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

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by 108

couldn't the above have been said prior

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

You are missing the point that an individuals sexual preference isn't being discriminated against unlike an individuals race was in the past. A gay man has every right that a straight man has.

Can a straight man marry another man? If this answer was yes then there would be a case for unequal rights but it's not.

Now I have already stated in this thread that as long as we are allowing government to define the term marriage, gay marriage should be allowed. But this notion of unequal rights or that gays are being persecuted is disingenuous.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by 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?

How about we get the government completely out of the marriage business all together. Let's not stop at reversing any benefits. Divorce too for that matter.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

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

Yeah, I suspect that future generations will look back at the opposition to gay marriage much the same way most of us look back at the opposition to interracial marriage.

[108]

Originally Posted by gator10010

You are missing the point that an individuals sexual preference isn't being discriminated against unlike an individuals race was in the past. A gay man has every right that a straight man has.

Can a straight man marry another man? If this answer was yes then there would be a case for unequal rights but it's not.

Now I have already stated in this thread that as long as we are allowing government to define the term marriage, gay marriage should be allowed. But this notion of unequal rights or that gays are being persecuted is disingenuous.

thats untrue...a gay man does not have the legal right to marry who he loves, which generally IS the reason people get married

sure, many heterosexual marriages end without love, but most of them to at least start with it

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by 108

thats untrue...a gay man does not have the legal right to marry who he loves

sure, many heterosexual marriages end without love, but most of them to at least start with it

Loves? So now we have moved on from discriminating an individual's sexual preference to an individuals right to marry someone or something he or she loves?

You have to see the problem with this logic.

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Yeah, I suspect that future generations will look back at the opposition to gay marriage much the same way most of us look back at the opposition to interracial marriage.

Wishful but doubtful.

As long as the government and religion both continue to define what marriage is there will always be this issue....well as long as government and religion both exist.

Government and religion will never define marriage the same way...they can't.

[108]

Originally Posted by gator10010

Loves? So now we have moved on from discriminating an individual's sexual preference to an individuals right to marry someone or something he or she loves?

You have to see the problem with this logic.

because love IS the reason people generally get married

its a false equivalency if you state that they have the same right, but ignore the inherent lack of attraction for the opposite sex with gay people

if the outcome ends with no gay people getting married, then its a flawed argument

i fail to see a significant difference between the arguments for allowing interracial marriage and not allowing gay marriage

The due process clause says that states may not deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And over the past century, the Supreme Court has spent a great deal of time itemizing the specific liberties protected by this guarantee. Among these, the Court has included a series of guarantees regarding marriage. Most importantly, in Loving v. Virginia (1967) the Court held that states could not ban interracial marriage since "the freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." To "deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as racial (sexual orientation) classifications," Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, was "directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment." In short, "under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race (same sex) resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."44

[108]

this argument for those against it, more than anything just comes down to the fact that they don't believe gay people are inherently gay

if they felt they were, i don't see how they could put up such a fight

[SECund2nun]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Um, believing that marriage should remain between one man and one women in and of it's self is not bigoted.

Yes it is. You are trying to use force to keep 2 people from marrying. That's extreme bigotry. Christianity did not create the concept of marriage. Marriages have existed long before Christianity was created and yes that includes gay marriages which predate Christianity. You cannot use big government force to force your definition of marriage onto others. That is bigotry.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gator10010

Wishful but doubtful.

As long as the government and religion both continue to define what marriage is there will always be this issue....well as long as government and religion both exist.

Government and religion will never define marriage the same way...they can't.

Religion played a strong role in the opposition to interracial marriage, too. Somehow we got past that.

A Virginia judge's ruling in the key Loving v. Virginia case:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races show that he did not intend for the races to mix."

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by 108

this argument for those against it, more than anything just comes down to the fact that they don't believe gay people are inherently gay

if they felt they were, i don't see how they could put up such a fight

The argument for me comes down to how an individual perceives the entity of marriage.

Is marriage defined by the government or is marriage defined by religion?

[Distant Gator]

Originally Posted by 108

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...

Why can't a polygamist claim that as his (or her) sexual identity?
If homosexuals are definied by what they do, then why not polygamists?

Anyone can make claims about sexual identity- homosexual or polygamist or sister-marrier. It's whether society accepts these claims.

If people have a constitutional right to marry anyone they wish, then it follows that any adult can marry any adult. All they have to do is claim an "identity."

The truth is that homosexuality is just a much of an action as anything else. It's not like baldness or skin color where a child placed in a different environment would show these traits in every context. Homosexuality is a trigger that is activated only in certain environments. Therefore it is an action and eventually a choice. Just like polygamy and all other actions named.

