Ironworks Gaming Forum - Missouri bans Gay Marriage

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Missouri bans Gay Marriage (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77192)

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by Yorick:
Excuses? You define, limit, restrict and label a person purely on their sexual preference. Making them :them". An "other". Pile of horsemanure if you ask me. People are more than their sexual preference. Sexual preferences CHANGE bucko, in a VAST VAST number of cases. The homo becomes bi. The hetero becomes homo, the bi becomes hetero. Maybe you live in a sheltered coocoon where the media is all you reference, I don't know, but I've known too many who've moved around, changed, experimented and decided aspects of their sexuality to either have a generalisation about people who practice homosexuality, a prejudice, or the kind of limiting labelling you seem to vehemently perpetuate.

Again. The action is not the person. The action is something I have every right to decide against in my own life, in my spouses life, or in what I wish to encourage socially, religiously, economically or anything else. The PERSON, who is so much MORE than a sexual object, is not the object of that derision. Any further attempts to qualify my words as being derisive of people perperpuates the limitations I have described in this post.

People are more than their gender, or their orientation. Try and see it a little that way.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
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.

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.

Quote:

Originally posted by Magness:
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

Quote:

You arguements have that effect. Your words, protestations and constant misinterpretation of my words indicates a perception that a person IS their sexual orientation. You have repeatedly failed to see any difference, any hint that the person is so much more than their orientation, or their gender.

Inane and mistaken.

Quote:

You HAVE to be right.

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.

Quote:

There is equality. Any man can marry any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, religion, race or handicap.

There is. Again. Truth. Are you suggesting I'm lying and that certain men are forbidden from marrying women based on their sexual preference?

Nope this is an inane comment.

Quote:

We are all disadvantaged in one way or another. We all have our pit, our mountain to climb. Some worse than others. No-one is preventing homosexuals from living together, from making life commitments to each other, from enjoying sexual relations.

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

Quote:

They can do what they will.

Oh really?

Quote:

The line is currently drawn at receiving the financial and social ENCOURAGEMENT reserved for a single man, and single woman who choose to cohabit together in life commitment.

But people can exist together outside of that definition without penalty.

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?

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
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. ;)

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.