Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Kemara]

You actually are somewhat correct.....

We seem to agree that its not really about marriage at all. So what is it about then? You seem to be saying that it is all about convenience and saving time.

[wenglund]

Hey there kemara,

As a fellow kiwi who has been living in the US for a little over five years I can assure you homosexual couples are not afforded the same legal entitlements heterosexual married couples are, and civil unions do not resolve this issue as they are state by state and have no absolute federal acceptance.

In New Zealand married partners are on equal footing with civil union partners, in fact the govt said if you live together for three years (I think that is the number) you enter into the same legally recognized form of relationship as if you were married or civil unioned.

There are many states in the US where a same sex partnership are not granted health insurance, hospital access, end of life decision making, claims for support if the relationship breaks up, and of course the tax considerations.

Marriage or not, tax equality or not, all of these other issues need to be resolved in the US.

Even if one agrees with you that all these issues need to be resolved, they are insurance and tax issues, and should be dealt with as such rather than mangling the definition of marriage.

Personally, though, I question whether these issues, which were intended as incentives and privileges rather protections or entitlements, ought to be "resolved". These incentives have been put into place, not to equally encourage legal commitments of all kinds of relationships, but to encourage legal commitment of procreative kinds of relationships--and this because legally committed procreative relationships have been deemed by legislatures and courts to be "fundamental to our existence and survival," whereas nonprocreative relationships, committed or otherwise, are not. In other words, it is because committed procreative relationships are of unequal greater value to society, that they have been unequally incentivized. As long as the incentives encourage legal commitment in procreative kinds of relationships, then things are already "resolved." Those relationships that are of unequally greater value to society are logically unequally incentivized.

Whereas, if these incentives are extended to all kinds of non-procreative relationships under the misnomer of "equality" (see my post above), this effectively neutralizes these incentives as incentives and instead mindlessly turns them into entitlements, which is not only contrary to what was initially intended when the laws were enacted, but it also puts additional burden on society to cover for these morphed entitlements without demonstrating that the costs are outweighed by the benefits--i.e. without demonstrating a rational basis. It doesn't make sense in any respect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 19, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

So its not really a marriage issue in the US then. All of the legal entitlements you mention can be resolved without having homosexual marriage.

This was made evident in California, where the incentives/entitlements were the same for domestic partnerships as they were for heterosexual marriages. What was learned from subsequent court cases, is that homosexuals weren't satisfied with equality of "entitlements," they wanted to coop the decidedly heterosexual institution of marriage. Either they were so envious of heterosexual marriage as an institution that they just had to mimic it, and/or they wished to use SSM as a means to another end--i.e. normalization of homosexuality, and/or some may have viewed SSM as a means of mocking and degrading the heterosexual institution of marriage in hopes of eventually doing away with it while at the same time normalizing homosexuality.

It has been fascinating to watch, particularly how effectively the gay propagandists throughout the years have been able to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[guerreiro9]

As I have noted earlier I support the states right to both discriminate and preference. Even when such behavior leads to unequal treatment.

However, such action must be limited to the states restriction to operate in the narrow moral field if harm, not the broader religious moral field.

I am asking what is the states arguments for harm associated with SSM. The recent arguments before the courts on this have all stated harm is not clearly evident from SSM.

If we can not demonstrate a (narrow) example of harm SSM will be accepted by the Supreme Court.

I also agree with your position. Government should be able to pass laws that will be a positive benefit to society. Much of the court cases that are currently before the supreme court argued this very point. But in each and every one of these cases, those that made the legal argument that ssm would be bad for society as a whole could not come up with a compelling argument that would be recognized by the laws of this country. And that is the reason why they all ruled in support of ssm couples.

