LOL, totally fair.

You're right that the Court and Congress have sometimes said a thing is constitutional (or not) and then totally changed their minds. Slavery, segregation, and internment camps are all good examples of "whoops, we got that one awfully wrong." And, the legal reasoning that led to the realization that we got those horribly wrong is in many ways like the reasoning that is being advanced in favor of changing the legal stance on gay marriage and allowing same-sex marriages.

Lawrence v. Texas (striking down the anti-sodomy laws) was of course a huge step in the right direction. And there's some language there that gives a lot of support to the idea that gay marriage should be acknowledged as a fundamental right. Justice Kennedy (and no screeching liberal, he) says in the opinion that "adults may choose to enter upon [a homosexual] relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice."

Now, that's a big victory for sure, but it doesn't get us all the way to a marriage right. It helps that the Court's opinion relies some on this idea of "a personal bond that is more enduring," which starts to look a little like marriage - but it doesn't get us all the way there.

The abortion cases, weirdly, give some pretty decent support. Here, the Court recognizes that decisions about how to order one's family are a fundamental liberty right. That doesn't put them totally beyond regulation, since the Court also finds some competing rights, but it is, again, a big helper.

The problem really is one of historical inertia, because the Court frequently decides that if it's been okay to ban something for a really long time, then being allowed to do it is probably not a "fundamental liberty."

On the up side, the places where the Court is historically most likely to back away from a historic-tradition argument is in the area of civil rights. So when we finally got around to determining that slavery should be abolished and, somewhat later, that equal racial rights should be fully established, the Court went ahead and overruled itself. Ditto for some gender issues. And on a rhetorical level, "gay rights" look a lot like "women's rights" or "black rights" did when they first started hitting the courts and legislatures. So there's some analogical support there.

I personally agree that the government will eventually acknowledge that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. I think they're most likely to get there on liberty/privacy grounds. There's some momentum that points that direction already. But it ain't quite there yet.

;)

lmao

Bah! I give up. Fine, I was wrong and forming a new religion wouldn't protect gay marriage under the guise of freedom of religion.

But you have to see that my suggested solution was in no way supportive evidence of my stance, it was a suggestion... apparently a horrendous one.

So, let's both drop the religious side okay? agreed please?

I thought I made the case for it being unconstitutional when I compared it to legal slavery, legal segregation, and legal internment camps. All of which were supported by a majority much like the current prohibition on gay marriage, all of which were supported by the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative Branches as Constitutional and rights of States, all of which later were found to be unconstitutional, regardless of the majority's opinion because they were found to be discrimination... which is unconstitutional.

I mean, you obviously know something about the law, I don't. I believe that would be precedence though, and I believe regardless of what the majority says now, history will show that indeed not recognizing marriage in one group based only on sexual orientation is discrimination, and unconstitutional.

First of all, I personally could care less about what the so called good book has to say one way or the other. Spare me your imaginary playmate in the sky. Secondly, gay folks pay taxes just the same (probably more) as straight people. And thirdly, I couldn't care less what straight people think about gay people. Most times they wouldn't know a gay person if they were bitten on the butt by one. Fourth: Straight people should have absolutely no say in the matter whatsoever. I don't get to vote on whether they should be married, why should they vote on whether I should be married to the partner of my choice. The whole notion that they have a vote is totally absurd and one day everyone will look back on it and agree. President Obama included.

There is no way any straight person should have a say on what we call our ceremonies. When two people are joined together by a minister or a Justice of the Peace they take their vows and are married. It's no different in the straight world and I make no distinction on what they are called so why should they? It's my business and my wedding and I'll call myself married if I want to whether you like it or not. I'm trying to make this mean something serious and not minimize it in any way. It seems to me that straights wish to minimize our rituals and rites of passage while enjoying the same names themselves. If they can chip away at it, it means less and I'm not having it...are you?

...as something gays can't enjoy.

The point still remains that two gays getting married doesn't hurt you, and it allows them to have the happiness that we are all brought up to want: to live the rest of your life with the person you love. What could be wrong with that?

How could homosexuality be immoral when God [presumably] created gay people?

You can't say that homosexuality is a choice either, because He also apparently created homosexual animals (you've already seen the big list in a different debate so I'm not going to copy and paste it here, but suffice it to say nearly every species of mammal has a portion of their population that exhibits homosexual behavior).

In addition, why does your belief that something is immoral, give you the right to restrict it? What if every religious group acted this way?

You agree that it is immoral not to attend Church, correct? What if a group voted that everyone had to attend Church?

How about if vegetarians made eating meat illegal for the mere fact that they thought it was immoral?

Don't you see that gay people getting married doesn't hurt anyone? Why would you outlaw something that has no effect on you? They're not forcing you to get gay married, so live and let live.

(I would ask why something that would only bring happiness to those involved could be considered immoral, but I know that as a religious person you rarely ask questions like "why?".)

Very good, and excellent points. Thanks for the great debate.

First of all, I personally could care less about what the so called good book has to say one way or the other. Spare me your imaginary playmate in the sky.

lol, well said, up vote.

And I don't want people to get us confused. I'm David, from LV, and I have no idea what my astrological sign is.

That's not a "you'll get yours" situation. I never said that all of the sudden minorities will turn and put white people into slavery, or oppress them. You just wont have the majority vote in the country.

