Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[ReConverted]

i’m not sure… But i don’t see how that matters, since the people don’t have a right to vote on civil rights. If they do vote to restrict civil rights without a legitimate state interest, it is the duty of the courts to step in.

Aaaaaaaamen.

 

[Dawnia]

The same arguments were used against interracial marriage, and yes, the same principle applies in the case of gay marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is just fine and will endure. Gay people aren’t going to fill the streets carrying torches and burning down the homes of married heterosexuals, which is the impression I get from some who prefer to stew in their paranoia. Voters don’t have the right to determine the right to marry for gay people. It is a right. Period.

You have a right to marry…you do not have a right to marry whomever you want.

 

[ReConverted]

Only 20 years ago, the same would have been said of homosexuals.

Paranoia, plain and simple.

And 50 years ago, interracial couples in some states couldn’t marry. Was the overturning of such vile laws also part of the “Slippery slope”?

 

[ReConverted]

You have a right to marry…you do not have a right to marry whomever you want.

Actually, you do. The Constitution applies to everyone. Over the centuries, our nation has had hard struggles in realizing that the Constitution is for ALL Americans.

 

[SeannyM]

It only takes one.

It’s hard to argue that an entire CLASS of people is being denied a right when it’s only one. Also, wouldn’t it take at least 2?

Don’t worry though, there is a clear state interest that is furthered by banning sibling marriage.

 

[Monkey1976]

I’m not sure… But I don’t see how that matters, since the people don’t have a right to vote on civil rights. If they do vote to restrict civil rights without a legitimate state interest, it is the duty of the courts to step in.

First, the issue of same-sex “marriage” being a civil right has not been decided. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is up to the states to allow or deny such. Second, how is it a violation of a “civil right” if you don’t happen to like the choices provided? Just because something is a “right” doesn’t mean that it is the duty of the government to make sure you exercise it.

At present, I don’t own a firearm - are my rights being violated because the government doesn’t provide me with one?

 

[Dawnia]

Actually, you do. The Constitution applies to everyone. Over the centuries, our nation has had hard struggles in realizing that the Constitution is for ALL Americans.

Uh no. There are restrictions to whom you can marry. Just like there are restrictions to your freedom of speech, your right to bear arms, and your right to vote.

 

[Monkey1976]

It’s hard to argue that an entire CLASS of people is being denied a right when it’s only one. Also, wouldn’t it take at least 2?

The issue of homosexuality being a “protected class” is not settled, either.

Don’t worry though, there is a clear state interest that is furthered by banning sibling marriage.

It can’t be the possibility of birth defects in children, because - by your own argument - procreation has nothing to do with marriage. So, what is it, and how does it not apply to same-sex couples?

 

[SeannyM]

First, the issue of same-sex “marriage” being a civil right has not been decided. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is up to the states to allow or deny such. Second, how is it a violation of a “civil right” if you don’t happen to like the choices provided? Just because something is a “right” doesn’t mean that it is the duty of the government to make sure you exercise it.

At present, I don’t own a firearm - are my rights being violated because the government doesn’t provide me with one?

No one is suggesting anyone be required to marry, the right not to marry is also recognized in the Loving decision. This decision is simply saying that it is unlawful for Utah to deny the right to marry to gay couples.

 

[ReConverted]

It’s hard to argue that an entire CLASS of people is being denied a right when it’s only one. Also, wouldn’t it take at least 2?

Don’t worry though, there is a clear state interest that is furthered by banning sibling marriage.

Aaaaamen to that, as well.

 

[SeannyM]

The issue of homosexuality being a “protected class” is not settled, either.

It can’t be the possibility of birth defects in children, because - by your own argument - procreation has nothing to do with marriage. So, what is it, and how does it not apply to same-sex couples?

Homosexuality doesn’t have to be a suspect class because the law fails even rational basis review. But when a fundamental right is in question, some form of heightened scrutiny must be applied regardless of the class the right is denied to.

And you’re correct, the ability to procreate is not a requirement to marry… The legitimate state interest in restricting sibling marriage is preventing birth defects… It has nothing to do with the couple’s ability to procreate, rather it deals with the dangers of them procreating.

 

[ReConverted]

Uh no. There are restrictions to whom you can marry. Just like there are restrictions to your freedom of speech, your right to bear arms, and your right to vote.

Nice try. Show me where the Constitution bans gay marriage either implicitly or explicitly. By the way I’ve asked my question, an accusation of an argument from silence cannot be attributed to me.

 

[Dawnia]

Nice try. Show me where the Constitution bans gay marriage either implicitly or explicitly. By the way I’ve asked my question, an accusation of an argument from silence cannot be attributed to me.

Show me where the Constitution says you get to marry your 5 year old neighbor…

 

[SeannyM]

Show me where the Constitution says you get to marry your 5 year old neighbor…

It doesn’t… And no one here is suggesting it does… Or should.

 

[Monkey1976]

Nice try. Show me where the Constitution bans gay marriage either implicitly or explicitly. By the way I’ve asked my question, an accusation of an argument from silence cannot be attributed to me.

Implicitly or explicitly: Show me where the Constitution bans my ownership of nuclear weapons. Show me where the Constitution bans the use of heroin. Show me where the Constitutions bans me driving 75 in a 55.

Do you see how silly that argument is?

 

[ReConverted]

First, the issue of same-sex “marriage” being a civil right has not been decided. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is up to the states to allow or deny such. Second, how is it a violation of a “civil right” if you don’t happen to like the choices provided? Just because something is a “right” doesn’t mean that it is the duty of the government to make sure you exercise it.

At present, I don’t own a firearm - are my rights being violated because the government doesn’t provide me with one?

Your analogies don’t hold up. STRAW MAN. No one said you had to be made (by any individual or entity) to exercise your rights. The point is, you should not be hindered in exercising any right you wish to. Rights aren’t up for a vote. They rights, not privileges.

 

[ReConverted]

Implicitly or explicitly: Show me where the Constitution bans my ownership of nuclear weapons. Show me where the Constitution bans the use of heroin. Show me where the Constitutions bans me driving 75 in a 55.

Do you see how silly that argument is?

Nice dodge. (Actually, it wasn’t very good at all). We’re discussing civil rights which are far different than providing for the common military defense of the nation.) If you care to, would you mind addressing the point of what I wrote instead of a flaw in reasoning you think I’m guilty of?

 

[ReConverted]

It doesn’t… And no one here is suggesting it does… Or should.

Exactly.

 

[Dawnia]

It doesn’t… And no one here is suggesting it does… Or should.

I said:

You have the right to marry…you do not have the right to marry whomever you want.

ReConverted said:

Actually, you do. The Constitution applies to everyone. Over the centuries, our nation has had hard struggles in realizing that the Constitution is for ALL Americans.

 

[ReConverted]

Ah, yes… never mind that two classes of human beings were subjected to the denial of basic human rights. You know who opposed interracial marriage? Conservatives. My, how soon we forget.