Buy lorazepam….

Is this the typical caliber of writing here? Excellent.

According to the French decision, the approval of same-sex marriage would have placed the “aspirations of adults” above the “needs of children”. Adoptions by gay couples were also rejected. Other rights for same-sex civil unions, however, enjoy wide support in France.

Personally, I can imagine some instances when it might be a good idea to place a particular adoptive child with a gay couple or with a single parent. But to deprive a child of the chance to have a mother and father simply on the basis of the “rights” of same-sex couples, by force of law, does not seem to me to be in the best interests of most adoptive children. The preponderance of evidence indicates that children do best in a stable home with a mother and a father.

kangjie
Some more arguement against the Epo vs gay marriage
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA504.html

A 2004 opinion article about equal protection rather than any legal authority or even a legal argument.

So again, via this article, you try to put forth the intellectually dishonest ideal that marriage is only one man and woman when such laws have been struck down.

kangjie
More arguement. EPO vs gay marriage

And yet another opinion piece from someone who think is it perfectly fine to violate equal protection. And this is relevant because?

Have anything else or are you going to just keep posting the same unsubstantiated claim over and over?

You may not like the idea of such protections under the law or SSM, but you don’t have to for other to be able to exercise their rights.

It still stands that marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. Any adult (not teenager, blood relative or animal for those so hung up on such irrelevant tangents) can enter into such a civil contract.

So what exactly are you going to do when most, if not all states, legalize SSM?

kangjie
Also this from the washington Supreme court
Excerpt follows

First, no link to the source. Not my job to find your sources.

Secondly, still odd how you failed to address the cited and linked SC ruling that was posted.

The argument is still about equal protection under the law unless you have something that supersedes that or allows the state and federal governments to not uphold equal protection.

kangjie
Acutally your claim is intellectually dishonest, the claim based on what the law is.

And which law is that? The one recently struck down as in violation of equal protection?

You can not marry someone under a certain age and not your immediate kin.

And again with your obsession about incest and marrying the young. Again, two adults getting married has nothing to do with incest or teens marrying.

So you parrot my post about being intellectually dishonest with posting another intellectually dishonest post about incent? Is that all you can argue with?

This has nothing to do with opponents of SSM. The marriage laws were like this before the topic of SSM every cam about.

No, this is incorrect. This has everything to do with SSM. That is what the topic is, not the typical xian tangent of incest, marrying teens and of course, bestiality.

And again, what laws? We are talking about SSM, even if you are not.

Who is hung up on it? I am just pointing it out as a restricition on people you can and can not marry.
It just happens to be true.

No, you are bringing an irrelevant tangent and trying to equate SSM with incest. This argument is about personal freedoms.

I get the point you do not like the arguement but that is your problem not mine and does not make it invalid.

Not liking the argument is irrelevant. You seem to be missing the point that two adults getting married has nothing to do with incest or teenagers marrying.

So in trying to rational explain why SSM should be made illegal all you can do in to post outdate and irrational arguments?

The opponents of Prop. 8 claim the Equal Protection Clause was designed for exactly that – to stop the states from violating someones rights based on . . .

Based on what? A behavior? The Equal Protection Clause was a direct result of the abolition of slavery in the United States. The 14th amendment was designed to protect blacks, or any racial group, against unfair treatment. The Equal Protection Clause was written to protect ethnicity and race – not behavior! Since behavior, such as homosexuality, is not specifically addressed in the U.S. Constitution, that means it is not a federal issue, and it is up to the individual states to address the issue – and if a state wishes to ban gay marriage in its state constitution, it is entitled to do so. The federal government cannot (though it has unlawfully in the past) overturn state law or amendments. It is unlawful for the federal government to do so according to the U.S. Constitution!

This very application, in turn, makes the Roe v. Wade decision unconstitutional (Roe v. Wade overturned a Texas State Law). It also makes the practice of the federal government shutting down medical marijuana facilities in California (as long as the drug does not cross state lines the issue remains a state issue) illegal as well. I don’t agree with the legalization of medical marijuana, but from a legal and Constitutional point of view, the state has a right to make such law without federal interference.

In reality, like Roe v. Wade did for abortion, the courts legalizing gay marriage with a court decision (and overturning state law) was unconstitutional in the first place. It is not for the courts to “make” law. Making law is the responsibility of the legislature. The courts were tasked by our founding fathers to provide an “opinion,” and then it is up to the legislature to act upon that opinion by the courts “if” they choose to.

