Interesting defense of gay marriage

YouTube

A 3 minute clip that speaks louder than all the reams of case law in constitutional law history.

Originally posted by sh76
all the reams of case law in constitutional law history.

Is there anyone out there (who is not a lawyer) that believes that "reams of case law in constitutional law history" are relevant to whether gay marriage should be legal or not?

Such a weird way to think about basic rights.

the idea of gay marriage is a dictionary struggle.

it is also a contested duality.

marriage is a religious value...legally adopted by secular societies based on religious values.

since homosexuals ( for the vast majority ) attack religion ( since religion is their opponent in this issue ) they wish for a relgious valued identity in the law.

let us be clear...homosexuals wish to have liberty under the law.

fine.

...but homosexuals cannot have privilege under the laws predicated under the jews the christians, islam, bahai, hindu, etc...( perhaps thru wicca or scientology, et al. )

may i suggest that the liberty under law, for homosexuals, be pursued within a civil government whose cultural religion openly accepts homosexuals.

please look thru wikipedia.

there are such places, such governments, such religions or ethical places.

apply for a passport.

the boat is waiting outside of costa rica.

Originally posted by reinfeld
the idea of gay marriage is a dictionary struggle.

it is also a contested duality.

marriage is a religious value...legally adopted by secular societies based on religious values.

since homosexuals ( for the vast majority ) attack religion ( since religion is their opponent in this issue ) they wish for a relgious valued identity in the law.

let ...[text shortened]... ions or ethical places.

apply for a passport.

the boat is waiting outside of costa rica.

What rubbish. People have been getting married long before Christianity reared its ugly head on the world scene. Or Islam, or Judaism. And they will continue to get married long after their ultimate demise. Marriage is a basic human value, not a religious one.

Do you have any data on the percentage of homosexuals who are atheists, or are you just venting your own uninformed prejudices?

Yeah, reinfeld, I have to agree that you sound like you're just making stuff up. I am encouraged by the fact you seem to support civil unions, but there's not a lot of basis for your opposition to marriage between homosexuals. For one thing, there are branches of Christianity - and I would venture to assume other Judeo-Christian religions, too - that show Christ-like tolerance toward homosexuals already, let alone at the influence of homosexuals' "attacks" on their theologies.

Originally posted by Palynka
Is there anyone out there (who is not a lawyer) that believes that "reams of case law in constitutional law history" are relevant to whether gay marriage should be legal or not?

Such a weird way to think about basic rights.

In Europe you can do things however you like. In the US, our government is based on a Constitution.

Assuming the US Constitution is not amended, it becomes very dicey when you start making up new rules and pretend that they are mandated by the Constitution.

Ergo, case law is relevant.

Originally posted by sh76
In Europe you can do things however you like. In the US, our government is based on a Constitution.

Assuming the US Constitution is not amended, it becomes very dicey when you start making up new rules and pretend that they are mandated by the Constitution.

Ergo, case law is relevant.

Our government is based on a Constitution.

Our rights are not; they existed prior to the Constitution and prior to government.

The belief that amendments to the Constitution can restrict or enlarge our rights is a notion that Framers would have rejected out of hand.

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

A 3 minute clip that speaks louder than all the reams of case law in constitutional law history.

It's probably a decent Appeal to Emotion to those still on the fence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Our government is based on a Constitution.

Our rights are not; they existed prior to the Constitution and prior to government.

The belief that amendments to the Constitution can restrict or enlarge our rights is a notion that Framers would have rejected out of hand.

Constitutions can't enlarge rights?

What about those states that state in their Constitutions that a public education is the right of every child? Isn't that enlarging their rights? I mean, surely the right to a public education is not a natural right?

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

A 3 minute clip that speaks louder than all the reams of case law in constitutional law history.

Interesting clip. I think this whole issue is much fuss about nothing. We have severe economic problems in America, a war on 2 fronts, uprisings in the middle east, and a crumbling infrastructure. Why are our lawmakers (on both sides) wasting time and money arguing about weather a couple lesbians can get married?? I say let the individual states decide this for themselves, and move on. We have more imporntant stuff to deal with.

Originally posted by sh76
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

A 3 minute clip that speaks louder than all the reams of case law in constitutional law history.

Isn't it time to separate the legal issue of same sex marriage, from the issue of whether the spouses happen to be in love with one another? Or for some people, the issue is that in some cases, they just might be making love? Why T F aren't the real issues being acknowledged??????????????????????????????????????????? Grow UP!

Originally posted by sh76
In Europe you can do things however you like. In the US, our government is based on a Constitution.

Assuming the US Constitution is not amended, .....

If your constitution says something about marriage, and is apparently against gay marriage, then its time to amend the constitution.

Its interesting though that most states seem to handle it on a state by state basis (whereas the constitution surely is country wide), and that they tend to vote on the matter rather than referring to case law.

Originally posted by sh76
I mean, surely the right to a public education is not a natural right?

It is a natural right. So is internet access.

Originally posted by sh76
In Europe you can do things however you like. In the US, our government is based on a Constitution.

Assuming the US Constitution is not amended, it becomes very dicey when you start making up new rules and pretend that they are mandated by the Constitution.

Ergo, case law is relevant.

Lots of governments have constitutions. But surely, the question of whether or not law X is just is a purely moral one, and not a legal one? The question of whether or not law X contradicts law Y is a legal - and to most people much less interesting - question.

Originally posted by sh76
In Europe you can do things however you like. In the US, our government is based on a Constitution.

Assuming the US Constitution is not amended, it becomes very dicey when you start making up new rules and pretend that they are mandated by the Constitution.

Ergo, case law is relevant.

Since the US Constitution says nothing about homosexuality, surely in this case you can do things how you like and therefore it's a matter for the legislature?