Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Legion]

As a side issue i am still concerned with why there must be a legal argument against homosexual marriage for their to be termed a nonbigotted or valid argument against it.

I do agree with gay marriage. I am just confused as to the relevance of laws against it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Asinine only has one S.

And I suspect that if any anti-Gay-Marriage laws appear (including the Constitutional Amendment), I get the distinct impression it'll be reaching the Supreme Court rather quickly.

(See my sig...)

 

[Tagrineth]

Asinine only has one S.

And I suspect that if any anti-Gay-Marriage laws appear (including the Constitutional Amendment), I get the distinct impression it'll be reaching the Supreme Court rather quickly.

thank you for consulting dictionary.com for me

I didn't need to look it up, hun.

 

[Natoma]

As a side issue i am still concerned with why there must be a legal argument against homosexual marriage for their to be termed a nonbigotted or valid argument against it.

I do agree with gay marriage. I am just confused as to the relevance of laws against it.

What reason can be profferred that would make the case for gay marriage being illegal? The only reason anyone has come up with at its heart is "I just don't like it." That's not something that will stand up in a court of law, but it certainly stems from prejudices against gay men and women.

So if anti-gay marriage proponents don't want to be known as bigots, then I propose they offer a legally valid argument against it. Again, civil marriage, not religious marriage.

 

[Legion]

Asinine only has one S.

And I suspect that if any anti-Gay-Marriage laws appear (including the Constitutional Amendment), I get the distinct impression it'll be reaching the Supreme Court rather quickly.

thank you for consulting dictionary.com for me

I didn't need to look it up, hun.

Not any more at least....little girl.

 

[Legion]

What reason can be profferred that would make the case for gay marriage being illegal?

I think that was a point i made earlier. If there was a law against it what would be the basis of it?

The only reason anyone has come up with at its heart is "I just don't like it." That's not something that will stand up in a court of law, but it certainly stems from prejudices against gay men and women.

Does disagreeing with the behavior mean you are prejudice?

So if anti-gay marriage proponents don't want to be known as bigots, then I propose they offer a legally valid argument against it. Again, civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Are you refering to existing laws being used to argue agaisnt it? What really do you mean by a legal argument?

 

[Tim Murray]

Does disagreeing with the behavior mean you are prejudice?

This is the United States. Apparently, it does.

 

[Natoma]

What reason can be profferred that would make the case for gay marriage being illegal?

I think that was a point i made earlier. If there was a law against it what would be the basis of it?

Legion you have to rephrase what you're trying to say. You lost me. :?

The only reason anyone has come up with at its heart is "I just don't like it." That's not something that will stand up in a court of law, but it certainly stems from prejudices against gay men and women.

Does disagreeing with the behavior mean you are prejudice?

When dealing with the law, you need to have a reason that will stand up in a court of law. There is no such reason proffered by those who would deny gay men and women full rights under the law. So if the wish to create laws carries no legally justifiable reasoning behind it, then it must stem from someplace else. And what does it come down to? "I just don't like it." That is certainly a prejudice against gay men and women.

So if anti-gay marriage proponents don't want to be known as bigots, then I propose they offer a legally valid argument against it. Again, civil marriage, not religious marriage.

Are you refering to existing laws being used to argue agaisnt it? What really do you mean by a legal argument?

Anti-gay marriage proponents say they want a constitutional amendment to bar gays and lesbians from marrying. What legally valid argument do they have to keep gays and lesbians from entering into a civil marriage? What legally valid argument exists for the current laws on the books? Those are the questions they need to answer.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I really don't want to dig this up again, but...

What legally valid argument exists for the current laws on the books? Those are the questions they need to answer.

That's a rhetorical question.

You can't provide a "legally valid" argument for a law. (Any more than a constitutional amenment can be unconstitutional.) The law defines legaility.

And BTW...there is a difference between being prejudiced against gay men and women, and being prejudices against a gay union. I hope you understand that.

