Same sex marriage legal impact

[SportsChick]

Dave rules.




That is all

[Brian Fein]

Kids get called "gay" like its an insult.  Maybe to some people, it is.  How is that not hate?

By not teaching that homosexuality is "acceptable" behavior, your perpetuate the hate, and tell kids "this is abnormal, and wierd."  Kids naturally hate things that are different. 

Why do we want to follow our own hatred by raising kids to be hateful? 

This is analogous to the civil rights movement relative to racial discrimination in the early-to-mid 1900's.

[CF DolFan]

This was not a sentiment shared by much of the country 50 years ago.

Gay marriage is the same thing as black/white marriage.  Socially, certain people aren't ready for it, but it's happening, so get on bored, or grow old and die bitter and angry.

Anti-gay marriage = hate.   Let people who love either other get married and be happy, and take care of your own.  If your daughters read about it in a book at school, they're not going to be licking pussies tomorrow.  They'll be fine.

Oh you said the hate word .... oooohhhhh.  This is the point where I am suppposed to say I am not a hater or something when if fact I think you know very well I'm not.  Saying something funny doesn't make you right but I guess it gives you and your cronies the feeling of victory.  Congrats to you.

I also don't want teachers teaching my kids that partying and orgies are ok even though it is legal. Having my kids learn that gay marriages are to be accepted as normal is like your kids being taught Jesus is Lord in school.  It's a moral issue and doesn't need to be discussed at school.  

[Dave Gray]

It's because there's a changing of the guard.

Young people think this is less and less of a big deal.  Adults are more set in their ways.  But with each generation, more and more people will be okay with it, and it will be part of our society.  As people die off, tolerance is born.  The best that anti-gay marriage proponents can hope for is to fight it off for a little while.

I meet people now that are gay and I don't even think twice about it.  It's becoming like someone's hair color.  When I have kids, they'll see gay people in their family, among my friends, and among their friends and realize that they are just people like anyone else.  My parents, as understanding as they are on the surface, are probably still weirded out a little bit by that concept.  But they are cool with it, from exposure.

Just like I was weirded out by seeing a black and white couple, since I wasn't used to it, now it's just two people.  That's what the world is becoming.  And I think we'll be better off for it.

[CF DolFan]

We're becoming Soddom is what we are becoming.  It's not like liberal societies have faired well. 

*Religion Warning*

Every nation that God has blessed started out following Him and slowly became more liberal and hip turning their back on Him.  Once they passed a certain point He allowed their enemies to destroy them. Obviously our country is no different. 

[Dave Gray]

I also don't want teachers teaching my kids that partying and orgies are ok even though it is legal. Having my kids learn that gay marriages are to be accepted as normal is like your kids being taught Jesus is Lord in school.  It's a moral issue and doesn't need to be discussed at school.

OK.  I'll concede that.  I don't care whether or not they teach about homosexual marriage in school.

However, that's just a political talking point to outlaw a much bigger deal.  If you don't want kids learning about gay marriage in school, propose a law about not teaching it in school.  ...not to outlaw the marriage itself.  We both know that because it's in school has nothing to do with why people want it banned.

As far as the word "hate", I stand by it.  I don't think that you hate gay people, though, and sometimes that is miscontrued.  But I do think that the grounds for wanting to ban gay marriage are largely based in feelings of hatred and fear, which is ingrained into society from hundreds of years of intolerance.

--

Keith, I like you and I respect you.  I feel that while we often don't agree, that you treat me respectfully and kindly and I appreciate that.  I hope you feel the same in return and that I am not targeting you as a person.  I think that you are a good man and a good father and I question neither your intentions, nor your integrity.

[SCFinfan]

There isn't a single argument that the anti-gay marriage folks are making today that wasn't made to defend the anti-miscegenation statutes at the time of and before Loving v. Virginia. 

Whether or not the same arguments are made does not mean that both positions are constitutionally invalid.  Furthermore, I would like you to find me where in Loving it talks about "redefining" marriage, like anti-gay marriage folks claim the courts are doing today.

One more thing: you know that race is a suspect class in equal protection jurisprudence. Not so with sexual orientation laws.

[Phishfan]

No it's not.  More government means that the government has more power, whether that's socially or fiscally.  You can spin to justify whether it's worth it or just in either case, but it's still more government.

I'm not against more government in all cases, but to complain about how the government already controls families too much, and then talk about how they should enforce controls on marriage is totally counter-intuitive.

No it is spin because I bet you are not against more government in ALL cases. If we sat down and talked I am sure I could find some type of program that you personally don't consider more government, but someone else would. That is my point. Everyone considers the programs & policies they are against as forcing more government, but they don't see it that way for programs & policies they do support.

[CF DolFan]

That's good and the feeling is mutual.  I just think the "hate" word is a trigger word to scare people and not an argument.   At my church we treat protesters as we would anyone else ... in fact even giving them bottles of water in the hot months. No matter how nice we treat people from either extreme, we still can not and do not compromise the Word of God.  

