single legal entity. As such, you cannot look at the issue as, "Don't all men have the right to marry women and all women have the right to marry men?" From a logical standpoint, your argument is no different than the arguments against miscegenation - "All people can marry someone of their own race, therefore everyone is treated equally." However, since couples are what is recognized by marriage law, all couples must be treated equally, unless a compelling interest not to do so can be shown. And homosexual couples are clearly treated differently from heterosexual couples.



This argument is also an argument in favor of banning miscegenation.

You argue that marriage licenses are given to couples, not individuals. Yes, this is true. And the state, it appears to me, has the right to define what sort of couples may receive marriage licenses, as long as all types of people have the ability to be one of the parties in a marriage. That in no way argues in favor of banning miscegenation; it simply argues in favor of the state legislature's right to do so, as well a state legislature's right to ban gay marriage. Should a legislature do either? No. But the judiciary, it appears, should not be the one mandating what marital rights are passable, as long as anyone can get married.

You argue that marriage licenses are given to couples, not individuals. Yes, this is true. And the state, it appears to me, has the right to define what sort of couples may receive marriage licenses, as long as all types of people have the ability to be one of the parties in a marriage. That in no way argues in favor of banning miscegenation; it simply argues in favor of the state legislature's right to do so, as well a state legislature's right to ban gay marriage.

In other words, "Forget the 14th Amendment, states don't have to follow it, even though it specifically says they do."

Legislating bigotry and suppression, huh? Land of the Free my arse...

You silly americans need to stop wasting your time trying to prevent gays and lesbian from marrying. We Canadians decided to let them do it if they wanted to, and *surprise* no chaos, no end of the world, rains of fire or masses of teenagers confused about their sexuality. Didn't affect anyone's life in a negative manner.

Stop being jerks and adopt "live and let live".

I'm bisexual, and I'm married to a woman. And I live in the US. And I still get to play (my wife and I swing).

If they allowed gay marriage, they might as well allow group marriages, so I can marry both a man and a woman.

Otherwise, you're trampling on my rights.

In other words, "Forget the 14th Amendment, states don't have to follow it, even though it specifically says they do."
Except my argument respects the 14th Amendment. In the case of such marital laws, people of all races, genders, religions, and sexual orientations all have the ability to get married, so all citizens are equally protected. Therefore, the law follows the 14th Amendment.

Once again, however, I will stress that the state legislature must write laws that respect gay/lesbian people and families if it is to truly represent all of its citizens.

I'm bisexual, and I'm married to a woman. And I live in the US. And I still get to play (my wife and I swing).

If they allowed gay marriage, they might as well allow group marriages, so I can marry both a man and a woman.

Otherwise, you're trampling on my rights.
Who is arguing against polygamy?
The only problem with polygamy is potential for abuse under the current taxation system. Then again, plenty of heterosexual couples are probably abusing it already.

Like the Family Guy episode on gay marriage said..
Lois: "Dad, don't you love mom?"
Lois's dad: "Of course not."
Lois: "So you're telling me two gay people who love each other deserve to be together less than a man and a woman who hate each other?"
Lois's mom: "That's what we raised you to believe, hun."

I'm bisexual, and I'm married to a woman. And I live in the US. And I still get to play (my wife and I swing).

If they allowed gay marriage, they might as well allow group marriages, so I can marry both a man and a woman.

Otherwise, you're trampling on my rights.

What's wrong with Polygamy?

Except my argument respects the 14th Amendment. In the case of such marital laws, people of all races, genders, religions, and sexual orientations all have the ability to get married, so all citizens are equally protected.

No, they aren't. A black man has the right to marry a black woman. However, a white man does not have that right. A black woman does not have that right. A white woman does not have that right.

As such, the law clearly does not follow the 14th Amendment, as all human beings, regarldess of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation have the same rights to marriage.

Edit: In other words, your argument is like saying, "We offer black people the right to drive, but only Chevy's. White people can only drive Oldsmobiles. But everyone has the same right to drive, so it's ok."

No, they aren't. A black man has the right to marry a black woman. However, a white man does not have that right. A black woman does not have that right. A white woman does not have that right.

As such, the law clearly does not follow the 14th Amendment, as all human beings, regarldess of race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation have the same rights to marriage.

Edit: In other words, your argument is like saying, "We offer black people the right to drive, but only Chevy's. White people can only drive Oldsmobiles. But everyone has the same right to drive, so it's ok."
Except the right to drive is different from the right to marry. In marriage, the government is the body granting the benefits and legal protection; as long as all people have the right to engage in it, the government has the right to mandate it.

Except the right to drive is different from the right to marry. In marriage, the government is the body granting the benefits and legal protection; as long as all people have the right to engage in it, the government has the right to mandate it.

We need marriage equality. The simple fact, as illustrated by Kim Gandy, is that this court decision is both intolerant and hateful.

We need marriage equality. The simple fact, as illustrated by Kim Gandy, is that this court decision is both intolerant and hateful.

And yet it supports a law approved by the people of the fair state of GA and the Constitution of NY. Can't fault the courts for stating that they are not illegal.

Except the right to drive is different from the right to marry.

All rights are different from all other rights. The point is that, according to the 14th Amendment, those rights have to be granted equally.

In marriage, the government is the body granting the benefits and legal protection; as long as all people have the right to engage in it, the government has the right to mandate it.

Wrong. All people have to have equal rights to engage in it if it is to pass the test of the 14th Amendment. And saying, "You can marry, but only these people," and you, over there, "You can marry, but only these other peoplem," is not equal treatment under the law.

What you are saying is exactly logically equivalent to, "Everyone can get driver's licenses, but black people can only get licenses to drive four wheel cars, while white people can only get licenses to drive trucks." By your logic, everyone can get to drive, but they certainly are not being treated equally in that respect.

Except the right to drive is different from the right to marry. In marriage, the government is the body granting the benefits and legal protection;
How is that different than the right to drive? Does Wal-Mart grant the right to drive now or something?

And yet it supports a law approved by the people of the fair state of GA and the Constitution of NY. Can't fault the courts for stating that they are not illegal.
And it ruled in violation of the laws of the state. You lose.

And yet it supports a law approved by the people of the fair state of GA and the Constitution of NY. Can't fault the courts for stating that they are not illegal.

Have you read the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments? Marriage equality is guarnateed by the Constitution of the United States.

When polls have been done asking Americans: Do you support marriage equality?

The overwhelming answer is "Yes." It's a settled matter.

We need marriage equality. The simple fact, as illustrated by Kim Gandy, is that this court decision is both intolerant and hateful.
Intolerant and hateful? Wow...That's quite a statement, to label all those who don't believe in gay marriage as both of those things. Yes, we need marriage equality. We need state legislatures or voters to accomplish this. The way to accomplish this is by intelligently explaining your views and positions, not by labelling your opponents "hateful."

Intolerant and hateful? Wow...That's quite a statement, to label all those who don't believe in gay marriage as both of those things. Yes, we need marriage equality. We need state legislatures or voters to accomplish this. The way to accomplish this is by intelligently explaining your views and positions, not by labelling your opponents "hateful."
It's like integration all over again, isn't it?
Except with alot less needed government forcing.

All rights are different from all other rights. The point is that, according to the 14th Amendment, those rights have to be granted equally.



Wrong. All people have to have equal rights to engage in it if it is to pass the test of the 14th Amendment. And saying, "You can marry, but only these people," and you, over there, "You can marry, but only these other peoplem," is not equal treatment under the law.

What you are saying is exactly logically equivalent to, "Everyone can get driver's licenses, but black people can only get licenses to drive four wheel cars, while white people can only get licenses to drive trucks." By your logic, everyone can get to drive, but they certainly are not being treated equally in that respect.
Except the government does not supply, produce, or inable consumers to buy cars.

Intolerant and hateful? Wow...That's quite a statement, to label all those who don't believe in gay marriage as both of those things. Yes, we need marriage equality. We need state legislatures or voters to accomplish this. The way to accomplish this is by intelligently explaining your views and positions, not by labelling your opponents "hateful."

That's the tradition - you call people names instead of arguing from logic.

Calling people Commies, fags, Busheviks, Republikans, and other labels or equating people's ideas with Fascism or Nazis is the way people win arguments nowadays.

And yet it supports a law approved by the people of the fair state of GA and the Constitution of NY. Can't fault the courts for stating that they are not illegal.

Your logic is impeccable. Of course, by your logic, if the US Federal government passed a law stating that they could force you to leave your land without being paid for it, and the courts said, "Yup, that's perfectly ok," you wouldn't fault them. Never mind that the law itself was blatantly unconstitutional and the court's ruling thus incorrect.


Intolerant and hateful? Wow...That's quite a statement, to label all those who don't believe in gay marriage as both of those things.

They are either both of those things, or incredibly illogical. Anyone who would deny equal treatment under the law to anyone else is both intolerant and hateful (or illogical/stupid).

Yes, we need marriage equality. We need state legislatures or voters to accomplish this. The way to accomplish this is by intelligently explaining your views and positions, not by labelling your opponents "hateful."

Yes, and if someone says, "All black people should be treated as second-class citizens," we shouldn't "label" them as racist, even though they clearly are.

There is a reason that we have a Constitution. It is largely to keep voters and legislatures from doing things that they should not do - like treating some citizens that a lot of people find "icky" from being treated equally.

Have you read the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments? Marriage equality is guarnateed by the Constitution of the United States.

First Amendment deals with the following: Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion and the right to assemble peacefully. It has no bearing on marriage. The Fourth Amendment deals with Search and seizure! Again, it has nothing to deal with marriage. You could have a point with the 9th amendment but then, I'll invoke the 10th amendment against it. Now comes the XIV. I'm looking at it now and to be honest, it has no bearing on this debate either. Marriage is most definitely a State Issue and therefor, it is controlled by the states. That is simple enough.

When polls have been done asking Americans: Do you support marriage equality?

The overwhelming answer is "Yes." It's a settled matter.

And if you know anything about me, I do not trust polls.

New Granada, I know that you, like me, really want a Democratic victory in November, but I, unlike you, strongly support our Democratic values and don't run away from them.

All of the rights I mentioned are guaranteed by the Democratic party platform, which in an ideal world, would actually be what we have in the Constitution, and specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights II, as proposed by the much loved President Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Bill of Rights II:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

FDR was not an economist and could not understand the implications of said policies nor the negative impact that they would cause.

1) Employment results from people using their property to further their own self-interest. It is not a right and making it a right would cause massive economic problems. After all, it would rely either on restrictions to industry in terms of employment and/or upon the government to employ every worker that does not have a job. This would result in the next soviet union, and the failures of the old in terms of technology and consumer goods is well known.

2) There is a link between minimum wage and unemployment. When one goes up then the other tend to go down. By creating one so high all that is done is that we worsen the unemployment problem. Not only that but who judges "adequate", does adequate change upon one's living conditions? Does marriage entitle one to more wages? How much entertainment is a requirement? What if I don't require much for entertainment? Shouldn't a person's wage be dependent on what another wants to pay them?

3) The right to sell at a high price? That creates a really sweet deal for farmers as they are guaranteed good living under that. Maybe I should have picked agricultural engineering. The idea is ridiculous, it subsidizes farmers beyond what the market would give them and it fails to establish a link between quality and price. After all, under such a deal I would be stupid to raise my crops properly and could save a bunch of money by cutting back on quality due to my guarantee. Then what would happen is we would either have inferior crops or the government would take over.

4) Who decides unfair trade? Heck, the lack of free trade is one of the proposed reasons why the depression occurred. All that policy would do is kill trade as businesses in America have had a habit of claiming a need for protective tariffs and things like that. If we do it then other countries will start doing it. Besides, TR already attacked monopolies anyway.

5) Who decides what a decent home is? Do we have to take their idea of decent in terms of housing? Will they buy out all the land and corner the housing market? Will they account for property values in this deal? What if they run out of land due to this socialist policy in the area that I live in, will I be forced to move or can't I just take an appartment? Housing is a choice, not a right, if I want an appartment then I should be able to take this choice. If I want a better or worse house then I should be able to pay for it. All this will do is kill an industry and hurt an economy.

6) Universal healthcare is something that is currently debated. There is no right though, what about those who take their lives so recklessly, are they protected the same despite their foolish actions. I did not choose to smoke, do I have to pay for the lung cancer of smokers? If I do then isn't there an incentive for me to force them to choose healthier lifestyles? What about the right to live as unhealthily as you want? Doesn't this create a conflict between those who want to reduce spending and those who want to live their lives as they desire? How do we know the government will do a good job with healthcare?

7) The right to protection from economic concerns? What about my right to my own economic concerns? Do I lose my freedom to spend my money how I want? Shouldn't I get to save how I want? After all, my money spent by me on the savings plan I prefer could do better than what the government gives me and probably would, should this be discouraged? What about the effects on the economy as people no longer feel a need to save as they are taken care of by the government?

8) Yeah, this one pretty much exists. We all get to go to high school. Whether or not that is a good education is a matter of opinion. I got a lot out of my high school experience but that doesn't mean that others won't.

Except the government does not supply, produce, or inable consumers to buy cars.

We aren't talking about buying cars, though, are we. We are talking about driving them - something the government does license people to do. By your logic, the government could decide that black people could only be licensed to drive a specific brand of car. White people could be licensed for another, and so on.

Sure, they could own the other type, they just couldn't drive them.

Except the government does not supply, produce, or inable consumers to buy cars.

Buying cars has nothing to do with anything. A driver's license permits one to drive cars, not to buy them. The analogy stands.

First Amendment deals with the following: Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion and the right to assemble peacefully. It has no bearing on marriage. The Fourth Amendment deals with Search and seizure! Again, it has nothing to deal with marriage. You could have a point with the 9th amendment but then, I'll invoke the 10th amendment against it. Now comes the XIV. I'm looking at it now and to be honest, it has no bearing on this debate either. Marriage is most definitely a State Issue and therefor, it is controlled by the states. That is simple enough.

Read the 14th Amendment again. It specifically applies to the states. And it states that the states must treat all citizens equally under the law. It clearly does have bearing on the debate.

As for the 4th, it has to do with search and seizure and due process of law. You left something out there.

