• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

RChildress107 said:
Would love to continue the above discussion but also would like to get back to my original purpose for posting on this thread. Why should I vote against this ammendment?

In order to save me from reading through this entire thread and then through several biased articles, can someone tell me the most important right that this ammendment will take away which gay couples in North Carolina currently have. I'm interested in rights directly stripped by the ammendment or rights which have a high probability of being stripped because of this ammendment.
Click to expand...

Read the fucking thread yourself. It's really not that long. Don't be a lazy entitled fucker and make other people make up your mind for you

Who the fuck cares what CURRENT rights will be stripped by the Amendment? Do you understand the difference between a right being legislated, and one being written into the fucking Constitution?

Here's one of those biased articles for you

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/10920099/
 
RChildress107 said:
don't believe there is a constitutionally protected right to get married.
Click to expand...

"Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival."
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

So, yeah.

Now, that hasn't been extended to homosexual marriage yet (probably will in about 15 years when more states move in that direction), but the SCOTUS has actually stated in Loving v Virginia that the right to marry is a fundamental right.
 
So only the people your faith deems worthy should be married?

Do we live in theocracy?

Please take you bigotry somewhere else.

Here is a partial list of what you want to deny gay people that are willing to keep for yourself -
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...its-30190.html

By the way what kind of Christian doesn't live by the Golden Rule? You want others to let you marry the person you love but deny that to others.
 
RChildress107 said:
I disagree with you. However, if we were to suppose you were correct it would also stand that there is no rational reason why anyone can't marry anyone else as long as there is consent. Are you comfortable with the implications of that?

If so then good for you, at least that would make you consistent.
Click to expand...

Not true either. Sexual classifications require a higher degree of scrutiny than rational basis. If you see the opinion in Lawrence v Texas, you see that the court is moving in the direction of treating sexual orientation with increasingly higher levels of scrutiny. You don't really have an equal protection or due process argument for things like 13 year olds marrying adults or whatever else you're implying.

Now, if the vast majority of states maintain same-sex marriage bans you probably won't find the SCOTUS taking a case on same sex marriage (they were only really willing to issue Lawrence when the vast majority of states were removing sodomy laws--I imagine the same will be true of same sex marriage). Once they do field a case, whenever that is, it will be ruled unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
 
RChildress107 said:
How is it fundemental to our very existence and survival?
Click to expand...

Ask the SCOTUS. You said it wasn't a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. I'm merely pointing out that the SCOTUS has already said that is not correct.

It hasn't been expanded to same-sex marriage yet, but the right itself per the court is in fact fundamental.
 
Last edited:
RChildress107 said:
How is it fundemental to our very existence and survival?
Click to expand...

One last thing. Regarding it being fundamental to our existence, I think it's being referred to in a historical sense, in that it's always been fundamental as a people that we get married -- that it's been a vestige of society for thousands of years. Now, in a legal sense/due process sense, the argument that someone like Scalia would make is that is true, but there is no history/tradition to extend it to gay marriage (which is true, but again, if you read Lawrence, you'll see that they'll limit it and focus on the modern trend rather than historical limitation).

I don't think you'll ever see sexual orientation treated the same way as racial classifications, but I think you're still seeing/going to see a broader judicial trend in wiping out invidious discrimination. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the gay marriage domino will topple by 2030 or earlier.
 
RChildress107 said:
I wasn't aware of this. Thank you for pointing that out. I imagine that some of the reasons for declaring marriage a fundamental right would not carry over as easily to homosexual relationships
Click to expand...

No, you're right when looked at through a due process history/tradition lens, it isn't the same (which is why the court hasn't addressed it yet). In order to get around that little detail, they're going to wait until there are broader state trends approving of gay marriage IMO and then use similar justification as Lawrence v Texas to see there's a modern trend to accept gay marriage etc etc as a way of getting around the history and tradition test (since there was no history/tradition for allowing sodomy either but they still declared those laws unconstitutional).

I apologize for the way oversimplified/poorly explained background, but I think in general terms this is where the court is going.
 
RJKarl said:
You are being totally ridiculous. There is no rational reason why two men or two women can't get married if a man and a woman can.

It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

Rj never grasps that what seems rational to him is not necessarily rational.

Where did the concept of marriage originate? With religion, right? At some point the state got involved and started conferring certain rights on those who had been married for religious purposes. Then it became necessary for the state to have some rules about marriages. If I can find a crazy enough preacher, I could marry a goat, but the state doesn't have to recognize it.

The end of all of this should be that the state is permitted to do what it wants in permitting or forbidding marriages. Religious organizations can choose to not participate if they wish. The state laws allowing couples to make medical decisions for loved ones, pass property between spouses, etc. shouldn't be restricted by sexual orientation. I'd be okay voting against based on this reasoning, although I would disagree with a church that married same sex couples.

I note that no one has stood up for the marital rights of polygamists. The reason, i suspect, is that polygamy is offensive to most people, so no one stands up to demand rights for them. But id be interested in hearing what people think about it.
 
RChildress107 said:
I was simply addressing the rational basis and not necessarily what the legal conclusion would be. I think you've given an accurate summary of where the courts are heading and they clearly believe they have found space in the law to potentially allow for gay marriage but still prohibit other marriages between consenting adults.

