What Should Marriage Be?

[Federal Farmer]

Im sorry. I meant how does it contradict the US constitution.

Because there is no provision in Article 1 Section 8 granting the government the right to meddle in who may or may not get married to whom. The States may not disenfranchise any of it's citizens from voting based on the color of their skin, or their sex, yet you seem to approve of their disenfranchising their citizens of the right to marry whomever they choose. Why is that?

I just did.

When you sign a treaty for the purpose of preventing war, you can't really declare war on another based on inuendos, now, can you? An invasion, by itself, is not justifed or otherwise. You need to give a justification for it to be justified, no? And who exactly, determines what is or isn't justified, hmmm?

No you did not. You must first produce the complete text of the Treaty between the US and the UN, and therein indicate where is states that the US cannot declare War without UN approval. You have failed to produce such a document, or to make the appropriate indications, therefore your replies are non-responsive to the question as asked.

I provided you the definition of a commonwealth that completely debunks your assertion that the us is not a commonwealth.

And all you can do is roll your eyes? The way 3rd graders roll their eyes when they are entirely clueless?

No, commonwealth does not describe the United States, and you're attempting to apply the same methods I already addressed concerning the US being a "democracy". Your assertion is inane, and I roll my eyes because I cannot believe that anyone can be as absolutely devoid of basic common sense and logic as you have presented.

You are the one who can't seem to stay on the point, or is hell-bent on changing the definitions of words.

A marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

What is the sense, therefore, in giving a marriage license for homosexual unions, hmmm?

As if the flawless logic isn't plain enough!

I can then presume that you approve of "separate but equal" for blacks and whites as well? How about we bring back the prohibitions on marriage between blacks and whites? HELL, let's just dredge up all of the old Jim Crow laws! Perhaps you're simply not aware of the prohibition on discrimination based on race, creed, sex, national origin, disability, age, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION? Perhaps you were unaware of the 2004 decision by SCOTUS to refuse to hear a challenge to the Mass. law legalizing same sex marriages? When SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, one of the main reasons is because there's no legal defect in the lower courts ruling.

A man is a man and a woman is a woman and a marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Does it make one a homophobe by stating these FACTS?

Great, then a black is a black and a white is a white, and a marriage is a union between a white and a white, or a black and a black. Does that make one a racist by stating these FACTS? Of course it does, because it's a logical fallicy. A marriage is a CONTRACT between TWO PEOPLE, and the only purpose of the government is to ensure that the contract is entered into willingly by both parties. If a man may enter into a contract with another man for any other purpose, why not a contract for marriage?

And you may label me anything you wish. I only give opinions based on FACTS AND LOGIC -- not what you might imagine a 'liberal' or 'conservative' ought to support.

Capice?

No, you're giving your opinions based on FEAR AND HATRED, not facts and logic.

 

[SW85]

You've taken a basic truth and tried to twist it, so let's try this again. The 9th Amendment clearly states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", and the 10th says "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." Now, given that the 14th requires that the States comport themselves in compliance with the Constitution, and Article 1 Section 8 clearly enumerates those things that the government has the authority to Legislate on, then the States are prohibited from legislating on anything not specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, and anything else is, by default, retained as a natural right by the people.

Which is precisely what I said: that, in your view, states cannot legislate on anything the federal government cannot legislate on. But if the federal government can legislate on it then states, by and large, cannot. This is an argument against the authority of states entirely.

Now, you claim that my understanding of the 14th is flawed, yet you provide no rebuttal, or counter argument to support your position.

Because it's patently false.

The 14th Amendment does not and has never prohibited the states from doing anything except refusing to recognize the rights enumerated in the Constitution. It has always meant in practice that states are required to recognize the rights of U.S. citizens and not merely citizens of that state, as some states frequently did at the time the amendment was passed.

More than a century of constitutional jurisprudence is lined up against you on this.

Blackstone was THE legal source at the time the Constitution was ratified, which is why I referred to it. As for your assertion concerning "hufband and wife", yet your rather duplicitous exclusion of the rest of the salient part of his treatise might cause one (but not I) to question your integrity. So, shall we look at it in it's ENTIRE context?

...

Neither of these excludes homosexuals from being allowed to enter into such a contract.