The currently perceived role of the judicial system should be very troubling if indeed you agree that the populace should be allowed to enact legislation which they perceive encourages beneficial behaviors and discourages unbeneficial ones. If this is the case, the judicial system should not be able to overturn legally passed legislation because they do not agree with the definitions of "beneficial" and "unbeneficial" as defined by the populace. They should only be able to do so if they deem a legally passed piece of legislation is in violation of the governing constitution as currently enacted. By it's very definition a constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional, and cannot be and should not be invalidated by the judicial system unless there is a higher constitution in place which supersedes the aforementioned.

It is the responsibility of the populace either directly or indirectly through representative government (i.e. the legislative branch) to define which behaviors it "feels" are beneficial. By it's very nature this is a subjective process, but it is a process that is best left to the populace as a whole, and not to a small set of unelected officials. The fact that a small set of unelected officials is perceived to have the power to define what is and isn't beneficial is a very scary thought.

Now, bringing this back to the subject of same sex marriage. Obviously, a lot of the preceding discussion in this thread is based on the passage of proposition 8 in California, and the continuing legal battles either for or against. Proposition 8 was a legally passed amendment to California State constitution and as such should not be deemed unconstitutional under California law and should be upheld by every level of the California Judicial system. The federal constitution does supersede the state constitution however, and the state constitutional amendment may be found to be in violation of the federal constitution. The perceived benefit or harm of the state constitutional amendment should have no influence on whether it is ruled in violation of the federal constitution, although it probably will. This is simply not the designed role (and should not be) of the judicial system. This completely removes the power of a populace to enact legislation encouraging or discouraging behaviors and places that power squarely in the hands of a small elite few. I do not think this is what anyone wants. Even if at the current time you find yourself in favor of Judicial overturn of a certain piece of legislation, you may at some point in the future find yourself against overturn of another. Let us all hope that legislation is upheld and overturned only based upon its legal merits and not whether the small number of sitting judges happen to agree with the position of the populace.

As for my position on the subject, I fully support the people of Washington, Maine, and Maryland in their legal use of our legislative system to allow same sex marriage in their respective states. I would encourage the citizens of California to follow a similar approach if they wish to legalize same sex marriage in their state. I actually feel that same sex marriage should be legalized, but that heterosexual marriage should still be given preferential treatment. I think a false dichotomy has been created where proponents of same sex marriage are arguing that because it cannot be shown to be inherently harmful it should be accepted as equal to heterosexual marriage. I believe this is unwise, and that heterosexual marriage can be significantly more beneficial to our society and should be given preferential treatment while still allowing those who wish to engage in homosexual marriage to do so. Sometimes it is not about black and white good vs. evil (although many would argue this is the case with this issue) many times it is about good, better, best, and I believe that monogamous committed heterosexual marriages are demonstrably the best for our society.

[wenglund]

As for my position on the subject, I fully support the people of Washington, Maine, and Maryland in their legal use of our legislative system to allow same sex marriage in their respective states. I would encourage the citizens of California to follow a similar approach if they wish to legalize same sex marriage in their state. I actually feel that same sex marriage should be legalized, but that heterosexual marriage should still be given preferential treatment.

I agree with you that the populace (i.e. the individual states), either through direct vote (initiatives and referendums) or through their duly elected legislatures, should be allowed to determine whether to legalize SSM or not. This is where the most recent federal case on SSM (Hawaii) left things.

I am just curious as to your own personal rationale in advocating for SSM and how you propose that heterosexual marriages will be given preferential treatment with the legalization of SSM.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 19, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

We seem to agree that its not really about marriage at all. So what is it about then? You seem to be saying that it is all about convenience and saving time.

I think you misunderstood if you think that my position is that it is not about marriage. It is about treating all American citizens equally under the laws of this country. It is about marriage when many of those laws are tied directly to whether you are married or not.

[california boy]

Incorrect on a number of levels. First, while it is true that both sides may agree with the statement, one side may agree because they rightly consider good as good and evil as evil, while the other side, in their upside-down way of thinking, might agree because they wrongly consider good as evil and evil as good (and I am not just talking here about religious "good" and "evil"--see below)

I completely agree. And I certainly would say that those who want to see legally married couples with children not have their marriages torn apart while one of the spouses is shipped back to a foreign nation. I think Christ would want that family to stay intact. Good equals Good

I agree that Christ would want a legally married couple the same benefits and legal protections to their children. These couples are the ones that are adopting orphans and other children not wanted by their biological parents. Good equals Good.

