There is nothing in the constitution that makes marriage a law. However this amendment makes it law in my opinion.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Any state that passes into law an amendment that gives some citizens rights over others would be in violation, if I understand this correctly.

Only if the Supreme Court confirmed a denial of the right to marry to gays was a violation of this clause (the "equal protection") clause, Nightwing. Thus far, no equal protection challenges to marriage laws have been successful in federal court. Do note, however, that the Massachussetts Supreme Court agreed with you, holding that under Mass.'s constitution OR under the federal one, the denial of marriage to gays would be a denial of equal protection.

More excuses mixed in with some mild insults.

Amazing, how perspectives I never made are being attacked and words I didn't write are being picked apart. Amusing yet ineffectual.

And this is exactly why all of those other states are pushing thru amendments to their state constitutions, i.e. to prevent state supreme courts from ramming this crap down the throats of the public who strongly do not support gay marriage.

Well, there's always more than one take on every issue. Take State's Rights for instance:


http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Dean...ges/trever.gif

Inane and mistaken.

I dont have to be right, but I have a right to reject the mass guilt trip being perpetuated. I also have a right to believe that a fetus is not a person, is not being murdered and is part of a woman's body, to be removed if a woman chooses.
I have the right to define a person, a child, as someone who has been born, breathed air and is no longer part of a woman's body.

I have the right to discern the difference between being something, and simply having potential to be that something.

Nope this is an inane comment.


You make it sound like gay couples should have the same rights as every other couple.

Oh really?

Back to inane land. I thought they could what they will? So they can file a joint tax return, and visit their sick loved one in the hospital? No? Why not? Because it would just encourage them? Huh?

Timber, that's a great cartoon. Thanks for showing it!!!


BTW, not all republicans are taking a federal ban stance. The converting of the Federal DOMA law to a constitutional amendment is not really a full blow federal ban. The DOMA is really a true state's rights stance. The DOMA stance lets each state make up its own mind and not be forced to recognize GM's from other states. This is a true states' rights stand, i.e. I have my stand, you have you stand, I don't have to agree with you, you don't have to agree with me, etc., etc.

BTW, just in case you mention it, IIRC, there is language in the Federal DOMA that does ban recognition of GM on the federal level. This does not necessarily prevent states from passing their own pro or anti GM laws. It is only intended to prevent the federal government from being forced to recognize GM's for the purposes of federal law (and there are something like 1000+ fed. laws that have marriage language in them).

The Dems aren't really taking a state's rights stance on the issue, despite all of their protestations to the contrary. They want states to become pro-GM and then have the US Supreme Court force ALL of the states to recognize GM's from any other state. That is hardly a true "states' rights" stance.

The language in the DOMA banning recognition of gay marriage on the federal level prevents the gay couples married in Massachussetts from benefitting from ERISA benefits, even though they are a perfectly valid marriage. It also means that come time for federal taxes, you gots issues as well. I realize you may wish to sugar-coat the Republican stance on this, but don't fool yourself -- or us. ;) As you yourself said, numerous federal laws contain marriage language.

And, I do think you've got the Dems wrong on this one. There is a large part of the party that has religious roots, and you cannot forget this. Just because Lamda or B-GLAD want something and at the same time vote democratic doesn't mean the whole party backs it. I think the democrats would by and large prefer a civil union system where the substantive rights of couples were recognized, but they didn't have to call it "marriage."

You may not realize this Magness, but I've been following this trend for some time. Since I worked on it as an intern in the judiciary committees of Vermont's legislature (both houses) and stood beside Howard Dean in the daily lunch line upon occassion. Early on the first consensus developed was that it would be a parallel and equal union, but not a marriage. ;)

*singing*

Yorick and Chewie, sitting in a tree...

Okay, Bad Timber! [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

Sorry, guys, but lately it's taken a little goading to get you guys to simmer down. Once we get into the "inane" and "drivel" sorts of comments, it threatens to turn into a simple "Did to!" "Did not!" argument. Maybe cool heels for a bit?

1. What's ERISA?

2. Being a name dropper is not impressing me at all.

3. Timber, frankly I don't believe you regarding the stance of the Dems. I'm not talking about the run of the mill Dem voter. I'm talking about the Party. And I'm not saying that the Party is driving this agenda. But they're certainly doing nothing, NOTHING to oppose this agenda either. And IMHO, doing nothing when you know that the gay groups that are your allies DO have this agenda is tantamount to de facto tolerance of the agenda.