Except insofar as they cannot be "hufband and wife" if they are both of the same sex.

Has it occurred to you that Blackstone didn't explicitly include that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman for precisely the reason that no one at the time seriously believed it could be otherwise?

Because there is no provision in Article 1 Section 8 granting the government the right to meddle in who may or may not get married to whom. The States may not disenfranchise any of it's citizens from voting based on the color of their skin, or their sex, yet you seem to approve of their disenfranchising their citizens of the right to marry whomever they choose. Why is that?

Because one's skin color or sex has no basis on one's capacity to vote. Like the kids say, duh.

Re: "meddling," marriage is the attachment of legal incentive to a relationship for the purposes of promoting behaviors which are in the public interest -- i.e., promoting the family. You are the one trying to "meddle" with marriage by forcing society to attach that incentive (and the attendant costs) to behaviors that are not in the public interest.

You are missing the point that homosexuals are already free to contract with each other at will, and that contract will enjoy the appropriate legal entitlements. But they are not entitled to the benefits of marriage aimed at promoting behaviors they cannot engage in -- i.e., childbearing.

 

[numinus]

Because there is no provision in Article 1 Section 8 granting the government the right to meddle in who may or may not get married to whom. The States may not disenfranchise any of it's citizens from voting based on the color of their skin, or their sex, yet you seem to approve of their disenfranchising their citizens of the right to marry whomever they choose. Why is that?

Of course everyone has the right to marry whomever they wish, subject to some regulation.

A homosexual relationship is not a marriage.

How article 1 section 8 of the constitution prohibits this is a mere flight of your particular fancy.

No you did not. You must first produce the complete text of the Treaty between the US and the UN, and therein indicate where is states that the US cannot declare War without UN approval. You have failed to produce such a document, or to make the appropriate indications, therefore your replies are non-responsive to the question as asked.

The PURPOSE of the un charter and the security council is not clear to you?

No, commonwealth does not describe the United States, and you're attempting to apply the same methods I already addressed concerning the US being a "democracy". Your assertion is inane, and I roll my eyes because I cannot believe that anyone can be as absolutely devoid of basic common sense and logic as you have presented.

And the definition of commonwealth is not clear to you?

I can then presume that you approve of "separate but equal" for blacks and whites as well? How about we bring back the prohibitions on marriage between blacks and whites? HELL, let's just dredge up all of the old Jim Crow laws! Perhaps you're simply not aware of the prohibition on discrimination based on race, creed, sex, national origin, disability, age, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION? Perhaps you were unaware of the 2004 decision by SCOTUS to refuse to hear a challenge to the Mass. law legalizing same sex marriages? When SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, one of the main reasons is because there's no legal defect in the lower courts ruling.

This is nonsense.

It is the obligation of the us, being a signatory to the undhr to provide legislation to uphold these rights -- among them, the right to motherhood and the right to found a family. Hence the legal dimension of the marital institution found in family law.

That homosexuals cannot found a (natural) family, nor may homosexuality accrue to the family relations inherent in human reproduction, is NOT discrimination, by any logical standard.

Oh, and regardless of the lower court's ruling on that one, a homosexual union cannot result in the natural and fundamental group unit of society, hence NOT A MARRIAGE.

Great, then a black is a black and a white is a white, and a marriage is a union between a white and a white, or a black and a black. Does that make one a racist by stating these FACTS? Of course it does, because it's a logical fallicy. A marriage is a CONTRACT between TWO PEOPLE, and the only purpose of the government is to ensure that the contract is entered into willingly by both parties. If a man may enter into a contract with another man for any other purpose, why not a contract for marriage?

It is not merely a contract because heterosexual marriages more often than not, result into children and the family relation consequent to human reproduction.

And it is precisely because of children and family relations that a homosexual union is NOT a marriage.

Obviously, your analogy fails because skin color has nothing, whatsoever, to do with founding a family or legitimizing family relations.

No, you're giving your opinions based on FEAR AND HATRED, not facts and logic.

I am neither fearful or hateful of homosexual unions. What a marriage is is a statement of FACT.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Of course everyone has the right to marry whomever they wish, subject to some regulation.

And what is the source of the governments "right" to regulate it?