If [and that is "if" not when] I was the minority and people where voting against me I would still respect the law and the constitution no matter what. It's simple.

Okay, so let me put it into words that a less easy for you to just avoid with "I'm a good American" speeches.

Pretend that today, 900 Million babies were born. Now it's 18 years in the future and all of those babies can vote, and are gay. You're the straight minority, and not yet married. A law passes saying that only gay people can get married. It passed legally, with majority rule. Now you, as a man, can't get married to a woman int he United States. You are okay with that? Because you respect the law?

And that was always my question, before he responded. I asked you "How would you feel if white people were the minority and were voted against?"

Saying "You'll get yours" isn't constructive. I'm trying to help you think.

PS: it is were, not where.

All Jake knows is what's been fed to him. I'm tying to help him think for, and about himself.

You're not wrong, except for that I'm trying I tell him that "you'll get yours." I'm trying to ask him, what if it was you?

He can't put it into perspective, because he doesn't even know what he's talking about.

A very interesting twist Argento. I've never thought about that but I will now.

Hi Pyggy! While I do understand where you're coming from with you dispute I just want to say that even though we cannot procreate in the real sense of the word we can have children by other ways and means. Perhaps I used the phrase too loosely...sorry!

Don't be a pussy, Jake. Answer the question.

How would you feel if white people were the minority and were voted against?

The United States isn't a democracy Jake, if that's what you're trying to get at. Nor do the majority have the right to impose their beliefs on a minority. This is the exactly the sort of reason that the United States was established as a Representative Republic. The majority's prejudices and inability to cope with people and ideas they disapprove of is precisely why the founding fathers distrusted rule by the mob.

And yet you don't see any of the gay marriage opposers screaming about sterile couples getting married.

Even though 11% of the married population is sterile/childless.

.

If procreation is the be and end all of all marriages, should fertility tests become a precondition of marriage licenses?

Forgiveness for what?

We do want the same rights, and that's what we asked for. But we got civil unions, which is a second class solution.

So pushing for marriage rights was the solution. By settling for anythig less, the LGBT community is letting straight people stand above us.

And the aren't: were equal.

Letting this be a referendum issue allows the tyranny of the majority to continue depriving rights from a minority, which is wrong.

I've always wondered...

What does the "good book" and the church have to say about sterile couples?

.

Since sterile couples cannot procreate, marriage between sterile couples doesn't exist in the bible. And since sterile people can't procreate, sex between sterile people is a sin. When it comes to marriage and sex, that's what the "good book" says.

So the union between two sterile people shouldn't be called "marriage" and the church should refuse to perform the service...

Right?

And how does any of that answer my claim that not allowing gays to not marry is unconstitutional...

Okay it's not in the first amendment, fine,

but writing a small novel refuting a sidepoint seems a bit riduculous when no where does it address my real point, which is not allowing any two consenting adults to marry is wrong, regardless of who is in the majority.

And quit downvoting all of my replies. Instead just focus focus your arguement on my actual point.

So what exactly IS your argument?

My arguement is pretty clear, that States not allowing gay people to get married is unconstitutional. Just like slavery, internment camps, segregation etc.

All of which were "rights" of States, that were later found to be unconstitutional.

You are citing what the situation is but just because that is the current situation does not mean that it is therefore inherently constitutional. This country has been doing unconstitutional things for hundreds of years.

Your arguement is basically, that's how it is, and therefore that's how it is,

fine.

but that line of logic is not really debate material.

the tag "they are the majority" presumes that the majority is right by virtue of being the majority. This is demonstratably incorrect in everything from social matters like what this debate is about, to things like the shape of the earth a few hundred years ago.

Marriage is a religious institution... it was made up by religion.

You either don't understand my arguement, or you're misinformed

Just because there are laws around the institution, does not magically make it not religious anymore.

I mean, your arguement is basically describing what marriage is, and that's fine.

But what does that have to do with my arguement?

Okay, so this is the process now. What? I'm not allowed to disagree with the process?

Argue my points, don't just throw back procedures and make week comparisons.

Gay marriage is nothing like polygamy, incest, murder, etc.

And the reason these things aren't protected under religious freedoms is because they interfere with others rights.

Two consenting adults being married does not interfere with anyone's rights.

Marriage = Religious

And so whatever religion one prescribes to should have the say,

Now I have no idea what the sexual orientation of any religion would be (though I think they're all gay, get it, punny stuff)

but I'm completely baffled as to why a bunch of gay people have not yet come together to form their own religion, in which marriage between gays is considered part of their "religious" freedom, and hence protected by our constitution under freedom of religion.

At any rate, as pyg said on the other side, government has no business in marriage; just as I, you, Rev whatever, Pastor whoever, Father whatshisname should have no say in what two consenting adults want to do, and what ceremonies they want to play dress-up for.

But as long as gov. does decide to take it upon itself to get all in everyone's business, they should allow everyone to have equal business going on, regardless of their personal tastes.

It was a nice try, Jakeypoo, Because he's right.

About 10% of the population is gay, countless more bisexual. That's a minority, that should be protected from the majority.

Pretty soon white people will be outnumbered by now minorities. We'll see what you say about majority rule when you, a religious white male,when you're outnumbered.