Gay Marriage

[TheBigDog]

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.

I disagree that they are trying to make it impossible for same sex marriage to exist. As I read Lawcat he is essentially discussing law as it exists, and the tradition that leads to our laws as they exist. I am still catching up but I have not found any personal opinion from him that gay marriage should not exist, only interpretation of law and tradition.

 

If I am wrong on that please point it out to me.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

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.

I suggest you re-read his last post and recognize that he used the Oregon example in order to explain the full scope of the Florida law. He in fact agreed with you.

 

Bill

[modest]

I disagree that they are trying to make it impossible for same sex marriage to exist. As I read Lawcat he is essentially discussing law as it exists, and the tradition that leads to our laws as they exist. I am still catching up but I have not found any personal opinion from him that gay marriage should not exist, only interpretation of law and tradition.

 

I'm sure its a matter of perspective. Lawcat has claimed that gays live a lifestyle that's not "conductive" to civilization, that supporting gay marriage is irrational exuberance, that just because gays have a right to "take it in the rear" doesn't mean we have to let them marry, that letting them marry will be toying with civilization, that gay marriage is "ludicrous" etc.

 

I could see how Turtle reads some personal opinion into that.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Lawcat, gay marriage is prohibited in Florida. It is illegal. . . . I'm saying that if someone got married to someone of the same sex in Florida, that is illegal.

 

DY, you should be more careful. Your assertion amounts to misinformation. If you tell someone that gay marriage is prohibited in Florida, it is a lie.

 

Florida law relating to gay marriage is not a limitation on power of gay couples. It is a limitation on the power of the State. You have the power to gay-marry. You can call your chaplain, or some other organization that marries gays, and you can have a ceremony in Florida, and live a married life. But the State is without, has no, power to validate it. Even if the legislators, or some administrator, wanted to issue you the Florida marriage license, he/she could not. The State is without power to issue marriage license to gays. When the State is without power to issue a license, then any such license is merely void. But gay couples are not prohibited from being married or living a married life.

 

For example, the unemployment agency is without power to issue engineering license in Florida. If you apply to unemployment agency for engineering license, they can give it you, but it is void from the get go. You will not be fined for seeking the license there, but the unemployment official may be held accountable for doing something that is outside of his/her powers. It amounts to fraud.

 

Gay marriage is not prohibited in Florida, and you should not use the term prohibted loosely because it is misinformation on a very important subject.

[Turtle]

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

 

or a series of smaller hops, skips, and jumps. i see your respect, and raise you an honorable mention. i'm not gay, just having a gay ol' Flinstone's time. :thumbs_up just a word isn't it? what? changed its meaning has it? gay doesn't mean gay anymore? marriage any different is it?

edit: depends on what you mean by 'it'. BC

 

aint nobody's business if you do :hihi:

[TheBigDog]

I will try and find the sources of your quotes so I can be sure I understand the context of the exchanges. It is my experience in these debates that people leap to accusations of homophobia against those who oppose the arguments for gay marriage; I am not exempt from that accusation and I take it very personally and it is a reason that those who are opposed to gay marriage tend to stay out of the debate here. I am only warning that we need to withhold from judgments of a person's motivation in a topic that draws so much passion.

 

Bill

[lawcat]

 

I'm hesitant to disagree with you because your argument is rather good for my position.

 

~modest

 

The issue turns on whether you read exclusivity provisions into traditional definition. If the traditional definition is expressly exclusive than I concede, you are right: the two definitions are not consistent.

[lawcat]

I'm sure its a matter of perspective. Lawcat has claimed that gays live a lifestyle that's not "conductive" (conducive) to civilization, that supporting gay marriage is irrational exuberance, that just because gays have a right to "take it in the rear" doesn't mean we have to let them marry, that letting them marry will be toying with civilization, that gay marriage is "ludicrous" etc.

 

I could see how Turtle reads some personal opinion into that.

 

~modest

I will try and find the sources of your quotes so I can be sure I understand the context of the exchanges. It is my experience in these debates that people leap to accusations of homophobia against those who oppose the arguments for gay marriage; I am not exempt from that accusation and I take it very personally and it is a reason that those who are opposed to gay marriage tend to stay out of the debate here. I am only warning that we need to withhold from judgments of a person's motivation in a topic that draws so much passion.

