Gay Marriage

[InfiniteNow]

I am very much in agreement with the first two paragraphs. Not 100%, but enough to say we have common ground. I won't insist on documentation of the 1138 benefits

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

 

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

I see the parallel between equal rights for blacks and equal rights for those seeking same sex relationships, but I don't believe it is solid enough a correlation that I would make that argument. One is a matter of pure genetics, while the other is behavior influenced by genetics

Homosexuality is about more than behavior. It is also about personal desire, emotion, connection, and all of the other natural phenomenon which are found in heterosexuals who feel these same natural urges.

 

And... Just in case it's put to question yet again by some other moron, yes... homosexuality is genetic in origin.

 

 

The Real Story on Gay Genes | Sex & Gender | DISCOVER Magazine

Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies

have proved conclusively

that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

 

 

 

 

I suggested that we preserve the current definition

Would this be the pre-DOMA definition, or the post-DOMA definition that you suggest "we preserve?" Practically every single post you've made implies that it's the post-DOMA definition to which you are referring, so I just want to ensure I understand you correctly.

 

 

 

...and add definitions as needed to describe any other relationship that may require defining. You could have marriage (man and woman), lesbian marriage (woman and woman), gay marriage (man and man).

And these are all still marriages. This directly contradicts your previous point that marriage "carries the meaning of man and woman," and that you are "opposed to gay marriage."

 

You're not being very clear, and your comments and positions seem scattered and inconsistent.

You either support same sex marriage, or you oppose it. You cannot do both simultaneously.

 

So, which is it? ... (and, if you oppose it, you still need to address why that is)

 

 

 

I might also add that for getting to your long term goal this is probably the faster means to the end.

That's super. I always appreciate your sage-like advice and enlightened attitude. Now, answer the questions.

[Turtle]

******** EDIT *********

 

(had to slip this one in):

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. ~ Voltaire

 

"A witty saying proves nothing" ~Voltaire :confused:

 

******** EDIT *********

 

touche. let me rephrase that with no ambiguity. ;) all these folks posting here who oppose gay marriage are dissembling. hiding their real motive(s)/reason(s) which is/are a gut personal disgust/dislike/disapproval of homosexuality in any form or fashion. when directly challenged here with this charge they employ a variety of dodges & denials quickly followed by some argument on an entirely different topic, often one we have already resolved as baseless. this thread is the proof of those actions.

 

obviously i don't expect any of the opposers to jump in and accede it's true what i say; what i do expect is that all the rest of you dear readers, after looking things over here, see that it is true.

 

that's the way it is. ;)

[TheBigDog]

You might try reading my posts to this thread. I have stated my reasoning multiple times in multiple ways and have been consistent throughout. However, I (unlike you) don’t mind honoring a request for clarification of argument, so please see below.

 

I'll tell you now the same thing I told Larv. It's time for you to put up, or shut up.

I took the time to go back through all 300 posts in this thread to find your clearly stated position. You stated things many many times. I found three or four posts that I would qualify as substantial in terms of you providing information about your position, but only one of them not laced with venomous rhetoric pointed at one person or another. It was dedicated to praising Craig (deservedly). I am glad you took the time to clarify your position for me (even though you chose to lace it with venom as well). I don't know that I could have properly addressed your position without that post as a guide.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I took the time to go back through all 300 posts in this thread to find your clearly stated position. You stated things many many times. I found three or four posts that I would qualify as substantial in terms of you providing information about your position

Well, this is directly counter to what you said in post #297:

 

You do not supply a supported position, just a position, then demand that I support my own position. I do, and you simply state it is not good enough. Classic debating technique and logical fallacy.

 

Where exactly do I find the reasoning behind your belief should I wish to inquire about it?

 

 

 

 

 

I am glad you took the time to clarify your position for me <...> I don't know that I could have properly addressed your position without that post as a guide.

 

I look forward to it.

[modest]

touche. let me rephrase that with no ambiguity. ;) all these folks posting here who oppose gay marriage are dissembling. hiding their real motive(s)/reason(s) which is/are a gut personal disgust/dislike/disapproval of homosexuality in any form or fashion.

 

While I can't rule out your assertion, I find it highly unlikely. Nonetheless, even if true, we can expand on Voltaire a bit and say that ad hominems prove nothing. I don't see what good we do by visiting the motives of our opposition when a substantial argument refuting their claims is readily at hand :confused:

 

~modest

[Turtle]

touche. let me rephrase that with no ambiguity. all these folks posting here who oppose gay marriage are dissembling. hiding their real motive(s)/reason(s) which is/are a gut personal disgust/dislike/disapproval of homosexuality in any form or fashion.

