same sex marriage ban is unconstitutional

[crb]

Marriage like it or not is originally a RELIGIOUS idea! PERIOD! If you don't believe so prove to me otherwise historically. Just because the government decided to take control over "marriage" does not make it their idea.

Now the version of "marriage" which I will be discussing from here on out, which unless you are a religious person is really just a social contract, but for the sake of argument I will use the your term marriage.

Do you know in this state a gay person can loose there job, be denied housing, be denied service at a restaurant for appearing gay?

Can I be denied service because I am a 2nd amendment supporter? Yes

Can I be denied service because I have black hair? Yes

Can I be denied service because I have blue eyes? Yes

Can I be denied service because I am a heterosexual? Yes

Business's have a right to deny service. There are also private property rights.

Should you loose your job because your gay? NO

Can I loose my job because I am straight? Yes

Should you get special treatment because you are Gay?NO

Can I be denied housing because I am straight? Yes

Can you be denied housing because you are gay? Yes

Now will they say we are denied because we are gay or straight? NO

Do I think you should be denied because you are gay?NO

Is it anymore okay for you to call me a breeder, than it is for me to call you a "F" word? NO (I tried to be nice there)

I could come up with a ton more scenarios, but hopefully my point is made. EQUALITY IS EQUAL, not EQUAL plus a little. Everyone should have the same laws/rules applied to them no matter race, creed, color, sexual orientation, etc! There shouldn't be special laws to protect a certain class!

It is time to end the "special treatment" or "protected classes" of people!

All laws should apply to everyone equally!

Should a heterosexual who assaults a homosexual receive a more severe sentence strictly based on sexual orientation than a homosexual who assaults a heterosexual? NO

Should a white who assaults a Latino receive a longer sentence than a Latino who assaults a white strictly based on the color of their skin? NO

What I am saying is we are all people, and we are all different. Nobody should be more protected under the law than any other person! Hence equal protection under the law!

The significant other of 20+ years can be blocked from the death bed of their partner. Is that ok to you?

No which is why the state should get out of the marriage business. By the way this happens to heterosexuals who live together, but are not married also1 If all persons whether heterosexual or homosexual were required to go through the same process we would all be treated equal. Everyone who is of legal age should be allowed to "marry" whomever they want without some stupid license from the state! How can you argue with that? Whether you are heterosexual, homosexual, or transgender the state should not tell you who you can marry! Basically you would go to a lawyer and draw up a contract, or do it yourself and have witness or a notary, however you want to do it no matter what your sexuality is!

IS that normal for you? Getting Married has jack shit to do with your cult, or any other cult. You do not have to believe in an invisible man in the sky to get married. The fact of the matter is the Act of getting Married has a hell of a lot to do with legal issues of the state.

GET THE STATE OUT OF IT!!!! Everyone under the system I advocate would have a civil contract essentially, because marriage is a RELIGIOUS CONCEPT! But as far as the government is concerned everyone would be treated EQUAL no matter what sexual orientation they CHOOSE!

Wills, next of kin, insurance, etc.

I am a heterosexual married man and I have both a living will and living will. Once again if you get the state out of the business of choosing who can marry and make everyone go through the same process you don't have to worry. Where am I being mistaken??? Insurance most policies have a "significant other" clause. Once again make everyone equal and get the state out of deciding who is "married"

NO TAX BREAKS OF BEING MARRIED OR HAVING KIDS!

The government should have NOTHING to do with Marriage!!!'

By the way if my wife and I were divorced we would actually pay less in taxes, go figure. So sometimes it is a marriage penalty!

And on the subject of "Schools Normalizing it" have you been keeping count of all the young teens we have lost in recent years because parents teach that it is OK to demonize and persecute someone they THINK is gay. What if that was your child? If parents can't teach their children not to act like bigots, then yes the school needs to step in.

If you want to teach acceptance of other people no matter their race, religion, color, hair color, eye color, sexual orientation, etc, etc FINE. But do not teach my future child that it is normal for one man to stick his man hood where another empties his bowl! Science is on the heterosexual side. The whole purpose of sex is to REPRODUCE, while most of us use it as recreation also. Two men or two woman can not reproduce! It is simply a life style choice. Now if you want to try the statement "we are born this way", then would it be okay for people to opt to abort homosexual babies, assuming that a gene could be found? Would you have a problem with that? Its my RIGHT, right?

