Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Internment camps are constitutional. Not sure it would be up to referendum it would be a national security issue a function of the executive branch.
A society has every right to define its social institutions. Despite the best efforts of the gay lobby the voters of California decided that marriage is between one man and one woman as it has been for 6000 years or so.
Two liberal judges don't get to out vote millions of citizens. SCOTUS will get it right in due time though.
What part of the majority has never been able to decide the rights of the minority do you not understand? Why do you think that mob rule is okay?
And did you seriously just say that what we did to the Japanese in the US during WWII was fine?
Marriage is defined in this country as between one man and one woman. No adult is denied the opportunity to enter into a marriage. I'm not seeing the 14th amendment violation.
What gays seek is to redefine marriage. Fine that needs to be done legislatively as it has been done in a few states in DC already.
I disagree with gay marriage but if the residents of these states as expressed through their legislators want to define marriage that way so be it.
What I do object to is the tossing out of a legally sanctioned and executed referendum by two jurists on the flimsiest of rationales.
You're right I don't know what will happen but if SCOTUS takes the case I'm confident it will be overturned.
In Virginia prior to 1967, marriage was defined as being between one race and a member of the same race. It was equally as unconstitutional, as the ruling Loving v. Virginia found.
The residents of Virginia liked their law too.
Quote:
This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
...
Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose.
...
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [n11] We have consistently denied [p12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.
...
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.
I would like to see historical evidence of that. Find a link.
Try Google. Seriously, I've already educated myself, why don't you try it? I find that people actually being forced to look up information for themselves is far more effective than just being told. The real question is whether or not you will even bother.
I would like to see your scientific evidence that proves that races exist, therefore "interracial marriage" should have been prohibited.
What?
Suffrage.
Um, yes, and before that, what was the position of the majority on womens' right to vote?
None of yours are either.
Yes, because your devastating arguments have clearly shown that
I'm not religious, I use science and logic to support my beliefs on homosexual marriage.
It's absolutely impossible to support an anti-gay stance with science and logic. Science does not support taking an arbitrary anti-gay stance, and it certainly has no bearing on the marriage aspect. Can you explain how you are using science in your position?
You do know there are court cases rejecting the argument that bans on ssm violate the constitution. I figure you believe those decisions were based on bigotry, hate, stupidity, not solid legal reasoning...
Without knowing the arguments being made, I can't possibly have an opinion on that.
I will say that know justification that I've heard is based on anything other than tradition, religious beliefs or bigotry of some sort.
Uh-oh, that bolded bit really comes across as seeing homosexuals as "less than". Otherwise, why would your perceived kinship be offensive?
Honestly, I find the apparent cognitive dissonance on the part of ANY minority and their rights vs. the rights of a different minority group to be quite confusing. This would include blacks and gays, BTW.
Honestly, the perception I have is that since most black folks are pretty strong in their faith, whatever faith that is, that it is that religious belief that makes them want to divorce their struggle with the struggles of the gay community. Right or wrong, that's my perception.
Thoughts?
By kinship I mean that I find that gays who use the "black card" are pretending to have some kind of kinship with blacks when they really don't. However, we're an easy and useful pawn when using us fits your agenda. And yes, I find that offensive.
Again, you and I are having different arguments. I'm not for anyone being denied their rights. To do that would be a smack in the face to all of the people who fought and died for blacks to get our civil rights. I just believe that these rights should not hinge on being married. But I fully support civil unions being seen as equal in the eyes of the law.
Yes, many blacks are religious. And therein lies the reason for the disagreement with gay marriage. However, I would wager that most blacks are like I am. While we don't agree with it (some for religious beliefs), we aren't going to march in the streets against it. At best, we'll simply shake our heads when/if gay marriage is allowed.
There is no reason to have any sort of divorce re: the gay struggle. Unless you are gay and black, the gay struggle is not a struggle that is shared with blacks. It is NOT an equal comparison. And honestly, considering the history of blacks in the US, I find the need or compulsion to make the comparison HIGHLY insulting and offensive.
...I believe that gays are focusing their efforts in an ineffective way. Stop focusing so much on being allowed to marry and focus on the RIGHTS. Fight to have civil unions be awarded the full and equal rights of traditional marriages...
What makes you feel that "marriage" is owned by some entity and/or is beyond the ability to be modified?
Certainly you realize that the concept of marriage predates the Abrahamic religions, right?
I can't stand the gays and the supporters using interracial marriages as a crux for their arguments. Interracial marriage was never banned on the federal level and a minority of states did so.
The difference between the interracial ban and the illegality of gay marriage is that Blacks and others could not enter into the institution of marriage with the partners of their choice.
Gays seek to redefine marriage big difference.
Interracial marriage is not the crux of the gay marriage argument, but because a logical person can draw parallels, it is brought up to make a very reasonable point about majority rule and individual rights. Clearly, though, you're not a logical person, so it's lost on you.
Can gays enter into the institution of marriage with the partners of their choice?
I debate from the facts. Fact: we have something in our civil laws that confers a collection of some 1400 joint civil rights to couples. Fact: this civil law is called "marriage". Fact: in most places, homosexuals are banned from accessing this civil law - in other words, gays are discriminatorily denied these rights.
In light of those facts, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to say "I don't believe that gays should be denied their rights. I just don't agree with them marrying" because the real effect of not letting gays civilly marry under the law is to deny them those 1400 rights.
It's not our (by "our" I mean the gays) fault that you guys made a poor choice in calling this civil law "marriage". That doesn't mean, however, that because of what you called it I should be denied it. I don't give a flying **** what it's called (as long as it's called the same thing for everybody). I just want access to it, and as long as it's called "civil marriage", then I want to be able to get civilly married.
You have simply highlighted my point. Fight to have civil unions be recognized as equal to traditional marriage. Fight to have those 1400 civil rights included in civil unions.
I'm Black. If "marriage" was a ceremony that was deeply entrenched in a religion that explicitly said that I was an abomination/was doomed to hell/etc, I would would NOTHING to do with "marriage". Some of the gay people on this very forum have a HUGE problem with anything that has anything to do with religion, so it boggles the mind that you want to participate in something that is so deeply entrenched in religious dogma.
What I do object to is the tossing out of a legally sanctioned and executed referendum by two jurists on the flimsiest of rationales.
But it wasn't "legally sanctioned", according to the appellate panel decision. You can disagree with the findings, but unless their opinion is overturned then they've clarified the situation. That's why there are separate branches of government, to correct what are seen as improper actions of one another. Like our system of government or not, that's how it works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
You're right I don't know what will happen but if SCOTUS takes the case I'm confident it will be overturned.
Based on what I've read about this decision, and the analysis I've listened to by constsitutional law attorneys, the decision has been written in such a way, and is so narrowly written, the SCOTUS will either not accept the case on appeal or will affirm the decision of the appellate panel. This is not the case to bring to the Court, for opponents of gay marriage.
If marriage exists as an independent, objective reality apart from the state and apart from the votes of majorities, who decides what it is? God decides. God is the author of marriage. God has a voice, and that voice is the Church. If we ignore God and ignore the Church in this debate, we are ultimately throwing ourselves at the mercy of the state.
Which one? I'm partial to Thor, myself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
