Rev. John Rankin: Is Same-Sex Marriage a Civil Right?

[teinetwork]

SpreaddEm -- thank you. Your online name advertises pain, and I pray for you much better. I have read the research, the Johns Hopkins studies; and the NIH Hamer research and Simon Lavey's, both universally discredited. Yes, it is not new, and yes, it is pervasive in our present culture. It is due to emotional pain, not DNA. But, as it gets deeply rooted in the psyche, it can feel predetermined. On my website (teii dot org), bottom right: "The Pain That Dares Not Speak Its Name."

[SpreaddEm]

their is actually alot of scientific evidence from biologists not just psychologists that homosexuality is not a choice. which anyone can find by doing research on wikipedia or somewhere else. which i'm sure you could probably find some church funded research to find where it wasnt. Besides that can we all use logic and commonsense and not what someone has researched. You can't deny that their aren't homosexuals and you can't say that its a new thing. Does that not tell you something.

[teinetwork]

Alexaswell -- thank you. All these issues are interconnected, and where the chosen absence of the biological father is the greatest social evil in history. The best means to protect the weak from predators, and providing nutrition for children on forward, is when the father honors the mother in marriage and fidelity..

[alexaswell]

Someone is trying to make this way too complicated. Let any qualifying adult human marry any other qualifying adult human. Who gives a rip about gender? Go spend your energy on some real issues, like protecting the weak from predators and making sure our neighbors have enough to eat. 

[teinetwork]

Demo5 -- thank you. The matter of choice is central. I have an article on my main website, "The Pain That Dares Not Speak Its Name." I am glad for your thoughts, and may all good blessings be yours.

[Demo5]

ok can someone tell me why a supposedly straight man man would choice to be attracted to othere men to the extent of marriage ? when there are so meany woman and it is looked down on in sociate why why would anyone do this ?

the choice thing is well it dont make ...

[teinetwork]

mike2jb -- Then where else are the constitutional rights of life, liberty and property founded?

[teinetwork]

mike2jb -- "Life, liberty and property," protected under "due process of law" are located in the 5th Amendment (in the Bill of Rights) and the 14th Amendment, and found nowhere else but in the unalienable rights given by the Creator. The context of First Amendment liberties are for individuals to exercise as individuals and as groups.

[mike2jb]

@teinetwork: "found nowhere else but in the unalienable rights given by the Creator"

-- Once again, neither the term "Creator" nor anything resembling it occurs anywhere in the US Constitution. This is pure revisionist fiction currently in vogue among the religious extremists who are trying to get a stranglehold on out republic. The current bunch are hardly the first, nor will they be the last. But they will fail like all the others.

[teinetwork]

Rights, in the Constitution, are given by the Creator to people as individuals -- not to groups. "Group rights," whether the groups are defined objectively or subjectively, pit one group against another. Self-identified homosexual people have the same unalienable rights we all have -- life, liberty and property -- but that is a different matter than the interpretive debate over same-sex marriage.

[mike2jb]

@teinetwork: "Rights, in the Constitution, are given by the Creator to people as individuals"

-- Bull. The word "creator" or any similar word appears nowhere in our Constitution. No right to "life, liberty and property" is mentioned there either. Most of the rights that ARE specifically mentioned (freedom of religion, speech, the press) have no accompanying indication of whether they are to be practiced by individuals or groups and some (freedom of assembly) CANNOT be practiced by individuals.

[teinetwork]

Aces of Diamonds0: "Immutability" language is key in Goodridge, Re: California and Kerrigan, and in interpretations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act "suspect class" language. Civil rights, rooted in unalienable rights, are not based on identity factors, whether chosen or unchosen. I do not have any rights because I am a Christian. We all have unalienable rights because we are all human, as the Ministers Affirmation on Marriage makes clear. The issue is the Source and nature of unalienable rights.

[mike2jb]

It is interesting how the reverend early on sets up "immutability" as the standard for a suspect class, as if the two were identical, with his clever fast-talking word-play at 0:55. He then spends the next 5 minutes "refuting" this "fact".

