Larv Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 that is because you, like lowcut, find the idea of gay disgusting and repugnant. you hate it, & you hate it bad. say it's not so convincingly, or bite your tongue. :evil:Your emotional underwear is showing. You are so emotional, in fact, that you cannot see what either lawcat or I are saying. I can't speak for lawcat, but I can say for myself that you're wrong. You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying all along: it all comes down to constitutionality in a constitutional republic. Isn't that what you prefer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I can't speak for lawcat, but I can say for myself that you're wrong. You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying all along: it all comes down to constitutionality in a constitutional republic. How would calling the union of two same sex individuals a "marriage" be unconstitutional? Your point makes no sense to me, and I hope that you can clarify it. I recall that the last time I asked for clarification after you cited the constitution that you plainly failed to offer it. Will this request result in the same end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Your emotional underwear is showing. You are so emotional, in fact, that you cannot see what either lawcat or I are saying. I can't speak for lawcat, but I can say for myself that you're wrong. You haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying all along: it all comes down to constitutionality in a constitutional republic. Isn't that what you prefer? Yeah; that's not convincing. not. craig covered the circumstances of fact here well enough. there is no reason to oppose gay marriage except for finding it personally 'objectionable', and that on some religious morality. saying otherwise or not admitting to it is dissembling. speaking of narrow minded hating conservatives, one of the republican senators, hatch maybe (though not craig if he's even in there still ;)) went after sotomayor trying to get her to say how she'd rule on marriage issues if she is confirmed. she properly told him it was inappropriate to comment on a case topic she very likely might have to rule on if appointed. like the douche-bag didn't know that.:doh: freakin hateful people gonna get their hateful jabs in no matter what. :rant: so what if i'm emotional. at least it is in support of peoples' liberties instead of against them. :evil: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannieyankee Posted July 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 I find one concept that keeps repeating itself to be quite disasterously inaccurate: Gay Marriage is, supposedly, unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional at all. Where in the constitution does it say 'Marriage must be between a man and a woman'? How about the Bill of Rights - does it say 'Because the majority of people may be for discrimination, it should be legal'? The idea that homosexuals are not discriminated against because they never had slavery, oppression, ect, is false. Homosexuals have, and continue to be, loathed by a large portion of society. Because black people eventually gained the right to vote, marry, ect, they are no longer legally oppressed, even if they are still oppressed in some portions of the country. Gays have NEVER had the right to marry the person they love; therefore, they continue to be oppressed. In Spain, there is no specific gender term, as pointed out previously in this topic. This is a good idea. In the Netherlands, gay marriage is legal, though I am not sure exactly whether or not they use gender-specific terms when defining marriage. The same applies to Canada, including my lack of knowledge of the application of gender-neutral terms. However, in the United States, there is a law that clearly says 'Two people of the same sex cannot marry'. Welcome to DOMA. DOMA is unconstitutional because it discriminates immensely against two people who are in love, without the fear of abuse of either children or animal, to marry, because the majority rule against it. If the majority of the nation suddenly turned against a brunette marrying a redhead, would it be legal to discriminate against them, marriage-wise? We have already established that there is no reason for discrimination against gays other than the constitutional fallacy, which I might admit, has be a bit startled as no one has referred to anything BUT the constitution, yet this topic is not about Gay Marriage in the US, but rather Gay Marriage in general, and I was hoping for some examples from other countries that do not have Gay Marriage specifically, such as England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 in the United States, there is a law that clearly says 'Two people of the same sex cannot marry'. Welcome to DOMA.. This is not true. DOMA states: 1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state. 2. The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. So, the DOMA, or federal law, does not say who can or can not marry. It states under (2) what is recognized for the purposes of the federal statutes. Undeer DOMA the issue of who can or can not marry is left to the States. DOMA provides: "No State needs to treat . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannieyankee Posted July 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 So you're saying it's not illegal for two people of the same sex to marry, but the State just won't recognise it? New Paltz, NY Mayor Arrested For Solemnizing Same Sex Marriages Explain this, then. Why was he arrested for marrying them? So it's not illegal for them to get married but it's illegal for someone to marry them? That doesn't make sense. The law is twisted, and DOMA started it. The fact is, I paraphrased. The idea that I conveyed is exactly the same thing you posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 So you're saying it's not illegal for two people of the same sex to marry, but the State just won't recognise it? No. I am saying it is legal for two people of same sex to marry, IF AND ONLY IF some State allows it--or makes it legal; not recognize. The federal gov't recognizes; the State legalize. You cited DOMA for proposition that gays CANNOT marry. DOMA is a federal law, and it specifically says that: No State needs to treat . . . It leaves the issue to the States. DOMA does not address the issue. It can not be legal or illegal under DOMA to marry. New Paltz, NY Mayor Arrested For Solemnizing Same Sex Marriages Explain this, then. Why was he arrested for marrying them? So it's not illegal for them to get married but it's illegal for someone to marry them? That doesn't make sense. The law is twisted, and DOMA started it. The article specifically says: "Mayor Jason West . . . was arrested Wednesday for breaking the state’s marriage law. He broke the State law; not DOMA, which is the federal law. In absence of DOMA, the mayor would still have to face the State law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannieyankee Posted July 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Forgive me, I had only skimmed the part of the Mayor breaking state law rather than federal law. I was, indeed, incorrect in blaming DOMA for that unfortunate incident. However; the fact remains that DOMA redefines what the definition of marriage is; previous to that law, the definition of marriage was gender-neutral. After DOMA passed, many states enacted similar laws into their own 'constitution'. For this reason, DOMA did, effectively, lead many states to make gay marriage a prohibited act, such as in Florida, where I visited during the recent election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 However; the fact remains that DOMA redefines what the definition of marriage is;. DOMA does not "redefine" marriage in the U.S.. DOMA "defines" legislatively what marriage is for the purposes of federal law consistent with the administrative and judicial precedent. Federal gov't does not issue license to marry; nor does federal government regualte divorces, separations, child custody--marriages and family law. DOMA, for the purposes of federal law such as joint tax returns, provides what "marriage" is if the term "marriage" appears anywhere in federal stautes or rules. It take takes the power away from the federal administrative or judicial branches to define marriage for the purposes of federal statutes and rules. In essence, the legislators have said "man and woman," because administrative and judicial branches had said so, and now it is codified legislatively as well, for the purposes of interpretation. previous to that law, the definition of marriage was gender-neutral. Previous to DOMA, there was no legislative definition at FEDERAL level of what marriage is--therefore it was neither neutral nor specific by statute. However, by each administrative rule of every agency, marriage was interpreted as gender-specific: man and woman; and consistent with judicial opinions and State law.In addition, I posted a 1972 opinion of the Minnesota Court, and in that opinion marriage is defined as man and woman as a matter of State law, and the same sex marriage is rejected. This is the only challenge to State marriage law that denies marriage license to same-sex couples, until 1972, to my knowledge. The definition was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. After DOMA passed, many States enacted similar laws into their own 'constitution'. True. Many States acted, but not because of DOMA. DOMA is merely a federal procedural vehicle, and codification of pre-existing rules, that affirms the power of States to decide for themselves, instead of being required to recognize marriage law from Hawaii, in their jurisdiction. Staes would have acted anyway, in accordance with their own standards, in absence of DOMA. DOMA does not mandate that States do anything. For this reason, DOMA did, effectively, lead many states to make gay marriage a prohibited act, such as in Florida, where I visited during the recent election. I do not agree. You assert that DOMA led Florida to prohibit gay marriage. However, gay marriage was invalid in Florida before DOMA. This point needs clarification, and here it is.A State law consists of: Statutes, Judicial opinions, Administrative rules, and Executive orders or opinions. All of those may provide legal rules for marriage in any State. In states like Florida, under Administrative rules, gay license was always denied to gay couples who wished to marry. In 1996, there was a legal challenge to marriage laws in Hawaii where the proponents trie to force the State allow gay marriage. Gay activists fought the war on many State fronts. So, because the war was fought, many States addressed the issue legislatively, or by referendum, by enacting specific marriage laws in response to the issue raised. The federal governement enacted DOMA in response to the jurisdictional fight between States. For example, a gay couple would get married in Vermont or Canada, and then go to Montana and seek benefits and recongition. States did not allow this under their law. So the federal government said: No State needs to treat . . . In sum, DOMA does not foreclose the possiblity of gays to marry; it merely does not treat any marriage-like institution entered in any of the States as marriage at the federal level, consistent with precedents. TheBigDog 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larv Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 ...like the