Re: Gay marriage? Not in Maine.

**Black-n-Red** · 11-05-2009, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by quinn14

In what way? And where do we stop? The Constitution says that all men are created equal. How does that NOT include gays?

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.

**FloggingSully** · 11-05-2009, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by 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 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.

Originally Posted by Zapp Brannigan

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.

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.

**quinn14** · 11-05-2009, 10:30 AM

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.

**Black-n-Red** · 11-05-2009, 12:31 PM

Sorry, not trying to be ticky-tacky, Quinn.

At the same time, doesn't this lend more credence to gays being allowed to marry?...that they ought to have the same rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?...even if that means marrying someone of the same sex?

**ODH** · 11-05-2009, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Gays don't have the right to marry. That is what they are trying to achieve.

What did blacks gain by being able to sit in the front of the bus?
They wanted to be treated as equals.
seems simple to me.

**Black-n-Red** · 11-05-2009, 01:54 PM

Here's what I don't get:

Whether you legalize or don't legalize gay marriage, is homosexuality going to lessen?

I think the obvious answer is "NO". Therefore, there has to be a reason other than moral indignation that makes some people so opposed to it.

I don't know the ins-and-outs of health insurance and legal benefits for spouses and all that jazz but I get the sneaky suspicion that some groups are against gay marriage because they stand to pay more out in benefits of some kind and it stands to drive their profit margins down.

That suspicion makes me side with gay marriage.

**Zapp Brannigan** · 11-05-2009, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

Again, it' not his gender that's causing this. Discrimination on th basis of gender is defined by courts as, essentially, denying rights to one gender but not the other gender. The law is not exclusively denying men the right to marry other men, it is denying PEOPLE the right to marry people of the same sex. No matter how you try to argue it, you're not going to change the way the law is interpreted in this area.

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.

It may be ruled unconstitutional under some other area of the Constitution, but it would not fall under the Equal Protection Clause.

**kr1963** · 11-05-2009, 08:17 PM

For all of you in favor of gay marriage, I would say go help those gay men & women create a constitutional amendment THEN there can be NO argument.

Remember ERA?
I am sure Zapp & a few of you older members do. The womens movement in the 1970s tried to the same thing for women. Ultimately it failed but a lot of things changed along the way. Until Gay marriage is apart of a State's or Federal constitution then any created law will be challenged in court by those who disagree whether by moral or legal grounds.

For the sake of discussion & argument here are two opposing history's of the ERA. I don't post this this change the subject but give an analogy to what the homosexual community should be looking at.

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/era.htm

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1986/sept86/psrsep86.html

**quinn14** · 11-06-2009, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by ODH

Gays don't have the right to marry. That is what they are trying to achieve.

What did blacks gain by being able to sit in the front of the bus?
They wanted to be treated as equals.
seems simple to me.

The blacks should have been treated equal already. The fact that they weren't is imbarassing. Gays marrying or even straights marrying isn't in the Constitution. And according to the tenth amendment IS up to the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Thread Tools

Display