Your logic is impeccable. Of course, by your logic, if the US Federal government passed a law stating that they could force you to leave your land without being paid for it, and the courts said, "Yup, that's perfectly ok," you wouldn't fault them. Never mind that the law itself was blatantly unconstitutional and the court's ruling thus incorrect.

Regardless of what we think is constitutional or not, if the Courts ruled something constitutional, it is constitutional. Period. If the courts ruled something unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional. Period. Obviously, the court of GA decided that the amendment was constitutional and therefor, it is constitutional. It doesn't matter what we think is or is not constitutional.

Read the 14th Amendment again. It specifically applies to the states. And it states that the states must treat all citizens equally under the law. It clearly does have bearing on the debate.

Actually... in matters of court yes. In matters of marriage? no. Also, we have to look at when the XIV was passed. I doubt highly that this is what the XIV was supposed to be used for in its original context.

As for the 4th, it has to do with search and seizure and due process of law. You left something out there.

Oh excuse me for leaving due process out. :rolleyes:

First Amendment deals with the following: Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion and the right to assemble peacefully. It has no bearing on marriage. The Fourth Amendment deals with Search and seizure! Again, it has nothing to deal with marriage. You could have a point with the 9th amendment but then, I'll invoke the 10th amendment against it. Now comes the XIV. I'm looking at it now and to be honest, it has no bearing on this debate either. Marriage is most definitely a State Issue and therefor, it is controlled by the states. That is simple enough.

It's not as originally intended by the Amendments, but do you think that we should be governed by an Eighteenth Century document?

Suypreme Court's have, under progressive eras, shown that you can re-interpret those Amendments and combine them to show that the Founders did allow for a Constitutional right to marriage equality for ALL.

Read the 14th Amendment again. It specifically applies to the states. And it states that the states must treat all citizens equally under the law. It clearly does have bearing on the debate.

As for the 4th, it has to do with search and seizure and due process of law. You left something out there.
All rights are different from all other rights. The point is that, according to the 14th Amendment, those rights have to be granted equally.



Wrong. All people have to have equal rights to engage in it if it is to pass the test of the 14th Amendment. And saying, "You can marry, but only these people," and you, over there, "You can marry, but only these other peoplem," is not equal treatment under the law.

What you are saying is exactly logically equivalent to, "Everyone can get driver's licenses, but black people can only get licenses to drive four wheel cars, while white people can only get licenses to drive trucks." By your logic, everyone can get to drive, but they certainly are not being treated equally in that respect.
Let me point out that with man/woman/separate race laws, everyone still receives all of the same benefits of marriage as anyone else does, which is equivalent to being allowed to drive the same cars as anyone else can. The government has the ability to decide who you can choose to marry, because if the government does not have the ability to decide what kinds of couples it does and does not grant benefits to, then the argument can go that people may choose to get married and receive government benefits in any form of their choice, from marriages of 1,000 people to incestuous marriages of all kinds and so on and so forth. There has to be a limit somewhere, and of course, the state legislature is the governing body who decides this.

It's not as originally intended by the Amendments, but do you think that we should be governed by an Eighteenth Century document?

Yes! Why? It is the Constitution of the United States.

Supreme Court's have, under progressive eras, shown that you can re-interpret those Amendments and combine them to show that the Founders did allow for a Constitutional right to marriage equality for ALL.

And they do not want to touch this with a 10 foot poll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interpretation_of_the_Ninth_Amendment

I don't see where the Ninth Amendment says that we all should have the same amount of money and property. No wonder you're confused.
I suppose he views education, healthcare, etc as rights held by the people.

It's not as originally intended by the Amendments, but do you think that we should be governed by an Eighteenth Century document?

Suypreme Court's have, under progressive eras, shown that you can re-interpret those Amendments and combine them to show that the Founders did allow for a Constitutional right to marriage equality for ALL.

Well, if I get to redefine the meaning of words as time goes on, I'm sure I could interpret the Constitution as mandating the worship of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Even if the people didn't want that.

It's not as originally intended by the Amendments, but do you think that we should be governed by an Eighteenth Century document?

Suypreme Court's have, under progressive eras, shown that you can re-interpret those Amendments and combine them to show that the Founders did allow for a Constitutional right to marriage equality for ALL.
yeah, many of us do. The fact that we can amend this document as we please is part of the reason why. If we want something that the constitution does not provide we make a law and/or amend the constitution. It is a good system, it has worked for quite some time and still continues to do so.

The Supreme Court has not shown crap. That is pretty much just the Supreme Court making up their own laws which is something that should not be done. Legislative ability does not belong to them and we have a legislative branch to the government. If we want something, then we vote for it, that is how democracy works and that is how this republic works as well.

It's not as originally intended by the Amendments, but do you think that we should be governed by an Eighteenth Century document?

Suypreme Court's have, under progressive eras, shown that you can re-interpret those Amendments and combine them to show that the Founders did allow for a Constitutional right to marriage equality for ALL.
So in other words, the Supreme Court may somehow take the amendments of the U.S. Constitution and use them to pull some explanation out of its collective ass to justify gay marriage? You aren't even sure what that explanation might be, just that, basically, the Supreme Court has the ability to bullshit anything and has done so during "progressive" eras.

yeah, many of us do. The fact that we can amend this document as we please is part of the reason why. If we want something that the constitution does not provide we make a law and/or amend the constitution. It is a good system, it has worked for quite some time and still continues to do so.

The Supreme Court has not shown crap. That is pretty much just the Supreme Court making up their own laws which is something that should not be done. Legislative ability does not belong to them and we have a legislative branch to the government. If we want something, then we vote for it, that is how democracy works and that is how this republic works as well.
Gotta agree with you there.

So in other words, the Supreme Court may somehow take the amendments of the U.S. Constitution and use them to pull some explanation out of its collective ass to justify gay marriage? You aren't even sure what that explanation might be, just that, basically, the Supreme Court has the ability to bullshit anything and has done so during "progressive" eras.
Wow, I am seeing a right to worship the Supreme Court as gods and shower them with praise and affection coming up!:D

FDR was not an economist and could not understand the implications of said policies nor the negative impact that they would cause.

*snip*

You libertarians are so cute! :D

So in other words, the Supreme Court may somehow take the amendments of the U.S. Constitution and use them to pull some explanation out of its collective ass to justify gay marriage? You aren't even sure what that explanation might be, just that, basically, the Supreme Court has the ability to bullshit anything and has done so during "progressive" eras.

Since that's what they're doing now, C&T must support the Kelo v New London and Castle Rock V Gonzales which have completely thrown out the constitution in favor of judicial "precedent".

You argue that marriage licenses are given to couples, not individuals. Yes, this is true. And the state, it appears to me, has the right to define what sort of couples may receive marriage licenses, as long as all types of people have the ability to be one of the parties in a marriage. That in no way argues in favor of banning miscegenation; it simply argues in favor of the state legislature's right to do so, as well a state legislature's right to ban gay marriage. Should a legislature do either? No. But the judiciary, it appears, should not be the one mandating what marital rights are passable, as long as anyone can get married.

It is the EXACT same argument used against interracial marriage. And the ruling was that marriage as an individual right must treat all individuals equally. That means that if a black man can marry a black woman so must a white man be permitted to.

Your claims are no different than saying that if is said "a man of a race may marry a woman of the same race" treats everyone equally because everyone has the same right to marrying someone of the opposite sex of the same race. It's an argument that already lost once and I, for one, hope that people keep making it. I have two reasons for this. One, it makes them look ignorant because it ignores history. Two, it puts gay marriage in a position that was victorious in the past. I am very happy with both of those things. So keep tooting this horn. It amuses me.

You libertarians are so cute! :D
Awww, I know!! However, that does not change the fact that FDR was a bad economist. Besides, I am not a complete libertarian anyway, some of those "rights" were a bit extreme and could not fit in with a market economy. Certainly I realize that government subsidies and intervention can do good things like is involved in Keynesian economics and in terms of societally benefical goods but when we are talking about the level that he is talking about it is quite extrme.

It is the EXACT same argument used against interracial marriage. And the ruling was that marriage as an individual right must treat all individuals equally. That means that if a black man can marry a black woman so must a white man be permitted to.

Your claims are no different than saying that if is said "a man of a race may marry a woman of the same race" treats everyone equally because everyone has the same right to marrying someone of the opposite sex of the same race. It's an argument that already lost once and I, for one, hope that people keep making it. I have two reasons for this. One, it makes them look ignorant because it ignores history. Two, it puts gay marriage in a position that was victorious in the past. I am very happy with both of those things. So keep tooting this horn. It amuses me.
Please read my further explanation on previous page (towards the bottom).

So in other words, the Supreme Court may somehow take the amendments of the U.S. Constitution and use them to pull some explanation out of its collective ass to justify gay marriage? You aren't even sure what that explanation might be, just that, basically, the Supreme Court has the ability to bullshit anything and has done so during "progressive" eras.

YEAH!!! If only they wouldn't have been so progressive and recognized that laws against interracial marriage violated equality. And that Separate but Equal decision was just an attempt to steal power from the white man. Those pricks. Under those same rulings, gay marriage is a protected right and it's only a matter of time before it's recognized. I'm glad you've finally stopped trying to pretend that your arguments against gay marriage aren't your prejudice showing.

YEAH!!! If only they wouldn't have been so progressive and recognized that laws against interracial marriage violated equality. And that Separate but Equal decision was just an attempt to steal power from the white man. Those pricks. Under those same rulings, gay marriage is a protected right and it's only a matter of time before it's recognized. I'm glad you've finally stopped trying to pretend that your arguments against gay marriage aren't your prejudice showing.
For once, I'm gonna use the phrase "LOL"...If only you knew, bud.

Please read my further explanation on previous page (towards the bottom).

Yes, your further explanation that further explains your prejudice.

Equality definitions do not limit numbers. Incest laws do actually treat all people equally. Sex and race are protected classes. Your status as a sibling is not protected. In other words, you're speaking out of a dark and smelly place.

Meanwhile, if you can't understand that if an individual right like marriage is limited by your race or sex then it is a violation of equality then I can't help you.

First Amendment deals with the following: Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion and the right to assemble peacefully. It has no bearing on marriage. The Fourth Amendment deals with Search and seizure! Again, it has nothing to deal with marriage. You could have a point with the 9th amendment but then, I'll invoke the 10th amendment against it. Now comes the XIV. I'm looking at it now and to be honest, it has no bearing on this debate either. Marriage is most definitely a State Issue and therefor, it is controlled by the states. That is simple enough.

Ok, you play Ammendment X - that which is not regulated by the federal government is reserved to the states or the people.

I counter with Article IV (Full Faith and Credit) and double-down with Ammendment IX (enumeration of rights will not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people) AND Ammendment XIV (States... shall not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws). Booya.

For once, I'm gonna use the phrase "LOL"...If only you knew, bud.

Let me guess... you're gay. Whew, that changes things. You can limit the rights of an entire group if you're a part of it. That's how it works, right?

In that case, I'm not showing any prejudice if I argued say that heterosexuals should not be allowed to engage in sex anymore, right?

California actually passed a referendum BANNING IT! Go figure.

As for Massachusetts, theirs was done by the courts and not by a ballot as was the case in Vermont where they allow for Civil Unions.

:eek: :eek: :eek:

CALIFORNIA BANNED IT?! :eek:

That's shocking. They're the most liberal state in the US! How did that get through?!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

CALIFORNIA BANNED IT?! :eek:

That's shocking. They're the most liberal state in the US! How did that get through?!

A referendum vote.

Yes, your further explanation that further explains your prejudice.

Equality definitions do not limit numbers. Incest laws do actually treat all people equally. Sex and race are protected classes. Your status as a sibling is not protected. In other words, you're speaking out of a dark and smelly place.

Meanwhile, if you can't understand that if an individual right like marriage is limited by your race or sex then it is a violation of equality then I can't help you.
Might I point out, if your status as a sibling is not protected, then neither is your status as a member of a sexual orientation.

I am not prejudicial towards people of different races or homosexuals. Don't ever judge me that way; you do not know me as a person. If you had read any of my posts in this thread carefully, you'd note that I advocate the legalization of gay marriage by democracy in its standard form -- by way of vote by the people or their representatives. The court avenue should only be pursued where it is needed and applicable. In this case, it is needed, but not applicable.

As long as everyone receives equal marital rights, as in benefits and protections, and everyone has the ability to marry, then marital laws are constitutional. Limits on who can marry who can be placed by the government because they are the ones giving out the legal contract, and as long as everyone has the ability to marry, then no such laws are unconstitutional. (Like I said, if this were not the case, then people have the right to marry any number of people without any regulation, and the government would have to grant a ridiculous amount of benefits to groups of 1,000 people. The slippery slope isn't the point, though. It's just an example.) Are restrictive marital laws right? No. That's really not the point...

Let me guess... you're gay. Whew, that changes things. You can limit the rights of an entire group if you're a part of it. That's how it works, right?

In that case, I'm not showing any prejudice if I argued say that heterosexuals should not be allowed to engage in sex anymore, right?
No. I'm not. I was "LOL"-ing at the fact that I have gay/black friends, family members, and associates, and I have often spoken out in favor of minority rights, and yet I'm being called prejudicial. Who I am isn't the point, anyway. I just found it humorous.

Sooner or later this will all go the way of bans on interracial marriages.

Sooner or later this will all go the way of bans on interracial marriages.
As well it should. Anyone who wants to get married to them yellow-skinned asians is sick in the head. ;)

Might I point out, if your status as a sibling is not protected, then neither is your status as a member of a sexual orientation.

We're not talking about sexual orientation. Or I'm not. I'm talking about one's sex.

It's simple. If I try to excercise my rights, say my right to marry a black woman, if you have to ask me what sex I am to decide whether that right is granted me, it's discrimination. If you have to ask me what color I am, then it's racial discrimination. It's not a difficult concept.

Meanwhile, how on God's green earth does one equate status as a sibling as equal sexual orientation?

I am not prejudicial towards people of different races or homosexuals. Don't ever judge me that way; you do not know me as a person. If you had read any of my posts in this thread carefully, you'd note that I advocate the legalization of gay marriage by democracy in its standard form -- by way of vote by the people or their representatives. The court avenue should only be pursued where it is needed and applicable. In this case, it is needed, but not applicable.

