Washington to Legalize Gay Marriage

[giblets]

That's what happens when southerners try to ignore the constitution.

[Jon Miller]

And blacks being free was so 'self evident' that it was an issue from the moment the Constitution was written.

And even in this case, the most fundamental law was used and our Constitution was altered.

I am not saying that sex neutral marriage should be added into the Constitution. I am saying that we should make a law for it. Preferably on the national level.

JM

[Jon Miller]

A proper comparison would be:

Forcing government to recognize marriage contracts between two gays.
Forcing government to recognize home ownership/rental agreements/leases by gays.

The absurdity of your comparison can be shown by creating an actual analog to the issue you raised:

Forcing government to provide housing for everyone
Forcing government to provide a gay partner for everyone

When was a marriage contact between any two people?

It still isn't, even with this law.

And it shouldn't be.

JM

[Aeson]

When was a marriage contact between any two people?

a) I didn't say between any two people.
b) I'm glad you've dropped trying to defend your absurd comparison between being given a house to being able to marry.
c) The typo would make for a very scary law indeed!

[Jon Miller]

I actually think it is the same.

It is all based on what society gives. Marriage is something society can give. Housing is something society can give.

There are good arguments that society should give both.

Imagine if society gave neither, I could see some (Libertarians) arguing that this should be the case.

JM

[Aeson]

I actually think it is the same.

It is all based on what society gives. Marriage is something society can give. Housing is something society can give.

There are good arguments that society should give both.

JM

You think society should give everyone a partner?

[Jon Miller]

No

I am saying that the social construct known as marriage is something that society can choose to give.

I can imagine societies without marriage, can you? That is a possible alternate.

JM

[Aeson]

No

I am saying that the social construct known as marriage is something that society can choose to give.

I can imagine societies without marriage, can you? That is a possible alternate.

JM

Marriage is not something society should give. That would be absurd. Marriage is something people choose to enter into of their own volition. The only thing government can give in that regard is recognition of the marriage. Like government can recognize property rights. Which is of course the proper analog if you want to draw one between housing and marriage.

[Jon Miller]

If you favor the Libertarian approach than you should be against gay marriage and heterosexual marriage.

Marriage is fundamentally a societal construct. Society chooses to give it out, just like society can choose to give out property.

Nothing is stopping you from living and having a relationship with another man, or 4 women and 2 men. Something does stop you from living with and having a relationship with a child. That is the difference that fundamental rights makes.

What this whole issue about is about society giving something. Namely, giving support for homosexual relationships (and calling it marriage).

Whether society owes anyone this (homosexual couples, groups, heterosexual couples, etc) is something that society decides. Just like it decides if it owes people a house.

Marriage wouldn't exist without society, that is how you know it belongs to society.

Therefore it is obviously not a fundamental right. The parts of it that people can go into independently of society homosexuals can already go into independently of society.

JM
(In the latter case, revoking the sodomy laws was important for this. The fundamental rights aspect was taken care of when those were struck down. That was the responsibility of the courts.)

[regexcellent]

That's what happens when southerners try to ignore the constitution.

Slavery wasn't banned by the Constitution at the beginning of the Civil War; if you think it was then you fail history forever.

[giblets]

Slavery wasn't banned by the Constitution at the beginning of the Civil War; if you think it was then you fail history forever.

No one said it was. If you think someone said it you fail at reading comprehension forever.

[Hauldren Collider]

I think he's talking about secession, which the constitution is pretty clearly ambiguous on. I don't know if it was so much "ignore" as "disagree".

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have absolutely no issue with the courts declaring an equal protection right to same sex marriage. Loving v. Virginia declared a right to marriage in the form of different race marriage and that same reasoning carries through to same gender marriage.

Btw, Brown v. Board of Education was a case where the courts went beyond where they needed to go. All they had to assert there is that black schools had to have same funding as white schools (equal protection only mandates that much, really), but the Court went through psychological studies to assert that segregation makes those who are oppressed not feel equal in society (there is very little law & case history cited in the case).

[giblets]

I think he's talking about secession, which the constitution is pretty clearly ambiguous on. I don't know if it was so much "ignore" as "disagree".

Secession is obviously illegal.

[DinoDoc]

Secession is obviously illegal.

Texas v White.