Washington State set to become 7th state to legalise SSM

It's within your rights to bring anything your democratically elected leaders decide on, I just can't see the point in bringing SSM to a vote when it doesn't affect anyone but gay people and those wanting to marry their same-sex partner.

Basically SSM opponents used to decry the courts saying gay rights advocates have to use judicial activism to get their way instead of their democratically elected representatives and legislators. Then when they released state legislative bodies were moving towards legalising marriage equality, they decried that and insisted on referendums. Its just one tactic after another. I wonder when either Maine or Washington affirm it by a public vote, what they'll be saying then? I guess they'll focus all their attention on passing the 'Federal Marriage Amendment' to destroy state's democratic rights... :/

 

And I can relate an opinion as to how odd I find that opinion, if I wish.

Saw this on the other thread in a linked to article, thought of your sensitivity to me using the term "queer".



Im going to get you one for a present. Embrace the queer!

 

Hey, it IS (after all) debatable; and that is what were doing.

It's okay, as long as you don't throw it at me or others in some disparaging fashion; I wouldn't want to have to spend time reporting you for insulting me... but I surely would.


Great picture; cute guy!!

Again, if it weren't insulting and was given to me by someone I knew cared about or loved me as a person... I'd likely smile, laugh and then go out for a burger with that person.

I'm a 30+ year career military veteran; I've been in harm's way, served in 3 wars and silently endured the worse anti-gay insults one could imagine. On top of that, I've loved the very people who brought me such pain; but they didn't know a gay man was working/fighting right beside them. I know how to forgive and I'm tougher than you think.

But...

Now I'm going to be very honorable, and tell YOU (someone who I believe hates homosexual people, for whatever screwy reasons) exactly what I think of the things you say and the ideas you communicate. And I do that for reasons beyond what YOU might perceive as being 'personal'. You see, I know enough people in this world (some of them homosexual) to understand that they would respond to or emote TOWARD you, if they but had the opportunity. And you can be sure, that you've taught me a lot about HOW to respond to fear, hatred, homophobia and abject bigotry. Your intellectual-idiocy and closed-mindedness has been like a post boot camp training ground; a wonderful opportunity to exercise the PRINCIPLE of being intolerant of homophobia.

So, if you do SEE my emotions, then it's okay. I'm not hiding them at all. I'm human. But I have something and more to say than what is in this post. And I promise to try and express my disdain for your irrational animus, at every possible turn. Really, it helps me to vent here... it teaches me how to write letters and speak about the very negative things you and others purpose to propagate in this world (especially where homosexuality is concerned).

So yeah, I make it a point to be somewhat 'intolerant' and even emotional, when I respond to the hatred and discrimination you promote in the meaning of your words. I WANT people to know how your thinking really affects living human beings... and not just myself, but those who would respond to you, if they had the means to see what you say, the resources to connect to this site and the words to express to you (and others) EXACTLY how they feel (within the limits of the rules).

As I implied before (yes, as a queer American military veteran)... I hope to God that Washington becomes the 7th State to legalize SSM, and soon.

 

Noooooo. I am the one who supports marriage limited to heterosexuals for biological and Constitutional reasons, everyone of them supported with case law. You and the courts cant deal with those arguments so you instead assign to me and legislators accusations of "fear, hatred, homophobia and abject bigotry", "intellectual-idiocy and closed-mindedness". Using the judicial fiction/finding of fact that marriage hasnt for 1000s of years been limited to heterosexuals in order to include those couples with the potential of procreation, but has instead been to exclude homosexual couples. ABSURD.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her"

Not because of animus towards homosexuals but instead because of the biological requirements of procreation.

And I would respond in kind but would be summarily banned. As a heterosexual I dont get the special treatment given homosexuals.

 

No dixon, you are promoting bigotry and discrimination, in your interpretation of things in general; and you should be challenged in my view. So, we will fight about this; I can assure you.

I can and do deal with any of those arguments daily. More importantly, I and millions of others deal with the effects of laws which are under review for good and valid reasons.