No, you don't. You fake it. I don't need to look at this thread. I can see you appearing in several threads making multiple arguments that are fallacious against gay marriage. Your prejudice shines much brighter than your claims. You remember that OTHER thread where when you didn't really have any rational support for your position you abandoned it only to make the EXACT same claims here. Let's see, a person ignores rational arguments only to continue to preach their claims, claims against gay marriage. Golly, it's really a stretch to see an agenda there.

The court argument is every bit as applicable as it was with interracial marriage.


As long as everyone receives equal marital rights, as in benefits and protections, and everyone has the ability to marry, then marital laws are constitutional. Limits on who can marry who can be placed by the government because they are the ones giving out the legal contract, and as long as everyone has the ability to marry, then no such laws are unconstitutional. (Like I said, if this were not the case, then people have the right to marry any number of people without any regulation, and the government would have to grant a ridiculous amount of benefits to groups of 1,000 people. The slippery slope isn't the point, though. It's just an example.) Are restrictive marital laws right? No. That's really not the point...
Everyone isn't receiving equal marital rights. But hey if you keep repeating it, it will make it true. Again, if who I can marry is dictated by my sex, it is sexual discrimination in every sense of the word.

No. I'm not. I was "LOL"-ing at the fact that I have gay/black friends, family members, and associates, and I have often spoken out in favor of minority rights, and yet I'm being called prejudicial. Who I am isn't the point, anyway. I just found it humorous.

Yes, I notice that this always the last argument of people arguing to protect prejudicial laws or people. "I can't be a racist. I have black friends." That argument isn't even compelling when we can actually look people in the face, what makes you think it okays your defense of prejudice on an internet forum.

Regardless of what we think is constitutional or not, if the Courts ruled something constitutional, it is constitutional. Period. If the courts ruled something unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional. Period. Obviously, the court of GA decided that the amendment was constitutional and therefor, it is constitutional. It doesn't matter what we think is or is not constitutional.

By that logic, it would be completely impossible for the court to ever change its mind - since the courts are, according to you, infallible.

Of course, your statement falls apart when we realize that the court has found its own past decisions to be incorrect.


Actually... in matters of court yes.

No, in matters of the law.

In matters of marriage? no.

Legal marriage is a matter of the law. Thus, marriage laws fall under the purview of the 14th Amendment, as do all laws.

Also, we have to look at when the XIV was passed. I doubt highly that this is what the XIV was supposed to be used for in its original context.

It was supposed to be used to grant all citizens equal treatment under the law. That is what I am arguing now.


Let me point out that with man/woman/separate race laws, everyone still receives all of the same benefits of marriage as anyone else does, which is equivalent to being allowed to drive the same cars as anyone else can.

No, everyone does not receive the same benefits. Some people are able to marry the person they have chosen to live as a single legal entity with. Some people have to do so without any legal protections. In other words, they are not all equally protected.

The government has the ability to decide who you can choose to marry, because if the government does not have the ability to decide what kinds of couples it does and does not grant benefits to, then the argument can go that people may choose to get married and receive government benefits in any form of their choice, from marriages of 1,000 people to incestuous marriages of all kinds and so on and so forth.

Wrong. First of all, the marriage laws are clearly written, and in large part can only be applied, to couplings of two people. Anything larger would require a separate construct (ie. incorporation). On top of that, the government can regulate what couples it will and will not recognize - IF AND ONLY IF it has a compelling interest in doing so. The government can demonstrate a compelling interest in banning incestuous marriage. However, it cannot logically demonstrate such an interest in banning miscegenation or homosexual marriage.

There has to be a limit somewhere, and of course, the state legislature is the governing body who decides this.[/qutoe]

And that limit, as per the 14th Amendment, must be set at a point which demonstrates a compelling interest.

[quote]So in other words, the Supreme Court may somehow take the amendments of the U.S. Constitution and use them to pull some explanation out of its collective ass to justify gay marriage?

The Supreme Court cannot amend the Constitution. It interprets it. And the 14th Amendment clearly states that all citizens must be treated equally under the law. Thus, unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest in denying homosexual marriage (which they cannot), it is unconstitutal.

You aren't even sure what that explanation might be, just that, basically, the Supreme Court has the ability to bullshit anything and has done so during "progressive" eras.

You're right. Brown v. Board, since it disagrees with your logic, was just "bullshit".

By that logic, it would be completely impossible for the court to ever change its mind - since the courts are, according to you, infallible.

Of course, your statement falls apart when we realize that the court has found its own past decisions to be incorrect.

The court obviously has the power to do that but what I said still stands. We do not have the authority to declare something constitutional or not. Only the courts have that power and what they say, goes.

The court obviously has the power to do that but what I said still stands. We do not have the authority to declare something constitutional or not. Only the courts have that power and what they say, goes.
I have no idea what you are talking about, but I get the feeling it is hypocritical to something you have said before.

The court obviously has the power to do that but what I said still stands. We do not have the authority to declare something constitutional or not. Only the courts have that power and what they say, goes.

We certainly do have that power. It's just no one has to listen to us. Your argument is a cop out. You'll argue one moment against judicial activism and in the next, when the court happens to agree with you, the court cannot be wrong. It's just another of your weak debating tactics.

Defend your position. What's the matter? Can't defend your position with a logical support so you have to declare that all the people who are doing that with their positions aren't qualified to have an opinion?

The court obviously has the power to do that but what I said still stands. We do not have the authority to declare something constitutional or not. Only the courts have that power and what they say, goes.
Until it is clear that they were completely wrong. If courts were always the perfect judge of Constitutionality, then we would still own slaves as property, a la Dredd Scott. Right? Sometimes courts goof and a later court has to reverse the decision. Of course, there's always the Andrew Jackson exception, too. The court may decide, but it requires some co-operation to enforce its decisions.

Letting the Georgia voters amend our Consititution was not a mistake. And I still think that not every case is eligible for appeal to the USSC. But then, I'm a physicist, not a lawyer, thank the Lord!

We certainly do have that power. It's just no one has to listen to us. Your argument is a cop out. You'll argue one moment against judicial activism and in the next, when the court happens to agree with you, the court cannot be wrong. It's just another of your weak debating tactics.

I'm the first to admit that there are many decisions I do not agree with and have spoken out about them. However, I abide by the courts decision because as a law abiding citizen, that is my job. I may not like the decision but I will abide by it while I'm trying to get the legislature to overturn it though that is rare.

Until it is clear that they were completely wrong. If courts were always the perfect judge of Constitutionality, then we would still own slaves as property, a la Dredd Scott. Right? Sometimes courts goof and a later court has to reverse the decision. Of course, there's always the Andrew Jackson exception, too. The court may decide, but it requires some co-operation to enforce its decisions.

Legally speaking, the decision in Dredd Scott was indeed the correct decision to make since Slavery was still legal in America under the US Constitution prior to the 13 amendment of said constitution.

Letting the Georgia voters amend our Consititution was not a mistake. And I still think that not every case is eligible for appeal to the USSC. But then, I'm a physicist, not a lawyer, thank the Lord!

LOL!

I'm the first to admit that there are many decisions I do not agree with and have spoken out about them. However, I abide by the courts decision because as a law abiding citizen, that is my job. I may not like the decision but I will abide by it while I'm trying to get the legislature to overturn it though that is rare.

We are having a debate. You are subjugating the debate because you cannot support your position on your own so you have to disqualify the supports of others. This has nothing to do with being law-abiding. In fact, it's much more admirable as an American to speak out against laws you don't agree with and well within the law.

We are having a debate. You are subjugating the debate because you cannot support your position on your own so you have to disqualify the supports of others. This has nothing to do with being law-abiding. In fact, it's much more admirable as an American to speak out against laws you don't agree with and well within the law.

And I do but I try not to say that a decision of the court is unconstitutional when the courts render a decision that I do not like. I may speak out against it and say it is the wrong and try to get my legislators to overturn it but to say that a decision is unconstitutional really is a slap in the face of the judiciary.

YEAH!!! If only they wouldn't have been so progressive and recognized that laws against interracial marriage violated equality.

According to VP, they don't. It is perfectly constitutional, according to him, for the state to place any old limit it wants to on marriage, so long as everyone can, under some circumstance or other, get married. In fact, by his logic, it would be perfectly constitutional for the government to decide that you and I could get married, but only to each other. After all, we would have the right to get married. They just would've chosen the person for us.

And I do but I try not to say that a decision of the court is unconstitutional when the courts render a decision that I do not like. I may speak out against it and say it is the wrong and try to get my legislators to overturn it but to say that a decision is unconstitutional really is a slap in the face of the judiciary.

Okay, let's analyze this bullocks.

A: This is law is constitutional.
B: Your decision is wrong.

Um, yeah, saying it's wrong doesn't mean the EXACT same thing as saying it's unconstitutional. No one cares what you TRY not to do. We're not subject to your bizarre rules of debate. In the real world, judges make bad decisions and as citizens we have the right and the duty to point it out. This decision sucked. The GA court is unbelievable. Their constitution clearly requires a focused amendment. This amendment was all over the place.

Meanwhile, you make the ridiculous claim that the GA voters supported the amendment when so many of those voters have complained about the deceptive nature of the wording on the ballot. It should be noted that many legislators pointed out that the wording was deceptive and asked for meaningful wording and they were thwarted. This was a clear end around the will of the people, something you claim to have the utmost respect for.

You, my friend, are a hypocrite. You respect the will of the people as long as it agrees with you. If it doesn't you are all for tricking the people to subjugate their will. You might fool some people, but I find your tactics absurd and obvious.

As long as everyone receives equal marital rights, as in benefits and protections, and everyone has the ability to marry, then marital laws are constitutional.

Of course, since all couples who choose to be married cannot obtain equal marital rights, then marital laws are not constitutional. The only way everyone could receive equal marriage rights, without regard to race, creed, sex, etc. is if everyone had the same opportunity to marry someone else of every race, creed, sex, etc. At the moment, that criterion is not met.

Limits on who can marry who can be placed by the government because they are the ones giving out the legal contract, and as long as everyone has the ability to marry, then no such laws are unconstitutional.

By this logic, the government could place people in pairings and say, "You two can get married to each other, but to no one else. Take it or leave it." According to you, this would be constitutional since everyone *could* get married.

What a dipshit. The incompetency laden within that statement is overwhelming.


Georgia made no ruling on the legality of same sex marriage. They made a ruling on whether a ballot was purposefully confusing to stop a vote on approving same sex marriage rights. And knowing Georgia, it probably was illegal and was solely upheld because the people on the courts are old pompous windbags who are still probably racist and said it was legal so there would be no other vote that might pass and give gay couples rights. I would suggest to take that to a higher court.

I say - didn't you just post a thread that said you were taking your uninformed bullshit elsewhere for a week?

Talk about a faghag. :rolleyes:

Georgia made no ruling on the legality of same sex marriage. They made a ruling on whether a ballot was purposefully confusing to stop a vote on approving same sex marriage rights. And knowing Georgia, it probably was illegal and was solely upheld because the people on the courts are old pompous windbags who are still probably racist and said it was legal so there would be no other vote that might pass and give gay couples rights. I would suggest to take that to a higher court.


Tis true, I was in Georgia during that election, the vote WAS confusing on purpose!

And you'd obey the law if it was wrong Corneliu? Peh and I wonder why we have idiots and criminals in office.

but to say that a decision is unconstitutional really is a slap in the face of the judiciary. The decision is unconstitutional.
*slaps the face of the bigoted Judiciary.*

*snip*

1) the statement I made is not bollacks. its only bollacks to you because it actually makes sense.

2) I am not a hypocrit at all when it comes to the will of the people. If the will of the people wanted gay marriage and vote for it, that's fine by me. If they don't and vote against gay marriage, that's also fine by me.

3) I read the bill that was posted here. It made perfectly good sense to me and I understood what it was for too.

4) The court said that the amendment was fine and did not violate any constitutional statute or law and I'll take their opinion over the rants and raves of those on the left.

1) the statement I made is not bollacks. its only bollacks to you because it actually makes sense.

2) I am not a hypocrit at all when it comes to the will of the people. If the will of the people wanted gay marriage and vote for it, that's fine by me. If they don't and vote against gay marriage, that's also fine by me.

3) I read the bill that was posted here. It made perfectly good sense to me and I understood what it was for too.

4) The court said that the amendment was fine and did not violate any constitutional statute or law and I'll take their opinion over the rants and raves of those on the left.

Even when some of the rants were on the right?
This law was full of holes where someone with an agenda could fill in with some down right unfair rules.

By this law it's okay to shut down partnered buisnesses if they are the same sex. (Especially if Big Money is hurting from them)

You want to buy a house together?
You better not both be the same sex or no deal!

You even want to both share Rent?
Only if you're a guy and a girl.

Living will?
Can't have it be your best Same sex friend.

So many holes to abuse, so little time.

1) the statement I made is not bollacks. its only bollacks to you because it actually makes sense.

Oh, look, yet another attempt to avoid the argument. Why don't you tell me how I'm not a Christian again to avoid the arguments.

2) I am not a hypocrit at all when it comes to the will of the people. If the will of the people wanted gay marriage and vote for it, that's fine by me. If they don't and vote against gay marriage, that's also fine by me.

They didn't get to vote on what they were actually passing. Instead the ballot suggest this just defined marriage when it actually banned civil unions among other things.

3) I read the bill that was posted here. It made perfectly good sense to me and I understood what it was for too.

That's not what the ballot said, however. The ballot asked if they thought marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, which had little to do with the actual amendment. A reasonable legislature would have asked if they should ban same-sex unions, but they knew that wouldn't pass. Of course, you don't mind that they deceived the public, because you don't care about the will of the people when it doesn't match your will.

4) The court said that the amendment was fine and did not violate any constitutional statute or law and I'll take their opinion over the rants and raves of those on the left.
Yeah, be careful. You wouldn't want to have to support your claims. Keep avoiding the argument. Like I said, weak debating tactics.

Even when some of the rants were on the right? By this law it's okay to shut down partnered buisnesses if they are the same sex.

You want to buy a house together?
You better not both be the same sex or no deal!

You even want to both share Rent?
Only if you're a guy and a girl.

Ain't my problem. Not my fault that the people are to stupid to comprehend a simply worded amendment. Apparently, the GA supreme Court thought it was simple to comprehend. A fellow poster here said it was easy to comprehend. I read it and I found it simple to comprehend. Wether or not the rantings are from right or left, the courts made their decision.

