Gay Marriage

quote:

---

Catholic Scientist and many others are called bigots because they do not want two people of the same sex to be allowed to marry each other. They deny homosexuals the same rights that they themselves are afforded. See...they're intolerant. It's OK to not agree with same sex marriage. It's when you want to deny marriage to homosexuals that you become a bigot.

---

i think Catholic Scientist just wants to define the word. as do i. that is not bigotry or denying rights. what about the intolerance of someone else's defintion of a word, because it is a defferent definition than yours?

Let me get this straight. You don't care if two people of the same sex get married? Actually married. Not a civil union...but married?You're against DOMA. You don't agree with States passing new laws, redefining marriage, or amending their Constitutions to disallow gay marriage. You have been actively trying to repeal such laws and new definitions and have certainly spoken out and/or written your State and Federal Congressmen as well as you State and Federal Senators telling them that you are against any such bans on gay marriage.Do I have this correct?

Ok how is this. If the concern revolves around having to redefine a word. In any area that list the defintion as husband and wife, include or any combination of the above TWO. There, the simpilist way to define marriage that can include same sex couples while leaving out all the strawmen like polygamy or pedophiles.

quote:

---

Of course, the federal constitution take precedence over the individual state constitutions. For example, South Carolina removed the ban for interracial marriage from their constitution in 1998, 103 years after it was made unenforceable because of a supreme court ruling.

---

not in every case. In recent case of D.C. vs. Heller, had the SCOTUS ruled in favor of "collective" gun rights over "individual" gun rights, then the USA would have effectively violated its agreement with the state of Montana's statehood contract, and therefore made Montana its own seperate self-governing nation. the feds cannot do what ever they want.people have the right of self determination in the form of local government, as it is clearly expressed in the declaration of independence. if the federal government violates this then it is violating its own rules, and stripping itself of any validity.and it shouldn't in rules that are left up to the states, such as marriage.

quote:

---

Should the supreme court jump in, and take a stand, it could be the Defense of Marriage act and the various state constitutions can be made
obsolete in their stance.

---

only if they are ready to be the cause of the 2nd american civil war

quote:

---

The fact you were from Missouri does explain a lot.

---

yeah we are big fans of liberty and freedom.

Look, this really isn't that difficult. As long as I am not actively trying to prevent you from expressing your definition, then it is not bigotry. Now, keep in mind that that doesn't really allow you to make up a definition just to suit your fancy. I mean, you can't just redefine bigotry to mean simply a matter of disagreeing with someone, and not expect me to call you out on it.Edited by FliesOnly, : No reason given.

Right, I don't care. I think DOMA accurately defines the word "marrige" as it was understood to be when the 1000+ laws were written that explicitly use the word "marriage".I'm not against it. They're not REdefining it If a state wants to allow or disallow gay marriage, then that's their prerogative. Nope. I've done absolutely nothing.

I'm not actively trying to prevent gay people from getting married, but ZOMFG!!! I'm arguing on them Internets!1! IMMA horriblez fucking bigot... O NOES!

quote:

---

Ok how is this. If the concern revolves around having to redefine a word. In any area that list the defintion as husband and wife, include or any combination of the above TWO. There, the simpilist way to define marriage that can include same sex couples while leaving out all the strawmen like polygamy or pedophiles.

---

yeah let the people decide the definitions in thier own states. if more people in my state want to say marriage is between tow people reguardless of gender, then guess what? im for it.pedophile is a realative term to some degree. age of consent laws very state by state (because the states make thier own rules reguarding marriage). Take the socalled polygamists at the YFZ ranch in Texas who were marrying girls at age 14. this could be pedophillia in another state, but in Texas the age of consent is 14 (with parental permission).Polygamy is not really an issue, because those people who practice it only have one leagal wife, the other wives are spiritual marriages accepted by the community, and not recognized by the state, so really they are doing nothing wrong. unless of course you support adultery laws, but then i would find it odd you support adultery laws when you are not a fan of sodomy laws that supposedly discriminate between same sex partners. I think neither the sodomy laws nor the adultery laws are really enforced anymore, though.

Just to clarify your fact it is 14 in Texas so long as the other party is 17. The actual age of consent is 17. Age of consent by State I just threw the last sentence in there because I have seen that argument brought up so many times already. Thought I might be able to preempt it.Edited by rueh, : Man I am terrible at spelling. Thank god for F7

quote:

---

Just to clarify your fact it is 14 in Texas so long as the other party is 17. The actual age of consent is 17. Age of consent by State I just threw the last sentence in there because I have seen that argument brought up so many times already. Thought I might be able to preempt it.