If you choose to stick your man hood where another man empties his bowels, and contract aids DO NOT EXPECT me to pay for your healthcare. On the same aspect do not expect me to pay for your healthcare if are lesbian or heterosexual and contract herpiegonasilpaids(herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis, aids, etc.)(my made up word). Your freedom to be free includes my freedom to be free from you. If you participate in risky behavior you should be responsible no matter your sexual orientation. Yes this means if you pop out a kid you should pay for your kid, not the state or federal government.

[crb]

I have to remind even some of my most conservative friends, "the government does not GIVE you rights. The government only restricts existing rights, or takes them away completely."

Exactly! The government has taken more power away from the people than they deserve!

[crb]

You're fucking kidding me, right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" US Constitution, 1st Amendment.

Separation of Church and State upheld:

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - John Adams:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Everson v. Board of Education, 1947

Seriously man, 5 minutes of research.

This should probably be a whole new thread.

Really the purpose is simply to restrict a mandated state religion! It was never meant to keep the ten commandments off the town squares.

I am guessing you believe in the incorporation of the Federal Constitution to the states then? Which by the way I don't by the way. The Federal Constitution is meant to protect us from the Federal Government, the states have their own charters or constitutions.

Now if we are going to say the First amendment is incorporated to the states, is the 2nd also? If that is the case then no state could make any laws restricting the 2nd amendment. They also could not infringe, and a license to carry my firearm is an infringement in my opinion.

I am simply going by the 10th amendment.

[crb]

This is where your argument falls apart. The government does give special benefits to married people. Tax status, next-of-kin status, everything that's already been mentioned in this thread. Why, IN THE EYES OF THE STATE ONLY, is it permissible to give these benefits or allow that simple contract to be created between a man and a woman and deny it to a same-sex couple?

THAT is the question being asked here, and one that no one is willing to answer without invoking religion, because there IS no answer without invoking religion.

If you pay attention to my statements I have said the government should not give any special benefits to "married" people whether straight, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, gay, etc! Get the state out of the business of telling you who can marry, put us all on the same playing field! My argument doesn't fall apart here because I am arguing that the state has no business telling us who can marry one another as long as they are legal consenting adults. Do completely away with the state power to dictate marriage, and issue marriage license's. Does this not fix the problem? Essentially make it a contract between the two people who wish to "marry". I don't know how I am being misunderstood here. I am not invoking religion as in the bible says homosexuality is "wrong". I am invoking it in the origin of marriage is religion. Make what the state currently says is marriage a social/civil contract between to people which no permit should be required for.

[crb]

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4032

Quoted form above link.

"From a libertarian standpoint, the fact that civil and divine marriage share the same name is irrelevant. They are separate and distinguishable. No religious person is obligated to accept a Civil Union as a Holy Union, nor are the non-religious obligated to accept a strictly Holy Union as a Civil Union.

The ideal libertarian solution would be to have the government get out of the 'marriage' business altogether; to have government enforce civil contracts, and to have religions perform their religious ceremonies, if they choose to do so.

But since we don't live in Libertopia, we're left with a purely civil legal privilege available to one set of people, but not to another set simply because that civil legal privilege arose from a religious ceremony. (at least, within our cultural heritage; among others, it had little to do with religion) If those who object to gay marriage on religious grounds would be consistent, then let them also reject the civil privileges of marriage not contained in the Bible.

Until such a time as we could clearly distinguish the two in legal terms, the civil legal privileges of marriage should be extended to everybody."

I can live with giving homosexuals/gays/lesbians/transgenders(don't want to exclude anyone) the civil privileges, but we should stride to get the government out of the business!

Does this help you guys to see where I cam coming from?

I am sorry if I come across as over blunt, or strong, but I am tired of the government taking more and more power. We need to cut them back, and get our freedom back. I also don't mean to write novels in this thread, but I am trying to explain my view.

Edited February 8, 2012 by crb

[drew95gt]

I don't see the big issue...and I consider myself pretty much a libertarian. It's just a joining of two people that want to spend the rest of their lives making each other happy (or miserable)...hell, I think that if I wanted to marry my Labrador I should be able too. Take the religious aspect out of it...it isn't about that.

[redkow97]

This is unlikely to go to the supreme court anyway. The holding was too narrow to be worth reviewing.

And if it does go to the supreme court, the 9th circuit is reversed A LOT. The justices have something against them. Not kidding.

