Gay Veteran quizzes Mitt Romney on marriage equality

[_LDSToronto]

Well, first it's not basically the same thing, it's an entirely different type of marriage, an entirely different type of institution. Ideologically it's entirely different. It's Man with Man, or Woman with Woman, etc.

Ideologically, a marriage between two men is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. That is why they want equal access to marriage.

Also, let's be clear, we are not talking "benefits" here. No one has contested "partner" benefits whatever type of partner they are.

Right, we are talking about marriage.

Second, Gay Marriage and Plural Marriage while both similar to Heterosexual Marriage, they ARE different enough. Plural Marriage, while it's still Heterosexual Marriage, it is with more than one partner, thus it's an entirely different kind of marriage, and as is correct, it has it's own name, it's called Polygamy. Gay Marriage while similar in that it's between just two persons, it also is completely different because it's marriage between two persons of the same sex, thus radically changing the definition.

Please list all the differences between a so-called 'gay' marriage and a so-called 'heterosexual' marriage. The only thing I can think of is the sex act, and even then, there are similarities.

Just because you say it's different doesn't actually make it different....

It's like this..... Gays are not called Heterosexuals, and the same for anything else, anything that is different has a different name. Likewise, Gay Marriage should have it's own name. Like I've mentioned, "Gayarriage" is available.

So it's a matter of adjectives?

Religious people while they may not want the gay lifestyle promoted and normalized in society, we know that's their right as adults to be and do what they want. Thus, we don't have an ultimate problem with that. But, we do have a problem with gays being intolerant and co-opting an institution that belongs to US. We don't see them trying to co-opt the institution of Polygamy, thus clearly there is a liberal entitlement mentality occurring here, and it's wrong.

This is quite literally the stupidest argument I've heard. The religious have a problem with gays being intolerant? Jesus H. Christ.

Marriage is our institution....

No it's not.

We don't want it's definition changed.

So what?

All of human history it has always been between man and woman. Yet, all of a sudden gays think they have a RIGHT to it???

I know, right? And those black people, they should have remained slaves, because we were all so happy with the status quo. And you goddammed women, we want the vote back. You can't just all of a sudden think you have a RIGHT to freedom!!!!

That is wrong. It is not us being intolerant, it is they who are first being intolerant.

And we are being intolerant of their intolerance. It's turtles all the way down, man.

You do understand that a persons "rights" end the moment they begin to infringe on the rights of others right? Well, gays are infringing on OUR rights. We have not consented for our institution to be co-opted and changed. That is why we have been fighting against gay marriage.

Wait, that's a two way street, isn't it... after all, abolishing slavery infringed upon my right to own a slave. Aren't you infringing on a gay man's rights to marry his closeted governor lover by fighting against gay marriage?

Marriage is not "gay"

Marriage is sooooooo gay.

it's between a man and a woman. If they want a different form of marriage, then they have a RIGHT to create it, just like Polygamy is a form or marriage, but it's completely different, and is even named differently, as it should be.

Anyway, it IS worth it.... to name it differently.

Would you be happy of we called it a:

Marrriage
Marriagge
Merriage
Marriaje
Mmarriage

or maybe just added an accent over the second 'a'? Or even just stressed the first or last syllable?

Would that be an OK compromise? Everything else is equal, absolutely the same, we just spell it or pronounce it a little bit different. Ya?

I hope you understand that this is a reasoned and tolerant position, as well as an important one.

Oh, absolutely. I don't doubt your prowess in reason and logic, and your tolerance is next to Baby Jesus Himself.

Take care.

Oh, I will.

H.

[_hobo1512]

To Ldsfaq:

Have you heard of something we have here in the US called the Declaration of Independence?

You might want to familiarize yourself with it. The part that might interest you the most is this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, unless it has been edited, and nobody has caught it up until now, I don't see where it says anything about this pertaining only to heterosexuals.

Now, I know many Mormons will use the "misunderstood", "misinterpreted", "mistranslated" defenses about what Joseph Smith did or said, but you'd be hard pressed to use those defenses with this.

[_brade]

It's like this..... Gays are not called Heterosexuals, and the same for anything else, anything that is different has a different name. Likewise, Gay Marriage should have it's own name. Like I've mentioned, "Gayarriage" is available.

...

Marriage is our institution.... We don't want it's definition changed. All of human history it has always been between man and woman. Yet, all of a sudden gays think they have a RIGHT to it??? That is wrong. It is not us being intolerant, it is they who are first being intolerant.

...

If they want a different form of marriage, then they have a RIGHT to create it, just like Polygamy is a form or marriage, but it's completely different, and is even named differently, as it should be.

Anyway, it IS worth it.... to name it differently.

Ok, here's my proposal. We should adopt a form of marriage that has all the legal properties of heterosexual marriage, except that it shall be between same sex couples, and we shall call this form "merridge" (pronounced \'mer-ij\). Is that ok?

[_Morley]

Ok, here's my proposal. We should adopt a form of marriage that has all the legal properties of heterosexual marriage, except that it shall be between same sex couples, and we shall call this form "merridge" (pronounced \'mer-ij\). Is that ok?

Good idea. As long as we can spell it like this: marriage.

[_Shulem]

I don't give a damn about politics right now. But I will for sure, come hell or high water, be dancing in the S4 on Cedar Springs Rd in Dallas this Friday night on the box.

Yes, and I'll have a cab take me home, just to be safe.

:-)

Love the boys!

And Mitt is the most handsome of all the candidates so I hope he wins!!

Paul O

[_Darth J]

Religious people while they may not want the gay lifestyle promoted and normalized in society, we know that's their right as adults to be and do what they want.

Basing positive law on religious precepts is not valid under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Thus, we don't have an ultimate problem with that. But, we do have a problem with gays being intolerant and co-opting an institution that belongs to US. We don't see them trying to co-opt the institution of Polygamy, thus clearly there is a liberal entitlement mentality occurring here, and it's wrong.

Marriage is our institution.... We don't want it's definition changed. All of human history it has always been between man and woman. Yet, all of a sudden gays think they have a RIGHT to it??? That is wrong. It is not us being intolerant, it is they who are first being intolerant.

You do understand that a persons "rights" end the moment they begin to infringe on the rights of others right? Well, gays are infringing on OUR rights. We have not consented for our institution to be co-opted and changed. That is why we have been fighting against gay marriage. Marriage is not "gay", it's between a man and a woman. If they want a different form of marriage, then they have a RIGHT to create it, just like Polygamy is a form or marriage, but it's completely different, and is even named differently, as it should be.

You are presupposing a "definition of marriage" that exists in Sunday school, not in law. Conflating marriage as a religious sacrament with marriage as a legal relationship is merely your naked admission that you want your religious beliefs adopted as positive law.

What is the rational basis ("rational basis" is a term in 14th Amendment jurisprudence) in law for marriage only being between a man and a woman?

In thinking about your answer, LeeuniverseObiwanfaqs, perhaps you would like to find one single jurisdiction within the United States where having children, or having the ability to have children, is part of the legal definition of marriage.

[_bcspace]

I would have simply said, truthfully, that there is no law in any state preventing gays from marrying and that everyone is equal under the law because the law requires that for state recognition of one's marriage, one's marriage must be heterosexual whether one is heterosexual or not. And of course there is no compelling reason for gay marriages to be recognized by the state and that by benefiting only heterosexual marriages, we preserve the understanding that both a father and a mother is the ideal condition under which to raise children because both male and female role models are present.

In other words, I would have easily and smoothly blown this person out of the water and established debating conditions that are too difficult for gay marriage supporters to deal with.

[_Darth J]

I would have simply said, truthfully, that there is no law in any state preventing gays from marrying and that everyone is equal under the law because the law requires that for state recognition of one's marriage, one's marriage must be heterosexual whether one is heterosexual or not.

And there is nothing in the definition of marriage in any jurisdiction in the United States that requires the partners to be of opposite gender, because marriage as codified everywhere in the United States is a domestic partnership. Nothing less; nothing more. "One's marriage must be heterosexual" is ipse dixit. Ipse dixit isn't a rational basis under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. When you have to resort to circular reasoning like this, you are not being rational.

This idea that gay people are not discriminated against because they can marry a person of the opposite sex is so punishingly stupid that it does not deserve a response. But I'm sure that bcspace would have no problem with a law saying that Mormons cannot marry each other, so long as they could still marry someone of a different religion.

And of course there is no compelling reason for gay marriages to be recognized by the state and that by benefiting only heterosexual marriages, we preserve the understanding that both a father and a mother is the ideal condition under which to raise children because both male and female role models are present.

