Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Gay Marriage in New York City?

LGBT Same sex marriage New York City

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#21 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:02 PM

Digital Man, on Feb 6 2005, 11:49 AM, said:

Of course not! My mind's NEVER left the gutter!

:p~

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Speaking of " :p~" what part of NYC did you say you're from?  :whistle:

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#22 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:07 PM

Solar Wind, on Feb 6 2005, 02:46 PM, said:

Quote

current marriage law discriminates against homosexual citizens
No, it doesn't. Homosexuals have entered into marriage. They have wed someone of the opposite sex and have received the benefits approved by the states' legislatures.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, and made themselves and their witting or unwitting spouses miserable.  I should think that gay marriage would be allowed under the principle of "pursuit of happiness" at the very least.  

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#23 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:16 PM

Quote

Instead, the majority opinion argued that public education is essential, and therefore if a state chooses to provide it, that state must provide it equally to all citizens.

Right. No one argued that public education itself was unconstitutional. So I still don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that, in a comparable matter, where members of a class are denied participation in a social institution overseen (in this case licensed) by government, their complaint is somehow an argument that heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional--which is what you said up there, unless I'm misreading you. Gays and lesbians don't want to do a thing to heterosexual marriage. They just want the same legal option for their relationships.

Quote

My position is that the government should not grant marriage licenses for something that isn't a marriage according to most of American society.

What if most of American society changes its mind? Would you support it then? It can happen, you know. Already, the less-emotionally-charged term "civil union" elicits far more support than it did when the idea first came up a decade ago. Attitudes towards gays and lesbians have grown increasingly tolerant in the past twenty years--the vocal minority from the Religious Right excepted.

Consider this, also. I grew up in the segregated South. The majority of Southerners were opposed to integration. This is why federal judges had to force Southern governors to integrate schools and Southern society in general. And, trust me, there were a lot of god-fearing people who thought integration was a violation of God's plan. Looking back, can one honestly say that they were right because they were a majority? If a majority refuses to see the humanity and civic equality of a group of people, does the government have an obligation to uphold the majority's vision of society when that vision appears to be based on prejudices and irrational fears?
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#24 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:17 PM

Nonny, on Feb 6 2005, 06:07 PM, said:

I should think that gay marriage would be allowed under the principle of "pursuit of happiness" at the very least.

Wrong document.

BTW, do you think criminals should have the inalienable right to liberty?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#25 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:21 PM

Quote

BTW, do you think criminals should have the inalienable right to liberty?

Bad analogy. Homosexuality isn't a crime.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#26 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:23 PM

Solar Wind, on Feb 6 2005, 03:17 PM, said:

Nonny, on Feb 6 2005, 06:07 PM, said:

I should think that gay marriage would be allowed under the principle of "pursuit of happiness" at the very least.
Wrong document.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

D'oh!  

Solar Wind, on Feb 6 2005, 03:17 PM, said:

BTW, do you think criminals should have the inalienable right to liberty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well now, let me think about that.  In time, I bet I could come up with something rhetorically equivalent to the one about how homosexuals have the right to marry, just not somebody they want to marry.  It'll take some time, and mine is about to run out for today.  :)

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#27 Nonny

Nonny

    Scourge of Pretentious Bad Latin

  • Islander
  • 31,142 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 06:25 PM

Spectacles, on Feb 6 2005, 03:21 PM, said:

Quote

BTW, do you think criminals should have the inalienable right to liberty?
Bad analogy. Homosexuality isn't a crime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And there's that too, of course.  :)

Nonny
Posted Image


The once and future Nonny

"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Can anyone tell me who I am quoting?  I found this with no attribution.

Fatal miscarriages are forever.

Stupid is stupid, this I believe. And ignorance is the worst kind of stupid, since ignorance is a choice.  Suzanne Brockmann

All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings. Diderot

#28 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 07:14 PM

^ The point is that we're governed by the framework of the Constitution, not whatever may have suited Jefferson's polemical purposes when he wrote "The Declaration of Independence." Unlike "The Declaration of Independence" the Constitution and our laws recognize that liberty and life are not inalienable -- the government may take them away, provided it does so in a way consistent with the Constitution.

Spectacles said:

So I still don't understand how you arrive at the conclusion that, in a comparable matter, where members of a class are denied participation in a social institution overseen (in this case licensed) by government, their complaint is somehow an argument that heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional….
The activist judges are saying that marriage laws are unconstitutional, and therefore must be extended to same-sex couples (even though same-sex unions do not mesh with what most Americans regard as marriage).