It's a slippery slope once we start re-defining marriage.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by gator10010

Is marriage defined by the government or is marriage defined by religion?

The answer to your question is, irrespective of how an individual may perceive it, both. For governmental purposes, marriage is defined by the state. However, marriage, for many people, is more than a state-sanctioned relationship. It has religious ramifications as well.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

The answer to your question is, irrespective of how an individual may perceive it, both. For governmental purposes, marriage is defined by the state. However, marriage, for many people, is more than a state-sanctioned relationship. It has religious ramifications as well.

Pretty spot on

[108]

Originally Posted by gator10010

The argument for me comes down to how an individual perceives the entity of marriage.

Is marriage defined by the government or is marriage defined by religion?

or both....it certainly wouldn't be a precedent for them to be at odds when it comes to law

[108]

Originally Posted by Distant Gator

Why can't a polygamist claim that as his (or her) sexual identity?
If homosexuals are definied by what they do, then why not polygamists?

Anyone can make claims about sexual identity- homosexual or polygamist or sister-marrier. It's whether society accepts these claims.

If people have a constitutional right to marry anyone they wish, then it follows that any adult can marry any adult. All they have to do is claim an "identity."

The truth is that homosexuality is just a much of an action as anything else. It's not like baldness or skin color where a child placed in a different environment would show these traits in every context. Homosexuality is a trigger that is activated only in certain environments. Therefore it is an action and eventually a choice. Just like polygamy and all other actions named.

It's a slippery slope once we start re-defining marriage.

you're just wrong on the matter....homosexuality is not a learned or environmental trait

but regardless, a "slippery slope" is not a justifiable reason to legally discriminate....if other walls get broken down, based on sound reasoning, then so be it

but its not as slippery as you might think

Some recent events related to polygamy have brought the slippery slope argument back into prominence for gay marriage advocates. See reactions to Robert George here. The argument has, as a premise, that same-sex marriage is enough like polygamy that legislatures or courts could not distinguish them; if the first is approved, the second would likely follow. In Professor George’s words, there is no “principled” or “serious” argument that could accept same-sex marriage but not polygamy.

But there are differences between same-sex marriage and polygamy that would make it perfectly sensible for society – whether acting through a legislature, a vote of the people, or a court — to draw a line that includes same-sex marriage, but excludes polygamy.

The key difference can be found by asking a fairly simple question that gets very little focus in the current debate: in a polygamous marriage, who is married to whom?

Since polygamy is illegal in America, we seldom have reason to think about such an obvious question. But it’s at the heart of the reason some of us would be perfectly comfortable saying that polygamy is so different from same-sex marriage that the one could fit into our understanding of marriage, while the other does not.

The difference comes down to arithmetic. Same-sex marriages have the same dyadic structure that all heterosexual marriages now have. Each partner is married to the other, and only to the other. Their rights and obligations to one another, to any children they may have, and to any third parties who might have some interest in the relationship, such as banks, creditors, parties to contracts, etc., are usually quite clear.

That’s not true with polygamy.

In the dominant form of polygamy, where one man is married to several wives, he is, in some way, “married” to each one of the wives individually. But the exact boundaries of such relationships are unclear, and we have no modern experience to know how far they might extend.

But what about the relationships of the wives to one another? Are they similarly “married” to all the other wives in the marriage? Specifically, as a matter of public policy, are they legally married to one another the way a husband and wife are under current marriage law?

Stay with that question. If the answer is “yes,” then if the husband died, would the wives continue to be married to each other? Why or why not? For those who find same-sex marriage objectionable, why wouldn’t those relationships among the wives be same-sex marriages? In ancient cultures where women may have had fewer rights than men, such questions might never have come up. But they would be inevitable in today’s world if polygamy were to be seriously debated.

And every question like these leads to others. Assume the husband is alive, but relationships with him sour. Could some or all of the wives divorce the husband, but continue to be married to one another? Could they divorce one another? Again, why or why not? And if the answer is “yes,” how would that work? Who files what papers, naming whom? Would the various partners choose up sides in the ensuing divorce proceedings, and how would a court deal with that?

Another question related to divorce: Could an individual wife file for divorce of only herself, or would a divorce petition dissolve the entire marriage? What about if it’s the husband who wants a divorce? Should the rule for him be different than the rule for the women – i.e. could his successful petition for divorce dissolve the entire marriage, while a wife’s successful petition only removed her from the marriage? Or consider the situation where one woman is married to several husbands – or where several women are married to several husbands. Again, who would be able to divorce whom, and why? How would such actions affect other spouses?

