Ban on same sex marriage ruled unconstitutional by Texas Judge

[Damocles]

First of all it's a State thing and States have the power to do a lot of things that you may not agree with. For instance North Carolina's Constitution boldly states that we are a Christian government as justification for helping the poor.

So I don't give a damn if Massachusetts or Vermont or California legalizes gay marriage, since I never plan to live there, and these states will suffer the consequences of reduced population.

That being said I don't see the citizens of Texas standing pat on this decision by an errant judge. Texans will speak up and amend their Constitution to reverse the damage that this one judge did.

Again, this is a right that should be afforded to the individual rather than the state. Even Amendment 10 recognizes that some things should not be mucked around in by the government. This is one of them. So long as nobody is being abused by age, by fraud, or by force there is no reason the government needs to define what relationships any adult decides to enter into. It's sickening that we cheer on this level of control over an individual right simply because we think we can keep others from exercising it in a way we think is "icky" or because it is defined as "sin" by whatever religion we choose to follow. Neither one is an excuse to allow the government into our personal freedoms.

I don't care whether you think it is a "right" of the state to define other's or your relationship because they define away the "icky" in most cases or whether you care whether Massachusetts defines it some other way than your state as long as your ick factor isn't changed, this is a right that should not be in the hands of the government. Period. We define ourselves as free then cheer on the simplest of decisions made for us by the government.

 

[WinterBorn]

What Solitary chooses to ignore from my original link: "In the event that Congress passes a law within its constitutional authority, then state law must defer. "

Where in the US Constitution is the authority to regulate marriage given to the Federal government?

When the state is using its marriage law to discriminate, Southernman's quotations of the NC constitution are meaningless.

 

[Timshel]

If the equal protection clause guarantees the right of two consenting adults to enter into a marriage, regardless of their sex, then we must also abolish laws prohibiting incest. If a father wishes to marry his 18-year-old daughter, and she fully consents, shouldn't this relationship be officially recognized by the state? What if a brother and sister want to get married - who are we to stop them? My point is that if the equal protection clause guarantees the right of two men to marry each other, then that protection must be extended to all contenting adults - even if they are closely related. Yet, throughout the world it is almost universally agreed that this sort of relationship is immoral. Furthermore, very few would argue that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment protects such relationships. Why?

Okay. Some will surely argue that there is a legitimate health concern for preventing such couplings. I find that argument wanting.

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, this is a right that should be afforded to the individual rather than the state. Even Amendment 10 recognizes that some things should not be mucked around in by the government. This is one of them. So long as nobody is being abused by age, by fraud, or by force there is no reason the government needs to define what relationships any adult decides to enter into. It's sickening that we cheer on this level of control over an individual right simply because we think we can keep others from exercising it in a way we think is "icky" or because it is defined as "sin" by whatever religion we choose to follow. Neither one is an excuse to allow the government into our personal freedoms.

I don't care whether you think it is a "right" of the state to define other's or your relationship because they define away the "icky" in most cases or whether you care whether Massachusetts defines it some other way than your state as long as your ick factor isn't changed, this is a right that should not be in the hands of the government. Period. We define ourselves as free then cheer on the simplest of decisions made for us by the government.

"Icky" has nothing to do with it. The government has a duty to set standards. At the State level, one of these standards happens to be the definition of marriage.

 

[Damocles]

"Icky" has nothing to do with it. The government has a duty to set standards. At the State level, one of these standards happens to be the definition of marriage.

Bull, they usurp an individual right because they know that because of populism they can get away with it as long as they work to define away the ick factor.

Icky is at the heart of the "please government define what marriage is" movement. Government has no power to define marriage, your church does and the individuals who enter into it with open eyes and without force. Working to set it at the same barrier as the majority religion of the nation is against the first amendment and against the 10th. This is the right of individuals, defined by the tie between them and their own version of the Creator not by the state. Both the State and the Feds step all over individual freedoms in the name of the majority religion's god and what sickens me most is that "patriots" cheer on the loss of individual freedom because it follows how they define it.

Father Neimholler would roll over in his grave. So would Franklin.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Wow, this means trouble with a Capital "T" It is heartening though! Equality for all! whether you agree or disagree! Justice can still be blind!

I think you mean 'Equal Opportunity/Justice for all'.... Equality is a myth. We will never be equal.... if we were we would all be identical. Face it... The top shelf at the grocery store will always be out of your reach and an airplane seat will never have enough leg room for me.

 

[DamnYankee]

Bull, they usurp an individual right because they know that because of populism they can get away with it as long as they work to define away the ick factor.

Icky is at the heart of the "please government define what marriage is" movement. Government has no power to define marriage, your church does and the individuals who enter into it with open eyes and without force. Working to set it at the same barrier as the majority religion of the nation is against the first amendment and against the 10th. This is the right of individuals, defined by the tie between them and their own version of the Creator.

You're argument would appeal to the vendor who modifies his scale to read 14 ounces as a pound.

As a Christian State, North Carolina has the duty to define a relationship based on sodomy for what it is.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Icky" has nothing to do with it. The government has a duty to set standards. At the State level, one of these standards happens to be the definition of marriage.