But it's not a fact. This is a shallow trick of editing on his part, since it's he who posted this video. Courts have held such things as poverty and Judaism, for example, to be grounds for inclusion in a suspect class. Neither is "immutable". How dishonest.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb But homosexuals exist in all income levels, so your example doesn't apply. Religion is a protected class because of the 1st Amendment. So the only basis you're left with is the subject of immutablity. Also, his point is that you cannot declare yourself a protected class worthy of civil rights that you make up just because you are a unique individual. For example, you can't cite your own personality as an example of a class worthy of special legal protections or recognition.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051 The example applies perfectly well. The "reverend" claims that immutability is the standard for a suspect class under the law. It is not, as my two examples demonstrated. Your claim that all homosexuals are not poor is as beside the point as if you had claimed all poor people are not Jewish. Each of these is an identifiable class of people that has suffered discrimination and "immutability" is required for none of them.

[BelieveIt1051]

He said immutability is the standard in this case, and has been the standard from 1964 onward in determining a suspect civil rights class. If people can change themselves and leave that way of life, then it is not a civil rights class. A person can indeed change his or her religion, but religion, unlike race and other physical traits, has special protection through the 1st Amendment. That is why your first example does not apply. I will address your second example further in my next post.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "He said immutability is the standard in this case"

-- He said so because he wishes to limit the discussion of his desire to subjugate his neighbors to a single minor issue.

Immutability is not the issue. Even if it were, the Americans most recently deprived of of rights by Prop 8 in California were most certainly members of a class with an absolutely immutable quality. This is only one reason that the only federal court to rule on the issue has found Prop 8 unconstitutional.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Well mind reading is impossible, so I don't think you can rightfully say what his intentions were. Based on what he said, it appears he brought it up because that was the standard that the Kerrigan court was using.

Immutability is the issue the court was looking at, so there.

What Americans were deprived of what right, and what was their immutable trait again?

It's only been to ONE Federal Court so far, and the judge in that case is an open homosexual. -_-

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "What Americans were deprived of what right, and what was their immutable trait again?"

"Proposition 8, Initiative Constitutional Amendment: Eliminates the Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." --Official California Ballot, 11/4/2008.

[BelieveIt1051]

1. Rights don't apply to couples. They apply to individuals. 2. Prop 8 affects all Californians equally. It does not target any group. 3. The text of the amendment simply reads (paraphrasing) "Only the union of one man and one woman shall be recognized as legal and valid in the state of California". This no more eliminates the "rights" of same-sex couples than it does the "rights" of interspecies couples.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Rights don't apply to couples. They apply to individuals"

-- False. Couples-- more to the point, married couples-- have hundreds of rights that individuals do not have. Just ask the tax man. The group of people who purchased Prop 8 have the right to claim a religious tax exemption for their campaign contributions that no individual ever could claim. All sorts of other collections of people, from unions to corporations to political parties, have rights that individuals lack.

[BelieveIt1051]

Wrong. Married individuals have legal benefits that relate to their spouse.

The group of people didn't claim tax exemptions. The individuals within the group did.

Corporations are covered under "corporate personhood", which recognizes that corporation as a legal person. An individual.

Unions don't have rights. Wisconsin is proof of that. The best they have are contracts, which can be broken. Try again.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "The group of people didn't claim tax exemptions."

- Here's their CA Form 461 "Major Donor Campaign Statement":

cal-access. sos. ca. gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid­=1395899&amendid=0

Every penny came from money with a religious tax exemption. That's money they can pocket and spend as they wish--like on playing politics--because they get a free ride on the highways and police and fire protection and all the other government services that the rest of us have to foot the bill for.

[BelieveIt1051]

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote right after that. The exemption went to the individuals who applied for it. The same is true of any political donation that any individual wishes to write off.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "The exemption went to the individuals who applied for it."

