Trolling Ben

[KrazyHorse]

Serious question:

Does the US Constitution actually define marriage as an act/agrrement/whatever between a man and a woman?

Of course not.

Certain state constitutions do (now), but did not previously.

[Naked Gents Rut]

If he watched "Big Love" he'd see why polygamy is a bad idea.

If people would only watch "Big Love" and "The Birdcage", marriage wouldn't be under threat in this country.

[Nugog]

Not legally. And you can't have sex with whoever you want.

You can say you married to a tree, nonlegally it doesn't matter.

JM

And there-in lies the problem.

I fail to see why consenting adults cannot choose to get legally married, and share the same legal rights/priviledges/recognition as as heterosexual couple.

I can understand why some religious organisations would not allow the ceremony, that some people choose to have after the legal paperwork is taken care of, to occur inside their buildings - that is their choice.

But to deny others the same legal rights they enjoy makes a mockery of the supposed christian values they spout.

[KrazyHorse]

My statement was that married people provide more for society than single people. There have been studies that show this.

SELECTION EFFECTS. Good luck trying to disentangle them

So it is in the states interest to promot the sort of marriages (through benefits and recognition) which provide

And if a judge decides that the State's reasoning isn't powerful enough to overcome an individual's right to what's been described as a fundamental civil right by the courts then he can overturn a ban on gay marriage. The State can't simply decide to only allow certain types of marriage to occur without a damn good reason. That's what Loving v Virginia said.

Marriage isn't just some contract between people, or between two people. It has been between a man and a woman. There isn't a discrimination based on sex, or oreintation, or anything of the sort there.

If marriage is defined to be a union between people of the same race then there is no discrimination based on race?

Even now we aren't expanding the definition (I hope) of marriage to be a contract between two people. We are just expanding it to include two men or two women

WTF? If it's allowed to be between M+W or M+M or W+W then how is it NOT just a contract between two people?

Saying that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, but in certain cases (one person is indian, the other is white) it can't exist, is discrimination on race.

??????

I define marriage as the union between people of the same race. Is this discrimination based on race?

[Naked Gents Rut]

I define marriage as the union between people of the same race. Is this discrimination based on race?

Possibly not. Is "separate but equal" discrimination if it really is equal?

[Jon Miller]

[q]
WTF? If it's allowed to be between M+W or M+M or W+W then how is it NOT just a contract between two people?

Kids, severely mentally challenged/damaged, etc.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I don't know. Today, almost certainly. In the past, depends how the judge is feeling. Which brings me back to my point: it's useless to pretend that constitutions definitely say one thing or the other. There's a reasonable series of arguments that say judges should force gay marriages to be allowed. There's also a reasonable series of arguments to say they shouldn't. So I don't care if it's done by the judges or the legislatures. It's the right thing to do.

[KrazyHorse]

Kids, severely mentally challenged/damaged, etc.

JM

???

I don't know what you mean here. Are you saying something about incest?

[SlowwHand]

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Seems to me that the statement is all-inclusive. It doesn't say "except Blacks" or "except homosexuals", it says all people.

[Jon Miller]

My statement was that married people provide more for society than single people. There have been studies that show this.

SELECTION EFFECTS. Good luck trying to disentangle them

I agree, like with all soft sciences, that the science is suspect. And I am not using it as legal reasons, I am using it as evidence for the theory that I and others have, that we base our opinions on, which further influences how we think things should be done (what laws should be in place/etc).

This is of course standard for pretty much every way people think that things should be doone. Hard science doesn't exist when you get softer than biology.

JM

[Naked Gents Rut]

So I don't care if it's done by the judges or the legislatures.

By judges

By legislatures

it says all people

I'm pretty sure it says "all men"...

[Jon Miller]

???

I don't know what you mean here. Are you saying something about incest?

Include them too.

I was saying exceptions to the any two people idea I hope are never legally recognized as married.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

I agree, like with all soft sciences, that the science is suspect. And I am not using it as legal reasons, I am using it as evidence for the theory that I and others have, that we base our opinions on, which further influences how we think things should be done (what laws should be in place/etc)

It IS a legally relevant argument, though. If the State can demonstrate a compelling need to ban homo marriage then it trumps equal protection.

[Q Classic]

There's a reason the best chefs in the world are male.

Actually, the reason behind that is more likely due to a pervasive sexism in haute cuisine, rather than intellectual or creative facility.

[KrazyHorse]

Include them too.

I was saying exceptions to the any two people idea I hope are never legally recognized as married.

JM

Children and the mentally handicapped already can't sign legally binding contracts except under specific circumstances.

???