People act like it is a control thing but I do think allowing gay marriages increases many other issues ... mostly pertaining to morality issues in our society. The more any sin becomes normal the furthur away from the morality line we go.  I assure you that I struggle with things I know is wrong but doesn't feel wrong because of the way I was brought up.  I expect the next generation will have that problem even more.  

I'll tell you the truth ... I really have no issue with it but according to the God I follow, it is absolutley as wrong as any other sin and I couldn't ever accept other sins to be "normal" either.  With that said I do take issue with them teaching about it in school.  

Color of skin in relationships took some getting used to ... but that was never a moral issue.  It was never a Biblical issue.  That was a racist issue and something a lot of us had to get over.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Whether or not the same arguments are made does not mean that both positions are constitutionally invalid.  Furthermore, I would like you to find me where in Loving it talks about "redefining" marriage, like anti-gay marriage folks claim the courts are doing today.

One more thing: you know that race is a suspect class in equal protection jurisprduence. Not so with sexual orientation laws.

Of course it redefined marriage.  Virginia did not allow the inferior and superior races to interbreed. As to allow such as act was an abomination against god. 

"Allowing a white and negro to marry would be no different than allowing a man and horse to marry."

But I will agree with you that sexual orientation is not nor can become a suspect class.  Nor do I advocate extending Loving to homosexual marriages. 

I believe states should continue to define who can get married in their state.  Some states allow cousins to marry some don't.  That is a state decision.  I do not believe the federal gov't should be involved.  Meaning that if Mass or CA issue a marriage license than the person should be considered married for the purposes of social security, taxes etc. 

Also just as is the case where one state allows cousins to marry and another state doesn't the contracts clause requires all states to recognize the marriage. 

So while I don't want the S.Ct to extend Loving and rule all states must allow homosexual marriages to be preformed in their state, I do believe all states must accept the marriages of anyone who is lawfully married in another.
 
That is my legalistic point of view. 

My pointing out that the same arguments were made is to explain that the hate has not changed. 

[Dave Gray]

I'll tell you the truth ... I really have no issue with it but according to the God I follow, it is absolutley as wrong as any other sin and I couldn't ever accept other sins to be "normal" either.  With that said I do take issue with them teaching about it in school.

By that same reasoning, shouldn't you be pushing for laws on the books to keep the Sabbath day holy?  Just because you believe it, from a religious perspective, does not justify its place in our legal system.


I think our biggest disagreement is that (if I'm understanding you correctly) that by legally permitting gay marriage, that we're angering God.  If so, that's kinda fruit-loops, in my opinion.

[Dave Gray]

No it is spin because I bet you are not against more government in ALL cases.

I'm not.  I even said so in my post.  But I'm also not making the argument FOR gay marriage because of less government.  I believe it's the right thing to do, whether it makes government bigger or smaller.

If we sat down and talked I am sure I could find some type of program that you personally don't consider more government, but someone else would. That is my point. Everyone considers the programs & policies they are against as forcing more government, but they don't see it that way for programs & policies they do support.

You can find someone who thinks that black is white, so I don't doubt that you can find someone that will disagree with me on what constitutes more or less government.

The way I understand it: More government means an increase in regulation (or power to the state) and less government means a decrease in regulation (or power to the people).

I think that in some cases, power to the people is important, and in other cases, I think that power to the state is important, but again, I'm not using the "less government" rally cry.

[Phishfan]

Taking what Brian said, I don't think that a law should be passed restricting the ability of unmarried couples to cohabitate. (That's what I got from your post, and an earlier post by either you or Phishfan. If I'm wrong in this interpretation, I apologize.)

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.

Modified to add, we already have two laws (I think that is correct without looking) on the books in Florida that outlaw gay marriage. Why do we need to add a third option to something already outlawed?

[SportsChick]

Like Brian said, this would effect the two of us in a huge way because of that loophole.

It can't restrict cohabitation because of roommate situations etc. but it's all the other stuff

[SCFinfan]

Of course it redefined marriage.  Virginia did not allow the inferior and superior races to interbreed. As to allow such as act was an abomination against god. 

"Allowing a white and negro to marry would be no different than allowing a man and horse to marry."

But I will agree with you that sexual orientation is not nor can become a suspect class.  Nor do I advocate extending Loving to homosexual marriages. 

I believe states should continue to define who can get married in their state.  Some states allow cousins to marry some don't.  That is a state decision.  I do not believe the federal gov't should be involved.  Meaning that if Mass or CA issue a marriage license than the person should be considered married for the purposes of social security, taxes etc. 

Also just as is the case where one state allows cousins to marry and another state doesn't the contracts clause requires all states to recognize the marriage. 

So while I don't want the S.Ct to extend Loving and rule all states must allow homosexual marriages to be preformed in their state, I do believe all states must accept the marriages of anyone who is lawfully married in another.
 
That is my legalistic point of view. 

My pointing out that the same arguments were made is to explain that the hate has not changed. 

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 bothhere in the states, and 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.