A homosexual relationship is not a marriage.

It is in California and Massachusetts.

How article 1 section 8 of the constitution prohibits this is a mere flight of your particular fancy.

Because Article 1 Section 8 specifically enumerates those powers that We The People granted to the Congress, which is the ONLY proper legislative body in the country for federal laws and regulations. If Article 1 Section 8 does not grant Congress a specific power, then, as per the 9th and 10th Amendments it is left to We The People (since the 14th mandates that the States abide by the same restrictions as the Federal government). Simply put, once again, the Federal Government has overstepped it's LEGAL bounds.

The PURPOSE of the un charter and the security council is not clear to you?

Strawman. You said that we were required to get approval from the UN before we could declare War, I challenged you to present the SPECIFIC part of the "Treaty" that states that, and you have not complied. Would you like me to tell you WHY you haven't complied? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

And the definition of commonwealth is not clear to you?

Another Strawman. I know exactly what a commonwealth is, and the United States is NOT one.

This is nonsense.

It is the obligation of the us, being a signatory to the undhr to provide legislation to uphold these rights -- among them, the right to motherhood and the right to found a family. Hence the legal dimension of the marital institution found in family law.

AGAIN with the UN. Here's a Cluepon for you, the US is NOT the UN, and the UN is NOT the US. We have Treaties with hundreds of countries, but using your convoluted excuse for logic, we should therefore have to comply with all of THEIR laws as well. Doesn't work that way UNLESS the text of that Treaty specifically agrees to that, and as I pointed out earlier, NO SUCH "TREATY" EXISTS.

That homosexuals cannot found a (natural) family, nor may homosexuality accrue to the family relations inherent in human reproduction, is NOT discrimination, by any logical standard.

So using YOUR extremely flawed excuse for logic, if a man and a woman want to get married, they should first have to successfully pass a fertility screening, since if either of them is infertile, they too cannot found a "(natural)" family. Please, at least TRY to think a point ALL the way through before making it.

Oh, and regardless of the lower court's ruling on that one, a homosexual union cannot result in the natural and fundamental group unit of society, hence NOT A MARRIAGE.

So every infertile person in America should be prohibited from marrying? Is THAT the silly excuse for logic you're still using?

It is not merely a contract because heterosexual marriages more often than not, result into children and the family relation consequent to human reproduction.

IBID above

And it is precisely because of children and family relations that a homosexual union is NOT a marriage.

IBID above

Obviously, your analogy fails because skin color has nothing, whatsoever, to do with founding a family or legitimizing family relations.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion, because one form of discrimination based on HATE and FEAR is just as bad as another.

I am neither fearful or hateful of homosexual unions. What a marriage is is a statement of FACT.

Of course you are, otherwise you wouldn't have any objection to it. As I've said elsewhere, I've dealt with racists and bigots my entire life, and all of your allegedly "innocent" protestations to the contrary, you ARE a bigot.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Which is precisely what I said: that, in your view, states cannot legislate on anything the federal government cannot legislate on. But if the federal government can legislate on it then states, by and large, cannot. This is an argument against the authority of states entirely.

Not at all. If Article 1 Section 8 grants the federal government the right to legislate on something, then, as a result of the 14th, the States may legislate on that area too, provided the federal government does not have sole legislative authority in that particular area.

Because it's patently false.

The 14th Amendment does not and has never prohibited the states from doing anything except refusing to recognize the rights enumerated in the Constitution. It has always meant in practice that states are required to recognize the rights of U.S. citizens and not merely citizens of that state, as some states frequently did at the time the amendment was passed.

More than a century of constitutional jurisprudence is lined up against you on this.

You just shot your own argument down. The 14th Amendment specifically demands that all of the States recognize that ALL of their citizens are to be given the same protections as guaranteed to ALL citizens of the United States, BUT, it also demands that

"...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 it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Again, I will use the Jim Crow laws as an example. If it is unconstitutional for the States to prohibit a person of one race to marry a person of another race, based merely on the fact of their race, then how is it Constitutional for the States, or even the federal government itself, to deny someone the RIGHT to marry whomever they choose, regardless of their sexual orientation, especially since the RIGHT to marry pre-exists the Constitution, or ANY government at all? It is unconstitutional for the States or the Federal government to force homosexuals to use separate restrooms, or drinking fountains, or even to prevent them from entering a "heterosexual only" restaurant, so where is the "right" of ANY government, State or Federal, to deny them the right to marry each other? The RIGHT of people to marry whomever they choose, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, is a basic HUMAN Right, and one that NO government has the "right" to legislate away.