Perhaps the 9th circuit will review its own decision en banc, but I would think that's all the further this particular case will go. The debate will rage on.

[John]

Marriage like it or not is originally a RELIGIOUS idea! PERIOD! If you don't believe so prove to me otherwise historically..

what religion started it? where did it originate?

please expand more on this statement, and tell us about the origins of marriage.

Edited February 8, 2012 by John

[Sapphy]

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4032

Until such a time as we could clearly distinguish the two in legal terms, the civil legal privileges of marriage should be extended to everybody."

But you see that is were the problem is. Call it marriage call it civil union, I honestly don't give a shit either way, hell call it a peapod contract for all I care, as long as it is the same thing ALL people wanting to commit their life to each other have to do in the the eyes of the state. But the fact of the matter is, it is not a level playing field, the rules and privileges are not applied the same to all, and in that issue that is truly being fought for.

[The King]

You're fucking kidding me, right?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" US Constitution, 1st Amendment.

Separation of Church and State upheld:

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - John Adams:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Everson v. Board of Education, 1947

Seriously man, 5 minutes of research.

I believe he is referring to the actual verbatim statement. The above is mostly about not establishing a Religion.....it does not specifically say that church and state must be separate....that is just how the 1st amendment is interpreted.

[crb]

what religion started it? where did it originate?

please expand more on this statement, and tell us about the origins of marriage.

Marriage goes back to Adam and Eve, so I guess the religion of God started marriage, of course if you are an atheist you will discount me as crazy. So did government start the concept of marriage in your opinion? Were there marriages in caveman times? Did the caveman government approve them?

[Scruit]

Marriage goes back to Adam and Eve, so I guess the religion of God started marriage, of course if you are an atheist you will discount me as crazy. So did government start the concept of marriage in your opinion? Were there marriages in caveman times? Did the caveman government approve them?

Here we go again - Just because it's written in some book that one religion believes (despite it having been changed, redacted, translated and reinterpreted many times over history) the rest of us have to blindly follow it. Plus that's old testatment, nobody follows that*.

I had said earlier that "Marriage is a religious concept" because that is the argument that the religious folks have against equal rights. And I agree that a religion should not be forced to marry two people they don't want to marry...

But in that same post I said that MONOGAMY is not a religious concept. From a purely anthropologic perspective, monogamy is almost ubiqitous. There are rare cultures that practice patriachal polygamy (Based upon their religion! Islam, Mormonism) and even rarer cultures that practice matriachal polygamy... If anyone thinks that monogamy is an invention of Christianity then I'd like to hear their explanation for why so may cultures that have never been exposed to the Bible are monogamous.

* I had a debate with somone one time and mentioned a couple sections of the Bible that detail some pretty horrific things about treating women as property and stoning them under certain circumstances, such as if they are victims of rape. I also pointed out that any christian male who has had a vasectomy is barred from heaven. The response? "That's all old testament - we don't believe that stuff any more."

"What, So you don't believe in Creationism?"

Edited February 8, 2012 by Scruit

[r1crusher]

I think (this is just my opinion) that crb's point(s) make sound logical sense. As a matter of fact I know of a divorce attorney who told me one time almost verbatim what crb has been stating. "Marriage" is nothing more than a contract between two people and the government should not be involved in such contracts. But unfortunately, the government is involved and I agree that they should get the hell out trying to control aspects or benefits of "marriages" (which will never happen in my lifetime if ever because they make money from it).

Does it really matter where the term "marriage" came from? What is it in it's most basic form? It's a piece of paper proclaiming something, specifically that two people have made a commitment to one another. The government should not care who the people are, simply they should provide the same RIGHTS to anyone hold that paper.

Rep for you crb.

[crb]

So we should give more power to the government? why does the government have the right to say who gets "married"? Scruit if you want to divorce your wife and marry her brother, you should be allowed to. Hell scruit it if you want to marry your brother while still being married to your wife, who is the government to tell you NO?

What if the government decides no we don't think you two are right together, sorry no marriage license for you?

Hell why can't three people marry each other? The government wont allow it, but why not if all three are consenting adults?

Some states limit the number of times you can be married? Why is it their business?

Domes states have common law marriage, why should I be "married" just for living with someone for "x" of years?

