marriage equality for all americans now

BudMcLovin said:

I don’t think the government has any place in regulating marriage in the first place. Of course I’m a weirdo libertarian so what do I know.

Now before you guys get crazy on me for this next part read it all before reacting. Let it sink in. Homosexual people claim they do not have equal rights because states restrict marriage to be between a man and a woman. Under that law gay and straight people are treated exactly the same. The law doesn’t say that two straight same sex individuals can marry. So straight and gay people can only marry the opposite sex. I’m no legal scholar but that sounds like equal rights.

If I were an activist for gay marriage I would frame it as a cause of personal liberty and freedom of choice. Meaning as an American a person has a basic right to live your life how you want as long as it doesn’t infringe on others basic rights. The 14th amendment should fit the issue quite nicely. I actually just did a case study on Meyer vs. Nebraska anyway here is what the judge had to say in the majority opinion "the 14th amendment denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." If that doesn’t say you have a right to marry whoever you want then I’m a dumbass.

Click to expand...

well i'm glad that you at least get that the 14th amendment should grant all americans equal rights.

that said, your argument before that is flawed.

equal rights means everyone has the same rights. can two heterosexuals enter into marriage? yes. can two homosexuals enter into marriage? no. thus there is not marriage equality.

giving a gay person a right that is useless to them but useful to a heterosexual is not equal in any way.

Amendments don't "grant" rights. If something is "granted" it's a privelege or a license that can be revoked not a right.

BudMcLovin said:

Everyone is treated the same under the law that makes marriage between a man and a woman. Therefore in my eyes it’s not a question of equality, it’s a question of personal liberty. If any of these bans get struck down by the SCOTUS I would bet money on the reason behind it being the 14th amendment and personal liberty not equality.

We just see it differently. I’d also be willing to bet that if the debate was framed as personal liberty debate things would go a lot faster. But hey what do I know I was educated by the government.

Click to expand...

yes, we would both come to mundane agreement on a personal liberty front.

but i still hold to the opinion that your view of equality is flawed. dictating that marriage be between only a man and a woman is discriminatory to a man who would marry a man or a woman who would marry a woman. it is discriminatory to homosexuals since it mandates heterosexuality. that is not equality.

your argument only works if you look at it through the narrow prism that it treats every man and every woman the same. you'd have to ignore the fact that homosexual men and women exist, or in other words, the very thing the debate is about.

i could make a great argument as to what apple tastes best but it would irrelevant to a discussion about oranges.

Maybe their should be 'marriage' like real marriage between a man and a woman done at a church by a priest that recieves tax breaks...and then their could be 'gay marriages' where you can get Gay married ...they could do it in San Francisco they could do it at a Gay bar and have the D.J. preside over the Gay marrige ceremony then everyone can get married. How yo you pro Gay Marriage people feel about polygamy and having multiple wives?

If you can put up with being married to more than one woman be my guest.

beardo said:

How yo you pro Gay Marriage people feel about polygamy and having multiple wives?

Click to expand...

that is the logical extension of this argument. while i am guilty of not being comfortable with it, my only real beef with polygamy is from a sort of financial standpoint. imagine what would happen to our insurance premiums if everyone started having 12 wives all popping out 12 kids on the family plan. it leaves a lot of room for abuse and i have visions of taxpayers with the mop and bucket. if polygamy were legalized these issues among others would need to be addressed in the bill. either way you won't see me on any picket line.

Rob Roy said:

Amendments don't "grant" rights. If something is "granted" it's a privelege or a license that can be revoked not a right.

Click to expand...

This is correct. The Bill of rights on the other hand, affirm God given rights such as lawful assembly, the freedom of speech, etc.

UncleBuck said:

well ,how about this solution: we give the gays full marriage, and heterosexuals only get civil unions. how about that instead? shouldn't that be just as viable an option?

edit - apparently you don't think the solution is equality for all americans. so my proposal that heterosexuals get domestic partnerships and gays get marriage instead keeps with this inequality that we apparently should strive for. also, since gays get discriminated elsewhere more often than heterosexuals, we should make it up to them by giving them full marriage instead of that whole domestic partnership thing. after all, no one is getting hurt either way, right?

Click to expand...

I'm all for that! Actually I believe that all marriages should be for 5 years...with an option to renew the contract for another 5. If no re-new...you can both walk away after dividing up the bills/assets.

Anjinsan said:

I'm all for that! Actually I believe that all marriages should be for 5 years...with an option to renew the contract for another 5. If no re-new...you can both walk away after dividing up the bills/assets.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be better that the terms and the length of the marriage be decided only by the parties involved in it than setting an arbitrary fixed time or what the terms of the marriage will be?

Should the marriage participants also be restricted into what acts they can perform too?

Asking for limited government involvement and expecting that to happen is like jumping off a cliff and thinking you can stop the ascent half way down...it's doesn't work that way.

This topic has baffled me for the past few years. I am from California a state in which i thought for sure would allow gay marriage, i was shocked when it failed even more so over people who even care if gay men or women are allowed to get married. I dont understand how people can work them selfs into a frenzy over this issue. You have religious people who condemn a group of humans for what they do behind closed doors or who it is with. The same religious people talk about it being a SIN or the Devil's work or even condemn such people to hell for loving someone of the same sex. Why do they even care? Have any of these religious people even looked into the history of their own religion? Its a Sin to love someone of the same sex But last time i checked so is killing another human. I guess when the line was drawn in the dirt on what one is allowed to over look when it comes to their own religious beliefs the line must have a lot of turns.