Also, as I have said before, and you still haven't produced even ONE example of legal precedent in rebuttal, if the 14th Amendment requires the States to extend to their citizens the same protections as the federal government, and the federal government is limited in what they can, and cannot LEGALLY legislate upon by Article 1 Section 8, then the States are ALSO similarly limited, as everything NOT specifically enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 is left to We The People in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Except insofar as they cannot be "hufband and wife" if they are both of the same sex.

Why not? If one of them chooses to be the "husband" and the other chooses to be the "wife", again, there is no inconformity with the law. Again, you must remember that discrimination on the basis of sex is now illegal, therefore, saying that the "husband" must be a male, and the "wife" a female is no longer permitted.

Has it occurred to you that Blackstone didn't explicitly include that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman for precisely the reason that no one at the time seriously believed it could be otherwise?

Irrelevant under the Law. Unless you can PROVE that Blackstone specifically meant that homosexuals were NOT included, they MUST be included.

Because one's skin color or sex has no basis on one's capacity to vote. Like the kids say, duh.

And how does their sexual orientation preclude them from marrying? Oh, I see you tried to address that below. Well, I've answered it in my previous post above, but I'll repeat myself below just in case you missed it.

Re: "meddling," marriage is the attachment of legal incentive to a relationship for the purposes of promoting behaviors which are in the public interest -- i.e., promoting the family. You are the one trying to "meddle" with marriage by forcing society to attach that incentive (and the attendant costs) to behaviors that are not in the public interest.

You are missing the point that homosexuals are already free to contract with each other at will, and that contract will enjoy the appropriate legal entitlements. But they are not entitled to the benefits of marriage aimed at promoting behaviors they cannot engage in -- i.e., childbearing.

STRAWMAN IN THE EXTREME! Unless you are prepared to prohibit EVERY person who is physically incapable of procreating from marrying, you MUST allow EVERYONE to marry. Your "assumption" that childbearing is the sole purpose of marriage automatically precludes most paraplegics, some wounded war veterans, and anyone who is naturally, or has been rendered medically, infertile. What if a man has had a vasectomy, or a woman a hysterectomy, and their spouse dies or they divorce? Are THEY to be prohibited from ever marrying again because they cannot reproduce? What about people who were born incapable of reproducing? Are they too to be denied the basic human Right to marry? What about people who get married, and then discover that they are infertile, or become infertile before they have any children? Are we to nullify THEIR marriages since they can not procreate?

Your bigoted objections are duly noted, and thrown in the circular file right next to those of numinus as being FLAWED BEYOND BELIEF.

 

[top gun]

Since there is nothing in the Constitution stating that homosexuals cannot be married. And do to the fact that there is no mandate whatsoever that "married" people must be able to have (or even want for that matter) children. And furthermore since 2 people in a marriage creates no more no less of a burden or excessive legal entanglement homosexual or heterosexual. And since 2 adults marrying in no way hurts anybody else.

There is no reasonable basis to conclude that gay marriage should be illegal. Trying to do this is no more than a VERY thinly veiled religious argument.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Since there is nothing in the Constitution stating that homosexuals cannot be married. And do to the fact that there is no mandate whatsoever that "married" people must be able to have (or even want for that matter) children. And furthermore since 2 people in a marriage creates no more no less of a burden or excessive legal entanglement homosexual or heterosexual. And since 2 adults marrying in no way hurts anybody else.

There is no reasonable basis to conclude that gay marriage should be illegal. Trying to do this is no more than a VERY thinly veiled religious argument.

It's not even a religious argument. I know many non-religious people who wouldn't be bothered in the least if every homosexual in the world was killed on sight.

 

[SW85]

Not at all. If Article 1 Section 8 grants the federal government the right to legislate on something, then, as a result of the 14th, the States may legislate on that area too, provided the federal government does not have sole legislative authority in that particular area.