Either live with it, appeal it to SCOTUS, or leave the state. Those are your three options.

The court argument is every bit as applicable as it was with interracial marriage.

The problem here is that VP has already stated that he doesn't think the court could actually declare anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. VP has clearly stated that he thinks such laws are perfectly constitutional.


The court obviously has the power to do that but what I said still stands.

Wrong. If the court's decision magically made something actually constitutional or unconstitutional, then the court would be infallible on the matter of constitutionality. Thus, it would be a logical impossibility for the court to say, "We were actually wrong, that thing we said was constitutional actually is unconstitutional." It would, instead, be constitutional the minute the court said it - period.

In the real world, the constitutionality of an issue is decided by the Constitution. The court can be wrong - and sometimes is. Sometimes, the court will rule that something is constitutional when it is not or vice versa. What they say has the rule of law but does not, in and of itself, make something actually in line with the constitution.

Letting the Georgia voters amend our Consititution was not a mistake.

You don't pay much attention, do you?

The court's decision was not, "The Georgia voters are allowed to amend the Constitution." That goes without saying. What the decision basically said was, "We're going to make up an objective for Section A that is not stated in Section A, but is clearly stated in Section B. We are then going to use the objective that we derived from Section B to determine whether or not Section B is part of Section A. Since we have determined that Section B is the objective of Section A, it is obviously germane."

Once again, this is the logical equivalent of the following:

A: I declare that apples are fruit.
B: Tomatos, which are red like apples, are also fruit.

Court: First we have to decide the objective of A. The objective is clearly to define both apples and tomatos as fruit. Now we ask, "Is Section B germaine to Section A?" Well, let's see. Since we arbitrarily decided that Section B was part of Section A, then Section B is clearly germaine. The end.


And I do but I try not to say that a decision of the court is unconstitutional when the courts render a decision that I do not like. I may speak out against it and say it is the wrong and try to get my legislators to overturn it but to say that a decision is unconstitutional really is a slap in the face of the judiciary.

So? Do you really think that the courts are infallible? If not, then they can make wrong decisions - they can declare things that are unconstitutional to be constitutional and vice versa.

Dem? Thanks for proving what I said in your last line. That was precisely what I have been saying and yet you failed to recognize that is what I said.

I said that the courts can rule something constitutional and they can rule something unconstitutional. I have alwas said that.

You don't pay much attention, do you?

The court's decision was not, "The Georgia voters are allowed to amend the Constitution." That goes without saying. What the decision basically said was, "We're going to make up an objective for Section A that is not stated in Section A, but is clearly stated in Section B. We are then going to use the objective that we derived from Section B to determine whether or not Section B is part of Section A. Since we have determined that Section B is the objective of Section A, it is obviously germane."

Once again, this is the logical equivalent of the following:

A: I declare that apples are fruit.
B: Tomatos, which are red like apples, are also fruit.

Court: First we have to decide the objective of A. The objective is clearly to define both apples and tomatos as fruit. Now we ask, "Is Section B germaine to Section A?" Well, let's see. Since we arbitrarily decided that Section B was part of Section A, then Section B is clearly germaine. The end.

The ACLU sure missed out when they didn't hire you on to argue the case. I'm surprised they overlooked such an unassailable argument.

Dem? Thanks for proving what I said in your last line. That was precisely what I have been saying and yet you failed to recognize that is what I said.

I said that the courts can rule something constitutional and they can rule something unconstitutional. I have alwas said that.

And you tried to stop people from questioning it because you don't have any logical reason for supporting their decision. Admit it. your reason for supporting this is because of your bias. You have offered not one iota of support for your position. You've just been preaching.

3) I read the bill that was posted here. It made perfectly good sense to me and I understood what it was for too.

Of course, the bill wasn't on the ballot, nor was it available at the polling place. The only question on the ballot was, "Should GA amend the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman?"

The entire rest of the amendment - which did much, much more, was not listed.

It's like the following;

Amendment: Ice cream will be defined as vanilla, strawberry, or chocolate. Also, anyone who likes Rocky Road won't get to have ice cream ever.

Ballot: Should we define ice cream as vanilla, strawberry, or chocolate?

4) The court said that the amendment was fine and did not violate any constitutional statute or law and I'll take their opinion over the rants and raves of those on the left.

Have you read the opinion?

It is the logical equivalent of the following:

A: I declare that apples are fruit.
B: Tomatos, which are red like apples, are also fruit.

Court: First we have to decide the objective of A. The objective is clearly to define both apples and tomatos as fruit. Now we ask, "Is Section B germaine to Section A?" Well, let's see. Since we arbitrarily decided that Section B was part of Section A, then Section B is clearly germaine. The end.

Ain't my problem. Not my fault that the people are to stupid to comprehend a simply worded amendment.

The ballot didn't contain the amendment. It contained a question only pertaining to Section A of the amendment. Try again.

Apparently, the GA supreme Court thought it was simple to comprehend.

Wrong. The GA Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the ballot issue. All it ruled was that banning civil unions, etc. is the same issue as banning actual marriage.

A fellow poster here said it was easy to comprehend.

The amendment? Yes, it is. Of course, the ballot language didn't contain even half of what the amendment did.

And you tried to stop people from questioning it because you don't have any logical reason for supporting their decision. Admit it. your reason for supporting this is because of your bias. You have offered not one iota of support for your position. You've just been preaching.

I've been trying to point out that I have been saying what I've been saying all along but yet people were fighting me on it.

The amendment? Yes, it is. Of course, the ballot language didn't contain even half of what the amendment did.
I posted what was on the ballot, or at least my best effort to show it. Why don't you post your version of what was on the ballot and maybe we'll see why it was so incomprehenisble.

Incidentally, mine came from GLAAD, but I'm sure you can find a State source to show that I'm wrong.

Dem? Thanks for proving what I said in your last line. That was precisely what I have been saying and yet you failed to recognize that is what I said.

I said that the courts can rule something constitutional and they can rule something unconstitutional. I have alwas said that.

No, you said that once the court rules something as unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional, even if it isn't.


The ACLU sure missed out when they didn't hire you on to argue the case. I'm surprised they overlooked such an unassailable argument.

(a) The ACLU doesn't argue with the decision - it argues with the other side of the case. You can't argue with the decision until it has been put out.

(b) Read the decision for yourself. It's only 6 pages long. And this is clearly the line of "logical" reasoning used to try and suggest that banning all recognition of same sex unions is necessary to ban same-sex marriage.

No, you said that once the court rules something as unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional, even if it isn't.

That is what you are inferring but that was not what I said.

Ain't my problem. [U]Not my fault that the people are to stupid to comprehend a simply worded amendment*
If you claim to have any sort of morals it should bother you. But I guess as long as you get your way "Who care's who suffers!" Bigot

Apparently, the GA supreme Court thought it was simple to comprehend.
Or they decided "We don't like those stupid queers so we'll block it because we're cowardly bigots afraid of change."

A fellow poster here said it was easy to comprehend. I read it and I found it simple to comprehend.
Oh no not the Fellow poster! What about the other 90 posters who said it WASN'T easy to comprehend. I guess they don't count because, yet again, they don't agree with your point of view.

Wether or not the rantings are from right or left, the courts made their decision. Then the courts are

A. Idiots,
B. Didn't give a damn about how the people felt. Their job is to judge what the people want.
C. Fag haters.
or
D. All of the above.

No, you said that once the court rules something as unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional, even if it isn't.



(a) The ACLU doesn't argue with the decision - it argues with the other side of the case. You can't argue with the decision until it has been put out.

(b) Read the decision for yourself. It's only 6 pages long. And this is clearly the line of "logical" reasoning used to try and suggest that banning all recognition of same sex unions is necessary to ban same-sex marriage.

Don't you know, the will of the people is king as long as they support prejudice. If they don't, trick them. Clearly that's what some conservatives here and in GA think.

I posted what was on the ballot, or at least my best effort to show it. Why don't you post your version of what was on the ballot and maybe we'll see why it was so incomprehenisble.

If you claim that the entire amendment was on the ballot, then you are flat-out lying.

The language on the GA ballot was the following, nothing more, nothing less:

"( ) YES
( ) NO

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?""

In fact, here is the entire bill that got the amendment on the ballot in the first place:

A RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman; to provide for submission of this amendment for ratification or rejection; and for other purposes.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA:

SECTION 1.
Article I of the Constitution is amended by adding a new Section IV to read as follows:

“ SECTION IV.
MARRIAGE

Paragraph I. Recognition of marriage. (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship."

SECTION 2.
The above proposed amendment to the Constitution shall be published and submitted as provided in Article X, Section I, Paragraph II of the Constitution. The ballot submitting the above proposed amendment shall have written or printed thereon the following:
"( ) YES
( ) NO

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"

All persons desiring to vote in favor of ratifying the proposed amendment shall vote "Yes." All persons desiring to vote against ratifying the proposed amendment shall vote "No." If such amendment shall be ratified as provided in said Paragraph of the Constitution, it shall become a part of the Constitution of this state.

In other words, the only wording on the ballot was the bolded text.

That is what you are inferring but that was not what I said.

No, what you said is that law-abiding people can't question the court.

Don't you know, the will of the people is king as long as they support prejudice. If they don't, trick them. Clearly that's what some conservatives here and in GA think.

Talk about strawman arguements :rolleyes:

No, what you said is that law-abiding people can't question the court.

Again not what I said.

Talk about a faghag. :rolleyes:

talk about a forumban.

Again not what I said.

Yes, it is. Ah, now we get that other strong argument "if I implied something but I didn't use THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS, then I didn't say it." Why are you trying to hide what you said? I can guess, but it would be unChristian of me.

"( ) YES
( ) NO

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?""


Yep that's all they showed on the Ballot. I remember that quite clearly. It pissed me off to how they were getting away with such a scam.

That is what you are inferring but that was not what I said.

Oh, really?

Regardless of what we think is constitutional or not, if the Courts ruled something constitutional, it is constitutional. Period. If the courts ruled something unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional. Period.

Lie much?


Don't you know, the will of the people is king as long as they support prejudice. If they don't, trick them. Clearly that's what some conservatives here and in GA think.

Considering that more than one legislator in discussion even stated the fact that the wording on the ballot did not clearly delineate everything in the ballot, and was shot down by those in favor of it, it would seem that the express purpose was to trick people. And, interestingly enough, quite a few voters have since complained about the ballot.

Of course, the ruling today wasn't about the ballot. It was about whether or not banning same-sex marriage and banning all recognition of same-sex unions are the same issue. Never mind that a great deal of the population is in favor of one, and not the other. They are clearly the same thing.

Yes, it is. Ah, now we get that other strong argument "if I implied something but I didn't use THOSE SPECIFIC WORDS, then I didn't say it." Why are you trying to hide what you said? I can guess, but it would be unChristian of me.

Nothing was ever implied in my posts Jocabia. I never said nor implied what you are saying I did. If you read any of my posts, which you clearly didnt, you would know that I have spoken out against many cases from the courts, especially from the US Supreme Court. I am a law-abiding citizen as well. Oops. I guess that destroyed that statement right out of the water.

Talk about strawman arguements :rolleyes:

Um, it's not a strawman when they actually did it and we can evidence it. Seriously, I thought you were a better debator than this, but here are all your arguments thus far.

"The court said it and I agree with it so they are infallibly correct."
"That's a strawman even though the legislature actually went out their way to trick the people and that is the actual basis of the legal case."
"I didn't say what you can actually quote me saying becuase I used different words."
"You're not a true Christian."

Oh, wait, that last one was another thread.

Do you have an argument or did you just come here to gloat because prejudice won out in GA and NY?

Yep that's all they showed on the Ballot. I remember that quite clearly. It pissed me off to how they were getting away with such a scam.

Indeed. Like I pointed out earlier in the thread, I even went to those running the polling place and asked for a full text copy. I was told that they had none on-site. Outraged that they wouldn't even provide them for the voters, I got a number to call and was told that they had printed it in some newspapers, so obviously all citizens saw it. ::rolleyes::

And, even for those who did d- interestingly enough, there are voters who did see it, but when they saw such sparse language on the ballot, thought that it must have been narrowed.

Oh, really?



Lie much?

And if you used your brain, that is indeed correct. It remains as such till they either a) reverse the decision or b) the legislature overturns it with a law. I see though that you didn't use your brain on that statement but meh.

Um, it's not a strawman when they actually did it and we can evidence it. Seriously, I thought you were a better debator than this, but here are all your arguments thus far.

"The court said it and I agree with it so they are infallibly correct."
"That's a strawman even though the legislature actually went out their way to trick the people and that is the actual basis of the legal case."
"I didn't say what you can actually quote me saying becuase I used different words."
"You're not a true Christian."

Oh, wait, that last one was another thread.

Do you have an argument or did you just come here to gloat because prejudice won out in GA and NY?

Quick note: The case under question did not rule anything at all on the question of the misleading ballot. It ruled only on the single-issue rule.

There is still (and has been since the damn thing passed) a case in the docket about the misleading ballot. Note that, when the state government appealed something, it got looked at damn quickly. But when citizens filed a suit 2 freaking years ago, the court has been sitting on it - and continues to do so.

And if you used your brain, that is indeed correct.

No, it isn't. An unconstitutional law will never actually be constitutional, no matter how many times the court rule it as such.

There is a difference between "constitutional" and "ruled constitutional."

It remains as such till they either a) reverse the decision or b) the legislature overturns it with a law.

It remains law until such time. However, being law does not make it constitutional.

I see though that you didn't use your brain on that statement but meh.

Actually, I did. It isn't my fault that you can't see the difference between something actually being constitutional and simply being ruled as such.

Nothing was ever implied in my posts Jocabia. I never said nor implied what you are saying I did. If you read any of my posts, which you clearly didnt, you would know that I have spoken out against many cases from the courts, especially from the US Supreme Court. I am a law-abiding citizen as well. Oops. I guess that destroyed that statement right out of the water.


Let's play a little game, my less than honest friend.

No, you said that once the court rules something as unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional, even if it isn't.
That is what you are inferring but that was not what I said.

Now, let's see if what you said was true. Or if, in fact, Dem was nearly exactly quoting you.

Regardless of what we think is constitutional or not, if the Courts ruled something constitutional, it is constitutional. Period. If the courts ruled something unconstitutional, then it is unconstitutional. Period. Obviously, the court of GA decided that the amendment was constitutional and therefor, it is constitutional. It doesn't matter what we think is or is not constitutional.

OK, so you were wrong wabout what you said. It doesn't have to be proof that you're being dishonest. It's suggestive, but let's ignore that for a moment.

You are clearly trying to avoid dealing with supporting your arguments. You're caught. Not only I am reading your posts, I seem to understand them better than you do. Unless, of course, you're being dishonest, but that just wouldn't be Christian, now would it?

No, it isn't. An unconstitutional law will never actually be constitutional, no matter how many times the court rule it as such.

There is a difference between "constitutional" and "ruled constitutional."

If it is ruled constitutional then it is constitutional. It don't matter if it is infact unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court ruled an unconstitutional act constitutional, then it is constitutional.

It remains law until such time. However, being law does not make it constitutional.

Again, incorrect. It is apparent you do not know how the judiciary works at all if you do not know this. If the Supreme Court rules something Constitutional, it is constitutional until otherwise noted by them or the law is changed.

Actually, I did. It isn't my fault that you can't see the difference between something actually being constitutional and simply being ruled as such.

Not my fault you do not know how this all works.

And if you used your brain, that is indeed correct. It remains as such till they either a) reverse the decision or b) the legislature overturns it with a law. I see though that you didn't use your brain on that statement but meh.

Didn't use her brain? She said you said something. You claimed you didn't. She proved you did. You got PWNed. You accuse her of not using her brain. That's the order of events in case you're not following along.

Seriously, do you not have anything in your debate drawer other than ad hominems and lying? You've not supported a single one of your claims. You've subjugated the debate with false claims. Did you come here to debate or just gloat about how wonderfully prejudice persists?

The court did the right thing if the law explicitly outlaws gay marriage. I haven't seen the law, but according to that article, that's what the law did. While I believe gay marriage should be legalized, I realize that it is not the court's job to write laws, but to interpret the laws.

Even if the judges believe something is right, they cannot override laws. They must follow the law like any other citizen. It is wholly up to the legislature to legalize gay marriage. They are elcted by the poeple, judges aren't.

*snip*

Read whatever you want into my posts if it makes ya happy. Luckily for me, I know what I said and how this all works.

Call me a liar if you like but remember that I do know how the judiciary works and its purpose. If you cannot fathom that then I feel sorry for you.

The court did the right thing if the law explicitly outlaws gay marriage. I haven't seen the law, but according to that article, that's what the law did. While I believe gay marriage should be legalized, I realize that it is not the court's job to write laws, but to interpret the laws.

Even if the judges believe something is right, they cannot override laws. They must follow the law like any other citizen. It is wholly up to the legislation to legalize gay marriage. They are elcted by the poeple, judges aren't.

couldn't have said it better myself.

If it is ruled constitutional then it is constitutional. It don't matter if it is infact unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court ruled an unconstitutional act constitutional, then it is constitutional.

So if it doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional, it's constitutional? Not good with logic are you?

Again, incorrect. It is apparent you do not know how the judiciary works at all if you do not know this. If the Supreme Court rules something Constitutional, it is constitutional until otherwise noted by them or the law is changed.

We aren't talking about how it will be treating. We are talking about whether it is ACTUALLY constitutional. You don't have any support for your side of the debate so you are attempt to avoid having to show support.

Not my fault you do not know how this all works.
Strawman. She isn't arguing that the decision won't be followed. She is arguing that it's wrong. You are refusing to address her actual argument because you don't have any support for side.

Read whatever you want into my posts if it makes ya happy. Luckily for me, I know what I said and how this all works.

Call me a liar if you like but remember that I do know how the judiciary works and its purpose. If you cannot fathom that then I feel sorry for you.

Uh-huh. Keep avoiding actually supporting your arguments. You suck at this.

Uh-huh. Keep avoiding actually supporting your arguments. You suck at this.

I've been supporting my arguments. However, they go contrary to your beliefs and therefor, I'm not supporting them when infact I am.

I've been supporting my arguments. However, they go contrary to your beliefs and therefor, I'm not supporting them when infact I am.

Reasons are support. Your ONLY argument is they ruled it so they must be right. You've not shown ANY support. I know that passes for debate in your world, along with accusing Dem of having no brain or me of not being a Christian, but in our world you support your point or your point is considered spurious. I have yet to see any support for your side. No actual arguments at all. Just gloating.

If it is ruled constitutional then it is constitutional. It don't matter if it is infact unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court ruled an unconstitutional act constitutional, then it is constitutional.

My favorite example to illustrate this point is the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, aka Campaign Finance Reform. Everyone was sure that, once the case was argued, the USSC would find that the law was not Constitutional. Here is a bald-faced abridgment of our first amendment rights, but the Court decides it's okay. Thus it is okay until they decide it is not okay. We all know they're wrong, but there isn't a darned thing we can do, except try to have the law repealed.

Corneliu is actually perfectly right. If it is ruled constitutional by the courts, then it is constitutional until it is ruled differently by a higher court.

You say that if a law is in reality unconstituional, but ruled constitutional it is still unconstitutional. Well, yes you can say that, but that is simply opinion. Who are you to say it is unconstitutional? What knowledge in law do you ahve to say it is unconstitutional? What power was invested in you to say that it is in relaity unconstitutional? There are as many people, if not more who will say the law is constitutional.

The court was given the power by the executive and legislature branches, and indirectly by the people to rule the constitutionality of laws. Therefore, they decide. You simply saying that it is really unconstituional means nothing. It remians constitutional.

What you seem to not understand is that the constitutionality of a law is simply opinion, not fact. That is why the constitutionality of a law is whateve rthe court ruled it to be.

My favorite example to illustrate this point is the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, aka Campaign Finance Reform. Everyone was sure that, once the case was argued, the USSC would find that the law was not Constitutional. Here is a bald-faced abridgment of our first amendment rights, but the Court decides it's okay. Thus it is okay until they decide it is not okay. We all know they're wrong, but there isn't a darned thing we can do, except try to have the law repealed.

Even I thought that was going to be overturned and was surprised when it wasn't.

You are indeed correct les Drapeaux Brulants. The act maybe unconstitutional but the Supreme Court said it was Constitutional. By the majority opinion of the Court, the act was constitutional and therefor, the bill is constitutional until a) they revisit it again or b) the legislature revokes it.

Corneliu is actually perfectly right. If it is ruled constitutional by the courts, then it is constitutional until it is ruled differently by a higher court.

You say that if a law is in reality unconstituional, but ruled constitutional it is still unconstitutional. Well, yes you can say that, but that is simply opinion. Who are you to say it is unconstitutional? What knowledge in law do you ahve to say it is unconstitutional? What power was invested in you to say that it is in relaity unconstitutional? There are as many people, if not more who will say the law is constitutional.

The court was given the power by the executive and legislature branches, and indirectly by the people to rule the constitutionality of laws. Therefore, they decide. You simply saying that it is really unconstituional means nothing. It remians constitutional.

What you seem to not understand is that the constitutionality of a law is simply opinion, not fact. That is why the constitutionality of a law is whateve rthe court ruled it to be.

Thank You!

Corneliu is actually perfectly right. If it is ruled constitutional by the courts, then it is constitutional until it is ruled differently by a higher court.

You say that if a law is in reality unconstituional, but ruled constitutional it is still unconstitutional. Well, yes you can say that, but that is simply opinion. Who are you to say it is unconstitutional? What knowledge in law do you ahve to say it is unconstitutional? What power was invested in you to say that it is in relaity unconstitutional? There are as many people, if not more who will say the law is constitutional.

The court was given the power by the executive and legislature branches, and indirectly by the people to rule the constitutionality of laws. Therefore, they decide. You simply saying that it is really unconstituional means nothing. It remians constitutional.

What you seem to not understand is that the constitutionality of a law is simply opinion, not fact. That is why the constitutionality of a law is whateve rthe court ruled it to be.

We are having an intellectual discussion about the merits of ruling. Claiming that their ruling cannot be challenged is an attempt to subjugate the debate. Our debate does nothing but form opinions. You think we don't know that.

The reason you and Corny are pointing the justices as the ultimate and infallible decision is because only one side of this debate came with any actual arguments.

If it is ruled constitutional then it is constitutional. It don't matter if it is infact unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court ruled an unconstitutional act constitutional, then it is constitutional.

Now you are contradicting yourself within the same paragraph. It is logically impossible for something to be "infact unconstitutional" and constitutional at the same time.

If the Supreme Court rules an unconstititutional act as constitutional, it doesn't magically jump in line with the Constitution. It is legal, for the time being, but it is not, in fact constitutional (as you note).

Again, incorrect.

It is correct if we are speaking English. If you are speaking some other language in which antonyms can be the same thing, do tell me?

It is apparent you do not know how the judiciary works at all if you do not know this.

I know how the judiciary works. However, the judiciary is not infallible and does not magically change reality.

Anything which is inconsistent with the Constitution is unconstitutional, no matter what the courts say. "Separate but equal" schools was always unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary notwithstanding, because it was always contradictory to the 14th Amendment.

The court did the right thing if the law explicitly outlaws gay marriage. I haven't seen the law, but according to that article, that's what the law did. While I believe gay marriage should be legalized, I realize that it is not the court's job to write laws, but to interpret the laws.

Please. Attempt to be a little bit informed about an issue before typing away. The issue at stake here was whether or not an amendment which clearly addressed more than one political issue was legally passed, even though the Georgia Constitution clearly states that any amendment must address only one issue. The Court used circular reasoning to declare that two separate issues were, in fact, only one.

It isn't an issue of whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong. The issue under question was whether or not the amendment violated the single-issue rule.


Call me a liar if you like but remember that I do know how the judiciary works and its purpose. If you cannot fathom that then I feel sorry for you.

If you know how the judiciary works, then why are you arguing that the judicary is simultaneously infallible and fallible? Why are you arguing that the judiciary's decisions magically change the very definition of the word unconstitutional to mean, "What the court said," instead of "Contradictory to the Constitution"?


I've been supporting my arguments. However, they go contrary to your beliefs and therefor, I'm not supporting them when infact I am.

Go ahead and support your statement that something can be, in fact, unconstitutional but simultaneously (in what? La-la land?) be constitutional. While you're at it, explain to be how something can be both positive and negative. Find me a particle that is both.

We are having an intellectual discussion about the merits of ruling. Claiming that their ruling cannot be challenged is an attempt to subjugate the debate. Our debate does nothing but form opinions. You think we don't know that.

The reason you and Corny are pointing the justices as the ultimate and infallible decision is because only one side of this debate came with any actual arguments.

I even stated that the only avenue left is to appeal it to the US Supreme Court. Did you not see that post?

By the Ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court, they stated that the amendment was in full compliance with the Georgia Constitution. Only avenue left is SCOTUS and I doubt that they'll touch this issue though I wouldn't place bets on that.

My favorite example to illustrate this point is the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act, aka Campaign Finance Reform. Everyone was sure that, once the case was argued, the USSC would find that the law was not Constitutional. Here is a bald-faced abridgment of our first amendment rights, but the Court decides it's okay. Thus it is okay until they decide it is not okay. We all know they're wrong, but there isn't a darned thing we can do, except try to have the law repealed.

"Decided okay" is not the same thing as "constitutional." "Treated as constitutional" is not the same thing as "constitutional."

This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

Anything which is contradictory to the Constitution is unconstitutional. A court ruling may allow it, for a time, to be treated as constitutional, but that ruling can never make it actually constitutional.

Corneliu is actually perfectly right. If it is ruled constitutional by the courts, then it is constitutional until it is ruled differently by a higher court.

Wrong. It is treated as constitutional until such time.

You say that if a law is in reality unconstituional, but ruled constitutional it is still unconstitutional. Well, yes you can say that, but that is simply opinion.

No, that is definition.

If the court's ruling automatically made it actually constitutional, it would be impossible to ever overturn such a decision. Just by virtue of being ruled as such, it would be automatically constitutional.

I even stated that the only avenue left is to appeal it to the US Supreme Court. Did you not see that post?

By the Ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court, they stated that the amendment was in full compliance with the Georgia Constitution. Only avenue left is SCOTUS and I doubt that they'll touch this issue though I wouldn't place bets on that.

What does that have to do with our debate over whether or not they were right, which you are avoiding because you don't have any logical support for your position?

Not that I'm not amused by the profound "even if it's, in fact, unconstitutional, it must consitutional" argument. Remind me to make sure you're on the other side in ever debate I enter. Usually people at least try to keep their contradictory arguments separated by at least a sentence or two. You make it so we don't have to quote multiple posts. Thanks for that.

Now you are contradicting yourself within the same paragraph. It is logically impossible for something to be "infact unconstitutional" and constitutional at the same time.

In the Judiciary, anything is possible. *points to the McCain-Feingold Act* unconstitutional but the Supreme Court said it was constitutional. Therefor, an unconstitutional act is indeed constitutional.

If the Supreme Court rules an unconstititutional act as constitutional, it doesn't magically jump in line with the Constitution. It is legal, for the time being, but it is not, in fact constitutional (as you note).

Until noted, it is constitutional. Why are you having a difficult time understanding this?

I know how the judiciary works. However, the judiciary is not infallible and does not magically change reality.

No it doesn't but when something is brought to the courts in regards to constitutionality of a law, they are the final authority on it.

Anything which is inconsistent with the Constitution is unconstitutional, no matter what the courts say. "Separate but equal" schools was always unconstitutional, the Supreme Court decisions to the contrary notwithstanding, because it was always contradictory to the 14th Amendment.

In that case then we need to impeach all 9 members of the US Supreme Court if we want to go down that road.

Please. Attempt to be a little bit informed about an issue before typing away. The issue at stake here was whether or not an amendment which clearly addressed more than one political issue was legally passed, even though the Georgia Constitution clearly states that any amendment must address only one issue. The Court used circular reasoning to declare that two separate issues were, in fact, only one.

Then take it to SCOTUS and tell them so. That is the only avenue left. However, if they refuse the case then the GA Supreme Court's decision stands and it remains constitutional.

It isn't an issue of whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong. The issue under question was whether or not the amendment violated the single-issue rule.