While I can't rule out your assertion, I find it highly unlikely. Nonetheless, even if true, we can expand on Voltaire a bit and say that ad hominems prove nothing. I don't see what good we do by visiting the motives of our opposition when a substantial argument refuting their claims is readily at hand ;)

 

~modest

 

;) guess we'll all just have to wait & see. :confused:

[lawcat]

Both the 5th and 14th amendments have a due process clause. It asserts that the government cannot deprive a person of ...liberty... without due process of law. This historically includes the right of marriage:

 

MEYER v. STATE OF NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)

Gay rights advocates claim that being denied the right to marry someone of their own gender deprives them of liberty without due process.

 

This is just to calrify, if at all needed.

5th Amednment applies to federal government and federal laws. 14th amendment applies to States: No State shall . . . This is true procedurally even today. If you bring a due process case against federal law, you procedural vehicle is the 5th amendment.

Until the 50's and 60's, the Bill of Rights--1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc. amendments--did not apply to States; Bill of Rights only applied to federal laws. So, States could deprive people of free press, speech, gun ownership, reasonable search and seizure, etc., because when States did so they acted on State laws, not on federal laws. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

 

In the 50's and 60's, the federal courts--more specifically SCOTUS--"incorporated," one by one, over the period of 20+ years, the Bill of Rights to apply to States, but through the force of the 14th amendment: No State shall deprive . . . Famous cases that do this are cases like Gideon v. Wainwright, the right to counsel--the federal government telling the State of Florida that since a person has a right to counsel under the Bill of Rights in the federal courts, then the State must provide counsel to defendants in State courts as well under the 14th amendment. This is called "incorporation." (14th amendment itself does not demand States to provide counsel to defendants.)

 

However, a problem remained. Namely, the problem of equal protection. There is no equal protection in the Bill of Rights--the first 10 amendments. "The fifth amendment applies to the federal government (see Barron v. Baltimore), and the Fourteenth Amendment, by its own terms, applies against the States. While the fifth amendment includes a due process clause, it does not include—as the fourteenth amendment does—an equal protection clause. However, in Bolling v. Sharpe 347 U.S. 497 (1954), the Supreme Court averred that it was absurd that the Constitution could deny the states the power to abridge equal protection of the laws, yet permit that power to the Congress. "[T]he concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive," reasoned Chief Justice Earl Warren. The Court thus interpreted the fifth amendment's due process clause to include an equal protection element but has continued to hold that there is a difference between due process and equal protection in its fourteenth amendment jurisprudence." Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

This is called "reverse incorporation." It incorporates the 14th amendment' "equal protection" to apply against the federal government, through the force of the 5th amendment's due process clause.

 

So, the first question is: what law are you challenging? Federal or State? If federal, like DOMA, then: on the grounds of (1) fundamental right to marry, and (2) equal protection of the laws, the 5th amendment applies. If State law, then the 14th amendment applies. Although, substantive analysis under each is substantially the same. In essence, it is procedurally wrong to say that the 14th amendment applies to DOMA, which is a federal law..

[lawcat]

So, I will answer your question directly, the traditional definition of marriage is: "a life-long contract between individuals and recognized by the state signifying an intimate relationship".

 

I therefore disagree that the traditional definition of marriage is "...between man and woman". Although it has traditionally been done that way, it has also been done and can be done another way. The definition itself is not exclusive.

 

~modest

 

Cool. So, the argument is this: (1) Our governments are mistaken about the traditional definition of marriage; traditional definition of marriage includes same sexes; (2) the Due process clause protects fundamental liberties; (3) traditional marriage is a fundamental liberty. Therefore, same sexes must be afforded the fundamental liberty to marry under the Due Process clause. Correct?

 

You argument is susceptible to only one attack: (1) the definition of traditional, which ties to fundamental. Fundamental right has been interpreted to include those human practices that are deeply imbedded in the history and tradition of our nation, and those without which the liberty would not exist.

 

First, history and tradition refers to those practices that: (1) have a long standing practice, and (2) are widespread. I can not agree that sporadic instances of same sex marriage in distant civilizations relate to long standing practices of our nation or english common law system. Neither can I agree that such practices are widespread, as to be called traditional or customary.

