Also, when you respond with more anger in your 4 consecutive posts, your homosexual frustration and self hate shows up more than normal. Please continue as I appreciate the train wreck that your life appears to be.
Alan Keyes: Gay Marriage Ruling A 'Just Cause For War'
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Also, when you respond with more anger in your 4 consecutive posts, your homosexual frustration and self hate shows up more than normal. Please continue as I appreciate the train wreck that your life appears to be.
Who is the "you" in this scenario? I'd have to guess not many posters outside of LC had much of a say about Utah changing their laws. If I kept guessing, I'd imagine it was people that share your views on marriage that forced that change.
It's 100% all about votes. "You support gay marriage? Not voting for you." Except at the state election levels.
Two days later, when the politician is losing half his voters, he suddenly turns into Alan Keyes.
BTW, this con doesn't give a flying fart who anybody marries as long as it ain't his dog or sister...no pun intended. It's none of the government's goddam business.
You are right, the framers didn't intend for the several states to have the same privileges and immunities, nor did they want them to have the full faith and credit of the others...oh wait.
The SCOTUS carries an extremely important purpose, deciding the issues of the several states when in conflict. Who else can do it? Each State? So MO decides Iowa is wrong, Iowa decides Mo is wrong...do we have a big battle between State Patrols?
Jesus Phantom, this is simple stuff. Right now, today, this minute, no state allows Polygamy and all ban it. When that changes, or even when there is a momentum to discuss it, it will become ripe, and then we discuss it. It isn't relevant to today's discussion.
You scream hypocrite, but ignore the extremely obvious: you are arguing for Polygamy because you fail in arguing against SSM. You raise the hypocrisy card, even though it doesn't further your argument. Let's say everybody who is for SSM is ok with Polygamy...then what do you do? Bring up dogs like OiT?
Stick to the debate at hand instead of moving the goal posts and trying to fear monger.
This has been my contention all along with Phantom using this as a basis for arguing against allowing same-sex marriage. Deal with the current issue and not the "what about..."
I am confused and maybe I read this wrong. Are you gay but also religious or were you gay before? Are you against gay people completely now or just when they marry ? It sounds like you are in favor of it, but then you bring up other things that are different. Are you in favor of polygamy too?? You bring that up, but I do not know if people want that too. Are there states that are doing that or thinking about it?
Someone used that description about me or those arguing against ssm, which is why I put quotations around the word. I'm too lazy to look up who specifically made the comment. I'm not saying anyone is yelling.
Good grief, you can't articulate an argument so you throw out the "homophobe" bs. Weak, my friend, weak.
No, it shows you can't formulate an intelligent argument. If that makes you proud of yourself, have at it.
I don't support ssm or polygamy and think the issue should be decided by the states, not the courts. I understand public opinion is moving in favor of ssm and it will be the law of the land in most states, even if the courts stay out of the issue. Fine, that would be the will of the people.
My problem is I've yet to see a strong argument against polygamy from the pro-ssm crowd. They say they are against polygamy but their reasoning is weak, under the new view of marriage. So, it's basically no polygamy because of the "ick" factor.
I have dealt with the current issue and multiple times explained why I believe marriage should be the traditional definition. However, it's not surprising IowaHawk wants to change the law without thinking about the unintended consequences of said action. He's a lawyer, it's how they think. It's what our politicians (mostly lawyers) do all the time, and the ACA is just the latest example. Don't worry about what's in the law, we'll find out later and deal with it then. This is *ss backwards how we should think and do things but it's all to common in our society.
"Right now, today, this minute, no state allows Polygamy and all ban it. When that changes, or even when there is a momentum to discuss it, it will become ripe, and then we discuss it. It isn't relevant to today's discussion."
BTW, this is an embarrassingly ignorant statement coming from a lawyer. IowaHawk should find a new profession if he honestly believes this. It's important NOW because it will set legal precedent and reasoning, in the future, for other groups to revise the definition of marriage. Holy crap, it's not difficult to see why these issues must be addressed NOW.
I don't think that's a correct reading of the pro SSM position. I think you may be projecting.
No projection, it's based on comments I've read here and other places from the pro-ssm crowd. Maybe you are projecting.
I will give you a great reason. Any man that wants more than one wife has lost his marbles!! Seriously though, it would have to be hard to take care of a bunch of wives, unless they all work too.
