Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):
The question is what vital interest does the court have in overturning the will of the people?

Protecting the minority from the will of the people is a vital duty of the courts.  That was clearly the founders' intent.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 4:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 4:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 3:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 3:15:00 PM (view original):
You've already dismissed religious reasons.    I assume you don't feel that religi-folk have valid opinions/reasons.    I've said, repeatedly, that many of our laws have moral backgrounds.   And many of our moral backgrounds come from religion.  If laws are going to be passed for moral reasons, that seems like a legal reason.    You just don't like that. 

If you were going to go to court and argue that same sex marriage should be banned, how successful do you think you would be if your only argument was, "some religious people consider it immoral"?

Aren't states banning SSM right now?   What do you think their reasoning is?   What, exactly, do you think their argument consists of?

Answer the question.  I've answer several of yours.

If you had to go to court and argue against same sex marriage, do you think it's likely that you would win with a "some religious people consider it immoral" argument?

Still waiting for a yes or no.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 4:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/16/2012 4:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2012 8:23:00 PM (view original):
The example stipulated exactly what I typed.   Two strangers met and fell in love.   You seem to believe one set is cool to get married yet there's a problem with the other set.   I want to understand why you think there's a difference. 

"Two strangers met and fell in love.   You seem to believe one set is cool to get married yet there's a problem with the other set.   I want to understand why you think there's a difference."



Read that again. And again. And again until you realize how it undercuts your entire argument.

No need to.  Are you denying that there's any possibility that one has never met a sibling at an advanced age without knowing said sibling even existed?  Women put children up for adoption every day.   Women leave husbands, with their children, every day.    Do you think they stop procreating when that happens?  

That's just utterly stupid. 

Good god, are you just playing dumb?



"You (MikeT23) seem to believe one set is cool to get married (teh breeders) yet there's a problem with the other set (teh ghey)."


Oh, btw, I never claimed incest was morally wrong. I said it was considered taboo across most cultures, the taboo pre-dates Christianity, and that it is likely due to genetic reasons.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 4:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by genghisxcon on 5/16/2012 4:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Incest is only illegal based on morality.  We've already determined that the government doesn't care about health issues.  Religious folk consider homosexuality immoral.   Something has to give.  

Debunked several pages ago.

When certain Grand Canyon-sized holes are made in your arguments (and many have been pointed out), you quickly move to something else. Watching you squirm is also fun. But mostly, I admire the way you can spout the most idiotic drivel with boundless condescension. It's like you're the Jonah Goldberg of WIS.

Please point it out.  

see above post

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):
The question is what vital interest does the court have in overturning the will of the people?

Protecting the minority from the will of the people is a vital duty of the courts.  That was clearly the founders' intent.

So every state must be in line with the Central government?

And the people have no rights? Even a large majority of the people across many states? 

The SC will set this radical judicial activism right.

The issue, as I see it, comes down to the difference in perception of "marriage" vs. "civil union" or domestic partnership". 

Marriage is a ceremony that is meant to be carried out in a church, and is then recognized by the government as a legal contract.

Civil union / domestic partnership should (key word there) carry the same weight, without the church affiliation.

Do they carry the same legal weight? If that answer is "yes" then is arument should have been dead on arrival.

As one of those "religi-type" peoples, I disagree with the idea of SSM, but fully support the ideas of civil unions and such.  I think it opens up a pandoras box of all kinds of problems when the government attempts to force the church to change its standards of marriage.  I know there all kinds of problems already (the whole "sanctimony" of marriage argument has lost a lot of its luster) but there should still be this separation between the two.

If a church wants to allow it, then they should be allowed to, but they should not be forced to change their standards, because the government says so.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 9:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):
The question is what vital interest does the court have in overturning the will of the people?

Protecting the minority from the will of the people is a vital duty of the courts.  That was clearly the founders' intent.

So every state must be in line with the Central government?

And the people have no rights? Even a large majority of the people across many states? 

The SC will set this radical judicial activism right.

It's not that every state has to be in line. When you have the majority voting away rights of the minority, there needs to be protection for the minority. We don't live in a pure democracy.

Posted by wrmiller13 on 5/16/2012 9:04:00 PM (view original):
The issue, as I see it, comes down to the difference in perception of "marriage" vs. "civil union" or domestic partnership". 

Marriage is a ceremony that is meant to be carried out in a church, and is then recognized by the government as a legal contract.