 

[Natoma]

That's a rhetorical question.

You can't provide a "legally valid" argument for a law. (Any more than a constitutional amenment can be unconstitutional.) The law defines legaility.

The laws on the books say that gays and lesbians can't get married. There is no legally sound basis for that other than "we think it's not good" that would hold up in a court of law. See Massachusetts as prime example.

Btw, Eliot Spitzer decided against prosecuting Jason West for violating NYS law, why? Because he said the state would lose upon inspection of the actual law itself. Then he came out stating that he believes this should go through the courts, and that he believes NYS law would be struck down there.

there is a difference between being prejudiced against gay men and women, and being prejudices against a gay union. I hope you understand that.

Oh really? I'd love to see how you explain that one. There is absolutely no difference between being prejudiced against gay men and women, and being prejudiced against a gay union.

 

[Tim Murray]

You'd think by this point Natoma would realize that Joe is referring to the letter of the law as his basis for legality and Joe would realize that Natoma is referring to the possible spirit of the law as his basis. But no; they just keep going and going and going.

And Natoma, are you playing the misquote game, or did Joe make a typo?

 

[Natoma]

You'd think by this point Natoma would realize that Joe is referring to the letter of the law as his basis for legality and Joe would realize that Natoma is referring to the possible spirit of the law as his basis. But no; they just keep going and going and going.

Of course he knows what I'm referring to. He just likes arguing just to argue.

And Natoma, are you playing the misquote game, or did Joe make a typo?

Bah. I fixed it too late.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The laws on the books say that gays and lesbians can't get married.

In some cases, yes.

There is no legally sound basis for that other than "we think it's not good" that would hold up in a court of law. See Massachusetts as prime example.

You're still being rhetorical.

Massachusetts contested the State Constitutionality of the law. This will vary from state to state (and from court to court, for that matter.)

Btw, Eliot Spitzer decided against prosecuting Jason West for violating NYS law, why? Because he said the state would lose upon inspection of the actual law itself. Then he came out stating that he believes this should go through the courts, and that he believes NYS law would be struck down there.

Well, some judges don't agree:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-05-ny-mayor-gay-marriages_x.htm

Justice Vincent Bradley issued a temporary restraining order against the 26-year-old New Paltz mayor at the request of the Florida-based Liberty Council, which acted on behalf of a local resident.

"The mayor in substance ignores the oath of office that he took to uphold the law," Bradley said.

Oh really? I'd love to see how you explain that one. There is absolutely no difference between being prejudiced against gay men and women, and being prejudiced against a gay union.

Then, there's no hope in ever having a reasonable discussion here.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well, some judges don't agree:

Oh, and while we're on the subject:

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/19864.htm

March 5, 2004 -- New Paltz Mayor Jason West could face jail time because his plan to keep performing same-sex marriages is "an arrogant violation of the law," the Ulster County district attorney said yesterday.
"He has given us no choice but to prosecute these cases thoroughly," DA Donald Williams told The Post....West, who pleaded not guilty, has vowed to continue despite the pending charges and an advisory opinion from state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer that said such marriages are illegal.

 

[Natoma]

And in that same article, the city of SF is going to court stating that nothing in their constitution prevents them from disobeying laws that violate the state constitution. Who knows whether or not this will stand up.

Oh really? I'd love to see how you explain that one. There is absolutely no difference between being prejudiced against gay men and women, and being prejudiced against a gay union.

Then, there's no hope in ever having a reasonable discussion here.

I have nothing against black people. I just don't think they should be able to sit at the front of the bus. I have nothing against women. I just don't think they should be able to vote. I have nothing against gay people. I just don't think they should be able to marry.

What is the difference between any of those statements wrt differences of prejudice?