Spectacles said:

What if most of American society changes its mind?
Then, the state legislatures will legalize same-sex "marriages." At least this is what would have happened if the activist judges hadn't been so spectacularly stupid as to abuse state and federal constitutions as a means to achieve their agenda. Now, in some states, same-sex "marriages" will need enough support not only to re-legislate civil marriage, but also reverse the amendments to the state constitutions.

Spectacles said:

If a majority refuses to see the humanity and civic equality of a group of people, does the government have an obligation to uphold the majority's vision of society when that vision appears to be based on prejudices and irrational fears?
The U.S. government already recognizes that homosexuals are citizens (and therefore human). Also, homosexuals are already civic equals. They have the same rights as heterosexuals to vote, run for office, and participate in civic affairs.

Homosexuals can legally marry if they so choose. The poor can buy a lot of stocks/mutual funds and try to benefit from low-tax capital gains if they ever have sufficient disposable income. Just about any law will discriminate against someone. Who's to decide which laws to pass? The government has an obligation to uphold the Constitution. This means that states must provide a Republican form of government, not an oligarchy of activist "judges."

Edited by Solar Wind, 06 February 2005 - 07:27 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#29 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 07:56 PM

Quote

Homosexuals can legally marry if they so choose.

But they can't choose to marry the persons they're in love with and want to build a life with. So this is rather like saying that homosexuals can legally marry if they go straight.

As for the "activist judges," they are simply interpreting the law--as do all judges. Gays and lesbians who wish to marry (their partners, not someone of the opposite sex) appeal state laws that prohibit them from doing so--as is their right. Therefore, their cases come before judges who must rule on them. Of course, you're free to disagree with their rulings, as I do the rulings of activist judges like Roy Moore, who occasionally would let rip some pretty forceful condemnations of "vile" homosexuals from the bench.

And we're just going to go around and around here. It all boils down to this: you don't think gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, or to enter into civil unions. I do.

As I said up there, I see no qualitative difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I've known a whole bunch of both, and a fair number of bisexuals. Some (gays, straight, bis) are great people. Some (gays, straights, bis) are jerks. Their sexual orientation seems not to make one bit of difference in the kind of people they are. And extending civil marriage to gays and lesbians would not in any way, shape or form threaten heterosexual marriages.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#30 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 08:15 PM

Quote

Your entire response to the first paragraph of my post was a straw man. Add in whatever conditions you like to exclude couples you deem undesirable from the "two people" facsimile of marriage, just like there are plenty of implicit conditions in the "union between a man and a woman" definition of marriage
.

Indeed it was not.   Almost all advocates of extending marriage rights under the law to gay and lesbian citizens acknowledge that society, through the state, has an overriding concern to limit those rights in certain cases where it has been demonstrated that harm will be done by not limiting them.  Hence laws establishing age of consent and prohibiting incest, among others.  The burden is on those who wish to limit those rights to show what harm will be done if they are not limited.  So far, no one has come up with any kind of logical answer as to what harm will be done--to anyone--if gay citizens are allowed to marry according to their preference.  If you want to make an argument under case and Constitutional law as they now stand, you are going to have to demonstrate how gay marriage will damage either the participants or society as a whole.  Have at it.

Quote

Okay, so discrimination, even on the basis of race, does not violate the equal protection clause

Not quite.  Discrimination, even on the basis of race does not violate the equal protectoin clause under very straitly limited circumstances where the intention is remediation of pervasive historical inequality.   The affirmative action law implicitly recognizes, for instance, that it is desirable for racial and other minorities to advance in education and employment because the historical alternative is armed revolution.  

Quote

No, American society has overwhelmingly privileged white males.

Society, through law.  It was law that kept African-Americans out of good schools and out of the front seats of the bus in the pre-Civil Rights movement south.  It was law that kept women off juries until the 1950's.  It was law that burdened the right to vote by imposing poll taxes.  It was law that collected a tax from all citizens to pay a Protestant minister in many New England communities well into the 19th. century and law that mandated the insertion of "under God" into the pledge of allegiance.  It was law that refused to acknowledge Jehovah's Witnesses as bona fide conscientious objectors.  I could go on, but you get the point.

Quote

The point is that we're governed by the framework of the Constitution,
Correct.  Hold that thought.