-- Nope. The exemption is for all income of the church that purchased this new law. It is the ONLY church to have to file a Form 461 and the only denomination to use money with a religious tax exemption to pay for this political campaign, and to pay a $5000 fine for their illegal political activities. The name on the form is that of a church. If it had been an individual, it would have had to come from taxed money.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Hold on, the church didn't get any exemption for their donations to the Prop 8 campaign. So your argument is invalid. So what if the church used money donated to THEM by individual members of the church? There's nothing illegal about that.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: " This no more eliminates the "rights" of same-sex couples ..."

-- Interspecies couples did not have the right to marry before 11/4/2008; same-sex couples did. This is the first time in any state in 235 years of US history that an existing marriage right was forcibly removed from any group of citizens. What a dangerous precedent. Now it will be far easier to remove rights from another unfavored group for the next bunch of extremists with a grudge and a checkbook.

[BelieveIt1051]

People did not have the right to marry one of the same sex before or after the court ruling, which was overturned and then later upheld by the same court.

The first time in 235 years? Uh... Loving v. Virginia?

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "People did not have the right to marry one of the same sex before or after the court ruling"

-- Apparently you are alone in this belief. Not even the Prop 8 lawyers are still arguing this point. Same-sex did in fact have the right to marry before the election. 18,000 of them did so and remain legally married to this day.

.

Loving did not remove an existing right of marriage from anyone. ONLY Prop 8 did this; this is unprecedented in any state in US history.

[BelieveIt1051]

Says who? A few state "judges"? In that case, what if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that all same-sex "marriages" in CA are null and void and that Prop 8 is constitutional? Yes, I'm sure you'd support that ruling just as vigorously.

Prop 8 lawyers aren't arguing it now because the main issue at hand is the U.S. Constitution and if it somehow demands same-sex "marriage" be legal. The unjust actions of the "judges" deeming the existing same-sex unions as valid "marriages" can be undone later.

[BelieveIt1051]

But Loving did nullify unconstitutional "laws" that removed marriage rights from the people, that is, redefining marriage to include racial requirements where none previously existed.

Your efforts to redefine marriage are not so different from those of the racists, to be quite honest. They wanted to redefine marriage to mean something it has never meant, as do you.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Prop 8 affects all Californians equally."

-- LOL. So does a poll tax. So does a law requiring all ceilings to be no higher than six feet.

The fact is that these, like Prop 8, APPLY equally to all, but they do not come anywhere near AFFECTING all citizens equally.

[BelieveIt1051]

Irrelevant. Laws against theft do not equally affect those who do not steal as they do thieves. The point is that the laws apply to everyone equally. Unless of course you're a democrat politician, then you can rob the public treasury blind.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "It's only been to ONE Federal Court so far" --Is there something in the Constitution that requires two? Ten? Twenty?

"... the judge in that case is an open homosexual." -- Lovely. I can't wait till the case gets to the Supreme Court so you can predict for us all how the kike judge and the colored judge and the spic judge will rule.

[BelieveIt1051]

I'm just saying, you're using one person's biased opinion. That's nothing. He ruled the way he did because he had a vested self-interest. This is a valid concern regarding the litigation process. That is why judges are asked to recuse themselves in certain cases, as was this "judge".

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051 The proponents of Prop 8 claim it "protects marriage". If their claim is true, then all married people stand to benefit from any ruling that upholds it. Should all married judges therefore recuse themselves, or is your argument only for people with a "self-interest" that you don't like?

[BelieveIt1051]

What one side claims to be true is irrelevant. The result would be that marriage remains as it has always existed. That is a status quo, not a change. Therefore any ruling that upholds this will not benefit any married judge, it will merely maintain what already exists.

[BelieveIt1051]

The poor aren't a suspect civil rights class. They're a social class. The poor don't have special protections or civil rights under the Constitution. All Americans have protections from certain actions taken against them based on their skin color, their gender, etc. The poor are protected just the same, not because they're poor but because they're individual Americans protected under the Constitution. The wealthy have the same protections as the poor do. So your premise is false in this example.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "you cannot declare yourself a protected class worthy of civil rights that you make up"

-- ALL Americans are "worthy" of civil rights merely because they are citizens. They need not prove their worthiness in any other way, to you or to anyone else. Among those rights is what the Supreme Court calls the "fundamental human right" of marriage. You are not better than your neighbors. You do not deserve this right or any other while it is denied to them.

