Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[mutantllama]

People need to stay out of other peoples personal lives and what they choose to do or not do when it comes to these types of things.

Really. I don't see why people care that two men or women that love each other want to get married. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Does it harm you that two people who you probably don't even know, want to get married, even if they are the same sex? Who are we to decide if two people should get married or not. I mean, they love each other, and want to spend their lives together.

 

[AchrisK]

Problem with that is that the gov. is already all tangled up in it, and there are all kinds of existing laws.

 

[Burning In Hell]

Problem with that is that the gov. is already all tangled up in it, and there are all kinds of existing laws.

Yeah, which is horseshit.

 

[False Joe]

Didn't you have 'civil partnerships'?
Or was that the UK?
I dunno.

 

[cookiecutter]

It doesn't matter what the reason for marriage was historically. What matters is that America is a free country where people should be able to do what they want with their lives regardless of any of their inherent characteristics, including sexuality. If a straight couple want to get married because they love each other, they can. If two gay people want to get married because they each other, they should be able to. The building block of America is not a man and a woman getting married, the building block of America is freedom. It is wrong when the government restricts the freedoms of racial minorities, religious minorities, and ethnic minorities and it is wrong when it restricts the freedoms of sexual minorities.

On another note, even if 99.9% of Californians voted yes on Prop 8, it would still be unconstitutional. The United States is not a nation run by the tyranny of the majority. That is why the Constitution was written and why we have a Supreme Court to interpret it.

P.S. Antonin Scalia can suck my dick. I hope that guy dies soon.

 

[mutantllama]

It doesn't matter what the reason for marriage was historically. What matters is that America is a free country where people should be able to do what they want with their lives regardless of any of their inherent characteristics, including sexuality. If a straight couple want to get married because they love each other, they can. If two gay people want to get married because they each other, they should be able to. The building block of America is not a man and a woman getting married, the building block of America is freedom. It is wrong when the government restricts the freedoms of racial minorities, religious minorities, and ethnic minorities and it is wrong when it restricts the freedoms of sexual minorities.

On another note, even if 99.9% of Californians voted yes on Prop 8, it would still be unconstitutional. The United States is not a nation run by the tyranny of the majority. That is why the Constitution was written and why we have a Supreme Court to interpret it.

P.S. Antonin Scalia can suck my dick. I hope that guy dies soon.

This.

 

[skeptik]

^^ That. I was all ready to storm into this thread and make the "history is not a valid argument" argument, but now I don't have to. And NinjaGeek, read a book. Even AchrisK admits that marriage as a concept has existed longer than organized religion has practiced marriage rituals.

 

[Valerie]

It doesn't matter what the reason for marriage was historically. What matters is that America is a free country where people should be able to do what they want with their lives regardless of any of their inherent characteristics, including sexuality. If a straight couple want to get married because they love each other, they can. If two gay people want to get married because they each other, they should be able to. The building block of America is not a man and a woman getting married, the building block of America is freedom. It is wrong when the government restricts the freedoms of racial minorities, religious minorities, and ethnic minorities and it is wrong when it restricts the freedoms of sexual minorities.

On another note, even if 99.9% of Californians voted yes on Prop 8, it would still be unconstitutional. The United States is not a nation run by the tyranny of the majority. That is why the Constitution was written and why we have a Supreme Court to interpret it.

P.S. Antonin Scalia can suck my dick. I hope that guy dies soon.

Marry me.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Surely you know that love has not been the initiator of marriage throughout history. Love develops, but was not the initiator. Marriage has always been the basic building block of society. Do you also not see how we have gone astray on our society by placing too much emphasis on feelings? Love that has true, enduring strength is not a feeling, it is a decision. Do you really not grasp this? The evidence is all around you.

What exactly are you saying here? That love is not a feeling? That gays cannot be in love? Please clarify if you don't mind.

On another note, even if 99.9% of Californians voted yes on Prop 8, it would still be unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution do you derive the right for gay people to marry? I'd really like to know this.

 

[Matt]

Where in the Constitution do you derive the right for gay people to marry? I'd really like to know this.

I doubt there is a specific reference, but there isn't (wasn't) any law saying they can't.

 

[skeptik]

Where in the Constitution does it give the state the right to rescind the rights of its citizens in such a way as it was done in California?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Presumably the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Though now that I look at it, it's quite possible that the Fourteenth trumps that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You could argue that "equal protection of the law" is not the same as "equal rights under the law", but at a glance it appears that the Supreme Court has traditionally took them to be one and the same.

 

[skeptik]

Rescinding a citizen's equal right definitely falls under protection. Federal law always trumps state law.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Probably true. I just wanted to make sure we were actually looking at what the Constitution says, since a lot of you seem to think you can speak for the Constitution without actually citing it.

 

[Death Aflame]

It is wrong when the government restricts the freedoms of racial minorities, religious minorities, and ethnic minorities and it is wrong when it restricts the freedoms of sexual minorities.

Not that I believe in the following, but wouldn't it follow from your logic that other 'sexual minorities' such as incestuous couples (of consenting ages) could also seek the same freedoms/protections as gays, lesbians etc.?

I only ask because I have heard it brought up before as a sort of pseudo-defence for maintaining the heterosexual norm. Personally, I don't like the argument, but it seems to be supported logically, does it not (since it too is based on 'consenting' adults unlike other sexual 'identities' such as pedophilia)?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

To be perfectly honest, I think incest between consenting adults should be legal. Why in the fuck would you make a law against that?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

It has logical scientific implications for the gene pool iirc. Whereas, homosexuals do not have the same problem.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

iirc making laws which regulate the gene pool is called eugenics.

How is that any different from banning retards from having sex?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Well, at least it has some kind of scientific logic and isn't just "OMG GAYS = GROSS" or whatever.

 

[Death Aflame]

It has logical scientific implications for the gene pool iirc.

Most likely, but does that in and of itself justify the lack of sexual freedom for that particular minority group? What if they aren't having kids? Even so, why are they not allowed to maintain the freedom of bearing children if they 'love' each other?

Also, I just looked up incest laws on wikipedia and it appears that it is outlawed in pretty much every developed country except Sweden, where couples who share no more than a single parent are allowed to be together, and even get married if granted permission by the County.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#Sweden

Edit: that is a good point vihris.