 

Bill

 

You don't have to waste time. I did say those things. But to me it is a logical conclusion from the courtroom arguments. The proponents have asserted two things (1) same sex is the same as opposite, for (2) purposes of marriage as related to the State, which is procreation and civilization. ON arguments and evidence, courts have come to the same conclusion. There is no reasonable relationship between gay marriage and the purpose of marriage. Courts have expressly stated, on those facts, if courts were to rule in favor of gay marriage it would have to be by judicial decree or fiat; and judicial fiat is not within the power of the courts, but logical implications and deductions. Courts have said, if the proponents want to prevail on those arguments they must go to the legislature becuase legislature has the power to rule on fiat. But this point is lost, and proponents keep pounding on the same arguments. This has been going on in States for over 10 years now. That is why in some states by referendum people have voted and said enough is enough: enough with irrational arguments; let's put it up for referendum, or you have to come up with something better than that; and some have put the constitutional cap on those arguments by referendum. The example is California, which is likely one of top 3 most liberal States population wise; and they have enacted prop 8. The point that is lost with the proponents is that the arguments are bad, and attacking the current structure is not the way.

 

We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public

policy debate, such as the current one over the compatibility of homosexual

conduct with the duties of adoptive parenthood. See Reno, 507 U.S. at 315, 113 S.

Ct. at 1454; Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253, 281, 104 5. Ct. 2403, 2419 (1984).

The State of Florida has made the determination that it is not in the best interests of

its displaced children to be adopted by individuals who “engage in current,

voluntary homosexual activity,” Cox, 627 So. 2d at 1215, and we have found

nothing in the Constitution that forbids this policy judgment. Thus, any argument

that the Florida legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative

policy, not constitutional law. The legislature is the proper forum for this debate,

and we do not sit as a superlegislature “to award by judicial decree what was not

achievable by political consensus.”

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf, at page 47.

 

Second, DOMA “encourage the

creation of stable relationships that facilitate the rearing of children by both of their

biological parents.” (Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. # 39), pp. 15-16).

The government argues that these stable relationships encourage the creation of stable

families that are well suited to nurturing and raising children.

Plaintiffs offer little to rebut the government’s argument that DOMA is rationally

related to the government’s proffered legitimate interests. Rather, Plaintiffs repeatedly urge

the Court to apply the more rigid strict scrutiny analysis.

. . .

In short, Plaintiffs’ argument is that, given their recent “civil rights revolution,” the

United States Supreme Court is likely to declare that same-sex marriage is a fundamental

right that is protected by the Constitution. Plaintiffs are asking this Court to create such a

fundamental right immediately, before the Supreme Court revisits the issue of same-sex

marriage. But that is not this Court’s role.

http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050119.pdf, at page 16-17.

[modest]

"conductive" (conducive)

I'm sorry. You did say conducive. I remembered reading "conductive" and scoffing at the grammatical error, but now I've gone back and found the post—it was my literacy that was to be scoffed at and not your grammar. My apologies.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Bill - My sense is that you are opposed to gay marriage. Is this true, yes or no?

[InfiniteNow]

The proponents have asserted two things (1) same sex is the same as opposite, for (2) purposes of marriage as related to the State, which is procreation and civilization.

Do you present strawmen intentionally, or are you just oblivious? Nobody is saying that "same sex is the SAME as opposite sex." The argument is that there are no relevant nor legitimate secular differences on which to differentially confer state benefits and privileges. This is a pretty major difference.

 

Second, you're point that "civilization and procreation" are somehow relevant to marriage in modern times is a total falsehood. Again, you horribly misrepresent what is actually true. This has been more than AMPLY demonstrated by the fact that infertile, elderly, and couples with zero plans to have kids are not disallowed from marriage.

 

The fact that you continue to ignore this rather important rebuttal does not make it invalid. Your point is quite simply false, and this is plain to see.

 

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face and until your fingers bleed, but you're still wrong and falsely representing the reality of the situation.

 

 

 

ON arguments and evidence, courts have come to the same conclusion. There is no reasonable relationship between gay marriage and the purpose of marriage.

Again, you completely misrepresent reality. In 1972, the court dismissed a challenge for "want of a significant federal question." This does NOT mean that they have come to the "conclusion that there is no reasonable relationship between gay marriage and the purpose of marriage."

 

You are simply making things up. You are, in fact, lying... and if you're not doing it on purpose, then you are simply ignorant (although, it could very well be both, I concede that).

 

 

Courts have expressly stated, on those facts, if courts were to rule in favor of gay marriage it would have to be by judicial decree or fiat; and judicial fiat is not within the power of the courts, but logical implications and deductions.

This TOO is false. The courts can directly strike down any law deemed to be unconstitutional, and the 14th amendment (the Equal Protections Clause) in combination with the first (the Establishment Clause) will likely be the EXACT grounds on which these courts rule as the issue continues to present in the future.

 

No fiat required. Just plain, simple, enumerated power to uphold the constitution.