I agree that Christ would want a surviving member of a legally married couple to be able to legally keep the money that was earned in that relationship no matter who their spouse that died was. Good equals Good.

Edited November 19, 2012 by california boy

[Kemara]

I think you misunderstood if you think that my position is that it is not about marriage. It is about treating all American citizens equally under the laws of this country. It is about marriage when many of those laws are tied directly to whether you are married or not.

How can the issue be about marriage when in the very next breath you say that many of the laws, regarding equality, are tied directly to marriage? That would mean that there are laws, regarding equality, which are not tied directly to marriage (many does not equal all). You cannot seriously be saying that proponents of homosexual marriage want to limit their equality under the laws of the US to those directly tied to marriage and no others.

Equality for all American citizens can be achieved without marriage, you yourself have said as much.

Perhaps you are right. All 1200 laws could be repealed, modified and changed through extensive legislature and/or court process.

The only reason you could come up with as to why this avenue should not be used was one concerning convenience and time. As such the issue is not about marriage, it is about convenience and time.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Kemara

[Kemara]

This was made evident in California, where the incentives/entitlements were the same for domestic partnerships as they were for heterosexual marriages. What was learned from subsequent court cases, is that homosexuals weren't satisfied with equality of "entitlements," they wanted to coop the decidedly heterosexual institution of marriage. Either they were so envious of heterosexual marriage as an institution that they just had to mimic it, and/or they wished to use SSM as a means to another end--i.e. normalization of homosexuality, and/or some may have viewed SSM as a means of mocking and degrading the heterosexual institution of marriage in hopes of eventually doing away with it while at the same time normalizing homosexuality.

It has been fascinating to watch, particularly how effectively the gay propagandists throughout the years have been able to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Organised homosexual groups typically push their agendas in a covert manner designed by very skilful propagandists. They disguise the true homosexual agenda behind smoke screens that they call “equal rights”, “human rights” and whatever other “-ight” they think will win the hearts and minds of the people. The outcomes facilitated by the smoke screens are nothing short of remarkable - abominable, but remarkable. What I find even more remarkable is how the overt manner and its message, which is not hidden behind smoke screens, has been successfully kept out of the debate and largely hidden from the hearts and minds of the people. One has to admire the effectiveness of the homosexual propagandists in being able to shape the nature of the debate and to largely hide the true agenda.

The normalisation, through smoke and mirrors, of a life choice that is anything but normal is just the start. The abolition of the family and the acceptance of homosexuals as more advanced than heterosexuals is next on the agenda. “Gay shows the way” will never be happy with mere equality.

It is indeed fascinating to watch.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Kemara

[california boy]

Second, as explained multiple time, equality is what has existed all along (with the exception for a time of inter-racial couples). Both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike have had the fundamental civil right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Third, I am not looking at this issue strictly from a religious perspective. In fact, my arguments against mangling the definition of marriage and diluting the fundamental institution of society, have been almost exclusively secular. My moral compass may well be set on Christ and his revealed gospel (as contrasted with those whose moral compasses are set on the selfish desires of the flesh), but my legal compass is set on the Constitution (as contrasted with those whose legal compasses are set on pop culture), and so my determination of what is "evil" or deleterious or insipid or corrupt in legal matters is based on the Constitution, which is the same government under which we now live--though increasingly less so until perhaps eventually it may hang by a thread.

