Same-sex marriage will not change a single day-to-dy thing for Americans

You conveniently side stepped the question... Lets try again.

Has any of these things happened?

 

Marriage is not a "justification", of course. As a legal contract, it merely delineates the mutual rights and responsibilities of the parties to that contract.

If such legal sanction also contributes to family stability and decreases promiscuity, that is a peripheral benefit for a society that embraces those goals..

 

I answered the question. I realize that you didn't understand what I meant when I said it wasn't that long ago that no one had ever been taken to court for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So I'll break it down for you:

A few years ago that would have been considered preposterous and if I had posted that scenario as a possible outcome of gay marriage. At that time, the theme from the pro gay marriage forces was that it won't interfere with your life...until it did. Which is why threads titled like this one are silly. So taken the same view of the law, those scenarios I mentioned are likely as we turn into a society that wants to crush those that disagree with them. So they are still valid quesitions.

Should a Kosher or Halal deli be forced to cater a gay wedding?

Should a Christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a Satanic celebration?

Should a Jewish photographer be forced to photgraph a Neo-Nazi event?

 

You may note that I only asked questions, and did not opine regarding your post beyond that.

I can't predict whether ending gender discrimination in marriage contracts will occasion an enormous windfall for lawyers. Presumably, they, along with wedding planners, calligraphers, justices of the peace, florists, limousine rentals, ministers, rabbis, photographers, etc., etc., etc. will enjoy an expanded source of income, but I could not venture a guess as to how much.

 

Yes yes and yes.

 

Sure, but it should not be a goal.

To talk straight - and I hope people responding this put aside silly partisan politics - I have no issue with general legal rights being afforded to gay couples. Shared property rights, etc., that's all stuff that they should have and which I can see no reason not to grant. The problem I have is mostly on two levels:

1) the term marriage. I have religious reservations regarding the term, but I think the notion I put in a term is secondary. I'd prefer we call them civil unions - in fact my religious reservations, to an admittedly lesser extent, extend to all government marital rights. The government should just be giving civil unions to everyone. As an attachment to this, take a closer look at state polling and you'll find that by simply changing the word you'll get far more support nation wide, and within two years you could get legal rights afforded to gay couples in almost all states if you billed it as the same legal rights under a different term. That's just smart politics, and I've had issues with friends who campaigned for gay marriage in a state where polls showed only 44% supported gay marriage, but 83% supported gay marriage or civil unions. If it's actually about equality, legal equality, sometimes you've got to take a breath and look at the big picture. I can understand people caring about equality in terms, but that should be secondary to equality in legal rights.

2) what's the government's interest in propping up gay marriage? While many take issue with this, myself included, government has an interest not only in marriage, but in actively encouraging traditional marriage for procreation reasons. That's the only real "big" interest the government has in marriage such that it would make marriage advantageous. The problem is that gays don't fit the traditional model, and there's no real reason for the government to encourage gays to get married on the same grounds. All the talk about 'infertile' is extraneous.

For that reason, if the government is to continue up encouraging procreation, I think it should do so through other means. Pull back the tax benefits of marriage and tie benefits to actually having kids, if that's to be an initiative of the government, but people shouldn't get preferential treatment from the government just because they have rings.

 

No... you didn't.

I understood perfectly well that you are implying that it could happen... but again this does not answer the actual question.

Well, this should be fun!

See, I told you I understood what you were attempting to do!!

Yes they are...And all I really wanted to know was...

And so as you have side stepped the question two times...I'll ask for a third time

Has any of these things happened?

 

Because kids who haven't been poisoned by hate like the sort your post is dripping with aren't going to have the same reaction to it that you do.

 

Well thanks for the refreshing honesty.

- - - Updated - - -

I asked my questions first. Why are you stalling?

 

I didn't get cut off, I didn't finish my statement. I write posts by skipping around and had to attend to an urgency while writing that and didn't proof my post before submitting. What I was saying was that with all the recent decisions, the Supreme Court may waive the cases through the Circuit Courts and decide them all at once. There is a chance that the Fifth Circuit could reverse the District Court on the Texas ruling, while the Tenth has already indicated that they will be supportive of the legalization. A situation like that could lead the Supreme Court to just remove all cases to the Supreme Court to rule immediately so there is a unanimous decision that does not create different precedents in different circuits.

