Zapp Brannigan

The fact that Bill is a man is pure happenstance. It isn't gender biased. It's not like men are allowed to marry men, but women aren't allowed to marry women. The discrimination is based on the fact that Bill or Sharon wants to marry someone of the same sex. It's about their sexual preference, not their gender. You're looking at it from a reversed angle. There's a reason courts have ruled the way they have.


It doesn't, depending on the rights. To be unconstitutional, the rights taken away have to be provided for by the Constitution. Homosexuals, whether you like it or not, are not protected under the federal Constitution, nor under most state constitutions.

__________________
Rest in Peace Adam Frey, you left us far too soon

Brands: Metcalf! What is good in life?

Metcalf: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

kr1963

Zapp's legal argument is completely right. If homosexuals are so concerned about their right as a group, with that group being classified by sexual preference then they should band together & seek a constitutional amendment.

By the same token that amendment would have to protect the sexual preference rights of heterosexuals as well.

The rest of the debate is just moral, not legal.

Gays seek marriage as a way of legitimizing their lifestyle. I find 2 things very funny & interesting:

1) I beleive that by informal poll that only about 1 to 2 % of the US population calls itself gay. I find it interesting that such a smaller minority sucks up a disportionate amount of attention in the media.

2) The main thing a marriage gives you is the LEGAL right to call your spouses stuff YOUR STUFF. Husbands & Wives are afforded specific rights that boyfriends & girlfriends are NOT. It also gives you the OPTION of a joint tax filing which can save you money.

If gays were really interested in those 2 advantages that marriage brings you then I would make a suggestion that I have already explored & executed:

As a couple create a S corporation & then put all purchases thorough that corporation. You can issue shares 50/50. It is A LOT easier to create & liquidate then a marriage!!!!

Also nothing is stopping gays from having a WEDDING. They just don't get the license but a S corp would give them a certain amount of legal binding & protection.

__________________
He who dares, WINS Royal Canadian Air Force Motto

Shocking the world, doesn't suck... Matt Serra

Gold

I think you might be confused as to what "gender" means. Gender refers to how a person self-identifies, meaning, whether or not they think of them self as a man or a woman (or whatever else they might think of themself as).

Most gay people of the male sex still self-identify as males.

__________________
David Taylor - Future 4x NCAA Champ.

UGLY

The most disturbing thing about this thread, is the AD.

kr1963

You haven't been to San Francisco, West Hollywood or Provincetown on Halloween!

__________________
He who dares, WINS Royal Canadian Air Force Motto

Shocking the world, doesn't suck... Matt Serra

ODH

Homosexuals want equal rights and equal protection under the law. What is hard to understand about that. If you are black and told you need to go to the back of the bus, you will find that unfair, just like if you are gay and told that you cannot marry.

It is not about tax savings or pushing a lifestyle, it is about not wanting to be discriminated against by the state.

As far as Maine rejecting this I am disappointed. Speaking as an elitist liberal New Englander, I truly thought that this area of the country is more progressive than elsewhere. I also feel that Maine's no votes contain a higher percentage of people who just don't like homosexuals and voted against giving them rights, as opposed to elsewhere in the country where fundamentalist religion plays a stronger role in politics.

quinn14

Maybe voters in Maine realize that GAYS ALREADY HAVE RIGHTS! ODH, I am not trying to pick on you or anyone else, so I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone. The voters have already spoken. I do have an honest question, though. What do gays have to gain by getting married other than tax breaks? If they get legally married, what would that prove to them or anyone else? They aren't being stopped from anything now. They just like to tell everyone they see about their sexual preference when nobody cares. I think that maybe people are voting against them because they are sick and tired of hearing about their sexual preferences. Sex is for the bedroom not parades.

Black-n-Red

Now that you have proven that you have no clue what the Constitution actually says, you might want to stop using it as a reference.

__________________
Your ignorance is painful to witness.....

FloggingSully

The fact that Bill is a man is the only thing preventing him from being able to marry Stan. A strait women can marry Stan, a gay woman can marry Stan, a strait man cannot marry Stan and a gay man cannot marry Stan. The sexual orientation of the person does not determine whether or not they can marry Stan, their gender does. A woman is given the right (or whatever term you want to call it) to do somthing (marry Stan) while a man is denied that right based solely on their gender.


So help me understand, if a state passed a law saying that people under 5'2'' can't be teachers it would be ruled unconstitutional, correct? Assuming this is true why would it be unconstitutional? Short people are not a protected class under the constitution and being a teacher is not a right guaranteed by the constitution.

__________________
There's no such thing as a pretty good aligator wrestler.

quinn14

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This sentence has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language"^[2] and "the most potent and consequential words in American history".^[3] The passage has often been used to promote the rights of marginalized groups, and came to represent for many people a moral standard for which the United States should strive. This view was greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy,^[4] and promoted the idea that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.


My fault Black-n-Red, it was indeed, the Declaration of Independence.