If the party is really for states' rights on GM, then they should damned well stand up and support policies that enforce a true states' rights stance. IMHO, their hands off stance is, once again, tantamount to de facto tolerance of the gay agenda. I don't care what the leading Dem politicians are saying. Their words are meaningless. Either you support policies and laws that support a true states' rights stand and you vote that way *or* you are supporting the gay agenda thru inaction.


4. I'm sugar coating nothing. I know that there are two views of how to deal with GM in the GOP. There's the religous right types who would like to see an all-out ban on GM at the federal level and imposed on the states from above. And there's others who would rather just support a true states' rights stand, while not recognizing GM for the purposes of federal laws. I think that I'm in the latter group.

I did not intend to name drop, just to let you know I've been working on the topic for a while and have some familiarity.

I didn't say the party is really for states' rights on GM, I stated it was more probably for civil unions. States' rights is a middle ground stance taken for political reasons.

ERISA INformation

What you were sugar coating is whether or not the DOMA is a stance against gay marriage. It is.

More excuses mixed in with some mild insults.

Amazing, how perspectives I never made are being attacked and words I didn't write are being picked apart. Amusing yet ineffectual. </font>[/QUOTE]Where are the insults? Where are the excuses? What is being attacked is your claims of insult where there is none. The only way you seemingly see insult is by equating sexual orientation with the total being. Since you have said that repeatedly, that is what is being retorted against.

I have attempted in the last few threads to have a reasoned conversation with Chewbacca. It is he, not I who publicly posts pms, and bandies around words like "inane" up above. I don't see how else I can debate a passioned and heated topic any cooler.

Your right T.L.

Though its a lame defense, I only used the word inane because Yorick did first. [img]tongue.gif[/img] I wondered if his own opinions could stand the same language he applies to others.

Lame excuses aside, I'll take the chill pill you offer and smile. [img]smile.gif[/img]

No I don't believe you do. We could all do that. We could all personally decide that a person we want to kill is somehow less than human. That's why we have laws that declare individuals do not have the right to declare who can live and who can't. As it stand now, you have been GIVEN a license to murder babies. You may do it as you see fit, but though this may make it legal, it doesn't make it any less the taking of human life than warfare - another "legal" murder.

The only way abortionists can seemingly get around the horrific moral issue is to call the human something "less than human". An embryo, a foetus. Use whatever makes you feel good about the loss of life Chewbacca. It doesn't change the fact that LIFE IS DESTROYED. No matter your definition, LIFE IS ENDED BY HUMAN INTERVENTION.

As I asked (which you ignored) WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG? What if they ARE as human as I am suggesting? I asked if you could take even one nanosecond and TRY and see it how I see it, and understand the urgency of preventing even one more child from, being destroyed.

All it took for me, was to see a 2 year old girl walk in with her mother, that was saved from abortion at the LAST minute, to fully comprehend the magnitude of our destruction.


Nope this is an inane comment.</font>[/QUOTE]Subjective opinion doesn't take away the factual nature of the observation. I am correct.


You make it sound like gay couples should have the same rights as every other couple.</font>[/QUOTE]I'll say it again: No-one is preventing homosexuals from living together, from making life commitments to each other, from enjoying sexual relations.

Back to inane land. I thought they could what they will? So they can file a joint tax return, and visit their sick loved one in the hospital? No? Why not? Because it would just encourage them? Huh? </font>[/QUOTE]I've never had a problem visiting friends in hospital. Or strangers in intensive care either. Not sure what you're getting at. Sounds like a simple hospital policy issue, not a nationwide redefinition of the word "marriage" is all that's needed to fix this hypothetical problem. Which is easier? As for joint tax returns, why would you want to do that? I was married 7 years, and never filed a joint tax return. What on earth are you jumping up and down about?

Only I never said that. You are retorting an opinion I have not made! You have repeated it enough it may as well be true though.

Yorick, while you keep pointing this out to others, I don't think you take your own advice. Saying something over and over again does not make it true.

And, it is a perfectly arguable stance that a fetus is not a human being. You can't make your opinion on this issue into a universal truth -- sorry, but that's the nature of an opinion.

Only I never said that. You are retorting an opinion I have not made! You have repeated it enough it may as well be true though. </font>[/QUOTE]What you have said is that I insult homosexuals, or condemn homosexuals when I have never done anything of the sort. You are the one failing to see delineation in this area, hence the conclusion I've articulated

And I'm a reasonably well read layman on most public policy issues.

Quote:

I didn't say the party is really for states' rights on GM, I stated it was more probably for civil unions. States' rights is a middle ground stance taken for political reasons.

And I believe that you need to stand up and be counted. Words mean nothing. If the Dems wants civil unions, then say so and submit legislation to that effect. Kerry's a two faced bastard when he says that he's against GM but wants to take a hands off stance. IMHO, once again, that stance is nothing more than de facto tolerance of the gay activists' agenda.

IMHO, anyone who says that they don't want to change the Constitution is deluding themselves. One way or the other, the Constitution will be changed over this issue, either directly by the will of the people via an Amendment or de facto by the will of the 9 black-robed buffoons. Either way the effect will be the same. The Constitution will be changed.

Quote:

ERISA INformation

Ahhh. Ok.

Quote:

What you were sugar coating is whether or not the DOMA is a stance against gay marriage. It is.

I never said that it was anything other than GM. And I never said that I was anything other than anti-GM. But there are gradations of "against-ness" here. Being willing to let each state make up its own mind and not be forced to accept the decisions of other states is less "against" than a full blown federal ban.

It doesn't change the fact that a life is destroyed, no matter how you redefine it. I wonder if the human/foetus cares about definitions? Tell me, if it's not human what is it? What part of the animal kingdom does it reside in?

The argument rests on a purely PRESENT perception, rather than wholistic perceptioin. Potential is what defines our race, not actuality. Otherwise any human that falls out of the definition of what it is to be human ceases to be so. Conjoined twins, paraplegics, brain damaged people, children who die young, mutated individuals, hermaphrodites or any other deviencies from "normal" (whatever that is) would cease to be human if POTENTIAL was not the clarifying definition.

Given time and perfect health, every foetus would grow to be 70-75 years old, be bipedal, have eyes, ears, see in colour, create words from mouth and vocal fold shaping, and procreate. For that is "normal."

Any deviency from that, any premature end to life, any loss of attributes, or failure to develop attributes, in no way removes the humanity from the person. A 2 month old foetus is as human as an 8month old foetus, which is as human as a newborn out of the womb, yet still attached to the mother.

Under chewbaccas definition, a baby that has popped out of the womb, yet hasn't has the umbilical cord cut, nor breathed yet, is not human, yet in one minute, suddenly becomes human because of a doctors actions. How is this logical? So if you kill the baby before he cuts the cord, it's legal, but if he cuts the cord and you kill it it's a crime? Where is the logic in that?

It seems to be evidence of a limited western thought - preclusive linear. One cannot be two things at the same time.

However, eastern thought involves paralel truths. The baby is a seperate and individual lifeform, yet is ALSO conjoined and one with the mother.

Biune.

Like a "couple". Or the Trinity of Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Seperate, yet conjoined. Like conjoined twins sharing a liver, or heart.

A few points here.

1. Yes, it's true. However, because DOMA prevents GM couples from getting certain benefits of marriage NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATE DECIDES, the DOMA complicates the Republican stance. It is certainly a "banning" of at least some benefits of marriage, regardless of what we argue otherwise.

2. Note that this argument flows in 2 directions. Being for states making the decision is less "for" than a full blown federal GM law. ;)

3. You mentioned that Dems are complicit by not taking a stance against the wingnuts in the party. Let's not go there, because Repubs are equally complicit in not taking a stance against the religious wingnuts in their party. President Bush has stated that he is for equal rights for gays, but that he is opposed to gay marriage -- that runs a bit counter to the bible belt's "God hates Fags" point of view. On this issue, both sides are taking a "let the country figure it out" point of view, and I don't see a problem with that. It's similar to Bob Dole's stance on abortion in 1996, and I respected him for being willing to say "I am personally against X, but I realize the majority of Americans don't feel that way, so I will not try to force my view on all of America." -- it was a refreshing change of pace, as best I remember it.

