Religious Fundamentalists

[KazooSkinsFan]

Gays are subject to the same law in exactly the same way as everyone else. They can marry as long as it's between a man and a woman.

Does that really make sense? Two humans want to get married and share their life together, but same sex couples are not afforded the right to do so. How exactly are they equally protected to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

As I said, the 14th amendment says that the law must be applied to everyone the same way, it is. The 14th does not say, what you think is fair...or what you think makes sense... It was written to solve a specific problem, where blacks were subject to the same laws differently. It solved that. It is not an "analogy" law as you are trying to make it.

[KazooSkinsFan]

As I said that's government, I support marriage as a private affair. It could be religious, contractual, or whatever private citizens want to set up. But I don't stay with my wife because we have a piece of paper from the government saying we're married.

Of course, you don't, but as a contractual obligation between two people, isn't upholding that contract a function of government?

I was referring to a private contract. That contract could be negotiated between a couple. Organizations could adopt them, like if you want a "Catholic" wedding recognized the church then you both sign the contract they give you. It would be privately negotiated.

Government marriage is not a "contract" in the same way. I'm not saying there's not some sort of analogy, but when you use the same word with a different meaning I'm not sure what you're asking me exactly.

No. If I make a private contract with you, and then break the terms of that contract, you have to have some recourse backed up by the government, ie the courts, correct?

If a couple who "marry" (under my system) decide to sign a legal contract regarding their marriage, then yes. A woman could say if I am going to quite my job and bear your children and you dump me, I want 100K. The guy can agree to that or not. But it's free choice.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Gays are subject to the same law in exactly the same way as everyone else. They can marry as long as it's between a man and a woman.

Does that really make sense? Two humans want to get married and share their life together, but same sex couples are not afforded the right to do so. How exactly are they equally protected to have the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

The 14th amendment is literal, you can't keep saying it's not fair so the 14th amendment applies. The 14th amendment is not a "things that aren't fair are unconstitutional" amendment.

You can go to the State legislatures and get gay marriage enacted, you can go to congress and have them ensure other States recognize it, or you can go 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. Those are your constitutional choices, period. There are also unconstitutional choices like go to a judge, convince him the 14th amendment says that anything that's not fair (to you) is unconstitutional and get him to decree it's the law of the land because he can.

[KazooSkinsFan]

A "separation of Church and State" is not possible, as long as any individual carries their own values and value systems into their efforts to legislate.

Beyond that, there is no edict in the Constitution or any of its many amendments dictating the "separation of Church and State".

The only reference is found in the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An argument can be made (though considerable twisting of intent is required) that "Congress shall make no law respecting an extablishment of religion" would prevent any government acknowledgment of any religious construct. I would, and do, dispute that, but, it is what it is. On the other hand, the following statement: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" VERY CLEARLY INDICATES the the Federal government has NO AUTHORITY to prevent any private expression of religious belief in ANY venue, including Government... so... the government has no authority to forbid students to pray before a game... even on the public High School playing field, or to prevent a student from evoking the name of a deity during his/her salutitorian address at High School graduation. Government doesn't have to like it... and any efforts to intrude are very clear violations of the civil rights of the individual.

I don't pray... not sure that there's anyone to listen... but I will never prevent others from attempting to do so. I am not inconvenienced... and do not believe that any antitheist is ever inconvenienced, either. Unfortunately, the feigning of injury is common. The feigning of injury, just to try to stick it to someone, seems to be the primary motivation of whining antitheists. Are they bullies or babies? I can't tell... don't even care.

Suck up and deal.

So where do you stand on Jefferson's letter, used by the courts to define the intent of the 1st Amendment, with regards to the "wall of separation between church and state?"

You realize Jefferson wasn't assuring government they were free from religious interference, he was assuring ministers their church was free from government?

How is that relevant to my question?

Jefferson never said government was free from religion, pretty straight forward.

[Deadskins]

There is no Constitutional authority for government to legalize gay marriage, it would be a constitutional abomination for them to do so.

But DOMA isn't?

DOMA is clearly constitutional under the full faith and credit clause, I said that at least twice.

You missed my point. I'm saying that if DOMA is constitutional (which is another debate), then clearly the government has a constitutional authority to legalize gay marriage, which would not be a constitutional abomination, correct?

