If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2657
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7542 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2657 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | » | Last
 
  2010-06-06 11:17:20 AM
Well here's what I think about that. Person A has a RIGHT to refuse to allow Person B to do something that negatively affects Person A. The marriage of Harry and Larry doesn't affect you.

i50.tinypic.com

Besides the "eww, that's creepy" factor, there is a genetic issue involved with reproduction between close family members that separates it from this discussion.
 
  2010-06-06 11:56:41 AM
This is not a bookmark
 
  2010-06-06 04:09:14 PM
Well Herb the marriage of Jack and Jill Smith does not affect you.

And as I have pointed out before, there are all sorts of examples of people getting married and never having children. Both of my brothers are married and neither one of them have children nor will either of them have children. Marriage does not equate reproduction.

And if you are going to say it is OK for the government to ban marriages that may result in genetic defects if they were to reproduce you could end up banning all sorts of marriages because there are all sorts of genetic defects that can be passed on to children.
 
  2010-06-06 05:58:03 PM
I completely agree with you.

In other words, I don't care if Jack and Jill Smith get married.

How about that?
 
  2010-06-07 07:50:37 PM
Another way to indicate the logical distance between homosexual relationships and PIB relationships is to point out that PIB (polygamy/incest/bestiality) relationships can be either homosexual or heterosexual. Proponents of the PIB challenge must therefore explain why they group PIB relationships with homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones.
 
  2010-06-08 05:10:06 PM
All I am doing Soup4Bonnie is giving examples of other minority couples who may wish to get married and wondering if those who say gays have a "right" to get married feel the same for the other minority couples out there. If you say that society has the power to prevent some couples from getting married, then it also has the power to prevent other couples from getting married as well.
 
  2010-06-09 02:57:06 PM
All three courts invoke both due process and equal protection. The Massachusetts court notes that the two guarantees frequently "overlap, as they do here." They all agree that the right to marry is an individual liberty right that also involves an equality component: a group of people can't be fenced out of that right without a very strong governmental justification.

How strong? Here the states diverge. The Massachusetts court held that the denial of same-sex marriages fails to pass even the rational basis test. The California and Connecticut courts, by contrast, held that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, analogizing sexual orientation to gender.

What state interests lie on the other side? The California and Connecticut opinions examine carefully the main contenders, concluding that none rises to the level of a compelling interest. Preserving tradition all by itself cannot be such an interest: "the justification of 'tradition' does not explain the classification, it just repeats it." Nor can discrimination be justified simply on the grounds that legislators have strong convictions. None of the other preferred policy considerations (the familiar ones we have already identified) stands up as sufficiently strong.
 
  2010-06-10 02:11:57 PM
Hello... I am going to try to start posting here a lot.

I know you don't care, but I am saying it anyways...

/hi
 
  2010-06-12 11:11:19 PM
I understand Soup4Bonnie that some courts have ruled in favor of gay marriage. That does not mean that their ruling is right. The whole "equal protection" argument is flawed. You say it is wrong to not allow two men to marry. Yet states all have different laws about who can or cannot get married. Some states say that you can get married at one age while other states say you can get married at a different age. Some states say that you can marry someone who is closer related to you than you could marry in a different state.

Since marriage is not covered by The US Constitution, the 10th Amendment leaves it up to the States to define.

Each State has defined marriage the way that they want. And EVERYONE (gays or straight) are allowed to do the same thing. A straight man is allowed to marry a woman who is not already married to another man and who is not related to him. A gay man is allowed to do the same thing. Just because the gay man wants to marry a man does not mean he has a right to.

The law says I can only legally drive 65mph while going down the interstate. Just because I want to drive 90mph does not mean I am having my rights violated by the slower speed limits.

A gay man can marry a woman. Just because he wants to marry a man does not mean his rights are violated.

And again...

IF it is OK for the government to ban certain types of marriages then it is OK for the government to ban other types of marriages.
 
  2010-06-13 04:01:02 PM
dottedmint: IF it is OK for the government to ban certain types of marriages...

It isn't. It's none of anyone's business but the people involved. The one obvious thing lacking in arguments against certain types of marriage is a rational explanation of why they shouldn't be allowed.

I've made it quite clear that I have no respect for backward legislation. It's time for a lot of people to start minding their own affairs and stay out of matters that don't concern them. Tradition or so-called moral objections alone do not qualify as good reasons to block someone's pursuit of happiness. Period.
 
