equal rights?

Don Quixote

Don Quixote

cancer survivor
Contributor
extending human rights to adult - adult relationships is part of the equal rights for all - if they want to enter into a contract among themselves and the state so be it

it will go to scotus anyway or perhaps congress will extend equal rights to all adults

remember that blacks and whites could not legally intermarry as recently as 50 years ago


also, women were not allowed to vote until the beginning of the 20th century

black men could vote before women were allowed to vote

now that we have a 'colored' president, perhaps there is a woman president in our future
 
you do NOT want this headed to SCOTUS if you want this to remain a right in theory. Those 9 black robed tyrants will decide that it isn't, never was, and never will be a right in the US Constitution.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
you do NOT want this headed to SCOTUS if you want this to remain a right in theory. Those 9 black robed tyrants will decide that it isn't, never was, and never will be a right in the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
I doubt they would hear it, they try to avoid controversial precedent as much as possible.
 
The SCOTUS would find, there is no violation of rights. We do not retain the right to marry whoever we wish, or to marry at all. This is not a "human right" it is a mutually agreed upon social contract between men and women. With interracial marriage, race was used as a determining factor in who could marry whom, and that was discriminatory. Gay marriage is not the same thing, because it involves gender, and gender is the defining factor of what marriage is. Once that is altered, it opens the door to other alterations on the same basis.

In other words, should the SCOTUS rule that homosexuals have the "right" to marry each other, then polygamists would have to also be granted the "right" to marry multiple partners, people who love horses would have to be allowed the "right" to marry a horse, and it would never end, because you have altered the definition of marriage to include sexual behaviors or personal preferences, and determined this a "right" under the Constitution. Whether you realize it or not, the Constitution demands you provide "equal protection under the law" and we would be so compelled, should such an alteration be made by the SCOTUS.

Therefore, they simply couldn't ever make such a ruling.

I don't know, maybe you gay marriage advocates have peanut butter in your ears or something, I have repeatedly given you the solution to the problem. Remove "marriage" from the constraints of government sanction altogether, and replace it with universal comprehensive Civil Unions legislation. Define a "Civil Union" as any contractual union between two adult people, and establish the same "benefits" currently present in traditional marriage contracts. It's essentially the same thing, without the "redefining" of marriage. Can one of you pro-gay-marriage people tell me what is wrong with my solution? Can you make a compelling argument for why this is not acceptable, or wouldn't remedy any and all concerns of gay couples?
 
Dixie said:
The SCOTUS would find, there is no violation of rights. We do not retain the right to marry whoever we wish, or to marry at all. This is not a "human right" it is a mutually agreed upon social contract between men and women. With interracial marriage, race was used as a determining factor in who could marry whom, and that was discriminatory. Gay marriage is not the same thing, because it involves gender, and gender is the defining factor of what marriage is. Once that is altered, it opens the door to other alterations on the same basis.

In other words, should the SCOTUS rule that homosexuals have the "right" to marry each other, then polygamists would have to also be granted the "right" to marry multiple partners, people who love horses would have to be allowed the "right" to marry a horse, and it would never end, because you have altered the definition of marriage to include sexual behaviors or personal preferences, and determined this a "right" under the Constitution. Whether you realize it or not, the Constitution demands you provide "equal protection under the law" and we would be so compelled, should such an alteration be made by the SCOTUS.

Therefore, they simply couldn't ever make such a ruling.

I don't know, maybe you gay marriage advocates have peanut butter in your ears or something, I have repeatedly given you the solution to the problem. Remove "marriage" from the constraints of government sanction altogether, and replace it with universal comprehensive Civil Unions legislation. Define a "Civil Union" as any contractual union between two adult people, and establish the same "benefits" currently present in traditional marriage contracts. It's essentially the same thing, without the "redefining" of marriage. Can one of you pro-gay-marriage people tell me what is wrong with my solution? Can you make a compelling argument for why this is not acceptable, or wouldn't remedy any and all concerns of gay couples?
Click to expand...

but Dixie, why are so so against your own kind?
 
Denying gays the right to marry is a violation of the right of contract. The supreme court would likely not see it that way, but I cannot see how anyone can logically deny this. Two willing, adult citizens who wish to desire into a marriage contract - what is the difference between this and a business partnership?

The only demographics who should be denied the right of contract are children and those not of sound mind. Also, the contract cannot be used to deny the rights of others. A marriage between gay partners (or anyone else) clearly does not deny anyone else's rights.
 
Actually Dixie is, shock and suprise, wrong. In Loving v. Virginia the SCOTUS held "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" Of course him being from the LAST state to remove its anti-miscegenation statute from the books in 2000 he might not be aware of this.
 
Dixie said:
The SCOTUS would find, there is no violation of rights. We do not retain the right to marry whoever we wish, or to marry at all. This is not a "human right" it is a mutually agreed upon social contract between men and women. With interracial marriage, race was used as a determining factor in who could marry whom, and that was discriminatory. Gay marriage is not the same thing, because it involves gender, and gender is the defining factor of what marriage is. Once that is altered, it opens the door to other alterations on the same basis.

In other words, should the SCOTUS rule that homosexuals have the "right" to marry each other, then polygamists would have to also be granted the "right" to marry multiple partners, people who love horses would have to be allowed the "right" to marry a horse, and it would never end, because you have altered the definition of marriage to include sexual behaviors or personal preferences, and determined this a "right" under the Constitution. Whether you realize it or not, the Constitution demands you provide "equal protection under the law" and we would be so compelled, should such an alteration be made by the SCOTUS.

Therefore, they simply couldn't ever make such a ruling.

