Um, did you realize there were Constitutional amendments passed AFTER the founders passed the Constitution? Yes, believe it or not, the 14th amendment was one of them. Now, what was that intent of the 14th amendment and what group of people were they protecting and what were they protecting them from? Hmm? Think hard now.
No, still don't see marriage as public. Not any more than your medical records become public when you go on medicare or your home becomes public the moment you take rent assistance or your children become public when they go to the local public school or eat free lunches from the state. But if your beef is with marriage benefits, then go fight that battle which is separate from SSM. I think your "public marriage via spousal benefits" argument is a bit bizarre.
Sorry, must have you confused with someone else. Thank God, that makes me feel a lot better about the legal profession.
Then why are you against two homosexuals having the same federal benefits afforded married heterosexual couples? And your answer can't include any "what about...?" scenarios. Keep it simply to the issue at hand.
I didn't see notorious RBG represented in your pasted text or link. What did she say that cracked you up?
Again, you are confusing private in public as to your original point. It's not bizarre in the least. You've yet to articulate a good argument as to how I'm wrong. I'm not sure why you are so hung up on the private point. It's a poor argument. It's not one any pro ssm lawyer would use before the court because it's not a valid one. Actually, it's so patently obvious, I'm at a loss as to why you keep belaboring the point. Now, you are going on about rent asst and school lunch programs. Seriously? WTF?
Ok, I've answered that about two dozen times but I'll refer you to above for the dozen and once time.
Sorry, I never mentioned RBG, I said the woman who argued the gov'ts case before the court. Honestly, I didn't even know who RBG was until I thought about it for a while. I actually like RBG. I've read and listened to some Scalia interviews talking about RBG and he's buddies with her. I didn't probably agree with anything Stevens or Brennan ever wrote but those guys were brilliant, principled, liberal jurists. I respect that even if I disagree with their decisions. I can't stand the Earl Warren's who are nothing but political hacks, ends justifies the means judges.
We continue to see this markedly different. I see marriage, child rearing, my entertainment choices, my faith, my diet and numerous other facets of a person's life as all essentially private affairs. That some might take place in public or receive some form of public attention either regulatory or financial doesn't remove them from the private sphere and make them public. Its my belief that supporters of SSM generally want the government out of our private affairs. Its sort of interesting that you have been reduced to opposing this idea. Seriously, WTF!
You may think you did, but you didn't. Read your own posts. It consists of you being against SSM because hetero marriage has changed its definition in our culture already. Its another side step where you seek to punish gays for your issues with straights.
So, now you are conceding I've answered this a couple dozen times (in the numerous threads that have been started on this subject) and instead of answering why gov't should be involved in marriage under the new marriage definition, decide to deflect and go into "woe is me" mode. You are better than that.
Read it again. I'm not conceding, I'm contesting and I answered your question above. My "woe is me" is essentially what makes this a 14th amendment issue, so you may need to do better.
This is because you keep insisting on misrepresenting the terms. Let's try it again. "I see marriage as essentially private affairs". So do I if it's a religious or non-gov't sanctioned marriage. You got it. You are wrong that is strictly a private affair. Think about your logic. If marriage is strictly a private affair then the gov't has no business telling anyone who they can and can't married. Are you advocating children can get married? Siblings? Parent/Child? Do you think the gov't has ANY right to set up any restrictions on who can get married. Maybe you don't think the gov't does but I can assure you that would be a minority opinion, even among ssm proponents.
It's upsetting to me because I'm having to respond a half a dozen times to the same questions, by multiple people. It would be easier if you assigned one person make the pro-ssm case and then debate it from there.
We aren't talking about Iowa. Turn the page. The case before the court is one before the USSC. Try to keep up. Iowa's done. The genie is out of the bottle. Why rehash what can't be changed?
LOL. You are once again changing what you've been saying. Now, you are getting ridiculously vague. Yes, the daily interactions of a marriage are primarily private, but that's not what started this discussion. You said marriage is private issue and therefore the gov't shouldn't have the right to tell who and who can't be married.
This was my original statement:
Are you sure you want to start talking about the scientific data about children raised by same-sex couples vs. traditional couples? Because I can show you numerous studies that indicate absolutely no differences in long term well-being measures such as academics, cognition, social skills, psychological health, etc.
I'm not quibbling at all, you are moving the goal posts.
LOL. Yes, paid for by pro-ssm groups, based on incredibly small sample sizes, and over short time periods (we haven't had large numbers of gays raising couples very long). Good grief, do I get to cite the large number of studies that show it is harmful? Studies paid for by the anti-ssm side? Of course, those studies suffer from the same flaws, which is why I didn't claim they prove harm. At least I'm not trying to be a political hack (like you are doing so magnificently) and showing objectivity by saying "we don't know". We need more time to study the issue to account for the long term impact.
No, it just proves you are illiterate and one hack. Only you keep talking about Varnum when the issue before us is the US Constitution and the constitutionality of ssm. You aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so I should give you a free pass.
LOL. Only you could find sense in her comments. She only corrected her answer when Alito showed her the flaw in her logic. It's pretty much what I've had to do consistently with you. It's been fun, you've provided us all with a lot of laughs in your twisted reasoning, but it's time to move on to other topics. This issue has been beat to death. How about a constitutional right to a living wage. What's your take? How about who's going to win the NBA playoffs or NHL playoffs? What's your opinion on tattoos?
It's just a coincidence every argument you make in regards to ssm happens to align with your religious beliefs.