And according to the GA Supreme Court, right or wrong, it didnt' violate the single issue rule.

If you know how the judiciary works, then why are you arguing that the judicary is simultaneously infallible and fallible?

I never said it wasn't infallible. Only you and Jacobia stated that I said it was infallible.

Why are you arguing that the judiciary's decisions magically change the very definition of the word unconstitutional to mean, "What the court said," instead of "Contradictory to the Constitution"?

Because the Courts are the final authority on the issue of constitutionality. If they rule something constitutional, it is until they overturn their own decision or the Legislature changes the law.

We are having an intellectual discussion about the merits of ruling. Claiming that their ruling cannot be challenged is an attempt to subjugate the debate. Our debate does nothing but form opinions. You think we don't know that.

The reason you and Corny are pointing the justices as the ultimate and infallible decision is because only one side of this debate came with any actual arguments.

I am not saying the ruling cannot be challenged. It can, and it probably will be. I was simply stating that in reality, the law is constitutional.

As for the amendment and the single issue rule. Sorry, I did not take the time to read the whole thread. I was addressing the first post, saying that I agree with the court's decision even though I believe gay marriage should be legalized.

Is there a copy of the amednment on this thread? I will look for it anyway. This is interesting, I'd like to see it. Anyway, from what I know, the courts cannot rule an amendment unconstitutional because it is in the constitution now, and therefore, it is constitutional. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I haven't, myself, actually decided whether I think it is unconstitutional or not. I mean, according to the 14th amendment everyone has equal protection under the law, but then again, gay people have the same rights straight people have. They can, just like a straight person, marry someone of the opposite sex. You could claim though, that unlike the straight perosn they cannot marry the person they love. But the law does not care about love. If I actually had to decide, I would say it is constitutional, but wrong. That is why the legislature has to pass a law stating whether gay marriage is legal or not.

In the Judiciary, anything is possible. *points to the McCain-Feingold Act* unconstitutional but the Supreme Court said it was constitutional. Therefor, an unconstitutional act is indeed constitutional.

Wrong. If the act is, indeed, unconstitutional, then it isn't constitutional - no matter what.

It is currently being treated as constitutional, but that is not the same thing as actually being constitutional.

Until noted, it is constitutional. Why are you having a difficult time understanding this?

No, it is treated as constitutional, which is not the same thing.

Something cannot be, "Constitutional, until we decide differently." It is either consistent with the constitution or it isn't.

No it doesn't but when something is brought to the courts in regards to constitutionality of a law, they are the final authority on it.

Final authority and infallibility are not the same thing.

In that case then we need to impeach all 9 members of the US Supreme Court if we want to go down that road.

Why? We don't impeach people for being wrong. We impeach them for deliberate misconduct. Can you demonstrate deliberate misconduct?

And according to the GA Supreme Court, right or wrong, it didnt' violate the single issue rule.

But, since their ruling was based in flawed logic, it is an incorrect ruling. As such, they are *gasp* wrong.

I never said it wasn't infallible. Only you and Jacobia stated that I said it was infallible.

The statement "If the court says it is constitutional, it is constitutional. Period" confers infallibility on legal matters to the courts. If the courts, on the other hand, can possibly be wrong, then the courts do not actually make anything constitutional or not - they simply determine how it will be treated.

Because the Courts are the final authority on the issue of constitutionality.

Final authority is not the same thing as actually being right. In order for a law to be constitutional, it must actually be in line with the Constitution. The courts may have the final authority and may declare that something that is not in line with the constitution is constitutional, but that doesn't magically make it so. It simply means that it is legally treated as such until overturned.


I am not saying the ruling cannot be challenged.

But you fail to see that this is the logical outcome of your statement. If a court ruling actually make a law constitutional, despite its actual relation to the constitution, then the law can never be overturned. It is, by virtue of having been declared as such, actually constitutional.

Is there a copy of the amednment on this thread? I will look for it anyway. This is interesting, I'd like to see it. Anyway, from what I know, the courts cannot rule an amendment unconstitutional because it is in the constitution now, and therefore, it is constitutional. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If the passing of the amendment did not occur as per the constitutional rules for amending the constitution, then the amendment does not stand. On a federal level, for instance, if an amendment got sent out to the states and got passed by a large enough majority, but had never passed the House by a large enough majority, it would not stand. This is because the constitution itself outlines the method by which to amend it.

The courts cannot rule an amendment unconstitutional, but it can rule that it was unconstitutionally passed, and therefore not yet a part of the constitution.

As for a copy:

a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties´ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship."

This clearly bans not only same-sex marriage, but any legal construct which would grant the protections of marriage to same-sex couples. It also states that GA will break the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution by failing to recognize marraiges from other states.

The entire bill used to pass this amendment can be seen here: http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2003_04/fulltext/sr595.htm

The wording on the ballot was:
"( ) YES
( ) NO

Shall the Constitution be amended so as to provide that this state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman?"

This quite clearly does not include even half of what the amendment itself does.

I haven't, myself, actually decided whether I think it is unconstitutional or not. I mean, according to the 14th amendment everyone has equal protection under the law, but then again, gay people have the same rights straight people have. They can, just like a straight person, marry someone of the opposite sex.

This was the exact same argument used to try and uphold bans on miscegenation. The racists argued, "Black and white people have all the same rights. Everyone can marry members of their own race. Black people can marry black people and white people can marry white people."

Of course, the courts found - correctly - that this broke the 14th Amendment, as it was not, in fact, equal protection under the law.

You could claim though, that unlike the straight perosn they cannot marry the person they love. But the law does not care about love. If I actually had to decide, I would say it is constitutional, but wrong.

I suppose you think that anti-miscegenation laws are equally constitutional then? Let's just turn back that civil rights movement, shall we?

Meanwhile, you are right that the law doesn't care about love. However, we must ask why the government recognizes marriage in the first place. If we look at the protections granted, it is clear that legal marriage exists to protect the interests of the government and the citizens when citizens enter into a relationship in which they essentially live as one. At the moment, heterosexuals can enter into such a union of their choice. Homosexuals cannot.

That is why the legislature has to pass a law stating whether gay marriage is legal or not.

If the legislature allows marriage at all, it must do so equally, as per the 14th Amendment. It cannot discriminate, as it currently does, on the basis of sex.

Thank You!

K, Corny, let's look at it this way:

- Was the ruling in Roe v. Wade Constitutional?

A simple question. Due to your logic, the answer must be yes.

In 25 years, we will look back with shame upon all of the idiots who fought so hard to block gay marriage.

I Think what Corneliu is trying to say, is that if we (the people) find an act/law that was passed to be unconstitutional in our interpretation of said act/law, but SCotUS finds it to be, in fact, Constitutional, then it is constitutional reguardless of what we (the public) think untill such time that it is revisited/reviewd or revoked.

I haven't, myself, actually decided whether I think it is unconstitutional or not. I mean, according to the 14th amendment everyone has equal protection under the law, but then again, gay people have the same rights straight people have. They can, just like a straight person, marry someone of the opposite sex. You could claim though, that unlike the straight perosn they cannot marry the person they love. But the law does not care about love. If I actually had to decide, I would say it is constitutional, but wrong. That is why the legislature has to pass a law stating whether gay marriage is legal or not.


It doesn't work this way. Who cares about love, technically? Can you marry a man under law? I don't know. I can't tell what your rights are unless you tell me your sex. That means that the law is not equal. If you are a woman you can marry a man. If you're a man you cannot. This was the essense of the ruling when marriage was declared an individual right when laws against interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional.

See, they used to make the same argument only they use to say 'same race' instead of 'opposite sex'. However, if you have to ask what someone's race is or what their sex is to determine their rights, then those rights are based on sex or race. It's that simple.

In 25 years, we will look back with shame upon all of the idiots who fought so hard to block gay marriage.
or, the opposite might happen...

one never knows what the future holds. ;)

or, the opposite might happen...

one never knows what the future holds. ;)

This is guaranteed. Tradition dies with time, as the youth in greater and greater numbers reject the useless ideas of their ancestors.

And one can make no mistake, this tradition is useless.

or, the opposite might happen...

one never knows what the future holds. ;)

Yes, that would be counter to history, however, Throughout history prejudice has slowly disappeared not the other way around. I find it unlikely that prejudice will win this time.

Meh, I'm confident we will see laws like this overturned as time goes on. I believe its Jocabia who said that the US as a whole is constantly getting more and more liberal, and from where I am standing, that seems abundantly clear.

Meh, I'm confident we will see laws like this overturned as time goes on. I believe its Jocabia who said that the US as a whole is constantly getting more and more liberal, and from where I am standing, that seems abundantly clear.

Ha, that's pretty funny that we posted the same idea at almost the same time and you referenced me. It's not my idea, by the way. It's history's.

Ha, that's pretty funny that we posted the same idea at almost the same time and you referenced me. It's not my idea, by the way. It's history's.

lol

Gods winking at us with this co winky dink!

All I know is that you first brought it to my attention; and since then - looking around and looking back at history, I have no choice but to agree.

Not the worst rulings in history, par for the course for somewhere like georgia.

What the hell?? Georgia isn't so bad, and is not the only state to legislate against homosexual marriage. Lets beat up on California some more...

K, Corny, let's look at it this way:

- Was the ruling in Roe v. Wade Constitutional?

A simple question. Due to your logic, the answer must be yes.

Aww, you scared him away.

I see no problem with the amendment. It addresses one issue, gay marriage. It says that it shall not be allowed, and goes further to say you cannot give them the rights of married couples. That's one issue. Just because they a 'a' and 'b' it doesn't mean it's two different things.

Ah... once again... hypocrisy.

Ok now you guys are freaking me out!

If you don't stop, I am going to have to run for the bunker as the world is about to end!
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/dal/lowres/daln59l.jpg

:D

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/dal/lowres/daln59l.jpg

:D
ok, bad joke time.

a Priest and a Rabbi, who both own places of worship across from each other, stood along a road holding a sign that read, "Turn back for the End is Near"

One car zoomed by and the driver shouted, "Religious Zelots!"

after a few moments, there's the sound of screeching tires and a loud crash.

the Priest turned to the Rabbi and said, "Perhaps you're right, 'Bridge Out' would've been a better sign."

K, Corny, let's look at it this way:

- Was the ruling in Roe v. Wade Constitutional?

A simple question. Due to your logic, the answer must be yes.

Since they did rule it constitutional, yes it is constitutional.

I Think what Corneliu is trying to say, is that if we (the people) find an act/law that was passed to be unconstitutional in our interpretation of said act/law, but SCotUS finds it to be, in fact, Constitutional, then it is constitutional reguardless of what we (the public) think untill such time that it is revisited/reviewd or revoked.

EXACTLY!!!

Since they did rule it constitutional, yes it is constitutional.

You mean we treat it as constitutional. They're opinion sets practice but it's still an opinion. We keep telling you're saying this wrong and you make no effort to correct your provably wrong statements.

You mean we treat it as constitutional. They're opinion sets practice but it's still an opinion. We keep telling you're saying this wrong and you make no effort to correct your provably wrong statements.

As of right now, it is constitutional. Period. The only way it can be changed is by an act of Congress or they reverse it themselves.Until that happens, it is constitutional. This is basic judicial stuff and I do not understand how you people are screwing this up.

As of right now, it is constitutional. Period. The only way it can be changed is by an act of Congress or they reverse it themselves.Until that happens, it is constitutional. This is basic judicial stuff and I do not understand how you people are screwing this up.
Seriously, is your grasp of the language this weak. Do you know why it's called an opinion of the court. It's not constitutional. Period. It's treated as constitutional. Period. If what you said was true then the constitution would change to be in line with what they say is constitutional or unconstitutional. However, it doesn't. Constitutional is an opinion. They have one that affects how we conduct the law, but it doesn't, DOES NOT, make it the only opinion nor the only accurate opinion or even AN accurate opinion.

We're not screwing it up. We realize that the judiciary legally interprets the law, but it is not the ONLY interpretation. You want it to be in this case because you don't have an actual defense for this decision.

Now, do you have anything to add or did you just post this topic to gloat? As of yet, we haven't seen you say or support anything other than how happy you are this happened. Do you have anything to say that moderately passes for debate?

We're not screwing it up. We realize that the judiciary legally interprets the law, but it is not the ONLY interpretation.

Actually....it is the only one that matters. It may not be the only one but that does not matter. Once the Supreme Court rules something, that's it. It can only be changed via Congress or they overturn it themselves or amending the Constitution. That's it. There maybe other interpretations, but the interpretation of the highest court (either state or Federal) is the only interpretation that matters. Do you not understand that?

You want it to be in this case because you don't have an actual defense for this decision.

Maybe because I don't have to defend the decision for it does not affect me? I agree with them but that does not mean I have to defend them. All Im pointing out is that their interpretation is the only one that counts unless SCOTUS overturns it then SCOTUS's opinion is the only one that counts.

Now, do you have anything to add or did you just post this topic to gloat? As of yet, we haven't seen you say or support anything other than how happy you are this happened. Do you have anything to say that moderately passes for debate?

Do you have anything to add other than that the Supreme Court of Georgia interpretation is wrong even though theirs is the only interpretation that matters unless SCOTUS says differently?

All I can do is just shake my head that so many people seem to have nothing better to do than fight over whether gays should be allowed to marry, just as if there were nothing more pressing to be concerned about. Sigh. :(

In between nation building and flexing muscles, teh ebil ghays are the next most important agenda apparently.

Economy? Who gives a damn about that? That's something only pansy lily livered laberals do.

And just in case [/sarcasm]

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Nor does he approve of gays.

Here's the sticky bit. Given setting of the grammer, it could be construed to mean thou shalt not lie with mankind, along with womankind, i.e. don't sleep with men or women. That comma though makes it a bit tricky. :p

We're not talking about sexual orientation. Or I'm not. I'm talking about one's sex.

It's simple. If I try to excercise my rights, say my right to marry a black woman, if you have to ask me what sex I am to decide whether that right is granted me, it's discrimination. If you have to ask me what color I am, then it's racial discrimination. It's not a difficult concept.

Meanwhile, how on God's green earth does one equate status as a sibling as equal sexual orientation?



