You Can Play

[thespleenenator]

The majority of homophodes in the US say they are for gay rights, or that they are against it, but don't believe they should be treated differently, because they know if they said "Gays are horrible", they would be attacked, even though a lot of the people attacking them would at least sort of agree. It's one of those things where the majority of people agree that homosexuality is in some form not ok, but it's considered a taboo, so most people keep that to themselves. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case for him, but it is a reason to want him to explain himself more.

No offense, but this is a complete opinion. There is no way of knowing what a person "really means" when they say it.

Are you saying that infrared, BBTV and Gothamite are closet homophobes? In my 5 years of membership here they have never said or implied a single thing to make me think they are homophobes?

Because by your logic, they are potentially in the majority of homophobes simply because they said they are for equal rights for all.

You just painted everybody as a potential homophobe which is not fair.

I know that it looks like I did, but I was just trying to make a point as to why a lot of people would take what he said as anti gay, even though he said "I don't think they should be treated differently". It's like when people say "I have black friends, so I'm not racist".

[charger77]

The majority of homophodes in the US say they are for gay rights, or that they are against it, but don't believe they should be treated differently, because they know if they said "Gays are horrible", they would be attacked, even though a lot of the people attacking them would at least sort of agree. It's one of those things where the majority of people agree that homosexuality is in some form not ok, but it's considered a taboo, so most people keep that to themselves. I'm not saying that is necessarily the case for him, but it is a reason to want him to explain himself more.

No offense, but this is a complete opinion. There is no way of knowing what a person "really means" when they say it.

Are you saying that infrared, BBTV and Gothamite are closet homophobes? In my 5 years of membership here they have never said or implied a single thing to make me think they are homophobes?

Because by your logic, they are potentially in the majority of homophobes simply because they said they are for equal rights for all.

You just painted everybody as a potential homophobe which is not fair.

I know that it looks like I did, but I was just trying to make a point as to why a lot of people would take what he said as anti gay, even though he said "I don't think they should be treated differently". It's like when people say "I have black friends, so I'm not racist".

I would agree if he had said: I'm not anti gay, I even have gave friends. I think we all would have posted a variety of face palm pics.

But to pharaphrase you did say:

Most people that support gay rights are secret homophobes.

Most that do not agree with homosexuality, but do not believe in persecution and unequal treatment are secret homophobes.

Most that call out people for being bigoted to homosexuals are in fact secret homophobes.

You just labeled everybody as a potential homophobe, which is very unfair and prejudicial.

You may not (and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say probably not) have meant that at all, but it did come off that way (much like I was accused of yesterday).

[Gothamite]

That's because marriage defines a thousand civil benefits, from spousal immunity from testifying in court to tax regulations to inheritances. The state has a very compelling interest in marrige, which is why it is a civil institution in our country, not a religious one

All of these benefits could be addressed without a state sanctioned marriage.

and that's what opponents of marriage equality say gay people should do - spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to secure all the protections of marriage.

But why should they have to? Marriage has always been a civil institution in this country. Why should we change that, and add a significant financial and logistical burden to couples who don't want a sectarian ceremony? Not to mention the added burden of having to carry those contracts around at all times, since one never knows when a spouse might be rushed to the hospital?

Shall we do all this merely to spare the feelings of a minority of Americans, whoe churches don't and won't have to marry gay couples if they don't want to?

The old joke is that the definition of a social conservative is "a person who lives in fear that somewhere, somebody is having a good time." Sometimes jokes have a basis in truth; that's the only reason I can see for the "get government out of marriage" argument, since it significantly penalizes many couples just to spare the feelings of a few.

[charger77]

That's because marriage defines a thousand civil benefits, from spousal immunity from testifying in court to tax regulations to inheritances. The state has a very compelling interest in marrige, which is why it is a civil institution in our country, not a religious one

All of these benefits could be addressed without a state sanctioned marriage.

and that's what opponents of marriage equality say gay people should do - spend thousands of dollars on legal fees to secure all the protections of marriage.

But why should they have to? Marriage has always been a secular institution in this country. Why should we change that, and add a significant financial and logistical burden to couples who don't want a sectarian ceremony? To spare the feelings of a minority of Americans, whose churches don't have to marry gay couples if they don't want to?

The old joke is that a social conservative is a person who lives in fear that somewhere, somebody is having a good time. Sometimes jokes have a basis in truth; that's the only reason I can see for the "get government out of marriage" argument, since it penalizes many couples just to spare the feelings of a few.

Maybe it is because I'm a small government guy in all aspects and I still don't see the necessity for tax breaks for married people and how the breaks do not violate equal protection under the law.

[Gothamite]

Then change that law first, before you try to create separate-but-equal categories of marriage.

[charger77]

Then change that law first, before you try to create separate-but-equal categories of marriage.

I'm not trying to create seperate but equal categories of marriage. I would be eliminating the concept of state sanctioned marriage (for all).

[pmoehrin]

Was wondering how this topic could go from 2 to 5 pages in a day.

Then I just see gay marriage and feel like my question has been answered.

[charger77]

Was wondering how this topic could go from 2 to 5 pages in a day.

Then I just see gay marriage and feel like my question has been answered.

Did you also see that every person here that voiced their opinion on it is 100% in favor of it?

99% of this thread has been a discussion between people that are in total agreement.

[Gothamite]

back when gay marriage started getting some traction as an issue (in other words, when politicians started exploiting it) I was against it. My girlfriend, brother, sister-in-law, and I got into a discussion about it. All three of them were pro-gay marriage. They asked me why I was against it and the best answer I could come up with was "I don't know, I'm just not crazy about it."

It was at that point that I realized if "I'm not crazy about it" was the best argument I could come up with, then I really had no argument at all.

And in the end, I think that's the only real objection to marriage equality laws.

Marriage is a Constitutionally-protected civil right. You need a very compelling reason why some people shouldn't be allowed to exercise that right (or, in the case of some extremists, why the state should retroactively revoke that right once exercised).

I've yet to hear a reason that could pass Constitutional muster, since they all either: 1) invoke an appeal to tradition, anathema to the Constitution, 2) require all people to conform to the dictates of one religious sect, also anathema to the Constitution, or 3) boil down to "I'm not crazy about it."

[charger77]

back when gay marriage started getting some traction as an issue (in other words, when politicians started exploiting it) I was against it. My girlfriend, brother, sister-in-law, and I got into a discussion about it. All three of them were pro-gay marriage. They asked me why I was against it and the best answer I could come up with was "I don't know, I'm just not crazy about it."

It was at that point that I realized if "I'm not crazy about it" was the best argument I could come up with, then I really had no argument at all.

And in the end, I think that's the only real objection to marriage equality laws.

Marriage is a Constitutionally-protected civil right. You need a very compelling reason why some people shouldn't be allowed to exercise that right (or, in the case of some extremists, why the state should retroactively revoke that right once exercised).

I've yet to hear a reason that could pass Constitutional muster, since they all either: 1) invoke an appeal to tradition, anathema to the Constitution, 2) require all people to conform to the dictates of one religious sect, also anathema to the Constitution, or 3) boil down to "I'm not crazy about it."

Marriage is a State issue not Federal issue, hence no federal license and different standards per state (age & gender restriction).

You seemed to pick and choose infrared quotes.

I said and he agreed that the state should not be involve in at all (for gay or straight people). A state marriage license does violate equal protection under the law. I said and he agreed that we should have (at the state level) a civil union (this would be the only government option for gay and straight people) that provided all of the legal protections that state marriage license would provide except for preferential tax treatment. The only regulation of a Civil Union should be: Be 18 or older and be of sound mind.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the US Constitution doesn't give any definition of marriage.

You are 100% correct.

I'll even do you one better.

The XIV (Paragraph 1) states:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If that is not your Constitutional question to fix this issue I don't know what is

[Lights Out]

Marriage is a Constitutionally-protected civil right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the US Constitution doesn't give any definition of marriage... hence why homophobes have long tried (and failed) to get an amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman ratified.

[infrared41]

Then change that law first, before you try to create separate-but-equal categories of marriage.

I'm not trying to create seperate but equal categories of marriage. I would be eliminating the concept of state sanctioned marriage (for all).

I'm with -Dan on this one Goth. We're saying that marriage should not be a government issue. Period. It's not "separate but equal", or some backhanded way of devaluing gay marriage, it's simply the opinion that the state does not have a compelling interest in marriage, regardless of who's getting married.

My opinion is that if we take government out of the equation, that makes it a level playing field for everyone. Granted, neither of us are experts in law so we don't know the legalities of such a position, but I think we're both coming from a place where we think our position would only help with gay marriage. We may be wrong. As I said, I don't know enough about law to see the downside. I'm certainly open to learning more about it.

[Lights Out]

I'm with -Dan on this one Goth. We're saying that marriage should not be a government issue.

It shouldn't be a federal government issue. As per the 10th Amendment, marriage should be left to the states to decide. If a state wants to take a bigoted stance on gay marriage, they must also shoulder the economic and social consequences of that choice.

[Gothamite]

States cannot infringe upon the Constitutional rights of citizens. Not even under the Tenth.

I respect where you're coming from, but I haven't heard a very compelling reason why, after three hundred and fifty years, we should change marriage from a civil institution to a religious one.

Why? If you still have civil unions, then you haven't gotten any closer to a smaller government. You've just created two categories of marriage, secular and sectarian, and that can't help but be separate-but-equal.

If you're advocating for all abolishment of any state sanction, including civil unions, then I think you could make the argument, but the outcome would be so radical I have no real interest in it.

Marriage is a Constitutionally-protected civil right.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the US Constitution doesn't give any definition of marriage... hence why homophobes have long tried (and failed) to get an amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman ratified.

it doesn't define marriage, but that doesn't change the fact that marriage is a right recognized by the Supreme Court as guaranteed by the Constitution. Been that way for over forty years.

The Ninth Amendment instructs us that a right doesn't have to be listed in the Constitution to be a Constitutional right.

That's precisely why some Christianists are trying to pass an amendment, because under existing Supreme Court precedent the only legitimate way to deny gay couples their Constitutional right is to amend the Consitition to take those rights away.

[charger77]

The Ninth Amendment instructs us that a right doesn't have to be listed in the Constitution to be a Constitutional right.

And the 10th tells us:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which means its not a Federal issue, but a state issue.

Keeping that in mind one must then read the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The gay marriage issue can be addressed under the provisions of the 14th, not the 10th.

Radical societal changes are not always bad. With out them slavery would still exist and black people, women and soldiers under 21 would not be able to vote.

DON'T SAY THE C-WORD AROUND HIM OH NO IT HAPPENED AGAIN

Why not? The "C-Word" is the answer to addressing this inequality.

[The_Admiral]

DON'T SAY THE C-WORD AROUND HIM OH NO IT HAPPENED AGAIN

[Gothamite]

Charger, the radical changes you mention were about expanding freedom, not restricting it. You either offer civil unions, which is separate-but-equal, or you don't, in which case you make couples enter into a series of complicated contracts, with no easy way of safeguarding or guaranteeing them.

I still haven't heard a compelling reason for taking away marriage away from the state entirely, which will create additional burdens on the people who wish to marry.

The Ninth Amendment instructs us that a right doesn't have to be listed in the Constitution to be a Constitutional right.

And the 10th tells us:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Which means its not a Federal issue, but a state issue. .

I'm sorry, but I think your analysis is flat-out wrong. The Ninth trumps the Tenth where there is a conflict, because states do not have the power to remove Constitutional rights. Marriage is a Constitutional right.

The fundamental purpose of the federal government is to safeguard our rights, even against individual states.

[charger77]

Charger, the radical changes you mention were about expanding freedom, not restricting it.

My (and I assume infrared's) stance is about expanding freedom not about restricting it. I am not sure how you can't see it.

Unfortunately the rest of your statement is incorrect (factually, not my opinion). As this is a social issues thread and not a political issues thread I will not thread jack and explain why the statement is wrong.

[Braden]

I wanted to interject this debate to make sure you know that I love you all.

Carry on.

[Joshawaggie]

We love you too.