The U.S. Constitution was written to limit the federal government from dictating law to the states, and the branches were set up as they were to limit the judiciary from having too much power. “States Rights” and “The People” are the central themes of the founding documents. Contrary to the lawsuits coming against Proposition 8, the voters have a right to interpret the Constitution, and change it, with their vote.

The Constitution belongs to “The People.” The U.S. Constitution was written for the people, of the people, and by the people. Besides, one does not have to have a law degree to recognize the original intent. However, if the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, and decides to overturn California’s Proposition 8, there is going to be some serious issues rising from it regarding federal intrusion into state issues.

Excerpt follows
Equal Protection Under the Law: Is Andrew Sullivan Right About Gay Marriage?

by Amy Ridenour

Andrew Sullivan, likely the nation’s most prolific defender of gay marriage, offered this opinion on February 17: “…under almost any rational understanding of equal protection, civil marriage has to be extended to gay couples.”

Sullivan relies on an unprovable and unsound assumption, that is, that there is a class of people who are inherently separate and distinct from other people based simply on their announcement of a preference, even a temporary one, for sexual relations with a person of their own gender.

In other words, Sullivan believes the Constitution requires the law to accommodate, by requiring the rewriting of long-held laws and the abandonment of fundamental assumptions about society and morality, the notion that these individuals have determined for themselves that they represent a distinct class under the law.

If Sullivan is right, any group anywhere could announce themselves to be a distinct class under the law, simply by asserting a preference contrary to the established norm in a matter regulated, subsidized, or affected by government policies. That is, after all, essentially all the homosexual advocacy organizations have done

The Washington Supreme Court found that gay and lesbian people aren’t members of a “suspect class” that would bring us within the protections of the Equal Protection Clause because (1) they questioned whether sexual orientation is an “immutable” characteristic, as opposed to a “behavioral” matter; and (2) they found that recent passage of laws protecting lesbians and gay men from other types of discrimination — combined with the recent elections of openly gay and lesbian politicians to statewide office — prove that gays and lesbians have sufficient access to political power that the courts need not intervene to protect us. Because of these findings, the Court concluded that Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) must be upheld if it bears any rational relation to any legitimate legislative purpose.

The Court went on to hold that — while marriage clearly is a fundamental right — same-sex marriage is not. By so holding, they basically are putting same-sex marriage in its own category. In other words, rather than treating same-sex marriage as an extension of the fundamental right to marry to people previously denied that right, they are acting like there are two essentially different varieties of marriage: different-sex marriage and same-sex marriage. And while different-sex marriage is an absolutely fundamental right strongly protected by both federal and state constitutions, apparently same-sex marriage is not entitled to any such protections.

The primary reason given by the courts for treating same-sex marriage as a different beast from different-sex marriage is that — according to these courts — different-sex marriage is fundamentally tied to procreation and child-rearing, while same-sex marriage isn’t.

Gene
First of all, that claim is an intellectually dishonest one based upon the limitation of what marriage is to opponents of same sex marriage.

Acutally your claim is intellectually dishonest, the claim based on what the law is. You can not marry someone under a certain age and not your immediate kin. This has nothing to do with opponents of SSM. The marriage laws were like this before the topic of SSM every cam about.

Again with the incest? Why is it that opponents of SSM are so hung up on such an irrelevant issue?

If this is the best arguments you have, then you will fail to stop SSM.

Who is hung up on it? I am just pointing it out as a restricition on people you can and can not marry.
It just happens to be true
I get the point you do not like the arguement but that is your problem not mine and does not make it invalid.

How significant would the reduction in traditional marriage be? I don’t think we have enough data to compute this scientifically, based on the handful of states that have legalized same-sex marriage thus far,

That may be true in the U.S., but hasn’t SSM been around for awhile in the more progressive European countries? (Sweden and the Netherlands come to mind.)

How is that working out for them?

Did you even read the post? You are missing the whole point! Read it again, we do not want 4% of the population to change an age old tradition!

Susanboo on May 14, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Unpopularity and tradition two of the worst reasons not to do the right thing.

Susanboo
Did you even read the post? You are missing the whole point! Read it again, we do not want 4% of the population to change an age old tradition!

Such a desire to protect tradition does not hold up to legal challenges. Tradition cannot be used to violate equal protection under the law.

Kangjie
He did demonstrate it. Gay men and women have the same rights as straight men and women when it comes to marriage.

First of all, that claim is an intellectually dishonest one based upon the limitation of what marriage is to opponents of same sex marriage.

Secondly, it doesn’t hold up to the clause and condition you cited: equal protection under the law.

They can marry someone of the opposite sex and over a certain age and not your immediate kin.

Again, not an honest or reasonable demand. And why do opponents of SSM keep bringing up incest?

