In response to:

Beyond the Supreme Court: A Guide to Settling Gay Marriage

eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 3:40 PM
so it the equal protection argument is invalid, what other arguments exist for changing the eligibility requirements? personal preference is the most obvious argument that can be made. it is a valid argument, but there is no reason for the government to find it a compelling argument. in a democracy, it can be a sufficiently valid argument to change the law as has been proven in washington state. the same approach would be valid nationally. however, to the best of my knowledge there is not valid argument under the law for changing the federal laws on marriage.
ProudtobeanAmerican Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:02 PM
What are the limits of a "democracy" ? What are the limits of "legal" standards ? Majority rules, has never been a standard for democracy, that is the same as mob rules. Sure there are obvious limits that come to mind but how long will they be so "obvious." The "legal system" in our country has been seriously injured to near destruction by the leftist extremist.
There is no logical or Constitutional reason why a farce propagated as "homosexual" (let's stop playing the word games, call it what it is homo-sexual) marriage should have even been considered as a legitimate case for a court room. This is just another theft of tax payers $$$.
A marriage has always been define as between a man and a woman for many reasons that do not apply
ProudtobeanAmerican Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:07 PM
that do not apply for persons of the same sex to pretend they are a legitimate marriage. There are plenty of legal vehicles that can be used or created to give persons who choose homosexuality unions, rights as for personal matters such as hospital visits, etc. Taxpayers should not be paying for this non-sense. Millions of people can be fed, house and taken care of medically with the trillions stolen through the "legal system" to fund these absurd nonsenses.
David3036 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:14 PM
Notice how the opponents of gay marriage are all for democratic rule only when it goes their way. It's the "will of the people" -- until suddenly it is no longer the will of the people. Then majority rule becomes "mob rule."

I would agree that NO issue of civil rights should be decided by a vote of the people. That's why we have a balance of powers. But when courts rule on the constitutionality of the issue, they don't like that either -- it's chalked up to "activist judges."

The only argument here seems to be that gay marriage isn't valid because it has always been illegal. If you applied that argument to any other civil rights issue, blacks would still be at the back of the bus and women would be cosidered the "property" of men.
ProudtobeanAmerican Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:50 PM
The argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Altering it's definition to include a behavior which goes against nature itself, though legal, is not just.

Black persons cannot control or change their skin color, the comparison is self serving. The practice of homosexuality is a sexual behavior, a behavior, which a person can CONTROL and change or choose not to control or change.

What are our laws based on ? Judeo Christian values, put that aside. The unity of a man and a woman is recognized by nature, as men and women are physicallymade up and their ability to pro-create, as a natural union, anything else is a perversion or mutation.

nawlins72 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 6:37 PM
"The argument is that marriage is between a man and a woman. Altering it's definition to include a behavior which goes against nature itself, though legal, is not just."

Homosexuality can't be "against nature" since it so obviously OCCURS within nature.

Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:01 PM
But the equal protection argument is not invalid. it is the heart of the case.

1) In states where a same sex couple can get legally married they do not get equal protection of the law because the feds and other states dont recognize their marriages even though they are legal.

2) Some people are denied the "civil marriage ceremony and commensurate benefits" that other consenting adults get. Some people get to choose the consenting adults they wish to marry and others can not get married to the consenting adult they desire.

Pretty simple.
eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:09 PM
so states can redefine words and that imposes the new definition of all other states and the federal government.

that is a principle of law i have never heard before.

marriage is not about consenting adults until it is redefined.

changing definitions is not a valid activity of courts of law.
eddie again Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:11 PM
until the recent vote in washington state, marriage has never been defined as including same-sex unions.

if the u.s. congress redefines the word marriage, that would be an acceptable way to change the definition under the law. in a democracy, that SHOULD be the only acceptable way to change a definition under the law.

courts are acting illegitimately if they redefine the words they are using to apply laws.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:14 PM
Marriage is a union of two people. No other Definition then that need apply.

But if you look at the US Constitution Article 4 maybe you have heard that a state public act and record must be recognized by other states public acts and records.

A marriage in one state has always been recognized as being valid in other states and same with Divorce.

Take a look at Divorce laws in PA and they are pretty strict, but if you fly to NV you can get one instantly.

Same with marriage between 16 year olds in WV, might not be allowed in Mass but Mass must recognize the 16 year olds as married if they get it legally in WV.

Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:16 PM
Marriage by couples of the same sex are allowed in several states not just Washington.
David3036 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:25 PM
Nonsense. It includes same-sex unions in 8 other states besides Washington, and in a dozen other countries around the world.
Dreadnaught011 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 4:29 PM

You're just in denial.

All of us know without a doubt the "marriages" you cite are all SHAMS; imitation marriages. NOT ONE is the genuine marriage your OWN father and mother were in. Go away with this obstinate nonsense. A marriage between the same sexes is ALWAYS just a sham!

Calling it marriage is plain falsehood.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Dec 14, 2012 10:25 PM
Dread why is it not a marriage like my parents were in for 50 years?

If two people love each other as much as my parents did what is the difference?

Children? My parents were blessed with 3. But what if it turned out they couldnt have children? Would that have made their marriage a sham?

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to tackle two gay marriage issues, those of us looking for some sweeping overall conclusions on the issue should temper our expectations.

The cases to be examined by the high court involve some specifics-- the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, and the range of benefits the federal government should grant in states choosing to recognize gay unions.

Both will necessarily involve some examination of what role the federal government should play in matters of gay marriage, but neither is likely to settle the biggest questions:

What is the proper...