Major Blow to Homophobes: SCOTUS Refuses to Block Gay Marriage in DC

[Dan J 277]

Please explain further. As a business owner, I cannot provide family health insurance to a same sex couple. Nor can I offer a survivor pension benefit. Institutionalizing same sex marriage will open the door for minority status and rights. That's the real fight. The domino affect.

You can, but you probably don't want to. Many large corporations already do. But in the end why would the sex of the partner matter when extending partner benefits?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

My posts have not been about how I feel, but you must be reading them thru the lens of how you feel. My posts have focused primarily on the effect on society to a redefinition of marriage against the will of the majority. Please read carefully and without emotion to gain more from this exchange.

Really? Every one of your posts have been based on how you 'feel' about gay marriage and you are adamently against it from what you've shown.

There's nothing wrong with you being against it/not liking it, but you can't use an argument to 'bend' things your way just because it helps fit your argument. It's disingenuous.

I'm 'anti-gay' in plenty of ways when it comes to certain aspects of society, but I can't deny someone the right to something just because i 'feel' a certain way about it and that's exactly what you're doing.

You sit there and try and distract from your own beliefs/feelings by saying, "I don't do that, that's what liberals do." and you make comments calling my general analysis sophomoric because you don't agree with it because it doesn't 'fit' your agenda in denying couple of the same sex the same rights that heterosexual couples have.

You can spin/cherry pick/point to times when its been done in the past all you want, that however does not make it right.

Your argument this whole time with the constitution has been: "Well Johnny got a cupcake in 1943, but had that cupcake taken away by a judge, so peter shouldn't be able to get a cupcake here in 2010 because johnny had his taken away in 1943." saying this regardless of whether that was right or wrong at the times based on that persons interpreation to their benefit. Just because it was done before, doesn't make it right and doesn't make it acceptable consitutionally.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

My posts have not been about how I feel, but you must be reading them thru the lens of how you feel. My posts have focused primarily on the effect on society to a redefinition of marriage against the will of the majority. Please read carefully and without emotion to gain more from this exchange.

The constitution and our Republic was setup for the EXACT reason you are speaking of right there. So the "will" of the majority doesn't overtake the minority.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

PS- I called your analysis sophomoric because it is sophomoric, notbecause it doesn't fit my "agenda" (a workable buzz word).

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The constitution and our Republic was setup for the EXACT reason you are speaking of right there. So the "will" of the majority doesn't overtake the minority.

Voting is constitutional and it allows the majority to overtake the minority. Your argument is weak and idealistic.

[Wyld Blu 35]

So I am back after a long night's sleep, and still this discussion seems stalled.

I have taken some time to reread through most of this thread and still cannot find the difinitive explaination of how or why gay marriage is a detriment to society.

So, for those of us who are obviously (in your opinion) immoral, with no standards and must be against the word of God or something, can you PLEASE, PLEASE, in list form, post your reasons for believing that marriage between two same sex people is a detriment to society? I don't mean you suggesting that it is a slippery slope, thus being the gateway to allowing incestious or other types of illicit marriages (unless you can cite examples where this has been true in any society). Obviously us liberal, left-winged, hedons, cannot grasp what your are saying throughout the rest of this thread. Enlighten us PLEASE with your difinative list....just for clarity.

Also, am I correct in understanding that the word marriage is what you object to? So if the goverment were to recognize gay couples as a union, with the EXACT same benefits as a hetro marriage, but called it something different, you would be fine with that?

-Blu-

Edited March 3, 2010 by Wyld Blu

[Obama 2012 1,714]

PS- I called your analysis sophomoric because it is sophomoric, notbecause it doesn't fit my "agenda" (a workable buzz word).

If you understood the history of the first amendment and why exactly it was added/written the way it was in the constitution, then you'd know it's pretty much exactly how I summed it up.

It was so the government nor the people could persecute those who had different beliefs and so the government wouldn't allow one religion to reign supreme. The United States is not a Christian nation, no matter how many people want to spin it (and you didn't say that I know, I'm not talking about you) and it's purposefully not so Christianity wouldn't deny the ability of others to practice what they believe.

I'll make the same argument for the ignorant who make a big deal about Christian displays. Nothing is wrong with them at all. You have as much right to offend someone as you do to be offended. That's the whole point of freedom of speech and lack of a national religion. People will always believe in different ideas and different things, but it's not the job of the government to dictate what those ideas and beliefs are, so long as they fit within the cofines of what's constitutionally written.

If a chruch wants to accept or not accept homosexuality, that's their choice and their decision. They can allow it in their house of worship or not, again their choice. Their choice ends the moment they walk out that door though into society. They can preach our on the corner of streets all they want and advise people to be a certain way, but they don't get to dictate the way people are. That's what the freedom is about.

[Dan J 277]

Does anyone "own" the definition of marriage? Does marriage as codified in law have to match a particular group or persons definition of marriage? Can it be crafted so that it is open to as many "definitions" of marriage as possible?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Voting is constitutional and it allows the majority to overtake the minority. Your argument is weak and idealistic.

Again, if you were a constitutional scholar as you say you are and understood our founding in any way at all, you couldn't possibly say this.

"Voting" in our society was supposed to be completely limited to voting for the house of represenattives. Our intention to elect the president and elect the senate were NEVER supposed to be the role of the people for the exact reason I previously mentioned. Of course as I said, if you studied and understood the constitution, you should indeed know this.

We were supposed to be a Representative Republic, where all parties were represented and then the constitution was upheld by those in offce.

