Same sex marriage legal impact

[SCFinfan]

Prop 2 doesn't really restrict cohabitation. It is worded in such a way as it could allow organizations to retract things such as hospital visitations, insurance, etc. It leaves a very large loophole that can be exploited to take things away from any unmarried couple, straight or gay. Think of how many our senior citizens who have built a relationship in these assisted living facilities.

I see. I think it'd be unconstitutional the same as Moore v. City of East Cleveland was then.

http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/moorecity.shtml

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I don't buy that last sentence at all. Trying to invalidate arguments by associating them with other bogus arguments is a very easy and quite efffective way to undermine your opponent's position. And you're too smart not to know that.

As for hate... well, I don't know. I mean, I have no doubt there may be some people out there that hate homosexuals because they're dumb. All I can say is that I don't. Back in the day, I was part of the GSA on College of Charleston's campus. What's the GSA? The Gay-Straight Alliance. I was a card-carrying member. I still carry around the CofC's GSA's former president's business card in my pocket every day. I stuck with that group even after my conversion. But I can't advocate for their political positions to become settled law. That, in my opinion, would destroy the family moreso than it has already been destroyed by a half century of assaults.

Now, I'd like to say one thing as to redefining marriage: the Loving court never said it was redefining marriage. The word "redefine" does not appear in the Loving opinion. The fact is, there is a long history, to time immemorial, of interracial marriages happening. Not only here in the states, but back in England too. People were not just English, after all, they were french-english, scottish-english, irish-english, hungarian-english, Italian-Irish (like me), and on and on. It is right out impossible when looking at the history of anglo-american law to say that interracial marriage hasn't always had tacit legal acceptance for all time except in the 80 or so years following the american Civil War. The antipathy towards interracial marriage is the anomaly there. But try finding the same historical pedigree for gay marriage. It's nowhere to be found. Even abortion has a better pedigree than that.

In short, the difference is clear. Courts are fundamentally altering marriage here. The Supreme Court was not doing so in Loving. Case closed.

Whether the S. Ct. said in their opinion they were redefining marriage or not, they were redefining the defining of marriage in the state of VA and many other states.

And you are the one moving the goal posts. The question before us here today is not should the S. Ct. extend Loving. 

It is about voting on particular state referendums.  And the arguments one why one should vote to be homophobic are the exact same arguments made against Loving.    They were based on hate, and pushing ones own religious views on other then as they are now. 

[Buddhagirl]

If your daughters read about it in a book at school, they're not going to be licking pussies tomorrow.  They'll be fine.

Most awesomest sentence ever!

[SCFinfan]

Whether the S. Ct. said in their opinion they were redefining marriage or not, they were redefining the defining of marriage in the state of VA and many other states.

And you are the one moving the goal posts. The question before us here today is not should the S. Ct. extend Loving. 

It is about voting on particular state referendums.  And the arguments one why one should vote to be homophobic are the exact same arguments made against Loving.    They were based on hate, and pushing ones own religious views on other then as they are now. 

Do you not think voting on the opposite side can be construed as hatred of some religion's ban on homosexual sodomy, and the pushing of one's religious views about sex on another group?

Also, in case you don't remember, you are the one who brought up the tired, old "well, the same arguments were used w/ miscegenation laws" tripe.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I see. I think it'd be unconstitutional the same as Moore v. City of East Cleveland was then.

http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/moorecity.shtml

the briefs on 4lawschool.com are horrible.  don't trust that site.  most are written by first term law students and ones that I really wonder if they made it to second term. 

[SCFinfan]

the briefs on 4lawschool.com are horrible.  don't trust that site.  most are written by first term law students and ones that I really wonder if they made it to second term. 

Agreed, but not everyone here is a law student. They get what they need out of the case. That's all.

[Phishfan]

I see. I think it'd be unconstitutional the same as Moore v. City of East Cleveland was then.

http://www.4lawschool.com/conlaw/moorecity.shtml

The dangerous thing about it is I have heard it is written in a way that if passed a judge cannot rule on it. It would have to be voted on again by the people.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Do you not think voting on the opposite side can be construed as hatred of some religion's ban on homosexual sodomy, and the pushing of one's religious views about sex on another group?