  2010-06-14 01:45:15 PM
Question: Is Marriage a Civil Right?

Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.
 
  2010-06-14 09:21:33 PM
How many times have we gone over the whole "equal protection" issue? Posting another link to it does not somehow make it more legit.

A straight man is allowed to marry an adult woman who is not already married and who is not related to him.

A gay man is allowed to marry an adult woman who is not already married and who is not related to him.

A gay man is allowed to do the same thing that a straight man can.

With the interacial marriage a black man was not allowed to do the same thing that a white man was allowed to. This is how it violated the "equal protection" issue.

And Herb can you define marriage? Who can get married to who? Are there ANY couples that should not be allowed to marry?

Should a bisexual man be allowed to marry a man AND a woman?

After all would it not violate his "right" not to allow him to marry both a man and woman? He can't help it that he is attracted to both a man and a woman.
 
  2010-06-14 09:43:55 PM
Olson will try to repeat the performance Wednesday in a federal courthouse in San Francisco. He will present closing arguments in a potentially groundbreaking trial in which Olson and his political odd-couple partner David Boies -- his Democratic rival in Bush v. Gore -- are asking a federal judge to overturn Prop 8, with which California voters limited marriage to a man and a woman. The suit says that violates the U.S. Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses.

It is the first stop in what is likely to be a years-long, historic journey to the Supreme Court, the Brown v. Board of Education for the gay rights movement.

...

He describes the recognition of the right to marry as a natural progression of the court's precedents. Twelve times, "dating to 1888," the court has recognized marriage as a fundamental right, he said. Add to that the court's 1967 decision in Loving v. Virginia that state laws limiting marriage to people of the same race were unconstitutional.
 
  2010-06-14 09:47:32 PM
dottedmint: Are there ANY couples that should not be allowed to marry?

No.
 
  2010-06-14 10:08:46 PM
dottedmint: Herb can you define marriage?

I know what it means to me but I can't speak for anyone else. It's a personal, private bond that has different meanings for different people.

Which is the exact reason why it should be off limits to the government.
 
  2010-06-16 08:52:46 AM
Again Bonnie I've gone over the whole "equal protection" issue before. The law says a gay man can do the exact same thing that a straight man can. Just because the gay man doesn't want to do that does not mean his rights are violated. Just because I want to drive 90 MPH down the highway does not mean I have a "right" to do that.

And Herb I still want to know what you think "marriage" is, or at least what you think it SHOULD be. Should there even be laws about marriage? Or... Should people just say "OK. We are married" I know you say that it is a "private bond" but since it is a legal status set up by the states it isn't exactly "private". Sure. The emotional bond that is there is private but the legal status isn't.

And I still would like to know if a bisexual man should be allowed to marry BOTH a man and woman. Since he is attracted to both why should he be forced to limit himself to one or the other?
 
  2010-06-16 01:14:26 PM
dottedmint: Again Bonnie I've gone over the whole "equal protection" issue before. The law says a gay man can do the exact same thing that a straight man can. Just because the gay man doesn't want to do that does not mean his rights are violated. Just because I want to drive 90 MPH down the highway does not mean I have a "right" to do that.

And Herb I still want to know what you think "marriage" is, or at least what you think it SHOULD be. Should there even be laws about marriage? Or... Should people just say "OK. We are married" I know you say that it is a "private bond" but since it is a legal status set up by the states it isn't exactly "private". Sure. The emotional bond that is there is private but the legal status isn't.

And I still would like to know if a bisexual man should be allowed to marry BOTH a man and woman. Since he is attracted to both why should he be forced to limit himself to one or the other?


Full legal and documented marriage for anybody and everybody.

Now I believe I've answered all important questions.
 
  2010-06-16 09:38:08 PM
Unofficial transcripts to the closing arguments presented today in Perry V. Schwarzenegger here.
 
  2010-06-17 07:16:51 PM
Herb "Full legal and documented marriage for anybody and everybody."

So anyone can marry anyone? Any age limits? What would be the legal age of marriage? What would be the point of marriage? What would be any benefits of marriage? Why would people get married?

And I still have not seen you tell me if a bisexual man could marry both a man and a woman.

And Bonnie, does the closing argument have any argument that you have not already made in here? If not, there is no reason for me to read it. I've responded to every argument that you have made in here. If they have some new argument that I have not seen in here I would be happy to read it.
 