[Cheech]

If you pay attention to my statements I have said the government should not give any special benefits to "married" people whether straight, bisexual, lesbian, transgender, gay, etc! Get the state out of the business of telling you who can marry, put us all on the same playing field! My argument doesn't fall apart here because I am arguing that the state has no business telling us who can marry one another as long as they are legal consenting adults. Do completely away with the state power to dictate marriage, and issue marriage license's. Does this not fix the problem? Essentially make it a contract between the two people who wish to "marry". I don't know how I am being misunderstood here. I am not invoking religion as in the bible says homosexuality is "wrong". I am invoking it in the origin of marriage is religion. Make what the state currently says is marriage a social/civil contract between to people which no permit should be required for.

OK. I think we've dived so deep in the details of the issue that we've lost focus of the question that started it all, so just to clarify I'll ask it.

Do you approve or disapprove of the 9th's reversal of the gay marriage ban in California?

I believe he is referring to the actual verbatim statement. The above is mostly about not establishing a Religion.....it does not specifically say that church and state must be separate....that is just how the 1st amendment is interpreted.

If you wrote down in detail all the precedents we had as a nation into the Constitution, the damn thing would be a book. I'll give you a few that aren't found in the Constitution:

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Judicial Review

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Any definition or even MENTION of "marriage"

Right to Travel

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

Immigration

And just to fuel the fire a little bit, something else you won't find in the Constitution: Any mention of God, Creator, Jesus, any of that. I wonder why that is...

[Cheech]

Infortunately' date=' we have to have 'gay rights' argued in court, because the government has already pit their grubby paws all over the issue. Take Ohio, for example. Lyns and I got married because the anti-gay agenda driven government passed a law making it impossible for us to share insurance. Also, if one one us gets into a serios crash on our bike they make it far too difficult for unwed partners to facilitate medical action.

It is absolutely non of the government's business where I stick my dick, so long as my partner is of age and consents to such activity. It's also no business of the church.

The religious right in this country need to cool their jets. If they want to believe in fantasy island and other such lore..then they can have at it. That's their right as American citizens. Hell, as human beings. However, when it comes to the affairs of others, they need to shit the fuck up and keep to themselves. The church's role in society is redundant and has lived far past it's time.[/quote']

Yes.

[Tpoppa]

Not so worried about marriage. But dudes kissing in public should be banned. Chicks kissing should be pictured on stamps and money.

[redbarron77]

Not so worried about marriage. But dudes kissing in public should be banned. Chicks kissing should be pictured on stamps and money.

hot chicks, not the butt-ugly ones.

[Tpoppa]

hot chicks, not the butt-ugly ones.

Correct.

[The King]

Infortunately' date=' we have to have 'gay rights' argued in court, because the government has already pit their grubby paws all over the issue. Take Ohio, for example. Lyns and I got married because the anti-gay agenda driven government passed a law making it impossible for us to share insurance. Also, if one one us gets into a serios crash on our bike they make it far too difficult for unwed partners to facilitate medical action.

It is absolutely non of the government's business where I stick my dick, so long as my partner is of age and consents to such activity. It's also no business of the church.

The religious right in this country need to cool their jets. If they want to believe in fantasy island and other such lore..then they can have at it. That's their right as American citizens. Hell, as human beings. However, when it comes to the affairs of others, they need to shit the fuck up and keep to themselves. The church's role in society is redundant and has lived far past it's time.[/quote']

I don't disagree with ANYTHING that you said, but I think there is a dirty little secret going on....I think there are plenty non-religious right wing people voting against this as well.

I mean this was passed in California....not exactly a bastion of Right Wing Nut jobs..

[Cheech]

I don't disagree with ANYTHING that you said, but I think there is a dirty little secret going on....I think there are plenty non-religious right wing people voting against this as well.

I mean this was passed in California....not exactly a bastion of Right Wing Nut jobs..

The rest of the state outside of the major cities are pretty majorly right-wing. The closer you get to Utah the worse it seems for some reason...

[Tpoppa]

Forgive my typos. I hate this stupid iPod.

I knew this was going to turn into another Apple bashing thread

[The King]

The rest of the state outside of the major cities are pretty majorly right-wing. The closer you get to Utah the worse it seems for some reason...

Interesting, I am in Park City right now.....looks like a bunch of hippies to me...

[crb]

California is full of fruits and nuts! Just saying.

[Sapphy]

Chicks kissing should be pictured on stamps and money.

hot chicks, not the butt-ugly ones.

Fine then, I will stop making out in public. lol