You are right, the Court didn't hand down the ruling regarding the states, as the court's modus operandi is to rule solely on the case at hand. The only case that had sufficient standing was Windsor, which was decided for Ms. Windsor on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. I doubt the Supreme Court would have said the Fourteenth Amendment requires federal recognition of same-sex marriage and provision of benefits to same-sex couples and then said that somehow the States were not required to do the same.

What was, however, decided, was that private citizens do not have standing in a case about state recognition of same-sex marriage because there is no injury to the private citizen created by same-sex marriages being recognized by a state. Had they decided that there was an injury to a private citizen created by same-sex marriages, the same-sex marriage ban would have been upheld. It is also quite telling that Scalia, the Conservative rock of the Court has been cited in at least two decisions overturning a ban.

I'd also like to thank you for having respectful and tactful discussion points grounded in reality on this. It's why I like debating you.

Yeah, I did misunderstand you a bit. I thought you were saying that state's rights were granted by the Fourteenth. We're pretty much in agreement on the incorporation issue. Though I tend to say that the reason incorporation has been done in a piecemeal way is because the court isn't going to say that the Seventh Amendment is applicable to the States until they get a case dealing with the Seventh Amendment. The Seventh Amendment is not fully incorporated against the States, only some parts. In time most, if not all

The laws referring to marriage I have read make no mention of procreation, therefore, you are reading that into the law. When something is absent from the law, it is moot to the discussion of the law in regards to whether it is constitutional. Had the laws been written to mention procreation specifically, and thus precluded the elderly and sterile from marrying, the procreation argument would have been given more weight. Of course, it would have also led to many more of the bans being challenged.

No. When the father has unprotected sex and a child results, he has established a responsibility for himself. That is not legislating morality.

So you would prefer that gays have less dignity? You must not have a grasp of the Equal Protection Clause. I'd teach you, but I'm not qualified to teach Special Education.

My education comes from more books than you've probably ever conceived of, by well-respected Constitutional scholars like Akhil Reed Amar. In the past year, I have read three separate books on the history of the Constitutional Convention, with two or three more on my to-read list later.

As for those examples, they remind me of the airhead that was interviewed by Chris "Steve" Cuomo and had to be schooled on air about the difference between "religious freedom" and "discrimination'. She must not be that good of a lawyer.

Again, if a business is open to the public, they cannot turn away a customer based on who they are.

My speculation is based on the fact that every other time a class denied their equal rights or protections was subsequently granted those rights or protections over the objections of the conservatives in the country, the society did not break down because of the expanded civil liberties. Even when slavery was ended in the South, there was not the upheaval there would have been had they not seceded and caused the Civil War to break out. Marriage equality will be no different. You have to get it through your bigoted skull that your not wanting to be around gays does not matter to the United States court system anymore. If you don't like it, go cry yourself a river, build a damn bridge, and get your ass over it. That, or move to Uganda or Russia. The times are changing, either get with them, or shut up.

 

LOL... The old switch-ah-rue... So your not gonna show me yours unless I show you mine first now?... LOL .. Well at least your entertaining.

Here is an answer for you... yes or no... pick one I don't care which, as they are hypothetical questions any way.

OK so I answered your question now you answer mine.

Has this ever happened?

 

You still don't get it. It's not about "who they are" it's about what they are requesting.

 

This seems a bit evasive but it's also immaterial. What's important is that there is no connection between legalizing same sex marriage and forcing businesses to serve clients who's "lifestyle" or "politics" they disapprove of. If it is an injustice to force a Christian cake baker to serve a same sex wedding or a church to marry a same sex couple, that injustice will NOT require abolishing same sex marriage.

 

I answered in post 75.

Now is this confusing to you? Do you not understand what I said? Now let's move on to my questions:

Should a Kosher or Halal deli be forced to cater a gay wedding?

Should a Christian baker be forced to bake a cake for a Satanic celebration?

Should a Jewish photographer be forced to photgraph a Neo-Nazi event?

 

So has this happened?... you know,... has any christian baker been forced to bake a Satan cake?... Has any Jewish photographer been forced to photograph Neo-Nazi gatherings?... Has a Kosher or Halal deli be forced to cater a gay wedding?

Why is this question so hard to answer!?

 

As far as I know, no. That being the answer, does that mean the questions can't be answered anyway? Not that I personally care but Lil Mike obviously does.

 

The government policy reflects just that. If you get married, you get a bunch of bennies, and if you have kids, you get a bunch of bennies, especially if you have more than one (but the benies stop after 3, if I remember right).

And as far as separate but equal, I don't think it's the case. In that landmark case, you had separate schools for blacks and whites that were the difference between Harvard for whites and Montgomery Community College for blacks. In this case, it's Harvard v. Harvard, you just have one going in under the Truman program and one under the Eisenhower program. It's the same, with just a different name. And, again, what we should be going for above all is equality in fact.

 

The thing about Windsor, though, is that the court didn't say anything about granting same sex marriages, only that the feds had to recognize marriage as instituted by the states. Constitutionally, it's a state matter, and since it's the authority of the states to determine marriage policy the feds can't say we like Alabama's policy and will recognize it, but we don't care much for Maryland's and we'll reject it. There's a huge difference between that and overturning gay marriage bans.

However, the caveat is when states have Constitutional bans on gay marriage. If, say, Maine decided we're not going to allow anyone to drive on our roads anymore, people can only use snomobiles, then Maine would not be obliged to recognize New Hampshire's automobile licenses. It's based on the determination that it is a vehicle license, but a fundamentally different kind than what in that case Maine allows. Just the same, if TX has a constitutional ban on gay marriage, it would not have to recognize MA's gay marriages. It's no different than if Utah were to institute polygamous marriage and then every state in the country would have to allow it.

But the only caveat I can see is with a Constitutional ban. Barring that, I would expect SCOTUS to nationalize marital recognition.

Likewise. I think the state can argue that (insofar as there are financial benefits to marriage), but private citizens do not, which is why gay marriage bans have the legs cut out from underneath them when the state refuses to argue the case in court (or argues the case horribly ineffectually, which has happened).

Likewise. I don't come online to preach a message or to circle-jerk my views, I think both are just loony things to do.

haha, I still find it funny that the 7th says $20. What did humans sell for in 1789, $40? Now a good album may cost you more than that.

 

Lil Mike knows along with everyone else that the answer is no, that's why Lil Mike is afraid to answer the question. Lil Mike knows that any business owner can simply say no, and no reason even has to be given.

Lil Mike knows when the christian baker is asked to bake a Satan cake the baker can simply say "sorry we are so busy we just don't have time for any new accounts"

Lil Mike knows that when the Jewish photographer is asked to photograph the Neo-Nazi gathering the photographer can say " I'm already booked that day"

Lil Mike knows that when the Kosher or Halal deli is asked to cater a gay wedding they can say "sorry we are catering another event that day and we don't have the staff"

And Lil Mike knows that no one can force them to do it!

 

No you didn't... and the reason you didn't is because the answer is no!

 

True.

True, though that's when the Full Faith and Credit Clause kicks in, that's a different tack. An argument could be made regarding marriages that they are contracts, in which case, the Contract Clause of Article I, Section 10 could be applied. In fact, I am going to be contacting the ACLU of Wisconsin to suggest they attempt to attack Wisconsin's gay marriage ban on the basis of the Contract Clause. If they decide not to go that route, I might just whip up an amicus curiae brief and submit it to the Circuit Court when the case gets to that level.

True, a federal Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage could be passed, but like the Corwin Amendment, I doubt it would reach the required threshold. I don't see that getting passage through Congress, let alone the States. As bans fall, the Federal Marriage Amendment will lose more and more support.

Well, as I pointed out there aren't much in the way of quality arguments for the bans. I have yet to come across an opponent of same-sex marriage that fully understands the law.

That's one of the things I point to when I say the Constitution has passed its prime and should have been revised long ago, at least around the time of the advent of Jacksonian Democracy at the earliest. Currently $20 in 1791 is around $430 in 2009 dollars.

I don't know about where you live, but where I live, the venue where a wedding reception would be are not churches, and of the weddings i have been to they have not had any religious iconography at the reception, therefore the baker would not have basis to object that they would have to go into a Satanic house of worship. Secondly, who is to say that the people ordering the cake would be wearing symbols of their faith or would want a cake different from a normal everyday cake? If it is different, I am fairly certain the standard would go "let's say a known Christian couple came in and wanted a cake with a design identical to what the Satanists wanted, would the bakery still bake that cake?" If that is the case, then it's discrimination based on religion.

Oh, and from the limited grasp of Satanism I have, some Satanists don't worship Satan because he is evil, they worship him because he represents the faults inherent to all Humanity. Satan, or Lucifer, was once an angel in Heaven if I remember the Christian storybook right.

