How come none of the right-wing predictions about gay marriage came true?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sorry, you have it backwards. There's nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting same sex marriage.
In several states bans on same sex marriage have been ruled as violating those states' constitutions. And it only has to be legal in one state to make all the other states anti-gay marriage laws in violation of the US Constitution.

So it's the people trying to force their belief's on others, by passing anti same sex marriage laws, who are forcing legal action on others.

No. Read Article 10.

Status laws vary across the States. States are free to regulate marriage however they please. Most regulate the age of lawful applicants. Michigan emacipates minors at 17, in Florida Michigan emancipations arent recognized but married minors are legally emancipated. States regulate alcohol consumption by age. Ditto for driver licenses. Ditto for voting rights. Felons cannot vote in Florida.

 

[Powertone]

There's nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting same sex marriage.

now that we've gotten God out of America , the Constitution is like the Magic 8 ball of Rights !

 

[about_average]

No. Read Article 10.

Status laws vary across the States. States are free to regulate marriage however they please. Most regulate the age of lawful applicants. Michigan emacipates minors at 17, in Florida Michigan emancipations arent recognized but married minors are legally emancipated.

I never said otherwise.

A heterosexual couple who are married in Georgia, where you can marry at 16 with parental consent, are not suddenly divorced if them move to Delaware where you have to be 18.

Additionally, LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA ruled that a state refusing to recognize a marriage legal in another state, in this case interracial marriage, violates the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I never said otherwise.

A heterosexual couple who are married in Georgia, where you can marry at 16 with parental consent, are not suddenly divorced if them move to Delaware where you have to be 18.

Additionally, LOVING ET UX. v. VIRGINIA ruled that a state refusing to recognize a marriage legal in another state, in this case interracial marriage, violates the Equal Protection Clause.

If you have an MD license in New York you still cant do medicine in other states. None of these are 14 Amendment protections. You cant marry your mom or sister anywhere.

When it gets to the Supreme Court I expect the Court to defer to the 10th Amendment.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Whenever the people have the opportunity to vote, like in 31 States, they vote Gay Marriage down....that should tell you something....but probably not....what may sour your buttermilk is that Gay and Lesbian Divorces are skyrocketing in every locality that was stupid enough to endorse Homosexual marriages. Worse than that , the Courts are getting really fed up with the adopted Custody cases and the pain and suffering of innocent children will weigh heavy on the entire movement.

Amicus

What a surprise, you're making things up. Maybe that should be a wake up call that you're basing your beliefs on this on pure racism and hatred and not facts.

•The divorce or dissolution rate for same-sex and opposite-sex couples remains about the same, about 2% of couples per year in any state that has marriage or civil union registrations.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-10-gay-marriage-same-sex-couples-New-York-law_n.htm

I'm honestly offended that you would knowingly lie to support your ignorance.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

How come nothing they said about gay marriage came true? Zilch, zero of their doomsday predictions have come to pass. Why not?

god you are stupid. so what if 2 men, or 2 women want to get married?

let them pay more in taxes

 

[about_average]

If you have an MD license in New York you still cant do medicine in other states. None of these are 14 Amendment protections. You cant marry your mom or sister anywhere.

WTF are you going on about?

 

[about_average]

now that we've gotten God out of America , the Constitution is like the Magic 8 ball of Rights !

In case you haven't noticed, there isn't any mention of god, or any supreme being, in the constitution. The closest mentions are:

...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
​

and

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof​

​

- From Thomas Jeffereson's belief there should be a wall of separation between the state and religion.

God is hardly "out of America".
It's on our money, it's in the pledge, churches are a dime a dozen, there are many religious TV programs and stations.

Apparently there's no shortage of "attack on Christians" rhetoric either.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

WTF are you going on about?

10TH Amendment diversity.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

How come nothing they said about gay marriage came true? Zilch, zero of their doomsday predictions have come to pass. Why not?

Obama is President, that doomsday prediction did come true.

 

[mercury14]

~~~

Your logic is impeccable, but, with a faulty premise. Heterosexual marriage carries the promise of an extended family through genetic transfer, family lines, and has always been the fundamental stable factor in all societies in all times.

There has always been small segments of society that don't fit in with the conventional and the traditional, and that is as it should be. But to promote a truly destructive life-style, as concerns society in general, to pacify a small minority, is perverse at best.

Most societies ban public nudity; some allow it in selected places. Boy on boy and girl on girl, is frowned upon by all, but tolerated when it is kept private. The entire Gay movement has done a disastrous disservice to homosexuals in general by trying to 'mainstream' a minority movement and gain acceptance by the general public. It will never, in a million years, happen.

I personally, and I think I reflect the views of most, don't give a damn about your sexual proclivities. What does concern me is the infestation into schools of the gay lifestyle and the uncertainty concerning gender identity that is fomented among the young and innocent by a lifestyle that has no purpose and no future and merely satisfies the desires of a minority. You want freedom? You have it, just don't attempt to force in upon society in general or demand that you have equal rights with traditional and convential social more's. You do not.

Amicus

Here you go with your angry, fearful bigotry once again.

1) You're dead wrong that gay and lesbian couples can't procreate. Factually wrong and monumentally ignorant.

2) It doesn't matter if gay couples procreate. Whether we're talking about gay or straight marriages it's none of your goddamn business what people choose to do with their lives. Heaps of straight couples choose not to "genetically transfer". Many can't or simply prefer not to. It doesn't make their marriage any less valid.

3) Allowing gays to marry doesn't "promote" gay marriage.

4) You have the view that being gay and having a "gay lifestyle" (whatever that is), is "truly destructive" and an "infestation". People say the same thing about being black. Amicus, you're a bigot.

5) The gay lifestyle has "no purpose" and "no future"? Except to gay people? I love these arguments you keep making about homosexuality being an evolutionary dead end with no future. When do you think straight parents are going to stop having gay babies then?

 

[mercury14]

The lefties seem to think forced legal action will yield their definition of "non-discrimination".

If the public can't see the validity of their views...bend 'em to our will via force. I'd be happy to start a collection for tickets to places that operate that way. Then we wouldn't have to listen to their whining!

Please tell me what you're "forced" to do when gay people you don't know get married. And please describe how interracial marriage doesn't force you to do the same thing.

 

[mercury14]

I think your confusing, being forced too accept one's life style, and These dyer prediction.

You're not being "forced to accept a gay lifestyle" any more than a Klan member is forced to accept interracial marriage.

Having the court say yes.... doesn't change public opinion.

Public opinion has surged in favor of legalizing gay marriage. It was ticking about 1% per year until around 2005, then it spiked. Polls now find that more than 50% of Americans want to legalize it, and that figure is increasing 2%-4% each year.

ABC News poll days 51% in favor, 32% against
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51551.html

Gallup poll says 52% in favor, 45% against
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx

Regardless, public opinion was deeply against interracial marriage in huge portions of America when it was legalized. Would you say it shouldn't have been "forced" upon the majority then?

Kalafornia, votes NO on Gay marriage.... Public opinion, majority vote....What happens. "Well, we don't like that.... so, we find a friendly court and over turn the peoples vote"....

The "friendly court" was presided over by a deeply conservative libertarian judge. Meanwhile, the new New York law permitting gay marriage was written and passed by their state's Republican-controlled Senate.

Just remember, forcing people at the point of the courts bayonet won't change how people think or feel. As a matter fact, this will steal people against Gay marriage. maybe not in your little community. I work in states east of the Mississippi.

Nobody is being forced to accept anything. Stop with your victim mentality FFS.

Accept for North east Liberal states, with judges that have over ruled or some numb-nut mayor deciding it's a good Idea for my re-election. States are drawing up legislation so to NOT ACCEPT another states forced acceptance of GAY marriage.

Please tell me where you think Iowa is on the map. East of Rhode Island perhaps? Or California?


I

'm a man who accepts people for their choices in life....It is not my place to judge, BUT, I don't accept being force, to accept your opinion or YOUR choice of life style....

No, you've already said you don't accept people for their choices.

 

[KingOrfeo]

10TH Amendment diversity.

Never base any argument on that! General consensus of constitutional scholars is that the 10th Amendment is all but meaningless.

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution, is often considered to be a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

States and local governments have occasionally attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....

 

[kbate]

~~~

Your logic is impeccable, but, with a faulty premise. Heterosexual marriage carries the promise of an extended family through genetic transfer, family lines, and has always been the fundamental stable factor in all societies in all times.

This is why heterosexual marriage is banned for people over 40, people who do not pass fertility tests and people whose parents and/or relatives are already deceased.

Yep, that extended family sure is important to our law and our constitutional right to equal protection under law.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Never base any argument on that! General consensus of constitutional scholars is that the 10th Amendment is all but meaningless.

There's nuthin dummer than a lawyer, unless its a judge or a legal scholar.