You should read them again, I think you will find a lot of support for a live and let live philosophy from the pro SSM crowd, be that polyigamy, or other.
Can you make a legal case against same-sex marriage without bringing in any of the "well, what about..."?
You are in the minority. Notice I didn't single you out. Look at it this way. Do you think a majority of people in the public and/or on this site support polygamy? Answer honestly. I'd be willing to wager money a majority of the people (including those who support ssm) would not support polygamy. Why do you think so many people get upset when I (or Justice Alito) bring up the subject? It's a logical extension of changing marriage to include ssm.
How do you not ask "well, what about that". Seriously, you can't (or shouldn't) declare a constitutional right without asking those questions. Why do you think Alito asked the question about 4 persons seeking marriage? He understands the ruling sets precedent for future cases. BTW, the gov't attorney, answering Alito's question with "uh, um, uh, what was that, um, uh" shouldn't instill a lot of confidence in us. This is clearly a question that would be asked by one of the Justices and the solicitor general was ill prepared to answer, ending up with a rambling, nonsensical answer. Good grief.
Oh, I don't have to make a legal case against ssm. You have to make one FOR it. You are the one looking for a change in the definition and it becoming a constitutional right. I don't think it falls under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I think the Constitution is SILENT on the issue, therefore, it's an issue left up to the states to decide. Not difficult to understand, and I've stated my opinion a dozen different times. It gets tiring reading comments that I haven't articulated this. Fine, if you disagree with me but I hate the strawmen arguments that I'm bringing marrying dogs into the discussion or haven't explained my reasoning against ssm, etc.
Well, some would say marrying any women is nuts because they are all bat sh*t crazy.
It doesn't/shouldn't make it illegal because some people are more than happy to marry a bitch.
You have been talking a lot but have not answered my question yet. Why polygamy and are you against gay people or marriage??
Why polygamy what? Read Justice Alito's question during the oral arguments about 4 people marrying and maybe you'll get your answer. No offense, but these are odd questions or at least unclear questions. Against gay marriage? How so? No, I've worked with gay people and got along splendidly with them. My nephew is gay. I have no problem with him. Do you think I throw water balloons at gay people or spit on them as I walk by them? I have a disagreement on the law with them but I treat them with respect.
Against marriage? How so? I'm against the new definition of marriage and support the traditional definition (see one of the dozen posts where I've discussed the two) of marriage. If we change to the new definition I'm having trouble finding a strong reason (from the pro ssm crowd) why gov't needs to be involved in marriage.
I think a majority of people do not support polygamy. I do think a majority of SSM supporters don't care enough about polygamy for it to stand in the way of civil rights for all. I think a majority of SSM supporters generally think the government should stay out of our bedrooms.
Can you cite a study/poll that backs up that claim? SSM or polygamy isn't about what's going on in the bedrooms. That's the point. I don't care what you do in the bedroom, nor do most people I know. It's about the gov't granting a right, along with all the gov't benefits, for said marriage. So, we are in agreement in that we should stay out of each others bedrooms. This point doesn't then leap to the conclusion you've made that people, even ssm supporters, are fine with polygamy. If that was the case there would be a large group of people in this country who would favor polygamy. I haven't seen this but maybe you have some data that shows differently.
Wait, I will modify the "stay out of the bedroom" language a bit, and I'm sure you would agree. It only applies if it's consensual. If a person is raping a woman (or man) in the bedroom, then, yes, I do care. Like I said, I'm sure you agree with this addition to the original catch phrase.
Oh, see I expected you to understand that "bedroom" was an euphemism for our non criminal private lives. My bad.
The problem is it's not just your private life. When you expect gov't sanction and benefits, then it ceases to be private and becomes public. A religious marriage of a gay couple would be considered your private life. Now, if that is your point then fine, but I'm pretty sure you are talking about a secular, gov't sanctioned wedding. That's not private.
Well, Phantom has made clear, we should never have allowed Loving, because we didn't ask every potential, future question that could lead from it. Ripeness is no longer a legal term, nor important for the SCOTUS.
That's exactly it, the Pro-SSM"crowd" doesn't need to argue for/against Polygamy, it isn't in front of the Court, in any way, shape, or form.
Secondly, if you truly believe that the only argument against Polygamy was the "ice factor", either you are lying or have failed to read any number of reports/briefs out there on the subject.
The question, as always with Constitutional protections is whether the government has a good enough reason for the law. One of the questionS before the Court is whether they have a good enough Reason to ban SSM. Banning it because of Polygamy is not a reason.
Of course it's not private. Once you take benefits from the gov't it is no longer private issue. Pretty clear cut. Intuitively you know this to be true or you could have held a private (unofficial by the state) wedding ceremony with your partner. You want the state sanctioning the wedding, and everyone else to acknowledge that you are married. It doesn't take away from the crux of your argument about discrimination it just gets you back on solid ground and away from cliched statements that aren't true and don't advance your argument.
Besides you have the right to be wrong.
Way to ignore the simplest of math problems.
I'll repeat its simplicity.
Guy walks in to get a marriage license to wed his significant other - granted.
Alternatively, Woman walks in to marry that same person, denied.
Basis? Sex. Gender. Orientation.
Explain how that is equal.
Good grief are you still beating that dead horse. Apples to cinder blocks and you keep beating it like a jockey beating a tiring nag in the stretch. Let it go. It's getting a bit embarrassing. Loving didn't redefine the definition of marriage, like ssm would. Believe it or not there have been interracial marriage throughout the history of mankind, not so with gay marriage.
Well I hadn't thought of it that way. I'm sure all the married folk will be gratified to learn they are now publically married. Might bring swinging back into vogue. I can hear it now, "Honey I didn't cheat on you, I just let another member of the public use the utility that is our marriage." Seems we already have polygamy.Of course it's not private. Once you take benefits from the gov't it is no longer private issue. Pretty clear cut. Intuitively you know this to be true or you could have held a private (unofficial by the state) wedding ceremony with your partner. You want the state sanctioning the wedding, and everyone else to acknowledge that you are married. It doesn't take away from the crux of your argument about discrimination it just gets you back on solid ground and away from cliched statements that aren't true and don't advance your argument.
Besides you have the right to be wrong.
Are you seriously a lawyer or do you just play one on TV?
What is the "ice factor"? Is that the deep freeze factor? Does polygamy cause you to get cold? Interesting, didn't know that. Nor did I claim it was the only reasons, but it certainly is mentioned a lot.
Good grief, did you watch or listen to the oral arguments? Justice Alito asked the question, because he is a real lawyer (he doesn't just play one on HROT), and he realizes that to make ssm a Constitutional right (which is what you want and what the Solicitor General argued) that it would set legal precedents. I could have seen you arguing before the court. "Justice Alito, I refuse to answer that question because it's not an issue before the court in this case and therefore, we shall no longer broach that subject".
You are correct the question before the court is whether the state can ban SSM. In other words, is ssm a Constitutional right. IMO (which means little) it is not. The Constitution is SILENT on ssm, so it would be an issue left to the states to decides. I'm not optimistic this is how the court will rule but Kennedy has shown a deference to states rights in the past, so we'll find out. Either way, the decision is most likely to be a contentious 5-4 decision.
Interesting, the guy who cites "the framers" in half his posts now wants to make our Constitutional protections based on "history", maybe we should bring back restrictions based on class and genealogy, that is prevalent throughout history.
You seem to be trying to claim that interracial marriage was ok...then all of a sudden illegal, and then we fixed it. That has no basis in history.
You don't want/can't have Loving fit, because you'd have no remaining argument. I'm not claiming that blacks and gays are equal in theOr mistreatment, they don't need to be in order to apply equal protection.
Fact is, there was no law banning SSM until the 90s, when it was redefined. You keep talking about redefining but ignore that point.
I think I've asked this a dozen times now, not sure if you've answered: have you read Varnum v. Brien?
You are misusing the term private. When people use this to justify legalizing prostitution, gambling, drinking, etc, they aren't asking for the gov't to give them anything, to give them benefits. The prostitute is just saying leave me alone, I'm not asking for financial aid to prostitutes. They get nothing from the gov't if it becomes legal. This isn't the case with ssm. Now, if you want to renounce all the gov't benefits then I'm in agreement with you in that would be private.
Do you see the difference?
Thank you, I thought it was pretty witty myself. No dodge, I addressed it after my funny quip.
Similar threads