They are not discrimnated against anymore than a person wanting to marry is first cousin or a 16 year old without there parents consent.

Again with the incest? Why is it that opponents of SSM are so hung up on such an irrelevant issue?

If this is the best arguments you have, then you will fail to stop SSM.

There are mechanism in place of many states that allow a 16 year old to marry without the consent of their parents.

And yes, you are discriminating against homosexuals when you try to deny them the right to enter into the civil contract of marriage.

You have failed to address equal protection under the law or how the court addressed the issue.

They have the same rights as I do when it comes to mariage.

Only in states that had legalized SSM.

The courst cases will be decided by politics and not law.

No, they will be decided by law since this is a nation of laws and not one of mob rule.

In the cased of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, there was a state law in place designed to “protect” the definition of marriage.

It failed to stand up to legal challenge based upon the grantee of equal protection under the law.

Liberal, yes convervative no.

If one in interested in upholding the law as cited by the court case, then political party is irrelevant.

Again, you failed to address the findings of the court ruling or how the law views marriage as nothing more than a civil contract.

Tell me how gays are any less capable of keeping those vows — which perhaps more than anything define marriage in our culture — and I’ll oppose gay marriage.
Allowing gays to marry would reaffirm that love matters, and that marriage can be a blessing for both parties. It strengthens the institution to offer a more perfect fulfillment of the ideals of marriage.

RightOFLeft on May 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM

Did you even read the post? You are missing the whole point! Read it again, we do not want 4% of the population to change an age old tradition!

This case is no different. Unless you can illustrate just how equal protection under the law does not protect the right of a person to enter into the civil contract of marriage, then your arguments will not affect these legal rulings and in the end will not prevent or stop same sex marriage.

Gene Splicer on May 14, 2009 at 12:14 PM

He did demonstrate it. Gay men and women have the same rights as straight men and women when it comes to marriage.
They can marry someone of the opposite sex and over a certain age and not your immediate kin.
They are not discrimnated against anymore than a person wanting to marry is first cousin or a 16 year old without there parents consent.
They have the same rights as I do when it comes to mariage.
The courst cases will be decided by politics and not law
Liberal, yes convervative no.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf

The arguments about tradition, judicial activism and having to prove this or that to the majority who seek the mob rule to keep marriage limited to their definition of it are all irrelevant to the legal issue of marriage, same sex or otherwise.

This is the way it breaks down whether you agree with the ruling or not.

The courts cannot address the religious aspects of the religious ceremony of marriage. The government, state or federal, can only address the laws, rights and topics related to both.

Likewise, tradition, in this case, failed to provide any support when it comes to the law in the case of supporting the claim that marriage is to be limited to one man and one woman.

It comes down to what marriage is seen as in the eyes of the law, exercising of rights and protection of rights.

In the eyes of the law, marriage is just a civil contract and as a civil contract between consenting adults there are certain realities to that contract.

In the case of marriage, I need no input of a religious body or representative or go through a ceremony of any sort in order to get married. This means that the interjection of religion and the related religious ceremony is solely up to those involved. A Justice of the Peace or a judge is all that is required by law.

As a civil contract, if one party violates any part of that contract, then the damaged party can seek reparations and the termination of that contract and of course any one of the parties involved can seek to end that contract due to a desire to no longer operate under that contract.

Now, since marriage is nothing more than a civil contract, the law must determine who is allowed to enter into that civil contract. This is where the equal protection under the law comes into play.

Since religion and religious concerns cannot be taken into account and tradition, both secular and religious, has failed to defend their related claims that marriage must remain between a man and woman alone, the courts have no choice but to view the civil contract of marriage as any other contract.

This means that under the right of equal protection under the law no one can be prevented from entering into a civil contract such a marriage any more than any other civil contract can be denied to some and not others

You may not agree with their ruling, but unless you address the legal reasons the ruling was made, all of your arguments against it are moot since they stem from points that the courts have already considered and found lacking in supporting their claims and objections agianst same sex marraige.

Simplistic dismissal of the court ruling(s) also will not serve any purpose other than to paint the opposition as seeking to ignore the law in favor of a mob rule.

When mob rule or popular opinion runs counter to the law and those of left leaning ideologies use such a tactic, those of right leaning ideologies point out the law and the related violation and rightfully so.

This case is no different. Unless you can illustrate just how equal protection under the law does not protect the right of a person to enter into the civil contract of marriage, then your arguments will not affect these legal rulings and in the end will not prevent or stop same sex marriage.

If the sex of the participants in a marriage can be ruled irrelevant, how could the number of participants be eternally fixed at precisely two?

