The problem with Roe vs Wade is that the law never defined the meaning of “Fetus”.

“Fetus” cannot be simultaneously be just a clump of cells and a human being.

Likewise, “Marriage” cannot be simultaneously a union between opposite sex and a union between same-sex.

Imagine, if the meaning of “Gay” is sex between people then there would be no such thng a homoseuxal.

Meaning, it is the beginning and end to everything.

No human being has the knowledge, intellect or wisdom to alter meaning; to forget this natural law is how oppressive tyranny imposes their power.

Giving people “equal access” to marriage regardless of such things as their sex is not a conservative issue. It’s a Marxist issue, a Rousseauian issue, a Frankfurt School issue, an issue driven by people who want to atomize the social order in order to usher in tyranny. And they’ve even been forthright about why they do what they do, so there is no justification for ignorance.

Marriage does exist to serve the collective. That’s why it’s a thing which the collective recognizes. Gay couplings do not serve the collective, which is why the collective has no reason to given them its sanction and good reason not to.

We don’t have a common law system. At least, we’re not supposed to have one. Law is supposed to be made by the people via their democratically elected legislature(s), not by judges.

I assume that Jeb’s purpose on that site is make Frum look like a conservative by contrast. if so, he’s doing a heckuva job!

Aside: I was disappointed they didn’t discuss sexuality more on the show. Both D’anna and Caprica Six (two of the ‘named’ Cylons) were bi, and actually in a 3 way with Gaius Baltar. But the only male/male pairing was made known in one of the webisodes (and it was clear that Felix may have been bi as well)

I repeat what you previously said, Chris:

Most marriages today are all self-serving, even if they intend to form families. You may not agree with that, but you don’t have to. Have your marriage your way, but let others have theirs, too.

In short, you have argued that your relationship is no one else’s business but yours, and that therefore they should let you have your marriage. Therefore, these relationships are no one’s business except theirs, and you should let them have their marriage.

Meanwhile, your logical argument becomes contradictory. You have previously stated that childbearing and reproduction are irrelevant to whether or not people should be allowed to get married, but you then argue against incestuous marriages because of the effect it could have on childbearing and reproduction. You have previously stated that marriage is only a contract and that people should be allowed to enter into any kind of contract they want, but argue that they should be barred from entering into contracts that you feel are demeaning.

In short, you want to have a say on everyone else’s relationship while adamantly insisting that no one else should have a say on yours.

I’m sorry, i dont watch BG, so I dont get the reference unless toasters is a euphamism for cylons, but the ones in your link are girls. So I’m just lost.

Most marriages today are all self-serving, even if they intend to form families.

Chris: That is an interesting way to put it. I think I’m basically on the same page as you, but I would put it differently. In America today, State-licensed marriage is how a couple make themselves “a family” in the eyes of the law. Children may or may not be involved. Childless married couples are recognized by the law as families. So are sterile couples. So are anti-child (abortion-practicing couples). My dad’s retirement community is a hotbed of new marriages where children are not and cannot be involved, and the couple’s welfare is the only purpose of the marriage.

Given all that, I see no reason why modern American marriage shouldn’t be extended to gays. So, gay marriage is what I support. (I just happen to think we should get there democratically, taking our defeats or compromises along the way – because of all the other stuff in my comment exchange with Man, yadda yadda.)

ILC, perhaps you hold a stronger preference for the rule of majority, with confidence in the “people” always to do the right thing.

Not quite, no.

First, what I prefer is a clear understanding and delineation of what is a right and what is not. A just government is subservient to rights; a tyranny tramples rights. In our system of checks and balances, it is right for the courts to step in and enforce rights. I am all in favor of that. Many government actions that are commonly accepted today are, in fact, unconstitutional and should be swept away – by the courts. I am simply compelled to admit, by logic and reality, that a State license for X (whatever) is not a right – not for anybody. It is up to the People to legislate who qualifies for it and who does not. Equal protection enters on the questions of (1) whether the qualifications are rational as opposed to invidious, and (2) whether the qualifications, once they have been determined, are administered impartially.

Second, no, I don’t have confidence in the People to always do the right thing. Gay marriage is a great example. I think that excluding gays from marriage is dumb, i.e., poor policy. So I support gay marriage and I state my support for it out loud, even if it bothers some people. But if the People do not agree with me – yet – well then, that’s how the cookie crumbles. That’s democracy: even when the People make mistakes, following the process is better than not following it. (I mean that for when we’re talking policy, not the trampling of fundamental rights.)

On to #25:

ILC, I believe we agree upon your definitation of a Right, as you so ably put forward: “A “right” in the constitutional / fundamental sense, is an attribute of the individual. Morally and logically, it precedes government. You don’t need a government license to have it…

It is my view that the Right to marry is such a fundamental right, as I mentioned in my earlier post.