Many Americans disagree, but since the debates performed concern themselves with people's rights in general, they are a must and will not be pushed-aside as some (like you) would prefer, based solely upon PAST legal precedent. In short, there is good reason to have laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying legally reviewed and/or scrutinized (ultimately revised). And that is exactly whats happening.

As I have admitted before, I agree that many present laws are considered "okay" by people with mindsets such as yours, but it is futile for YOU to assume that everyone will or must embrace the same views you do. It makes little sense for you to intransigently hold to the notion that the present laws which discriminate against homosexuals should not or could not be modified. There are legal cases and political movements changing many laws as we argue right here and now.

Thousands of years of unjust discrimination does not justify absolute continuance of the same today; but in your mind it surely might. So, make no mistake about it:

I'm not here to change YOUR mind, but to provide others who would view these discussions with a point of view others than the one you would submit. If you ask "me", I'd say the conclusions you typically arrive at are either wrong or unjust. But other can/should indeed make up their own minds.

What's generally "ABSURD", is that you are basically stuck in a time-warp; expressing yourself here, as if things aren't changing or moving forward. I'm not shocked by that, as many are afflicted by the kind of thinking you exercise.

The 'definition' or 'meaning' of the word "marriage"... is certainly not limited to that which you ascribe to the same. People here understand your definition... but do you think/believe they must agree with YOUR definition alone?

This is not a mere game of "semantics"; this form of discussion here in this forum is about a struggle for human rights. Yet it seems you think it boils down which definition of "marriage" is valid. The ONLY definition that the courts will finally rule upon will be applicable to TODAY'S American society. Not that the courts haven't ever or will not consider or discuss 1000 year old definitions and understandings of "marriage"... but that they will surely NOT be limited in their deliberations as you apparently seem to be (concerning the same).

No. You have NOT remained absolutely objective in all of these discussions; your bias is as evident as my own. You have and still do project a poignant form of animus toward homosexual people. Are you truly unaware of that? Do you think others cannot see that?

Sure, you cite (cut/paste) a lot of legal data, but no one is ignorant to the fact that your 'interpretation' of (or your conclusions formed from) such data is as biased as can be. Not that any real court is 'perfectly' unbiased or objective (we know they aren't)... but that your views based upon any previous rulings/precedent, are simply your opinion; not even interpretation of the laws by actual experts.

I don't know... seems to me, if we aren't attacking one another personally, the mods are okay with that.

That makes about zero sense.

 

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about state legislators removing the gender requirement from marriage. Biologically speaking and as we've been through a thousand times now - same-sex couples are identically situated to sterile and elderly couples. Fact. Additionally a same-sex couple coming together under the law CAN create paternal responsibilities, as shown by the case from Massachusetts.

What is unconstitutional is denying same-sex couples marriage on "biological" grounds whilst giving thousands of legal rights and responsibilities to elderly heterosexual couples who have no chance of producing offspring. Pray tell, how are an 80-something year old couple more deserving of civil marriage and all its benefits, while a same-sex couple with a family aren't? Can't wait to hear what answer you'll come up with for that one. What's the Constitutionally-binding reason for such a distinction? Because elderly couples rub genitals just like a real fertile couple?! ..Patently ridiculous... as I'm sure any sane, capable person would think. Your court cases addressing this don't even begin to adequately provide a sensible explanation (nor do they address elderly couples or the complete absence of an upper age limit).

The reasoning based on procreation is bunk. It's firmly established. Can we move on now?

And there is case law to the contrary, your point?

It's worth noting I think that society is evolving very rapidly on the subject of same-sex marriage. What was once an unthinkable fantasy of the "homosexual community" is now binding law across 6 states and the US capitol. What was missing in nearly all of your court cases was a reference point; same-sex marriage did not exist back then. It was a "fantasy". Now it's very real and unsurprisingly, you're seeing a different set of rulings emerge. Society has a way of affecting court judgements - because in the face of evolving ideas new interpretations are inevitably applied to the Constitution. The 14th Amendment being held to prohibit anti-miscegenation laws (in spite of a previous SCOTUS ruling to the contrary) is a prime example of this. You can't claim to be a strict Constitutionalist without opposing Loving V. Virginia for that matter - because it's obvious that was not the original intention of the 14th. And don't even attempt to claim otherwise. The words in the Constitution have taken on new meaning based on who or what we think fits the criteria for them, which is directly influenced by society's evolution.

