So let's vote on same sex marriage

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

edit~
i tell you what rupe, since i didn't offer you a better response-altho your absurd question doesn't merit one...

when polygamy becomes a legal practice, and the right to engage in said practice is given to some and not others, i'll be sure and consider that constitutionality then. in the meantime, i'll give it the amount of attention it deserves, which is no more than your absurd 'what if there were no gays' query. in other words, no more than this.

In case you don't believe me, here are some questions that the Supreme Court Justices asked just recently. In the Obamacare case, here are some of the questions that the Justices asked to the lawyers defending Obamacare:

Justice Antonin Scalia sharply questioned whether the Obama administration’s requirement that Americans have health insurance or pay a penalty—the so-called “individual mandate” at the heart of the law—might mean that “therefore you (the government) can make people buy broccoli.”

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs.

http://www.addmorejuice.com/?p=5410

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In case you don't believe me, here are some questions that the Supreme Court Justices asked just recently. In the Obamacare case, here are some of the questions that the Justices asked to the lawyers defending Obamacare:

Justice Antonin Scalia sharply questioned whether the Obama administration’s requirement that Americans have health insurance or pay a penalty—the so-called “individual mandate” at the heart of the law—might mean that “therefore you (the government) can make people buy broccoli.”

Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli whether Washington could compel cellphone purchases. Justice Samuel Alito wondered whether it could force Americans to buy insurance to pay for funeral costs.

http://www.addmorejuice.com/?p=5410

lol

yeah, i get what rhetorical questions are. yours was an absurd question tho, not rhetorical. the absurdity of yours was to imagine a world with no gays, which i'm figuring is one you'd rather have.
a question regarding purchasing one or another of things that exist is nothing like your question.
lol you use the supreme court to justify your question. that is too rich.


as for your bs polygamy point...if they ever allowed some polygamy, but not other, that would also be unconstitutional.
it's really that simple. we're all supposed to be treated equally here. the govt has no business granting certain privileges only to some. the govt should never have gotten into the marriage business in the first place, but they did...so here we are.
the only arguments i've seen against allowing gay marriage have been religious arguments. that should get the opponents nowhere.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol

yeah, i get what rhetorical questions are. yours was an absurd question tho, not rhetorical. the absurdity of yours was to imagine a world with no gays, which i'm figuring is one you'd rather have.
a question regarding purchasing one or another of things that exist is nothing like your question.
lol you use the supreme court to justify your question. that is too rich.


as for your bs polygamy point...if they ever allowed some polygamy, but not other, that would also be unconstitutional.
it's really that simple. we're all supposed to be treated equally here. the govt has no business granting certain privileges only to some. the govt should never have gotten into the marriage business in the first place, but they did...so here we are.
the only arguments i've seen against allowing gay marriage have been religious arguments. that should get the opponents nowhere.

"If they ever allowed some polygamy?" Do they allow some gay marriage? No, they don't allow any gay marriage as of right now.

I don't think you understood my hypothetical question about a world with no gay people. I wasn't referring to a world with no sex between same-sex people. I was referring to a world where gay people did not label themselves as gay and where gay people were not considered a specific group. I was referring to a world where people engage in the same behavior but they are not labeled as a result of the behavior. If that were the case, I wonder whether people would still make the same types of arguments about it being unconstitutional for same-sex people to not be able to get married.

The only reason I bring that up is because I think it is a legitimate argument that if people are born gay (which I believe they are in at least 95% of cases), then they are a specific group like any group (such as an ethnic group) that is born that way. And if that is the case, then an argument could be made that the group is being discriminated against if they aren't allowed to marry people of the same sex. I'm not saying that I agree with that argument, but at least the argument makes sense. If being gay is simply a life choice, then I don't think there is any type of discrimination argument to be made.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think you understood my hypothetical question about a world with no gay people.

She definitely understands it.

You don't have to worry yourself even a second more about THAT problem with your "argument."

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

She definitely understands it.

You don't have to worry yourself even a second more about THAT problem with your "argument."