Civil union / domestic partnership should (key word there) carry the same weight, without the church affiliation.

Do they carry the same legal weight? If that answer is "yes" then is arument should have been dead on arrival.

As one of those "religi-type" peoples, I disagree with the idea of SSM, but fully support the ideas of civil unions and such.  I think it opens up a pandoras box of all kinds of problems when the government attempts to force the church to change its standards of marriage.  I know there all kinds of problems already (the whole "sanctimony" of marriage argument has lost a lot of its luster) but there should still be this separation between the two.

If a church wants to allow it, then they should be allowed to, but they should not be forced to change their standards, because the government says so.

No one is arguing that a church needs to change its standards. Just that the state allow same sex couples to marry (many of those marriages do take place in churches that accept SSM).

Why? If there is no legal difference between the two standards?

You don't think this would lead to a rash of lawsuits against other churches? Because they will not allow SSM to take place in their house?

Posted by wrmiller13 on 5/16/2012 9:21:00 PM (view original):
Why? If there is no legal difference between the two standards?

You don't think this would lead to a rash of lawsuits against other churches? Because they will not allow SSM to take place in their house?

SSM are taking place in several states. How many lawsuits have been filed against churches to force them to perform ceremonies?

Don't know. Just know that in my church of choice, the Presbyterians, there has been a very small minority that eventually wore down the rest of the group into subtly changing the bylaws of the entire order.

Re-wrote the qualifications to be a pastor, leaving the door open for an openly gay, or openly adulterous, person to become a pastor.  Of course they leave the final choice up to the individual church.  But I can just imagine the lawsuit if an openly gay ordained minister is not chosen for a position.  Even if he / she loses the lawsuit, it could severely damage the already thin finances that most smaller churches (like mine) operate with.

The bylaws used to say something to the effect of a duly called pastor had to married (to someone of the opposite sex), chaste if single.  They could obviously be dating (and who knows what might be going on behind closed doors), but not openly gay or openly sexually active if single.

That seems like more of an issue with homosexuals in general, unrelated to marriage.

Posted by wrmiller13 on 5/16/2012 9:21:00 PM (view original):
Why? If there is no legal difference between the two standards?

You don't think this would lead to a rash of lawsuits against other churches? Because they will not allow SSM to take place in their house?

Sounds like separate but equal, the sequel. Anyway, if there's no legal difference, should the state be involved in legislating a linguistic matter? Also...


What religion gets to have its conception of marriage codified in law?
What about religions that don't object to SSM?
Do atheists have to have civil unions if they aren't married in the church?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 9:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 9:03:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/16/2012 8:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 3:24:00 PM (view original):
The question is what vital interest does the court have in overturning the will of the people?

Protecting the minority from the will of the people is a vital duty of the courts.  That was clearly the founders' intent.

So every state must be in line with the Central government?

And the people have no rights? Even a large majority of the people across many states? 

The SC will set this radical judicial activism right.

It's not that every state has to be in line. When you have the majority voting away rights of the minority, there needs to be protection for the minority. We don't live in a pure democracy.

So who gets to decide if its a Civil Right or just an issue?

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/16/2012 7:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/16/2012 5:16:00 PM (view original):
I'm going to help you because this is sort of like fishing with dynamite.

Laws banning SSM are being passed because politicians are pandering for votes.   The majority of the US either A) objects to SSM(probably based on religious views) or B) just doesn't care about SSM.   If a lawmaker passes a law that goes thru federal courts in three years and gets repealed, he's still pacified his constituency and/or may not even be in office. 

This topic has now gone full circle since the first post was about Obama pandering for votes by saying he's for SSM.   The people who aren't going to vote for him aren't doing it because of his views on SSM. He didn't lose a vote by making a statement.   By being "vague" on the issue, he wasn't getting the support from people who actually care about SSM.  By taking a stand, he's going to get some extra votes. 

I think you are very wrong about the impact on Obama.

There are large numbers of blacks, hispanics and independents who supported Obama in 2008 who are opposed to SSM.

I also think you are wrong about why laws are passing. Politicians are passing laws in a few states to support SSM, It is the people who voted to maintain traditional marriage in 36 states.

I'm going to tell you why I think you're wrong.

Most people don't give a damn about SSM.   Some vehemently oppose it.   They weren't voting for Obama anyway.   I doubt he alienated any group of note, that was undecided or supportive, with his "evolving view".    Trust me, his handlers know more about his demographic than anyone on this board.