With that having been said, would you please satisfy the CFR I issued to you in post # 307 of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am getting pretty weary of addressing this argument with you over and over again, so let me make this even more clear. There are 7 cases currently before the Supreme Court concerning ssm. The legal arguments made in a court of law agaist ssm has lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost, lost. Yes, that is 14 losses. If you truly base your rational reasoning on this issue from a secular point of view, you would abandon your opposition to the ssm laws in this country. And that my friend is the facts. Quit pretending that your arguments have any legal validity. Feel free to keep the fantasy that in your own mind you are right and the courts and its judges are all wrong. Fortunately such a fantasy has no bearing on ssm.

There is no CFR in post 307.

[california boy]

Organised homosexual groups typically push their agendas in a convert manner designed by very skilful propagandists. They disguise the true homosexual agenda behind smoke screens that they call “equal rights”, “human rights” and whatever other “-ight” they think will win the hearts and minds of the people. The outcomes facilitated by the smoke screens are nothing short of remarkable - abominable, but remarkable. What I find even more remarkable is how the overt manner and its message, which is not hidden behind smoke screens, has been successfully kept out of the debate and largely hidden from the hearts and minds of the people. One has to admire the effectiveness of the homosexual propagandists in being able to shape the nature of the debate and to largely hide the true agenda.

The normalisation, through smoke and mirrors, of a life choice that is anything but normal is just the start. The abolition of the family and the acceptance of homosexuals as more advanced than heterosexuals is next on the agenda. “Gay shows the way” will never be happy with mere equality.

It is indeed fascinating to watch.

And yet, these rights keep being upheld by both the state and federal courts in this country. Hummmm, do I detect a spin?

[california boy]

How can the issue be about marriage when in the very next breath you say that many of the laws, regarding equality, are tied directly to marriage? That would mean that there are laws, regarding equality, which are not tied directly to marriage (many does not equal all). You cannot seriously be saying that proponents of homosexual marriage want to limit their equality under the laws of the US to those directly tied to marriage and no others.

Equality for all American citizens can be achieved without marriage, you yourself have said as much.

The only reason you could come up with as to why this avenue should not be used was one concerning convenience and time. As such the issue is not about marriage, it is about convenience and time.

Let me ask you a few questions. What gay rights are you in favor of?

1. Do you think that DOMA should be repealed?

2. Are you in favor of EDNA being passed?

3, Were you fighting for the repeal of DADT?

4. Are you fighting for the rights of gay couples to get the same federal benefits as straight married couples?

The list goes on for 1200 other laws.

Are you pushing for all the equal rights that are not currently available to gays? Is anyone that is against ssm pushiing for equality for gays in every area except marriage? Would you be against another church wanting to marry gay couples?

This argument is a complete joke without any real visable signs of being something that those fighting ssm want to see happen. If those fighting ssm were making a national effort to include gay couples in the 1200 laws that marriage gives, then you might have a case. But they are not and you don't. We can start with your answers to these 4 questions and see how you answer them.

[Kemara]

And yet, these rights keep being upheld by both the state and federal courts in this country. Hummmm, do I detect a spin?

Yes you do detect a spin which would be easy for you to do since it is you who is spinning it. By way of evidencing you are the spinner - what on earth does your reply have to do with my post? I was talking about the very effective job that homosexual marriage propagandists have done and you reply with some totally unrelated comment about state and federal courts. You keep on spinning out those red herrings California boy they will be of no more help to you than your straw men.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Kemara

[Kemara]

Let me ask you a few questions. What gay rights are you in favor of?

Dont you think that we should finish dealing with your initial statement before moving onto something completely different?

This argument is a complete joke without any real visable signs of being something that those fighting ssm want to see happen.

The argument was made using the logic of your own statement. Please dont make a silly appeal to numbers in order to prop up the illegitimacy of your logic and reasoning.

So if there are any visible signs of this then it would be a legitimate position? Is that what you are saying? You need to be very clear and precise in your response. Due to your history of engaging in red herring and straw man fallicies I dont want there to be any ambiguity in your answer - you are required to give a simple yes or no.

