Gay marriage: do you support more than gun rights?

[JuanCarlos]

From 'tother thread:

...gay marriage is a bunch of people who aren't hurting anybody looking for the equal right to enter into a contract and be legally recognized same as anybody else. There are few ways to slice it that don't violate either the first, the fourteenth, or both.

There's no rational or logical way to have it both ways; either the first combined with the fourteenth lets gays marry, or the second doesn't let you own assault weapons. Choose. But heck, let's start a new thread about it so this one doesn't get locked. We'll yell at each other for a while until they closer 'er down.

And....GO!

[Redworm]

I tried this before and I think my thread was locked. Some people still cling to the ridiculous belief that two commited people are more a danger to the "institution" of marriage than divorce. Then again much of it comes from the idea that they don't want gays raising children and to that I shove a big middle finger into the air.

Don't get me started on the idiocy of the military kicking out gays that perform their job as well as anyone else because a bunch of bigoted soldiers can't stomach it. It seems they all think a gay soldier would automatically be drooling over his hot uniformed buddies; unjustified narcissism at its worst.

[JuanCarlos]

Also, a few quick points to get us started:

One, if you are arguing that gay marriage should not be covered by the first (if a church will marry them) or fourteenth (a man being kept from entering a contract with another willing part where a woman could...or vice versa) I'd like to see some actual harm done by gay marriage. Specifically harm that isn't already being done by divorce.

If you're going to argue that they shouldn't be able to receive the same recognition because they aren't raising families and contributing to the next generation of America (yes, somebody argued this last time), then consider that A) they can adopt and B) voluntarily sterile (hysterectomies, vasectomies) couples are allowed to marry.

If you're going for perversion, then why are swingers and fetishists allowed to get married but two perfectly monogamous men cannot?

[JuanCarlos]

Don't get me started on the idiocy of the military kicking out gays that perform their job as well as anyone else because a bunch of bigoted soldiers can't stomach it. It seems they all think a gay soldier would automatically be drooling over his hot uniformed buddies; unjustified narcissism at its worst.

For gays in the military I liked this recent article in Slate.

EDIT: And yeah, I assume this thread is doomed to lockitude...but I don't want the discussion getting the other one locked (though that's also likely), and I just can't stand people being able to get their $.02 in without having to defend it because my making them do so will get the thread they dropped those pennies in locked.

[Playboypenguin]

Before this gets locked I will weigh in with my opinion.

I am not really pro-gay marriage. I believe that marriage is a religious institution and it should be up to the church whether they allow gay marriage or not.

As far as states recognizing gay-marriages, I feel the state should recognize it the same as they do any other marriage if a legally authorized person performs the ceremony. The states should not be able to pick and chose which churches marriages they recognize and which they do not.

I also think that civil unions (similar to getting married by the justice of the peace instead of a religious official) should be available to gays and straights. Thse unions should bare all the same legal benefits as traditional marriage without the religious aspects being involved.

[tony pasley]

First off marriaged is not a right to anyone. To "Bare arms " is a right. Second marriage is about legal contract for property of both. It was started in the south for a white male to marry a non-white female. At the time of the First World War it was expanded to control allotment payments made by the military to dependents. Waiting periods were put into effect to make sure each party was sober enough to enter into a contract.
Matormoniy is the religous bond between husband Husband and Wife. The false idea of seperation between church and state is definately blurred and crossed. They use the same lies to limit the actual Right to bare Arms.

[Musketeer]

Nobody is going to like my answer....

First, the 2A specifically covers the right to keep and bear arms.

There is NOTHING in the COTUS that mentions marriage, abortion, or a host of other things constantly stated as Constitutional Rights.

That being the case I see no reason that states cannot set up incentives to promote the common good by supporting heterosexual marriage and stable heterosexual families. The historical purpose of the family is to create and raise children. It is in a society's interest to support that so if a state passes legislation that encourages that behaviour. This is no different than offerring tax incentives for housing development in certain areas and such. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RIGHT.

PERSONALLY I see no reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and call it marriage. There is no reason mutliple people should not be allowed to marry and call it that. Two husbands and one wife. Two wives and one husband. Whatever. I may not be interseted in it but it is none of my business. People should be able to establish next of kin via a will in any way they please. People shoudl be able to create healthcare proxies as they see fit. Beyond that it is simply up to the market. If an insurance company wants to offer insurance for "extended family groups" that should be up to them. The state can choose to give or withold incentives for these relationships as they see fit based on the will of the people but it is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

[JuanCarlos]

First off marriaged is not a right to anyone.

