Is gay marriage unconstitutional?

Seriously?

Would you actually chose to deny a same sex couple happiness?

Judge not least ye be judged.

AA

 

There is not a single reason for homosexuals to marry each other.

In CA we handed them a civil union.

We voted and approved to change our constitution to define the word marriage.

All we said is a marriage is a man to a woman.

Simple and to the point.

 

Really?

Is your heart so absent of love and understanding that you think YOU know what is best for others?

Listen.....because I have run a Team of the very best the U.S. Military has to offer and a few times British and Aussie SAS.....I KNOW what it is like to take EVERYTHING a person has including their own life.

It is not something I would wish upon anyone.

I have had a few Gay Members of my Team.

The fact they were Gay had absolutely no effect on their ability and as we are elite....and the men I select and Train are the absolute BEST....the ONLY think the Team cared about is if the guy next to them had their back.

You talk about Gay's as if they were subhuman or different.

They are not.

AA

 

Hell, being married is no guarantee of happiness.

Were I angry, I would grant them the wish and tell them they have no more right to happiness than married people have.

 

Well now you are making sense.

AA

 

And unconstitutional.
And old history.

Separate and unequal is not equal.
The list of legal differences between marriage and civil unions is rather long, mainly at the national level - things such as social security benefits, and
not having your civil union transfer from state to state - automatic transfer of funds upon death and immigration policy - all different for civil unions.

 

Sorry, I did not know you loved your homosexuals in the military.

 

You have crossed a line.

And the sad thing for you is what you have posted is not an insult to me but I know your intent.

I am going to give you some advice.

It is NEVER a smart move to purposely insult a member on an Internet Forum especially when you have absolutely no idea who and what that person is and how capable.

Now you have nothing to worry about as fa as I am concerned because I am basically a nice guy.

But I am aware of members here who were once former members of Special Forces and Special Teams who are currently not operational because they have been declared Medically Unable to Perform and such people are trained and capable upon levels you can neither understand or possible believe.

If you wee to say to them what you said to me the result could be....unfortunate.

AA

 

Why did you spin it and tell me I had no love?

 

Because your love is selective.

And the manner you post is not very smart...for you.

AA

 

When I attack you over one of your posts, be sure to inform me,.

 

Ok then, you object to the decision because (assuming your agreement with Robert's reasoning), you believe that expanding marriage to same-sex is not the examination of a fundamental right "deeply rooted in american history" (which would be subject to heightened scrutiny), rather it is a new right which the court should be very "cautious" in recognizing. Why didn't you say so? .


While an understandable argument, I obviously disagree. Certainly most of american history has seen only men and women in marriage, but does that make it the defining characteristic? To me that's a bit like saying the defining characteristic of a "painting" is to be "mixtures of pigment", of a "door" to be "wood", or of a "bottle" to be 'plastic'... those definitions are very shallow, entirely failing to describe all the function or purpose of it.... how can such a shallow, function-less definition as "man and woman" be described as the defining characteristic of a fundamental right? How can a right be understood, evaluated, or protected, if it is only characterized by such shallow terms? I assert that it shouldn't. A state can narrowly define it however it wants, but understanding it as a right requires understanding its more generalized characteristics and functions.

Procreation certainly is an important function. However, the States and the Courts have also ascribed many other purposes to marriage, and have specifically rejected a limitation to marriage based on a potential for procreation. Given that marriage cannot be limited based on the potential for procreation, it seems rather difficult to claim that the characteristic of marriage which defines its "deeply rooted american history" comes down to the genitals of the people involved.

And that's what it essentially comes down to. The states and courts ascribe many purposes and functions of marriage, procreation among them, but not limited to it. For most of american history, it was not believed that homosexual persons were capable of serving, let alone wanting any of these functions. The realization that this is false has changed the equation.

To quote another case from a lower court:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...kitchen+v.+herbert&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1
"While it was assumed until recently that a person could only share an intimate emotional bond and develop a family with a person of the opposite sex, the realization that this assumption is false does not change the underlying right. It merely changes the result when the court applies that right to the facts before it. Applying that right to these Plaintiffs, the court finds that the Constitution protects their right to marry a person of the same sex to the same degree that the Constitution protects the right of heterosexual individuals to marry a person of the opposite sex."

 

My God! The bizarreness and inappropriateness of that response MORE than confirms my suspicions. You are in the last, desperate throws of defeat. You are running on empty and just sputtering. You are not worth another second of my time or another ley stroke.

 

Uh, what did I lose and how did I lose it?

 

Let me try to simplify.

Think of driver's licenses.

I have a driver's license that makes it legal for me to drive an automobile and pick up trucks on the highways.

My license does not make it legal for me to drive a school bus nor a large freight truck.