[BelieveIt1051]

*Sigh* Typical knee-jerk response. Yes every individual American has civil rights under the Constitution, I never said anything contradictory to that.

As for your other point, the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to create civil rights. Civil rights come from God, The Creator of man. The Constitution codifies those rights, and the Congress and States decide what God given rights the Constitution recognizes. Marriage has never been one of them.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051:

"... Marriage has never been one of them." -- BelieveIt, YouTube, 2011

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'"-- U.S. Supreme Court, Loving v Virginia, 1967

"The right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people." -- CA Supreme Court, 2008

*"sigh"* ... I guess I'll believe the people in the black robes on this one.

[BelieveIt1051]

I said marriage is not a civil right that the Constitution recognizes. You can have your black robes what with their upholding slavery and segregation and all, but I think I will stick with the Constitution.

Besides, that quote from the Loving court goes on to explain that marriage is essential to our very existence and survival, which is a clear and direct reference to procreation, something that is only possible between a man and a woman. So the Loving decision backs up my side.

[BelieveIt1051]

Also, the CA Supreme Court's ruling is mostly null and void thanks to the majority of voters in California, and the same court upheld Prop 8.

And like I said, the Loving court that called marriage a civil right also identified marriage as a one man one woman union. So the courts don't favor your cause.

Now, keep in mind that the courts don't have the Constitutional authority to declare something a civil right. Only the Legislature and States can do that through Constitutional Amendment.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "the CA Supreme Court's ruling is mostly null and void"

-- The majority of the text of the Court's 2008 ruling "In Re Marriage Cases" remains binding precedent in California, including the part I quoted. This is one reason my state remains home to more legally-married same-sex couples than any other.

[BelieveIt1051]

Wrong answer again. Walker's ruling was stayed pending appeal. Prop 8 is still the LAW!

LAAAAAAWWW!

[BelieveIt1051]

Marriage was ALMOST a civil right recognized in the Constitution, but the Federal Marriage Amendment failed to pass the Senate.

The Supreme Court only recognized marriage as a civil right in the sense that it is a legal contract that any American may enter so long as they fit the necessary requirements, AND none of those requirements may be based on skin color.

Yes I AM better than my neighbors, and no that right is NOT being denied of them. They can marry in the same way I can.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Yes I AM better than my neighbors"

-- So sorry you cling to this belief. Sadly, you are not the first.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Excuse me but have you ever met my neighbors? If not then how do you know I'm not better than them?

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Excuse me but have you ever met my neighbors?"

-- Of course I have. I am one of your neighbors. [Insert here time for you to guffaw over the liberal kum-bay-yah idea of the neighborliness of us all]

You are not better than me. You do not deserve civil rights you would deny to me. History is littered with folks like you who truly believed they were--for whatever reason-- simply better. They never were. You never will be.

[BelieveIt1051]

I see. Well then allow me to present a scenario. This involves two Americans. The first is a soccer mom of five children. She loves her husband and kids and she busts her ass to ensure their well-being. She cooks, cleans, and cares for her family.

The second is a bum who eats out of garbage cans, defecates wherever he can, sleeps in a cardboard box in an ally, and uses whatever change people give him to buy booze which he drinks all the time.

Is the first person better than the second?

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Is the first person better than the second?"

-- Not under the law. In the law's eyes, the breed-mare who can't seem to keep her knees together is every bit as good as that fellow who takes change from strangers for booze, but who apparently doesn't demand a mortgage tax credit OR ask his neighbors to foot the bill for educating a litter of five and counting.

Both are equal. And both of them can legally choose the spouse they prefer. Unless, of course they're gay.

[BelieveIt1051]

Not talking about the law. You said I'm no better than my neighbors. That is not a legal statement, it is a social statement. Had you said that I am equal to my neighbors in matters of law, then you'd be right, but that clearly was not your point based on what you wrote.

Since when can anyone in America choose the spouse they prefer?