First things first though, finish dealing with your initial statement.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Kemara

[california boy]

Yes you do detect a spin which would be easy for you to do since it is you who is spinning it. By way of evidencing you are the spinner - what on earth does your reply have to do with post my post? I was talking about the very effective job that homosexual marriage propagandists have done and you reply with some totally unrelated comment about state and federal courts. You keep on spinning out those red herrings California boy they will be of no more help to you than your straw men.

The court cases that keep winning are based on equal treatment under the law. The courts are upholding those lawsuits. You seem to think this issue is not about equality. You called human rights and equal rights a "smoke screen" The courts are disagreeing with your premise. The courts are saying these issues are real issues that are being ruled in favor of ssm over. That seems pretty clear to me. No propaganda here, I am just reporting the verdicts on what is happening in the courts. What legal evidence are you showing to support your assertion?? So far nothing. only spin.

[california boy]

Dont you think that we should finish dealing with your initial statement before moving onto something completely different?

So if there are any visible signs of this then it would be a legitimate position? Is that what you are saying? You need to be very clear and precise in your response. Due to your history of engaging in red herring and straw man fallicies I dont want there to be any ambiguity in your answer - you are required to give a simple yes or no.

First things first though, finish dealing your initial statement.

What specific statement are you asking about. I want to make sure I address what you are asking.

[Ahab]

If we can not demonstrate a (narrow) example of harm SSM will be accepted by the Supreme Court.

It can be demonstrated fairly easily, but many will reject that it has been demonstrated even after it has been demonstrated.

How about if we define harm as a loss, and in this case a loss of what those who engage in ssm could've had had they not engaged in ssm.

For those who know the truth of the gospel and God's laws concerning ssm, this is a no brainer, but aside from that it can also be shown as a loss in a sinful world where people don't accept or recognize the laws of God.

Let's start with the current laws of our land regarding marriage which state that a person can have only one legally and lawfully (and living) wedded spouse at a particular moment in time.

By defacto, that means people who have same sex spouses can't have their own (biological) children with their spouse, simply because our sexuality doesn't work that way. It takes 2 people of the opposite sex to create a child, and ss couples simply can't do that. That's a loss right there that is directly associated with having a ss spouse, rather than because of some other reason, and if you count each child as a loss or gain that's an infinite amount (or at least multiple counts) of harm and loss 2 people of the same sex are inflicting on each other simply because they will NEVER be able to create their own children together.

Now what do you want to bet that ss couples don't even think of that as a loss, or if they do, that they think they can somehow make up for that by adopting other people's children.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Ahab

[DavidB]

So its not really a marriage issue in the US then. All of the legal entitlements you mention can be resolved without having homosexual marriage.

No.

The United States does not follow a "separate but equal" viewpoint. Marriage is what people are asking for. Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a Fundemental Right in the United State - subject to polygamy laws, incest laws, age laws, and blood relation laws. And before any even tries to use those laws to maintain a ban on ssm, YOU MUST FIRST identify the reason(s) that States have chosen to have such laws. After you identify the reason for the law, then we can analyze said law under Perry v. Schwarznager and subsequent Appeal.

[Kemara]

The court cases that keep winning are based on equal treatment under the law. The courts are upholding those lawsuits. You seem to think this issue is not about equality. You called human rights and equal rights a "smoke screen" The courts are disagreeing with your premise. The courts are saying these issues are real issues that are being ruled in favor of ssm over. That seems pretty clear to me. No propaganda here, I am just reporting the verdicts on what is happening in the courts. What legal evidence are you showing to support your assertion?? So far nothing. only spin.

It just never ends with you does it.

I made no reference to any court rulings, I made no inference to any court rulings, I didnt refer or infer to anything legal at all. Your response is a complete and total straw man. As such I dont need to give any legal evidence to support a position I never had. Nice try though, you had nothing to lose so I suppose it was worth a try.