[Cappster]

Well, the system is setup to where two people who are married have social benefits from the fact that they are married

Again social = government? Can you stop saying that, it makes me queasy.

As for the statement though, I agree there should be no government "benefit" to marriage, but unlike gay marriage supporters I'm willing to wage that battle constitutionally through the legislature rather then with a judge who's willing to legislate.

In order for what you say to be true, government should recognize no marriage of any kind. I don't see that happening so what is the next step?

Yes, I said in the beginning there should be no marriage of any kind, that's my position.

As for the next step, the majority disagree with us both. They want marriage, they do not want gay marriage. All I can tell you is you don't always get what you want, but if you try some time, you just might find, you get what you need.

I think personally gays can somehow get through life without a piece of paper from the government that says their relationship is a relationship just like I think I can get through life with government recognizing marriage and doing a lot of other things that it does I don't agree with.

Legalizing gay marriage on the federal level. And the is where one of the main issues will be secular vs non-secular inclusion into the nations laws.

There is no Constitutional authority for government to legalize gay marriage, it would be a constitutional abomination for them to do so. That is unless you follow the constitutional process of 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

The good news for you is there is no constitutional authority for the feds to outlaw gay marriage either. They can only regulate interstate laws, per the full faith and credit clause.

The definition of social is not government haha. At least not to the dictionary anyway.

Well, it looks like we agree on somethings and differ on others.

To me the sticking point is this: Gays cannot get the same government benefit as heterosexual couples that are married. Such as the right to see their partner in the hospital in the same way a heterosexual husband or wife does. The one issue I am focusing on is the disparity in between the two. Not the fact that government recognizes marriage at all. So I guess I am in the camp of recognize it for all partnerships or not at all.

[KazooSkinsFan]

There is no Constitutional authority for government to legalize gay marriage, it would be a constitutional abomination for them to do so.

But DOMA isn't?

DOMA is clearly constitutional under the full faith and credit clause, I said that at least twice.

You missed my point. I'm saying that if DOMA is constitutional (which is another debate), then clearly the government has a constitutional authority to legalize gay marriage, which would not be a constitutional abomination, correct?

Absolutely not. Have you read the full faith and credit clause? In no way does it give the Federal Government authority to universally "legalize" anything. Though gay marriage isn't "illegal" it's just not recognized.

If you read the full faith and credit clause and then DOMA, from a constitutional perspective it's s strike, it's exactly what the constitution says the federal government can do.

If you read the full faith and credit clause and then a bill to "legalize" gay marriage, you cannot possibly justify it in any way. What you can say by the full faith and credit is that IF one State has gay marriage THEN other States must recognize it. But it cannot say that States MUST recognize gay marriage performed in their own State.

If you read the full faith and credit and then DOMA and decide it's not "fair," then I refer you to Cappster to agree with you. I'm addressing constitutionality, which is clear. The constitution says what it says, not what anyone wants it to have said.

[KazooSkinsFan]

To me the sticking point is this: Gays cannot get the same government benefit as heterosexual couples that are married

Two wrongs don't make a right. Any "benefit" is a redistribution of some sort of right, which is wrong whenever anyone does it. That gays can't further trample on other's rights because straights can is ridiculous.

Such as the right to see their partner in the hospital in the same way a heterosexual husband or wife does

If you want marriage to solve that, you're nailing in a brad with a sledge hammer.

The one issue I am focusing on is the disparity in between the two. Not the fact that government recognizes marriage at all. So I guess I am in the camp of recognize it for all partnerships or not at all.

Which is fine, and there are two constitutional choices to make it so.

1) Get States to recognize gay marriage, get the Congress to force them to recognize each other's gay marriages.

2) Change the Constitution to force recognition of gay marriage. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4.

You have the right to follow those processes. Just as I can follow those to eliminate government marriage. Neither is going to happen. I'm not going to get my way and liberal judges are going to continue to declare that what makes sense to them can be word parsed out of constitutional text and through judicial fiat decree it the law of the land. But even if you're right that it's "fair," it's not "right."

[Deadskins]

There is no Constitutional authority for government to legalize gay marriage, it would be a constitutional abomination for them to do so.

But DOMA isn't?

DOMA is clearly constitutional under the full faith and credit clause, I said that at least twice.

