Utah Legalises Same-Sex Marriage One Day After NM.

Good for Utah. It's about time that people's fundamental rights be respected. I'm sick of these overreaching laws that prevent what is normal and natural.

Good for NM too. They're the bluest red state I've ever seen.

No. A court lifted an imposition that prevented gay people from marrying.

No. Due process and equal protection are rights.

 

So...you think you have the right to freedom if you kill someone? You think you have the right to free speech if you yell "fire" in a crowded theater and cause panic which results in injury to others? Really? You think those restrictions should not exist? There are conditions and restrictions on every right we have.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly right. Thanks!

 

I must say this is shockingly good news. I saw New Mexico coming, but Utah was nowhere on my radar. Wow. I don't even know what to say...I am so happy for all those people who are now treated with the respect and dignity all American citizens--no, all human beings--deserve.

 

A group of nine people much smarter than you have been saying that marriage is a right for decades.

 

No.. you're missing the point. If ANYBODY yells fire in a theatre... he will get in trouble. It's not just an incestuous person that will get in trouble if he yells fire in a theatre.

They are NOT receiving equal protection under the law. You're referencing limits upon rights that ALL people have. However, that's not what we're talking about. You're claiming that marriage is a right but then you're claiming the country has the ability to deny one group that right because they disagree with their lifestyle choice.

Therefore, it is NOT a right.

- - - Updated - - -

If marriage is a right then why can't a father marry his son?

- - - Updated - - -

Incestuous couples too right? Oh but they're not getting that are they? And why not? If marriage is a right, they should get that right too shouldn't they?

 

People with severe mental illness can't own guns. Do you think they should be able to?

 

Nobody with a severe mental illness can own a gun lol Not black, white, gay, incestuous... nobody with a mental illness can own a gun.

 

And your point? Why are you prejudiced against the mentally ill? Don't they deserve equal rights?

Oh, and nobody incestuous can get married- not black, white, gay .

 

Totally irrelevant to same-sex marriage, unless you want to argue we should prohibit interracial marriage as well since marriage benefits were not extended to incestuous couples when that was legalized.

 

I'm not the one claiming we can't discriminate. I feel like we have every right to do so. YOU are the one claiming equal rights, equality, non-discrimination. Not I.

Oh, and nobody could marry someone of their own sex either - not black, white, male or female. So that's not discrimination either right?

 

Exactly. It's a goofy argument.

 

It absolutely is relevant because the "same-sex marriage" argument is predicated on this idea of marriage being a RIGHT. If marriage is a RIGHT then incestuous couples have that RIGHT as well. If they do not, then it is NOT a right.

 

It is when no demonstrable reason to deny it can be found. And the court found there isn't.

I already showed you earlier why rights are restricted to some degree, did I not? Bottom line, there is no reason to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

 

Wrong... as usual. The constitution EXPLICITLY protects race... it does NOT protect sexual orientation. Regardless... it also doesn't enumerate marriage as a RIGHT either.

- - - Updated - - -

So then what demonstrable reason has been provided to deny the right of marriage to a father and son?

Oh there isn't one? But we still deny them marriage? Then by definition it's not a right, is it?

I can provide a much more cogent, legal, economic reason to deny marriage benefits to homosexuals than you can provide for a Mom and her son and the mom is infertile.

 

There's several reasons to deny them marriage. You did NOT show where rights were restricted to one specific group of people and not another. Please provide an example of that.

 

Yes, marriage is a right. And the "interracial marriage" argument was predicated on that exact same idea. Interracial marriage bans were struck down by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, which ruled that marriage was a fundamental civil right. From the ruling itself:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Are you against interracial marriage then? After all, how can the right of marriage be extended to interracial couples and not incestuous couples? Your argument is total bananas (and I don't mean the gay kind )

 

What part of this do you not understand? IF MARRIAGE IS A RIGHT THEN HOW DO YOU DENY INCESTUOUS COUPLES THE *RIGHT* TO MARRIAGE?

Maybe putting it in caps will help you.

What it should say is...

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.... except for incestuous couples.

Right?

 

If you argue that marriage is not a right, then you must also argue that states have the power to prohibit interracial marriage. Do you agree that states have such power?

 

If you are arguing that states have the power to prohibit incestuous marriage then what's the difference?

 

Well, here's a whole list of reasons. If you think those reasons are not a concern, then by all means, say so. Incest has absolutely nothing to do with two people of the same gender marrying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

These are the laws as they currently exist and the other link is a list of reasons why incest is seen as a problem. Again, if those factors can all be mitigated, you're right, let em get married.

 

Please state clearly whether or not you believe states should have the power to prohibit interracial marriages.

 

You do know the law was voted on by the people of the sate. when the government starts to over ride its citizens majority vote you are starting to see tyranny. whats next over riding elections because the government doesn't like the candidate that won?

 

Absolutely. If that were something that interracial people didn't like they could move to another state. This is more of an argument about State vs Federal than what we're discussing. Although they actually have an argument as to why they should be allowed to marry because, unlike sexual orientation, race IS a protected class.

Now it's your turn to answer my question. If you're claiming we have the ability to prohibit incestuous couples from being married then what would be the difference in denying marriage to interracial couples?

 

Infertile incestuous couples don't have those issues do they?

And they DON'T have the ability to get married do they? Therefore, it's not a right. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. UNTIL all are allowed to marry then it's not a right.

It's funny though... you use the ability to create a healthy child as a reason incestuous couples shouldn't be allowed to marry but in the next breath will tell me that procreation has nothing to do with marriage lol

 

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. You believe that states should have the power to prohibit interracial marriage. Should states have the power to prohibit two white people from marrying, and require that everyone engage in interracial marriage if they wish to get married? Should states have the power to prohibit white people from marrying at all, and only allow black people to marry?