How do we know that? Have you read the ninth and tenth amendments? Seems to suggest we have more than just the rights specifically enumerated. Additionally, the second doesn't specifically enumerate the right to own "assault weapons" without any registration or restriction (unless you've got a version with a lot more words than mine). "Arms," "bear," and "infringe" are not defined. So how can you argue for an extremely liberal interpretation of that amendment but a narrow interpretation of others portions of the BoR and Constitution?

Second marriage is about legal contract for property of both. It was started in the south for a white male to marry a non-white female. At the time of the First World War it was expanded to control allotment payments made by the military to dependents. Waiting periods were put into effect to make sure each party was sober enough to enter into a contract.
Matormoniy is the religous bond between husband Husband and Wife. The false idea of seperation between church and state is definately blurred and crossed. They use the same lies to limit the actual Right to bare Arms.

I'm not intimately familiar with the history of marriage in the legal sense...however, I suppose we could go back to some former policy where no marriages were legally recognized. That would be a valid option for equality as well, and one you'll not see me argue against.

Also, matrimony is a religious bond between any two people a church decides to marry. Guess what: there are churches willing to marry gays.

As far as states recognizing gay-marriages, I feel the state should recognize it the same as they do any other marriage if a legally authorized person performs the ceremony. The states should not be able to pick and chose which churches marriages they recognize and which they do not.

Pretty much my stance on the issue. Nobody is saying any churches will be forced to marry anybody, the same way churches can refuse to marry anybody nowadays (off to the judge with ya!).

I also think that civil unions (similar to getting married by the justice of the peace instead of a religious official) should be available to gays and straights. Thse unions should bare all the same legal benefits as traditional marriage without the religious aspects being involved.

No problems there. As long as both options are available to both I see no issue.

EDIT: Also, as a note...my stances regarding the government's interference with the church (and individuals) regarding marriage doesn't extend only to gays. While I can barely handle one wife, I see no fundamental reason that polygamy cannot be allowed. Provided, of course, some of the issues that have plagued it in the past can be solved.

[Redworm]

Nobody is going to like my answer....

First, the 2A specifically covers the right to keep and bear arms.

There is NOTHING in the COTUS that mentions marriage, abortion, or a host of other things constantly stated as Constitutional Rights.

No one claims that the Constitution specifically mentions it.

That being the case I see no reason that states cannot set up incentives to promote the common good by supporting heterosexual marriage and stable heterosexual families. The historical purpose of the family is to create and raise children. It is in a society's interest to support that so if a state passes legislation that encourages that behaviour. This is no different than offerring tax incentives for housing development in certain areas and such. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING RIGHT.

The idea that the common good is only promoted in heterosexual marriage is illogical. Gays make up a single digit percentage of the population so to suggest that allowing that small percentage the same benefits and protections afforded everyone else is somehow destroying your family or anyone else's is utterly ridiculous. It is in a society's best interest to support equality.

PERSONALLY I see no reason why gays should not be allowed to marry and call it marriage. There is no reason mutliple people should not be allowed to marry and call it that. Two husbands and one wife. Two wives and one husband. Whatever. I may not be interseted in it but it is none of my business. People should be able to establish next of kin via a will in any way they please. People shoudl be able to create healthcare proxies as they see fit. Beyond that it is simply up to the market. If an insurance company wants to offer insurance for "extended family groups" that should be up to them. The state can choose to give or withold incentives for these relationships as they see fit based on the will of the people but it is NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.

Not a Constitutional issue?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

By barring me from marrying a man that I love I am being deprived of liberty and equal protection of the law.

[Wildalaska]

There is NOTHING in the COTUS that mentions marriage, abortion, or a host of other things constantly stated as Constitutional Rights.

So specific mention is required?

WildcarefulnowAlaska

[OBIWAN]

I recently read that homosexuals make up around 2% of the US population

So quite frankly....who cares

They are the absolute ultra-minority...so why the big fuss??

They can work around any of the minor obstacles that "normal society" throws up in its efforts to make things flow smoothly for the other 98%

Next you will want to make laws favoring the left handed

[Redworm]

Next you will want to make laws favoring the left handed

Oh come on now. Who is asking for special laws? No one. I'm not pushing for EXTRA protection because of my lifestyle, I'm pushing for EQUAL protections.

[Playboypenguin]

you'll notice that when it's on the (cherry?) wood background, the grips take on a slightly lighter hue. Or is that a difference in the amount of light you were using?

Where did you read this? Every study I have read shows the number to be 8-10% of the population.

They are the absolute ultra-minority...so why the big fuss??

