I have no problem with gays marrying.

 

Neither do I. Where I have issue is that laws banning same-sex marriage are being declared unconstitutional. Just because something is a bad idea doesn't make it unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the US or state constitution. We are all entitled to equal protection of the law.

 

See, it doesn't REALLY violate the legalities of equal rights protections. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one can marry someone of the same sex. Equal rights for all. It's not the government's problem if you choose not to use that right (legally speaking).

 

It might violate the spirit of it, but not the letter. And honestly, if the founding fathers had thought homosexuality would become so popular, they likely would have done something to prevent gay marraige themselves (if it even occurred to them that could be an issue anyway).

 

It does violate the ideals in the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), but that's not a legally binding document.

 

Banning gay marraige should be considered constutional, at least on the state level (on the federal level there are 10th amendment issues). The argument for allowing gay marraige is less about legality and more about what is morally right and what is consistent with the ideals of this country that promotes diversity within its borders. I must say thats the first argument against gay marriage on this board that was actually logical. But I do think the Founding Father's allowed for the Constitution to be so open so as ideals change and people change, it would not become antiquated. Granted, the states lost a lot of their power after the Civil War but this really is a state by state issue. In the least if a state is going to prevent gay marriage, at least allow for the couples to adopt children.

 

 

There is no scientific or anecdotal evidence that gays raising children affects them anymore than a normal household.

 

Isn't it interesting that the first logical argument you see against it comes from someone that supports it.

 

I agree the founding fathers knew their morality wouldn't be eternal, which is why only one "law" was actually put in the constitution (treason). That's why it has been called a "living document".

 

Lincoln made a big mistake by solidifying power at the federal level during the Civil War. He made our government into something it was never meant to be, and in fact violates the very ideals of the Bill of Rights. Now granted that was in the process of doing the admirable and morally just thing of freeing slaves, but it would have been nice if he had found a way to do that without bashing through the Constitution. Especially since his way of freeing the slaves is a large part of the cause of lingering racial tensions. But meh, that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 

I agree with you on the raising kids thing. There is more evidence that being rased as a ward of the state is more damaging psychologically than being raised by homosexual parents.

I have no problem with gays marrying.

 

Neither do I. Where I have issue is that laws banning same-sex marriage are being declared unconstitutional. Just because something is a bad idea doesn't make it unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the US or state constitution. We are all entitled to equal protection of the law.

 

See, it doesn't REALLY violate the legalities of equal rights protections. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one can marry someone of the same sex. Equal rights for all. It's not the government's problem if you choose not to use that right (legally speaking).

 

It might violate the spirit of it, but not the letter. And honestly, if the founding fathers had thought homosexuality would become so popular, they likely would have done something to prevent gay marraige themselves (if it even occurred to them that could be an issue anyway).

 

It does violate the ideals in the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), but that's not a legally binding document.

 

Banning gay marraige should be considered constutional, at least on the state level (on the federal level there are 10th amendment issues). The argument for allowing gay marraige is less about legality and more about what is morally right and what is consistent with the ideals of this country that promotes diversity within its borders. I must say thats the first argument against gay marriage on this board that was actually logical. But I do think the Founding Father's allowed for the Constitution to be so open so as ideals change and people change, it would not become antiquated. Granted, the states lost a lot of their power after the Civil War but this really is a state by state issue. In the least if a state is going to prevent gay marriage, at least allow for the couples to adopt children.

 

 

There is no scientific or anecdotal evidence that gays raising children affects them anymore than a normal household.

 

Isn't it interesting that the first logical argument you see against it comes from someone that supports it.

 

I agree the founding fathers knew their morality wouldn't be eternal, which is why only one "law" was actually put in the constitution (treason). That's why it has been called a "living document".

 

Lincoln made a big mistake by solidifying power at the federal level during the Civil War. He made our government into something it was never meant to be, and in fact violates the very ideals of the Bill of Rights. Now granted that was in the process of doing the admirable and morally just thing of freeing slaves, but it would have been nice if he had found a way to do that without bashing through the Constitution. Especially since his way of freeing the slaves is a large part of the cause of lingering racial tensions. But meh, that's a whole 'nother discussion.

 

I agree with you on the raising kids thing. There is more evidence that being rased as a ward of the state is more damaging psychologically than being raised by homosexual parents. Can't argue with that logic.

 

And we'll just have to start a discussion on Lincoln another time.

I have no problem with gays marrying.

 

Neither do I. Where I have issue is that laws banning same-sex marriage are being declared unconstitutional. Just because something is a bad idea doesn't make it unconstitutional.

It is if it violates the US or state constitution. We are all entitled to equal protection of the law.

 

See, it doesn't REALLY violate the legalities of equal rights protections. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one can marry someone of the same sex. Equal rights for all. It's not the government's problem if you choose not to use that right (legally speaking).