This only follows logically if we accept your flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Which, once again, requires that states recognize the same rights the federal government is required to recognize -- i.e., the right of states to legislate on anything the Constitution does not say the federal government cannot recognize on. It does not say states have to be treated like the federal government for purposes of any other amendment.

But I'm curious -- what, in your view, can states legislate on? (Be specific).

Again, I will use the Jim Crow laws as an example. If it is unconstitutional for the States to prohibit a person of one race to marry a person of another race, based merely on the fact of their race, then how is it Constitutional for the States, or even the federal government itself, to deny someone the RIGHT to marry whomever they choose

Because no such "right" exists that includes relationships that do not enter into the public domain. I'm repeating myself now.

The RIGHT of people to marry whomever they choose, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, is a basic HUMAN Right, and one that NO government has the "right" to legislate away.

This is such a flagrant denial of all evidence and reason that it requires virtually no refutation.

There is no such right, period, any more than an individual has a right to marry whatever animal or inanimate object he wishes. It does not exist in history or in the legal environment today, as numinus has already pointed out.

Marriage is a state of legal recognition of a relationship that enters into the public domain. No such relationship enters into the public domain unless it involves something in the public interest -- like the bearing and raising of children.

Also, as I have said before, and you still haven't produced even ONE example of legal precedent in rebuttal

Again, because your argument is so patently false that no one has seriously argued it in court.

I cannot very well say the Constitution entitles me to Mars and then defy you to point out relevant case law to the contrary, now can I?

Why not? If one of them chooses to be the "husband" and the other chooses to be the "wife", again, there is no inconformity with the law.

Because a husband is, by definition, a man, and a wife by definition a woman. These are not roles that are "chosen," except in the homosexual fantasyland of the bedroom -- wherein the public interest does not reside, ever.

Again, you must remember that discrimination on the basis of sex is now illegal, therefore, saying that the "husband" must be a male, and the "wife" a female is no longer permitted.

It's the height of idiocy to suggest that it constitutes sexual discrimination to point out that husbands are by definition men and wives by definition women.

Irrelevant under the Law. Unless you can PROVE that Blackstone specifically meant that homosexuals were NOT included, they MUST be included.

I just did -- he used the sex-specific terms "hufband and wife."

Unless you are prepared to prohibit EVERY person who is physically incapable of procreating from marrying, you MUST allow EVERYONE to marry.

Why? It is perfectly reasonable for a state to assume fertility on the part of a man and woman seeking marriage.

It is not reasonable to assume that a man can bear a child with another man, or a woman with another woman.

(BTW, in case you didn't know, you can divorce your wife if she is infertile and refuses treatment, or if you she refuses to have sex with you. Now why would that be the case if marriage were not a legal recognition of a sexual relationship that enters into the public domain?)

Your bigoted objections are duly noted, and thrown in the circular file right next to those of numinus as being FLAWED BEYOND BELIEF.

I love how you accuse me of building up strawmen (you clearly don't know what that word means, BTW), then go on to accuse me of "bigotry."

You may as well just say I'm a racist and complete your descent into gibbering nonsense.

 

[Dr.Who]

Since there is nothing in the Constitution stating that homosexuals cannot be married. And do to the fact that there is no mandate whatsoever that "married" people must be able to have (or even want for that matter) children. And furthermore since 2 people in a marriage creates no more no less of a burden or excessive legal entanglement homosexual or heterosexual. And since 2 adults marrying in no way hurts anybody else.

There is no reasonable basis to conclude that gay marriage should be illegal. Trying to do this is no more than a VERY thinly veiled religious argument.

We are agreed then that the federal government should stay out of this and leave it to the states since there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage.

We are also agreed that the state has an interest to the extent that gay marriage is harmful to society or not.

Now, you have stated that it is not harmful but many others state that it is harmful. Perhaps we should investigate this before we recklessly alter the fabric of society.

And the non religious are just as likely to be opposed tp gay marriage as anyone else.

 

[PLC1]

We are agreed then that the federal government should stay out of this and leave it to the states since there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage.

We are also agreed that the state has an interest to the extent that gay marriage is harmful to society or not.

Now, you have stated that it is not harmful but many others state that it is harmful. Perhaps we should investigate this before we recklessly alter the fabric of society.