I don't know, maybe you gay marriage advocates have peanut butter in your ears or something, I have repeatedly given you the solution to the problem. Remove "marriage" from the constraints of government sanction altogether, and replace it with universal comprehensive Civil Unions legislation. Define a "Civil Union" as any contractual union between two adult people, and establish the same "benefits" currently present in traditional marriage contracts. It's essentially the same thing, without the "redefining" of marriage. Can one of you pro-gay-marriage people tell me what is wrong with my solution? Can you make a compelling argument for why this is not acceptable, or wouldn't remedy any and all concerns of gay couples?
Click to expand...

equal rights for all adults needs to be the goal - however it is accomplished

if it is looked at as a contract between those being joined and the state, then ok - regardless of the number of ADULTS - 2 or more that is

but what if homosexuals have their own churches and marry within their church
 
Our rights are equal now, any man and woman of legal age, can consent to be married, and are licensed by the state to do so. There is no 'inequality' whatsoever.

Can someone please answer my questions in the closing of my last post?
 
ironhead said:
Denying gays the right to marry is a violation of the right of contract. The supreme court would likely not see it that way, but I cannot see how anyone can logically deny this. Two willing, adult citizens who wish to desire into a marriage contract - what is the difference between this and a business partnership?

The only demographics who should be denied the right of contract are children and those not of sound mind. Also, the contract cannot be used to deny the rights of others. A marriage between gay partners (or anyone else) clearly does not deny anyone else's rights.
Click to expand...

There is no right to contract.

Not allowing gay marriage is a violation of equal protection and due process.
 
ironhead said:
Denying gays the right to marry is a violation of the right of contract.
Click to expand...

Nope. It's not. Gay people have the exact same right of contract as anyone else. Marriage is a union between a man and woman, doesn't matter if they are gay or straight. If you want to redefine marriage to make this point, is some nut who wants to marry his mailbox, also having his right of contract violated? I can't obtain a license to practice medicine, am being denied the right of contract?
 
Dixie said:
Our rights are equal now, any man and woman of legal age, can consent to be married, and are licensed by the state to do so. There is no 'inequality' whatsoever.

Can someone please answer my questions in the closing of my last post?
Click to expand...

They can't marry any consenting adult they wish, and are so denied the equal protection only afforded to people who want to marry a person the state decides are acceptable. It's fascism at its best.
 
Dixie said:
Nope. It's not. Gay people have the exact same right of contract as anyone else. Marriage is a union between a man and woman, doesn't matter if they are gay or straight. If you want to redefine marriage to make this point, is some nut who wants to marry his mailbox, also having his right of contract violated? I can't obtain a license to practice medicine, am being denied the right of contract?
Click to expand...

There is no right to contract.
 
Dixie said:
Our rights are equal now, any man and woman of legal age, can consent to be married, and are licensed by the state to do so. There is no 'inequality' whatsoever.

Can someone please answer my questions in the closing of my last post?
Click to expand...

Several of the rights or benefits granted by the government need to be granted to someone.

If I am unable to make medical decisions for myself, someone will have to make them. The government has decided that a spouse is best suited for this task, and I agree. Who, other than a blood relative, could be given this right?

When a couple adopts a child, they should BOTH be adopting the child. The government makes this automatic when a married couple adopts.

If one member of a married couple dies, the other automatically inherits any jointly owned property. And, if I am not mistaken, is assumed to inherit all property. Without this basic protection, the government would take half of everything when one member of a couple dies.

The basic idea that a spouse cannot be forced to testify against their partner is not a bad idea. Just extend it to cover all couples who have been legally joined.

If one member of the couple has the task of supporting both financially, and the other member of the couple has the task of maintaining the home and raising a family, if the couple desolves their union, both parties should receive the fruits of the union equally.


Dixie, there are a few benefits of marriage that the government has wisely granted. And should grant to couples after their union.
 
Dixie said:
Nope. Gay people are equally protected and have the same due process as everyone. Marriage between a man and woman does not disallow homosexuals.
Click to expand...

It is a violation of equal protection to allow marriage between a favored special class that enjoys marrying one subgroup of people but specifically deny people who only want to marry another subgroup of people the right to marry in that subgroup when there's no good reason and they're perfectly able to consent to the contract.
 
ib1yysguy said:
This all comes down to Dixie hating homos. There's no other explanation.
Click to expand...

Well that is just plain out slanderous lying. I don't hate gay people.

In fact, I have told the story of the 'gay marriage' I attended... in 1987! Two of my dear friends (females) were married on a mountainside in Alabama by a Rastafarian minister, and celebrated their 20-year-anniversary last year. They have a wedding album, they went on a honeymoon, we threw rice at them... the only thing they didn't have was a piece of paper from the state, which they did not care about, because it had nothing to do with their love for one another. So, gays CAN get married, even in Alabama!

Now... the part of the story I don't think I have told, is the conversation I had with one of them a few months ago... She indicated to me, they oppose the Gay Marriage Initiatives! I was shocked! I assumed they would be all for Gay Marriage, being they were married! Not so... as she explained it to me... We want to obtain certain legal benefits, and all of these things could be obtained if we had Civil Unions. As long as activist groups and political parties use this as an issue to push an agenda, and refuse to compromise by accepting reasonable civil unions legislation, they can't obtain the legal remedies they desire. The viewpoint I expressed earlier, about government disassociating itself from "marriage" altogether, and replacing it with universal and comprehensive CU legislation, is exactly the position they hold on the issue. Those of you who are unwilling to compromise and accept that, and continue to push for your silly "gay marriage" redefinition idea, are the ones who are "obstructing" this gay couple from receiving the benefits they should be entitled to.


Does it sound like I hate gay people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top