Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

[Baldrik78]

 

[flamatrix99]

Hey, what if a couple single heterosexual guys want to pose as homos and get married for the bennies? Would that be fraud? How would you know? You going to go over and check them out?

Like how a man and woman get married for the benefits but it is not a real marriage?

 

[oleheat]

Give it time junior....

Seriously, I think alot of that has to do with were you live too. From age 12 til I joined the Navy I I grew up in South Florida. Lot's of openly gay people there. I was stationed in San Diego and stayed out there after I go out of the Navy. Lots of openly gay folks there too.

These guys would probably agree.......

(Sorry- I just couldn't resist!!!!!)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InBXu-iY7cw[/ame]

 

[charliepapa]

Like how a man and woman get married for the benefits but it is not a real marriage?

I haven't heard of anyone who's done that other than to skirt immigration laws (which I am against doing) but I'm sure it's happened. The difference is it's currently allowed for a man and a woman to marry.

Again, if it came to a vote, are you for it or against it? Why are we still discussing anything else?

 

[flamatrix99]

I haven't heard of anyone who's done that other than to skirt immigration laws (which I am against doing) but I'm sure it's happened. The difference is it's currently allowed for a man and a woman to marry.

Again, if it came to a vote, are you for it or against it? Why are we still discussing anything else?

I would vote yes.. I look at it as, as long as they are happy who cares.

 

[charliepapa]

Cool. But to answer your question; I care.

I would vote against it. I don't choose to do what I feel would be a contribution to the decay of society, nor would I want to promote that in any way as an example for anyone's children to follow.

 

[Baldrik78]

I haven't heard of anyone who's done that other than to skirt immigration laws (which I am against doing) but I'm sure it's happened. The difference is it's currently allowed for a man and a woman to marry.

Again, if it came to a vote, are you for it or against it? Why are we still discussing anything else?

People do it all the time in states other than Louisiana - it's called a common law marriage. Thankfully, our Napoleonic Code based laws puts a stop to that!

 

[Woods]

I used the burning in Hell example to prove a point and stated it as my opinion. You stated your disbeliefs of God as if it were fact. You cannot prove there is not a God. It's funny what a bunch of titty babies athiest progressive liberals are. They can bash Christianity all day long. But when you offend them they get the "how dare you" attitude.

I certainly never stated anything as fact... other than that is what I believe.

My point was that I believe a certain thing that you obviously disagree with... and you wouldn't want that to run your life.

Homosexuals don't want your beliefs to run their lives.

 

[charliepapa]

I think the discussion up to this point has been primarily directed at the homos being able to obtain a license and have their *union* recognized immediately as opposed to evidencing it through the passage of a certain amount of time, announcement and public display.

I'm no attorney or legal scholar so I'm not even sure if Louisiana would recognize gay common law *marriage*.

 

[flamatrix99]

Cool. But to answer your question; I care.

I would vote against it. I don't choose to do what I feel would be a contribution to the decay of society, nor would I want to promote that in any way as an example for anyone's children to follow.

I don't consider it a contribution to the decay of society. It is just a different way people choose to live. I personally don't choose to live that way obviously because I have a wife and kids.

Just like when I was a kid there were blue laws and stores weren't open on Sundays. When they started opening up on Sundays my grandfather could not fathom why anyone would ever need to go to a store on a Sunday. Is that part of the decay of society as well?

When I was a kid I got dragged out of bed early every Sunday to get dressed up and sit through church. I hated it. So now I choose not to attend church. As an adult, I never have known a whole lot of people that went to church. I know some on here would think that is a terrible thing and it leads to the decay of society but to me it is just another way I choose to live. I realize that we live in the "Bible Belt" and church is more popular here. Not saying it is a bad thing at all. If you want to go to church thats great. If one of my kids want to go then I will be happy to take them.

I do not feel very passionate about it because obvisouly it doesn't effect me or my family directly. I just try and see thier point of view.

 

[charliepapa]

That's cool. I understand the difference of opinions and am fine with agreeing to disagree.

You may have meant the questions above as rhetorical to prove a point but to answer you about the decay of society; yes, IMO those things you mention above have definitely sped the decay of society as we knew it.

 

[Hitman]

Not in the slightest, but then again that doesn't have much to do with the present conversation on biology.

Just out of curiousity, if you guys don't belong the Animalia Kingdon, which do you belong to? Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea, Bacteria?

If me and ten people I know classify you as gay, does that make you gay?

Let's look at some supposed similarities of what is supposed to be our closest ancestors. APE's

For example, like humans, apes have well formed rational faculties. Their ability to develop an argument, follow a line of logic, draw conclusions and frame hypotheses is quite remarkable.