 

Second, I do not agree that liberty would not exist if same sex couples are denied the marriage license, because same-sex couples are not denied the liberty or freedom; it is the State that is generally denied the freedom to validate the marriage. Gay marriage is not prohibited, and prohibitions are restraints on liberty. For example, you are without power to issue U.S. currency from your house. That is a prohibition and you do not have liberty to do so. Your liberty is taken away because the government is empowered to imprison you for such acts. The government has the power to act, and take your liberty away. Gay couples are not without liberty to marry. They can marry at any time. It is that the State has no power to issue the license or to recognize such marriage. Any such license is merely void ab initio. Gays are not prohibited and their liberties are not taken away.

 

My conclusion is that thus such marriage is not historic or traditional in our nation, and is thus not fundamental; and neither are any liberties taken away.

 

Finally, this leads me to your definition which conditions the marriage upon "State's recognition." According to both of our definitions it is the State (or community) that recognizes marriage. Thus, the State recognizes the contract between two people. The second step is that the State should validate the contract. However, here, the State expresses that it has no interest in validating the same sex marriage, even if it is to recognize the contract betwen two people. The State does not want to enter into social contract with a married couple of same-sex. So the question becomes: can the State be compelled to enter into validating contract with same sex couples. The answer is yes, if there is a constitutional infirmity, such as Due Process, or Equal Protection (no rational reason for classification, or denial of fundamental right.)

 

I see no infirmities here under the Constitution. In my view the State is free to reject validating same sex union, marriages, partnerships.

[Larv]

The traditional definition of Santa Claus is a kindly, old, bearded man of European decent who wears a red outfit and drives a sleigh powered by eight reindeer to deliver Christmas gifts to all the nice children of the world. This traditional definition of Santa Claus runs in common with the traditional definition of marriage, which is a civil union between one and man and one woman, because neither traditional Santa Claus nor traditional marriage are specifically defined by the U.S. Constitution.

 

This means that a traditional definition of anything is, well, traditional. That’s all it is, and you don’t need the U.S. Constitution to tell you what’s traditional and what isn’t...unless you're arrogant and hate American democracy.

 

But who’s to say that the traditional definition of Santa Claus is the right definition? Maybe traditional Santa was a young, bitchy woman of African decent who wears a black cape and drives a broomstick powered by magic dust to steal toys from nice children and give them to the naughty ones. And who’s to say that a traditional marriage is not between two members of the same sex who love each other and enjoy intimate pleasures without having to be concerned with the gender of their sex organs?

 

Frankly, I’m so confused about what is or isn’t traditional, especially concerning marriage, that I hope the SCOTUS rules on DOMA pretty darn soon.

 

But wait. According to the anti-DOMA people it won’t matter if the SCOTUS rules that traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. They won't accept it anyway. That’s because the anti-DOMA people don’t understand how a constitutional republic works. They are the same kind of people who would go on celebrating traditional Christmas as if it were traditional Halloween.

 

Man, it sure is hard to figure out what “traditional” really means! Traditional Easter used to be about the resurrection of a dead prophet, but today it's more about where a bunny hides its eggs—and forget the fact that bunnies are mammals and don't lay eggs. Maybe we should also forget about the fact that two penises are eggless, too, and that there is always the vague hope of parthenogenesis to sustain the human species.

[InfiniteNow]

Until the 50's and 60's, the Bill of Rights--1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, etc. amendments--did not apply to States; Bill of Rights only applied to federal laws. So, States could deprive people of free press, speech, gun ownership, reasonable search and seizure, etc., because when States did so they acted on State laws, not on federal laws.

Wow. Fancy that. Yet another inaccurate legal suggestion from our good friend lawcat. Will wonders never cease?

 

Your point is wrong since you blatantly ignore the Supremacy Clause in Article VI paragraph two of the constitution:

 

 

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

The clause establishes the Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land" and suggests that the laws of ALL states must be legitimate as per the guidelines set forth in the federal constitution.

 

 

This was further reinforced by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th amendment, which is parallel in several ways to the Supremacy Clause, and which states the following:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_or_Immunities_Clause

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

 

Interestingly, the Privileges and Immunities clause can be used to argue against same sex marriage opposition, as well, but I'll save that for another day.