Quote

Then, the state legislatures will legalize same-sex "marriages." At least this is what would have happened if the activist judges hadn't been so spectacularly stupid as to abuse state and federal constitutions as a means to achieve their agenda. Now, in some states, same-sex "marriages" will need enough support not only to re-legislate civil marriage, but also reverse the amendments to the state constitutions.

Now, tell me--what just happened to that Constitutional framework?  The judiciary is organized as it is under the Constitution for the express purpose of (a) providing checks and balances on abuses by the legislature and executive, and (b) exempting its actions from majority approval on the express grounds that the majority will may not be in line with the Constitution, as it was not in the case of equal rights of African-Americans.  Judges are supposed to be what you are pleased to call "activist."

Quote

QUOTE
current marriage law discriminates against homosexual citizens
No, it doesn't. Homosexuals have entered into marriage. They have wed someone of the opposite sex and have received the benefits approved by the states' legislatures.

This is analogous to an argument that the law would not discriminate against Catholics if the Church were outlawed; after all, they could always go to the Methodist Church.  Or, let's outlaw conservatism.  That won't affect your right to vote for a candidate of your choice; you can always choose to vote Democratic--or choose not to vote at all.

Quote

This means that states must provide a Republican form of government,

Wrong!  Wrong, wrong, very wrong.  The states must provide a republican form of government.

Freudian slip much?  :lol:
Posted Image

#31 Gvambat

Gvambat
  • Islander
  • 1,236 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 08:26 PM

Solar Wind, on Feb 6 2005, 07:14 PM, said:

Homosexuals can legally marry if they so choose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


So, a prohibition on interracial marriages would be fine, as long as one was still able to marry within one's own race?
Electrons behave like waves on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; like particles on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and like nothing at all on Sundays.

#32 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 09:03 PM

waterpanther said:

If you want to make an argument under case and Constitutional law as they now stand, you are going to have to demonstrate how gay marriage will damage either the participants or society as a whole.
I disagree (link).

Quote

Society, through law.
Primarily it has been society through economic momentum and indoctrination as well as people just not liking what's different. In your example of the Presidency, Catholics have been able to run for President since the Constitution was signed. Women have been able to run since early last century and blacks even before that. People just won't vote for them.

Quote

The affirmative action law implicitly recognizes, for instance, that it is desirable for racial and other minorities to advance in education and employment because the historical alternative is armed revolution.
One would think that the desirable thing to do would be for the government to do its best to end all discrimination on the basis of race, and let racial minorities advance in education and employment without the Supreme Court branding them as inferiors who need preferential treatment.

Quote

Judges are supposed to be what you are pleased to call "activist."
No, judges are supposed to interpret constitutions and laws when they are vague with regard to a certain case. That's completely different from the judges having their decision made up beforehand and twisting constitutions to support an agenda.

Quote

This is analogous to an argument that the law would not discriminate against Catholics if the Church were outlawed; after all, they could always go to the Methodist Church.
The First Amendment forbids that.

Quote

Or, let's outlaw conservatism. That won't affect your right to vote for a candidate of your choice; you can always choose to vote Democratic--or choose not to vote at all.
Go for it. See how far you get.

waterpanther, my capitalization of "Republican" comes from the Constitution. Check it out for yourself.

Gvambat said:

So, a prohibition on interracial marriages would be fine, as long as one was still able to marry within one's own race?
No. That’s clearly against federal law.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#33 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 09:16 PM

Quote

One would think that the desirable thing to do would be for the government to do its best to end all discrimination on the basis of race, and let racial minorities advance in education and employment without the Supreme Court branding them as inferiors who need preferential treatment.

So white males were inferiors who needed preferential treatment?  

Quote

No, judges are supposed to interpret constitutions and laws when they are vague with regard to a certain case. That's completely different from the judges having their decision made up beforehand and twisting constitutions to support an agenda.

So who's reading the judges' minds here?  Has The Amazing Kreskin joined the Republican Party?  And what does radical cleric Falwell have to say about such unBiblical divination?

Quote

QUOTE
Or, let's outlaw conservatism. That won't affect your right to vote for a candidate of your choice; you can always choose to vote Democratic--or choose not to vote at all.
Go for it. See how far you get.

Tch. So defensive!  What's the problem here?  After all, it would not harm you in any way or deny you a choice.  You'd be just as free as Democrats--to vote for a Democrat.