No, not at all.  The law doesn't require anyone to engage in homosexual activity. 

My religion bans the mixing of meat and milk.  I would oppose making it federal law that one can not mix meat and milk.  Cause although mixing meat and milk in my religion is a sin, I am not going to try and impose that restriction on others.

If your religion considers homosexuality a sin -- Don't engage in homosexual activity.  Just don't impose that restriction on others just like I am not trying to impose the meat milk mixing on you.  It is called tolerance. 

Let me be clear here.  Homosexuality in my opinion is pretty disgusting.  And call me a racist if you will, but I have never dated a black person and never will.  I oppose interracial marriage as a personal decision.  But if you want to have an interracial relationship that is up to you.   

[SCFinfan]

No, not at all.  The law doesn't require anyone to engage in homosexual activity. 

My religion bans the mixing of meat and milk.  I would oppose making it federal law that one can not mix meat and milk.  Cause although mixing meat and milk in my religion is a sin, I am not going to try and impose that restriction on others.

Is anyone proposing a federal law here? No. Look, if there was any valid interest besides egregious religious freedom in your example, then I'd argue for it, but there's not.

That is not the case w/ gay marriage. In the Prop. 8 thread, I believe I came up w/ some good reasons why people desire not to enshine gay marriage as a constitutional right. If you disagree with those reasons, fine. But if you're going to say that all that lies behind those reasons is "irrational religion" then you're being  hardheaded, dogmatic, and disingenuous. I don't doubt there are good, valid reasons for wanting gay marriage to be so enshrined, but I think, in the wash, the interests balance out to the other side. That you do not is fine, but let's not act like rationality is only on one side here.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Is anyone proposing a federal law here? No. Look, if there was any valid interest besides egregious religious freedom in your example, then I'd argue for it, but there's not.

That is not the case w/ gay marriage. In the Prop. 8 thread, I believe I came up w/ some good reasons why people desire not to enshine gay marriage as a constitutional right. If you disagree with those reasons, fine. But if you're going to say that all that lies behind those reasons is "irrational religion" then you're being  hardheaded, dogmatic, and disingenuous. I don't doubt there are good, valid reasons for wanting gay marriage to be so enshrined, but I think, in the wash, the interests balance out to the other side. That you do not is fine, but let's not act like rationality is only on one side here.

Name one reason why gay marriage should be banned that isn't the equivalent of "God hates the gays"

[SCFinfan]

Name one reason why gay marriage should be banned that isn't the equivalent of "God hates the gays"

Because it is bigottedly underinclusive. If we are going to say that marriage should be defined as two adults who consent to marry, then we should not merely be considering adding a constitutional right for homosexuals, but also for those adults who would like to marry their brothers, mothers, fathers, and sisters. It is intellectually impossible (and dishonest) to say "I think the constitution requires that marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults" and then to still restrict individuals related that closely by blood from marriage. But no one is talking about them...

Why not?

Indeed, if there is bigotry here (which I concede there is), it is not just on my side, but on yours also.

[Dave Gray]

If you want to marry your father, go right ahead.

[SCFinfan]

If you want to marry your father, go right ahead.

You are certifiable.

[Dave Gray]

I meant you.  If YOU want to, I won't complain.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Because it is bigottedly underinclusive. If we are going to say that marriage should be defined as two adults who consent to marry, then we should not merely be considering adding a constitutional right for homosexuals, but also for those adults who would like to marry their brothers, mothers, fathers, and sisters. It is intellectually impossible (and dishonest) to say "I think the constitution requires that marriage should be allowed between any two consenting adults" and then to still restrict individuals related that closely by blood from marriage. But no one is talking about them...

Why not?

Indeed, if there is bigotry here (which I concede there is), it is not just on my side, but on yours also.

Your joking right?

If we legalize homosexual marriage it automatically legalizes incest???  I don't think so.

No more than banning armor piercing bullets bans the ownership of all guns.

Or making it a crime to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater suppresses ones right to criticize the government.   

Or having a speed limit will require people to drive no faster than they can walk. 

Or if we ban the use of cocaine we will have to ban the use of caffeine b/c they are both drugs.

Your slippery slope argument is without merit and is fear mongering.