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Not talking about the law."

-- Maybe you're not, but I am. So is the joker in the video we are discussing.

.

"but that clearly was not your point "

-- Of course it was. You believe you ought to have legal rights that are denied to me. You apparently believe you are so far superior that I ought to support you with my hightr tax burden, that your children are so much better than mine that yours deserve the legal protections marriage provides to their family, while mine do not.

[BelieveIt1051]

We are discussing many different things now. Not just the video. One issue was my worth compared to my neighbors. My point is that different people have different levels of worth, and that is a fact. That is separate from the legal issue of Equal Protection under the law.

No I don't. I believe rights apply to all individuals equally. Both you can I can marry one of the opposite sex. Neither one of us can marry one of the same sex. Equal.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "The same is true of any political donation that any individual wishes to write off."

-- No individual can "write off" a political contribution. All such contributions by individuals come from money that has been taxed. But a church can use money obtained through religious tax exemption, as the church that paid for prop 8 did. That one of its rights under the law. This is only one illustration of the falsehood of your claim that only individuals have rights.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Okay then, any charitable donation an individual wishes to write off.

The religious tax exemption is not a group right. It is a negative right that restrictions actions of the government. Next.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Okay then, any charitable donation an individual wishes to write off"

-- Political contributions are not charitable. Nevertheless, churches pay for them in money they have never paid taxes on. You and I do not. This is a right of a group of people that calls itself a church that an individual does not possess.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Yeah, I mean that charitable donations are deductable not political donations. A church donation is a charitable donation. The donation the church made to the Prop 8 campaign was a political donation. I doubt they got to deduct that, but if so then I agree they should not be allowed to deduct that.

As for the money the church gets from individuals, so what if the church never paid taxes on it? The government isn't allowed to tax religion. That doesn't equal a "group right".

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb To clarify, the 1st Amendment restricts government from taxing religions.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "the 1st Amendment restricts government from taxing religions."

-- It does no such thing. It guarantees religious freedom, but says nothing about taxing churches, any more that its guarantee of press freedom means that newspapers are untaxed. The tax code exempts churches and other charitable and non-profit groups from taxation. All are examples of a right possessed by a group of people, just as the right to file with the IRS belongs only to couples, not to married individuals.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb "Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]". It has been long acknowledged by Congress and the courts that a tax on religion is the very definition of prohibiting the free exercise of it.

Newspapers can be taxed because they are commercial products. However, a tax law created specifically for newspapers is also a violation of the first amendment because it targets the press, and in some cases that could target content (speech) as well.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Those aren't rights possessed by groups. Charities are given benefits by the government to encourage productive activities in the country. Those benefits apply to the individuals within the charity, that is those who donate and volunteer. Moreover, the tax exemption for donating to charities is not a right. Civil rights come from God and are codified in the Constitution. Tax exemptions to charities come from government, and government can take them away, which Obama wants to do.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Now let me ask you this. If the Constitution demands that all individuals be given equal protection of the laws, then how can there be such a thing as "group rights" or "minority rights". And what about non-discrimination? In order for there to be a group right of any kind you must necessarily discriminate. Like for affirmative action you MUST identify blacks apart from whites, or females apart from males. Then you must say that blacks get THIS special privilage while whites do not.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "If the Constitution demands that all individuals be given equal protection of the laws..."

-- It does not say this. The word "individual" does not appear anywhere in this document.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb That's it? This is your big response? I asked you how this little idea of yours, that is "group rights", can possibly exist in light of the Equal Protection Clause, which states "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Now it may not say "individual", and for good reason, because that might be misinterpreted to apply to illegal aliens. Rather it says "citizens" or "persons" "subject to the jurisdictions". In essence, individual Americans.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "This is your big response?"

-- There are no big responses in a 500-character internet chat box.

Groups have rights. Most folks who practice freedom of the press and of religion and of peaceful assembly do not do so in private. Most pertinent to the issue at hand, the right to marry is NEVER extended to individuals but rather to couples in this and most other countries (and to groups of more than two in 56 countries). Same-sex couples have been denied this specific right.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Instead of repeating your baseless claim again (that groups have rights), why don't you back it up with some proof?