Thanks, by the way, for admitting here that your basic argument is that might makes right.
Posted Image

#34 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 10:33 PM

waterpanther said:

So white males were inferiors who needed preferential treatment?
The southern plantation owners certainly seemed to think they needed preferential treatment. They thought that their entire economy and way of life would collapse if they weren't allowed to own slaves (and they were right).

Quote

What's the problem here? After all, it would not harm you in any way or deny you a choice. You'd be just as free as Democrats--to vote for a Democrat.
The right to vote for a candidate of one's choice (subject to the conditions specified in the Constitution) is just a wee bit more integral to the Constitution than the status afforded to married couples.

Quote

Thanks, by the way, for admitting here that your basic argument is that might makes right.
No, it isn’t. I've been arguing that there is a constitutionally specified way to go about changing the rights, privileges, and protections afforded by the government. The Constitution is quite big on rule of the representatives of the majority, provided that its framework is respected. If you want to interpret that as "might makes right," that's your prerogative.

Here are some snippets from an analysis on how activist judges are detrimental to a Constitutional democracy:

Quote

As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by “a written constitution” and “the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.”  (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.)  Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people.  Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury, “would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.”

Quote

Under the “new Constitution” announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court – rather than a legislature – will settle the matter.  Why?  Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the “meaning of life” and the “mysteries of the universe” become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.

Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended.  It is not what the written text demands.  But it is what the courts have now decreed.

Quote

If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act.  But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked.  Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the “least dangerous branch” because it does not create policy but merely exercises “judgment.”  The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.

Quote

By inventing and enforcing “rights” nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people’s popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.

Edited by Solar Wind, 06 February 2005 - 10:40 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#35 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 10:49 PM

Ah, yes.  An analysis from the same folks who suddenly had a "revelation" that African Americans could be admitted to their priesthood--contrary to their own "Constitution"-- when threatened with partial loss of tax-exempt status and whose anti-gay bias is welll known.   Show me some better and less self-serving legal scholarship than this if you want to be taken seriously.

Quote

QUOTE(waterpanther)
So white males were inferiors who needed preferential treatment?
The southern plantation owners certainly seemed to think they needed preferential treatment. They thought that their entire economy and way of life would collapse if they weren't allowed to own slaves (and they were right).

So what's twenty-first century white males' excuse?
Posted Image

#36 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 11:36 PM

^ Actually, the analysis was written by a Brigham Young professor of constitutional law.

<So what's twenty-first century white males' excuse?>Why look for excuses when sheer social momentum is sufficient?
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#37 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 06 February 2005 - 11:55 PM

Quote

^ Actually, the analysis was written by a Brigham Young professor of constitutional law.

My point precisely.  Given his venue, he's about as credible on this subject as a Liberty University "prof" would be on evolution.

Quote

Why look for excuses when sheer social momentum is sufficient?

I have no idea what you mean by this.
Posted Image

#38 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 07 February 2005 - 02:55 AM

Quote

The poor can buy a lot of stocks/mutual funds and try to benefit from low-tax capital gains if they ever have sufficient disposable income
POI only, did you know there are whole levels of investment the poor cannot legally invest in?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#39 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 07 February 2005 - 06:11 AM

Quote

Waterpanther: (Though it's beginning to look like Abe Lincoln was at least bi. Oh, the squawking and the squealing that's going to cause in Republican circles! I can't wait!)
Are you thinking about the work of C.A. Tripp?  The man isn't even a historian.  From what I know the book relies on doubious circumstancial evidience on Lincoln's habits that were common on the frontier.  Along with using information from Lincoln's step(?) mother to attempt to prove he had no interest in women.  In addition he compares the personality type of Mary Todd to Hitler.  What I see is a lot of really bad circumstancial evidience, poor reasoning, and slapping of 21st century social habits on to a late 19th century character.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#40 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 07 February 2005 - 06:44 AM

Quote

Waterpanther:
If you want to make an argument under case and Constitutional law as they now stand, you are going to have to demonstrate how gay marriage will damage either the participants or society as a whole.

Solar Wind:
I disagree (link).


From the link provided:

Quote

[Judge] Moody sided with former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who argued in court filings that the government has a legitimate interest in allowing states to ban same-sex marriages, namely to encourage “stable relationships” for the rearing of children by both biological parents.

In short, that was the foundation of his ruling, which illustrates Waterpanther's point. This activist judge found (with some held from Ashcroft) that it's in the interest of society to discriminate against same-sex marriage because children need both biological parents. With judicial activists like this, can a divorce ban be far behind?  :Oo:
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: LGBT, Same sex marriage, New York City

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users