In my view, “that depends”.

First, since rights are an attribute of the individual, they are not attributes of couples. Groups don’t have rights (in the fundamental sense we mean here). The couple, as a couple, does not hold a fundamental right to a State license recognizing them.

So then, what kind of right to a State license would the individuals hold? As I’ve been saying, the People get to set the qualifications for the license – whatever kind of license it is. The individual’s right is, -the right to enter the qualifying process-. Nothing more. The individual (or the couple) may, in the end, fail to qualify. And sometimes they do fail to qualify: as, for example, bigamists and incest couples failing to qualify for the State marriage license.

Before Loving, persons of different races were denied their God-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights, in this case to marry.

Again, case law finds that the key holding of Loving was this: that because of the 14th Amendment, race cannot be part of the qualifications for the State marriage license. That doesn’t mean the other qualifications for a State marriage license are invalidated by Loving.

In each case were it left to the majority within most states, these rights would have been neither affirmed nor guaranteed…

Proposition 8 shows the will of the majority is sometimes wrong. Our constitution guarantees against any and all government foreclosure of the fundamental citizens’ rights…
Our rights remain intrinsic to us as humans…

I agree on all those points, Man. The point where we disagree is on whether State recognition of a given marriage – the end result, not merely the opportunity to enter the qualifying process set by the People – is a fundamental right. It isn’t.

Man,

You say that Prop 8 shows ‘the people got it wrong’. This is your belief. Some folks believe that the people got it right. Part of being a society that is ruled by law is that the law isn’t good or evil, it just is.

One can argue that the right to be with the one you love can be found in The First Ammendment under the “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. It doesn’t mean that the government needs to recognize it, anymore than the government needs to provide you a newspaper to give you free speech.

Ok, more later.

Without our 14th Amendment, Brown and Loving would not have fared so well.

And how was the 14th Amendment ratified?

Two years after that, Hawai’i voters amended their state’s constitution to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

Well, technically — bless their hula-dancing hearts — what they actually did was to amend the constitution more or less like so:

“The gender-equality clause of our state constitution notwithstanding, the Hawaiian legislature shall have the authority to define ‘marriage’ under state law.”

And then the legislature used this newly-specified authority to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.

I don’t think it’s a merely pedantic point, since every other state that has amended its constitution over the SSM issue has gone the route of explicitly adding “one man, one woman” to the constitution, while Hawaii avoided doing that. (Which means that if public opinion in Hawaii shifts in favor of SSM, they can simply enact it through the legislature without having to first repeal any “one man, one woman” amendment.)

It’s being used as an argument against gay marriage. But, as I’ve already mentioned TWICE, it’s an issue that can be addressed without even TOUCHING the issue of marriage.

Im sorry, I really dont think we are connecting on this point. You are saying it can be addressed, which I suppose it can be addressed, the problem is that it has already happened. The violations have already happened. Catholics have been forced to stop their charitable work. And that it happened AT ALL, refutes the argument that gay marriage will not harm the inherent, Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religious expression. It already has.

I’ve addressed all of this already. You simply ignored my points and reiterated your statements.

i didnt ignore them, I suspect you started writing before I told you I didnt know what you were referring to

And what about couples who can’t reproduce? How is their marriage going to better society?

No one said that it is. What the legislatures have said is that children being raised by a mother and a father benefits society. And to encourage that, we encourage all men and women to marry without getting all up in their gynecological bidness because heterosexuality has a way of producing children even when the parents didnt intend them, want them, or even think it was possible.

Should that be made illegal simply because it’s not going to increase our population?

No, of course not! For several reasons.
1. it is not government’s place to tell people they must have children
2. If marriage is limited to people who intend to or believe they can have children, then millions of children will be born outside of wedlock which is self defeating, and
3. It is not necessary to weed out heterosexuals who cant or dont want to have children in order to make the institution fair to couples who are of the wrong gender to procreate in the first place.

A gay couple can raise a normal, healthy child just as easily as a heterosexual couple.

They can only because the same populace that defines marriage allows them to adopt. But what gays cannot do that heterosexuals can is produce children as a result of having sex together. Just like my toaster and I.

But all of that is neither here nor there because they are arguments made from the assumption that the people dont get to define their own institutions, or that it is unconstitutional to develop institutions that recognize that heterosexuality is different from homosexuality. Both of which are false assumptions.

please read Baker v Nelson, Andersen v King County, Hernandez v. Robles, etc…they explain the arguments much more clinically than I can, and Im not any good at arguing with people’s emotions.

It’s being used as an argument against gay marriage. But, as I’ve already mentioned TWICE, it’s an issue that can be addressed without even TOUCHING the issue of marriage.