No, you don't. You fake it. I don't need to look at this thread. I can see you appearing in several threads making multiple arguments that are fallacious against gay marriage. Your prejudice shines much brighter than your claims. You remember that OTHER thread where when you didn't really have any rational support for your position you abandoned it only to make the EXACT same claims here. Let's see, a person ignores rational arguments only to continue to preach their claims, claims against gay marriage. Golly, it's really a stretch to see an agenda there.

The court argument is every bit as applicable as it was with interracial marriage.



Everyone isn't receiving equal marital rights. But hey if you keep repeating it, it will make it true. Again, if who I can marry is dictated by my sex, it is sexual discrimination in every sense of the word.
You, my friend, take matters too far. How dare you tell me that "I fake it." How dare you. You are of no authority to judge me in any way. Your ad hominem attacks lend you no credibility. But, if that's how you want it to be, fine. Fuck civil debate. Fuck exchanging arguments like two people with different points of view. Let's just call each other names, like "bigot" and "prejudiced!" Here's one for you: "overly defensive 'rights crusader' with a victim complex!"

In case you didn't realize it by now, I am for gay marriage rights. In my OTHER thread, I was simply attempting to find a rationale behind affording marriage rights to people; many posters were so quick to jump on the defense that they didn't take the time to clearly read my original post. They took me as attacking gay marriage when I clearly wrote a disclaimer stating that I was only attempting to attack one specific argument for gay marriage. I offered that marriage is for the purpose of promoting and helping with the development of families; that included gay people, because they can adopt. I never wrote or implied that gay people could not be included due to this rationale; that was an argument entirely invented by the posters who initally replied in the thread. As the thread continued, however, people began to reply who had actually read my original post in its entirety without inventing implications that did not exist and were clearly stated against, and gave me solid reasoning that alternative rationales exist behind marriage, and in fact, such rationales aren't necessary to have in order to legislate gay marriage rights...although my original rationale had been inclusive of homosexual couples in the first place.

So now I set out to look at marriage as a legal contract with no strings attached. I post my opinion against it being mandated by the judiciary while stating that it should be legislated by a state's representatives or its people. But somehow, because I view it as not being a judicial issue, that makes me a bigot. Interesting... It is still my belief that it is the responsibility of the people and their representatives to mandate marital laws. The constitution mandates that marital rights be afforded to all people; as long as they are, marital laws are constitutional. Does that mean they are fair or inclusive? No. But it remains up to the state legislature and the people of the state to make sure this is so. Not the judiciary. That's my opinion. That's an opinion on the governmental roles of the legislature and the judiciary. It has not a thing to do with prejudice against gay people; just because I don't support one avenue that gay rights lobbyists are attempting to gain marital rights does not mean that I am not sympathetic to their cause. To say so is pure bullshit.

Oh, for fuck's sake...

Judge Robert Smith wrote in his opinion, "The right to marry is unquestionably a fundamental right. The right to marry someone of the same sex, however, is not 'deeply rooted'; it has not even been asserted until relatively recent times.

This is the most ridiculous legal gibberish I have encountered in a long time.

You know, it reminds me of a professor in constitutional law who is always telling his undergrads, "You are just as smart--if not smarter--as the justices on the Supreme Court and every other judge in this country!" As their grader, I usually have to raise a dubious eyebrow.

Now I think I see what he means.

This judge is a moron. Under standard equal protection analysis, if a right is "fundamental" then the government must demonstrate a "compelling interest" in order to discriminate with respect to that right. The fact that the group making the challenge has not historically possessed the right in question is precisely the point at issue!!

His comment would be equivalent to a court saying that the right to free speech is fundamental, but the right of transexuals to speak is not "deeply rooted"... since, after all, these transexuals have only recently asserted their rights.

:rolleyes: Maybe my students are smarter than the average judge.

ROFL...Apparentl NY isn't as liberal as I thought.

I see no problem with the amendment. It addresses one issue, gay marriage. It says that it shall not be allowed, and goes further to say you cannot give them the rights of married couples. That's one issue. Just because they a 'a' and 'b' it doesn't mean it's two different things.

Yeah, all one issue, because there is no one who thinks that homosexuals should be afforded the rights of marriage, but not marriage itself. No one at all. No one has ever mentioned or supported civil unions, domestic partnerships, partnership benefits, or anything else along those lines....

In both the political climate and the legal one, the issue of granting homosexuals the protections associated with marriage is not the same as the issue of granting homosexuals marriage licenses.

Interestingly enough, more than one GA citizen is currently suing because they voted - as per the ballot - on an amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but actually would vote in favor of legal recognition of same-sex unions. In fact, had they known the full text of the ballot, they would have voted against it.

The NY ruling just shows why we need Governor Spitzer next election in order to put Judges that can correct interpret the NY Constitution, because, if you understand the ideas expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it clearly mandates Marriage Equality.

The NY ruling just shows why we need Governor Spitzer next election in order to put Judges that can correct interpret the NY Constitution, because, if you understand the ideas expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it clearly mandates Marriage Equality.

You do realize that the HDHR is not legally binding right?

I Think what Corneliu is trying to say, is that if we (the people) find an act/law that was passed to be unconstitutional in our interpretation of said act/law, but SCotUS finds it to be, in fact, Constitutional, then it is constitutional reguardless of what we (the public) think untill such time that it is revisited/reviewd or revoked.

Which is logically the same thing as saying that the Supreme Court is infallible on legal matters - and can never be wrong. If they could be wrong, a ruling by the court wouldn't actually make something constitutional or unconstitutional, it would simply affect how it is treated.


So now I set out to look at marriage as a legal contract with no strings attached. I post my opinion against it being mandated by the judiciary while stating that it should be legislated by a state's representatives or its people.

No one is arguing that the judiciary should mandate marriage. In fact, if the government decided that it wouldn't recognize any marriage, under any circumstances, that would most likely be found to be Constitutional.

What the courts can madate is that any marriage laws passed are consistent with the Constitution. In order to do so, they must be applied equally to all citizens.

The constitution mandates that marital rights be afforded to all people; as long as they are, marital laws are constitutional. Does that mean they are fair or inclusive? No.

It is impossible to logically state that all citizens have equal access to marriage - are equally protected under marriage law - if the laws are not fair and inclusive. It is impossible to logically state that the existence of any marriage for a given person is the same thing as equal protection.

By your logic, Brown v. Board was wrongly decided. It was perfectly ok for blacks to be put into schools with less funding than white people. After all, as long as they got some school, it was Constitutional.

By your logic, we could read some convicts half the Miranda rights, while reading the entire thing to others. After all, as long as they got some Miranda rights.

By your logic, the government could pair up two people and say, "If you want to get married, marry each other. Otherwise, don't get married," and that would be "equal treatment".

By your logic, It would be perfectly ok for the government to decide that women could vote for some offices, and not for others. After all, as long as they go some of the vote, it would be equal.

But it remains up to the state legislature and the people of the state to make sure this is so. Not the judiciary. That's my opinion.

So it is your opinion that the judiciary cannot rule on the constitutionality of laws. Well, at least you agree with one Supreme Court justice - Thomas. He's the one that argues that Marbury v. Madison should be overturned.

Which is logically the same thing as saying that the Supreme Court is infallible on legal matters - and can never be wrong. If they could be wrong, a ruling by the court wouldn't actually make something constitutional or unconstitutional, it would simply affect how it is treated.



No one is arguing that the judiciary should mandate marriage. In fact, if the government decided that it wouldn't recognize any marriage, under any circumstances, that would most likely be found to be Constitutional.

What the courts can madate is that any marriage laws passed are consistent with the Constitution. In order to do so, they must be applied equally to all citizens.



It is impossible to logically state that all citizens have equal access to marriage - are equally protected under marriage law - if the laws are not fair and inclusive. It is impossible to logically state that the existence of any marriage for a given person is the same thing as equal protection.

By your logic, Brown v. Board was wrongly decided. It was perfectly ok for blacks to be put into schools with less funding than white people. After all, as long as they got some school, it was Constitutional.

By your logic, we could read some convicts half the Miranda rights, while reading the entire thing to others. After all, as long as they got some Miranda rights.

By your logic, the government could pair up two people and say, "If you want to get married, marry each other. Otherwise, don't get married," and that would be "equal treatment".

By your logic, It would be perfectly ok for the government to decide that women could vote for some offices, and not for others. After all, as long as they go some of the vote, it would be equal.



So it is your opinion that the judiciary cannot rule on the constitutionality of laws. Well, at least you agree with one Supreme Court justice - Thomas. He's the one that argues that Marbury v. Madison should be overturned.

Brown v. Board -- "Separate but unequal" is unconstitutional because blacks would inherently receive less rights than whites. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone is guaranteed the same right -- the right to marry a person of the opposite gender and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

Miranda Rights -- Equal protection applies because some people, in the case you mentioned, are being treated differently than others. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone is guaranteed the same right -- the right to marry a person of the opposite gender and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

Government "Pairing-Up": Those two people don't have the ability to choose to marry other people like other prospective married couples do.

Women's Voting Rights: Women, in that case, are not given the same rights as men. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone is guaranteed the same right -- the right to marry a person of the opposite gender and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

And that's the point with respect to constitutionality: in the case of man/woman-only marriage, anyone can get married and receive the same legal benefits as anyone else. Of course, with gays, not in a manner that they would like, but they still have the right, nevertheless, so such man/woman marriage laws are still constitutional and equally protective.

As for the race issue (and this relates back to Jocabia's argument):
Interracial marriages are a constitutional right, because restrictive marriage laws with respect to race prevent people from being able to engage in marriage in the same way as other people can; to use Jocabia's example, a white man must have the same right to marry a black woman as a black man does. In this way, the 14th Amendment is being violated, because marriage rights are inconsistent from person to person. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone in the state has equal marital rights and is equally able to get married. Therefore, such laws are constitutional.

Now about that legislature/ballot...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/06/gay.marriage.reut/index.html



Congrats to the NY Supreme Court for upolding the state constitution.

And now for the GA one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202360,00.html



Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.

Ok now that I got my 2 cents in and approve of both decisions, what say the people of NS General?


YAY for NY and GA!

In my opinion there is no such thing a state/provincial/whatever the divisions are called in your country issue.

Brown v. Board -- "Separate but unequal" is unconstitutional because blacks would inherently receive less rights than whites. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone is guaranteed the same right -- the right to marry a person of the opposite gender and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

And every black and white person was guarranteed the same rights - the right to an education.

By your logic, "separate but equal" is not unconstitutional at all. Everyone gets schooling - it doesn't matter if it is applied equally, so long as they have the right to some sort of school.

And, once again, you have attempted to make marriage about an individual, when it is, in fact, about couples.

Miranda Rights -- Equal protection applies because some people, in the case you mentioned, are being treated differently than others. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone is guaranteed the same right -- the right to marry a person of the opposite gender and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

That isn't guarranteed the same right, my dear. People are treated differently on no other basis than their sex. That is the very definition of sexual discrimination. A man has the right to marry a woman, but a woman does not have that right. It is logically impossible then, to say that they have the same rights.

Government "Pairing-Up": Those two people don't have the ability to choose to marry other people like other prospective married couples do.

It is logically no different than what you are saying, which is that the government can choose an arbitrary group and say, "You can choose out of this group. If you choose to live as one with anyone else, you're fucked."

Women's Voting Rights: Women, in that case, are not given the same rights as men.

And women, in this case, are not given the same rights as men. Men can marry women. Women cannot. That means they don't have the same right.

As for the race issue (and this relates back to Jocabia's argument):
Interracial marriages are a constitutional right, because restrictive marriage laws with respect to race prevent people from being able to engage in marriage in the same way as other people can; to use Jocabia's example, a white man must have the same right to marry a black woman as a black man does.

By that same argument, a man must have the same right to marry a man that a woman does.

In this way, the 14th Amendment is being violated, because marriage rights are inconsistent from person to person. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone in the state has equal marital rights and is equally able to get married. Therefore, such laws are constitutional.

Seriously. How can you not see that saying, "Men can marry women, but women cannot. Women can marry men, but men cannot," is the same as saying, "Black men can marry black women, but white men cannot. White men can marry white women, but black men cannot. Black women can marry black men, but white women cannot....."? The logical process is *exactly* the same, and equally wrong in both cases.

If you can say, "Everyone has equal marital rights - the right to marry a member of the opposite gender," you can equivalently say, "Everyone has equal marital rights - the right to marry a member of the same race."

At least when you were claiming that anti-miscegenation laws are constitutional, you were being consistent. Now you are directly contradicting your own comments.

You, my friend, take matters too far. How dare you tell me that "I fake it." How dare you. You are of no authority to judge me in any way. Your ad hominem attacks lend you no credibility.

Ad hominems? Perhaps you should look up the term. It doesn't mean to say something someone might find insulting. It doesn't mean to just mention the poster as well as the post. It means in substitute for arguments, which is not what happened. You, my friend, need to know what a term means before you use it.

Meanwhile, I don't need authority to recognize when you is trying to hide their prejudice behind a thin veil and then everytime someone tries to address the real issue being brought up in the threads you participate in, you act like they cannot read or like they're making too many assumptions. Shall I quote you? This is an issue because YOU made it one.

For your first point, please attend a reading class

Are all of you so quick to defend that you've lost the ability to read what is right in front of you?

Still can't read, huh?

See, when you don't address people's arguments and then accuse them of not being able to read, that's called an ad hominem. And you're giving them out becuase you're PISSED because we're not stupid enough to not be able to see the intentions that are so abundantly clear in all of your posts. You have an agenda. You're called out on that agenda. You accuse me of a victim complex but only one of us is complaining about being victimized and it isn't me saying "How dare you. You are of no authority to judge me in any way."

Lesson over.

But, if that's how you want it to be, fine. Fuck civil debate. Fuck exchanging arguments like two people with different points of view. Let's just call each other names, like "bigot" and "prejudiced!" Here's one for you: "overly defensive 'rights crusader' with a victim complex!"

Ha. What am I a victim of? I never claimed to be a victim. You did.

Meanwhile, I quoted you above. Is that what passes for civil debate in your rosey world? You have been rude since your arrival because people don't just address your points, but also your motives and *gasp* we figured your motives out. I know it's really got to get under your skin that you've made such a strong effort to hide it and everyone, EVERYONE, still pegged you in a New York minute. Keep acting like it's just me you're having a problem with.