And what is the source of this "understanding"? It isn't law, because there is no law anywhere in this country that says you need to be a father or a mother, or be capable of being a father or a mother, to be married. There is no requirement in law, anywhere in the United States, for a married couple to have children or to raise them.

Law is not based on your religious "understanding." It is based on what is actually codified. If we all and sundry have this "understanding," then it would be the law that you have to conceive, give birth to, and raise children as conditions to marriage. There is no compelling reason for Dallin H. Oaks' senior citizen marriage to a post-menopausal woman to be recognized by the State if we "understand" that marriage is about having and raising children. Dallin H. Oaks and his second wife are not going to have any kids.

In the absence of any requirement anywhere that the parties to the domestic partnership called "marriage" have and/or raise children, there is no rational basis for the government to treat similarly-situated persons (consenting adults who want a legally binding relationship with their partner) differently.

And that's not even framing the issue in terms of fundamental rights. It is not a matter of opinion whether marriage is a fundamental right; the U.S. Supreme Court has already established that. And I am sorry to inform our reactionary, Skousenite friends that it is the third branch of government's job under the separation of powers set up by the Framers to decide what the Constitution means. Framing this as an issue of fundamental rights, the arbitrary restriction on a discrete, identifiable minority being denied equal protection is reviewed with strict scrutiny. The government has the burden of proving why gay people should be denied equal protection of the law under those terms.

Alternatively, the arbitrary restriction on marital rights involves a quasi-suspect classification: gender. Again, the government has the burden of proof when a restriction of rights is based on a quasi-suspect classification.

So, let's see: bcspace has the circular definition of "only opposite sex people can marry because marriage means a legal relationship with a person of the opposite sex." It's a circular definition because he fails to explain why it needs to be people of opposite gender. His attempt to incorporate his religious value judgments---this "understanding" of marriage being about a man and a woman raising children together---is found absolutely nowhere in positive law.

In fact, bcspace's assertion about this implicit "understanding" that marriage is about a man and a woman raising children is demonstrably false (aside from being ridiculous on its face, since unspoken personal value judgments being imposed on statutes is not the rule of law). I've been asking him, Droopy (a.k.a. Ron Lafferty), and anyone else making this assertion to explain why if that is so, some marriages are only valid if the parties cannot have children.

Utah Code s. 30-1-1

(2) First cousins may marry under the following circumstances:
(a) both parties are 65 years of age or older; or
(b) if both parties are 55 years of age or older, upon a finding by the district court, located in the district in which either party resides, that either party is unable to reproduce.

I have yet to receive an answer.

Again, ipse dixit, appeal to tradition, and arguing about conditions precedent to marriage that are found nowhere in the law are not particularly rational grounds for denying equal protection to an identifiable minority.

And by the way, all of our Tenth Amendment lovers who forget about the Fourteenth one: this whole issue has nothing to do with "re-defining" marriage. When a State has defined marriage, and done it in a way such that a same-sex couple can fulfill all of the legal requirements of marriage (except the circular definition of "man and woman"), the State cannot deny equal protection of the law to people on irrational bases. That would be bases such as those here asserted by bcspace.

In other words, I would have easily and smoothly blown this person out of the water and established debating conditions that are too difficult for gay marriage supporters to deal with.

It's always easy to impress yourself when you don't know what you're talking about.

[_LDSToronto]

I would have simply said, truthfully, that there is no law in any state preventing gays from marrying and that everyone is equal under the law because the law requires that for state recognition of one's marriage, one's marriage must be heterosexual whether one is heterosexual or not. And of course there is no compelling reason for gay marriages to be recognized by the state and that by benefiting only heterosexual marriages, we preserve the understanding that both a father and a mother is the ideal condition under which to raise children because both male and female role models are present.

In other words, I would have easily and smoothly blown this person out of the water and established debating conditions that are too difficult for gay marriage supporters to deal with.

Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers

The Studies

What were you saying about blowing?

[_Some Schmo]

You've got to love it when a bigot comes onto a site, craps out a bunch of bigoted statements and then has the balls to call it "a reasoned and tolerant position."

I think we should pass a law that defines Christianity, it is, after all, an institution with a long tradition that needs to be protected from those that would infringe on the rights of the true believers. Those that are not Christians can still practice their religion as they wish they just have to call it something different.

Beautiful!

I'm sick of the damn LDS trying to redefine and infringe on the rights of traditional christianity.