And the non religious are just as likely to be opposed tp gay marriage as anyone else.

Good point.

Specifically, then, how is gay marriage harmful to society?

If it isn't, then why should it be banned?

 

[Federal Farmer]

This only follows logically if we accept your flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Which, once again, requires that states recognize the same rights the federal government is required to recognize -- i.e., the right of states to legislate on anything the Constitution does not say the federal government cannot recognize on. It does not say states have to be treated like the federal government for purposes of any other amendment.

OK, this has gotten BEYOND silly, so if I may be so bold, I suggest you knock the 2" of dust off of your copy of the Constitution and RE-READ IT. Article 1 specifically enumerates ALL of the powers that We The People have delegated to the Congress, Article 2 the Executive, Article 3 the Legislative, Article 4 the States, Article 5 the Amendment process, Article 6 the legal status of the Constitution, and Article 7 the Ratification. Nowhere in Article 1 Section 8 does it grant Congress the authority to legislate on MARRIAGE, period, end of discussion, and I fail to understand why you're having such a hard time getting your head wrapped around that concept. DO YOU HATE FREEDOM? I seriously doubt it, so you must have been so fully indoctrinated by the Publik Skuul Sistum that you believe that the government, whether it be federal or state has some right that We The People haven't granted them.

Nowhere in Article 4 does it grant the States the right to enact ANY law that is in any way contrary to the Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 specifically enumerates ALL of the powers that We The People granted to the Congress, and anything not specifically enumerated therein is, as SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the 9th and 10th Amendments, left to We The People, unless as in, Article 1 Sections 9 and 10, it is one of those items specifically enumerated that are SPECIFICALLY denied to We The People, or the States. With the enactment of the 14th Amendment in 1868, "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....

Now, given that we are ALL citizens of the United States, and the Rights of ALL citizens of the United States are GUARANTEED in the Constitution, the States MAY NOT "make or enforce any law" that infringes on those Rights. So, unless you are prepared to show me where in the Constitution it DOES give the government such a right, you're simply being willfully ignorant.

But I'm curious -- what, in your view, can states legislate on? (Be specific).

The States, like the Federal government, may not legislate on anything that infringes on our INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

Because no such "right" exists that includes relationships that do not enter into the public domain. I'm repeating myself now.

You're operating under the mistaken impression that our Rights are ONLY those things specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, ie freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition for redress of grievance, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., but you're forgetting the MOST important Right, as SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the 9th and 10th Amendments which guarantee We The People that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "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."

The right to marry anyone you wish IS specifically protected, even though it's not specifically enumerated, because it IS NOT granted to the government, nor to the States to legislate on. This is the concept you have to understand, the Constitution was written to LIMIT government to ONLY those things that We The People SPECIFICALLY ALLOW them to have power to legislate on. Unless there is a SPECIFIC authorization from We The People, in the form of an Article or Amendment to the Constitution that grants them some SPECIFIC power, then they DO NOT HAVE IT. Now, if you don't want queers to get married, I would suggest that you jump on board with the rest of the scared little bigots and get a Constitutional Amendment passed that SPECIFICALLY grants the government the power to disenfranchise them of their NATURAL RIGHTS, but until such an Amendment has been ratified, ANY such law is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL ON IT'S FACE.

This is such a flagrant denial of all evidence and reason that it requires virtually no refutation.

Circulus in demonstrando. I DO require you to refute it, and present actual evidence that supports your position or that you simply admit that you're wrong. This isn't the "nanny-nanny boo-boo" school of debate. I have made my argument and all you've done is say silly crap like what you just did. Pitiful.

There is no such right, period, any more than an individual has a right to marry whatever animal or inanimate object he wishes. It does not exist in history or in the legal environment today, as numinus has already pointed out.

So it's your contention that marriage is NOT a basic human Right? Are you saying that it's a privilege allowed to We The People, who come before our benevolent government on bended knee with our hats in our hands, begging for their PERMISSION to get married? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to show me where then, in our Constitution it provides for this privilege?

Marriage is a state of legal recognition of a relationship that enters into the public domain. No such relationship enters into the public domain unless it involves something in the public interest -- like the bearing and raising of children.