Gay men or Women wanting to get married and share their lives with each other has 0 impact on me being able to wake up in the morning, go to work, come home, take a shower and eat some dinner. the only question i have for the people who dont think its ok is this.... Why is it a Sin for men and women to love someone of the same sex in a romantic way..... but its not a Sin for a religious man or women to go to war and kill another human? Are we to turn the other cheek when it comes to killing only because our country says its ok??

Thank "God" they could use the same sperm donor so he could have a full blooded sister...
Anyone else find the hidden irony in that statement of gratitude the young laddy made? Anyone else out there smart enough to read between those lines?

Nowto the credit of his physical gay parent; it sounds like she at least sought out an intelligent sperm donor to introduce some brains into her family genetics... I say bravo to her!

No haters, please-
I dont care who wants to be with who, its their lives, and all have a right to live how they choose; but an actual "marriage" is for a man and woman since it is the only "natural" way to conceive any child and continue on any genetic lineages without artificial help from others....

Contrary to my "assumed" position so far in this debate; I am not against gay partnerships at all.

In fact, I say that when gays can procreate by themselves, for themselves, and without any artificial aids (or a soaking of our insurances) then they can accurately define it as a marriage; until then they are in a domestic partnership, or whatever other politically correct word they choose to make up to support their own idealogies.

Here are a few ideas for em:

They should start new forms of businesses to evolve with domestic partnership chapels, and perhaps even their own coined word to use for themselves instead of distorting the traditional "marriage" language or the idealogies it is currently associated with.

Perhaps even create homo insurance companies instead of the traditional hmo's that the rest of us are stuck with. lol

Hell, they can even create their own vowed ringsets with a pair of pussies or a few sacks of balls on em to strut around with. lol

I wont be offended in the least, and would enjoy the humors that could be found through it's manifesting.

These new businesses could/would thrive, but why steal words from an institution they do not ideologically agree with to begin with?

Other than that, I dont like it any more than you do...

i'll give my answer at the voting both.

Sparky4u said:

...an actual "marriage" is for a man and woman since it is the only "natural" way to conceive any child and continue on any genetic lineages without artificial help from others.....

Click to expand...

by your logic then, post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry since they have no way to conceive a child.

by your logic, any person with a reproductive issue making them incapable of "natural" reproduction should not be allowed to marry.

by your logic, any person who was the victim of horrible physical abuse and can not conceive should not be allowed to marry.

by your logic, any couple that can't conceive naturally and has to resort to in vitro should have their marriage license revoked. should they also have to redo their taxes retroactively?



the sad and pathetic thing is, you think you are smart.

on the bright side, haters like yourself are on the way out.

soon enough, equal rights will extend to all americans, not just those fertile enough to conceive.

Sparky4u said:

Nowto the credit of his physical gay parent; it sounds like she at least sought out an intelligent sperm donor to introduce some brains into her family genetics... I say bravo to her!

No haters, please-

Click to expand...

so, you have never met this person's parents, you only know that they are gay, yet somehow you are able to conclude that they are unintelligent?

the sad and pathetic thing is, you think YOU are smart

fdd2blk said:

i'll give my answer at the voting both.

Click to expand...

the way i feel about it was best summed up by the judge who overturned the prop 8 outcome:

"fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections" - judge vernon walker

UncleBuck said:

the way i feel about it was best summed up by the judge who overturned the prop 8 outcome:

"fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections" - judge vernon walker

Click to expand...

marriage is still illegal in california. in case you missed the memo.

fdd2blk said:

marriage is still illegal in california. in case you missed the memo.

Click to expand...

yeah, thank you california for being so awesome.

god forbid those gays get equal rights to marriage as the rest of us. that would surely trigger the apocalypse.

UncleBuck said:

yeah, thank you california for being so awesome.

god forbid those gays get equal rights to marriage as the rest of us. that would surely trigger the apocalypse.

Click to expand...

when marriage was "invented", it was invented with the intent of where it stands today. why are gays so insistent on changing that? i strongly believe they NEED the word "marriage" to feel equally accepted. it comes across to me as nothing but whiny.

"by your logic then, post-menopausal women should not be allowed to marry since they have no way to conceive a child.

by your logic, any person with a reproductive issue making them incapable of "natural" reproduction should not be allowed to marry.

by your logic, any person who was the victim of horrible physical abuse and can not conceive should not be allowed to marry.

by your logic, any couple that can't conceive naturally and has to resort to in vitro should have their marriage license revoked. should they also have to redo their taxes retroactively?"

NO, Those are your assumptions, not mine.

I gave credit towards a good decision of the biological parent, do not distort or mince my words.

I am only as smart as you, and will never claim any different....

Since you enjoy mincing words, heres one back at ya:

By your logic- you probably also support a beastiality styled marriage as well, huh mr equality?

For such a holy union, perhaps you should consider matching eartags for both you and your spouse so we at least know you have been innoculated...