  2010-06-17 10:28:14 PM
dottedmint: So anyone can marry anyone? Any age limits? What would be the legal age of marriage? What would be the point of marriage? What would be any benefits of marriage? Why would people get married?

People get married for their own reasons. I don't know why you're so obsessed with rules of marriage, or why you and others seem to have a need to interfere with it. You haven't answered that question, and I'm beginning to doubt that you will.
 
  2010-06-21 11:53:36 PM
dottedmint: So anyone can marry anyone? Any age limits? What would be the legal age of marriage? What would be the point of marriage? What would be any benefits of marriage? Why would people get married?

The traditional purpose of marriage has been to transfer property. This can occur at the time of marriage and/or at time of death. The marriage dictates who has control over the property when the person who owns it becomes incapacitated.

as far as age limits: marriage is a contract, only adults over 18 can sign contracts, so only adults can marry.
 
  2010-06-23 06:57:55 AM
Crocodilly_Pontifex "marriage is a contract"

Exactly, and you do not need to get married to set up a contract.

I don't need to marry someone to set up a contract with them that says, "who has control over the property when the person who owns it becomes incapacitated".

So why marriage?
 
  2010-06-25 08:38:26 PM
dottedmint: So why marriage?

Have you never listened to women?
 
  2010-07-03 06:36:14 PM
I'm always up to debate any other issue if people are tired of debating gay marriage.

Anyone?

Anyone?
 
  2010-07-08 05:07:32 PM
In one challenge brought by the state of Massachusetts, Judge Joseph Tauro ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married. In the other, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, he ruled DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
 
  2010-07-09 05:13:44 PM
"took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married"

OK. So it is up to the states to decide what is or what is not marriage. My state decided that marriage is one man and one woman. So according to this judge, it is within the right of my state to say that marriage is only between one man and one woman. That's been my argument from the beginning.

So should my state be forced to recognize a same sex marriage from Massachusetts?

If so, why?
 
  2010-07-09 09:51:49 PM
dottedmint: My state decided that marriage is one man and one woman.



It doesn't matter how many people vote on this issue. The fact remains:


imgboot.com

When are you going to get it?
 
  2010-07-09 10:41:26 PM
Things I did not know that I learned from reading the Gill v Office of Personnel Management decision:

For example, a thirteen year-old female and a fourteen year-old male, who have the consent of their parents, can obtain a valid marriage license in the state of New Hampshire. Though this court knows of no other state in the country that would sanction such a marriage, the federal government recognizes it as valid simply because New Hampshire has declared it to be so.

...

Similarly, the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") entitles federal employees, who are considered married for federal purposes, to twelve weeks of unpaid leave in order to care for a spouse who has a serious health condition or because of any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that a spouse is on active military duty. But because DOMA dictates that the word "spouse", as used in the above-referenced immigration and FMLA provisions, refers only to a husband or wife of the opposite sex, these significant non-pecuniary
federal rights are denied to same-sex married couples.
 
  2010-07-11 07:18:00 PM
And when are you going to get it Herb that since it is up to society to decide what is and is not considered marriage, and since I am a part of society, it is my business.

I do not care what concenting adults do but marriage is a legal definition that is established by each state.

As the judge that Bonnie linked to said, it is "the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married".

My state decided that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

And Bonnie, in some states a 14 year old girl is not allowed to get married even with parents consent. Should those states be forced to recognize the marriage of a 14 year old girl from some other state?

And I'll ask you again Bonnie,

So should my state be forced to recognize a same sex marriage from Massachusetts?

If so, why?

Oh and correct me if I'm wrong, but did Massachusetts not decide that marriage was only going to be between ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN but the law that the state had decided upon was overturned by one judge that thought he knew better than what the people of the state had wanted?

So much for the idea of allowing the state to decide "which couples can be considered married".
 
  2010-07-12 11:29:47 AM
dottedmint: And when are you going to get it Herb that since it is up to society to decide what is and is not considered marriage, and since I am a part of society, it is my business.

You and everybody else who believes that are going to have to get over it. People used to think they could ban interracial marriage too. The arguments based on tradition and so-called moral objections are being steadily discarded by the courts. You may as well give it up now. Gay marriage will be legal nationwide before you know it. Good luck with that.
 
  2010-07-12 04:56:23 PM
Herb, I've gone over the difference between the interracial marriage bans and the gay marriage bans so many times.

With the interracial marriage bans a white man would be allowed to marry a white woman but a black man would not be allowed to marry the same woman. This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of The US Constitution because the black man is not allowed to do the same thing that the white man is allowed to do.

With gay marriage bans a straight man is allowed to marry a woman and a gay man is also allowed to marry the same woman. He may not want to marry that woman but he is allowed to marry the same woman that a straight man is allowed to marry. There is no violation of the equal protection clause because both the gay man and the straight man are allowed to do the same thing... marry a woman.

Also, can you name one state that has passed a law that allows gay marriage?

Just curious.
 
  2010-07-12 05:11:58 PM
dottedmint: Also, can you name one state that has passed a law that allows gay marriage?

No. I can name eight, plus Washington D.C. In Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., marriages for same-sex couples are legal and currently performed. In New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland, same-sex marriages are recognized, but not performed.

If you're going to deny someone liberty and pursuit of happiness, you'd better have a better reason than "that's not the way we've always done it" or "it's just offensive."

What the hell is your reason anyway?
 
  2010-07-13 05:08:06 PM
Actually Herb not all of those states passed laws allowing gay marriage. In some of those cases the people of the state said marriage is only between one man and one woman and a judge said he knew better. This is why many states have gone to amending their state constitution (30 of them from what I can find) to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. A state supreme court can't say that their constittuion is unconstituional.

It is up to each individual state to decide how they are going to define marriage.

If you want gay marriage to be legal, you need to change how society feels about the issue. If my state passed a law that said gays can marry, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But right now, my state is one of the 30 that amended its constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman. This does not violate anyone rights. This does not somehow violate The US Constitution. I've gone over the whole "equal protection" argument. A gay man is allowed to do the same thing a straight man is allowed to do. It is not my fault that he does not want to do that.

And once again, since it is up to society to define marriage and since I am part of society, it is my business.
 
  2010-07-13 08:38:50 PM
Well dottedmint, you can believe whatever you want. None of you DOMA people can give a reason against gay marriage that doesn't fall back on tradition or "morality." Passing laws and amendments based on this archaic whimsy is nothing less than pathetic in 2010.

If you're against gay marriage, then don't do it. Really, it is as simple as that. If and when you and others finally realize that it isn't any of your business just because you think it is, the world will be a better place. Until then, you are all contemptible as human beings. What a sad, sad bunch.
 
  2010-07-13 09:15:03 PM
Oh, and yes I know that a recent poll showed that 70% of Americans are against same-sex marriage. I also know that a 2002 poll revealed that most Americans believed Iraq was involved in 9/11.

I lost all faith in societal intelligence long ago so I have zero respect for the "opinion of the masses."
 
  2010-07-14 09:19:58 AM
I have no doubt Herb that at some point in the future same sex marriage will be accepted by society. Maybe it will be in my lifetime, maybe not. I don't really know. But it is up to soiciety to decide.

All I know is that at this point in history, there are 30 states that have constitutional amendments that ban same sex marriage.

Just because you think marriage should be defined in a certain way does not mean that society agrees with you.

And I'll ask again,

Should my state be forced to recognize same sex marriages from other states? If so, why?
 
  2010-07-14 09:26:03 AM
I've often wondered how many people who think gay marriage is some sort of constitutional right also think it is perfectly acceptable to place limits on the second amendment, or the first amendment, or any of the amendments.
 
  2010-07-14 11:49:26 AM
I'm not answering any more questions until I get a good reason why same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal. So in other words, I'm not answering any more questions.
 
  2010-07-14 12:28:32 PM
Sigh...

Because society does not want it to be legal, at least not in my state (and at least 29 others) it doesn't.

I'm sorry, but it is as simple as that.

Since it is society (in each individual state) that defines marriage the only thing you can do is try to get society to change how they define marriage.

Same sex marriage is not a right. I'm sorry but it is not.

If you think it should be, fine. Get the states to change their constitutions to say same sex marriage is a right.

Society has said that a man should not be able to marry his sister.

Some may say that a man should be able to marry his sister, but until you get society to change how they define marriage it is not allowed.

One mistake that you seem to be making is assuming that I am against gay marriage. I'm not. As I've said before, if my state were to change the law and say that gays can marry, I'd be fine with that. What I am against is some judge saying that he knows better than what society wants. I'm sorry but there is no issue with the "equal protection" clause of The US Constittuion. I've been over that many times.

I sorry but I have yet to see a legal argument in favor of gay marriage that I can not respond to.

