Republicans Sign Brief in Support of Gay Marriage, what say u Too Hot Conservatives?

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by 108

that just isn't true

plenty of constitutional rulings have been held on marriage without it explicit stating it in the constitution

again, they can either take all marriage rights away or give them equally to gays

whether its through the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause, it will be struck down

The marriage rights to individuals in this country are technically equal. Everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual preference has the right to marry an individual of the opposite sex.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

i didn't say there was, but there is a body of evidence that it has been used to rule on marriage cases

There have been many travesties of justice in our courts

[gator996]

Originally Posted by tegator80

You seem to be "busy" on this thread so I won't engage you too much. What don't you understand about the concept of "just waving your hand at problems instead of discernment?" If there are wrongs that need to be righted then do the work that is necessary to rectify it. Just passing laws because "if we can save just one life it will be worth it" is a foolish and insidious concept...proven time and again by history. And THAT marks the mantra of a true conservative.

"just passing laws"..."just waving your hand"..."do the work"???


You need a quick history lesson in gay rights history


And, what's your explanation for delaying the rights of others?

Its messy for you?

[exiledgator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Serious question, if Government has no right to define marriage as a man and a woman, by the same logic, shouldn't polygamy also be legal?

Yes, if consenting human beings wish to enter such an arrangement.

[RayGator]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

It's only a matter of time before we all support gay rights.

I support the concept of civil partnerships or unions between 2 adults just as a Rep. member of the Hillsborough Commission recently did.

But I don't support, and will not in the future, support homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one male and one female just as it has been in history.

[gator996]

Slavery was just the way it had been in history when it was practiced in this country...

Was that a reason why it shouldn't have been changed?

[GatorAvatar]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

I for one hope the SCOTUS leaves it alone, let politics decide the issue.

When an issue is decided by the will of voters it becomes legitimate and tends to settle the matter.

When the Court steps in and Constitutionalizes an issue the potential exists for decades of debate and politicalization of supreme court nominees (e.g. Roe v. Wade). Let the democratic process play out.

Will of the people huh? If we had left it to the will if the people there would still be laws banning interracial marriages, laws supporting all types of discrimination etc.

[108]

Originally Posted by gator10010

The marriage rights to individuals in this country are technically equal. Everyone regardless of religion or sexual preference has the right to marry an individual of the same color.

couldn't the above have been said prior

technically it was equal too right, but looking back, does it justify keeping it that way?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by gator996

Slavery was just the way it had been in history when it was practiced in this country...

Was that a reason why it shouldn't have been changed?

There was an amendment put into the constitution that directly addresses slavery. If you want to attempt to add an amendment for gay marriage then do it.

[RayGator]

So marriage is now slavery? Never thought of it that way before.

[GatorAvatar]

Originally Posted by RayGator

I support the concept of civil partnerships or unions between 2 adults just as a Rep. member of the Hillsborough Commission recently did.

But I don't support, and will not in the future, support homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one male and one female just as it has been in history.

I support your point of view. But the reason why homosexual marriage is important is because it comes with certain rights that are currently being denied to gays.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by RayGator

So marriage is now slavery? Never thought of it that way before.

How else could one look at it?

[Distant Gator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Serious question, if Government has no right to define marriage as a man and a woman, by the same logic, shouldn't polygamy also be legal?

This. Exactly.

If anyone has the right to marry anyone else, then all polygamy laws should be thrown out as unconstitutional and polygamy must be allowed.

If someone says that homosexuals have a "natural inclination" toward this, then someone else can say that others have a natural inclination toward polygamy. (And they have just a strong a case.)

Furthermore, all laws banning marriage between brother/sister and cousins and parents and anyone else (as long as they are of age) must be thrown out as well.

Sorry there's no other way around it- if you are applying logic and consistency.

Or we could let the States decide and let this play out- as someone else suggested.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

I support your point of view. But the reason why homosexual marriage is important is because it comes with certain rights that are currently being denied to gays.

That is strictly your opinion

[gator996]

I don't see how you guys are logically arriving at this conclusion...


You can marry another individual of any sex but you can't be married to more than one person at a time...

We limit how many legal partners you may have but not who you choose to be your legal partner...



We give benefit to married persons that are being denied gay marriages.

[108]

Originally Posted by Distant Gator

This. Exactly.

If anyone has the right to marry anyone else, then all polygamy laws should be thrown out as unconstitutional and polygamy must be allowed.

If someone says that homosexuals have a "natural inclination" toward this, then someone else can say that others have a natural inclination toward polygamy. (And they have just a strong a case.)

Furthermore, all laws banning marriage between brother/sister and cousins and parents and anyone else (as long as they are of age) must be thrown out as well.

Sorry there's no other way around it- if you are applying logic and consistency.

Or we could let the States decide and let this play out- as someone else suggested.

Polygamy is an action, sexual identity is not

Not acting on your sexual identity doesn't change your sexual identity

Heterosexual polygamist individuals have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples...

[108]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

That is strictly your opinion

uh no, that is a fact, not an opinion

the opinion is that 'marriage is only between a man and a woman'

that is a human societal and religious belief and nothing more

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

When the constitution is silent on a particular matter, the issue is supposed to be left to the states and people.

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

There was an amendment put into the constitution that directly addresses slavery. If you want to attempt to add an amendment for gay marriage then do it.

So, is it an issue for the states or isn't it? If it is, give Edith Windsor her $300K back, because she was legally married to Dr. Spyer in Canada and New York, their state of domicile, recognized their marriage.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by gator996

We give benefit to married persons that are being denied gay marriages.

Most of the time. But sometimes we penalize people for being married. My wife and I both have student loans that we pay interest on. Prior to getting married, we each could claim the $2500 tax credit for interest paid on them. Now that we are married, whether we file jointly or seperately, that credit is limited to $2500 and applies to both of us.

So, there are a lot of government-provided benefits to marriage, but some government-created penalties too.

[108]

would those against gay marriage be ok with the Gov reversing any benefits straight couples get from being married if the Gov chooses to constitutionally discriminate against homosexual couples here?