They can work around any of the minor obstacles that "normal society" throws up in its efforts to make things flow smoothly for the other 98%

So if 90% of Americans did not want people to carry guns or own guns then the small minority that wanted to should just have their rights trampled on to make things smoother for the majority?

[JuanCarlos]

Where did you read this? Every study I have read shows the number to be 8-10% of the population.

It ranges. Depends on the study, methods of data collection, and criteria used. Goes as low as 1%, as high as 10%. Also gets interesting when you talking about homo/hetero compared to bisexuality, and the differences between rates in men and women.

But really, he's right...any way you slice it's we're talking single-digit percentages.

@OBIWAN: Out of curiosity, what percentage of the population owns "assault weapons?" Higher than homosexuals, probably...but I'm curious. I've not found any decent numbers, but everything I've found suggests it's less than 20%. Correct me if you have better data.

So what percentage do you have to be before you're a minority that "counts?" Cause the way I'm looking at it, "assault weapon" owners are just a vocal minority trying to push their views on the rest of the nation. And before you even think to mention the 2A, remember: you are only allowed those assault weapons under a very broad interpretation of that amendment. Which is what gays are asking for other portions of the Constitution. Hypocrisy FTW.

Also, some people don't seem to realize the difference between laws "favoring" somebody and laws granting them equal rights. Has somebody mentioned affirmative action for gays yet? I suppose that must be the slippery slope mentioned in the other thread.

[Trip20]

In my humble opinion, 'Freedom' entails more than those things itemized in the Constitution.

Whether or not this is a sound opinion by legal standard or by strict definition -- I do not know... I'm no scholar. Maybe it's a bit too idealistic.

I think gay marriage, civil unions, or whatever they choose to call it tomorrow, should be allowed across the nation. My own beliefs and preferences - based on religion or other philosophy - should not curtail my neighbor's pursuit of happiness and/or equality.

[rem33]

Next you will want to make laws favoring the left handed

Way cool, now I be a minority too huh?

More bait

Must be spring,,,

[Samurai]

The Gays are just another oppressed group trying to win equal protection in the face of American history. Before the Gays, it was the Blacks. Before the Blacks, it was the Jews. Before the Jews, it was women. Before women's rights, it was the Native Americans.

Every time some downtrodden minority group comes along in American history, the great silent majority must be convinced that this "new group" is, in fact, human. When the country began, a black man was only considered 3/5 of a human being, and women couldn't own property or vote. People quoted scripture to justify the righteousness of slavery. They were wrong, and the anti-gay camp is wrong, too. Change will come.

However, we must remember that in EVERY case of equal rights evolution in this country, change toward equality has been VERY, VERY SLOW. It took over 150 years before people started to realize that the way black people were being treated was wrong. Some folks still haven't learned...

It is the natural way of things for America to grow more and more tolerant of gays. Such tolerance is bred from years and years of turmoil and heated debate concerning the way things "ought to be." I, for one, am optimistic that, with enough time and pressure, America will evolve to become more tolerant of gays. However, it is foolish to expect such change to occur overnight.

One thing is for sure, though. Talking about it is good. Talking about how gays should be treated will ultimately lead to an American evolution.

[Let it Bleed]

Politically, I neither support nor am I against gay marriage. Since I am not in the military, I defer to their judgment. I do think it is ridiculous to prohibit someone from serving because of sexual orientation. However these two issues are separate and distinct.

As a legal question regarding same sex marriage, how do you define the protected class. If there is no protected class, state law is not subject to strict scrutiny from the court.

Personally, race is a subjective definition, but skin color is clearly objective. Since most people equate skin color with race, we have an objective standard. Religion can be objectively measured. Either you are a member of a particular religion or not. National origin is also objective. Trying to categorize people based on behavior opens the possibility of an endless number of protected classes.

Marriage laws are not designed to discriminate against homosexuals. It is pure public policy and most definitely advances a state interest. Individual states possess enormous power to regulate that which impacts the public welfare. Marriage is a purely state created legal construct that concededly has its roots in religion. Whether married by a minister or a judge does not matter. Its purpose is not discriminatory and does not infringe anyone’s individual liberties.

[BlueTrain]

Personally, I think too many people get married in the first place, which only leads to a higher divorce rate. It obviously doesn't mean the institution of marriage is in bad shape because most divorced people remarry. It's sort of a numbers game, isn't it?

Could it possibly be that people feel more pressured to get married these days?

[JuanCarlos]

Every time some downtrodden minority group comes along in American history, the great silent majority must be convinced that this "new group" is, in fact, human.

