Constitutional rights and equal protection (gay marriage related)

[HappyHealthyHolyRoller]

The gay heathens first told us how to be Christians now they're telling us how to be heterosexual.
God, why?

 

[OphidiaPhile]

The gay heathens first told us how to be Christians now they're telling us how to be heterosexual.
God, why?

I just donated another $500 to the No on 8 campaign in your honor. And the more I hear the irrational Christians on here spout so much hatred toward a minority group the more I will donate.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Yup and even more (most I'd hope) practice oral sex (on the woman especially), and probably mutual masturbation.

Hell most heterosexual couples are practically lesbians anyway, and many are pretty much the same as gay men.

There is no better way to have a well adjusted sex life.

 

[gwenmead]

Maybe folks just need to stop thinking of marriage as being some exclusive religious monogamous heterosexual club, and learn to live with it as gay marriage becomes legalized in more and more places. Y'all ain't the only ones with the secret decoder ring...

There is no better way to have a well adjusted sex life.

I second that.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Gay marriage not an issue of equality
​

Folks seeking to nix a law on equal protection grounds who belong to non-suspect classifications can still succeed if they can prove that there is no rational basis for the government's position. Gays will be unable to do that.
Why not?

Inequivalence between marriage and race
​

When a law purportedly discriminates based on a non-protected class (such as were blacks before the Civil Rights movement), anyone trying to challenge government action on equal protection grounds has the burden of demonstrating that the law is discriminatory, and that there is no rational basis for the law's discriminatory purpose or effect. In other words, the gay community has the burden to prove they are being discriminated against. Contrast that with suspect classifications: if someone challenges a government action on the ground that it discriminates on the basis of a suspect classification, the government has the burden of demonstrating that the law has some compelling justification. The government had no justification in segregating blacks from whites, because the burden couldn’t be produced; blacks, by there very nature, do not differ one iota from whites, with exception to darker skin (Blacks are offended that they have been compared to gays against their will and without their approval). For this reason, the government may freely discriminate until a gay person can explain how the government is wrong in doing so.

Marriage as a public display
​

Marriage is more than the solemnization of private relationship: it is the public recognition of the relationship. Thus, gay marriage cannot be thought of as a private issue, covered under privacy laws (such as Roe v. Wade, for example).

Efforts needed to protect marriage
​

You are not allowed to marry: a relative, the family dog, someone who is already married, someone who is underage, a member of the same gender. The gov't is far less interested in the goings-on behind the scenes, and far more interested protecting the institution of marriage from assault by bigamists, homosexuals, and the family dog.

There are only so many rights that are considered fundamental. These rights deserve very strict protection. Other "rights" do not deserve any Constitutional protection, and therefore laws may be written that undermine those rights if there is a rational basis for doing so.
Gay marriage can’t be compared to segregation of the blacks because gender-orientation is not a suspect classification. Race is a suspect classification.

Race is something you are born with, sexual orientation should not have a controlling factor on marriage because the definition of marriage has always been between man and woman. It has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with marriage being solely intended for only man and woman. Marriage in itself is a religious institution

 

[Sycophant]

I suddenly wonder how people in legal same-sex unions from other countries are handled in the US? For example, if I were in an accident while traveling in the US my wife would probably be afforded all the usual legal rights as our marriage is pretty much compatible with one in the US.

However what of a gay couple, with a legally recognised civil union from New Zealand, how would their relationship be handled in a situation like that?

 

[Sycophant]

Race is something you are born with, sexual orientation should not have a controlling factor on marriage because the definition of marriage has always been between man and woman. It has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with marriage being solely intended for only man and woman. Marriage in itself is a religious institution

That's debatable in general, and it totally false in law. There's no religious test for a legal marriage in law. And even if there was, some religious organisations (including some Christian denominations) support same-sex marriage. In fact some perform religious marriages for same-sex couples that have no recognition in law.

A marriage in law (which is the point at issue here, not anything to do with Christian customs or anything else) is a set of rights surrounding the legal recognition of a couple's relationship.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Race is something you are born with, sexual orientation should not have a controlling factor on marriage because the definition of marriage has always been between man and woman. It has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with marriage being solely intended for only man and woman. Marriage in itself is a religious institution

Can't be. State marriage would have been abolished long ago.