 

 

In sum, despite your assertions to the contrary above, you are plainly mistaken, and you are AGAIN off-point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________

The traditional definition of Santa Claus is a kindly, old, bearded man of European decent who wears a red outfit and drives a sleigh powered by eight reindeer to deliver Christmas gifts to all the nice children of the world. This traditional definition of Santa Claus runs in common with the traditional definition of marriage, which is a civil union between one and man and one woman, because neither traditional Santa Claus nor traditional marriage are specifically defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Santa Clause is not real. Marriage, and the laws surrounding marriage, is. Your comparison is an epic fail.

 

 

 

But wait. According to the anti-DOMA people it won’t matter if the SCOTUS rules that traditional marriage is between one man and one woman. They won't accept it anyway. That’s because the anti-DOMA people don’t understand how a constitutional republic works.

I must protest. If you read my posts throughout this thread, I think they are rather indicative of an deep understanding of our laws and priniciples underlying our nation, this constitutional republic to which you keep referring. Your comment above is simply a barb, with no basis in reality, and used only as a last ditch effort to paint your opponents as irrational and wrong because you are unable to support your own position on the merits.

 

Show me a post which I've made to this thread which demonstrates a "lack of understanding of how a constitutional republic works," and explain WHY that post demonstrates a lack of understanding and where. Use the quote feature. Be a man and back up what you say with empirical evidence, and logical support of your contention.

 

Once you do, I will accept your argument. Until then, I will continue to dismiss your point as specious, unfounded, and irrelevant to the discussion. Hopefully, other readers will join me in that dismissal.

[TheBigDog]

First, I would like to state that I essentially agreed with you and made an attempt to steer the conversation toward finding common ground in hopes of having hope for some resolution, instead of catching on to that you continue want to argue tangential points that are not central to the arguments I made. Consider that as you revisit this...

 

I see the parallel between equal rights for blacks and equal rights for those seeking same sex relationships, but I don't believe it is solid enough a correlation that I would make that argument. One is a matter of pure genetics, while the other is behavior influenced by genetics

Homosexuality is about more than behavior. It is also about personal desire, emotion, connection, and all of the other natural phenomenon which are found in heterosexuals who feel these same natural urges.

 

And... Just in case it's put to question yet again by some other moron, yes... homosexuality is genetic in origin.

 

The Real Story on Gay Genes | Sex & Gender | DISCOVER Magazine

 

Whether or not a gay gene, a set of gay genes, or some other biological mechanism is ever found, one thing is clear: The environment a child grows up in has nothing to do with what makes most gay men gay. Two of the most convincing studies have proved conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause.

My statement is absolutely true. You call me a moron for saying it then you support exactly what I said. The study you linked to does not show that 100% of men with a specific genetic marker are gay, and 100% without it are straight; it shows a trend with the genetic marker. Thus "behavior influenced by genetics" is correct. I did take the liberty of using the word "behavior" to indicate the scope of things relevant to homosexuality; but again, this is not even central to my argument so... ;)

Would this be the pre-DOMA definition, or the post-DOMA definition that you suggest "we preserve?" Practically every single post you've made implies that it's the post-DOMA definition to which you are referring, so I just want to ensure I understand you correctly.

For clarification...

I am opposed to gay marriage. I support law that gives rights to non-traditional couples; read as "beyond just gay". But it should acknowledge the nature of the relationships rather than pretending that they are all the same.

Let us look at the tradition that has lead to our current laws. Laws as they were written prior to 1996 primarily made no specific indication that marriage was between a man and a woman. Why? Because it was not required to state the obvious. If I tell you that today is the 40th anniversary of man landing on the moon, I do not need to identify which satellite orbiting the earth, which "moon" I am referring to. The earth has many moons, but only one is "the moon". This is universally understood; and that is why laws written before 1996 did not need to specify that marriage was between a man and a woman. Now you can point to foreign law, you can point to ancient times when same sex marriages took place, but the discussion is the understanding of the definition of marriage prior to 1996 in the United States. The law books did not need to say "between a man and a woman" because everyone knew that was what marriage explicitly meant.

I think that marriage carries the meaning of "man and woman" and I don't see a need to change that. So in that respect I am against same sex "marriage" but I am for other means of attaining equal rights under the law.

Next you partially quoted this paragraph...

I suggested that we preserve the current definition, and add definitions as needed to describe any other relationship that may require defining. You could have marriage (man and woman), lesbian marriage (woman and woman), gay marriage (man and man). Since I have established that marriage is synonymous with an active monogamous sexual relationship, the description of the contract would help with the different legal requirements that may be required for entering and dissolving each type of contract. In addition I suggest that non-sexual relationships be recognized for benefits as well, each with a different name, and each with the requisite red tape for entering and exiting. Is this segregation? Yes. It is also the legal rights that are being sought plus rights beyond that (non-sexual couples).