Why? why should the states define marriage? Marriage is a religious ceremony. Thus, religious organizations should decide whom they wish to marry. Not the government.

The government (at any level) should not be involved in a religious ceremony. Period.

 

[Damocles]

You're argument would appeal to the vendor who modifies his scale to read 14 ounces as a pound.

As a Christian State, North Carolina has the duty to define a relationship based on sodomy for what it is.

Again, that is total disingenuous rubbish. My argument defends the individual against fraud. You attempt to ignore the parts that are inconvenient to what you want to be the "facts" so that you can cheer on the loss of freedom of others because you think what they want to do is a "sin". The 14th Amendment ensures that others religious rights are protected from the majority even in North Carolina, the 10th protects their individual rights that are stepped all over in the name of your religion. You ignore their individual rights and the constitution because you like the result of this egregious power grab. For far too long we have allowed people to take the individual rights and ignore that they are specifically mentioned in the 10th Amendment.

The States, and especially not the Feds, should have no control over whom a church decides to marry.

 

[DamnYankee]

Why? why should the states define marriage? Marriage is a religious ceremony. Thus, religious organizations should decide whom they wish to marry. Not the government.

The government (at any level) should not be involved in a religious ceremony. Period.

Your's is a straw man argument; the government isn't involved in a ceremony, religious or otherwise. LOL

 

[Timshel]

For one thing, Tab, you are making an argument from consequence, and an argument from consequence says nothing about the true nature of the constitution.

I don't know why you continue to trot this out. It's valid in some fields, but not on legal precedent which has obvious consequences. I mean, are we not arguing that the Loving case has a consequence in the matter of gay marriages?

 

[DamnYankee]

Again, that is total disingenuous rubbish. My argument defends the individual against fraud. You attempt to ignore the parts that are inconvenient to what you want to be the "facts" so that you can cheer on the loss of freedom of others because you think what they want to do is a "sin". The 14th Amendment ensures that others religious rights are protected from the majority even in North Carolina, the 10th protects their individual rights that are stepped all over in the name of your religion. You ignore their individual rights and the constitution because you like the result of this egregious power grab.

Like Freak, your argument is also a straw man. Marriage isn't a right.

 

[Damocles]

Like Freak, your argument is also a straw man. Marriage isn't a right.

Marriage is primarily a religious function, and what religion you choose and who they marry is a right protected by the constitution. Rights like this that are not defined as a specific power of the federal government and are restricted by the constitution guarantee what we have long allowed to be usurped, individual freedom.

"Patriots" that cheer on government grabs of such power make me realize that Franklin was right. People are ever willing to give up essential freedom for "security" even in such clear cases as this.

 

[DamnYankee]

Marriage is primarily a religious function, and what religion you choose and who they marry is a right protected by the constitution.

No one is stopping gays getting married in their screwed up churches. What we are stopping is the State recognizing that as legitimate.

 

[Damocles]

No one is stopping gays getting married in their screwed up churches. What we are stopping is the State recognizing that as legitimate.

The state has no power to define "legitimate" religious ceremonies.

Short of abuse in the form of age, physical or fraud, there is nothing that gives the government power to define anything that a church does as "legitimate" over what another church does.

 

[Damocles]

Again, "Patriots" that cheer on the loss of individual freedom of "the other" because they think it is a "sin" sicken me. The ultimate form of individual expression is defined in our beliefs, to dismiss the beliefs of others, to attempt to make those beliefs "delegitimized" because you want the government to give your religion's definition extra authority is disgusting.

 

[Timshel]

I don't think, however, that first cousin marriages really count as incest. Since the rate of birth defects is low in such marriages (unless they occur over several generations), and it's usually not indicative of child abuse, I think this is just a case of Americans overcorrecting in regard to sexual taboos. Practically no other society in the world has a problem with it.

Yeah, they do. In some cultures it depends on which side (mother or father) the relationship occurs.

 

[DamnYankee]

The state has no power to define "legitimate" religious ceremonies.

Short of abuse in the form of age, physical or fraud, there is nothing that gives the government power to define anything that a church does as "legitimate" over what another church does.

Again you build a man of straw. The State doesn't care what two adults do in their church or their bedroom. The State simply defines marriage as a union that benefits a civil and Christian society. The State and Federal governments then reward those in traditional relationships certain privileges, and these privileges don't affect the rights of gays.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Your's is a straw man argument; the government isn't involved in a ceremony, religious or otherwise. LOL

How is it a strawman? The government DOES currently issue MARRIAGE licenses. Also.... YOU just stated that the government should be involved in telling us who is allowed to be married and who isn't. BOTH are the government taking a role in the religious ceremony of MARRIAGE.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Again you build a man of straw. The State doesn't care what two adults do in their church or their bedroom. The State simply defines marriage as a union that benefits a civil and Christian society. The State and Federal governments then reward those in traditional relationships certain privileges, and these privileges don't affect the rights of gays.

We are not a "Christian" society. While we certainly can see the influences of Judeo Christian beliefs within our society, the Constitution clearly states everyone is entitled to their own personal religious beliefs and that there shall be no government mandated religion. While I believe we have seen cases where separation of church and state has been taken to the extreme, it is still a fundamental part of our countries constitution.