 

[cebalrai]

Gay marriage forces other people's will on you just like the legalization of interracial marriage does. Why should you have to stand for society letting black men marry white women? Why should that be forced upon you?

Same exact argument.

 

[cebalrai]

This is why heterosexual marriage is banned for people over 40, people who do not pass fertility tests and people whose parents and/or relatives are already deceased.

Yep, that extended family sure is important to our law and our constitutional right to equal protection under law.

According to Amicus' intellectually bankrupt logic, hysterectomy consent forms should also have a clause stating that the woman is signing away her legal right to marry. If she can't genetically transfer then what purpose could marriage have for her? Let's make it illegal.

 

[about_average]

10TH Amendment diversity.

We're not talking about homosexuals being doctors, drinking, getting a drivers license or committing felonies.
The subject was marriage and states have to recognize marriages that are legal in other states.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

We're not talking about homosexuals being doctors, drinking, getting a drivers license or committing felonies.
The subject was marriage and states have to recognize marriages that are legal in other states.

Good luck getting benefits for your same-sex spouse in 29 states and from the US Government.

 

[about_average]

Your logic is impeccable, but, with a faulty premise. Heterosexual marriage carries the promise of an extended family through genetic transfer, family lines, and has always been the fundamental stable factor in all societies in all times.

Sorry, yours is the logic that is flawed.

First you argue that same sex marriage is wrong because same sex couples are now getting divorced. I show you how that's a flawed premise so you ignore the fact that it you made an utterly irrelevant point and start talking about procreation.

Well, first, homosexuals are just as capable of passing on their genes as heterosexuals are.
But lets assume you mean that marriage means two heterosexual people having sex with each other and the man fertilizing his spouse and that's a reason same sex marriage is wrong.

By that logic couples who don't won't kids should be banned from marriage, couples where one or both are sterile should be banned from marriage and people for any other number of reasons who can't have kids should be banned from marriage.

Just face reality.
You just think it's wrong and not for any rational reason. But you've decided it's wrong and feel you have the right, or perhaps duty, to prevent anyone who doesn't agree with you from marrying someone of the same sex even though their marriage will have no more effect on you than a hetero couple getting married.

 

[about_average]

Amicus, you're a bigot.

I would argue that he is not a bigot, but is prejudiced.
Bigotry requires knowledge of that which you despise that is different than you.
People who are prejudiced are ignorant of what they hate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Every society can pass whatever laws it wants, and without any justification or plausible utility for the law. All it takes is enough votes to pass the law.

 

[Raidho]

All of their marriages have now been debased and devalued because some gay couples can now be married too. It won't be long until someone petitions the government for cross-species marriage.

As fucked up as people are, this wouldn't surprise me one bit, but I doubt legalizing gay marriage would have anything to do with it.

 

[amicus]

There are assumptions made each time two separate people enter a conversation. Speaking the same language is a big help in communicating, as is an agreement on the meaning of words and definitions.

There are other implied philosophical and metaphysical assumptions made concerning universal truths and moral and ethical integrity, which are seldom spoken of, because most people understand life, purpose and the reasons for living.

With the lamentable Death of God, and the rejection of Judeau Christian morality as a guide to life, the Bohemian collectivists, hedonists and other ne'er do well's, have gone from pillar to post trying to justify anything and everything they do as, 'okay by me', in the vernacular.

One of the derivative premises that one should consider is that almost all species are divided into two sexes, each different, but complimentary in such things as reproduction and the division of labor.

For all of human history there has been a family structure in any given society. Some study will reveal that many forms of marriage have been adopted, adapted to circumstances. Some societies were Polygamous, some Polyandrous; in poor societies it took several men to support one woman and her children, in other societies one man could support several wives and all their children, although why one would do so remains a puzzle to me.(humor)

In modern western industrialized societies, fast becoming jaded and egocentric, the birth rate has fallen below the replacement rate of two children per woman; one might, just for the hell of it, ask why that is?

If there are no moral absolutes, then everything is acceptable and by consequence, nothing is valued.

If one does not value human life, aka abortion, and one does not value the institution of marriage as it applies to a man and a woman and the family structure, then what do you value....and why?

JBJ was correct in pointing out that if same sex marriage is accepted, then why not marriage with multiple partners, why not marriage with an animal, or several, of your choice?

The funny this about the advocates of a permissive society is that they are almost always collectivists, those who want a strong central government to manage and control society. Just like China and the 'one child only' policy, you are asking for government to impose a moral and ethical system upon you to achieve some greater good, I suppose.

Wanna explain all that to me?

It would be appreciated.

Amicus