DC Tom Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Tom you're splitting hairs. While it hasn't been decided one way or the other discrimination is discrimination. If it's against someone who is different for any reason. I believe that, and there is precedent to prove that point. If the courts decide gays don't deserve equal treatment for marriage it will, IMO, be a Jim Crow type law. No, I'm not. I'm trying to force you to rationally support your own statements. And it is not a point of law that "discrimination is discrimination". It would be more accurate to say that "discrimination is discrimination in the absence of contextually substantive difference". For example: it is perfectly legal to deny a blind person the right to drive, even though they're "different", because the difference is substantive in the context of driving. It would not, however, be a substantive difference in the context of...say...home ownership: provided a blind person meets all the other criteria for home ownership (e.g. the ability to pay for it), lack of sight does not represent a substantive difference. In which case the legal question should become not "is banning gay marriage discriminatory?", but "Is there a substantive difference in the relationship between two men or two women as compared to the relationship between a man and a woman?" Again...part 7 of Roe v. Wade references a few passingly relevent decisions on the subject. And reference Loving again while you're at it, so I can ask you again to explain how the lack of substantive difference found in that is equivalent to a lack of substantive difference in same-sex marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 No, I'm not. I'm trying to force you to rationally support your own statements. And it is not a point of law that "discrimination is discrimination". It would be more accurate to say that "discrimination is discrimination in the absence of contextually substantive difference". For example: it is perfectly legal to deny a blind person the right to drive, even though they're "different", because the difference is substantive in the context of driving. It would not, however, be a substantive difference in the context of...say...home ownership: provided a blind person meets all the other criteria for home ownership (e.g. the ability to pay for it), lack of sight does not represent a substantive difference. In which case the legal question should become not "is banning gay marriage discriminatory?", but "Is there a substantive difference in the relationship between two men or two women as compared to the relationship between a man and a woman?" Again...part 7 of Roe v. Wade references a few passingly relevent decisions on the subject. And reference Loving again while you're at it, so I can ask you again to explain how the lack of substantive difference found in that is equivalent to a lack of substantive difference in same-sex marriage. Tom you are getting more and more ridiculous with every post. If you want to believe that discrimination in marriage between races is substantively different than discrimination in marriage between sexes more power to ya guy. It is my belief that this works as precedent. If you choose not see it that way then you just keep doing that. I'm done here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 Tom you are getting more and more ridiculous with every post. If you want to believe that discrimination in marriage between races is substantively different than discrimination in marriage between sexes more power to ya guy. It is my belief that this works as precedent. If you choose not see it that way then you just keep doing that. I'm done here. I haven't yet said what I believe. I'm just making an argument. But the only way your argument makes sense is if you believe that there are NOT substantive differences between men and women. In which case all I have to say is: I hope you lose your virginity someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 With this decision, would a Catholic priest be compelled to perform a "marriage" between a homosexual couple? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 With this decision, would a Catholic priest be compelled to perform a "marriage" between a homosexual couple? No, this only deals with civil and religious marriages being recognized by the gov't. Religious groups are free to include/exclude whoever they want. It's more to give them the same legal rights as married couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted May 16, 2008 Share Posted May 16, 2008 With this decision, would a Catholic priest be compelled to perform a "marriage" between a homosexual couple? Technically a priest isn't needed for a canonically accepted marriage to take place at all, but no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 My only problem with this is that Ellen Degeneres gets dibs on Portia DeRossie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 17, 2008 Author Share Posted May 17, 2008 So what's your point? Does that make it OK becuase they're raising a 'straight' kid? Funny. So when are we going to allow 'marriage' between a man and a dog? Or a man and a pig? I know some of our posters here are pining for the day it's made legal. It's all in the name of freedom right? Where does it end? Who's to say what the limits are? The people or the courts? You are just ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 17, 2008 Author Share Posted May 17, 2008 But why must we be forced to accept these unnatural behaviors as normal? They are "unnatural" yet.... I don't think any less of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckeyemike Posted May 17, 2008 Share Posted May 17, 2008 Understood. It's different. When I first saw two guys show up at my daughter's class with their two sons, I did a solid WTF myself. I'm just relating that it's grown on me. And for the homosexual parents I've met, they treat parenting as a privilege and responsibility--not just something to do because their parents did it. I'm not sure, but I'd bet those homosexual couples all had some long thoughtful talks before having kids--I could only hope hetoeros would do the same but the Britney Spears of the world convince me otherwise. Just because two people can have a child doesn't mean they should have a child. Parenting's the hardest job in the world. It's also the easiest one to get. If the male forgets to wear the condom or it breaks or the woman didn't take her pill, the job could be yours. In my work as a Guardian ad Litem/CASA for Juvenile Court, I've seen plenty of people who never should have been parents. Because the kids suffer needlessly. I'm not pro-gay adoption or marriage for that matter, but I certainly see your point. Dobson and some of the others want to paint a broad brush and stereotype those who want the same rights we enjoy. As far as people being gay are concerned, I've been friends with some and had gay clients in my law practice. I couldn't care less what they do in the bedroom. That's none of my business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 According to this article, the split between older and younger people on this issue is severe. The poll found a strong generational gap on the issue, with those aged 18-29 approving of gay marriage by 68 percent and those 65 or older disapproving by 55 percent. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740828920080528 So this change is coming one way or another--it just may take a little longer until all the codgers die off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 According to this article, the split between older and younger people on this issue is severe. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740828920080528 So this change is coming one way or another--it just may take a little longer until all the codgers die off. You would have probably had the same poll results if you had asked about legalizing drugs 20, 30, 40 years ago. And here we are still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 28, 2008 Share Posted May 28, 2008 You would have probably had the same poll results if you had asked about legalizing drugs 20, 30, 40 years ago. And here we are still... Drugs don't get to vote or lobby - and let's face it even the Congresscritters who snort on occasion ain't gonna go public with that behavior. Yet we have Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, et al... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 These crazy gays. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,358541,00.html Oh, wait, they're just like real people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 NY recognizing homosexual marriages from other states certainly throws a wrench into things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts