Gallup- Support for same-sex marriage hits new high majority-

So violating the constitution is OK with you, so long as the violation is impractical to enforce?

No, not a different ballgame at all. States cannot pass laws (and a state constitution is just another form of state law) in violation of the national constitution. That's what being a member of the union MEANS. It's all the same ballgame. If it's unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it was passed by a referendum, or by an initiative, or by a legislature, or embedded into a constitution. It's still unconstitutional and the courts can and will throw it out.

- - - Updated - - -

So you agree with Dave that marriage encourages promiscuity? Really? If you ever plan to be married, be sure to advise your prospective spouse about this.

 

It does not encourage promiscuity, however it does not stop it or reduce it either.

 

That's not necessarily true. I am not a monogamous person. I do not desire monogamy in a relationship, nor does my wife, so we are a good match. My first wife (who was wrong for me for far many other reasons than our differing opinions on monogamy) very much wanted monogamy, and I honored that during our marriage. Even though it's not me.

 

It may not stop it (actually, you just have to look at heterosexual couples who have affairs and who divorce), but it certainly curbs it (both in hetero and homo sexual couples!)

 

I guess we're just going to have to disagree here. Before I married, I had many partners. After marriage, only one. My situation is actually quite common. I agree there are people who cheat on their spouses, and there MIGHT be people whose habit of playing the field is not deterred by marriage at all, but I think such people are uncommon.

If you're going to say that the standard marital vow of fidelity is completely ignored in every case without exception, then all I can say is this does not accord with any of my knowledge or experience. Marriage, I sincerely believe, REDUCES promiscuity. If I had to make an ex rectum estimate, I'd guess about a 50% reduction. Statistics are hard to find here because (1) people aren't inclined to confess to adultery; and (2) most studies look at whether a spouse cheats, rather than how frequently or with how many partners.

I refuse to be so cynical as to say that marriage has no effect at all on number or frequency of different sex partners. Plenty of people keep their promises, at least most of the time.

 

When you bring up absurdities like banning inanimate objects due to irrational fears, expect answers to match accordingly. Get guns banned and then come talk about it, in this case we are talking about state constitutional amendments that have already passed...

Totally different ballgame, the requirements to amend even state constitutions far exceed the requirements to pass a law, once done that is the law of the land. You people aren't running to the feds for nothing...

 

Only the ignorant trolls find homosexuality repulsive, and they vote Republican every time, so we never had a shot with them.....

 

I think homosexuals care

 

I think Paul was describing Christians.......but he didn't think they'd ever catch on....

 

You do not seem to have any grasp of what it means to be in violation of the United States Constitution.

Sorry, but this is simply wrong. Which is why federal judges have been tossing these state amendments one after anoter, and doing so successfully. Just because an unconstitutional provision is written into a state constitution, doesn't make it any less unconstitutional or any more immune to being ruled as such.

That's right. These amendments are being contested on the grounds that they violate the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. District judges have unanimously agreed that they do.

(And seriously, you should be thankful that laws and amendments creating second-class citizens unprotected by the equal protection of the law are being struck down. Some day YOU may find YOUR guaranteed rights denied because a majority of citizens in your state don't like your kind of person.)

 

How is it in violation of the US Constitution? The decisions handed down so far actually don't even demonstrate that. If it was truly equal protection it would apply to any consenting adults in whatever configurations they choose, that is not the case, ergo this form of 'equal protection' still allows others who would equally qualify to be discriminated against...

They have to go to the feds because once its in the state constitution, it is constitutional, go figure...

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection of the law.

They demonstrate exactly that. Read them

Lenny's Law strikes again! Anyway, the courts cannot decide on cases not brought before them. In every case, the plaintiffs have been pairs of single consenting adults, so that's what the courts must rule on. It might be interesting if three people were to ask for equal protection for a group marriage, or if some hick brought in his favorite sheep. But so far, no such cases have been tried.

Not according to the UNITED STATES constitution. If you don't know the difference between Idaho and America, you should do a little research. Idaho's laws, whether or not written into the Idaho constitution, CAN NOT be in violation of the US Constitution. I agree that Idaho could make an official and required state religion, and write it into their state constitution, and then start punishing people who go to some other church (or none). But the feds wouldn't waste any time overruling this.

Now, you may have learned that, once upon a time, a group of states did not wish to have their internal policies, laws, constitutions, practices etc, subject to federal veto, and they decided to break away and form their own nation with their own constitution. Personally, I think they should have been permitted to do so, but that's not how it worked out then, and that's not how it would work out now.

 

Seriously? You open with equal protection for all, yet go on to say others would have to bring forth their own cases. They should be equally protected so long as they meet the same criteria as gays, consenting adults. If the judges don't want to do it right, they need to be overturned by the USSC...

Why would you bring a sheep into this? I clearly stated consenting adults. Such poor attempts to derail things in that manner diminish everything else you say...

 

Until Utah got Statehood...polygamy WAS still occurring in this country.

BTW, do you oppose divorce....or is that part of the "tradition" of marriage? Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Rush Limbaugh need to know.

- - - Updated - - -

Does your wife know you feel that way?


- - - Updated - - -

BTW, may be related to this poll or not, but...

Pennsylvania will not contest the judge's ruling overturning the PA gay marriage ban.

 

Ignorant trolls. Tell me, what is ignorant about finding homosexuality repulsive? Be specific, please.

 

Its affirmative action for gays, to win more respect and dignity for gays.

 

This requires a little bit of knowledge of how the legal system works. In our system (other systems have worked differently), there is no judicial vetting of any laws passed by anyone. And that means, in the US system, that the law stands until challenged AND overruled.

Back to my example, if the Idaho legislature adopted an official mandatory state religion and the governor signed it into law, then it would BE the law until some court heard a case contesting it, and overruled the law. And since all cases brought before any court must be "genuine cases and controversies", it would be necessary for the plaintiff to show that he personally was injured by that law. Which means he'd have to demonstrate a history of following a faith other than the now-mandatory one.

That's not a derail at all. THINK about what we're discussing. The point about the sheep was that UNTIL it is subjected to due process of law, the full legality of marrying sheep is not yet determined. Now, I doubt that the sheep case would ever be contested in court, but the three-way marriage might very well become a genuine case and controversy on which the courts will need to act.

Bottom line: ANY untested law stands until such time as it fails judicial scrutiny in a real case. Yes, the US Constitution guarantees equality under the law, but what that MEANS in any particular case can't be determined until the case comes up. There is no pre-screening of laws in the US. In fact, there is no requirement that any legislature even check to see if a new law is incompatible with an existing law. That too remains for the courts to examine.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing, really. What's ignorant is failure to realize that what YOU find repulsive doesn't therefore make it a legal principle! I find much of what you post repulsive, but even if I ran this site, I'd do nothing to change anything you say.

 

Yes, it's affirmative action in the original sense - the attempt to eliminate discriminatory practices and protect legal equality for all. It is NOT affirmative action as it developed into quotas and preference without merit. If you feel some class of people, because of how they were born, do not deserve respect and dignity, just say so. People will understand.

 

You just admitted you want gays to be treated with disrespect and degradation ...

 

That's what he thinks. He just admitted it.

 

I realize what I am about to relate is "anecdotal", but I just got back from the states where I watched my daughter graduate (magna cum laude) from UMaine Law School. We were there for a week and got to spend time with her, and many of her friends and classmates, as well as her two older brothers, and many of THEIR friends. The topic of gay marriage came up several times during the week, because one of her friends is a gay man and he is in a serious relationship. Throughout the week, there was NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON under the age of thirty that we talked to that was anything other than completely supportive of equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians. NOT ONE. In fact, they were all vocally and strongly supportive of those rights. I am quite sure that if MY father had spent a week with me after MY college graduation, and had spoken to a cross section of my classmates, he would not have witnessed that same reaction. That is the difference that 40+ years has wrought. I realize that the religious right wants to keep fighting this issue, but, if I were them, I'd NOT chose to die on that hill. I think the religious right has a slightly better chance - although still not a very good one - of reversing Roe v. Wade than they do of stopping the gay marriage train. It's already left the station, and they just haven't figured that out yet.

 

I'm not the one thinking that my opinions are superior to those of Paul. I leave that to you and the liberal left.

 

Whatever you say! :roflol;

You continue to listen to a 2000 year old dead man who never met Christ, and I will listen to my conscience and sense of fairness.

 

What do you expect? After all, we've had the media, education system and entertainment industry trying to re-program everyone for decades. The "no moral standards" crowd has been extremely patient and persistent.

 

I think they're figuring it out. Anti-gay stuff just doesn't "sell" for the GOP like it used to...not even guys like Huckabee and Santorum can make headway with it much.

By 2016....I predict there will be NO mentions of "marriage" (except maybe a marriage tax exemption increase) in the Republican Party Platform. They'll quietly....surrender.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, kids should listen to guys like Rush Limbaugh about "moral standards" and "traditional marriage"......as he discusses what he and Wife Number FOUR did last weekend.