Most PEOPLE who practice freedom or the press and of religion? Ah so then you agree that these rights apply to individuals. Yes?

The fictional "right to marry" is not extended to couples. Can a couple marry a person? No. Can a couple marry a couple? No. Can an individual marry an individual? Yes. And what is marriage? The union of 1 man and 1 woman.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Can a couple marry a couple?" -- No, but a couple can simply marry. In fact, ONLY a couple may marry, and ONLY a couple may exercise many of the rights and priviliges associated with marriage. Only a couple--and never only an individual-- can sign a marriage license, or a joint tax return.

"And what is marriage? The union of 1 man and 1 woman." --Merely repeating your same assertion over and over without proof amounts to circular reasoning. It accomplishes nothing.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Who cares what other countries recognize as a "marriage"? I don't care if Canada thinks two people of the same sex can "marry". Canada is wrong, and what they do has no relevance to the United States of America. Believe it!

Besides, Australia and Israel allow human/animal "marriage". Should the U.S. recognize that as well just because other countries do?

And just where is the "specific right" to "marry" one of the same sex in the Constitution... specifically?

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Who cares what other countries recognize as a "marriage"?"

-- Lots of people do, including the "marriage-is-a-man-and-a-woman­-because-it's-always-been-that­-way" crowd.

.

"And just where is the "specific right" to "marry" one of the same sex in the Constitution... specifically?"

-- Silly question. Where is the right to work without a test of your religion? Or to move across state lines without a permit? Or to bear children with permission from the government? 10th Amendment.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb No, the "always been that way" argument is to state the origin of marriage as an institution in order to provide the proper definition of such. Those who use it as an appeal to tradition are referring to American history obviously, not other countries. It's also used to counter the misguided belief that homosexuals suddenly have some newfound "right" to redefine marriage.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051 The only "redefining" has come from the anti-marriage crowd. These are the extremists who paid for Prop 8 in my state--a new law that inserted a new definition of marriage into our state constitution that was NEVER there before. Marriage has been denied to countless millions of couples in the past, including those with spouses of mixed race, of mixed religion and of the same gender. Affirming their rights did not involve "redefining" a thing, and it does not do so now.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Yeah and the anti-marriage crowd is your side. You are trying to redefine marriage.

So what if the amendment was never in your state's constitution before? That's the case with most of them. Besides, since you're such a believer in the 10th Amendment (as you should be), that means you support the right of the people to secure the definition of marriage in their state constitution. So you support Prop 8, right? Or are you just a hypocrite?

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "Besides, since you're such a believer in the 10th Amendment (as you should be), that means you support the right of the people to secure the definition of marriage in their state constitution."

-- Hmm... is that what YOU believe in, or are you just arguing for argument's sake. Because that was the same reasoning the Massachusetts federal judge gave when he found the DOMA unconstitutional last summer. Perhaps you've begun to see the light.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb See? You won't answer that because you know you've lost the chess game. Either the people have the right to secure marriage in their state constitution under the 10th Amendment, or if they don't then neither do you have the right to redefine marriage to allow for same-sex couples.

I don't care what some red coat in a black robe says. The 10th Amendment doesn't grant power to FEDERAL judges, it limits power. That "judge" acted outside the Constitutional authority of the judiciary.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051 OK, to answer your question, of course people have a right write marriage laws in their own states. But just like any other law they write, if it conflicts with another law they have written (as California's Prop 8 conflicts with the 14th Amendment) then our system of government hires people to decide which law prevails. I call them judges; you call them red coats.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb So they have the right only so far as any "judge" at any federal level allows them? Kind of defeats the purpose of the 10th Amendment, don't you think? So that seals it. You think judges have authority over the states.

And tell me, what if the 9th Circus throws out Walker's decision because he had a conflict of interest, and what if they rule in favor of Prop 8? Are you going to suddenly agree that Prop 8 is Constitutional or are you still going to have your own opinion on the issue?

[BelieveIt1051]

What higher tax burden? You do not support me in any way.