Look, here's the deal. Marriage is either a civil institution, in which case denial of marriage rights must derive from something other than historical revisionism, Christian fundamentalism, or ick ick buttsecks ew; or marriage is a religious institution, in which case it cannot be offered, controlled, or denied by the government.

Any mixing of the two positions automatically and inarguably subsumes the latter in favor of the former.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Race is something you are born with, sexual orientation should not have a controlling factor on marriage because the definition of marriage has always been between man and woman. It has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with marriage being solely intended for only man and woman. Marriage in itself is a religious institution

That is why atheists can get married, right. Marriage is not a religious institution never has bee and never will be no matter how hard you try to hijack it.

 

[B'alaam]

Race is something you are born with, sexual orientation should not have a controlling factor on marriage because the definition of marriage has always been between man and woman.

That, of course, (for anyone who is familiar with cultures), is a falsehood.
Not a lie (as a statement based on gross ignorance isn't necessarily a lie).
But rather, for those who are familiar with varying cultural definitions of "marriage", an outright falsehood.
I'll give you some consideration, CIC, and give you the fact that you are not familiar with various cultural definitions of marriage (i.e. Im not attacking you personally, Im just allowing for the ignorance of those who claim that marriage 'has always been between a man and a woman').

You might want to study world cultures a bit more before you state such blatant falsehoods again.
Just my suggestion


If you continue in your false statements, however, then your statements become blatant lies.
And what does the NT say about liars?



Anyway, just a suggestion for future discussion/debate
Have a great night CIC
(I gotta get to bed )

 

[Beanieboy]

I suddenly wonder how people in legal same-sex unions from other countries are handled in the US? For example, if I were in an accident while traveling in the US my wife would probably be afforded all the usual legal rights as our marriage is pretty much compatible with one in the US.

However what of a gay couple, with a legally recognised civil union from New Zealand, how would their relationship be handled in a situation like that?

An American friend married a Canadian woman. They share all the same rights of marriage as heterosexuals. However, she can never move home to the US with her partner, because their marriage is not recognized in the US. During this election, she sent a photo of the two of them, and explained how she cannot return to live in her country, because she cannot bring her wife, something that she could do if she were heterosexual.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

That's debatable in general, and it totally false in law. There's no religious test for a legal marriage in law. And even if there was, some religious organisations (including some Christian denominations) support same-sex marriage. In fact some perform religious marriages for same-sex couples that have no recognition in law.

A marriage in law (which is the point at issue here, not anything to do with Christian customs or anything else) is a set of rights surrounding the legal recognition of a couple's relationship.

Before the government got their hands on marriage and deemed it acceptable for what they thought marriage was,, in itself marriage was always a religious sacrament with religious requirements, even today with the government it still has certain religious requirements like monogamy, child rearing, and being faithful to your spouse and trusting them 100%. So in reality you can't force a certain sexual lifestyle on things like marriage that has always been in essence what it is. Your trying to make other things conform to your own sexual lifestyle, which is selfish.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Before the government got their hands on marriage and deemed it acceptable for what they thought marriage was,, in itself marriage was always a religious sacrament with religious requirements, even today with the government it still has certain religious requirements like monogamy and being faithfull to your spouse and trusting.

Take it back, then. Demand that the government issue civil unions instead. I'll be right beside you.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Before the government got their hands on marriage and deemed it acceptable for what they thought marriage was,, in itself marriage was always a religious sacrament with religious requirements, even today with the government it still has certain religious requirements like monogamy and being faithfull to your spouse and trusting.

There is no requirement for anything other that breathing you do not have to trust be faithful or monogamous to get married, obviously you have not been to Vegas. My wedding will be at a brewery performed by a brewer while we are all partaking in lots of craft beer and there will be plenty of snakes there and yet it is still a marriage.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Race is something you are born with,

Please provide legitimately published evidence showing that sexual orientation is not something one is born with

On the same note please explain why the civil rights of non-Christians should be protected. Why should religion (which is obviously choice and not something one is born with) have rights protected?

sexual orientation should not have a controlling factor on marriage because the definition of marriage has always been between man and woman.

Sorry but marriage has had a multitude of definitions over time. The bible includes no less than seven different forms of marriage for example.

