Do you believe in the Constitution or will you ignore the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling?

[YellowSnow51]

It's funny hearing all of the staunch Constitution supporters talk about how if the SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal, they will ignore it...proving that the Constitution means nothing to them.

How does the HROT roll?

 

[PhantomFlyer]

How does one ignore the ruling? It will be the law of the land. You can't disagree with the ruling but it's still the law. I mean I think next to Dredd Scott, Roe v Wade was the worst written decision in court history, but you can't ignore it. Abortion is now legal and if you want to change that you need to change the law (or have the USSC reverse it's decision).

 

[TexMichFan]

This kind of feels like ground hogs day - this same thread was up yesterday and then disappeared.

My answer yesterday is still the same today - the losing side will think it is a bad decision and will talk about activist judges thwarting the will of the people and the winning side will think the judges made a fair and correct decision. Then both sides will get back to telling the other side they are wrong.

I will add this if gay marriage is not legalized by SCOTUS will you abide by the ruling and not hate the Constitution?

Studying polling is a fascinating subject, the way the options are worded can really impact the answers you get. The 40% that lean the most to the right or left of any subject are not impacted much but the middle 20% can be by how the option is presented. Like your options - the yes is straight forward and does not include a "therefore" well the no instead of just being worded the same way does and when you include a negative or a positive direction you will influence the results. I know yours is not a scientific poll and you are trying to make a point I just find polling interesting.

 

[who r u]

of course i believe in the constitution i saw it with my own two eyes on my jr high field trip to dc. i also will be ignoring legalized gay marriage because it has nothing to do with me, i am not getting married nor am i gay. the only time i care if someone gets married is if i have to go and its on a football saturday, now that should be illegal.

 

[hawkeye54545]

I just don't understand why people think 2 men getting married somehow is demeaning to their own marriage.

I get why people might not be for gay rights, I just don't see why people are against gay rights. I'm just not afraid of the gheys like a lot of you are I guess. As far as I can tell it's not contagious.

 

[The_PhoenixII]

Why stop at just two people marrying each other. If 2 guys and 3 women want to marry each other, who's to say that is wrong? As to the poll question, you must hate God if you are for gay marriage. Futhermore, I don't really think the SCOTUS should be making law, they should just interpret law. Laws should be left up to the individual states. Now, gay people don't bother me. In fact I have a few friends that are gay, but to have this notion that gay couples are the same as heterosexual couples is disingenuous at best. The title of marriage is for that of a man and a women for the family. Last I checked, gay couples cannot produce a family on their own. Let them have a ceremony and a title, I just don't believe it should by called marriage.

 

[DrVenkman]

Everyone is so hopped up on this topic of marriage. I am not so cyncical to just blanketly say marriage is an outdated societal tradition but why the craze over it. if you want to stop something than fight to stop divorce. You would have far fewer marriages if the govt held much tighter sway over couples ability to divorce.

I hear so many people talking about the nuclear family dying away because of homosexual marriage... What a bunch of BS.. The family dynamic is changing because so few people want to stay married, no matter the sex of the couple.

 

[icu81222]

I am perfectly content with gays having the same rights as men/women.

I am disappointed that the radical gays refuse to respect that the term "marriage" has always been between man and woman and adopt their own term, such as "civil union" or whatever the hell they want.

IMO, they would get a great deal less blow back from a vast number of people on the right if they would agree to that. But sadly (as we will see with responses to this) it's just not good enough for the perpetually outraged.

 

[icu81222]

I just don't understand why people think 2 men getting married somehow is demeaning to their own marriage.

Mostly due to their religious beliefs. Which should be respected.

Most people are evolving to be fine with people doing what they want to do. They just don't want to be forced to participate in it (like baking their wedding cake or supplying their flowers)

 

[KitingHigh]

I am perfectly content with gays having the same rights as men/women.

I am disappointed that the radical gays refuse to respect that the term "marriage" has always been between man and woman and adopt their own term, such as "civil union" or whatever the hell they want.

IMO, they would get a great deal less blow back from a vast number of people on the right if they would agree to that. But sadly (as we will see with responses to this) it's just not good enough for the perpetually outraged.

Sorry, but this is a weak and petty argument. Christians did not invent marraige, nor do they have any ownership rights to the term. It seems that those claiming this argument are the ones showing outrage over nothing just for the sake of arguing.

 

[icu81222]

Sorry, but this is a weak and petty argument. Christians did not invent marraige, nor do they have any ownership rights to the term. It seems that those claiming this argument are the ones showing outrage over nothing just for the sake of arguing.

I didn't say Christians invented marriage. I said it has always been between a man and a woman and the term should remain that way. Gays should just choose their own term.

 

[DrVenkman]

I didn't say Christians invented marriage. I said it has always been between a man and a woman and the term should remain that way. Gays should just choose their own term.

I see the logic here.

In fact i am surprised that the SCOTUS didnt force interracial couples back in '67 to come up with their own term when they legalized interracial marriages-

some ideas could have been

Hamboning or Oreo Coupling??

 

[mstp1992]

I didn't say Christians invented marriage. I said it has always been between a man and a woman and the term should remain that way. Gays should just choose their own term.

I don't want to go down this path again, but you do realize the history of "marriage" was not exclusively 1 man and 1 woman, right? It also didn't always include willing participants in said marriage.

That being said, I believe there is a constitutional leg to stand on in support of gay marriage and believe the Supreme Court will rule as such (with some dissension, of course).

 

[The_Joker13]

I didn't say Christians invented marriage. I said it has always been between a man and a woman and the term should remain that way. Gays should just choose their own term.

like segregated terms?

 

[YellowSnow51]

[QUOTE="The_PhoenixII, post: 320475, member: 11274 As to the poll question, you must hate God if you are for gay marriage. [/QUOTE]

And unless you look at divorce with equal disdain as gay marriage, you not only hate God, but you are a flaming hypocrite as well. Selective bible belief is a dangerous pastime.

 

[theIowaHawk]

The title of marriage is for that of a man and a women for the family. Last I checked, gay couples cannot produce a family on their own. Let them have a ceremony and a title, I just don't believe it should by called marriage.

What do you base this on, legally? Like, can you point to any statute that required this, say, pre-1997?

 

[theIowaHawk]

I find the "just don't call it marriage" camp's logic strange. Especially mathematically.

In their mind one thing (Marriage) and another (say, Civil Union) are exactly the same in ALL legal aspects....but want it to be called differently.

If two things are identical, legally, why spend money to call them differently?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Mostly due to their religious beliefs. Which should be respected.

Most people are evolving to be fine with people doing what they want to do. They just don't want to be forced to participate in it (like baking their wedding cake or supplying their flowers)

Wait, why should this be "respected"? You aren't talking about involving the religious person, you are talking about OTHER people getting married. Why should their "religious belief" about OTHERS be "respected"?

Your discussion of wedding cakes are a completely separate issue than the one discussed here.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Why stop at just two people marrying each other. If 2 guys and 3 women want to marry each other, who's to say that is wrong? As to the poll question, you must hate God if you are for gay marriage. Futhermore, I don't really think the SCOTUS should be making law, they should just interpret law. Laws should be left up to the individual states. Now, gay people don't bother me. In fact I have a few friends that are gay, but to have this notion that gay couples are the same as heterosexual couples is disingenuous at best. The title of marriage is for that of a man and a women for the family. Last I checked, gay couples cannot produce a family on their own. Let them have a ceremony and a title, I just don't believe it should by called marriage.

Hit almost every cliché and old excuse in the book:

Strawman ...
Slippery slope ...
Marriage is for procreation (conveniently ignored when an old man and old woman want to marry, or a sterile man or woman wants to marry) ....
I have no problems with "the gays" ...
I have gay friends ...
The word marriage is exclusively reserved for one man and one woman ...

 

[theIowaHawk]

Why stop at just two people marrying each other. If 2 guys and 3 women want to marry each other, who's to say that is wrong? As to the poll question, you must hate God if you are for gay marriage. Futhermore, I don't really think the SCOTUS should be making law, they should just interpret law. Laws should be left up to the individual states. Now, gay people don't bother me. In fact I have a few friends that are gay, but to have this notion that gay couples are the same as heterosexual couples is disingenuous at best. The title of marriage is for that of a man and a women for the family. Last I checked, gay couples cannot produce a family on their own. Let them have a ceremony and a title, I just don't believe it should by called marriage.

Hit almost every cliché and old excuse in the book:

Strawman ...
Slippery slope ...
Marriage is for procreation (conveniently ignored when an old man and old woman want to marry, or a sterile man or woman wants to marry) ....
I have no problems with "the gays" ...
I have gay friends ...
The word marriage is exclusively reserved for one man and one woman ...

And the simple fact that marriage has not been FOR procreation, it certainly could have been a factor, but it was never a requirement. It even more conveniently ignores the actual issue of procreation, or I guess it sidesteps it by claiming "on their own." I guess by on their own, it ignores fertility clinics, adoption, surrogacy, etc.

We've got more gays than ever, right! So our reproduction rate must just be nosediving....oh wait.

 

[86_90]

And the simple fact that marriage has not been FOR procreation, it certainly could have been a factor, but it was never a requirement. It even more conveniently ignores the actual issue of procreation, or I guess it sidesteps it by claiming "on their own." I guess by on their own, it ignores fertility clinics, adoption, surrogacy, etc.

We've got more gays than ever, right! So our reproduction rate must just be nosediving....oh wait.

Do you support the rights of polygamists to openly marry and have all the rights of other married couples? Why or why not?

 

[ping72]

I just don't understand why people think 2 men getting married somehow is demeaning to their own marriage.

I'm guessing you're not married? The 2 men getting married always look so happy. Happiness is definitely not a part of traditional marriage.

 

[fredjr82]

Do you support the rights of polygamists to openly marry and have all the rights of other married couples? Why or why not?

Did you think this was some type of revelation that hasn't been discussed ad nauseam in the past? Did you think reviving this thread from 3 months ago with your question was a good idea?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Do you support the rights of polygamists to openly marry and have all the rights of other married couples? Why or why not?

Weird that this thread is being bumped 3 months later.

I'm not sure right now. I believe it is a non-analogous situation to same-sex marriage.

Just using simple math:
M+M = Illegal
M+W = Legal, clearly sets a standard based solely on gender, or more technically sexual orientation. It would need a reason to do so. I think those reasons have been discussed ad naseum and thoroughly debunked, therefore I believe there is not enough justification to discriminate based on gender/s.o.

M+M+M = Illegal
M+W+W = Illegal
M+M+W = Illegal

All of these are equally "illegal". I don't see it as a gender issue in any form. I don't see it as a sexual orientation issue, at least not in any argument I've ever heard. The relationships, as far as I understand are separate, therefore the more proper math would probably be:

(M1+W1) + (M1+W2) = illegal
(W1+M1) + (W1+M2) = illegal
M+W/M = legal

I don't see anything discriminatory in comparing those, other than discriminatory towards numbers. So, in order for me to be concerned there needs to be a basis for that concern, and I don't think there is one, at least facially. (Some will scream that SSM equality is about "love" and if it is about "love" than anyone who "loves" should be allowed to marry). This is a ignorant straw man that means nothing, the last thing we should be doing is trying to quantify love, or use it in governance.

Ok, so where is the actual issue regarding Polygamy? It relies, imo, wholly within the First Amendment. Is restricting their marriage rights prohibiting their free exercise. Well, yes, it probably is. It is fairly central to their religious practice, and stopping them from doing so would seem like it violates. That is one reason I think cohabitation and adultery laws are Unconstitutional, we simply can not control that behavior, as it relates to religion.

So, the larger question to me is, as long as they can "marry" religiously, does the First bar laws against non-religious "marriage" I'm not settled on this issue. This is separate and distinct from SSM, because that was an equal protection issue, I don't see this as an Equal Protection issue, beyond the religious reasons.

Now, even if we believe that the First is, in fact, implicated, that doesn't simply end the discussion. Is there a legitimate, government purpose for having the law, and is it applied equally across religions? I haven't delved deep enough in to the Ploygamy debate to make up my mind whether the government has a good enough reason to ban it.

Anything else 86/90?

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm guessing you're not married? The 2 men getting married always look so happy. Happiness is definitely not a part of traditional marriage.

I wonder if it's not the kids? If you all got snipped before the wedding, you might enjoy life.

 

[WhiteSoxClone]

Deleted comment. Just realized this is a 3 month old thread.

 

[naturalmwa]

Did you think this was some type of revelation that hasn't been discussed ad nauseam in the past? Did you think reviving this thread from 3 months ago with your question was a good idea?

Bravo, good point sir.

 

[naturalmwa]

Pray tell, how does a private citizen "ignore" a Supreme Court ruling?

Getting a job at the county clerk's office apparently.

 

[Titanhawk2]

It's funny hearing all of the staunch Constitution supporters talk about how if the SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal, they will ignore it...proving that the Constitution means nothing to them.

How does the HROT roll?

So you're saying Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus? You're saying nothing in the Constitution is wrong? You're saying no SCOTUS ruling is wrong? You're saying you agree with everything the government puts out?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I see the logic here.

In fact i am surprised that the SCOTUS didnt force interracial couples back in '67 to come up with their own term when they legalized interracial marriages-

some ideas could have been

Hamboning or Oreo Coupling??

Hybrid Unions.

 

[Lone Clone]

It's funny hearing all of the staunch Constitution supporters talk about how if the SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal, they will ignore it...proving that the Constitution means nothing to them.

How does the HROT roll?

And you would have supported Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson, nyet? Because that's what the Constitution and SCOTUS said was the law.

But that's getting the cart in front of the horse, anyway. Who has said they will ignore the ruling? That is, what do they say they will do (or fail to do) that is contrary to the ruling?

For the record, I didn't agree with the ruling, but I have no problem with gay marriage.

 

[86_90]

Weird that this thread is being bumped 3 months later.

I'm not sure right now. I believe it is a non-analogous situation to same-sex marriage.

Just using simple math:
M+M = Illegal
M+W = Legal, clearly sets a standard based solely on gender, or more technically sexual orientation. It would need a reason to do so. I think those reasons have been discussed ad naseum and thoroughly debunked, therefore I believe there is not enough justification to discriminate based on gender/s.o.

M+M+M = Illegal
M+W+W = Illegal
M+M+W = Illegal

All of these are equally "illegal". I don't see it as a gender issue in any form. I don't see it as a sexual orientation issue, at least not in any argument I've ever heard. The relationships, as far as I understand are separate, therefore the more proper math would probably be:

(M1+W1) + (M1+W2) = illegal
(W1+M1) + (W1+M2) = illegal
M+W/M = legal

I don't see anything discriminatory in comparing those, other than discriminatory towards numbers. So, in order for me to be concerned there needs to be a basis for that concern, and I don't think there is one, at least facially. (Some will scream that SSM equality is about "love" and if it is about "love" than anyone who "loves" should be allowed to marry). This is a ignorant straw man that means nothing, the last thing we should be doing is trying to quantify love, or use it in governance.

Ok, so where is the actual issue regarding Polygamy? It relies, imo, wholly within the First Amendment. Is restricting their marriage rights prohibiting their free exercise. Well, yes, it probably is. It is fairly central to their religious practice, and stopping them from doing so would seem like it violates. That is one reason I think cohabitation and adultery laws are Unconstitutional, we simply can not control that behavior, as it relates to religion.

So, the larger question to me is, as long as they can "marry" religiously, does the First bar laws against non-religious "marriage" I'm not settled on this issue. This is separate and distinct from SSM, because that was an equal protection issue, I don't see this as an Equal Protection issue, beyond the religious reasons.

Now, even if we believe that the First is, in fact, implicated, that doesn't simply end the discussion. Is there a legitimate, government purpose for having the law, and is it applied equally across religions? I haven't delved deep enough in to the Ploygamy debate to make up my mind whether the government has a good enough reason to ban it.

Anything else 86/90?

So all consenting adults are not equal? One group's idea of non-traditional marriage is more acceptable than others? Seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it?

Why deny a relationship and marriage between consenting adults? They have chosen to live as a couple/plus one. Why discriminate against a relationship that is clearly consensual and "no one's business?" Or do you NOW want the government dictating what is normal in the bedroom? [ Wait, haven't they just done this. ]

Hadn't we already demanded the government stay out of relationships between consenting adults? Wasn't this exhibit A as to why the traditional definition no longer was politically acceptable. Legal rights for gay couples that lived together, and then of course the title of marriage shortly after the legal stuff was ironed out. Right...this is different. These human beings are different and what they do is ILLEGAL? Wow.

Are they less human because they add another consenting adult into their long-term committed relationship? Why is their life-style choice illegal? Are you uncomfortable with the idea? Do you know any polygamist couples? Is this sort of "different" relationship so much more different than traditional definitions like marriage being "narrowly defined" as being between a man and a woman. Of course not now, as marriage has been redefined, but you seem to want cling to the definition of marriage as between 2 people only because it is currently illegal. This argument was made about gay relationships for centuries. This definition seems very bigoted and close-minded and as such it is a discriminatory, limiting definition of what is "normal."

 

[86_90]

Did you think this was some type of revelation that hasn't been discussed ad nauseam in the past? Did you think reviving this thread from 3 months ago with your question was a good idea?

I saw a question and thought the question was utterly biased. I followed it to YOU Guys. Thought I'd ask a question. And indeed, you are a touchy lot.

 

[86_90]

So you're saying Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus? You're saying nothing in the Constitution is wrong? You're saying no SCOTUS ruling is wrong? You're saying you agree with everything the government puts out?

No that is not what he/she meant. I believe what is meant is simply tread slowly and carefully when attempting to change the document that is the foundation for the Greatest Nation that Every Existed: the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.