Marriage does not apply to your so-called "family" because marriage is the union of one man and one woman. That has nothing to do with rights or law, that is simply the definition of marriage. If you wish to gain those marriage benefits then you are free to enter into a marriage in the same way every other individual is allowed.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "What higher tax burden? "

-- The average unmarried couple will pay tens of thousands of dollars in extra taxes over a lifetime in order to support you, freeloader.

.

"because marriage is the union of one man and one woman."

-- Not in the states and provinces where every Mexican, every Canadian, and a quarter of Americans live. You are quoting a definition that applies for only about half the people on this continent. Keep trying.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb I don't get their tax dollars, so no, they don't support me. And if those individuals don't want to pay as much then they should get married. They pay more by choice.

I am quoting the definition that has existed for thousands of years. The definition that applies to the United States of America, which is the only country we're talking about here.

[mike2jb]

@BelieveIt1051: "I don't get their tax dollars"

-- I do not know if you are married, so I cannot say you do for sure. But if you are--or if you maintain that you have the right to marry while denying that right to same-sex couples--then they certainly do support you. You will pay far fewer taxes over your lifetime than the unmarried couples whose rights you wish to suppress, while their money goes to pay for part of your share of government services.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb I'm not married yet but when I am any tax break I get for being married doesn't equate to a handout. Allowing a person to KEEP more of the money they earn through their own hard work and time isn't the same thing as tax dollars going from the treasury TO an individual. Like NPR for example. Tax dollars received (or printed out of nothingness) are given to NPR. That's a susbsidy or handout. Welfare bitches also, they are freeloaders. People who get to keep more of what they earn are not.

[BelieveIt1051]

@mike2jb Besides, these same tax breaks exist for homosexuals and every other individual. All they have to do in order to obtain them is marry in the same way everyone else does. Like I said, if they don't then they are choosing to pay a higher tax.

Also, your argument is flawed on it's face. Rich people pay higher taxes because of the progressive income tax. Poor people get all their income taxes BACK at the end of the year. So why isn't that considered unequal protection of the law?

[AceofDiamonds0]

technically no, the civil right act of 1964 states that no person would be discriminated agianst due to race, color, gender, religion ect. but sexual orientation is not one of those factors.

so that gives people an excuse to say gay marriage is not a civil right. but what they are really saying is its not ok to discriminate people for race, religion, gender ect. but if you want to discriminate agianst sexual orientation thats just fine.

[teinetwork]

@AceofDiamonds0 if you go to teinet.net, and click on the right column at "The Ministers Affirmation on Marriage," you will see my agenda. After this forum with Arline Isaacson (our third, with prior ones at BU and Harvard), she gave me a hug. Not because we agree, but because she knows the respect by which I treat her in a shared humanity. The questions I pose and positions I hold always aim at true equality. And definition of terms are crucial if informed choice is to follow.

[sweetfatman]

The "ex-gay" movement is psychological abuse. There's no other word for it.

[vicorii]

@sweetfatman psychological abuse is forcing your child to pretend he or she does not mind being motherless so that you can play out your fantasy of a family with "two daddies".

[AceofDiamonds0]

@vicorii

oh you mean just like when the parents of a child go througn a divorce.

gays arent stealing children from loving homes with both a mother and a father. most times when gays adopt children it is a childs choice to grow up with loving gay parents (that actually want the child) or no parents.

[vicorii]

@AceofDiamonds0 No, it's not like when parents go through a divorce, because divorce does not excuse a parent from honoring his obligations to his child and to the person he made that child with.

Gay marriage would be granting to gays the express right to make a baby with one person, but have another person altogether designated the person who is entitled to the recognition of parentage, and the honor and respect a parent owes his child's other parent

That's fraud, based on misrepresentation.

[AceofDiamonds0]

@vicorii

ok, its like when the 'real' parents of a child abandon the child at an orphanage.

so youre against surragacy? what about for straight couples who cannot have a child? if youre for straight couples using the method and not gay people, youre just being discriminatory.

and just because a person gives birth to a child doeesnt instinctively make them a parent, theres more to being a parent than simply having the child. 