You obviously didn't understand what I was saying either. If you understood it, then tell me what I was saying. What was my point? I will explain it:

My question had to do with the Constitutionality argument. My question was whether the alleged discrimination of not allowing same sex marriage derives simply from the fact that a man can't marry a man, or does it derive because gay people are a group per se, and by not allowing same-sex marriage, you are discriminating against a group. That was what I was trying to ask Danzig.

[bigrun]

Hey rup, old lawyer joke..

What do you call 100 lawyers holding hands underwater?




A good start...




P.S. my granddaughter is a young lawyer...

[Riot]

A short but good editorial on gay marriage:

It Doesn't Matter What the Bible says About Homosexuality

This is not a theocracy. The bible should not in any way inform our laws. Nor should the Qur'an. Nor the Torah. Nor the Bahagavad Gita. Nor the Jain Agamas. Nor the Book of Mormon. Nor any other religious text. Period. Taking the argument to the bible misses the point.

Every individual has a right to practice religion, or not practice religion, in whatever manner they wish; as long as doing so does not infringe on the same rights of another. When we restrict an individual or group's rights based on the religion of any other individual or group, we deny that person the constitutional protection to freedom of religion. It's really that simple.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not restrict anyone else's right to practice their own religion. It doesn't prevent a man and woman to marry in their own church. It doesn't, or shouldn't, force a church who disagrees with same-sex marriage to perform the wedding ceremony.

On the other hand, restricting same-sex couples from marrying DOES infringe on someone's right to freedom of religion. It takes the religious belief of one and imposes it on another. It is unconstitutional period.

There is no need to show that it is okay within a religion, because that doesn't matter. We are Americans. We don't have to justify our actions to any religion.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol

yeah, i get what rhetorical questions are. yours was an absurd question tho, not rhetorical. the absurdity of yours was to imagine a world with no gays, which i'm figuring is one you'd rather have.
a question regarding purchasing one or another of things that exist is nothing like your question.
lol you use the supreme court to justify your question. that is too rich.


as for your bs polygamy point...if they ever allowed some polygamy, but not other, that would also be unconstitutional.
it's really that simple. we're all supposed to be treated equally here. the govt has no business granting certain privileges only to some. the govt should never have gotten into the marriage business in the first place, but they did...so here we are.
the only arguments i've seen against allowing gay marriage have been religious arguments. that should get the opponents nowhere.

The questions the Justices asked were not rhetorical questions. When one asks a rhetorical question, they do not expect an answer. The Justices' questions were serious questions that required a response. And if you noticed, the lawyers answered those questions. They needed to answer them. The questions may have seemed absurd on the surface but they were serious questions. Considering that it would usually be considered unconstitutional for the government to compel people to buy a product, why would it not be unconstitutional for the government to compel people to buy health insurance? That was a legitimate question that needed to be answered and the lawyers answered those questions.

When the question of gay marriage comes to the Supreme Court, I can practically guarantee you that the Justices will be asking the same types of questions that I am asking you right now. I am going to predict specifically that they will bring up polygamy. They will bring it up because it is an almost perfect analogy. You obviously think it's a bad analogy. We will see if the Justices bring it up. I predict they will.

Here is a good argument as to why the current laws are not unconstitutional:
In the US, all men are allowed to marry one wife. So all men have the same rights. No man is being discriminated against. If a guy wants to have more than one wife, he cannot do it. That doesn't mean he is being discriminated against. He can marry one woman just like everybody else. It doesn't matter if he is gay. It doesn't matter if he's a polygamist. It doesn't matter what his religion is. He can marry one wife, period. He can't marry two women. He can't marry a man. He can marry one wife. There is no discrimination there. All men have the same right, which is the right to marry one woman.

A polygamist could argue, "I am a polygamist. Therefore I should be allowed to have more than one wife." A gay man can argue, "I am gay. Therefore I should be allowed to marry a man." Both of those arguments are the same. Both guys are saying that because they identify themselves as having a preference for a certain behavior, that the laws should be changed to accommodate them. The only possible argument you can make as to why these two behaviors should be treated differently (why the law should be changed to accommodate one behavior but not the other) would be that one behavior (being gay) is a born trait while the other behavior (being a polygamist) is simply a lifestyle choice.