Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeannyM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ReConverted said:
For myself and for those I believe to be hindered in the exercise of those rights, you betcha! (I couldn’t resist a Sarah Palin reference…)
Click to expand...
Well, if you have this power, who’s to say that I can’t authoritatively proclaim that SS"M" is not an objective right?
 
ReConverted said:
Basic human rights are not up for a vote. Rights EXIST. It is those who thwart those rights that are in error. As far as I can tell, your argument is based on a “Slippery slope”. Am I correct in thinking this. I’m serious. I want to make sure I understand you correctly. PS: I hope you had a GREAT Christmas.
Click to expand...
And nobody is saying that a gay man cannot call another man “husband” if he so chooses. What is being opposed is the forcing of that delusion on the rest of society.

Recently, a Seattle woman “married” a warehouse. Is the government now required to extend tax benefits to her as “married-filing-separately”? As the building has since been torn down, is she now eligible for survivor’s benefits under Social Security? Should her insurance carrier have extended coverage to the building, so as to provide for repairs?
 
SeannyM said:
They are actually defined by legal precedence. There is a set of requirements to recognize a right as being fundamental.
Click to expand...
The right to marriage is a fundamental right. No one disagrees with that. But this does not mean that anyone can marry anyone.
 
Monkey1976 said:
And nobody is saying that a gay man cannot call another man “husband” if he so chooses. What is being opposed is the forcing of that delusion on the rest of society.

Recently, a Seattle woman “married” a warehouse. Is the government now required to extend tax benefits to her as “married-filing-separately”? As the building has since been torn down, is she now eligible for survivor’s benefits under Social Security? Should her insurance carrier have extended coverage to the building, so as to provide for repairs?
Click to expand...
Is a building a consenting adult? That is kind if ridiculous, sorry. And the case wasn’t about what someone calls someone else, it was about conferring the responsibilities and benefits of marriage equally.
 
SeannyM said:
They are actually defined by legal precedence. There is a set of requirements to recognize a right as being fundamental.
Click to expand...
And the recognition of marriage as a fundamental right in US case law is based on the finding of Skinner v. Oklahoma that procreation is a fundamental right. Still waiting on the explanation of how two men or two women can do that without the intervention of a third party.
 
JamesTheJust said:
The right to marriage is a fundamental right. No one disagrees with that. But this does not mean that anyone can marry anyone.
Click to expand...
And no one is saying they can marry anyone. The argument is that the right to marry a consenting adult of your choosing is a right that must be applied equally.
 
Monkey1976 said:
And the recognition of marriage as a fundamental right in US case law is based on the finding of Skinner v. Oklahoma that procreation is a fundamental right. Still waiting on the explanation of how two men or two women can do that without the intervention of a third party.
Click to expand...
Skinner says that the right to marry and the right to procreate are both fundamental rights… It does not set procreation as a requirement to marry.
 
Monkey1976 said:
And nobody is saying that a gay man cannot call another man “husband” if he so chooses. What is being opposed is the forcing of that delusion on the rest of society.

Recently, a Seattle woman “married” a warehouse. Is the government now required to extend tax benefits to her as “married-filing-separately”? As the building has since been torn down, is she now eligible for survivor’s benefits under Social Security? Should her insurance carrier have extended coverage to the building, so as to provide for repairs?
Click to expand...
No, your use of the term “being forced” is nonsense. Gay marriage doesn’t harm heterosexual marriage one bit. My heterosexual marriage is doing just fine, thanks very much.

The woman in Seattle didn’t legally marry a warehouse. (She sounds like a dingbat on steroids to me. LOL I’m also aware that many feel my position on gay rights is equally ludicrous.) We’re discussing humans here.
 
JamesTheJust said:
It’s my right to authoritatively proclaim what objective rights are? Great! I now declare that SS"M" is not a fundamental right. End of story.
Click to expand...
You can declare anything you want, well with a few exceptions. I wouldn’t proclaim that you have a bomb, or that a crowded movie theater is on fire when it’s not. But your proclamation will not set legal precedent. I’m pretty sure that the post you are referencing was made in jest. As I’ve pointed out many times, fundamental rights are established by legal precedent.
 
SeannyM said:
You can declare anything you want, well with a few exceptions. I wouldn’t proclaim that you have a bomb, or that a crowded movie theater is on fire when it’s not. But your proclamation will not set legal precedent. I’m pretty sure that the post you are referencing was made in jest. As I’ve pointed out many times, fundamental rights are established by legal precedent.
Click to expand...
I was pointing out that ReConverted, in post #356, slipped up by saying that it is the right of the individual to declare what is a fundamental right. That’s all.
 
