For My Buddy Grey One More Time - Civil Unions and Gay Marriage - Page 2

tolbiny · #11 10-19-2005, 01:06 PM

"Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature."

Except there is a baseline for what types of laws can be passed built into the constitution. Secondly- what if x number of states supported gay marriage, and y number were against it. States in group Y claim that no other state can allow marriage because of the equal protection act because it would then force them to accept it- so state Y is effectively pushing its values on state x. when does the blance of x verses y change enough for one side to have to admit defeat?

tylerdurden · #12 10-19-2005, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The only other argument is that under equal protection clause we are treating same sex couples unfairly because they can't get married to the person that they love and that causes the conflict. It is a real slippery slope because then what about the guy whop wants to marry two women\horses\children can use the same argument. I'm not equating them as the same I'm just saying that one can use the smae logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can solve the same-sex marriage "problem" without introducing a slippery slope to bigamy.

The 14th amendment states that *individuals* shall not be denied equal protection under the law. Not "couples" or any other group. This isn't a "gay rights" issue, it's an individual rights issue.

The thing is, alice is legally permitted to enter into a contract with bob, but charlie is forbidden to enter into the same contract with bob. Alice has a "protection" that Charile doesn't.

For these particular contracts, all parties are prohibited from entering into such a contract with more than one person simultaneously, so no equal protection is violated.

etgryphon · #13 10-19-2005, 01:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature."

Except there is a baseline for what types of laws can be passed built into the constitution. Secondly- what if x number of states supported gay marriage, and y number were against it. States in group Y claim that no other state can allow marriage because of the equal protection act because it would then force them to accept it- so state Y is effectively pushing its values on state x. when does the blance of x verses y change enough for one side to have to admit defeat?

[/ QUOTE ]

The interesting thing here is that if a STATE legislature passed legislation that legalized gay marriage, I would have to consider that a valid democratic move and to be recognized by other states. I just have a problem with the judiciary manipulating the law to redefine marriage. I just don't think that there is enough popular support in any state to do this yet. California has come close, but it got [puns]Terminated...but, It'll be back...[/puns]

-Gryph

tylerdurden · #14 10-19-2005, 01:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For these particular contracts, all parties are prohibited from entering into such a contract with more than one person simultaneously, so no equal protection is violated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I should add, if multiple parties *want* to enter into these contracts simultaneously, as long as *all* parties involved consent, why should anyone else care?

etgryphon · #15 10-19-2005, 01:24 PM

Here is a good explanation of the nuances with Supreme Court Case law and implications.

Interstate recognition of Marriage

-Gryph

#16 10-19-2005, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it has to do with the Constitution. Marriage is a defined and broad term in all states. The Constitution provides provisions that all states must honor legal documents from others states such as death certs, marriage license and civil unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not so. States may refuse to give "full faith and credit" to the legal acts of other states that are offensive to the states' public policy. So the constitutional problem you cite is not really a problem. The equal protection clause is something else, but that already applies nationwide so it does not provide a basis for your worry that a single state can set nationwide marraige policy.

Meech · #17 10-19-2005, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose christianity on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the atheist communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

vulturesrow · #18 10-19-2005, 02:06 PM

<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
<blockquote>En respuesta a:<hr />
Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the gay communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, wether we like to believe it or not, people do oppose christianity on moral grounds and do not want to recognize it as a valid lifestyle and they should be allowed to if they get control of the legislature just as the atheist communittee has the rights to try to change the law through the legislature.

[/ QUOTE ]

1st amendment?

Meech · #19 10-19-2005, 02:08 PM

That pesky constitution always gets in the way [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

elwoodblues · #20 10-19-2005, 02:11 PM

Could a state fail to recognize a divorce --- for example imagine that a state believes that one can only get divorced for specific reasons. Would they have to recognize a divorce in another state that where none of the three reasons were met --- I would suspect that they would have to recognize it even if they found it morally reprehensible.