Responded by...

And these are all still marriages. This directly contradicts your previous point that marriage "carries the meaning of man and woman," and that you are "opposed to gay marriage."

 

You're not being very clear, and your comments and positions seem scattered and inconsistent.

You either support same sex marriage, or you oppose it. You cannot do both simultaneously.

 

So, which is it? ... (and, if you oppose it, you still need to address why that is)

I suggested that each of those be separately and distinctly defined legal contracts. "Marriage", the word alone, exclusively define a "man and woman" relationship. All combinations of couplings receive rights. So I am against gay marriage in terms of becoming part of what we traditionally call marriage, yet I am for laws that provide the benefits that married couples receive to other couples that cannot meet the criteria for marriage.

 

I have already addressed why. My post 273 is dedicated entirely to that point.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I suggested that each of those be separately and distinctly defined legal contracts. "Marriage", the word alone, exclusively define a "man and woman" relationship. All combinations of couplings receive rights. So I am against gay marriage in terms of becoming part of what we traditionally call marriage, yet I am for laws that provide the benefits that married couples receive to other couples that cannot meet the criteria for marriage.

 

I have already addressed why. My post 273 is dedicated entirely to that point.

 

And, you failed. Your post discussed sexual intercourse, and implied in some strange way that homosexuals could not have intercourse. Care to try again?

 

 

Your reasons for "why" are still unclear, unfounded, and irrelevant.

 

 

"Marriage", the word alone, exclusively define a "man and woman" relationship.

Repeating an assertion is not the same as supporting it. Try again.

[TheBigDog]

And, you failed. Your post discussed sexual intercourse, and implied in some strange way that homosexuals could not have intercourse. Care to try again?

 

Your reasons for "why" are still unclear, unfounded, and irrelevant.

 

Repeating an assertion is not the same as supporting it. Try again.

This is an appeal to false authority. You show no sign of want or capability to understand my post yet claim that it is "unclear, unfounded, and irrelevant". I conclude this because others have demonstrated to me a clear grasp of my words while you have not.

 

Is this real or are you yanking my chain?

 

Bill

[jackson33]

Infinite comments;

1-They also frowned upon black people having freedom.

2-They also frowned upon women having jobs, or leaving the house.

3-They also frowned up many things which we all know are okay in today's society.

4-I find your argument specious and weak, and completely irrelevant.

 

1- That's also incorrect and again I know that you know this; During negotiations to establish a 'Constitution', with the idea it could be 'ratified' many issues were left alone, not addressed or became options for the States. Virginia was the 'BIG DOG' in Philadelphia and a Slave State, without them there would have been no positive conclusion to those negotiations. A brief history of Slavery, separate from racism/bigotry which is your intended connection and could not be a negotiable issue then or today.

 

 

 

The importation of African slaves was banned in the British colonies in 1807, and in the United States in 1808. In the British West Indies, slavery was abolished in 1827 and in the French possessions 15 years later.

 

The first American movement to abolish slavery came in the spring of 1688 when German and Dutch Quakers of Mennonite descent in Germantown, Pennsylvania (now part of Philadelphia) wrote a two-page condemnation of the practice and sent it to the governing bodies of their Quaker church, the Society of Friends. Though the Quaker establishment took no immediate action, the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery, was an unusually early, clear and forceful argument against slavery and initiated the process of banning slavery in the Society of Friends (1776) and Pennsylvania(1780)

 

Vermont was the first territory (not a state at the time) in North America to abolish slavery outright in 1777. The first state to abolish slavery outright was Pennsylvania in 1780. All of the other states north of Maryland began to gradually abolish slavery between 1781 and 1804. Rhode Island had limited slave trading in 1774[citation needed] (Virginia had also attempted to do so before the Revolution, but the Privy Council had vetoed the act), all the other northern states also limited the slave trade by 1786, and Georgia in 1798.[citation needed] These northern emancipation acts typically provided that slaves born before the law was passed would be freed at a certain age, and so remnants of slavery lingered; in New Jersey, a dozen "permanent apprentices" were recorded in the 1860 census.

