Same sex marriage legal impact

[Buddhagirl]

I can use the word unicorn in a sentence without believing in them as well...and please feel free to extract the wadded panties out of the crack of your self-righteous ass at any time.

Have a pleasant day!

Heh

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I can use the word unicorn in a sentence without believing in them as well...and please feel free to extract the wadded panties out of the crack of your self-righteous ass at any time.

Have a pleasant day!

Hater!

What the fuck do you have against unicorns? 

There is plenty of evidence they exist. 




Well, maybe not plenty but just as much as there is a god.   

[Frimp]

...Well I walked the road less traveled, and what did I see?
A cute little unicorn looking at me...

...So I fired up my chainsaw, and with a mighty slash
I sawed off that horn, and I shoved it up his...

(Sorry...Monsters of the Midday flashback)

/hijack

[landlocked]

I also teach my children not to hate or make fun of any group of people,but we do not have to agree with their lifestyle.

[SCFinfan]

Given that marriage has involved family members for longer than it hasn't (should we even mention the Bible?), I don't think the whole "redefinining marriage" schtick really even applies here, anyway.
1. It is legal to own a plant.
2. But not certain plants.

Yes, of course. But explain to me the reason behind it, as you must be able to when the law gets facially challenged as unconstitutional. You'll be able to give me a host of reasons for the law you list above. But as for outlawing incest, there are none you can give that aren't demonstrably unusable in every situation. My contention is this: sure, the Court can, and probably will not extend marriage rights to incestuous couples, but not for long. They can't. It's pure dishonesty to try to say that there is any compelling secular reason out there to deny marriage rights to incestuous couples if you're going to extend them to homosexuals. This is a point I believe you missed.

To borrow your argument:  if gay sex is legal, then why shouldn't incestuous sex be?  So instead of bothering with outlawing homosexual marriage, we should be working on outlawing homosexuality itself, which would not only necessarily eliminate the problem of gay marriage, but also take us off of the slippery slope that inevitably must lead to fathers marrying their daughters (or sons, for that matter).

Of course, the pesky Constitution has already thrown a wrench into that plan... which explains why we are here today, trying to outlaw gay marriage instead.

Because as I said before, privacy concerns override in the area of sexual activity. The police shouldn't be able to peep in your windows, no matter who you are. But marriage is a public act. What we do in public can be regulated by the state, and should be. What we do at home, should not. What I'm trying to do here is strike a compromise.

[Dave Gray]

I want to point out something that Brian said that's absolutely right.  Even if you oppose gay marriage, the Constitution (state or national) isn't the proper place for that.

The constitution should grant rights to the citizens or limit the state.  If you want to ban gay marriage, just make a law about it.  Don't put it in the constitution, no matter how you feel about it.

[SCFinfan]

I want to point out something that Brian said that's absolutely right.  Even if you oppose gay marriage, the Constitution (state or national) isn't the proper place for that.

The constitution should grant rights to the citizens or limit the state.  If you want to ban gay marriage, just make a law about it.  Don't put it in the constitution, no matter how you feel about it.

No doubt people would, but you can't override a Court decision with a mere statute.   You need a constitutional provision to do that.  We are, unfortunately, beyond the pale of democracy here.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I want to point out something that Brian said that's absolutely right.  Even if you oppose gay marriage, the Constitution (state or national) isn't the proper place for that.

The constitution should grant rights to the citizens or limit the state.  If you want to ban gay marriage, just make a law about it.  Don't put it in the constitution, no matter how you feel about it.

Trivia question:  name the only amendment to the US constitution that took away rights?   

[SCFinfan]

Trivia question:  name the only amendment to the US constitution that took away rights?   

Prohibition. The 18th.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Prohibition. The 18th.

Bingo. It is also the only amendment to be repealed. 

The one attempt to use the constitution to limits citizen's rights was an utter failure. 

[Dave Gray]

^^ Yeah, and it was repealed because it was:

1) stupid
2) not the place for it

----


It doesn't matter anyway.  This amendment is only temporary, if it does pass.  Nationally, whatever the decision is will override the states.  You can't have some states recognizing them and others not, I don't think.  We'll all have to be on the same page eventually.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^ Yeah, and it was repealed because it was:

1) stupid
2) not the place for it

----


It doesn't matter anyway.  This amendment is only temporary, if it does pass.  Nationally, whatever the decision is will override the states.  You can't have some states recognizing them and others not, I don't think.  We'll all have to be on the same page eventually.

I think even the conservatives realize gay marriage will become a reality eventually.  The only question is it going to be this decade or if they can stall it for 25 years. 

[SCFinfan]

I think even the conservatives realize gay marriage will become a reality eventually.  The only question is it going to be this decade or if they can stall it for 25 years. 

So much for cooperative federalism then.

[Dave Gray]

I think that more people in the country support a ban on gay marriage than don't.  So, I think they'll be successful in stalling it, but the trend is overwhelmingly towards pro gay-marriage.  It might take a 25 years...but it'll happen.

[SCFinfan]

Both of y'all hold on a minute. Temperment towards homosexuals ebbs and flows in this country. In the 70's, homosexuals were quickly gaining acceptance, and many of teh adoption laws were re-written. In the 1980s, along with the AIDS crisis and other cultural shifts, all those gained rights were swept away. From the mid-90s onward, we've been shifting back towards granting homosexuals greater rights.

As it stands, history will continuously shift back and forth. What we are in favor of today we will desecrate tomorrow. They may very well gain marriage rights. But they will eventually lose them again.

I would like to also point out that when you push democracy too hard, when you force change too quickly (i.e. through a quick court decision, rather than generations of education) all you're going to get is anger and dissention. Abortion, for example, rips this country in two. I would be very careful, were I a court, before granting anyone anymore rights until I was sure the country was flaccid enough not to protest them.