---

my bad. you are right. i said the wrong thing. you are right as far as sexual consent goes, though its interesting that in texas it is only between a male and female (as per your link).since we were talking about marriage, i got my marriage laws and consent laws mixed up.From wikepedia:

quote:

---

Texas: 18, 16 with parental consent. 14 with judicial consent or if person under 18 had previously married and divorced.

---

I meant marriage then intercourse, sorry to make such a broad assumption. these young girls are getting married 1st.also its deiffernt in the various counties within a state, and i made the assumption that it was the whole state. my bad again.but still you can get married at 14, and then as a married person engage in intercourse legally, in TX at 14.

quote:

---

not in every case.

---

Yes, in every case. That's what the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means.(Some stuff about Montana, that does raise some fascinating legal issues, off topic on this thread.)

quote:

---

people have the right of self determination in the form of local government, as it is clearly expressed in the declaration of independence. if the federal government violates this then it is violating its own rules, and stripping itself of any validity.

---

No. The Declaration of Independence is of no legal effect, and guarantees nobody any rights against the federal government.

quote:

---

and it shouldn't in rules that are left up to the states, such as marriage.

---

So then I assume you would be against a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.However, even in this statement you are still wrong. This issue was decided 41 years ago in Loving v. Virginia. While the regulation of marriage is traditionally a matter for the states, they cannot have laws that run afoul of the Constitution.

quote:

---

only if they are ready to be the cause of the 2nd american civil war

---

I doubt it would come to that. After all, requiring the states to recognize gay marriage wouldn't change one single heterosexual marriage. I doubt that people would go to war over something that wouldn't demonstrably change their lives in any way.

quote:

---

yeah we are big fans of liberty and freedom.

---

I spent 7 years in Misery. You can have it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

So then I assume you would be against a federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

---

yep.

quote:

---

I doubt it would come to that. After all, requiring the states to recognize gay marriage wouldn't change one single heterosexual marriage. I doubt that people would go to war over something that wouldn't demonstrably change their lives in any way.

---

i was typing WRT the supreme courts making state constitutions obsolete, sorry for the vagueness i will spell everything out for you in the future.

quote:

---

I spent 7 years in Misery. You can have it.

---

i will and i'll take a real baseball team like the cardinals too

I find this a bit difficult to swallow. Your next quote is the reason why I find this difficult to swallow. You, on the one hand, claim that you're fine with two guys getting married...married in exactly the same way the two members of the opposite sex can get married. And then on the other hand, you claim to be in support of a law that prevents two guys from getting married. Do you not see any contradictory behavior here? Prior to DOMA and all of the "new" States laws the now define marriage as being between one man and one women, the laws didn't define them as such. Therefore, two guys could get married. Homophobes got their panties all in a bunch over the idea of two guys getting married and changed the definitions of marriage to specifically prevent such a terrible thing from happening. How is that not redefining marriage? It now says something that it previously did not. Not according to that stupid, pain in the ass Constitution that you seem to be forgetting about. Yeah...that's the point. To sit there are say that because you are not actually, physically doing something to stop this homophobic discrimination, that you are somehow or another absolved of being called a bigot is a bit of a stretch of the definition of bigotry, don't you think? Especially in light of your admission that you support DOMA and your belief that States should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want to accept or recognize gay marriage.You just seem to be a big bag of contradictions.You want to allow gay marriage
Yet, you support laws the prevent gay marriageYou don't consider yourself a bigot because you don't "actively" prevent gays from getting married.
Yet, you also don't 'actively" do anything that would allow for gay marriage.You support our Constitution.
Yet, you say it's OK for States to ignore it and set their own marriage laws.Strange.

quote:

---

i was typing WRT the supreme courts making state constitutions obsolete, sorry for the vagueness i will spell everything out for you in the future.

---

Oh, silly me. I thought you were saying something relevant to the real world. My mistake. The Supreme Court is no more likely to make state constitutions obsolete than you are to learn correct capitalization.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Nope, they’re not mutually exclusive. Supporting DOMA doesn’t necessitate that I not be fine with two guys getting married and being fine with two guys getting married doesn’t necessitate that I oppose DOMA. Except, they couldn’t. They needed legislation and/or judicial interpretation in order to get married. They’re not necessarily afraid of gays. What they feared was one state being forced to recognize the marriage from another. What it says now is the same as what it previously meant. Maybe by your interpretation but not by mine. Its up to the SCOTUS. I don’t think its homophobic discrimination. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, that’s what it is. A guy can’t marry a toaster because it’s impossible. That isn’t discrimination against toastersexuals. Now, if some state wants to change their definition of marriage so that a guy can marry a toaster, then I don’t really care. But the Constitution doesn’t demand that all the other states have to allow toastersexual marriages as well. You’re just misunderstanding me. I have no desire to allow gay marriage. Doing nothing is not doing something. States wouldn’t be ignoring it.