Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Negatory.

That is constitutionally irrelevant.

 

A quick lawsuit and any new law trying to ban same-sex marriage would be stopped in the courts - until, and unless someone has standing to take it all the way the Supreme Court - which may decide to pass on it since they already have ruled on it.

 

Precisely why we should not confuse the word. Doesn't the legal profession have ANY standards? I know in other instances they are VERY particular in the words they use. That is the only nature of what I protest.

 

They COULD uphold a law to call it be a new name. Originally the purpose of law becoming involved in marriage was to protect the interests of children resulting in the union of that marriage. It is understandable. There are no children resulting FROM a same sex union so they pervert the definition when they say it is equal. Give it a different name.

 

The word "marriage" for gay unions was chosen precisely BECAUSE the legal profession has standards. There are thousands of laws and privileges on the books at the State and national level pertaining to marriage. In order for those rights and privileges to be equal (under the 14th Amendment) for ALL marriages (gay and straight) the term "marriage" has to be applied across the board.

Basically, in order for a gay union to have those SAME legal rights and privileges without a thousand separate court battles, it has to be called a "marriage". End of story.

 

Thousands of gay couples have children - whether from adoption or medical means (just as many heterosexual couples have children obtained in the same way). And as I pointed out above - there are hundreds of special rights and privileges given to married couples that only apply to married couples. Calling it something else means hundreds of individual court battles to get those same rights and privileges applied.

 

Far be it from the y-man to accuse any random federal judge of having any respect for the Constitution.

 

It's not just some random judge - the case has already gone through numerous state and federal courts, Appeals Courts and the Supreme Court. End result - gay couples have the same rights and heterosexual couples.

I've been married to the same woman for 28 years - on the day that gay couples were allowed to marry, my marriage changed not one single bit. In fact - EVERY single heterosexual marriage before and after gays were allowed to marry changed not one little bit. That will be the main reason same sex marriage will never be overturned by the courts - the anti-gay marriage crowd has no standing to claim damages.

 

Kinda sorta — they are still trying to apply sodomy laws / laws against nature to other charges in some parts of the nation.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/21/12-states-ban-sodomy-a-decade-after-court-ruling/7981025/
https://slate.com/human-interest/20...al-sex-in-some-red-states-like-louisiana.html

 

the Constitution is of no moment when the self-esteem of perverts is at issue.

More to the point, you're counting on the rape of the Constitution affecting you not one single bit.

 

Millions of heterosexuals have children that they share blood with as well as adopt. So you want to make the deviation the new norm? O.K. just call it by a different name. Give them the same rights if you so wish. Children need protection after all.

 

Back to the prelude to the story.... a same homosexual union could have the same rights and privileges by a different name. You just want to see it undifferentiated from marriage between one man and one women. Perhaps you and your wife of 28 years don't have children. I don't know. But perhaps you don't really give a flip as to where the culture is headed even after you are gone.

 

They tried that with civil unions which your side also took offense with.
So now we have marriage

 

My side? I'd be fine with it. We must go back.

 

Sometimes. But not marriage as we are discussing it. Marriage is a legal institution in the US. Anything other than legally recognized marriage is just a ceremony.

 

We won’t go back, sorry

 

It would be unconstitutional. The only way it could become constitutional would be for a constitutional amendment or a case that overturns the previous decision.

 

That is why in many laws they specifically spell out what given words mean in the context of the law. To make an example using board game rules (since I am out doing board game demos currently) the word adjacent: In some games adjacent means a space that is orthagnally (may be spelled wrong. Up down left right) or diagonally next to a space. In other games it only means orthagnally.

If the law does not spell out how a word is used in the context of the law, then multiple interpretations can arise and cause problems. And when it comes down to it, if they include a legal definition, it does not have to match any other common useage definition

 

Incorrect. While laws arose to provide protections of children within marriage, the laws that defined marriage and required the documentation of said marriage arose from the push of interracial marriage. The first legal definition in the US was about being of the same race.

However you are correct in that a state could label the union as something other than a marriage, so long as it did not have any legal institution labeled marriage, and the legal institution was available to all, regardless of race or physical sex. But, they would still be required to recognize marriages that happened in other states, and could not rename other States' label of the union

 

Not necessarily, but the wording would have to be right. When making the name change, the state would have to include a clause that changes the word "marriage" and all related words thereof, into the new word and related words thereof, and that any outside law that refered to marriage would apply to the new institution.

 

Both sides had issues. The pro SSM side because the civil union laws did not provide the same rights and privileges as marriage laws.

 

Yes indeed as we are discussing it. Marriage existed as an institution in other forms prior to the creation of the legal form in the US. You have not shown anything to support the creation of the legal form invalidating the other forms. The only thing a lack of legal marriage means is a lack of the legal benefits of marriage.

 

Of course it would, from the perspective of the constitutionally illiterate.

 

No I said that it says you can't discriminate against religion.

 

Duplicate post