Again, where is the support for your position?

Again, because your argument is so patently false that no one has seriously argued it in court.

Very cute, present an asinine circular argument as if it means something.

I cannot very well say the Constitution entitles me to Mars and then defy you to point out relevant case law to the contrary, now can I?

If you can take possession of Mars, then by all means, it's YOURS. Until such time however, I would suggest that you stick to reality.

Because a husband is, by definition, a man, and a wife by definition a woman. These are not roles that are "chosen," except in the homosexual fantasyland of the bedroom -- wherein the public interest does not reside, ever.

Unfortunately for you, no such definition exists in any Law dictionary I've ever seen.

It's the height of idiocy to suggest that it constitutes sexual discrimination to point out that husbands are by definition men and wives by definition women.

Actually, the only idiocy seems to be yours. There is NO definition of the words "husband" or "wife" in any LEGAL dictionary.

I just did -- he used the sex-specific terms "hufband and wife."

No you did not, and you wouldn't have even known about Blackstone unless I had introduced you to it. He uses the terms "hufband and wife" but he does not DEFINE any particular sex to either of those terms.

Why? It is perfectly reasonable for a state to assume fertility on the part of a man and woman seeking marriage.

Oh, so now the States are in the business of ASSUMPTION? Well, considering that all you've done is "assume", it's little wonder that you'd believe something as asinine as that, and then even attempt to use it as a rebuttal.

It is not reasonable to assume that a man can bear a child with another man, or a woman with another woman.

It is not reasonable to "assume" ANYTHING.

(BTW, in case you didn't know, you can divorce your wife if she is infertile and refuses treatment, or if you she refuses to have sex with you. Now why would that be the case if marriage were not a legal recognition of a sexual relationship that enters into the public domain?)

You can divorce for any reason at all, or none at all these days, so what's your point? We're not talking about divorce here, we're talking about marriage, and I shot your whole "the purpose of marriage is to procreate" argument down in flames. You just refuse to admit it.

I love how you accuse me of building up strawmen (you clearly don't know what that word means, BTW), then go on to accuse me of "bigotry."

I know exactly what a strawman is, just as I know exactly what a bigot is, and you ARE a bigot, because you don't have even one rational argument to support your blind prejudice.

You may as well just say I'm a racist and complete your descent into gibbering nonsense.

As the young people say, "you've been PWNED, biotch."

 

[top gun]

We are agreed then that the federal government should stay out of this and leave it to the states since there is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage.

We are also agreed that the state has an interest to the extent that gay marriage is harmful to society or not.

Now, you have stated that it is not harmful but many others state that it is harmful. Perhaps we should investigate this before we recklessly alter the fabric of society.

And the non religious are just as likely to be opposed tp gay marriage as anyone else.

There is nothing about being in a gay marriage that effects anyone else in any way differently than two gay people living together. I can't say I understand the attraction. I might even go as far as to say to me it's weird from my perspective. But weird on it's own is subjective and isn't and shouldn't be illegal in the United States of America.

A religious argument can be made... but that's not a legal argument. Homophobia or bigotry can be raised... but that would brush equally against gay people living together and having sex out of marriage.

The possession of a legal piece of paper giving the ones involved the rights of visitation, inheritance, next of kin notification, family health insurance etc. does not alter the underlying activity that's going on married or unmarried. So to be consistent on the "protect society" angle you'd really have to go back to the days of the Blue Laws basically trying to outlaw being gay itself... which we all know that didn't work at all.


If the Klan in America can hate & wish death on Blacks & Jews and spew that message in the public square for all to hear... certainly two adult people can get married without bringing America to it's demise!

 

[Dr.Who]

There is nothing about being in a gay marriage that effects anyone else in any way differently than two gay people living together

Well there are all the things that you mentioned just below.

The possession of a legal piece of paper giving the ones involved the rights of visitation, inheritance, next of kin notification, family health insurance etc.

There is the implied endolrsement of our legistators. There is the possibility that two same gender people cannot raise children as healthily as two opposite gender people. it could be that mothers and fathers are the best people to raise children and to be a stabilizing influence on society. Is it possible that wives temper their husbands in a way that other men cannot? Men and women are different, perhaps they compliment each other in ways that same gender people cannot.

