ScratchMonkey

Why heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to breed:

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox...ailed-ged.html

__________________

Kerostasis

Well, now you're getting into the legal grounds of the case, which is something else entirely. Certainly it's difficult to justify bringing up morals when discussing the legal standing of the case -- however, it is equally difficult to justify calling the opposition toothless ignoramuses while discussing the legal standing of the case. And if you'll recall, your original comment was made in that context.

From a moral standpoint, there is a significant portion of the country that thinks it is immoral to allow gays to be married, and a significant portion that thinks it is immoral to prevent gays from being married. Both segments tend to view the other with derision.

From a legal standpoint, there are plenty of reasonable people with differing views on whether upholding equality demands overturning California law, and in fact nearly half of the supreme court was on the other side of the fence. 4-3 decision remember. From this standpoint there is no justification for calling the other side names over their viewpoint -- constitutional law is a tricky subject.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

This is where I advocate requiring super-majorities to pass law. Since there are significant populations on both sides of the issue, no law should exist.

__________________

CingularDuality

You'll not hear me call anyone a name because of their opinion. Well, not very often, anyway...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Buckets

If the toothless ignoramus comment needs more explanation, I view homophobics in pretty much the same light as I do racists (or pretty much any other bigot for that matter). Both are narrow world views borne from ignorance and small-mindedness. In the case of those who actually think that there should be laws governing who consenting adults should marry, I see you as no better than someone like George Wallace who sought to perpetrate ignorance and discrimination through legislation. The fact that the idea of two people of the same gender offends your religious morals should have absolutely nothing to do with the laws of this country because your religion (and everyone else's religion) has no place in our laws.

__________________
The artist formerly known as "pecker"

Sarcoma

UPDATE:

My week sucked due to "an unexpected increase in unplanned work absences." My wife and I are shopping for our first wedding invite.

That didn’t take long.

Sarcoma

__________________
Sarcoma.

leejo

I don't think polygamy and same-sex marriage are really all that similar. The state's interest here is in the contractual relationship between two individuals such that they share property, file taxes, etc. If 100 adults want to run around naked on a farm and grease each other up for happy fun time, that is none of the state's business. If they run around calling themselves married, then the state has an interest because of the legal implications.

There is language in the constitution that means, some have successfully argued, that the state cannot on the one hand sanction my marriage to a woman but on the other hand deny the benefits of marriage to me and my spouse just because my chosen mate is a man any more than the state could legally refuse to recognize my marriage to a catholic or a muslim, a black woman or a white woman. To my knowledge, there is nothing in the constitution that compels the state to recognize my marriage to 50 people if they recognize my marriage to one person.

I've said before that I don't have a problem with same-sex couples enjoying the same legal status as married couples, but I also don't think it's right for the state to appropriate and redefine religious ceremonies in a manner that is offensive to those religions. I cannot believe that many muslims are thrilled about this ruling. I doubt many catholics are thrilled either (and I mean the sort of catholics who attend mass and believe that the Pope's word means something, not all you poor souls who are catholic because your momma was catholic and who never attend mass and probably even use contraception - shame on you!). There are other religious groups who also have issues with homosexuality.

I may agree or disagree with those religions, but I hope we can all agree that one true thing about the 1st amendment is that if basically prohibits the government from being hostile to a religious group. Remember the Mayflower?

I think a better compromise is the civil union idea, but not just for homosexuals. For everyone. Get the government out of "marriage" and into "civil unions" and we have a compromise that no-one likes. Perfect!

So I think it's fine for any two adults to enter into this contractual arrangement, but I'm not thrilled to have the State horn in on ancient religious ceremonies, and I especially don't like that the State has done this via an activist court. If there were significant support for this move in legislatures, I would be less concerned. This is why I'm curious to see if an when the SCOTUS weighs in. I think they'll duck this as long as possible since the majority are conservative and probably don't think this is an appropriate issue for courts to insinuate themselves.

Further, I don't really believe that there are significant legal issues involved. I see this much more as court-enforced social engineering than relief for any real legal issue. I think that this has more to do with the effort to normalize homosexuality than with anything else, and whether or not I personally support that idea doesn't mean that I also think the courts are the appropriate device for changing society in this manner.

I also think it's DUMB or dishonest or just lazy to imply that anyone who disagrees with this ruling is a bigot.

In the meantime I'm happy for my gay friends.

GlobalWarmin

Same Sex Couples Common in the Wild
http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...y-animals.html

ScratchMonkey

Precisely. Any attempt to declare what "marriage" is is an intrusion into religion, and violates the 1st.

But what's the actual point of "civil union"? As I see it, it's inheritance and insurance. Property transfer. You don't need to specify gender or number of participants to establish which contracts will be upheld. Just look at the family in the other thread with 18 kids. There's no cutoff in the law for kids past 4, for example. So why should there be a cutoff for parents past 2? (For those of you who are parents, did you ever wish you had more than 2 co-parents so you could spread the load?)

__________________

leejo

Look at the Terri Schiavo case.

Cing has correctly pointed out that some states have power of attorney laws and other states have durable power of attorney laws. There is a very big difference between the two. A durable power of attorney agreement I have with another continues even if I become unable to make decisions - imagine if I were burned severely or in a coma. Don't tell me you haven't!

If we only have a power of attorney (TX has no durable power of atty law on the books, I don't think), then our agreement ends when I become unable to make my own decisions. So in the above coma scenario, my parents, not my spouse Edward, would have the final say in determining whether or not to pull the proverbial plug. In Texas we don't pull a plug, we use an old claw hammer and a merciful thwack!

As a practical matter, if I am married to someone, we have a durable power of attorney agreement in any state. This is a rough analogy so be gentle fellow sea lawyers...

Congress, far from bravely leading the way to spread liberty to these same-sex couples, has bravely run away from the issue. A federal "civil union" durable power of attorney law would immediately end this debate. Civilly. Maybe a few smart folks can think of a way to challenge that hypothetical law but I fail to see why congress couldn't pass that and make it stick. Would Bush sign it? I dunno. Some of you might be surprised. Some of us might be disappointed.

ScratchMonkey

I just figured we were both in a coma and this forum was our version of the Matrix. (We're in the special "curmudgeon Matrix".)

Nice illustration with PoA. I suspect too many objectors get worked up about people "exchanging fluids" but it's really issues like this that are the important ones.

__________________

leejo

If I ever wake up I will beat the snot out of the people running this damn thing then. This should involve a lot less work, a lot more people in white jackets fetching me mojitos from the beachside cabana, and so many underage Brazillian models that even Mick Jagger would feel inadequate to the task.

ScratchMonkey

Since I'm older (by almost a decade), I'll hold your coat. Go get 'em, sonny!

__________________

El_Gringo_Grande

I was listening to a pod cast the other day and from what they said the major problem is that there are thousands of laws/regulations/statutes that use the term marriage/married at all levels of the government.

Someone asked if simply making a law that that puts a "civil union" on the same legal standing of marriage would be good enough. For example "from hear on out 'marriage' and 'civil union' are one and the same."

One of the lawyers pointed out doing that wouldn't really be possible. The law suites would fly like crazy and a law like that could easily be repealed. The reason it is so important to have same sex marriage recognized is the simple reason that it is not new law that can be easily fought. Marriage carries very significant weight and it becomes very difficult to leagally discriminate once it is recognized.

The fact is a "civil union" just doesn't cut it when the goal is to stop discriminate. Just like "Separate but equal" didn't.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

CingularDuality

That is exactly the problem. People take the word "marriage" for granted all the time, until it's time to talk about whether it can apply to a couple of gay dudes. Then, all of a sudden, everyone notices.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran: