SCOTUS to take on allowing Gays to marry. What say you?

[BigRedChief]

There are two cases(DOMA and Proposition 8) to be heard by the SCOTUS this session.

At the base of the question is do gay Americans have the same rights as heterosexual Americans? And if so, do they need their constitutional rights protected at the federal level.

I've never had an openly gay friend, co-worker or family member. I did coach a little league baseball team. On that team I had a player with two Mom's. The players and the parents accepted the kid of the two Mom's as any other player. The other parents let their kids go over to the two Mom's house for sleepovers etc. It wasn't a factor to consider in the slightest.

I don't have any personal experience to know what rights is actually being denied. However, I believe that for whatever reason they were born that way. It's not a choice. You can't pray it out of them. You can't give them therapy and turn them into heterosexuals. They are what they are naturally and we should just accept them.

IMHO, the government/city/state/society have no right to tell it's citizens what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. some of our citizens who they can and who they can't love. Who they can and can't marry. History will not be kind to the discrimination of gays, with cause. It's time to end this era of gay discrimination.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Brock

You mean like single people have been paying for married couples and their spawn?

Don't let the obvious get in the way. Why I bet none of those homos pay taxes

[ForeverChiefs58]

If you compare being gay to being black or slavery it is an epic failure and is especially stupid when it comes from straight white guys.

Seriously. Being a Chiefs fan is exactly like being an Indian during the Seminole War.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by ForeverChiefs58

If you compare being gay to being black or slavery it is an epic failure and is especially stupid when it comes from straight white guys.

Seriously. Being a Chiefs fan is exactly like being an Indian during the Seminole War.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

They DO have right to marry. No one is storming garden parties where gay nuptials are being performed and jailing the brides/grooms.

The issue is more properly whether gay couples have the right to demand the government recognize the union they have made.

AAAAAAHHHHHHH!


People need to take a philosophy of law class. Again, a "RIGHT" is not something that the government ALLOWS you to do. This is a kindergarten way of looking at laws and government.

"RIGHTS" are things that the government is NOT ALLOWED to infringe upon with any law. So, when we say we have the "right" to speech, that DOES NOT mean that the government allows us, in their infinite wisdom to speek. It means that they are not allowed to TAKE AWAY our speech by passing laws. This might seem subtle, or semantics, but there is a HUGE difference.

-Your way: I am only allowed to do things that the government says that I can do. Anything that the government doesn't tell me I can do, is therefore not a "right" and therefore, I am outside of the law in doing it. Say, changing channels during commercials or chewing on a stick. The government has never told me that I can, therefore it's subject to debate as to wether or not it is my "right" to do so.

-The reality: I have a RIGHT to do anything I damn well please, including marry, chew on sticks, speek to a police officer about how shitty a job he's doing, go to the grocery store and complain about the prices, have sex with whomever I choose, etc... What I can NOT do is any of the things that the rest of society has deemed illegal: murder, theft, speeding, etc... Now, in the past, certain laws have gone too far in restricting people's freedoms. So, we made the bill of rights to protect the citizens from over reaching laws.

In the case of gay marriage. There is no LAW against being homosexual. There USED to be (sodomy laws), but they were all found to be unconstitutional for obvious reasons. It's just taken the government WAY too long to extend the benefits of society to people who's lives were only recently decriminalized. And the ONLY reason they haven't is because there is a large portion of society that thinks gay marriage is wrong and/or gross, which is a clear example of tyranny of the majority.

[|Zach|]

Just a matter of time on this issue.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

and like single peoples parents have paid for the little bastards since birth. Yes

This makes no sense.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by mcan

AAAAAAHHHHHHH!

Did you intend to direct this at my reply, because I don't think you did.

You're going 100 different directions, none of them responsive to the distinction I made.

As to your point about government cannot infringe versus government allows me, I clearly stated that gays can marry, heck they can have the most expensive, lavish and well attended ceremonies their income affords.

The issue is what the government has to recognize. Affecting adoptions, taxes, probate, wills, hospital/hospice visitation, etc.

By analogy, I may have a right to smoke wacky-terbacky in my own home. That's different from forcing government to recognize my leisure habits and provide WT rations.

That in no way correlates to your distinction because, under the proper issue I identified, you're not pleading the government to stop trying to keep me from some activity, you're asking the government to take affirmative action to me and my [hypothetical] spouse's benefit.

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

If you would insert the word black, mexican, muslim, senior citzens etc. into some of the statements of posters on here instead of gay/homosexual, I wonder if there opinion would be changed?

allow anyone to marry anyone. allow muslims and mormons to have multiple wives, not to exceed 40. allow siblings to marry. allow people to marry inanimate objects and animals. who cares what happens behind closed doors?

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Did you intend to direct this at my reply, because I don't think you did.

You're going 100 different directions, none of them responsive to the distinction I made.

The issue is more properly whether gay couples have the right to demand the government recognize the union they have made.

This sentence implies the very misunderstanding of "rights" that I am talking about.

[Dallas Chief]

I voted to leave it to the states. However, if it came up as a question in my state, I would vote in support of it. It is the right and loving thing to do. Just how I feel...

[mcan]

Originally Posted by nstygma

allow anyone to marry anyone. allow muslims and mormons to have multiple wives, not to exceed 40. allow siblings to marry. allow people to marry inanimate objects and animals. who cares what happens behind closed doors?

The slippery slope argument has been made every time a "tyranny of the majority" has been corrected.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by nstygma

allow anyone to marry anyone. allow muslims and mormons to have multiple wives, not to exceed 40. allow siblings to marry. allow people to marry inanimate objects and animals. who cares what happens behind closed doors?

You forgot to throw "children" into your strawman stew.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by mcan

This sentence implies the very misunderstanding of "rights" that I am talking about.

Are you suggesting I have the 'right' to pay taxes in any manner I wish? That probate is whatever the folks who happen to decide it is in this case.

Recognizing gay marriage isn't getting government out of the way of my bliss.

That is already the status quo, unless you have evidence of government intrusion when people decide to consider themselves married.

It is placing a obligation on the government to view my [hypothetical] union in a certain manner and bestow benefits of a certain status.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by mcan

The slippery slope argument has been made every time a "tyranny of the majority" has been corrected.

Slippery slope arguments aren't always wrong.

[nstygma]

Originally Posted by mcan

The slippery slope argument has been made every time a "tyranny of the majority" has been corrected.

so you condone discrimination against muslims and other people who traditionally have multiple wives? who are you to dictate their lives? seriously, why not just remove all benefits and restrictions on marriage from the federal books? let anyone marry anyone as long as its not unlawful on some other grounds.

Originally Posted by Brock

You forgot to throw "children" into your strawman stew.

i believe there are already laws allowing children to marry in some circumstances. they are not being discriminated against unfairly.