And – central to the present debate — what about the children? If the husband – or one of the wives – wanted out of a polygamous marriage, what would the rules be for who gets custody of the children – and who is responsible for child support? Do the other wives have a claim to custody, along with their husband? What about child support payments? All the wives would almost certainly have some long-term relationship with children of each of them. Would it be good for the children to cut off those relationships because one wife wanted out of the marriage?

The questions related to divorce illustrate only the legal and policy problems within the marriage. But what about the critical question of how outside parties would be affected by polygamous marriages – no small thing in the modern world. There are clear rules when a contractor signs up to remodel a married couple’s kitchen about the couple’s legal responsibility for payment. But what about a contractor remodeling a polygamous family’s kitchen? If, as in “Big Love,” each wife has her own house, and the one who gets the remodel can’t or doesn’t pay, can the contractor go after a wife with sounder finances? Again, why or why not?

The fact that we do not know the answers to these questions – and thousands of others – is at the core of why polygamy is dramatically different, as a matter of public policy, from same-sex marriage.

If anyone wants to argue in favor of polygamy – and for the present such advocates still remain either imaginary or well out of the political mainstream – they will have a lot more questions to answer than advocates for same-sex marriage do. That is because of a very simple reason. Same-sex marriage has the arithmetic on its side. It is mutual, binary, and fully capable of being subject of all existing laws related to marriage.

Polygamy would require a genuine rethinking of marriage. And its multiplicity truly does have the capacity to undermine marriage: psychologically, culturally and legally. In fact, polygamy offers exactly the kind of concrete danger to marriage as we know it that same-sex marriage opponents have only been able to insinuate. This difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy can serve as at least one sound basis to argue that same-sex marriage is consistent with marriage as we understand it in today’s world, but polygamous marriage is not.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

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.

I disagree, clearly we were moving in that direction as a society (e.g. Civil Rights Act of 1964)

The Courts just moved it along a bit quicker, but in so doing, it removed it from the democratic process, which in my view delegitimizes it somewhat.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by Distant Gator

Why can't a polygamist claim that as his (or her) sexual identity?
If homosexuals are definied by what they do, then why not polygamists?

Anyone can make claims about sexual identity- homosexual or polygamist or sister-marrier. It's whether society accepts these claims.

If people have a constitutional right to marry anyone they wish, then it follows that any adult can marry any adult. All they have to do is claim an "identity."

The truth is that homosexuality is just a much of an action as anything else. It's not like baldness or skin color where a child placed in a different environment would show these traits in every context. Homosexuality is a trigger that is activated only in certain environments. Therefore it is an action and eventually a choice. Just like polygamy and all other actions named.

It's a slippery slope once we start re-defining marriage.

Well said. Once you say that the State has no role in defining what is, and is not, a legally valid marriage, than how does one defend the prohibition on polygamy, incest, or any other union imaginable?

[gator10010]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

The answer to your question is, irrespective of how an individual may perceive it, both. For governmental purposes, marriage is defined by the state. However, marriage, for many people, is more than a state-sanctioned relationship. It has religious ramifications as well.

This is the problem, we have to different entities defining marriage two different ways.

Two entities that by law are supposed to be separate from each other, so who wins? Government or religion?

[AzCatFan]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Well said. Once you say that the State has no role in defining what is, and is not, a legally valid marriage, than how does one defend the prohibition on polygamy, incest, or any other union imaginable?

Actually, removing gender assignment to whom can become one's spouse doesn't change anything else regarding marriage laws. Right now, a person can only have 1 spouse at a time, said spouse must be previously unrelated (to a degree depending on state), must be at least 18 (or younger with permission, again, depending on state), and both parties must enter willingly. And according to the government, "spouse" is the highest form of familial relationship possible, superseding all other family. It's why a spouse has right of survivorship, power of attorney (where otherwise not noted), visitation rights, and all other rights/responsibilities afforded to legally married couples.

Right now, there is also a requirement that both parties be of different gender. The question is why should gender make a difference? To those that say tradition, and marriage has always been between one man and one woman, I say tradition should never be used as a reason to deny others their rights. Traditionally, marriage also had a racial requirement.

To those that say this is a state issue, I disagree. Marriage licenses are legal, binding contracts that are recognized by other states. Yes, marriage laws vary from state to state, but all marriage licenses are valid, and a married couple living in Florida but married in Washington St. have the same rights as a married couple living in Florida, married in any other 49 states. Would the same hold true for a gay married couple?