4. Final note: while you may not believe it, I'm not a Democrat. ;)

Nope, not where "is it a human" is concerned. Otherwise, every sperm would be a human life. Sorry, but I'm not Catholic. ;)

This whole "potential defines things, not actuality" is a whole load of bullshit in my view anyway. All that matters is the actualized person. I knew so many people who had so much potential and turned out to be pieces of worthless garbage. You are not a beautiful flower. You are not your f'n khakis. Dig?

Only I never said that. You are retorting an opinion I have not made! You have repeated it enough it may as well be true though. </font>[/QUOTE]What you have said is that I insult homosexuals, or condemn homosexuals when I have never done anything of the sort. You are the one failing to see delineation in this area, hence the conclusion I've articulated </font>[/QUOTE]Lumping homosexuality in with bestiality, peodophila and incests is derisive no matter how you spin it. Whether you meant to do it or not, it is insulting enough that even several heterosexuals have pointed it out. I have no clue what this has to do with the opinions I have never stated, that you have put in my mouth.

This is your misunderstanding of my "defintion" shining clear as a beacon in the night. Another case of taking an opinion and creating something it is not out of it.

Whether or not Yorick has lumped homosexuality in with other "evils" is of no matter.

What he has done is argue that their actions of love are lesser, their unions are lesser, and that they should not be allowed to adopt or rear children. That's enough prejudice for me. Even the current Republican stance would give them equal rights so long as it wasn't called marriage. Yorick wouldn't even go this far.

On the child issue.. recently a Mexican woman who concieved in the states then was deported and was asking US citizenship for the yet to be born child. Yorick is her yet to be born child a US citizen?

Yes, well I went with the most obvious and probably unintentional. ;)

You are going after, perhaps, the less obvious and certainly intentional.


I'm going to try and sit on the sidelines for the rest of this thread, unless more of my opinions get magically transformed into something they are not.

Have fun! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Nope. The nationality of the parents, or the nation where you take your first breathe decides your nationality. None of this takes away from the humanity of a preborn human.

This is your misunderstanding of my "defintion" shining clear as a beacon in the night. Another case of taking an opinion and creating something it is not out of it. </font>[/QUOTE]Did you or did you not declare that the baby being attached to the mother was an indicator of it being somehow less human, and abortable. I will find the quote in a tic.

A few points here.

1. Yes, it's true. However, because DOMA prevents GM couples from getting certain benefits of marriage NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STATE DECIDES, the DOMA complicates the Republican stance. It is certainly a "banning" of at least some benefits of marriage, regardless of what we argue otherwise.</font>[/QUOTE]Tough. Gay Marriage is WRONG. Letting individual states decide to be wrong is one hell of a concession to the forces of darkness and evil. ;)

It took me a few minutes to understand the second sentence. Whatever.

Yes, the argument flows in 2 directions. Right and Wrong.


I disagree with you here. Even though there are essentially 2 lines of thought in the GOP, there's no doubt whatsoever that they are four-sqaure against GM.

I do have a problem with it. I believe that politicians should take a stance and live or die by that stance. I *HATE* mealy-mouthed pols. Say what you mean and mean what you say!!!


So what are you? A RINO? Or a cowardly fence-sitting moderate?

Nope. The nationality of the parents, or the nation where you take your first breathe decides your nationality. None of this takes away from the humanity of a preborn human. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for the answer. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Only I never said that. You are retorting an opinion I have not made! You have repeated it enough it may as well be true though. </font>[/QUOTE]What you have said is that I insult homosexuals, or condemn homosexuals when I have never done anything of the sort. You are the one failing to see delineation in this area, hence the conclusion I've articulated </font>[/QUOTE]Lumping homosexuality in with bestiality, peodophila and incests is derisive no matter how you spin it. Whether you meant to do it or not, it is insulting enough that even several heterosexuals have pointed it out. I have no clue what this has to do with the opinions I have never stated, that you have put in my mouth. </font>[/QUOTE]Why? You are excercising judgement on what is acceptable sex and what isn't. All a person does when they "lump those together" is move the line. Paedophilia hasn't always been so derided in human cultures. Think ancient Hellas and Rome, where "hebaphiles" were not as derided as they are now.

