Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Berzerker]

The state only "recognises" marriage because the state wants to recognise marriage. If I said you must get my permission to marry your would-be wife, you'd tell me to stick it my ear. So how do I magically acquire this interest in your marriage when I call myself "the state"? The state's only concern about your marriage is to avoid disputes regarding your property and children upon divorce or death, i.e., what happens once your marriage is over.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If through no fault of their own, a couple finds themselves infertile, they should be allowed to marry. We don't see this in the example of gay unions, where perfectly fertile people deny their own fertility. So your requirement would fall under the charge of false analogy. The vast majority of married people who are infertile, cannot help their condition.

I argue that an increase in population will provide an increase in both the total population and quality of life. So this is a false dichotomy. Given a proper system, an increase in population will not lower the quality of life.

So you're arguing that people are sinning when they don't have large families to increase the population. This still doesn't particularly seem relevant given that the widespread availability of artifial insemination allows gay men to father children and lesbians to have kids if they choose. I can tell you that in the last dozen years Colorado has had a huge increase in population and its defiantely harmed the general quality of life through issues such as the loss of open space and far worse traffic congestion. You simply can't solve these issues with management techniques, even the most effective solution such as apartments reduce the amount of living space individuals can enjoy, thereby harming their quality of life. You also seem to be ignoring issues with worldwide enviromental damage being magnified by a general population increase.

Fine. Would you accept the study if I gave you the evidence, or would you dismiss the methodology as 'biased, etc?'

If you would be willing to accept the evidence regardless of the conclusion, than I would be most happy to post the evidence. Otherwise I see no point.

Its unreasonable in any debate to expect the other side to blindly accept the results of a random study without seeing the methodology involved. A group with an agenda could conduct only a couple year study, deliberating picking homosexual couples with already somewhat grown children with problems, and picking model children for their heterosexual couples. This would allow a group to end up with a study that had the results they wanted. I certainly am willing to take a close look at any studies you'd like to present, and at the very least you may convince me you have some sort of scientific basis to support your view that children raised in heterosexual families are in general better off. The fact that I feel its necessary to examine the legitimacy of any study you present, as would be true in any argument involving anyone with any subject, is certainly not justification for you failing to show any examples if you have of through studies with valid methodologies involved.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thanks for the very able analogy.

In this sense, a gay person would be someone who did not vote, yet wants to have his vote count. No gay man is prevented from marrying the woman of his choice, given her consent.

Without any other issues being brought up, you fail to show why marrying a man of his choice would be a bad thing, and therefore any reason for the restrict to restrict his right to do this. You certainly may be reducing or eliminating his chance at personal happyness by restricting who he can marry.

[David Floyd]

BK,

In marriage, you are making a contract with the state as well as with the other person. This is why the state has a role in marriage. You want to do away with civil marriages altogether, and leave it up to the churches? Go right ahead.

Ideally, the contract would be between two people, and that's it. At best, the state is a neutral observer.

Just what? Correct? I have given numerous non-religious arguments in this thread. Please continue to ignore them.

Yes, but the fact remains that your religious beliefs have a lot to do with your beliefs about gay marriage. To deny that is preposterous.

What proportion of marriages happen at this age? Very few.

And what proportion of marriages, adjusted for population, would be between gays and lesbians? Not a lot, I assure you.

The bible is very clear, in condemning homosexual relationships as sin.

And if it didn't, I seriously doubt you'd have a big problem with it. It might disgust you, on the same lines that making out in public disgusts some people, but don't tell me you'd call for the criminalization of homosexuality and denying homosexuals the right to marry.

The state recognises the marriage. Otherwise, what you have isn't a marriage according to the legal definition. In this sense, the state has to be part of the contract.

Really? So if I make a contract with you, to, for example, work on your roof, am I also making a contract with the government? And is the nature of that contract such that the government can tell both of us that we have no right to contract with each other for roofing work, unless it's a certain color? And if you answer yes to either of those questions, is that MORAL?

[Ned]

Perhaps this has been answered before, but if marriage is no more than a "union" between people who love each other and want to live together, how can there be anything wrong with polygamy?

[Ramo]

Marriage is more than just a legal term, it describes a contract that can be and has been made in the absence of any law.

Certainly not in the US. That's why gay people can't get married. That's why polygamists can't marry multiple people.

Your argument is no different than claiming the Nazis never stole because stealing is a "legal" term and those in power can define it any way they want. Try that with murder and you negate the holocaust...