 

[Natoma]

Well, some judges don't agree:

Oh, and while we're on the subject:

http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/19864.htm

March 5, 2004 -- New Paltz Mayor Jason West could face jail time because his plan to keep performing same-sex marriages is "an arrogant violation of the law," the Ulster County district attorney said yesterday.
"He has given us no choice but to prosecute these cases thoroughly," DA Donald Williams told The Post....West, who pleaded not guilty, has vowed to continue despite the pending charges and an advisory opinion from state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer that said such marriages are illegal.

That was his legal opinion of the current situation. With a thorough test in the courts, he stated that he believed NYS would lose, which is why he declined to prosecute Jason West, but merely charge him.

The current case is being brought forth by the district attorney who has local jurisdiction over New Paltz.

 

[Tim Murray]

I have nothing against black people. I just don't think they should be able to sit at the front of the bus. I have nothing against women. I just don't think they should be able to vote. I have nothing against gay people. I just don't think they should be able to marry.

What is the difference between any of those statements wrt differences of prejudice?

hm, to start with, equal protection under the law. the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (I believe) declared that segregation was legal so long as facilities were "separate but equal." Brown v. Board of Education (the first big Supreme Court case that marked the beginning of the end for segregation) decided that segregation was illegal on the grounds that Plessy v. Ferguson's idea of "separate but equal" in a school environment was impossible; schools separated by race were inherently unequal. it wasn't that "SEGREGATION IS MORALLY WRONG SO WE DON'T LIKE IT AND SAY NO YOU CAN'T DO IT" but instead that segregation in schools wasn't allowed under the law because of its effects. so, that's one. the woman one, you should be able to figure out by yourself. gay marriage... meh. the 14th Amendment states that citizens are granted equal protection under the law. no such protection is granted to groups of citizens (otherwise, a church would be the same as a corporation or union or anything else you'd like). so, it'd take a somewhat landmark Supreme Court decision to simultaneously open up gay marraige nationwide.

and jeez, when I can poke big fat holes in your point, you need some better points.

 

[Tim Murray]

I have nothing against black people. I just don't think they should be able to sit at the front of the bus. I have nothing against women. I just don't think they should be able to vote. I have nothing against gay people. I just don't think they should be able to marry.

What is the difference between any of those statements wrt differences of prejudice?

hm, to start with, equal protection under the law. the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 (I believe) declared that segregation was legal so long as facilities were "separate but equal." Brown v. Board of Education (the first big Supreme Court case that marked the beginning of the end for segregation) decided that segregation was illegal on the grounds that Plessy v. Ferguson's idea of "separate but equal" in a school environment was impossible; schools separated by race were inherently unequal. it wasn't that "SEGREGATION IS MORALLY WRONG SO WE DON'T LIKE IT AND SAY NO YOU CAN'T DO IT" but instead that segregation in schools wasn't allowed under the law because of its effects. so, that's one. the woman one, you should be able to figure out by yourself. gay marriage... meh. the 14th Amendment states that citizens are granted equal protection under the law. no such protection is granted to groups of citizens (otherwise, a church would be the same as a corporation or union or anything else you'd like). so, it'd take a somewhat landmark Supreme Court decision to simultaneously open up gay marraige nationwide.

and jeez, when I can poke big fat holes in your point, you need some better points.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

And in that same article, the city of SF is going to court stating that nothing in their constitution prevents them from disobeying laws that violate the state constitution.

Natoma, nothing in the constitution prevents anyone from doing anything. The constitution doesn't give anyone permission to break the law. This goes double for elected officials. It's called separation of powers.

Executives and/or individuals have no right to interpret the constitution on their own, decide the "constitutionality" of a law, and then act based on that decision. Does this really need to be explained?

Who knows whether or not this will stand up.

With the CA courts, you never know. There is no way in hell it should stand up. It's so black and white it's ridiculous. The question of the constitutionality of the law is entirely separate.

What is the difference between any of those statements wrt differences of prejudice?

I have nothing against Jews. But I do have something agaist Jews coming into my church and preaching their faith to me.

I have nothing against women. But I do have something against women who feel they have the right to abort babies after bringing it to 9 months full term.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

(double post)