douche-bag didn't know that.:doh:Such a hateful thing to post for someone who hates hateful things... ;)) :rant: ...and such literary talents, too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Larv, I ask again... Will you be addressing the question put to you post #240, or will you ignore yet another request for support regarding an assertion you've made? How would calling the union of two same sex individuals a "marriage" be unconstitutional? Your point makes no sense to me, and I hope that you can clarify it. I recall that the last time I asked for clarification after you cited the constitution that you plainly failed to offer it. Will this request result in the same end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawcat Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 For this reason, DOMA did, effectively, lead many states to make gay marriage a prohibited act, such as in Florida, where I visited during the recent election. In addition to my post above, you must keep the following terms separate: (1) valid, (2) recognized, and (3) prohibited. Here is the Florida Constitution that was put for petition for constitutional amendment and adopted in 2008: SECTION 27. Marriage defined.--Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized. Statutes & Constitution :Constitution : Online Sunshine First, gays can not marry in Florida because such union is not valid under Florida Constitution. Some administrator, such as the NY mayor, could marry them, but the marriage would have no legal force; it would be void from the beginning for the purposes of Florida law. However, gays can marry in other States because Florida has no jurisdiction over the citizens or legislature of other States. Second, when a married gay couple comes to Florida, that union is not recognized under the Florida Constitution. This constitutional provision prevents Florida from entering into commity, or mutual recognition of laws, with other States on the issue of marriage other than man woman. This is called recognition.But, a married gay couple can live in Florida as married under the laws of another State. That couple is not prohibited from being married. No one will take them to jail in Florida for being married in Oregon. It is not illegal, or prohibited, but invalid and not recognized. Third, when a mayor in New York is charged with breaking the law for marrying same-sex couples, the same-sex couples are not charged. They can go home and enjoy their lives. But, the mayor, as a public official did something he was not supposed to under the law. It is very important that you keep the terms correct, because saying that Florida prohibits gay marriage is wrong; gay marriage is not a "prohibited act." Selling crack is prohibited. You are free to be gay-married in Florida, but the State can not validate it nor recognize it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 ...like the douche-bag didn't know that. :doh: Such a hateful thing to post for someone who hates hateful things... thank you for taking notice of my ironic rhetorical device. ;) :thumbs_up...and such literary talents, too! danke erneut; you are too kind. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modest Posted July 16, 2009 Report Share Posted July 16, 2009 Modest, give it up. Both of us are sufficiently intelligent to understant that for your argument to be true, it would have to be true that I asserted "only" in the traditional definition, and I have not done any such thing. I'm not quite sure I follow your thinking. You believe the traditional definition is not precluded when same-sex unions are recognized as marriage because it is "...between man and woman" rather than "... only between man and woman"? I'm hesitant to disagree with you because your argument is rather good for my position. But, if I were to disagree with you :hihi: I might point out the absurdity of saying that the definition of bachelor ("an unmarried man") does not preclude women because it doesn't have the word "only" in it. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the traditional definition of marriage was valid in ancient Egypt where people married their siblings or in Rome where men married men. Maybe that's a good way of looking at things :thumbs_up ~modest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigDog Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 that is because you, like lawcat, find the idea of gay disgusting and repugnant. you hate it, & you hate it bad. say it's not so convincingly, or bite your tongue. :thumbs_upI have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Turtle. It is a large leap to take these arguments and turn them into a badge of hate. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 17, 2009 Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point, Turtle. It is a large leap to take these arguments and turn them into a badge of hate. Bill Hey Bigdog, normally I would tend to agree with but the tenacity of the posters and their desire to use any means what so ever to make it impossible for same sex marriage to exist and the totally off the wall arguemnts they have given and the amount of obfuscation used leads me to believe there is at he very least an extreme amount of repugnance for the gay life style if not the the human beings themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dannieyankee Posted July 17, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 17, 2009 Lawcat, gay marriage is prohibited in Florida. It is illegal. I'm not talking about Oregon. I'm saying that if someone got married to someone of the same sex in Florida, that is illegal. Don't bring in something completely unrelated. Oregon has no influence on Florida. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.