What this means is even if SCOTUS narrowly ruled against SSM ban challengers today, it's far from inconceivable to think 10, maybe 20 years down the line this decision won't be re-examined - as it was in the case of bans on interracial marriage. The courts consist of people who evolve just like the rest of us.

 

You made some great points!

 

Thanks you too.

 

The issue to me is not that straight couples might be more deserving and needing of "special rights" vs gay couples. I agree, it's likely true that, on average, a straight couple contributes more to society with increased odds to reproduce, and I agree that there is a need for society to promote good upbringings for these children.

I don't think anyone disputes any of that.

What I will dispute is that marriage, in its current legal form, addresses those goals both narrowly and sufficiently. You have to ask the question, is there a more effective way to promote good upbringing for children? If so, then the whole argument about marriage being about procreation is just pretense... a smoke screen that covers its true motives.

So, IF marriage is really about promoting good upbringings for children, then I propose a few changes:

Making the law more "narrow":
- Couples that do not reproduce will be denied any rights that have any direct financial benefit... health insurance, social security inheritance, tax breaks, etc.
- Similarly, elderly and people otherwise obviously incapable of reproduction will be denied any financial benefits.
- Any couple that has their child removed from them should be denied any further financial benefits (i.e. abusive parents).

Making the law more "sufficient":
- Those who adopt should be granted financial benefits of marriage. Be them gay, infertile, elderly or what have you. After all, couples willing to adopt contribute just as much to society as biological parents, if not more.
- Adoption can include a non-biological parent adopting the biological child of their partner.

Ceremonial or otherwise practical (but non-financial) rights can be maintained by any couple. I.e. establishment of next of kin, right to make medical decisions for incapacitated partners, right to be buried next to your partner in veteran's cemeteries, and any other variety of ceremonial and contractual rights.

 

Nothing unconstitutional about gender requirement of marriage. And removing gender requirements, renders marriage exclusion of closely related couples and platonis couples unconstitutional. If the establishment of stable households is the new goal of marriage, ANY TWO consenting adults are capeable of forming a stable household.

 

You are removing all the incentive for heterosexual couples to marry before they procreate. The incetives arent likely to be as effective after procreation occurs.

So you essentially want to eliminate any governmental preference for the biological parents raising the children they have created together, as opposed to the option of one or none of them doing so. Eliminate any government subsidy to heterosexual couples who plan to have children, that aids them in building a stable home before the childs birth.

All of this to help gays feel better about their homosexuality. Eliminating any governmental preference for biological parents providing and caring for the children they have created, because homosexuals cant participate.

And while adopted kids usually do just fine, out of all the children born to unmarried mothers, only a tiny percentage ever end up being adopted by anybody.

 

I and the courts have answered repeatedly

Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the # of children born to single mothers and increases the # of children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them. Encouraging ANY other type of couple other than a heterosexual couple to marry does not.

 

Yeah, you and the moderaters dont consider

to be an insult. While

is considered to be an insult. You are a homosexual so any comments directed towards you are subjected to "strict scrutiny". And my comments are presumed to be motivated by animus towards homosexuals, so are also subjected to "strict scrutiny".

Same logic is being applied in the courts, creating a constitutional right to "gay marriage" under "strict scrutiny", while the single mother and grandmother down the street who have joined together for nearly a decade to raise their children/grand children, who could also benefit from the entitlements of marriage are judged under a "rational basis". They can be excluded simply because they are already "related" while two gay guys are not. While excluding the two gay guys would require a "compelling governmental interest" that is served by their exclusion to justify doing so, mom and grandmom can be excluded for pretty much any rational reason.

So feel free to insult away. I used to respond in kind, and of course would be summarily banned if I continued to do so. You all should be happy, Ive taken a new approach to instead simply respond "I would respond in kind but would be summarily banned". Its my way to quietly continue my protest against the abject bias in **********.

 

PRECISELY the opposite is the reality.

 

Not according to various state supreme court rulings which legalised SSM and the court decisions ruling Prop 8 and DOMA unconstitutional based on the 10th and 14th Amendments.