Also like humans, apes have a marked faculty for language. (This, of course, is intertwined with their powers of reason.) Their vocabulary is enormous, their grammar complex, and their conversations deep and meaningful.

The apes' ability to codify language in writing is further proof of their close relationship to humans. In this respect, it was most gratifying to see the number of apes who wrote to TIME magazine in response to the article on 'How Man Began'. I was particularly interested to follow the line of reasoning of the orang-utan who argued that apes had evolved from humans, not vice versa.

Like humans, apes also have a strong spirit of inquiry. Their research in the fields of astronomy, mathematics, medicine and physics is noteworthy.

Apes also (again, like humans) yearn for meaning in life. This is why they devote so much of their time to philosophy, theology and ethics. The religious sentiments and practices of all apes can be traced back to their intense and endless quest for meaning.

Apes are concerned about questions not only of origin but also of destiny. The best proof I can offer for this claim is the maxim by one famous ape philosopher who said, 'Whether my life leads ultimately to the dirt or to the Judgment, either way, I've got a problem.'

Apes also have, like humans, a refined aesthetic sense. They admire beauty and long to surround themselves with it. When an ape cultivates a garden, puts flowers in a vase, or hangs up a painting, what is it doing if not expressing a love of beauty?

Again like humans, apes have a strong creative impulse. This is seen in their poetry, painting, dance, drama and music. To a lesser extent their creativity is also evident in the way they gather in weekly craft groups to weave baskets, spin wool, knit shawls, and cover photo albums.


The sense of humour shared by all apes is another proof of their close kinship to humans. Their delight in the ridiculous and their love of a good laugh is plain from the popular ape jokes they tell.

Reason, language, inquiry, wonder, longing, religion, morality, aesthetics, creativity, imagination, aspiration and humour ... such intangible but fundamental qualities are by no means unique to humans, as I hope I have conclusively shown. Therefore, in the profound words of TIME magazine: 'No single, essential difference separates human beings from other animals'.

This being the case, Christians are plainly wrong to insist that humans and animals are vastly different. And they are also obviously wrong to insist that this difference arises from the fact that God created us humans in His own likeness. And if they are wrong to insist that God made us in His own likeness, then they are wrong to insist that God has any claim on us.

Furthermore, if God has no claim on us, then we are free — free to be animals like our evolutionary ancestors — free to be as low-down as snakes, and to make pigs of ourselves, and to act like donkeys.

Did I say 'free'?

Hiss! Oink! Hee-haw!

Eitherway, I'm now retiring from this topic or what's left of it, way to many directions we could take it, and have taken it.

With that said, here's my feeble attempt to get it back to the OP.

Is Banning Gay Marriage Constitutional?

 

[Baldrik78]

If me and ten people I know classify you as gay, does that make you gay?

If I fit the accepted criteria for being gay, sure. No sense in denying what someone/thing is.

I know it doesn't fit into your tiny little picture of the universe, but we are no more than animals. We may be the most advanced animal - the largest brain, most complex society, top predator - but we are still just animals.

Back to gay marriage though - I think the best option, is to take goverment out of marriage completely. Remove all goverment benefits from marriage. Remove all special rights from spouses. Make it an aspect of religion and religion only. Problem solved.

 

[Woods]

Wow- I didn't realize that gays are being forced to use seperate water fountains, not allowed to use city buses, & not being allowed to attend public schools in Little Rock- or Ole Miss. Really??? I don't believe the people affected by the civil rights struggle you mentioned would appreciate the analogy.....

The notion that same-sex marriage should somehow be considered "normal" is lunacy. Would the marriage between a man & his cow be normal also in an "anything goes" society?? Sure- technically, that would be a different animal(pardon the pun). But, it cannot be disputed that both go against the basic laws of nature, correct? I realize that you never said the idea of gay marriage was "normal behavior". However- the legalization of it would FORCE EVERYONE to accept it as being so against their wishes- as demonstrated by the fact it has been defeated every time it's been voted on. I do not see how allowing what the majority of society considers abnormal behavior to flourish front & center- with gov't approval- is helping us become a stronger nation. What it will do is create even more animosity. Maybe you disagree, I'm not sure. But, that's only my opinion (and apparently the opinion of most other people).

I don't care what others choose to do with their time either- but I believe I see the issue of gay marriage for what it really is- just another part of the politically correct BS that is destroying our country as we know it.

So let me get this straight... deciding which water fountain you can drink from, where you can sit in a bus, and having "separate but equal" educational institutions is somehow not in the same league as "You can't marry who you want because they are of the same sex?"

It's all dealing with civil liberties and discrimination based on status.