You missed my point. I'm saying that if DOMA is constitutional (which is another debate), then clearly the government has a constitutional authority to legalize gay marriage, which would not be a constitutional abomination, correct?

Absolutely not. Have you read the full faith and credit clause? In no way does it give the Federal Government authority to universally "legalize" anything. Though gay marriage isn't "illegal" it's just not recognized.

If you read the full faith and credit clause and then DOMA, from a constitutional perspective it's s strike, it's exactly what the constitution says the federal government can do.

If you read the full faith and credit clause and then a bill to "legalize" gay marriage, you cannot possibly justify it in any way. What you can say by the full faith and credit is that IF one State has gay marriage THEN other States must recognize it. But it cannot say that States MUST recognize gay marriage performed in their own State.

If you read the full faith and credit and then DOMA and decide it's not "fair," then I refer you to Cappster to agree with you. I'm addressing constitutionality, which is clear. The constitution says what it says, not what anyone wants it to have said.

First off, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional in both California and Massechusetts courts (appeals pending), so stop saying it's a strike, because, obviously, people with more knowledge of constitutional law than you, disagree. Secondly, if you changed the wording in DOMA to read "between two consenting adults" rather than "between a man and a woman" it would have the effect of legalizing gay marriage. So, the full faith and credit clause does not need to say anything about universally legalizing anything.

[KazooSkinsFan]

First off, DOMA has been declared unconstitutional in both California and Massechusetts courts (appeals pending), so stop saying it's a strike

It's a strike

Secondly, if you change the wording in DOMA to read "between two consenting adults" rather than "between a man and a woman" it would have the effect of legalizing gay marriage, so although the full faith and credit clause does not need to say anything about universally legalizing anything.

No, it would only require that States accept other State's say marriages, it would not require that they perform gay marriages. DOMA says that States must only accept marriage between a man and a woman performed in other States, it does not say that States must marry a man and a woman. DOMA is based 100% on the full faith and credit clause, it regards the rules for recognizing marriages performed in other States. Again, it is an application of the full faith and credit clause.

[Deadskins]

Secondly, if you change the wording in DOMA to read "between two consenting adults" rather than "between a man and a woman" it would have the effect of legalizing gay marriage, so although the full faith and credit clause does not need to say anything about universally legalizing anything.

No, it would only require that States accept other State's say marriages, it would not require that they perform gay marriages. DOMA says that States must only accept marriage between a man and a woman performed in other States, it does not say that States must marry a man and a woman. DOMA is based 100% on the full faith and credit clause, it regards the rules for recognizing marriages performed in other States. Again, it is an application of the full faith and credit clause.

And where did I say states would be forced to perform gay marriages? Having to recognize other states' gay marriages means that the rest of the states would have to provide full spousal benefits to people who were married, whether gay or straight. That, in essence, makes it legal.

[Deadskins]

To me the sticking point is this: Gays cannot get the same government benefit as heterosexual couples that are married

Two wrongs don't make a right. Any "benefit" is a redistribution of some sort of right, which is wrong whenever anyone does it. That gays can't further trample on other's rights because straights can is ridiculous.

Oh yeah, that's an argument that would stand up in court.

there are two constitutional choices to make it so.

1) Get States to recognize gay marriage, get the Congress to force them to recognize each other's gay marriages.

Hence, my argument above, which you continue to refute.

[ATX_Skins]

This thread is so gay

[KazooSkinsFan]

1) Get States to recognize gay marriage, get the Congress to force them to recognize each other's gay marriages.

Hence, my argument above, which you continue to refute.

You just said legalize gay marriage. While there is sufficient ambiguity it can be read either way, so I'm not saying you're "wrong," the connotation of just saying to "legalize gay marriage" without any further statement would be to require that States perform gay marriage, not just recognize gay marriage performed in other States. But your later clarification that it is in effect legalizing it I agree with.

BTW, I pointed out that gay marriage is not actually "illegal" it's just not recognized by the law. A crime, like stealing is "illegal." When you go to a State that doesn't have it and ask to be married they don't arrest you, they say "No."

[KazooSkinsFan]

To me the sticking point is this: Gays cannot get the same government benefit as heterosexual couples that are married

Two wrongs don't make a right. Any "benefit" is a redistribution of some sort of right, which is wrong whenever anyone does it. That gays can't further trample on other's rights because straights can is ridiculous.