In my opinion that space doesnt exist on purely logical grounds. I concede that there is one logical argument for a society to allow gay marriage, but this argument eventually leads to allowing anyone the right to marry anyone, which would lead to a fundamental change in the institution of marriage. I'm personally fine with this. However, many people, including gay marriage supporters, are not.
Click to expand...

I think you have to look at it through the eyes of discrimination and you'll see it won't establish as broad of a precedent as you may think.

In the Loving case I quoted from, the court struck down bans on interracial marriage. It wasn't a fundamental change to marriage in the court's eyes, but rather just looked at through the scope of eliminating racial discrimination.

I think you'll see the same thing regarding same sex at some point. Though it alters marriage more than removing interracial marriage bans, you just look at it through the lens of extending equal rights to those of different sexual orientation, with marriage being one of those rights. If you do that, you don't run into all these problems of what will happen in the future. There is no other classification of a group where the court has tried to prevent discrimination.

So what I'm asking is what do you mean it permits the right for anyone to marry anyone? Courts haven't treated polygamists the same as homosexuals, nor my example of minors marrying adults. You'd have to go through hoops to argue that polygamists are an insular group which is being discriminated against, and have the court be willing to apply a higher level of scrutiny. I think that is a real stretch. In regards to 10 year olds or something marrying 40 year old adults, that isn't happening because all the state needs to do is provide a legitimate justification for preventing such marriages from existing, and there are about 1000 reasons which the court would uphold, so I don't see the precedential worry in regards to opening flood gates for marriage. I get your concern but it would be more of extending all fundamental rights to homosexuals than it would be in regards to impacting marriage directly.
 
DeacDiggler said:
I note that no one has stood up for the marital rights of polygamists. The reason, i suspect, is that polygamy is offensive to most people, so no one stands up to demand rights for them. But id be interested in hearing what people think about it.
Click to expand...

I will admit 100% to being ignorant about this so perhaps these cases exist and I'm unaware, but polygamists aren't treated by the court as an insular group being discriminated against which is entitled to higher levels of protection. Sexual orientation isn't treated the same as gender/racial/religion discrimination, but laws based on sexual discrimination require greater justification than anything other than what I've listed. So from a practical standpoint, you just don't have courts willing to consider polygamists in the same light as you do homosexuals.

From a moral perspective, you're right, but I don't see how that argument is a non-starter. Homosexuals wouldn't be allowed to marry in this country 100 years ago (just like interracial couples wouldn't, sodomy laws were banned etc). As something becomes more accepted by the country as a whole, more rights are often given to that group. If we all decided tomorrow for some reason that incest was awesome but laws were still discriminating against incestuous relationships, my guess is you'd see courts begin to treat them differently as well. Prevailing public sentiment certainly impacts the court to an extent, but I don't think that's unusual.

If homosexuality hadn't become more accepted you probably would still have sodomy bans and gay marriage would be way way off in the future.
 
DeacDiggler said:
I note that no one has stood up for the marital rights of polygamists. The reason, i suspect, is that polygamy is offensive to most people, so no one stands up to demand rights for them. But id be interested in hearing what people think about it.
Click to expand...

For whatever it is worth I don't give a rat's ass about polygamy if consenting adults want this with their lives. Most polygamy that we see now involves minors.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who carries this to marrying goats or sisters marrying brothers is demonizing perfectly honest and good gay people. It's totally disgraceful.

No church has to conduct any marriage. Today there are thousands of churches that don't do interfaith marriages and that's fine.

It's quite different for the state to make one group of good people second class citizens and deny them rights and privileges other good people get.
 
Where is ReadThePostBeforePreachingDeac? Or at least NotRJ?
 
I'm kind of curious by what RChildress means when he says "Anyone will be able to marry anyone. Think about that."

Is that a reference to incest? Or polygamy?
 
Throughout our history every form of discrimination, whether it be on the basis of gender, race, or religion has eventually been rejected by our society. The same will eventually be true with regard to sexual orientation. This should not be a liberal or conservative issue. In fact conservatives should be in favor of liberty for and lack of government intrusion in the lives of homosexuals. These slippery slope arguments like man will be able to marry goats and children will be getting married are just stupid in my opinion. I encourage everyone who has not seen it to go on YouTube and search for Ted Olson's interview with Rachel Maddow after Prop 8 was found unconstitutional. I would link it or embed it here but I'm posting from my phone and do not know how to do that.
 
I think the issue is that conservatives often tend to be more religious and have a hard time separating religious belief from governmental philosophy. I know I do but work to stay clear of this.
 
i'll stand up for the rights of polygamy. who gives a damn? if a dude wants to deal with multiple wives more power to his dumb ass.
 
DeacDiggler said:
I think the issue is that conservatives often tend to be more religious and have a hard time separating religious belief from governmental philosophy. I know I do but work to stay clear of this.
Click to expand...

by "tending to be more religious" i'm assuming that you mean follow the appropriate version of god in an outward manner.
 
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Domestic partnership is between Adam and Steve. I have no problem with that, but as it clearly states in the Bible, marriage is reserved for the opposite sexes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top