 

It might violate the spirit of it, but not the letter. And honestly, if the founding fathers had thought homosexuality would become so popular, they likely would have done something to prevent gay marraige themselves (if it even occurred to them that could be an issue anyway).

 

It does violate the ideals in the Declaration of Independence ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), but that's not a legally binding document.

 

Banning gay marraige should be considered constutional, at least on the state level (on the federal level there are 10th amendment issues). The argument for allowing gay marraige is less about legality and more about what is morally right and what is consistent with the ideals of this country that promotes diversity within its borders. Sorry for the long post, but Id really like to clarify the equal protection law in this area.

 

Loving v Virginia might run counter to that argument. There Virginia banned interracial marriage and used the argument that it applied to everyone, white and black, equally. Whites couldnt marry blacks and blacks couldnt marry whites but neither was denied a right to marriage that the other had. The court steadfastly refused to accept this argument. Language:

 

"There can be no question but that VA statute rests soley upon distinctions drawn according to race. It bans generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races?there can be no doubt that restricting freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause."

 

Of course racial classification is held to a higher standard of constitutional scrutiny because there is rarely if ever a compelling reason to make legal race classificatios.

 

That said, the issue being run into today is not that of the federal constitution but how state courts have interpreted their state constitutions and their own state equal protection clauses. So really the whole founding fathers stuff isnt even relevant to this discussion. In fact, the funny thing is that conservatives are trying to go opposite to the "let the states decide argument." They are trying to nationalize an issue that state courts have interpreted a certain way through state constitution. This has never been a federal issue until they made it one. That is why various states have passed constitutional amendments to their STATE constitutions-so that their courts don't rule a certain way.

 

Of course even those amendments are subject to the federal equal protection clause. And although they havent applied the higher levels of scrutiny to homosexuality, there is some protections against state acts motivated out of animus towards gays, including state amendments, that rests in equal protection clause jurisprudence. Basically in Romer v Evans, Colorado passed an amendment that said no city within the state can try and prevent discriminations against homosexuals through local anti-gay discrimination laws(and Colorado's argument was that it treated gays and non-gays equally). The basic idea is that a law or amendment against any minority group can't single out a group because of animus towards that group and impose a heavy burden. For this reason, the court struck down the amendment.

 

Put this another way, no state or goverment in this country can pass a law saying all Marlins fans are not allowed to drive cars because we don't like Marlins fans. Even though this group doesnt get higher protection like race or gender, they still get protection under the equal protection clause. Colorado offered non-animus reasons in Romer but they were a bunch of crap and the court saw them for what they were.

 

What's my point? The argument that banning gay marriage is a bad idea but not unconstitutional runs counter to the way state's have interpreted their constitution and could also run counter to the US Constitution if based on dislike of gays. And despite what some people say, I believe it is. It is also irrelevant if the law treats gays and non-gays equally in preventing gay marriage. It still classifies based on a characteristic and in doing so, has at least a basic run in with the 14th amendment.

Sorry for the long post, but Id really like to clarify the equal protection law in this area.

 

Loving v Virginia might run counter to that argument. There Virginia banned interracial marriage and used the argument that it applied to everyone, white and black, equally. Whites couldnt marry blacks and blacks couldnt marry whites but neither was denied a right to marriage that the other had. The court steadfastly refused to accept this argument. Language:

 

"There can be no question but that VA statute rests soley upon distinctions drawn according to race. It bans generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races?there can be no doubt that restricting freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause."

 

Of course racial classification is held to a higher standard of constitutional scrutiny because there is rarely if ever a compelling reason to make legal race classificatios.

 

That said, the issue being run into today is not that of the federal constitution but how state courts have interpreted their state constitutions and their own state equal protection clauses. So really the whole founding fathers stuff isnt even relevant to this discussion. In fact, the funny thing is that conservatives are trying to go opposite to the "let the states decide argument." They are trying to nationalize an issue that state courts have interpreted a certain way through state constitution. This has never been a federal issue until they made it one. That is why various states have passed constitutional amendments to their STATE constitutions-so that their courts don't rule a certain way.

 

Of course even those amendments are subject to the federal equal protection clause. And although they havent applied the higher levels of scrutiny to homosexuality, there is some protections against state acts motivated out of animus towards gays, including state amendments, that rests in equal protection clause jurisprudence. Basically in Romer v Evans, Colorado passed an amendment that said no city within the state can try and prevent discriminations against homosexuals through local anti-gay discrimination laws(and Colorado's argument was that it treated gays and non-gays equally). The basic idea is that a law or amendment against any minority group can't single out a group because of animus towards that group and impose a heavy burden. For this reason, the court struck down the amendment.