 

The Abolitionist Movement set in motion actions in every state to abolish slavery. By 1804, abolitionists succeeded in passing legislation eventually emancipate the slaves in every state north of the Ohio River and the Mason-Dixon Line. However, emancipation in the free states was so gradual that there were still a dozen "permanent apprentices" in the 1860 census.

 

Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

A Time line of the History of African Americans and the Republican Party

 

1862: President Abraham Lincoln is the first President to meet with a group of black leaders

1864: The Republican National Convention makes the abolition of slavery a plank in its platform

1868: Oscar J. Dunn becomes Lieutenant Governor in Louisiana

P.B.S Pinchback and James J. Harris become the first African-American delegates to the Republican National Convention held in Chicago

1869: Joseph H. Rainey, South Carolina, becomes the first African-American Congressman

1870: Hiram R. Revels is elected to fill U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Jefferson Davis

Alonzo J. Ransier is elected Lieutenant Governor of South Carolina before being elected to the U.S. Congress in 1872

1871: Robert B. Elliot chairs South Carolina delegation to the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia

1872: John R. Lynch is elected Speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives; he was later elected to U.S. Congress in 1973

1875: Blanche K. Bruce of Mississippi becomes the first African-American elected to a full-term in U.S. Senate

1884: John R. Lynch is the first African-American to preside over the Republican National Convention; gives the keynote address

Should Black Americans Come Back Home To The GOP? for more.

 

2- Male/Female relationships were very different through history, IMO well into the 20th Century than they are today. Simply expressed they formed unions, nearly all by Religious Ceremony (marriage) with the idea of specific purposes to each other. These were commitments to each other, rarely ending until death (traditional).

 

3- While it's true societies do change, the basic ideas of a society will remain with in certain limits or that original society will no longer exist. Those framers planned for such change, giving instruction how to afford change. Limitation were expressed by instilling a great majority of the several States into that change, for the Union itself. Two Thirds (2/3) of BOTH chambers of Congress to produce an Amendment and them Three Fourths (3/4) for ratification. What your suggesting and where society has imposed itself on the majority is through laws or the incremental changes in the understanding of previously ratified amendments, into laws.

4- Talk about il"logical fallacies", frankly your most common argument to many posters, who by the way take out time in their day to address your issues just to get that reply.

 

5- General premise behind your arguments; I'm not sure you really understand the history of Marriage or the when the State became involved and/or why they did become involved.

Although the following is from a religious angle, not my cup of tea, it does explain the concept of tradition. Laws are generally restrictions by authority OVER rights, not the reverse.

 

marriage license

Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."

Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws.

 

How about those that do NOT get a license, might be an interesting argument for Gay/Lesbian Legal Unions and/or as States sanction marriages;

Common-law marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The IRS does recognize “common-law” marriages if the marriage is recognized by the taxpayer’s state of residency. If the marriage is recognized under the law and customs of the state in which the marriage takes place (even if the state is a foreign country), the marriage is valid (Rev. Rul. 58-66). Practitioners should be alert to the specific state requirements necessary for their clients contemplating filing joint returns under common-law marriage statutes.

 

dannieyankee; I was going to make this a new topic (reply to IN), since it's so off topic to your thread, but it seems all these other issues may relate in some manner to your OP.

The beliefs of the fathers are not how the law is ruled. Most of the fathers were religious. Should their religious beliefs be law? No. They frowned upon homosexuality. Yet didn't they specify the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Homosexuality is a pursuit of happiness; the pursuit to be able to love whomever you naturally favour.

 

The US Constitution is a process for how laws can form or if you prefer the limits of what laws can effect. If they frowned on something personally, your correct that means nothing. Briefly; though religious, many even being member of the then 'Church of England' they opposed England State Sanctioned Religion. Keep in mind England and their commonwealth, was similar to the 13 individual colonies or eventual States.

 

As for pursuit of Happiness in those days or today, morality and social acceptance must agree, IMO. Today, acceptance of G/L lifestyles ARE accepted and I assume MOST involved lead very happy lives. What your asking for are perceived benefits given to heterosexual couples (religious or traditional), which are opposed only on premise they would demean their understanding or that would make G/L Unions acceptable to religious/traditionalist couples. This will happen, but over generations, if not pushed, IMO.

 

The Churches do not need to be forced to do anything. This is not the same as a church not allowing black people into their church; there is nothing in the bible or various religious documents that say 'Thou shalt not be black'. Most religions DO have religious doctrines forbidding homosexuality, so the government would NOT need to tax them. (I personally believe they should be taxed anyways, but this is unrelated.)