Also, incest has occured in Royal families for generations. NB: INCEST AND PAEDOPHILIA ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE. When a father molests a child, it is both incest AND paedophila, but both can occur preclusively.

So how is this for a lump:

Adultery, premarital sex/fornication, homosexual sex, bestiality, incest, paedophilic sex. Oh look. I've lumped myself, an former adulterer in with paedophiles and *shock* homosexuals.

What is the comonality? SEX OUTSIDE HETROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. Not that hard to see the correlation. Now why is that so offensive? I'm not offended when preachers run a list that includes adultery. Why get heated up by jedgement. You excercise judgement in deciding whether to engage in an activity or not. It's a high bar. A narrow walk. One which many of us stumble over, but one which many believe is a foundation for stable society

Yorick, does a man or woman have a right to marry? It is a yes or no question. To move this to a sexual issue isn't understanding marriage. Marriage has nothing to do with sex.

Thanks for showing your true colors Magness. After the insults, I'm Audi.

By the by, I'm actually a stalwart and brave fence-sitting moderate who realizes that only small-minded idiots can wholeheartedly adopt an argument as absolutely true. The world is not black and white. So, hide over there with your bigotted homophobic crowd milling around being a shill to big business, which has convinced you it has every right to lord over you. Me, I'm brave enough to stand in the middle and tell you you don't know shit -- and neither does the other side. I've got the answers, friend, but the world got too dumb to seek oracles 2000 years ago.

Ah... that felt good. [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] off. I've got to go now. I have a nice luxury press box seat for a baseball game. I'm off to spend some of that money you folks in the lower brackets were kind enough to hand over to me. Thanks so much -- I'm so glad you think I have such a right to it. Have a lovely.

[ 08-10-2004, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Oh, joy. Another fence-sitting bleeping lawyer. (At least you sound like one.)

No, the world is very much black and white. The supposed great sea of gray is nothing more than the smokescreen of moral relativism, created to hide and excuse the evil acts of people who do not wish to have those acts exposed to the light of truth.

And BTW, I am most definitely not a religous person. But I am a person of considerable moral conviction, in spite of my thoroughly non-religous beliefs.

LOL. Your welcome...I think.
[img]graemlins/funnysad.gif[/img]

Ahhh, this slipped by me. You may claim to be a moderate, but you speak with the language of the left.

"were kind enough to hand over to me"

The money that you "got back" wasn't the government's money. It was YOUR money. I have you nothing. You have a "right to it" because it's YOURS.

Sure. One opinion paves the way for (seemingly) guiltless murder, while the other doesn't.

Mind you, mothers that do abort are victims just as much as the aborted child. Guilt, physical damage, emotional problems. Many abort because they have no option. The fathers urge abortion, they can't financially afford it, society says a womans life is ruined if she doesn't abort.

Where has society gone so wrong, that the ultimate human creation - another life - is something to be avoided? Why are we letteing young women go unassisted so they feel they have no choice but to terminate pregnancy? Where is the society?

Society as a whole is to blame for each death. It is not the mothers fault. She's is doing something legally sanctioned, encouraged and advised by society.

Frightening.

Oh, joy. Another fence-sitting bleeping lawyer. (At least you sound like one.)

No, the world is very much black and white. The supposed great sea of gray is nothing more than the smokescreen of moral relativism, created to hide and excuse the evil acts of people who do not wish to have those acts exposed to the light of truth.

And BTW, I am most definitely not a religous person. But I am a person of considerable moral conviction, in spite of my thoroughly non-religous beliefs. </font>[/QUOTE]If not on religion, then what do you base your moral beliefs on? Philosophy, the words of others or an "inner voice"?

Fellas, I vaguely remember having a long debate about gay marriages here a few months ago, but no law against rehashing things. Two comments I would like to make though:


1. Settle yourselves down. We don't want anyone sent to the sin bin for two weeks, but this will be up to you, not us. I see Chewy and Yorick are indulging in their favourite pastime of dancing with each other, just remember where the line is guys, and don't cross it. And Magness, calm down dude - I've seen a few of your posts today and you need to ease up on the aggression mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

2. Keep this discussion away from religion please, we have a moratorium on that here.

Cheers fellas. [img]smile.gif[/img]