The weird thing about the polygamy argument is that you would have to believe that polygamy is harmless to say that there’s no rationale for discriminating on the basis of the number of participants in a marriage. Do you really think that polygamy is harmless? If not, maybe you should be advocating legalization of polygamy. If so, then you’ve already answered your own question.

For the record, polygamous marriages — which ironically only exist in the societies that most stringently restrict homosexual behavior — are inherently imbalanced and unfair to some of the parties involved. There are living examples of the harm that polygamy causes to the communities that practice it.

It will take a lot more than a lucky Supreme Court case. It will take a sea change in social attitudes towards polygamy. Nobody but a fringe of a fringe really wants polygamy. That change is no more likely in a society that sanctions gay marriages than in a society that hangs people for the crime of sodomy. Ok, that’s not exactly true. The countries that hang people for having gay sex are actually a little more likely to practice polygamy.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

-The Book of Common Prayer, first published in 1549.

Tell me how gays are any less capable of keeping those vows — which perhaps more than anything define marriage in our culture — and I’ll oppose gay marriage.

The statutory definition of marriage will not change, as far as heterosexual marriages are concerned. The law will still offer the exact same incentives and obligations to married couples. The cultural definition, as reflected in the wedding vows, will remain the same. Two people love each other, they get married. The rest comes naturally.

“Goin’ to the chapel and we’re
Gonna get married
Goin’ to the chapel and we’re
Gonna get married
Gee, I really love you and we’re
Gonna get married
Goin’ to the chapel of love”

-The Dixie Cups

The institution of marriage crumbles a little more as each generation takes the more cynical view that marriage really isn’t about love. It’s about tax advantages. Insurance benefits. Visitation rights. It’s about getting alimony. It’s just like having a boyfriend or girlfriend, except you need a lawyer to break up.

Allowing gays to marry would reaffirm that love matters, and that marriage can be a blessing for both parties. It strengthens the institution to offer a more perfect fulfillment of the ideals of marriage.

I have numerous gay friends, lived with a gay man for two years before I was married, and have lost quite a few to AIDS. I am no homophobe. But I draw the line at marriage. This post gives me hope that I am not alone and that my views are rational and not just emotional.

I am increasingly revolted by what I call the “gayification” of America. I don’t understand why a group that is 4 percent of the population has suddenly decided it has to tear down every social institution that has built America and throw itself in my face every time I turn around. I’m an Episcopalian by choice, and I don’t understand why my church is falling apart because one selfish man decided to leave his wife and take up with a man, and then got himself elected a Bishop. I don’t like having to read 20 pages of an AIDS education program my sixth-grader just brought home. I don’t like having to explain to my young children why their relative calls a person of the same sex a “spouse” and toasts this union at an important family birthday celebration.

Enough. be a homosexual if you want, be a bisexual, be a multi-sexual, whatever. Create your own institution for honoring your relationships. But leave ours alone!

Insisting that opposition to an idea can only be evidence of stupidity and hatred imposes the tyranny of false choices. Telling free people their only options are to support the re-definition of marriage, or be denounced as imbecilic close-minded hate-mongers, is not offering them a “choice”… and if they accept those terms, they aren’t free people.

Bingo… Excellent post Doc. I vote to have this post elevated to HA front page status.

Those who criticize the defenders of traditional marriage often speak of them as if they were defective computers, in need of a reboot and the latest set of Progressive Attitude v5.0 patches.

Yep.

I’d wonder how they expect to gain support for their point of view by acting that way, but this has never been about earning the public’s support.

This is about getting what they want, by any means necessary. Hence why the judiciary is their best friend. A judge has the power to force society to comply with their demands.

I’m proud to be a hateful homophobic bigot in their eyes. Politeness gets one nowhere with these fascists, so it’s time to stop being polite. I know I’m done with it.

I oppose gay marriage, and I make no apologies for doing so. Come and stomp on my cross like you did to that old lady, you cowardly bullies.

Didn’t see you tools riding into black and hispanic neighborhoods to threaten their churches like you did to the Mormons, even though they put Prop 8 over the top. Gee, I wonder why? White people are easier targets, aren’t they?

It will be a great day when these supposed gay rights advocates muster a tenth of the outrage over the habitual murder of homosexuals overseas in Islamic countries as they do for us evil bigoted monsters who make the horrible crime of disagreeing with them.

I feel sorry for the homosexuals out there who know how to politely and respectfully advocate for what they want. (Even more so for those who just want to be left alone with their lifestyle. My quarrel never has and never will be with them.) They deserve better than the McCarthyism, bullying, and bigotry that it is in vogue on their side.