A Step In The Right Direction

[Tyyr]

Then surely, since people seemed to be riled in constitutional pedanticism (is that even a word?) at this point, forgetting the overriding moral issue at heart; the law should be adjusted in a way to say "Anyone may marry a person of the opposite OR same gender at their choice?"

Actually the law doesn't give a shit about morality. The law has nothing to do with morality, justice, or any of those other wonderful sounding words. The law is about maintaining order, nothing more. The that pedantic nit picking is exactly what it's all about.

And again I have to reiterate my two main talking points.
1) I support gay marriage, if both chicks are hot.
2) This is something the government shouldn't be touching with a ten foot pole.

[BigJKU316]

the law should be adjusted in a way to say "Anyone may marry a person of the opposite OR same gender at their choice?"

And thats the key to me. I am not saying it should not happen. I am saying it should happen with the legislature or congress rather than through the courts.

[Tsukiyumi]

Too bad there's nothing in it for them. Otherwise, this issue would've been resolved years ago.

No offense to anyone here, but to me the whole issue screams discrimination. I don't even see why this is an issue.

"That gay person ain't marryin mah son!"

Substitute "Darkie" for gay, and I think you'll see my point.

[BigJKU316]

Too bad there's nothing in it for them. Otherwise, this issue would've been resolved years ago.

No offense to anyone here, but to me the whole issue screams discrimination. I don't even see why this is an issue.

"That gay person ain't marryin mah son!"

Substitute "Darkie" for gay, and I think you'll see my point.

Of course it is discrimination and of course on some level it is motivated by stupidity.

Personally I just don't want to see more expansion of Federal control, particularly through the courts, over states. I think the law is misguided and counter productive and as a libertarian type on many social issues I personally think that the position of the government should simple recognize all marriages as nothing more than a contractual relationship between two competent and consenting parties whomever they happen to be.

However as far as the government is concenred I see it as the venue of the states for the most part to regulate who is allowed to enter into such a consensual (and contractual) relationship. You can't do so with a minor in almost every state I know. The states make laws that apply to all manner of contractual relationships between individuals to other individuals and individuals to companies and companies to companies.

Making such laws in my view is the venue of the legislature and that is the correct place to challenge such a law.

[Mikey]

Then surely, since people seemed to be riled in constitutional pedanticism (is that even a word?) at this point, forgetting the overriding moral issue at heart; the law should be adjusted in a way to say "Anyone may marry a person of the opposite OR same gender at their choice?"

I don't pretend to be an expert on the constitution but, i can't see that being an issue from a purely legal perspective. From a conservative point of view, it's another story, i'm sure.. I know it's not the greatest comfort but why not use civil partnerships? Yeah, it isn't actually called a marriage but I personally can't see the difference (apart from missing out on some tax breaks, IIRC).

For the time being, at least, it won't come to a point of including verbiage to specifically include or exclude gay marriage, because that's not the province of the judiciary. The Supreme Court can back-door (no pun intended) a tendency or suggestion as to which way any proposed new law will fall, but that's it.

[Tyyr]

The Supreme Court can back-door...

[Tsukiyumi]

Of course it is discrimination and of course on some level it is motivated by stupidity.

Personally I just don't want to see more expansion of Federal control, particularly through the courts, over states. I think the law is misguided and counter productive and as a libertarian type on many social issues I personally think that the position of the government should simple recognize all marriages as nothing more than a contractual relationship between two competent and consenting parties whomever they happen to be.

However as far as the government is concenred I see it as the venue of the states for the most part to regulate who is allowed to enter into such a consensual (and contractual) relationship. You can't do so with a minor in almost every state I know. The states make laws that apply to all manner of contractual relationships between individuals to other individuals and individuals to companies and companies to companies.

Making such laws in my view is the venue of the legislature and that is the correct place to challenge such a law.

Why would you have to legislate common sense? Of course people should be allowed to choose who they marry. Otherwise, it's flat-out discrimination. Yes, I get that someone has to say "It's legal." before it becomes legal. My question is: why wasn't this settled decades ago?

Discrimination = bad.

Wow. Tough lesson for the inbred Christian idiots who make up a majority of the country, I guess. What they seem to continue to fail to understand is that just because a majority of people don't approve of gay (or darkie, or Muslim, or Injun) folks, doesn't make that any less discriminatory.

In short, anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage can go f*ck themselves, and if they'd like to debate it with me, they can go sit next to Robert E. Lee in hell.

[Mikey]

In short, anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage can go f*ck themselves

Doubtful - they've probably got a fake biblical stigma against that, too.

if they'd like to debate it with me, they can go sit next to Robert E. Lee in hell.

Why, did you reserve a seat at his table?

[stitch626]

In short, anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage can go f*ck themselves, and if they'd like to debate it with me, they can go sit next to Robert E. Lee in hell.

Not sure how to fix it. Cause while I don't approve of it, I'm still not gonna stop two people from getting together.

[Deepcrush]

In short, anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage can go f*ck themselves, and if they'd like to debate it with me, they can go sit next to Robert E. Lee in hell.

You should check yourself on this one, and I mean a lot. Lee was a major advocate of equal rights and anti-slavery. So much so that its one of the reasons he took the position in Westpoint. To get away from many in the south who wanted him lynched for speaking such.

Lets avoid dragging history in unless needed. As seen in a lot of threads, once we let people pull stuff out of their asses for the sake of anger. We end up with a derailed thread filled with screaming kids and pissy trolls.

******************************

Back to the topic I see it as a pretty simple issue. Either you're for equal rights, or you're not. Anything in between and you're only a liar looking for a handout. To the Court v legislature, when the legislature fails its the place of the Courts to rule on such things and that's why they are there in the first place. If you take out the courts, then you might as well just say that any state that has more whites/christians/muslims/all the above should be anti-gay, anti-equal rights, anti-anything not christian/muslim.

The state legislature failed and so the Federal Government stepped in. Just like they did with Jim Crow. (Yes I just used history, but because it was part of the discussion and not just a mindless rant. And that folks, is how it should work.)

[Tsukiyumi]

In short, anyone who doesn't approve of gay marriage can go f*ck themselves, and if they'd like to debate it with me, they can go sit next to Robert E. Lee in hell.

You should check yourself on this one, and I mean a lot. Lee was a major advocate of equal rights and anti-slavery. So much so that its one of the reasons he took the position in Westpoint. To get away from many in the south who wanted him lynched for speaking such.

I didn't know that. I apologize to General Lee's ghost.



And, I hereby nominate Deep as the board's new resident expert on the CSA.

[Deepcrush]

I should just be the Forum Commissar... it would make life so much easier.

[Mikey]

Yeah, that's all we need... Deep with a "bravery pistol."

[Deepcrush]

Yeah, that's all we need... Deep with a "bravery pistol."

Bet you I could keep people in their places.

[McAvoy]

You should check yourself on this one, and I mean a lot. Lee was a major advocate of equal rights and anti-slavery. So much so that its one of the reasons he took the position in Westpoint. To get away from many in the south who wanted him lynched for speaking such.

It is nice to find someone that has a better understanding of the Civil War other than the usual North=Good, South=Bad or vice versa.