I hold a pilots license. This too allows me to transport myself and passengers about the USA.

I do not hold the commercial license that allows me to hire out to carry passengers.

I voted in CA for the civil union. I felt some sort of relief for homosexuals was warranted.

But to me the marriage license went to a man and woman who in general, end up bearing children.

You exclude the children in marriage. I and the dissenting justices do not.

The children in families are the most vulnerable of all.

The woman is judged to be an adult as is the male. They really need far less protection by law than their children need.

The function of marriage really is about family. And for two men to try to get angry at me over a civil union and take it out by heading back to court is plain mean spirited.

Were it not brand new law, then the former laws of all states would still be in effect.

This phony argument separate but equal also applies to my pilots license vs my drivers license.

It simply depends on the purpose.

Marriage is treated by some of the homosexuals as some cure all.

I believe if we stripped away all laws favoring marriage, they never would have gave it a thought. Such as some hospital rules over who visits patents or can tell doctors what to do for the patient.

- - - Updated - - -

You do not get to rule on what posts connote. You only have an opinion and a very weak one at that.

By the way, you need to look up the word bigot.

 

What a post connotes? It was not about a connotation. You made a ridiculous statement: "Homosexuals only care about themselves" which was completely inappropriate and totally unrelated to what I had previously posted.

I know perfectly well what "bigotry is" If your implying that I am intolerant, you're right- I'm intolerant of bigots. I fight for equality, even for people like you who would deny it for others. This is America. You on the other hand, seek to deny others the same rights that you take for granted because you disapprove of them but you are not man enough to admit that is the reason. Rather you concoct idiotic legal theories, and invoke procreation to rationalize and justify your BIGOTRY, then pat yourself on the back for voting for civil unions.

Others and I have presented actual arguments. You have contributed nothing but blather and nonsense.

 

No one who has ever advocated for marriage equality has " excluded children" as you allege . That is just bunk. Much of the fight for equality has centered around children:

Marriage Equality and adoption…The Right Thing to do For The Children By Progressive Patriot 9.12.14
People who use children to assail gay marriage and adoption either have not given much thought to the down side of these bans-or – are being intellectually dishonest in saying that they take their position on behalf of the children which they really care little about.

It is a logical fallacy-an appeal to ignorance if you will to insist that same sex marriage and adoption of children by gays will be detrimental to those children, and that society as a whole, will somehow be harmed by these arrangements. Many will take the position that children are entitled to a “mom and a dad” That may be so but the reality is that many people in this life do not have everything that they are entitled to. There are many children without both a mother and a father, and some without either. Banning gay marriage and adoption is not going to change that.

Children also have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children. And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else. Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy.

Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. All that will be accomplished will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents. And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and opprobrious to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how children would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of having two parents is undeniable

The benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible.

 

That is a little narcissistic. What makes you think they're taking it out on you? Maybe they want protection for their children.

 

Not at all. I and citizens of CA endured their lawsuits. That is why I think they took it out on me.

And especially that I voted for them to have the civil union.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage was never crafted in favor of adoption.

Sorry, your argument fails.

 

Let me simplify it for you.

You are an American Citizen, and you want a drivers license - but you can't get one because you choose to own a gun.

You are an American Citizen, and want a pilots license - but you can't get one because you choose to eat at McDonalds.

THAT'S what it would be like - understand?

 

The point that is lost on you is that discrimination against gays in the area of marriage and adoption hurts children. It is not about the purpose of marriage. This is just more of your manipulation of the topic and avoidance of the points that I made while offering nothing to counter my facts and logic.

 

The above post is crafted as if it is pure bigotry.

My voting for the civil union handed to homosexuals a brand new law that favored them entirely.

And they want to come back at me all angry?

 

Holy cow. Very very narcissist reply.

I am well aware that to you, you are the ultimate authority over law.

So to help your case, tell the forum how much law you have studied in college?

In my case, never mind. you would simply insult me.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry but that argument is not good.

What homosexuals wanted the citizens of this country to provide to them was a marriage license.

Did you think it was something else?

 

No. What's wrong with an American Citizen wanting a marriage license when they meet age and familial requirements?
You act as if presenting them with the badge of a second class citizen (a civil union lacking in all the Federal privilege of
a marriage license) was some grand gesture on your part.

I think what you're not getting is that an American who is gay is still first and foremost an American Citizen.

 

Pardon me but I believe you said marriage has requirements to be met.

On that score, I fully agree.

You won't sway me as to the needs of homosexuals. I never hated them. In fact until he died, my own brother was one. I sure never treated him poorly. I figured what he did was his business.

My brother died at age 44 and not from AIDS or HIV. But when he talked of wanting a child, I remember him claiming he married a woman. This is how that homosexual handled wanting kids.