Oh yeah, that's an argument that would stand up in court.

And...

[Countertrey]

obviously, people with more knowledge of constitutional law than you, disagree.

This is a totally disingenuous argument.

1: The Constitution was deliberately designed to be usable and understood by common folk... in other words, it means what it says. There are no shadings. No additional context. No background and highly abstract legal principles to be applied in it's interpretation.

2: Rarely is there a unanimous decision... meaning that, there is disagreement among those who proclaim themselves to have more "knowledge" of Constitutional law than Kaz... or I. Straw man.

If I want a liberal decision, I will maneuver to ensure that my case is heard in the 5th circus. BTW... no court of appeals is reversed more than this one... Ever wonder why?

[BigRedskinDaddy]

I really shouldn't have commented on that dudes post...

Oh well, let's do this!

By that dude, did you mean me?

RE: this thread, you guys are all a heck of a lot smarter than I am. I was educated reading the info about the Constitution and the amendments. Thanks.

But there is no way I'm getting into this one. Nuh-uh.

[Deadskins]

You just said legalize gay marriage.

No, I actually said "it would have the effect of legalizing gay marriage."

[Deadskins]

obviously, people with more knowledge of constitutional law than you, disagree.

This is a totally disingenuous argument.

1: The Constitution was deliberately designed to be usable and understood by common folk... in other words, it means what it says. There are no shadings. No additional context. No background and highly abstract legal principles to be applied in it's interpretation.

2: Rarely is there a unanimous decision... meaning that, there is disagreement among those who proclaim themselves to have more "knowledge" of Constitutional law than Kaz... or I. Straw man.

If I want a liberal decision, I will maneuver to ensure that my case is heard in the 5th circus. BTW... no court of appeals is reversed more than this one... Ever wonder why?

[Countertrey]

That's the best you got?

[ATX_Skins]

I really shouldn't have commented on that dudes post...

Oh well, let's do this!

By that dude, did you mean me?

RE: this thread, you guys are all a heck of a lot smarter than I am. I was educated reading the info about the Constitution and the amendments. Thanks.

But there is no way I'm getting into this one. Nuh-uh.

Yes, It was in bad taste, and showed no class for me to comment on your thread the way I did. I just really do not like Jesus talk but I should have just kept my opinions to myself. My apologies if you were at all offended. Again, very bad taste.

[Deadskins]

I just think it's pointless to argue with you about a point where you won't even concede that judges and lawyers who've spent decades studying a subject might have more insight than a layman would. Kazoo said it was a strike, and I pointed out that it's not unanimous on that count. Then you fire back with nothing's unanimous and the 5th circuit thing. And you called me disingenuous. So I rolled my eyes.

[Countertrey]

I just think it's pointless to argue with you about a point where you won't even concede that judges and lawyers who spent decades studying might have more insight than a layman would.

Among the stated goals of the framers was to create a document that any citizen could use. That is all that is needed.

That lawyers have twisted, perverted, distorted and creatively crafted interpretations do not change that.

Read the document. Understand that it was designed to mean what it says. You see the intent.

Commerce clause? completely distorted. Tenth amendment? Completely ignored. Not convenient for libs...

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Yes, It was in bad taste, and showed no class for me to comment on your thread the way I did. I just really do not like Jesus talk but I should have just kept my opinions to myself. My apologies if you were at all offended. Again, very bad taste.

No apologies neeeded, my brother. I was in earnest when I said I appreciated your honesty. And you didn't offend me at all. Still, I thank you for you response. A classy post. We're all in this together my friend.

Cheers.

Sean
(BRD)

[KazooSkinsFan]

I really shouldn't have commented on that dudes post...

Oh well, let's do this!

By that dude, did you mean me?

RE: this thread, you guys are all a heck of a lot smarter than I am. I was educated reading the info about the Constitution and the amendments. Thanks.

But there is no way I'm getting into this one. Nuh-uh.

Yes, It was in bad taste, and showed no class for me to comment on your thread the way I did. I just really do not like Jesus talk but I should have just kept my opinions to myself. My apologies if you were at all offended. Again, very bad taste.

I'm not piling on, you admitted you made a mistake, so I consider that point closed. But as a point of clarification, you didn't need to keep your opinion to yourself, you could have just started another discussion. It was not what you said, it was where you said it