The House = Representatives of the people

The Senate = Representative of the State

The President = Representative of the Constitution in signing/vetoing legislations and also commander of military forces.

SCOTUS = Last effort to make sure the constitution is upheld and originally chosen by an unbiased President.

Now that you have all aspects of government being picked by the 'majority' of people for the most part, we have lost sight over what exactly the original intent of the constitution and our form of government was.

Of course as I said, if you truly have studied this subject then you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

SO you are betting that the S Court is still operating in such a left-leaning tilt?

So, striking down the bans on interracial marriage that still existed at the time demonstrates that the court was leaning to the left? Is interracial marriage still a lefty issue to you? Has it ever been? Can you be any more ridiculous?

What you fail to see is that back in 1967, when the SCOTUS struck down the state sanctioned yet unconstitutional discrimination against partners of different race, marriage wasn't exclusively defined as the union between a man and a woman anywhere in the US. The first state to actually narrow the definition of marriage as 'between a man and a woman' was Maryland and that only happened in 1973. Where was the conservative crowd bercrying the "redefinition of marriage" then?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does anyone "own" the definition of marriage? Does marriage as codified in law have to match a particular group or persons definition of marriage? Can it be crafted so that it is open to as many "definitions" of marriage as possible?

Yep. Religions do not have an exclusive right to the definition of marriage, nor should they. This seems to be a semantic argument among many of them, than about anything else.

[Fandango 1,440]

So I got to page 4 of 8 before I couldn't stand it any longer.

I for the life of me, as a Conservative leaning person, cannot understand what the big hoo ha is about. Banning gay marriage will not make 'teh gays' disappear. It will not prevent a married man/woman leaving his/her partner to pursue a gay lifestyle. It will not prevent homosexuals living together as a married couple.

If the rest of us are expected to get married, I don't see why gays get a free pass I think it's bs that companies are offering 'domestic partner' benefits. That's not fair! If you want the bennies, you should have to get married . I'm saying this very tongue in cheek, btw.

At the end of the day, these people who blather on about the 'sanctity of marriage' should take a good look at the likes of Britney Spears, et al, who have these quickie marriage/annulments. What's that say about the 'sanctity' of it all? If you want to protect the sanctity, focus on your own marriage and realize you cannot control anyone else's.

I find it so funny how some who are anti-gay marriage speak of how 'flighty' gay relationships are, yet what choice has society given them? Disallow them the right to legal longevity, yet chastise them for not 'going the distance'. It makes no sense.

Gays are not 'going away'....giving them the legal rights of a partnership under the eyes of the law can only benefit society as a whole.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Happy Bunny

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I have a class to conduct now, so I'm going to ask the opposition to do some heavy lifting while Im away, if you please. I'll adress the objections one at a time.

1. One of the objections Ive raised is the threat to religious freedom. Religious people are already demonized re this issue as homophobic, close-minded and bigoted. How do you propose to protect their religious right to believe gay lifestyles are adverse to God's will and act accordingly in speech and deed?

So I am back after a long night's sleep, and still this discussion seems stalled.

I have taken some time to reread through most of this thread and still cannot find the difinitive explaination of how or why gay marriage is a detriment to society.

So, for those of us who are obviously (in your opinion) immoral, with no standards and must be against the word of God or something, can you PLEASE, PLEASE, in list form, post your reasons for believing that marriage between two same sex people is a detriment to society? I don't mean you suggesting that it is a slippery slope, thus being the gateway to allowing incestious or other types of illicit marriages (unless you can cite examples where this has been true in any society). Obviously us liberal, left-winged, hedons, cannot grasp what your are saying throughout the rest of this thread. Enlighten us PLEASE with your difinative list....just for clarity.

Also, am I correct in understanding that the word marriage is what you object to? So if the goverment were to recognize gay couples as a union, with the EXACT same benefits as a hetro marriage, but called it something different, you would be fine with that?

-Blu-

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

Where is the problem with this? If people want to be together on an insurance policy, they can be. It happens all the time with auto insurance policies, even for 'friends' who live in the same house. Hell, in some states you HAVE to have insurance coverage if you are a liscensed driver in the same house even if you don't drive.

A Survivor benefit should be offered to all couples no matter what their orientation if that's indeed something you offer for the 'family.' It's no different than the fact you can put your mom, or even your best friend down on your life insurance policy as the benefactor....

Health insurance and pension benefits (pertaining to rates and beneficiary factors) do not follow the same guidelines as auto and life insurance.

Even still, that's not my primary target. I don't care who marries what as long as it does not affect my pocket and rights. I believe same sex marriage would fly right through for not the fear of a (following) minority rights onslaught. Thinking through the economic ramifications makes it more than a consitutional rights fight. (many many)Affirmative action, disablity, social security, educational, and oppressed minority type rights funded by taxpayers.

[Wyld Blu 35]

I have a class to conduct now, so I'm going to ask the opposition to do some heavy lifting while Im away, if you please. I'll adress the objections one at a time.

1. One of the objections Ive raised is the threat to religious freedom. Religious people are already demonized re this issue as homophobic, close-minded and bigoted. How do you propose to protect their religious right to believe gay lifestyles are adverse to God's will and act accordingly in speech and deed?

The constitution protects your right to believe whatever you want religiously. If you believe a gay lifestyle is adverse to God's will, you can still believe that, until the day you die and are held up to whatever judgement you think is coming. Allowing the same benefits enjoyed under the contract called marriage is not forcing you to think or believe differently. You right to believe that is already protected....next....

-Blu-