ReConverted said:
No, your use of the term “being forced” is nonsense. Gay marriage doesn’t harm heterosexual marriage one bit. My heterosexual marriage is doing just fine, thanks very much.
Click to expand...
If I’m a baker or photographer in Utah who happens to disagree with same-sex “marriage”, then I’m faced with a choice of violating my beliefs or finding another line of work.
ReConverted said:
The woman in Seattle didn’t legally marry a warehouse. (She sounds like a dingbat on steroids to me. LOL I’m also aware that many feel my position on gay rights is equally ludicrous.) We’re discussing humans here.
Click to expand...
Under US law, corporations are people. Therefore they can consent. Therefore they can “marry”. QED.

Either there is a reason why two unrelated consenting persons who have no other legal impediments (age, previous marriage, etc) cannot marry, or there isn’t.
 
JamesTheJust said:
I was pointing out that ReConverted, in post #356, slipped up by saying that it is the right of the individual to declare what is a fundamental right. That’s all.
Click to expand...
I know… But I think that was said in jest. At least that’s how I interpreted it.
 
SeannyM said:
How do you have any knowledge of my characteristics? How people become gay is of no consequence to the discussion. When I use the word class, I’m referring to a legal term that is defined in multiple court cases. By the way, there are several other cases that we quote as well, Loving is just the most prominent. If you’re interested in the other cases, feel free to read the opinion, they’re all in there.
Click to expand...
Yes but again, define this class. It is basically made up of people who at a point in time choose to engage in a particular sex act, unlike the usual rights case where there are clearly defined classes at issue.

I was born female and will die female. However sexual proclivities and practices and attractions change over time. Your “class” is simply a group that has chosen to engage in a particular sexual activity and wish to pretend that it is as intrinsic as my double X chromosome.

I do not deny that there is a fundamental right TO marry but WHOM you marry is not a fundamental right. This is where states differ. This “right” to marry someone because of a transient and ill defined sexual practice seems like a pretty great stretch. Not that judges haven’t done this before…Roe being the worst example of judicial activism. This is simply a product of 60s squish “if it feels good do it” philosophy and as all Leftist causes, is based on feelings rather than evidence.

Lisa
 
SeannyM said:
You can declare anything you want, well with a few exceptions. I wouldn’t proclaim that you have a bomb, or that a crowded movie theater is on fire when it’s not. But your proclamation will not set legal precedent. I’m pretty sure that the post you are referencing was made in jest. As I’ve pointed out many times, fundamental rights are established by legal precedent.
Click to expand...
Fundamental rights are established by God. Our Founding Fathers thought so and their wisdom certainly exceeds the lunacy of today’s politicians and judges. These fundamental rights are not created by human beings but they are codified into law by human beings.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Yes but again, define this class. It is basically made up of people who at a point in time choose to engage in a particular sex act, unlike the usual rights case where there are clearly defined classes at issue.

I was born female and will die female. However sexual proclivities and practices and attractions change over time. Your “class” is simply a group that has chosen to engage in a particular sexual activity and wish to pretend that it is as intrinsic as my double X chromosome.

I do not deny that there is a fundamental right TO marry but WHOM you marry is not a fundamental right. This is where states differ. This “right” to marry someone because of a transient and ill defined sexual practice seems like a pretty great stretch. Not that judges haven’t done this before…Roe being the worst example of judicial activism. This is simply a product of 60s squish “if it feels good do it” philosophy and as all Leftist causes, is based on feelings rather than evidence.

Lisa
Click to expand...
No, it is the right to marry a consenting adult of your choosing. That is clearly stated in loving. Now there are some restrictions on that, like sibling marriage, and ages of consent, but those restrictions are required to further a legitimate state interest. The court found in this case that there is no legitimate interest in restricting the right to members of the opposite sex.
 
As a musician, I’d love for the VAT to be lifted on musical instruments so that my muso pals in the UK could get better gear at better prices. I’m a piano player. I can only imagine what the VAT must be on a Baby Grand. 😦

I happen to disagree with the Church on a couple of points, however, my conclusions are not solely based on the Constitution, far from it. Since I live here in the states, and the discussion does bring up Constitutional points, I’m not doing wrong in addressing Constitutional points. I DO understand where you’re coming from. though. I simply disagree. I have no problem citing the Constitution when are where I feel it is applicable. I think this is true of many people on the planet in light of their governing documents. Divorce was forbidden in Ireland until recently. What that meant was a Catholic position was forced up Irish citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs. 2 atheists couldn’t divorce in Ireland. What the heck is THAT?
 
LisaA said:
Fundamental rights are established by God. Our Founding Fathers thought so and their wisdom certainly exceeds the lunacy of today’s politicians and judges. These fundamental rights are not created by human beings but they are codified into law by human beings.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Ah, but which God? Ours or the Mason’s “Gran Architect of the Universe?” Many of the founders were Masons, too. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top