[vicorii]

@AceofDiamonds0 If the real parents abandon the child, then a gay couple should be granted custody if no better family is available.

But a gay couple is not as good as a couple that is able and willing to put the child's needs first.

A child has reason to value having both a mother and a father, and if you are going to prioritize your own ego or sex drive or whatever it is over what is best for your child, then it's your own fault if you're recognized as not providing as good a home.

[vicorii]

@AceofDiamonds0 I am in favor of making the child's well-being the standard by which custody decisions are made.

All children DESERVE to have custody decisions be about them. It's their life.

The minute a custody decision becomes about prioritizing the parent's desires over the child's best interest, it becomes a violation.

Whatever is or is not a right re: infertile couples, it must be noted that gays are not infertile, they just don't WANT to honor or respect their child's other parent.

[AceofDiamonds0]

@vicorii

and which do you think the child will choose? staying in the orphanage with no love from any parent or to live with a gay couple who gives them; a warm home and a cozy bed, three square meals a day, a good education, and all the toys the kid could want?

they do thank the surragacy 'mother', its not as if once the baby pops out they cut all ties. long lasting friend ships between the two can be formed over 9 months. plus surragacy 'mothers' get paid for there services.

[vicorii]

@AceofDiamonds0 As I said, if no proper home can be found, a gay home is better than an orphanage.

The child's best interest should be observed.

And no woman has the right to make a baby with intent to sell. That's called trafficking.

The only reason it's not recognized as such yet is the law hasn't caught up, it always takes time for the law to catch up (especially where children's rights are concerned, because those who exploit kids are always more powerful than those who are exploited)

[vicorii]

All 50 states recognize that a child has a right to a relationship (and to be supported by) both mother and father.

All 50 states have recognized that only a judge can sever this tie, and only when guided by the child's best interest.

What gays are doing is exploiting a loophole that was meant for adoption.

What is needed is a law distinguishing real (legitimate) crisis from exploitation situations.

Any parent who would deliberately MAKE their child motherless or fatherless = unfit.

[nicksum29]

Oh, stop debating such stupid issues in America, and just give people their fucking rights. Assholes.

[fanagot]

As if class needs to have a scientific backing to be considered suspect. .. Just take religion for example. It's considered a suspect class, and still it does not have any scientific backing.

[auntiebedok]

My friends are considered fully gay when indulged in the lifestyle, but when repeatedly hurt by their partners and tired of the frequent change of commitment, they left that. They were socially persecuted by the same gay community when they left. They were in further disarray as realizing that they were seeking acceptance as gays, but were not accepted at all for their choice of change and revert by the same grp they fight with. These friends can give more examples of gays changing sexuality.

[amyliz430]

that's called bisexuality. not changing from gay to straight. your friend might have chosen to refer to him or herself as "gay", but if they had maintained attractions to both sexes then they weren't really gay. someone who is ONLY attracted to the same sex can't magically force themselves to be attracted to the opposite sex. believe me.

[auntiebedok]

Hi Neenerpuss, I don't think you would be willing to accept the fact if I do point out friends 2 gays and 1 lesbians who have indeed completely reverted from their gay lifestyle. "I do know gay men who have married a woman and sneak out from time to time to pursue homosexuality activity." You based a belief and argument based upon your set social circle as your test population. So naturally 100% to your statement and "change is a myth". Yet outside that circle is too far from the truth.

[neenerpuss]

Mr Rankin you must believe as a hetrosexual that you could ultimately be converted to homosexuality with reverse treatment? Is that statement fair? Or is it like torture and eventually you will just say anything to be left alone?

[neenerpuss]

I have been a homosexual my whole life...and I know thousands of homosexuals and I dont know one ex-homosexual...NOT ONE! I do know gay men who have married a woman and sneak out from time to time to pursue homosexual activity. That doesn't make them straight. So I think you would be hard press to find that a significant fraction of the gay community has ever left the gay lifestyle. The idea that sexuality can be changes is a myth.