Gay Marriage

"Church" isn't defined as a scientology building and "pants" isn't defined as being 28 inch waists. However, "marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman.False analogy.

Prove it.You are mistaken or ill-informed. The RIA prohibited the marriage of "non-whites" to whites. It is violation of the 14th Amendment to have restrictions based on race.DOMA, on the other hand, does not explicitly restrict marriages like the RIA did so it doesn't violate the 14th. No, it wasn't. I quoted the actual legislators on why they passed DOMA in the other thread on gay marriage and it wasn't for religious reasons. I don't feel like digging it up right now so if you can support your assertion then prove that one too.

---

ABE:Nevermind, found it:From Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

​

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

​

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

quote:

---

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

---

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

I could just as easily rationalize the antithesis. So how do I choose a side?I just go with my gut.Or I could choose the side of the people who aren't insulting me personally

I'm concerned with the 1000+ laws in the United States that refer to Marriage explicitly. When they were written, they were understood to be heterosexual unions. I'm not totally opposed to redefining Marriage. In fact, I think that it should be done to incorporate homosexual "marriages". I don't think that Marriage is currently unconstitutional and that it has to be changed. I think we should fully consider the ramifications before the change and minimize the loop-holes.

I know some differences, but I don't know the difference that you're referring too. I'm weary of simply redefining a word that's in so many laws like the flip of a light-switch. I'm not totally opposed to redefining the word, though.

No, the effect was not that marriage was defined as being between the same race. Umm... didn't you read the quote:

quote:

---

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex.

---

I can be but not neccessarily. You really can't think of any other reason? Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. Is he a part of the Religious Right or just one of their allies?

From Message 333But it wasn't. The RIA said that whites can't marry non-whites. Not that marriage is of the same race. It isn't applied to sexual orientation. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, marriage is to the opposite sex.From Message 334There aren't restrictions based on sexual orientation. No, those cases were not decided incorrectly. Its not the exact same. Marriage hasn't always been defined as between the same race as it has been between different sexes. Loving v. Virginia declared the RIA to be unconstitutional, which it was, because it was restriction based on race. There is not a restriction for marriage based on sexual orientation. The same definition of marriage is applied equally to everyone and that is that it is between opposite sexes. There isn't anything unconstitutional about that.From Message 335Of course not. We have a Constitution. If a right isn't there in the first place, then I'm not denying it. The Constitution doesn't grant people the right to have a marriage with someone of the same sex.From Message 336No, they weren't. Why type the same response into multiple messages?Again, there is nothing WRT marriage that is applied to sexual orientation. Nope. The RIA was unconstitutional. Nope. Marriage is not abridge on the basis of sexual orientation. No. I know why I'm being tagged a bigot. Its because my opponents are hateful idoits who would rather try to make me look bad than understand my actual position. I'm not saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people. In fact, I'm really only worried about the straight people finding and exploiting loop-holes.From Message 339What's the point in writing the same post into multiple messages? You're annoying and wasting band-width.No. I know why I'm being tagged a bigot. Its because my opponents are hateful idoits who would rather try to make me look bad than understand my actual position. I'm not saying that gay people are more likely to be criminals and scoundrels than straight people. In fact, I'm really only worried about the straight people finding and exploiting loop-holes.From Message 340Again!? Christ man, what is your problem? Nope. Re-link them.You just posted, like, 25 messages in 2 hours. FYI, I probably read less than half of your posts. Huh? Whether or not it was for religious reasons isn't really that important to my position.

Why is it that way? I dunno, that's how its always been. Sure. Because all the laws that explicitly refer to marriage we're written in a way that presumed that the marriages would be between opposite sexes.Its not that big of a deal really though.There's a few ways to get it (same sex marriages) done.

I just wanted to let you know that you are making a horrible argument.Homosexual pairings are found in nature. They do not go against natural law.Also, you seem to think you are the grand arbiter on what is and is not against the law of nature.Human anatomy does not determine natural law. If it did, then going out into space would be against natural law. That you have justified it with the desire for exploration means that you can justify homosexual marriage with the desire for love.You are applying a double standard.Also, you're just making stuff up as you go along. There is no basis to it.Quit now while you still don't look like a total idiot.

From Message 371More specifically, we're talking about human laws in the U.S., where they don't actually have to be subject to these "natural laws" that you are making up.From Message 372What does that have to do with anything?What about the double standard you are using? You justify space travel but stand against homosexuality.Human anatomy being subject to natural law is more of an argument against space travel than it is against homosexuality. Got a link? I said that you should stop before you look like an idiot. I didn't call you one. Now I know you're just making stuff up.There's nothing in natural law about being civil. In fact, civilization seems to go against natural law.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

So nothing. I'm not supporting the position that things should never change. Yes, unjust laws should be changed. I'm not totally opposed to gays being allowed to have marriages.I'm against the notion that the current definition of mariage is unconstitutional, that gays are being denied the "right" to marry and that marriage has to/must allow gays.I think that marriage's definition would have to be changed in order to allow gay marriages and that that change could affect over 1000 laws.I think that changing something with that big of an effect could have an effect on myself (against the notion that gay marriage doesn't affect straight people at all). People want specifics, but I'm not a lawyer. I think our crumbling economy could be hurt be an influx of a bunch of new people into insurance plans. I think loop-holes could be exploited by corporate entities (like the CEO of one company marrying the CEO of another, which could be done in a straight marriage but most of the CEOs are males). Things like that.I don't like the idea of simply switching marriage without considering the ramifications.

Hey Rrhain,I don't have time to read all this right now. I just wanted to point out two things and make a request. Not true. Whites not being able to marry non-whites doesn't mean that browns can't marry yellows. Because it not the same argument. The RIA didn't define marriage as between the same race.Now, what message did you link to the RE decision? I have not read it.

No. Its because I'm a fucking homophobic bigot, duh But seriously, tradition and economics are factors. But I tend to be more conservative, in general. It seems all these things nudge our country more and more to the left, and I don't like it. It doesn't really have anything to do with the fact that they are homosexual.

Not really that it leads to immorality, but that I have a general distrust of liberalizing our society and its laws. I prefer order. Wow, that looks freakin' sweet. I would totally go if I could.

I read most of the California decision on same-sex marriage. Its relevant to the claim that the arguments against inter-racial marriage are the exact same as the arguments against same sex marriages, which they're not as I've explained.The law didn't specify that marriage had to be between the same race. It said that whites couldn't marry non-whites, which is a restriction based on race, ergo it's unconstitutional.Defining marriage as between the different sex does not discriminate on the bases of sexual orientation (although the California Supreme Court does think that it does) so it is not unconstitutional in the same way that the racial restriction are.Now, I have read the California decision on same sex marriage.They concluded that according to their constitution gays have a right to same sex marriages.

quote:

---

As these and many other California decisions make clear, the right to marry represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice, and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.

---

That's all fine and dandy. They can do that if they want too. It does, however, open up the law to polygamy and incestual marriages as being a constitutional right as well. But whatever.I still maintain that DOMA is not unconstitutional. If a state, or the federal gov., wants marriage to mean, for them, something different than "the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice", then they are free to do so. In this case, marriage could mean the union of one man and one woman.That Califoria chose to define it a ifferent way does not mean that everyone has to define it that way. Each state can make their own decision.Also, the argument that "marriage" as defined in 1000+ federal laws is defined as between one man and one woman, and for the reason of maintaining that definition to keep the laws themselves from being effectively altered, that marriage be kept as between one man and one woman is still sound. California deciding to not do that doesn't mean that nobody can.