Also, as for a Kosher bakery, Jewish acceptance of same-sex marriage is in the 70% range according to some polls, plus as far as I have always seen, Jewish folks are pretty tolerant and accepting. Must be the two thousand years of Christian antisemitism, ironic when you consider the guy the Christian faith worships was a Jew.

As for a Neo-Nazi going to a Jewish photographer, that is likely a scenario that could see the photographer deny the business based on a legitimate fear for the photographer's life since Neo-Nazis have a well-documented propensity for violence toward people of the Jewish faith. Christians baking a cake for a Satanist wedding don't have that avenue of complaint.

 

If domestic stability is a goal of society, the People who comprise that society, through their government of, by, and for those People will decide that.

"Marriage" is not a uniquely religious term. As a legal contract, it is entirely unrelated to religious notions. Atheists have as much right to enter into such a contract as do the varieties of religionists. If religionists also seek sectarian affirmation of their union as well as civil, in whatever rituals are proscribed, nothing should prohibit them from following their customs.

The government should not be "propping up" marriage, either same-sex or opposite sex. It is, in addition to being a legal contract and expression of commitment by two parties, an institution the People have determined should be honoured, and equal rights are now being recognized for same-sex couples just as they were also, not that long ago, for differing-race couples amidst similar resistance.

It's difficult to grasp how those opposed to such equality incur any real adverse consequences.

 

glad you can recognize the distinction - it's frustrating when people, many on this forum, won't recognize a distinction just because it runs against their idea of a perfect world.

go for it, that seems to be more along the lines of recent court decisions. Since marriage policy is actually a state issue, the federal government can't pick and choose. But I think that also gives some credence to states defining their own marriage policy.

I was speaking more along the lines of state Constitution bans. I think those have a chance of surviving through SCOTUS decisions, but state laws banning gay marriage I don't think do.

legally no, most are tragically unaware of the complexities of current law - I'm just an undergrad student and I've seen Constitutional lawyers make me goofs that make me wonder what the hell they were thinking. But as far as places like PF, the debate usually isn't a legal debate - people are debating fundamental values, not how to get stuff done working around the Constitution. I find that there are valid arguments there. But, as usual, most arguments on both sides are lacking. So I agree with you, the arguments against gay marriage usually suck, but that agreement isn't much, since I say the same is roughly equally true of the arguments for it. The arguments against it are, at least, more often logically consistent, even if flawed.

One thing that still amazes me is that most people arguing for marriage equality are against multiple marriages or instinctual marriages, and they continue to put forth the most idiotic arguments. The one that I most enjoy (b/c it's fun to shut people up with words) is when people say that we should still ban incestual marriages b/c of birth defects. Well, first, it's not inherent, it's an increased likelihood of birth defects. The difference between the likelihood of a woman over 35 vs. a 20yo's child having birth defects is greater than the difference between an incestual couple vs. non-incestual couple's child having birth defects, so the rational would suggest that if you're 35 it should be a crime to have sex. That's just flawed logic against incestual relationships.

Second, and much more fun (I usually use this b/c it's quicker), is that the assumption is that if we don't allow siblings to get married they won't have sex. Does anyone actually think that denying gays marital rights will stop them from having sex?

I often find that the translations of currency value are incomplete, or weak. This is some mix and match, but I just did a google search and found that the average cost of a slave was $600 in 1800, and if you extrapolate the numbers you get that the average cost of a slave in today's dollars was $12,900. Something about that just seems off. That can't possibly be right.

But yes, I think that some parts of the Constitution should be amended, just to update little bits like that. I think most of the fundamental values are, or should be, timeless, but we can update that $20 figure to $500. Doesn't the XBOX One cost more than that? haha

- - - Updated - - -

"To talk straight - and I hope people responding this put aside silly partisan politics..."

It was a pretty simple request...

 

LOL, I'm a realist. In the real world, there is no such thing as perfection.

The reason states went for state Constitutional amendments is because of their fear that their State Constitution's equal protection language, which many have, would nullify a law banning same-sex marriage. A state Constitutional amendment must still satisfy equal protection under the United States Constitution, since the United States Constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

I believe that any grouping of consenting adults that wants to enter into a marriage should be able to. I believe that incestuous marriages would still be outlawed on the basis of the increased likelihood of birth defects, but as science advances, it will become harder and harder to justify that.

It never stopped Donny and Marie Osmond according to Family Guy.....

seriously, that meme better get this post at least one like, it took me three tries to get it to work....