 

[nate223]

We have to remember that marriage exists as both an institution of the church and a
legal creation of the state. It existed as an institution of the Church first,
and could exist without legal protection. Marriage as a Holy union is far more
important that the legal institution of marriage. Now, the state has long
recognized value in assigning benefits to married heterosexual couples, because
they are interested in future generations of taxpayers.

It's like this: states have an interest in creating conditions conducive to
strong families, because, among other things, kids from traditional families
stand a better chance of becoming tax contributors, whereas kids of
out-of-wedlock mothers typically have a better chance of becoming financial
burdens to the state. Many break out of this cycle, but they must first overcome
a big disadvantage, and so many don't. In the eyes of the law, marriage is not
and should not be about love. We already say that adult men cannot marry twelve
year-olds, no matter how much love exists between them. It's not about love.

On the flip-side, the state does NOT have the same motivation for granting the
benefits of marriage to people who cannot, for obvious reasons, procreate. I
don't buy the "but what about adoption?" challenge, because this is an extremely
small factor for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that many
adoption agencies don't allow it.

So, if the state defines marriage a certain way because it wants to encourage
something, why must they include in the definition unions which do not benefit the state in the way that heterosexual marriage does? They shouldn't have to. Marriage is still also an institution of the
church, and many churches do ceremonies for gays. I think it's horrible theology, but
it's not illegal. They're demanding a legal status that isn't meant for them,
and crying discrimination when they're not given that status.

 

[Nolacopusmc]

We have to remember that marriage exists as both an institution of the church and a
legal creation of the state. It existed as an institution of the Church first,
and could exist without legal protection. Marriage as a Holy union is far more
important that the legal institution of marriage. Now, the state has long
recognized value in assigning benefits to married heterosexual couples, because
they are interested in future generations of taxpayers.

It's like this: states have an interest in creating conditions conducive to
strong families, because, among other things, kids from traditional families
stand a better chance of becoming tax contributors, whereas kids of
out-of-wedlock mothers typically have a better chance of becoming financial
burdens to the state. Many break out of this cycle, but they must first overcome
a big disadvantage, and so many don't. In the eyes of the law, marriage is not
and should not be about love. We already say that adult men cannot marry twelve
year-olds, no matter how much love exists between them. It's not about love.

On the flip-side, the state does NOT have the same motivation for granting the
benefits of marriage to people who cannot, for obvious reasons, procreate. I
don't buy the "but what about adoption?" challenge, because this is an extremely
small factor for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that many
adoption agencies don't allow it.

So, if the state defines marriage a certain way because it wants to encourage
something, why must they include in the definition unions which do not benefit the state in the way that heterosexual marriage does? They shouldn't have to. Marriage is still also an institution of the
church, and many churches do ceremonies for gays. I think it's horrible theology, but
it's not illegal. They're demanding a legal status that isn't meant for them,
and crying discrimination when they're not given that status.

very logical point.

 

[oleheat]

So let me get this straight... deciding which water fountain you can drink from, where you can sit in a bus, and having "separate but equal" educational institutions is somehow not in the same league as "You can't marry who you want because they are of the same sex?"

Uh, no.

 

[Woods]

Uh, no.

We'll have to agree to disagree then... cause they both seem discriminatory based on class/status to me.

And if the aim of not allowing homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is to promote the "American Family", why the lax divorce laws? Why not dictate that you have to get married to legally have children?

While we're at it, why doesn't someone define the "American Family" for me.

 

[highstandard40]

Wow, this thread is like the Energizer Bunny.

As with most heated topics, opinions vary and are very unlikely to be changed.

Back to the original question. "Is banning same sex marriage constitutional"?
It doesn't matter what ANY of us think. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide and they will likely base their decision on politics and not the Constitution.

 

[oleheat]

We'll have to agree to disagree then... cause they both seem discriminatory based on class/status to me.

And if the aim of not allowing homosexual couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is to promote the "American Family", why the lax divorce laws? Why not dictate that you have to get married to legally have children?

While we're at it, why doesn't someone define the "American Family" for me.

Yeah, we seem to have a different point of view, & that's okay....On the family issue, if we're talking a family that involves children (which I'm sure we are), if you were to ask me MY idea of the "ideal" immediate American Family, it would consist of a father who lives there, a mother, and the children. A woman can't replace a father, nor can a man replace a mother. Anything else would be a compromise to me. I know that there are many exceptions to this rule- broken homes, etc.- but I believe this is the BEST scenario for the developement of productive members of society. I also believe it's a sad thing that the idea of the traditional family isn't as common as it once was. IMHO, same-sex marriage trivializes the American family. But again- just my opinion.