The Nazi's didn't steal, nor murder (except when they weren't in power) since stealing is an illegal seizure and murder is an illegal killing. While in power, they certainly did seize and kill, and that in no way "negates" the Holocaust.

The point is, even using your argument, marriage doesn't include homosexual unions.

And why exactly are you making that point? Let's go over this again. The state can define what a marriage is. Thus it can change the definition of what a marriage is.

That's a different issue that has nothing to do with re-defining a word that describes an act involving heterosexuals to include homosexuals.

Not according to Candians.

Why not re-define "heterosexual" to mean homosexual while we're at it?

Beccause heterosexual is not a word that's defined by the law, while marriage is.

Only insofar as the state recognizes any other contract, which is to say, they don't interfere.

I wouldn't say that. It should interfere if, for instance, minors are involved.

[Ramo]

Perhaps this has been answered before, but if marriage is no more than a "union" between people who love each other and want to live together, how can there be anything wrong with polygamy?

All else being equal, there isn't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

that Congress thought it had to power under the FF&C clause to pass the act it did

Congress also thought it has the power to ban late-term abortions without providing for the health of the mother. They are wrong. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is not totally controlled by Congress. They can't simply say they don't like some state law and thus other states can ignore it. They can't discriminate against a state when it allows the other states' acts to be recognized.

I see the "interstate" part of that, but where's the commerce?

Purchasing a hotel room definetly qualifies as commerce.

The exchange of money for goods in the first example crossed state borders, in the second example, the exchange of money for goods occured in the same state.

Yet in both cases the goods came from one state while the purchaser came from another state. Let's use another example, if I buy a good in another state and bring that good back over the border, how is that, in effect, any different from ordering the good over the phone and having them ship it to me? In that case the place of the exchange doesn't matter, the effect is totally the same.

[DinoDoc]

Oh come on Imran! You know as well as I do that the commerce clause was never meant to become the bludgeon it has to expand government power. It was primarily a means of eliminating trade barriers among the states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh come on Imran! You know as well as I do that the commerce clause was never meant to become the bludgeon it has to expand government power. It was primarily a means of eliminating trade barriers among the states.

What it 'meant' by a select few is whole irrelevant. It says Congress can regulate 'interstate commerce'. Hotels rely on people from other states to come in and buy their goods. Sounds close enough to me.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What it 'meant' by a select few is whole irrelevant.

The original intent is always relevent when it can be clearly defined and even if it can not we still have the plain meaning of the words. However, if you can tell me how Heart of Atlanta was substantially affecting interstate commerce I'll conceede the point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The original intent is always relevent when it can be clearly defined and even if it can not we still have the plain meaning of the words.

And what is the original intent? The words of some of the people who wrote the law? What about the people who we don't have speeches and debates about? If you look at the records of the Constiutional Convention, and the first Congress with the Bill of Rights, you find very spotty records. Just for fun, check out the debates over the 1st Amendment religious liberty clauses.

However, if you can tell me how Heart of Atlanta was substantially affecting interstate commerce I'll conceede the point.

Where does 'substantially' enter the picture? It isn't the power to regulate 'substantial' interstate commerce. Heart of Atlanta was a motel that catered to out of state individuals as well as in state ones. In fact it counted on out of state people much more, as evidenced by the fact that was right near the airport. It is very difficult, IMO, to say it was simply intrastate commerce, when it mainly depended on out of state customers.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Where does 'substantially' enter the picture? It isn't the power to regulate 'substantial' interstate commerce.

US v. Lopez. The most current law on the subject.

[Ned]

Imran, stop arguing and begin to cite cases. The FF&C clause says that Congress can declare the effect of public acts of one state in the next. You say this language does not mean what it plainly states. So prove it.

[CharlesBHoff]

Congress and the GOP are playing with than double edge sword when they trie to use this than a electron year. The Full Faith and Credit clause must not be abuse. It Congress allow State not to recognite gray marraige of one State that State can take action against other State by not recognite they marraige and driver lience and etc. That why our Founder put the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution they biggest mistake was allow crongress anything to do with Full Faith and Credit clause.
Other nation recognite other nation marraige expect for America, when than Saudis who is legal marriage to his four wifes have no problen bring then to other nation as his wifes expect in America. Yet America want other Nation to recognite
if Marraige under Full Faith and Credit clause. To have than workable Full Faith and Credit clause it must be obey by all parties without any condition like it 2 man or 2 woman are marraige to each other or than man who is marraige to 4 wifes at the same time.