Show me a right that is being violated.

Show me a legal reason why gays should be allowed to marry.

You may think it is the right thing to do and that is fine but just because you think it is the right thing to do does not mean it is a right.
 
  2010-07-14 01:27:21 PM
Rights are automatic and all things are legal until they are made illegal or until the right is revoked. Originally, murder was OK until laws were established against it, correct? Therefore, it should be incumbent on those opposed to something to establish reasons to outlaw it.

Well? I'm waiting.
 
  2010-07-14 03:18:17 PM
I'm sorry Herb but you are probaly going to be waiting for a long time because I cannot speak for society. I do not know why the people of my state (or the other 29 states) voted in favor of a gay marriage ban but they did. Each person probably had different reasons for their vote and I have never done a poll of the voters to find out their reasons.

But as I have said repeatedly it is up to society to define marriage. In 30 (at least) states it is defined as a union between one man and one woman. It does not say that a man can marry his sister. It does not say that a man can marry more than one woman. It does not say that a man can marry another man.

Do you have reasons to not allow a man to marry his sister or more than one woman?

If I am remembering correctly you feel that basically marriage is anything anyone wants and that anyone can marry anyone they want. I don't recall how you felt about a man marrying more than one woman... or a man marrying a man and a woman.

And for the record, I don't recall when murder was ever thought of as "OK".
 
  2010-07-14 03:37:59 PM
When I said anybody, I meant anybody.

dottedmint: And for the record, I don't recall when murder was ever thought of as "OK".

You've heard of the death penalty.
 
  2010-07-14 04:28:50 PM
Um Herb, there is a difference between murder and the death penalty.

Murder is the unlawful taking of another humans life.

The death penalty is a legal taking of another humans life as a form of punishment for a crime.

And I am sorry that I did not recall your stance on the other forms of marriage.

You feel that a man has a right to marry his sister, mother, brother, father (whatever).

You feel that a man has a right to marry 10 different women.

You feel that a man has a right to marry 10 different women and 10 different men.

Ok. Fine. Get society to agree with you and change how marriage is defined.
 
  2010-07-14 05:22:10 PM
dottedmint: Um Herb, there is a difference between murder and the death penalty.

Only in the words used for them. I do know that a coroner checks the box marked Homicide on an executed person's death certificate. Well now, we can all rest easier with the knowledge that at least we didn't murder someone. Haahaha
 
  2010-07-14 05:35:42 PM
Also, interestingly, you will never hear someone who is pro-capital punishment use the word kill when referring to an execution. I guess it's not even that, either.
 
  2010-07-15 01:20:47 AM
In terms of gay marriage, the critical issue thus becomes the level of scrutiny that laws affecting gays and lesbians should receive. Are gays, like racial minorities, considered a "suspect" class in terms of constitutional law? Does the court rigorously scrutinize laws impacting them? Or do laws that create classifications based on sexual orientation receive a lesser degree of vigilance, like those based on age? Should the courts then apply the lowest level of scrutiny, the rational basis test? Or do they impose an intermediate standard like the one used to examine laws incorporating gender classifications?


This court need not address these arguments, however, because DOMA fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test. As set forth in detail below, this court is convinced that "there exists no fairly conceivable set of facts that could ground a rational relationship between DOMA and a legitimate government objective. DOMA, therefore, violates core constitutional principles of equal protection.

---District Judge Joseph Louis Tauro, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management
 
  2010-07-15 07:20:39 PM
Nice to see you throw a bone in now and then Soup.

/heh. "bone"
/soupbone
 
  2010-07-15 08:41:50 PM
Soup4Bonnie: fails to pass constitutional muster even under the highly deferential rational basis test.


img1.fark.net
 
  2010-07-16 11:27:14 PM
Um... Guys. They are talking DOMA, not states defining marriage the way that they want.

What is unconstitutional about my state saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Even the one judge that Bonnie (at least I think it was Bonnie) linked to said that defining marriage was up to the states.

My state says marriage is between one man and one woman. Why should my state be forced to recognize a marriage from some other state?
 
  2010-07-17 01:37:22 AM
dottedmint, states can attempt to make any laws they want, but they cannot trump federal laws or bypass US Constitutional standards. Perhaps you should pay attention to the latest proceedings in the higher courts and read them carefully.

The rational basis test is, as I have said numerous times:

Give me a good reason.

There is no good reason.
 
Displayed 50 of 2657 comments

First | « | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report