 

Put this another way, no state or goverment in this country can pass a law saying all Marlins fans are not allowed to drive cars because we don't like Marlins fans. Even though this group doesnt get higher protection like race or gender, they still get protection under the equal protection clause. Colorado offered non-animus reasons in Romer but they were a bunch of crap and the court saw them for what they were.

 

What's my point? The argument that banning gay marriage is a bad idea but not unconstitutional runs counter to the way state's have interpreted their constitution and could also run counter to the US Constitution if based on dislike of gays. And despite what some people say, I believe it is. It is also irrelevant if the law treats gays and non-gays equally in preventing gay marriage. It still classifies based on a characteristic and in doing so, has at least a basic run in with the 14th amendment.

 

 

Excellent post.

 

The first comparison is a little irrelevant (but still apt), equal rights based on race is specifically discussed in constitutional amendments, while sexual orientation is not.

 

Granted several federal laws that specifically mention orientation can be construed to mean that the government has accepted sexual orientation is on par with race and gender issues.

 

I think the Colorado case might have had a different outcome if it forbid local anti-descrimination laws in general, instead of singling out orientation. That's a much clearer case.

 

Also the reason many states have passed amendments is because Massachussetts proved the courts can and will overturn state marraige laws. I haven't look at the specifics of the Massachussetts laws, but most people I've heard from tend to think the decision was borderline acceptable at best. Dunno though.

 

I would LOVE to see the fall-out from the Texas admentment being overturned by federal courts. If that happens, then the entire Texas constitution is scrubbed, and without a consitution Texas would no longer qualify as a state and revert to independence. Could lead to some really interesting things since Texas does have quite a few seperatists.

 

I'm also waiting for the fallout of the first gay married couple from Mass. to sue the IRS because they are being audited for filing married/jointly and seeing the true test in the US Supreme court of DOMA.

Sorry for the long post, but Id really like to clarify the equal protection law in this area.

 

Loving v Virginia might run counter to that argument. There Virginia banned interracial marriage and used the argument that it applied to everyone, white and black, equally. Whites couldnt marry blacks and blacks couldnt marry whites but neither was denied a right to marriage that the other had. The court steadfastly refused to accept this argument. Language:

 

"There can be no question but that VA statute rests soley upon distinctions drawn according to race. It bans generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races?there can be no doubt that restricting freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause."

 

Of course racial classification is held to a higher standard of constitutional scrutiny because there is rarely if ever a compelling reason to make legal race classificatios.

 

That said, the issue being run into today is not that of the federal constitution but how state courts have interpreted their state constitutions and their own state equal protection clauses. So really the whole founding fathers stuff isnt even relevant to this discussion. In fact, the funny thing is that conservatives are trying to go opposite to the "let the states decide argument." They are trying to nationalize an issue that state courts have interpreted a certain way through state constitution. This has never been a federal issue until they made it one. That is why various states have passed constitutional amendments to their STATE constitutions-so that their courts don't rule a certain way.

 

Of course even those amendments are subject to the federal equal protection clause. And although they havent applied the higher levels of scrutiny to homosexuality, there is some protections against state acts motivated out of animus towards gays, including state amendments, that rests in equal protection clause jurisprudence. Basically in Romer v Evans, Colorado passed an amendment that said no city within the state can try and prevent discriminations against homosexuals through local anti-gay discrimination laws(and Colorado's argument was that it treated gays and non-gays equally). The basic idea is that a law or amendment against any minority group can't single out a group because of animus towards that group and impose a heavy burden. For this reason, the court struck down the amendment.

 

Put this another way, no state or goverment in this country can pass a law saying all Marlins fans are not allowed to drive cars because we don't like Marlins fans. Even though this group doesnt get higher protection like race or gender, they still get protection under the equal protection clause. Colorado offered non-animus reasons in Romer but they were a bunch of crap and the court saw them for what they were.

 

What's my point? The argument that banning gay marriage is a bad idea but not unconstitutional runs counter to the way state's have interpreted their constitution and could also run counter to the US Constitution if based on dislike of gays. And despite what some people say, I believe it is. It is also irrelevant if the law treats gays and non-gays equally in preventing gay marriage. It still classifies based on a characteristic and in doing so, has at least a basic run in with the 14th amendment.

 

 

Excellent post.

 

The first comparison is a little irrelevant (but still apt), equal rights based on race is specifically discussed in constitutional amendments, while sexual orientation is not.

 

Granted several federal laws that specifically mention orientation can be construed to mean that the government has accepted sexual orientation is on par with race and gender issues.

 

I think the Colorado case might have had a different outcome if it forbid local anti-descrimination laws in general, instead of singling out orientation. That's a much clearer case.

 

Also the reason many states have passed amendments is because Massachussetts proved the courts can and will overturn state marraige laws. I haven't look at the specifics of the Massachussetts laws, but most people I've heard from tend to think the decision was borderline acceptable at best. Dunno though.