Discrimination based on gender distinction was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan). In most states 'Equal Protection' is currently being withheld from couples who are identically situated in terms of their ability to procreate with one another - the sole rationale put forth in court cases affirming the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman - to those who ALSO cannot procreate but are nevertheless granted a huge set of legal rights, simply because they happen.. HAPPEN to be the same gender as those who can. There is no upper age limit anywhere to be found for marriage and elderly people are free in all 50 states to obtain all of the rights and privileges it gives people. This IS, without question or hesitation, discrimination based upon gender, and one that denies thousands of civil rights to millions of US citizens. You can try and rationalise it anyway you want but you can't escape the reality - the argument from procreation holds no water.

Platonic couples are not denied, only platonic same-sex couples are in 44 states. Related couples are denied because allowing them to marry gives increased legitimacy to incestuous couples. We've been through this over and over. The limitation of marriage to non-closely-related individuals is based on the fact that incestuous relationships often have an abusive nature or can create children with genetic defects. We would be unable to tell apart the innocent platonic family members from the incestuous couples seeking legitimacy. Let me make it absolutely clear to you though that I'm neither for nor against the idea - but that I believe it's a separate issue on which the legalisation of same-sex marriage has no impact.

Not EVERY limitation becomes unconstitutional or irrational just because SSM exists. That's nonsense. We're talking about removing gender-based discrimination, not discrimination based on family relation.

 

In your revisionist history perhaps but a simple reminder of the facts shows the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with allowing interracial marriage. The vast majority of the states who ratified the 14th had no intention of giving up their anti-miscegenation laws. Had the 14th been designed for this purpose it would obviously have invalidated them. Plessy v. Ferguson upheld this original definition. It wasn't untill Loving 71 years later that the Supreme Court decided otherwise. A prime example of society's evolution affecting the courts.

 

You've posted repeatedly and I've answered repeatedly. I find those opinions dismissive of an important fact relevant to a constitutional question. They are taking far too lightly the denial of thousands of civil rights to identically situated couples. One of them even admits it is over-inclusive by its stated reasoning for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

Wrong. Encouraging those who can procreate does that. Encouraging those who blatantly cannot (elderly couples) doesn't. An upper age limit would not be unconstitutional if that is the sole purpose of the institution. However, based on the fact there is no upper age limit in the 44 states without SSM, we know it's not.

 

ROFL - such a hypocritical stance, you defend your views that homosexuals should be denied marriage benefits because they cannot have children but yet heterosexuals can have benefits regardless of their ability to have children. Marriage does not keep people in stable households (and even if it did why are you against homosexuals having stable households?) as the divorce rate is over half and gaining every year - not to mention the adultery rate and the abuse rate in marriages - this does not seem very "stable".

The current system is broken and discriminatory - the only way to remedy this is to provide benefits ONLY to those that have children or to provide them equally to anyone that wishes to marry.

Just admit it - you want straight couples to benefit simply because they are straight. Your arguments are vapid at best...

 

No revisions. All qiotes directly contradicting your assertions.

 

Yep. Many have ridiculous animus against homosexual people; they will tie themselves into virtually ANY logical 'pretzel'... to express their bigotry, rather than just admit they hate homosexuals.

 

Nothing in that revisionist quote alters the simple facts that blow your assumptions completely out of the water. The 14th Amendmendment was not passed to legalise interracial marriage, which had an equal application to all races.

 

Yes the statute is overinclusive. You missed the part that says that this doesnt violate the constitution. As well, you complain that its overinclusive, and at the same time demand that it be made even more overinclusive. Makes no sense.

 

It was enacted to eliminate racial discrimination. Precisely the type of discrimination in the state laws that prohibited interrracial marriages with white people.
Revealing that you fancy yourself more qualified to determine the intent of the 14th amendment, than the US Supreme Court itself.

 

lol, the supreme court ruled that the 14th amendment is about MORE than just race. it's about discrimination based on race, religion and gender. equal protection under the law and all.

 

If the 14th amendment was meant to stop "only" racial discrimination they would have worded it to reflect that.

Keep trying.