Except when they can and do restrict or take away a right from a group without a compelling legal reason.  I've provided examples.   I'm not sure what else you need to understand that your utopian law beliefs just don't hold true in the real world.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 12:09:00 PM (view original):
Except when they can and do restrict or take away a right from a group without a compelling legal reason.  I've provided examples.   I'm not sure what else you need to understand that your utopian law beliefs just don't hold true in the real world.

You're making the assumption that there isn't a compelling reason for the laws you cited previously.  I'd be willing to bet that either there is or that the law has never been challenged in court.

Try to stay on topic though.  If you have some legal argument against allowing same sex marriage, I'd love to hear it.

I don't care about SSM.   My point, all along, has been that states are banning it.   I'm sure they read the constitution the same way you do but interpret it differently.  Because, like the Bible, it's open to interpretation.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I don't care about SSM.   My point, all along, has been that states are banning it.   I'm sure they read the constitution the same way you do but interpret it differently.  Because, like the Bible, it's open to interpretation.

Your point is that states are banning it?  That's not an argument, just a statement of fact.  The weather girl on the local news gives more insight than that.

Well, it wouldn't need to be made if you weren't so adamant that they can't ban it.    

I never said they couldn't pass the same sex marriage ban.  Just that the ban was unconstitutional.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 9:44:00 AM (view original):
The government probably shouldn't be involved in marriage. But it is. As long as it is, it can't discriminate against a group without a compelling reason. There isn't one.

If any of you have one, I'm happy to hear it.

This.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I never said they couldn't pass the same sex marriage ban.  Just that the ban was unconstitutional.

Yet they're doing it.  What gives?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:07:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:00:00 AM (view original):
Polygamy seems to be illegal. 

Polygamy is illegal for everyone. The government doesn't allow it for some and not others.

Seems that some religions find it OK.   Much like your religion approves of same sex marriage.

The government allows for everyone to be married.   To the opposite sex.  One at a time.    You can't marry 3-4 people and you can't marry a turnip.   Seems that there are specifc rules to getting married.  

this

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:24:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:21:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:18:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/10/2012 10:10:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 10:04:00 AM (view original):
It's tradition going back to when marriages were arraigned and daughters were sold off with goats. "The way we've done it before" doesn't mean we can't allow others to do it differently.

And for the government to discriminate against a group of people, there needs to be a compelling legal reason. And, so far, a compelling legal reason doesn't exist.

Felons can't vote.  
Naturalized citizens can't be President.

Why?
Are convicted felons incapable of making rational political decisions?
If you're not born in the US are you incapable of leading the country?

DISCRIMINATION!!!!!

Many states allow felons to vote.

But beside the point, there are valid legal reasons for those distinctions.

List the compelling legal reasons. 

I dont know them. But I wouldn't stand in the way of a challenge to those laws.

Please list the legal reasons to deny same sex couples the right to marry.

I've already told you it's religion-based.   You're the one claiming that there has to be compelling legal reasons to discriminate against a group of people.   I don't think "compelling legal reasons" is the only reason specific laws are made.

This.

I guess I could keep quoting posts but it seems pointless.

I've made every point I've attempted to make. 

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 10:40:00 AM (view original):
We're arguing two different points. You're saying that a judge could be influenced by his own religious beliefs. Absolutely true.

I'm saying that in the US, arguing that a law should upheld because of what is written in the bible isn't a valid legal reason.

But this is where you agreed with me.  Until you didn't.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/10/2012 9:44:00 AM (view original):
The government probably shouldn't be involved in marriage. But it is. As long as it is, it can't discriminate against a group without a compelling reason. There isn't one.

If any of you have one, I'm happy to hear it.

This.

When I say it can't, I mean it's not constitutional.  Sorry for not clarifying that sooner.

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/11/2012 2:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/11/2012 1:57:00 PM (view original):
I never said they couldn't pass the same sex marriage ban.  Just that the ban was unconstitutional.

Yet they're doing it.  What gives?

So all laws passed are constitutional?

And I'm STILL waiting for you to give one legal reason that same sex marriage should be banned.