Interracial marriage used to be illegal because marriage was defined as ONLY between two people of the same race. It is very sad that the only arguments being presented to justify anti-gay discrimination are just recycled racism.

It has nothing to do with discrimination, it has to do with marriage being solely intended for only man and woman. Marriage in itself is a religious institution

Again explain why the marriage rights of non-Christians should be defended? Or does your argument here apply only so SOME minorities?

 

[Beanieboy]

There is no requirement for anything other that breathing you do not have to trust be faithful or monogamous to get married, obviously you have not been to Vegas. My wedding will be at a brewery performed by a brewer while we are all partaking in lots of craft beer and there will be plenty of snakes there and yet it is still a marriage.

I hope I'm invited...

 

[BigBadWlf]

Before the government got their hands on marriage and deemed it acceptable for what they thought marriage was,, in itself marriage was always a religious sacrament with religious requirements, even today with the government it still has certain religious requirements like monogamy, child rearing, and being faithful to your spouse and trusting them 100%.

Please show us a copy of an application for a marriage license from the Untied States that requires the man and woman to declare that
They intend to be monogamous
They are sexually fertile, IE able to biologically have children
That they intend to have children
That they are practicing Christians

So in reality you can't force a certain sexual lifestyle on things like marriage that has always been in essence what it is. Your trying to make other things conform to your own sexual lifestyle, which is selfish.

You can’t force your own hatreds and personal prejudices onto society. You are trying to make others conform to your choice to hate a minority, which is selfish.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

There is no requirement for anything other that breathing you do not have to trust be faithful or monogamous to get married, obviously you have not been to Vegas. My wedding will be at a brewery performed by a brewer while we are all partaking in lots of craft beer and there will be plenty of snakes there and yet it is still a marriage.

I don't use filthy immoral cities like Las Vegas as a calibrator of what marriage is. And if your using las vegas and the government as a definer on what marriage is then you really have lost the concept in the first place. Why call it marriage when you deny the things that make it marriage in the first place.

Again explain why the marriage rights of non-Christians should be defended? Or does your argument here apply only so SOME minorities?

Around 90% of the marriage antics in the US I do not support. However actually trying to change the whole essence of marriage to cater to ones sexual lifestyles is not what true marriage is. Marriage involves sacrifice.

Also you don't become a minority by a sexual act. And to even call yourself a minority brings shame to real minority groups. Considering most gay communitys will have NOTHING to do with minority areas in the city and are busy in the more affluent areas and could care less. So please

 

[Maren]

Before the government got their hands on marriage and deemed it acceptable for what they thought marriage was,, in itself marriage was always a religious sacrament with religious requirements, even today with the government it still has certain religious requirements like monogamy, child rearing, and being faithful to your spouse and trusting them 100%. So in reality you can't force a certain sexual lifestyle on things like marriage that has always been in essence what it is. Your trying to make other things conform to your own sexual lifestyle, which is selfish.

Sorry, but no. You might want to study your history a bit more. Prior to the Council of Trent in 1545, marriage was not religious. No priest was required, nor even witnesses, for a Christian marriage. And it was only in the Middle Ages that the church even began to record marriages, and even then it wasn't required. It was the Council of Trent in 1545 that made marriage religious, requiring a priest and two witnesses. Of course, this only applied to Catholics, Protestant churches did not require religion involved in marriage.

I'd also like to point out that the Christian Emperor Constantius and Constans in the year 342 made gay marriage illegal in the Roman Empire, it was legal before.

 

[BigBadWlf]

I don't use filthy immoral cities like Las Vegas as a calibrator of what marriage is. And if your using las vegas and the government as a definer on what marriage is then you really have lost the concept in the first place. Why call it marriage when you deny the things that make it marriage in the first place.



Around 90% of the marriage antics in the US I do not support. However actually trying to change the whole essence of marriage to cater to ones sexual lifestyles is not what true marriage is. Marriage involves sacrifice.

Also you don't become a minority by a sexual act. And to even call yourself a minority brings shame to real minority groups. Considering most gay communitys will have NOTHING to do with minority areas in the city and are busy in the more affluent areas and could care less. So please

Your answer to my question seems to be that yes you do only want your pro-discrimination argument to apply to minorities.
But now I must ask which minorities you want to discriminate against…Hindus? Blacks? Orientals? Jews? What minorities do you want to discriminate against?