In case you didn't realize it by now, I am for gay marriage rights. In my OTHER thread, I was simply attempting to find a rationale behind affording marriage rights to people; many posters were so quick to jump on the defense that they didn't take the time to clearly read my original post. They took me as attacking gay marriage when I clearly wrote a disclaimer stating that I was only attempting to attack one specific argument for gay marriage. I offered that marriage is for the purpose of promoting and helping with the development of families; that included gay people, because they can adopt. I never wrote or implied that gay people could not be included due to this rationale; that was an argument entirely invented by the posters who initally replied in the thread. As the thread continued, however, people began to reply who had actually read my original post in its entirety without inventing implications that did not exist and were clearly stated against, and gave me solid reasoning that alternative rationales exist behind marriage, and in fact, such rationales aren't necessary to have in order to legislate gay marriage rights...although my original rationale had been inclusive of homosexual couples in the first place.

Uh-huh. You're for gay marriage rights, but you put up arguments that plain claim that gay couples are second class families. You know if you consider something to be an issue to be voted on, then you're not treating it as a right. My rights aren't up for vote. The rights of a homosexual person should not be either. To say otherwise is to quite simply not recognize them as equal.

So now I set out to look at marriage as a legal contract with no strings attached. I post my opinion against it being mandated by the judiciary while stating that it should be legislated by a state's representatives or its people. But somehow, because I view it as not being a judicial issue, that makes me a bigot. Interesting... It is still my belief that it is the responsibility of the people and their representatives to mandate marital laws. The constitution mandates that marital rights be afforded to all people; as long as they are, marital laws are constitutional. Does that mean they are fair or inclusive? No. But it remains up to the state legislature and the people of the state to make sure this is so. Not the judiciary. That's my opinion. That's an opinion on the governmental roles of the legislature and the judiciary. It has not a thing to do with prejudice against gay people; just because I don't support one avenue that gay rights lobbyists are attempting to gain marital rights does not mean that I am not sympathetic to their cause. To say so is pure bullshit.

I never called you a bigot. That's your word. I pointed out your prejudice. Again, shall I quote you a number of times plainly saying that gay couples are second-class families and that the state has a right to choose what families it wants to encourage.

Quick - which of your rights should be voted on? We have an amendment that guarantees equal rights. You ignore this and get pissed when people bring it up. Suggesting that people can and should vote on gay rights shows that you don't view them as equal. I don't have a problem with your dislike of a particular avenue. I have a problem with the fact that you don't recognize gays as equal. Sadly, you are so prejudiced on the issue that you don't even realize that you are not treating them as equal and that's why you're getting so pissed.

Actually....it is the only one that matters. It may not be the only one but that does not matter. Once the Supreme Court rules something, that's it. It can only be changed via Congress or they overturn it themselves or amending the Constitution. That's it. There maybe other interpretations, but the interpretation of the highest court (either state or Federal) is the only interpretation that matters. Do you not understand that?

This is a debate forum. It's an opinion that people may or may not agree with so we are discussing it. You are trying to prevent that with your weak claims of infallibility. How do you think public opinion gets changed? By sitting around claiming the decisions of judges cannot be challenged.

Amusingly, you're a hypocrite on this issue. You challenge the decisions all day long when you don't agree with them and then pretend we can't discuss it when you do. You're caught.

Maybe because I don't have to defend the decision for it does not affect me? I agree with them but that does not mean I have to defend them. All Im pointing out is that their interpretation is the only one that counts unless SCOTUS overturns it then SCOTUS's opinion is the only one that counts.

You brought it up. Are you admitting you didn't bring it up for debate but instead are spamming or trolling? This is a debate forum.

You have no support for this decision, we have tons of support for why it's a bad decision. As debates go, it looks like we win.

Do you have anything to add other than that the Supreme Court of Georgia interpretation is wrong even though theirs is the only interpretation tht matters unless SCOTUS says differently?
You mean other than all of the arguments that were presented that you ignored? Other than those? You're avoiding the debate because you didn't come here for one. You came here to gloat.

You came here to gloat.

As if there were other reasons for the daily atheism/gay rights/immigrants/bush upordown/taxcuts-threads?

Brown v. Board -- "Separate but unequal" is unconstitutional because blacks would inherently receive less rights than whites. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone is guaranteed the same right -- the right to marry a person of the opposite gender and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

Miranda Rights -- Equal protection applies because some people, in the case you mentioned, are being treated differently than others. With man/woman marriage laws, everyone is guaranteed the same right -- the right to marry a person of the opposite gender and receive the legal benefits of marriage.

Yep, that's the same argument they used to use with interracial marriage. Let me paraphrase "Everyone is guaranteed the same right -- the right to marry a person of the same race and receive the legal benefits of marriage." It's very simple. In law, if in order to evaluate whether or not I can excercise a particular right you have to ask my gender or race, then it is discrimination based on gender or race.

I have a friend named Chris. Can Chris marry a woman? Since everyone has the same rights you should be able to answer with the information you have.

Good thing you're a big proponent of equality.

Ad hominems? Perhaps you should look up the term. It doesn't mean to say something someone might find insulting. It doesn't mean to just mention the poster as well as the post. It means in substitute for arguments, which is not what happened. You, my friend, need to know what a term means before you use it.

Meanwhile, I don't need authority to recognize when you is trying to hide their prejudice behind a thin veil and then everytime someone tries to address the real issue being brought up in the threads you participate in, you act like they cannot read or like they're making too many assumptions. Shall I quote you? This is an issue because YOU made it one.







See, when you don't address people's arguments and then accuse them of not being able to read, that's called an ad hominem. And you're giving them out becuase you're PISSED because we're not stupid enough to not be able to see the intentions that are so abundantly clear in all of your posts. You have an agenda. You're called out on that agenda. You accuse me of a victim complex but only one of us is complaining about being victimized and it isn't me saying "How dare you. You are of no authority to judge me in any way."

Lesson over.



Ha. What am I a victim of? I never claimed to be a victim. You did.

Meanwhile, I quoted you above. Is that what passes for civil debate in your rosey world? You have been rude since your arrival because people don't just address your points, but also your motives and *gasp* we figured your motives out. I know it's really got to get under your skin that you've made such a strong effort to hide it and everyone, EVERYONE, still pegged you in a New York minute. Keep acting like it's just me you're having a problem with.




Uh-huh. You're for gay marriage rights, but you put up arguments that plain claim that gay couples are second class families. You know if you consider something to be an issue to be voted on, then you're not treating it as a right. My rights aren't up for vote. The rights of a homosexual person should not be either. To say otherwise is to quite simply not recognize them as equal.



I never called you a bigot. That's your word. I pointed out your prejudice. Again, shall I quote you a number of times plainly saying that gay couples are second-class families and that the state has a right to choose what families it wants to encourage.

Quick - which of your rights should be voted on? We have an amendment that guarantees equal rights. You ignore this and get pissed when people bring it up. Suggesting that people can and should vote on gay rights shows that you don't view them as equal. I don't have a problem with your dislike of a particular avenue. I have a problem with the fact that you don't recognize gays as equal. Sadly, you are so prejudiced on the issue that you don't even realize that you are not treating them as equal and that's why you're getting so pissed.
You are a pleasure. My comments may have been rude, but I never accused anyone of having an underlying prejudicial agenda. Instead of addressing my points as if I have a different argument than you, you accuse me of having an "agenda" and that everything I say is a front -- ad hominem.

And for the record, the idea that I'm actually against gay marriage and that I have a sinister agenda to be played out on the NationStates General Forum is laughable. If I was opposed to gay marriage, I would come right out and say it. Your idea that I need an agenda to do so is ludicrous; there are many, many people opposed to gay marriage and none of them feel the need to do so in masked form, especially on a fucking Internet gaming forum. :rolleyes: I will destroy the gays, ONE FORUM AT A TIME!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Hmmm... I never ignored the 14th amendment. I've addressed it many times...

I also never stated that "gay couples are second class families." Ever. That is a complete misunderstanding of the "legal contract" thread. I stated a purpose behind marital rights and then stated that it was the state's right to decide. I never said that gay couples shouldn't be included based on the rationale I gave. Why are you so angered that I believe that it should be put to a vote? Don't you understand that I would vote for gay marriage if it was put in front of me? Oh no, but that's my sinister agenda to manipulate the impressionable people of the NationStates General Forum...

I recognize gays as equal. I just disagree with your interpretation of the 14th amendment in relation to marital rights. The problem is, in your bizarre little world of conspiracy theories ("you have an agenda!") and ad hominems ("you believe gays are second class citizens!"), any dissent is automatically labelled "prejudice." That's a good way to accomplish things... In case you didn't notice, gays are losing throughout the country on this issue; it'd do you well to try and convince people of your arguments instead of attacking them as prejudicial members of the Secret Society to Quell Support For Gay Marriage On Internet Gaming Forums...

Hmmm... I never ignored the 14th amendment. I've addressed it many times...

You addressed it using the same argument used to support anti-miscegenation laws. At first, you claimed that anti-miscegenation laws were, indeed, constitutional. You then went back on that statement, leaving consistency behind to instead say, "I can use this argument even though they can't."

You also stated that as long as everyone had some opportunity to marry, even if it wasn't really equal, that it counted as equal. But then, when confronted with the problem with this, you said, "Oh no, it does have to be equal. But it is, really, it is." Of course, no matter how many times you say that 2+2=88, it won't be true.

Why are you so angered that I believe that it should be put to a vote?

Would you understand anger if you said that any civil right should be put up for a vote? Would you understand anger if you said that the right of blacks to marry should be put up for vote? What if you said that the right of women to be engineers should be put up for a vote?

Your argument is no different from saying, "I think blacks are equal. I just think that we should put giving them equal rights up for a vote." While Jocabia may be going a bit far, you need to understand that such a statement doesn't make much sense.

I recognize gays as equal. I just disagree with your interpretation of the 14th amendment in relation to marital rights.

Yeah, you use the exact same argument used in favor of anti-miscegenation laws, and then try to claim it is different. You are basically saying, "Unequal is equal, as long as I say it is."

Please, demonstrate the logical difference between, "Everyone has the same right to marriage - the right to marry a member of the opposite sex."

and

"Everyone has the same right to marriage - the right to marry a member of their own race."

or

"Everyone has the same right to marriage - the right to marry a member of another race."

or

"Everyone has the same right to marriage - the right to marry a member of this nationality.

or, to be more general.

"Everyone has the same right to marriage - they can all marry someone in the group we have appropriated for them."

Good thing you're a big proponent of equality.
Fuck you.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/06/gay.marriage.reut/index.html



Congrats to the NY Supreme Court for upolding the state constitution.

And now for the GA one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202360,00.html



Again, I say congrats to the Courts for upholding the laws of their states.

Ok now that I got my 2 cents in and approve of both decisions, what say the people of NS General?
I aqm very happy right now.
Because I know that everything and anything gay is wrong and has got to go. Why do I know this?? Because GOD HIS ALMIGHTY-BITCHIN'-SELF SAID SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I aqm very happy right now.
Because I know that everything and anything gay is wrong and has got to go. Why do I know this?? Because GOD HIS ALMIGHTY-BITCHIN'-SELF SAID SO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I never realized that Vishnu talked about gays. Oh, you mean your version of the divine. Ha! I thought everyone knew your version is the wrong one.

Seriously, separation of church and states. Look into it.

Good thing you're a big proponent of equality. Fuck you.
Well that's convienent. How often can one just look at the last page of a thread and see who'd won the debate so clearly?

You are a pleasure. My comments may have been rude, but I never accused anyone of having an underlying prejudicial agenda. Instead of addressing my points as if I have a different argument than you, you accuse me of having an "agenda" and that everything I say is a front -- ad hominem.

You still don't know what ad hominem means, I see. I addressed your arguments. My pointing to your bias is to expose it, not to dismiss your arguments. Please learn to use these terms correctly or stop using them.

And for the record, the idea that I'm actually against gay marriage and that I have a sinister agenda to be played out on the NationStates General Forum is laughable. If I was opposed to gay marriage, I would come right out and say it. Your idea that I need an agenda to do so is ludicrous; there are many, many people opposed to gay marriage and none of them feel the need to do so in masked form, especially on a fucking Internet gaming forum. :rolleyes: I will destroy the gays, ONE FORUM AT A TIME!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Apparently, this is untrue. You have clearly stated many times that you think that the rights of gays are a matter of public policy. This means that you do not believe in equality. Your rights are not up for vote, nor should they be. Who are we to decide which of our rights gay people get to excercise? And that is the very definition of inequality.

Hmmm... I never ignored the 14th amendment. I've addressed it many times...

Yes, poorly. You ignored that your argument is the EXACT same argument debunked when used against interracial marriage. Marriage is an individual right. I assume the fact that you HAVE NEVER addressed the fact that you cannot answer whether Chris can marry a woman without asking her sex is because it's a good argument that you seem unable to debunk. You'd rather talk about me.

Addressing a version of the 14th amendment that does not exist is not an argument. I know you THINK you've addressed the 14th, but you've actually only addressed the 14th when twisted by YOU.

I also never stated that "gay couples are second class families." Ever. That is a complete misunderstanding of the "legal contract" thread. I stated a purpose behind marital rights and then stated that it was the state's right to decide. I never said that gay couples shouldn't be included based on the rationale I gave. Why are you so angered that I believe that it should be put to a vote? Don't you understand that I would vote for gay marriage if it was put in front of me? Oh no, but that's my sinister agenda to manipulate the impressionable people of the NationStates General Forum...

No, you implied it. It was thinly-veiled by the fact that you think it should be a matter for vote on whether or not they get the rights other families get implicitly.

I recognize gays as equal. I just disagree with your interpretation of the 14th amendment in relation to marital rights. The problem is, in your bizarre little world of conspiracy theories ("you have an agenda!") and ad hominems ("you believe gays are second class citizens!"), any dissent is automatically labelled "prejudice." That's a good way to accomplish things... In case you didn't notice, gays are losing throughout the country on this issue; it'd do you well to try and convince people of your arguments instead of attacking them as prejudicial members of the Secret Society to Quell Support For Gay Marriage On Internet Gaming Forums...
No, you don't. Equal people don't have their rights voted on while all other people get those rights implicitly.

Fuck you.

Profound argument. You're proposing inequality and claiming it's equality. Don't get upset because you're feeding me crap and I won't call it cake.