 

Think your misunderstanding me a bit; Church's are treated different than business on the idea of 'separation of State/Church'. If they become political entities, try to influence Government, government can and will lift that status, happens fairly often. I do agree with you that Church's should be taxed, noting the Mormon Church has a billion dollar portfolio of business enterprises.

 

Second of all, one of the big issues here is whether or not the majority has to approve to allow homosexuals the right of marriage. The common argument is that it is a free country (to which I would reply 'DONT MARRY A GAY PERSON IF YOU DON'T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE' but of course you'll say that they are being surrounded by something they don't like). Well, say the majority of the country becomes uncomfortable with...say, interracial marriage, or allowing Muslims into the country. Would there be laws forbidding either? NO. So, is it a problem of majority rule or freedom?

 

Very few people oppose Unions for Gay/Lesbians; In most every State today a gay or gay couple can adopt children, many business/government agencies offer equal benefits and so on. Aside from previous discussion, problems come in when this equal status to another concept (not rights) comes into play. Keep in mind, the general public today was raised by the general public of yesterday and that concept of G/L activity was frowned on.

 

If the majority of the country becomes "uncomfortable" with an issue, YES laws would change. They became "uncomfortable" with Slavery long before the Constitution and up to 600 to 700,000 American died (various reason) to change those laws. Since then womens society has changed, all minority rights and in some manner children's right.

 

Casualties In The Civil War

 

I think your Muslim question may be interesting. Your aware Muslims societies do maintain a completely different understanding of morality and justice, than do Christan's or in particular the current American Society, including you. Try to think of this from the viewpoint of those that feel homosexual activity remains questionable; If Muslims were to move into say Montana, or many in Montana converted to their beliefs. They are elected to office, changing State law to their beliefs and then began to attack Federal Laws. With out going into specifics, they could change society as known today in Montana. There are checks involved, but the point is you would not uphold their rights to pursue happiness as they understand it...

[InfiniteNow]

You show no sign of want or capability to understand my post yet claim that it is "unclear, unfounded, and irrelevant". I conclude this because others have demonstrated to me a clear grasp of my words while you have not.

Your basic argument is thus:

 

Most people in US history have considered a marriage to be between a man and a woman, at the exclusion of same sex partners.

The laws did not specify the required genitals of marriage participants because they didn’t have to.

 

Then, using circular and self-referential logic, you assert that the law always intended to restrict marriage to man and woman, at the exclusion of same sex partners.

 

When shown that your definition of marriage is not universal, has no bearing nor footing before 1996 when DOMA was passed, and is not even valid in several states within the US in the present day, you simply repeat yourself that "man and woman" it is the “traditional” definition and completely avoid the issue presented.

 

As Modest already pointed out, it is not a traditional “definition,” but instead just a traditional “example.”

 

You further state that you support benefits and privileges for relationships beyond just "man and woman," but that the relationship of two same sex partners is not a marriage, and warrants a completely different term/label and set of laws.

 

When asked, why? … you say, “see above.” It’s ridiculous, and exemplifies your circular logic.

 

You have been asked to describe in what secular ways, besides genitals, that same sex couples are different than opposite sex couples, and why our laws and labels should segregate them.

 

In response, you’ve stated that you mostly agree with my point that they are the same in every way except genitals, that you mostly agree they should not be treated differently by law, and then in the very next breath you contradict yourself when you say they are different and require special words and special laws.

 

When asked, why? … you AGAIN say, “see above” and divert the discussion toward personal comments and barbs. It’s ridiculous.

[lawcat]

EDIT: INfitinite Now, now, hopefully understands the concept of incorporation, and the fact that Supremacy Clause is not the reason why the Bill of Rights selectively applies to States.

[modest]

In essence, it is procedurally wrong to say that the 14th amendment applies to DOMA, which is a federal law..

We were talking about due process, not equal protection. Both amendments have a due process clause. And, it's really no more incorrect to say the 14th amendment applies to federal law through reverse incorporation than it is to say the first amendment applies to state law through incorporation. The supreme court has said before that it would be "unthinkable that the same Constitution would impose a lesser duty on the Federal Government" in Bolling v. Sharpe.

 

But, I don't think it much matters. Until gay people are granted suspect classification neither due process or equal protection are very likely avenues of redress. For the matter of DOMA, I think Bill is right—it's best attacked on Full Faith and Credit grounds.

 

~modest