 

I would LOVE to see the fall-out from the Texas admentment being overturned by federal courts. If that happens, then the entire Texas constitution is scrubbed, and without a consitution Texas would no longer qualify as a state and revert to independence. Could lead to some really interesting things since Texas does have quite a few seperatists.

 

I'm also waiting for the fallout of the first gay married couple from Mass. to sue the IRS because they are being audited for filing married/jointly and seeing the true test in the US Supreme court of DOMA.

 

Like I said before, that needs to happen anyway. If only to make the Texas Legislature meet more than once every 2 years and to give the governor something consisting of powers, considering now its basically a figurehead position. The Texas Constitution is one of the most asinine documents ever with amendment over amendment and amendments of amendments. Its really quite hilarious.

Like I said before, that needs to happen anyway. If only to make the Texas Legislature meet more than once every 2 years and to give the governor something consisting of powers, considering now its basically a figurehead position. The Texas Constitution is one of the most asinine documents ever with amendment over amendment and amendments of amendments. Its really quite hilarious.

 

 

I'm not going to argue that point. Legilature needs to meet more often instead of calling a "special session" nearly every year, and it's weird that the Governor really has no power (although there are historical reasons for that, I think because of the Civil War, but I don't remember fully). And the insane number of amendments, and the weird separate levels of amendments with no restrictions on what goes where. I mean, a normal amendment can cover anything and can be voided or overwritten by another amendment. I bill of rights amendment can cover anything and cannot be voided or overwritten without invalidating the whole constitution. At the very least the BoR needs to have restrictions on what could be put in there. How many amendments are there? 120+?

 

Kinky for Gov! Political Reform here we come!

Like I said before, that needs to happen anyway. If only to make the Texas Legislature meet more than once every 2 years and to give the governor something consisting of powers, considering now its basically a figurehead position. The Texas Constitution is one of the most asinine documents ever with amendment over amendment and amendments of amendments. Its really quite hilarious.

 

 

I'm not going to argue that point. Legilature needs to meet more often instead of calling a "special session" nearly every year, and it's weird that the Governor really has no power (although there are historical reasons for that, I think because of the Civil War, but I don't remember fully). And the insane number of amendments, and the weird separate levels of amendments with no restrictions on what goes where. I mean, a normal amendment can cover anything and can be voided or overwritten by another amendment. I bill of rights amendment can cover anything and cannot be voided or overwritten without invalidating the whole constitution. At the very least the BoR needs to have restrictions on what could be put in there. How many amendments are there? 120+?

 

Kinky for Gov! Political Reform here we come!

 

439 amendments that have been adopted.

Kerry got shot. The bullet could have been higher and killed him. He was on the swift boats for a year. Those werent used for sissy like missions. How are those getting safe assignments? It baffled me how someone can get shot in a war and still have his service undermined.

 

I guess it's ok to call soliders liars when they are defending a liberal. But put a solider in a clip against Bush and youve committed high treason.

 

 

He tried to get a safe assignment, was denied and went into the swift boats (since he couldn't be safe, he wanted to pattern his service after Kennedy). I never said the swift boats was a safe assignment (also his tour on the swift boats was about 6 months I believe). 2 of Kerry's 3 purple hearts are in debateable circumstances, one of which was an injury he sustained from shrapnel from his own weapon when he discharged it while not in a firefight. He lobbied for the 2 debateable ones.

 

There are a lot of conflicting statements regarding Kerry's service, including several times he's contradicted himself.

 

I just don't see the point of glorifying Kerry's service when he did everything he could to not serve and lobbied for the ability to get out early. He served, and that is admirable, but his service wasn't really anything to write home about according to most accounts.

 

I also think deriding Bush for not being part of Vietnam when he was enlisted in a branch that didn't play a roll is asinine. That's my only point.

 

The only soldier I'll call a liar is Kerry, and there's documented evidence of that. Moore did wrong by portraying a soldier to have beliefs other than what he actually had. It's not insulting to Bush, it's insulting to the soldier and to the US citizens. But Moore admits such things about the film, so its not like it's a big deal.

 

Really..kind of like the COs who couldn't reemember seeing Bush anywhere on their bases? And where was Cheney? He was getting deferments because he was too busy (he was probably telling people to go F themselves).

 

Getting back to the the thread subject... in August 2003, the head of one of the biggest manufacturers of voting machines, Walden O?Dell, CEO of Diebold INC, wrote a fundraising letter saying he is ?committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.? Funny how all the exit polls in Ohio had Kerry ahead. Also, how did Bush get 16,000 votes in a precinct with 4000 voters?

 

Amd once again, blacks were "accidentally" disenfranchised. Funny, but I heard a lot of Cuban-American felons had their rights restored...