From that it may be a stretch to say that a tiny amount of gay marriages will be dramatically harmful but we should at least explore the issue before jumping headfirst into what could be a fryingpan. It is not like in the sixties we didn't explore abandoning all sorts of cultural norms and found that we were wrong to think that we could change whatever we wanted without adverse consequences.

 

[numinus]

And what is the source of the governments "right" to regulate it?

Sovereign power.

This power is curtailed ONLY by the bill of rights. Take note that the bill of rights enumerates what the state MAY NOT....

Clear?

It is in California and Massachusetts.

As I said, you may choose to call it whatever you wish. What these states describe as marriage is FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE since homosexual marriages has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the PURPOSE of the marital institution -- the founding of the natural family and the relations that accrue from it.

Because Article 1 Section 8 specifically enumerates those powers that We The People granted to the Congress, which is the ONLY proper legislative body in the country for federal laws and regulations. If Article 1 Section 8 does not grant Congress a specific power, then, as per the 9th and 10th Amendments it is left to We The People (since the 14th mandates that the States abide by the same restrictions as the Federal government). Simply put, once again, the Federal Government has overstepped it's LEGAL bounds.

Your interpretation is simply flawed. The only limitation to the state's sovereign power is the bill of rights.

Strawman. You said that we were required to get approval from the UN before we could declare War, I challenged you to present the SPECIFIC part of the "Treaty" that states that, and you have not complied. Would you like me to tell you WHY you haven't complied? BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Sigh

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.


Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Another Strawman. I know exactly what a commonwealth is, and the United States is NOT one.

Then it would be a simple matter to demonstrate how the us political system does not conform with the definition provided, no?

You have a asserted the above a couple of times now, but still, you refuse to provide facts and logic to support your assertion. Now you even have the temerity to cry strawman.

Unbelieveable.

AGAIN with the UN. Here's a Cluepon for you, the US is NOT the UN, and the UN is NOT the US. We have Treaties with hundreds of countries, but using your convoluted excuse for logic, we should therefore have to comply with all of THEIR laws as well. Doesn't work that way UNLESS the text of that Treaty specifically agrees to that, and as I pointed out earlier, NO SUCH "TREATY" EXISTS.

As a Charter, it is a constituent treaty, and all members are bound by its articles. Furthermore, the Charter states that obligations to the United Nations prevail over all other treaty obligations.

So using YOUR extremely flawed excuse for logic, if a man and a woman want to get married, they should first have to successfully pass a fertility screening, since if either of them is infertile, they too cannot found a "(natural)" family. Please, at least TRY to think a point ALL the way through before making it.

So every infertile person in America should be prohibited from marrying? Is THAT the silly excuse for logic you're still using?

IBID above

IBID above

Nonsense. Infertility is a GROUND FOR NULLITY. A null marriage means that THERE WAS NO MARRIAGE to begin with.

It has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion, because one form of discrimination based on HATE and FEAR is just as bad as another.

To say that human natural fecundity is based on the carnal relations of a MAN AND A WOMAN is a statement of FACT -- NOT DISCRIMINATION.

And this natural fecundity -- the basis of the natural family, which is the fundamental group unit of society -- is an INHERENT aspect of the marital institution. If such a thing is not possible in a union, then such a union is NOT a marriage, at the very least, a marriage that is defective.

This is all clear if you look at the grounds for nullity of marriage.

Of course you are, otherwise you wouldn't have any objection to it. As I've said elsewhere, I've dealt with racists and bigots my entire life, and all of your allegedly "innocent" protestations to the contrary, you ARE a bigot.

I have an objection based on the RIGOROUS APPLICATION OF FACTS AND LOGIC.

I simply do not abide by bigotry. If people wish to cohabit the way married couples do, then by all means, they should do so. What they wish, however, cannot be the basis for re-defining the marital institution nor the laws that govern it.

Capice?

 

[numinus]

There is no such right, period, any more than an individual has a right to marry whatever animal or inanimate object he wishes. It does not exist in history or in the legal environment today, as numinus has already pointed out.

Actually, it is in the udhr:

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State

From the article, the purpose of a marriage is clear -- to found a family. Therefore, a union between two people of the same gender is not a universal human right.