Washington State set to become 7th state to legalise SSM

LOLOL!!! Who said anything about gender? You just dance all over the place. The debate is whether eliminating racial discrimination was the intent of the 14th Amendment. As Loving points out, CLEARLY it was.

 

?? This post reinforces my suspicions you either have a selective memory or some kind of multiple personality disorder.

I said, on the subject of the 14th later applying to things besides race (such as gender), that this is evidence of evolving attitudes within the courts - that itself is my entire point and if you care to flip back a few pages you'll see this is what prompted the discussion. Interracial marriage was merely an example that was presented as something those who created and ratified the 14th Amendment didn't believe it addressed.

As you can see I cited gender as an example. You said my point about gender doesn't contradict your previous point about the 14th having been established to eliminate racial discrimination. Then you go on to claim gender was never even brought into it? ...Are you kidding me?

If you think this discussion is limited to a debate about whether or not the 14th was established to abolish bans on interracial marriage and not the evolving attitudes of the courts and who the Equal Protection clause can apply to, you really are confused.

 

I'm very aware of your tactics - you carve out little corners to debate limited-scope points of your choosing in the hope the overall topic will be lost in the process. You try to seize control of the dialogue to swing things your way.

 

The point of the 14th amendment was to remove discrimination from the law, period. To provide that the states must apply the law equally to all people.

Had the crafters of the fourteenth amendment meant it to apply only to race, they would have worded it so.

Keep trying.

Perhaps we can get back to the actual topic? Rather than trying to divert to something different entirely?

 

I think it was in a limited scope at the time - people's ideas on what constitutes discrimination change over time. But the words are nevertheless there in black and white.

 

The present issues at the time of its making may have been race.

However it was cleverly worded to be a broad amendment. That clearly shows that its intent was to be put to use beyond race issues, to encompass future uses in other forms of discrimination.

 

Still stuck on your own strawman I see. I never even suggested it only applied to race. Devil is the one who said

When in fact, the racial discrimination of the interracial marriage bans is PRECISELY the type of racial discrimination the 14th amendment was intended to eliminate.

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!! Yes, lets be done with your strawman and get back to the topic of discussion.

 

I'm enjoying today's Proposition 8 ruling; makes the 'arguments' of some (against SSM) even more irrelevant than before.

We'll see what the USSC will rule in the coming years.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/court-ca-gay-marriage-ban-un-constitutional-175942895.html

Look at that, federal appeals court agree with judge Walker's original decision that California's ban on same sex marriage is indeed unconstitutional.

What was that? No one agree's that SSM is indeed constitutional and equal treatment?

 

As opposed to any two consenting adults who desire it. Just the denial of marriage to gays and lesbians has been judged to violate the constitution. Like Ive said repeatedly and many of you have denied repeatedly. Special rights for gays and lesbians. ANY two consenting adults can form "stable households", the new motivation of government regulation of marriage. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay or lesbian.

I dont think ANYONE thought the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would have decided any other way, for even a moment. .

 

Absolutely, given the complete lack of compelling evidence submitted by the defense at the actual trial and their star witnesses' unforgettable statement that:

I don't see there was any other way they could rule unless they were incapable of reading the briefs!

 

That sounds dangerously like you've agreed that gays and lesbians have every right under the constitution to marry.

Watch it, you might just say something logical.

 

Vote coming tomorrow in the Washington House, and Governor Gregorie is expected to promptly sign it into law...

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/02/07/1981057/house-vote-to-enshrine-gay-marriage.html#storylink=cpy

 

Really?! Even though it took a hundred years since ratification to establish that's what it originally meant? Lol.

It was ratified by lawmakers who by a solid majority would have supported their anti-miscegenation laws... To say it was the actual historical intention is ridiculous.

 

You are of course talking about closely related family members, who are the only type of "consenting adults" being denied marriage rights in the 6 states with same sex marriage...

If a court challenge were brought forward in any of the states where same-sex marriages are not permitted by law that sought to allow "incestuous" marriage (marriage between closely related men and women, sexual or not), the outcome would be fairly predictable and the reasoning for such a ruling would be obvious - it is reasonably withheld because it would increase the number of children born with genetic defects. The fact that the couple could be sexual or non-sexual is irrelevant given the inevitability of the adverse effects.

Why would that reasoning hold ANY less water if same-sex marriages were legalised? Yes technically under SSM the ties between procreation and marriage have been all but severed, and a platonic closely related.. er, "couples" wanting to marry have more of an argument, but the fact is, dangerous interbreeding is still intimately tied up with it. The effect is not diminished because same-sex marriage is legal... The inseparable association between legalising closely related marriage of ANY nature and increasing the number of children born with defects is undeniable, inescapable and takes precedence over all else.

You could say that the aforementioned effects only apply to opposite-sex related couples, and that there is therefore no reason that same-sex related couples shouldn't be able to marry where SSM has been established... but that's sanctioning the exact same type of gender discrimination that is currently taking place in 44 states where marriage is limited to a man a woman. You don't go from removing one form of gender discrimination to creating another.

Interestingly given that some nations allow closely-related marriage, it is not inconceivable that it may one day become law. Just not on the back of SSM or it's advocates.

 

And of course, a platonic couple whose marriage is annuled or disolved for a failure to consummate the relationship. And there are probably more households made up of two closely related adults than there are households made up of gay lovers.

 

Warped logic. The only people capable of providing evidence for "failure to consummate" would be the platonic couples themselves. Which means they no longer wish to be married.

It's like saying people who have open marriages and relationships are denied the right to marry. Infidelity is as much a valid reason for dissolution as failure to consummate is. If both parties consent there is no problem and no one is denied anything.

 

They passed it!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-08/washington-same-sex-marriage/53013882/1

 

Hoorah!!

(I hope Maryland will be the next to pass the same.)

 

The only ones capable of annulling a marriage or the couple themselves.

Parents and children already have a legal kinship. You're attempt to use them as an example are useless.

 

The only thing which stood in the way last legislative session were the black Democratic lawmakers in the House... It passed the Senate. Hopefully now with Governor Malley's fantastic and unyielding support, Al Sharpton's recent video endorsement of SSM and the ruling from the 9th Circuit, lawmakers will be able to pass it this year. Then we've got the Maine referendum to be excited about - the prospect of voters for the first time EVER affirming SSM by popular vote. Will shoot down the anti-marriage equality argument that we are an anti-democratic movement.

 

I'm a Black guy. And I swear, some Black men AND women I know, are so outwardly HOMOPHOBIC... it almost makes me laugh out loud.

Sure, I've known plenty of White Americans who were homophobic, but consciously observing the nuanced differences between how certain Whites/Blacks express their fear or rejection of homosexuality... can be downright entertaining at times.

I say this: After all the hatred, rejection and struggles that MANY African Americans have endured (unjustly), they need to heed the admonishments of Matin Luther King Jr.'s deceased widow Coretta Scott King:

 

Absolutely spot on. And to quote the great man himself:

"The arc of history bends towards justice"

The road is long but is ultimately worth it.

 

Another victory for the side of equality and justice.

Good to hear.

 

Nope, it only takes one of the couple to seek an annulment of the marriage, even though the other opposes it.