What I was talking about was the fantastic job that the homosexual marriage propagandists have done in winning the hearts and minds of the people. That the use of "rights" as a smoke screen was extremely effective in controlling the nature of the debate and hiding the real agenda of the homosexual movement. I cant even begin to imagine how you misunderstood my post when I went as far as to describe the real agenda:

The normalisation, through smoke and mirrors, of a life choice that is anything but normal is just the start. The abolition of the family and the acceptance of homosexuals as more advanced than heterosexuals is next on the agenda. “Gay shows the way” will never be happy with mere equality.

I think you are taking a leaf out of the homosexual propagandists book and trying to put up a smoke screen with regards to my post. Unfortunately for you, you are not very good at it.

[Kemara]

What specific statement are you asking about. I want to make sure I address what you are asking.

That is just brilliant, it really is, the equivocation begins even before we really start. Shall we define what the word "specific" means before we continue? Then shall we define what the word "statement" means? I just want to make sure that we both understand what they mean before I give the specific statement.

You really are a barrel of laughs.

Edited November 19, 2012 by Kemara

[Kemara]

No.

No? Really? You mean there is no way that laws could be repealed, modified and changed through legislature to give all persons equality of entitlements. It is equality of entitlement we are discussing here.

Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a Fundemental Right in the United State - subject to polygamy laws, incest laws, age laws, and blood relation laws.

No it is not, if it was then we would not be having this discussion.

[wenglund]

I completely agree. And I certainly would say that those who want to see legally married couples with children not have their marriages torn apart while one of the spouses is shipped back to a foreign nation. I think Christ would want that family to stay intact. Good equals Good.

I suspect that Christ wouldn't want marriages (legally defined as between a man and a woman) torn apart for any reason except perhaps because of the 3 "A's" (adultery, abuse, addiction).

Certainly, he wouldn't want marriages torn apart because of selfish sexual desires, whether of a heterosexual or homosexual nature.

He also wouldn't want the divine institute of marriage torn apart or profaned through perverse imitations.

From a secular stand point, and in the best interest of the people, it make sense to keep traditional family units together--particularly for the children's sake. It is with that objective in mind that, in part, governments got into the business of marriage and family law to begin with. It is also the reason why governments have been wisely resistant to legalizing SSM. Given that the vast majority of children who currently have same-sex parents originally came from heterosexual parents and relationship, then by legalizing SSM the government inadvertently increases the incentive for homosexuals to leave, along with their kids, rather than stay in their heterosexual marriages (the optimal familial structure) in pursuit of an evolutionary inferior familial structure. It also may inadvertently encourage a homosexual parent to leave a statistically more stable kind of relationship for a more unstgable kind of relationship. In several ways, legalizing SSM conflicts with the state's interest of not tearing apart traditional marriages and families. "Evil" corrupts the "good."

I agree that Christ would want a legally married couple the same benefits and legal protections to their children. These couples are the ones that are adopting orphans and other children not wanted by their biological parents. Good equals Good.

Both Christ and the secular state wisely prefer that children be raised in marriages of a godly or traditional nature. Neither Christ or the secular state, except somewhat of late, countenance, let alone have a vested interest in, profane or perverted marriages, nor do they believe that protection of the children who find themselves in regrettable circumstances is logical reason to countenance the profane/perverted marriages. They both would and have find other more wise means to protect those children other than mangling the legal definition of marriage and diluting the fundamental and optimal institution of society. In short, they would not use "good" to countenance "evil," nor let "evil" pervert "good," but will find good ways to do good.

I agree that Christ would want a surviving member of a legally married couple to be able to legally keep the money that was earned in that relationship no matter who their spouse that died was. Good equals Good.

Christ's interest isn't in mammon, but in a godly inheritance--which inheritance comes by way of godly relationships, and not by way of perversions thereof. Good cometh of good, and not of evil.

