New Jersey Gay Marriage: State Senate Passes Bill Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Like I said, perhaps my word choice isn't correct. Perhaps validating would have been the correct term for me to use. As to promoting smoking, they dont advertise it...but they arent taking it off the shelves, and they arent giving up their portion of the spoils either.

And no, I wouldn't.

Well, we will disagree on that. It wouldnt harm life liberty or property of anyone if I sat outside with my balls hanging out of my pants...but I do not have some inaliable right to do so under the rules our society has agreed upon. A silly example I know, but use another of your choosing if you like. point being, society has chosen what it wants and what it does not want to recognize as part of its society. It doesnt have to harm someone to be something society doesnt want.

In this instance, the government is forcing something through that the people simply do not want.

It's all in your definitions of inaliable rights...which of course will vary from person to person.

 

Of course you'll now follow up with a legitimate reason why Sisters and brothers cant marry.

A reason that doesnt include birth defects right?

 

And platonic marriages can and are dissolved or annuled because they are platonic. Not sure of your point.

Irrelevant to you. Central to the state and dozens of courts who limit marriage to heterosexual couples. In other words, irrelevant in 6 states. Central in the other 44. I cant deny, those 6 states have succeeded in ripping procreation from the 1000s of years old institution of marriage and left in place the sex. Marriage limited to sexual couples because they are the only couples having sex. Its just that no one can present ANY kind of legitimate governmental interest that is only served in the case of sexual couples.

 

Nope, more lie. The dissolution of annulment can only be done by one of the parties involved, not the state. ~2% of marriages in the US currently are sexless, your argument is a complete nonstarter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexless_marriage

 

So what about heterosexual couples who are incapable of procreation?

 

You are correct. I left out quiet enjoyment of public spaces. That was my fault. I typically include it. The majority can certainly decide what is premissible in public spaces owned by everyone. Outside of that they should have no say at all.

I don't really care what the people want. IMO individual rights trump majority tyranny every time. Otherwise rights really do not exist. They are merely whims of the majority. I do not believe that.

Which is why I choose the most expansive defintion. Otherwise you find yourself defending positions not based on any logic other than "I don't like it".

 

Inaliable rights are not valid in public spaces? How did we reverse segregated schools and such?

When you live in a society, you need to have some care about what society wants. Push society too far, and youll get a backlash. This issue has been put in front of the voter 33 times. In all times and states where it has been tried...society has said no, we dont want that. There is no loss of rights involved. gay people have the exact same applicable lines from the constitution and it's protections. The constitution gives them to all of us, on a platform of being human.

Not based around a platform of sexual preference.We all get them under that same platform. I simply dont see any lost right here.

Now if the real issue, when you take away the faux lost rights approach, is that people simply wish the rules were something different, then I believe societies say has quitte a bit of relevance.

Strange, as you said the majority has say in public owned spaces. So you arent against trimming inaliable rights to accord to public wish. Public owned...or a part of the Public. Not sure either would be any different with real regards to inaliable rights...but oh well. We disagree.

 

I've never said otherwise.

strawman

 

coercion

 

Of course they are, there's another issue at play:

Tragedy of the Commons

 

Could you imagine how much worse off we would all be if all these gay couple were married?

It's bad enough seeing a same sex couple on the street holding hands, I couldn't imagine the horror if they were also wearing wedding bands.

For heterosexuals, that's basically the entire difference between legalized and prohibited same sex marriage.

 

only if a party seeks such action. the state doesn't care about platonic marriages.

nope. irrelevant in all 50 states.

your outdated state court decisions are meaningless. none of them apply outside of their state. you continue to lose in federal court.

nope. irrelevant in all 50

the legal institution of marriage is only 236 years old.

marriage isn't limitted to sexual couples. sex, like procreation, is not required for marriage. which is why platonic couples can and do marry.

 

I didnt say they cared about them, I said they annul or dissolve them.

 

What about them? Its nearly impossible to accurately identify who can procreate, but we do know that all who do will exclusively be heterosexual couples. And from a constitutional perspective-

 

I never said otherwise einstein. So what is it I was wrong about?

 

only if a party seeks such action. your point is refuted. move along to something new

 

I was speaking from a legal perspective. Not an emotional and hormonal perspective.

 

laughably false

those are state court rulings, not constitutional perspectives

 

that the state annuls platonic marriages or a marriage for failure to consumate einstein.

 

Good for them

Equality

It (*)(*)(*)(*)ing matters.

 

BC roman law has no relevance to 2012 US law.

presumption of paternity argument has been refuted.

3 state court rulings which have no national relevance.

and you're losing in federal court.

 

Procreation had nothing to do with marriage.

 

1000s of years of human civilization and Court precedent disagrees with you, but you will always have the emotion and hormones on your side.

 

If by losing you mean that NO FEDERAL court decision has had ANY impact upon marriage limited to heterosexuals, I would agree. I would think Federal court decisions striking down the limitations to heterosexuals would be more of an indication I was losing and the complete absence of any effect whatsoever demonstrates I am winning.

 

Any dissolution of marriage for a failure to consummate, requires the state einstein. There are no do it yourself dissolutions or annulment of marriages.