This is EXACTLY what happened in California. The court made a ruling which you just explicitly deemed impossible and not within their power. The only thing which changed in California law was due to a voter proposition which changed the constitution itself. Given the example of events in California, your assertion above is patently false.

 

You are WRONG YET AGAIN.

 

It's so cute, though, how you pretend to know what you're talking about. What's not cute is how you continue repeating your same tired lies and misrepresentations despite being shown wrong and basing nearly every argument on numerous logical fallacies.

 

 

The example is California, which is likely one of top 3 most liberal States population wise; and they have enacted prop 8. The point that is lost with the proponents is that the arguments are bad, and attacking the current structure is not the way.

What point exactly is being lost? The supporters of Prop 8 were churches, primarily led by Mormons (not even from the state of California, but in Utah!) who paid $40 million in advertising supporting the proposition. They were joined by a huge CHRISTIAN voting block which turned out and it passed, especially since most people who didn't feel strongly failed to show up (I bet you they make a different decision next time, and that religious whackaloons will have their pet proposition heartily SPANKED). When Prop 8 was challenged, the ONLY reason the court did not overturn it was because those who put it on the valid followed all legal steps, NOT because "the court doesn't have the power to rule" or "because the liberal citizens of California wanted it."

 

Interestingly, all of your talk of constitutionality is wrong on yet another front. Bans on same sex marriage WERE ruled unconstitutional in California. To get around this, Prop 8 actually CHANGED THEIR CONSTITUTION. The religiously motivated bigots didn't like the fact that the state constitution said it was okay for two same sex partners to get married... so they changed the constitution itself... Nice.

 

Put that proposition on the ballot for another up or down vote. You just watch how handily it gets defeated. You know, that's exactly what they're doing in California during the next vote... fancy that.

 

 

 

Long story short... What you're here arguing and describing as a "rational decision made by liberal citizens in Caliornia based on the constitution," is more accurately described as "the pathetically misguided result of a huge marketing campaign put forth by religious groups which cost $40 million and resulted in a change to the constitution itself."

 

Notice yet why people find your arguments insulting and silly?

[dannieyankee]

Lawcat, what I meant was that gays are kept from getting the same rights (such as tax breaks, child laws, ect) that heterosexually-married people would get.

 

Just to clear things up, because you cannot seem to get what I mean and must take everything without considering what the actual objective of the statement was, heterosexually-married implies a man married to a woman.

 

Heterosexual marriage is not completely decisive, you are correct; just because you are in a more common relationship (i.e. man and woman), does not mean you are heterosexual; you may be forced to hide your true feelings because the law does not allow you to marry who it is you truly love and receive those legal benefits that are rightfully yours.

[dannieyankee]

purposes of marriage as related to the State, which is procreation and civilization.

 

I think we have established that procreation has nothing to do with marriage, and civilization will not crumble if an additional 5% of the population married and did not produce children. I also must mention that that same 5% is currently NOT producing children, and if they continue to NOT PRODUCE CHILDREN, the same outcome will occur whether or not they are married.

[TheBigDog]

Bill - My sense is that you are opposed to gay marriage. Is this true, yes or no?

I am opposed to gay marriage. I support law that gives rights to non-traditional couples; read as "beyond just gay". But it should acknowledge the nature of the relationships rather than pretending that they are all the same.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I am opposed to gay marriage.

Thank you for the clear response. I think it is your agreement with lawcats underlying motivation which is causing you to miss the failures in his arguments, and the hatred which they convey.

[TheBigDog]

Thank you for the clear response. I think it is your agreement with lawcats underlying motivation which is causing you to miss the failures in his arguments, and the hatred which they convey.

I trust that all the readers will see that I said much more than that, although that is all you cared to reflect. If you are going to trim what people say, don't complain when they do it to you.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

I trust that all the readers will see that I said much more than that, although that is all you cared to reflect. If you are going to trim what people say, don't complain when they do it to you.

 

Bill - I know you hate my guts and would be much happier if I were no longer allowed to post at Hypography ever again, but I'm not a mind reader. Can you please, using direct and plain words, elaborate on what you mean with the above?

 

 

Also, I'd be really curious to hear why you are opposed to gay marriage. Should be educational.

 

 

I am opposed to gay marriage. I support law that gives rights to non-traditional couples; read as "beyond just gay". But it should acknowledge the nature of the relationships rather than pretending that they are all the same.

 

Maybe I can ask this another way...

 

Besides genitals, in what way(s) do you suggest that the relationship of two same sex partners is NOT the same as the relationship of two opposite sex couples? Please, try to keep your reasons relevant, and recall that marriage is not contingent upon children or the ability to have them.