Well put.

However, we must remember that in EVERY case of equal rights evolution in this country, change toward equality has been VERY, VERY SLOW. It took over 150 years before people started to realize that the way black people were being treated was wrong. Some folks still haven't learned...

I guess I'm just hoping that after Natives, women, blacks, Jews, and every other group we'd eventually get better at it. You know, do it quicker.

And, in fairness, it does seem to be happening pretty quickly nowadays for homosexuals. Comparatively speaking.

It is the natural way of things for America to grow more and more tolerant of gays. Such tolerance is bred from years and years of turmoil and heated debate concerning the way things "ought to be." I, for one, am optimistic that, with enough time and pressure, America will evolve to become more tolerant of gays. However, it is foolish to expect such change to occur overnight.

One thing is for sure, though. Talking about it is good. Talking about how gays should be treated will ultimately lead to an American evolution.

Oh, of course. I'm hoping nobody is foolish enough to expect overnight change. Then again, I'm hoping nobody looking for change is foolish enough to just wait, thinking it's just around the corner. Things may change all on their own when the current elder generations die off...it tends to happen. But every day that the injustice continues is a tragedy, so the sooner the better. And I can't help but think the talking can only bring it about sooner. So yes, talking is very good.

[JuanCarlos]

Politically, I neither support nor am I against gay marriage. Since I am not in the military, I defer to their judgment. I do think it is ridiculous to prohibit someone from serving because of sexual orientation. However these two issues are separate and distinct.

Actually, with states starting to allow marriages/civil unions the issues are becoming less separate and distinct. At this point you have gay servicemembers (who are technically allowed to serve under DADT, provided they abstain from homosexual behavior) being prevented from taking advantage of a host of benefits and services that would otherwise be available if they could serve openly. Family medical coverage for spouses, BAH, separation pay, and surviver benefits to name a few.

For those who could otherwise marry their partners, you're looking at significant and very tangible (in dollars) losses.

[Redworm]

As a legal question regarding same sex marriage, how do you define the protected class. If there is no protected class, state law is not subject to strict scrutiny from the court.

Personally, race is a subjective definition, but skin color is clearly objective. Since most people equate skin color with race, we have an objective standard. Religion can be objectively measured. Either you are a member of a particular religion or not. National origin is also objective. Trying to categorize people based on behavior opens the possibility of an endless number of protected classes.

I think that stems from the idea that homosexuality is a choice. In most cases it's simply not. It can be argued that in come cases an individual's environment and upbringing influences that person's sexual orientation but the majority of gays will quickly point out that their feelings are natural and instinctual.

Unfortunately some would claim that it's a disease. All the while ignoring the frequent occurance of homosexuality in virtually every other species. In addition most people tend to ignore the psychology behind gender identity and sexual orientation and still believe that the only classifications are "man/woman" and "gay/straight/bi". Simply not true.

I think my point is that it's not a protected class based on behaviour, it's a protected class based on biology as much as race is. Even those who choose to be gay are no different than those who choose to belong to a certain religion. If religion - which is basically behavious - is a protected class then there's no reason gays that "chose" to be gay should not be given the same consideration.

[Geoff Timm]

The problem is the assumption of "normal" for homosexual acts, which result in "gay bowel syndrome" AIDS and other diseases.

There is also the problem of Homosexual married couples adopting children. The fear of child rape which is usually homosexual in nature. Cross reference support of the North American Man Boy Love Association, by the homosexual community.

In any case marriage is not something the Federal Government should deal with. This should be strictly a State matter, preferably decided by a vote of the people.

There should be differences between the States and moving to a place of your choosing is a freedom.

Geoff
Who notes so many people are engaged in discovering new "RIGHTS" in the constitution. :barf:

[Let it Bleed]

As applied to servicemembers of course the issue is intertwined. That is simply being obtuse. My point is the legal analysis is different.

Regardless of the origen, all sexual activity is a behavior.

[SecDef]

There are certain scenarios that come up that hit to the marrow of the matter..

One is the deathbed. While a living will and normal can put some power into a same sex partner, there is still certain powers that marriage recognizes that can't fixed any other way: while living, the ability to have access to a patient and make medical decisions resides in "direct family members", and while dead, things not covered by a will or trust also fall to family.

These are legal matters that are at best difficult to handle without marriage or civil union.


The dismissal of translators pissed me off. They are critical in a time of war and ESPECIALLY in the role they were in, gender and sexuality didn't mean a thing.. they weren't showering in the front lines making bunkmates uncomfortable or anything.