The state, on the other hand, may wish for people to retain property (money or otherwise) that is due to them as a partner in any form of contractual agreement, whether it be traditional marriage or domestic partnerships or business relationships, etc. However, the state's interest for people retaining property need not, and ought not conflict with their interest in promoting legal marriage among procreative relationships. Said another way, the state ought not pursue property interests by defying and perverting their interest in promoting traditional marriage. Good should be pursued through good and not through "evil."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Organised homosexual groups typically push their agendas in a convert manner designed by very skilful propagandists. They disguise the true homosexual agenda behind smoke screens that they call “equal rights”, “human rights” and whatever other “-ight” they think will win the hearts and minds of the people. The outcomes facilitated by the smoke screens are nothing short of remarkable - abominable, but remarkable. What I find even more remarkable is how the overt manner and its message, which is not hidden behind smoke screens, has been successfully kept out of the debate and largely hidden from the hearts and minds of the people. One has to admire the effectiveness of the homosexual propagandists in being able to shape the nature of the debate and to largely hide the true agenda.

The normalisation, through smoke and mirrors, of a life choice that is anything but normal is just the start. The abolition of the family and the acceptance of homosexuals as more advanced than heterosexuals is next on the agenda. “Gay shows the way” will never be happy with mere equality.

It is indeed fascinating to watch.

Exactly!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There is no CFR in post 307.

Actually, there is. Since you evidently are having trouble seeing it, let me clearly point it out and bold it.

You said:

You might want to reread bikeemikey's very thoughtful post on this issue. The clear reason why your pet argument failed in the state and federal court systems time and time again is because they could not prove any real harm to society.

Here is my CFR:

I am not familiar with the "no real harm" standard of judicial review. Could either you or Bikemikey please point me to some authoritative material where it is described and where it defines how it is supposed to work in determining the constitutionality of laws? And, could you also point to where allegedly, time after time, in the court rulings the laws in question were deemed unConstitutional based on the "no real harm" test?

I suspect that the two of you are quite mistaken, but I want to give you the opportunity to prove my suspicions incorrect.

Did you see it this time around?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 19, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Marriage is what people are asking for. Marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a Fundemental Right in the United State - subject to polygamy laws, incest laws, age laws, and blood relation laws.

This is false. The fundamental right of marriage only logically pertains to "marriage" as defined as between a man and a woman (and this because it is "fundamental to our existence and survival and has been a part of our long legal history"), and not to "marriage" as re-defined as between whomever or whatever or whenever (and this because same-sex relationships are not fundamental to our existence and survival and SSM has not been a part of our long legal history).

Even still, anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, already has the equal fundamental right to marry someone of the opposite sex, barring the exceptions you listed.

Whereas, the new legal definition of marriage and invented, non-fundamental right you mentioned, only exists in a handful of states. In the states where it has been legalized by court order, the legalization came by way of selectively giving preferential treatment to homosexuals as a classification. It came, ironically, by way of inequality.

This new non-fundamental right retains some of the same inequalities as the old fundamental right, as evinced by the exceptions you listed. It remains unequal, and selectively so.

Furthermore, the very fact that the traditional legal definition and the fundamental right had to be bastardized in order to make SSM legal, and the fact that the initial intents of the law pertain to heterosexual marriages and not homosexual relationships, and the fact that we speak in terms of traditional marriage as contrasted with SSM, or heterosexual marriage as contrasted with homosexual marriages, unavoidably suggest that even now and in the future they are not only conceptually separate and not equal, but in terms of value to society, they can't help but be separate and unequal. These ontological inequalities will always exist and cannot be made equal regardless of mangled definitions and inane conferral of new rights.

In short, as iterated and reiterated, the notions of equal rights and equality of marriage as it relates to SSM, is a farce on multiple levels. Things have been rationally and rightly unequal for some time and unavoidably for all time, though with the increasing public acceptance of SSM, they appear to be moving towards irrationally inequality, rather than equality.

But, as several of us have noted, gay propagandist have been very successful in duping good people into believing SSM is about equality--so successful in fact that it doesn't seem to matter what I and others can logically demonstrate to the contrary. It appears that more and more we are wasting our breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 20, 2012 by wenglund