TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote: If there is no right, it's not possible to infringe on it.

You're overlooking the fact that the constitution says that all men are created equal.

Actually, that's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Declaration is a statement of beliefs. The Constitution is the codification of a specific form of government. There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage, because marriage, with regard to how government addresses it, is a privilege, not a right.

The reason marriage has been granted special privileges by government is not to elevate one groups rights over others but to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society. For society to survive, it must replace itself at least on a one to one basis (one child for each adult). Otherwise that society will cease to exist. This is commonly known as "dying off". If the purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise healthy productive citizens to adulthood, then government is perfectly justified in encouraging that behavior by granting it privileges not granted to others.

For example, anyone can create a power of attorney granting a second party the right to make medical decisions on their behalf. But to do it you have to engage a lawyer and pay for the contract to be drawn up. If you're married, you have an automatic power of attorney without the cost of a lawyer. That's a privilege.

cb1000rider wrote:To me, that means that we must treat men equally, regardless of "protected class/status". In regard to homosexuals, it's pretty well documented that they haven't been treated equally.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not changing the purpose of marriage is beneficial to society.

cb1000rider wrote:If we had true equal options from homosexual unions, you'd find that I for one wouldn't support making changes to secular marriage... We've only had about 60 years or so to get it right.

Homosexuals have existed since the beginning of recorded history (and probably before.) What suddenly changed in the last 60 years or so that required us to "get it right"?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote: 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.

And yet you would take that right away from others. interesting.

Please point to the place in the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution where the right to marry exists.

Please point to me the part in the US Constitution where the right to marry may be infringed.

If there is no right, it's not possible to infringe on it. You first have to establish the right. Marriage isn't a right. It's a privilege. (We're talking about this from a governmental point of view, not human relationship point of view.) Any American is free to live with any other American, regardless of their sex, and do whatever they like so long as they don't harm the other person. They can enter into contracts that obligate each other to various things (wills, powers of attorney, etc.) But having a marriage recognized by the state is a privilege which grants you things that you don't get if you don't have that privilege. (Think of driving - not everyone can drive - you must qualify, pass tests, prove competence, etc., and you can lose the license on bad behavior.)

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

baldeagle wrote: 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.

And yet you would take that right away from others. interesting.

Please point to the place in the Declaration of Independence and/or the US Constitution where the right to marry exists.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

TxA wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Thats vague nonsense insufficient to support against the inalienable rights of individuals to do what they want in a free society. If thats your standard, just about everything in life violates it, and I'd bet good money you'd not like where that chain goes. If everything impacts the village, then the village can control everything.

No, the village cannot control everything and that's what we've been arguing. But it's interesting that you might bring up inalienable rights of individuals. Where do these inalienable rights come from? Do these spring from nature?

Nature, Father, Mother the Great Wienerdog or dirt. Its not relevant to fundamental rights in the US.

You're saying the village can't control everything yet you're demanding the village control something far more important than anything in the Constitution except the First Amendment. That lacks merit.

I have a simple response.

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.

America was not founded on the principle that dirt granted humans rights. Or Nature, Father, Mother or the Great Wienerdog.

RoyGBiv wrote:- Plenty of hetero couples are having three or more-party sex. Do we revoke their marital contract? How about adulterers?

The everybody does it argument is a poor response to why is this bad? Everybody doing it is also bad but irrelevant to the discussion.

EDITED TO ADD: To address your question directly, IMNSHO yes, we SHOULD revoke martial contracts of adulterers or couples engaging in sex with partners other than their spouse. Our country would be a much better place if we did that. As it is now, there are no consequences at all for bad behavior - which leads me right back to the pig sty aphorism.

RoyGBiv wrote:- How about hetero couples that have no intention of having children? I have several friends in such relationships (25+ years each)

That's a personal choice that has nothing to do with the institution of marriage. As an institution, marriage's purpose WAS to have and raise children that would become responsible citizens so that society can survive. Now marriage is about having sex, which is a personal pleasure that does nothing to contribute to society.

RoyGBiv wrote:- I'd certainly read your best 1 or 2 citations supporting your broad generalizations...

{{{sigh}}} I'll give you one, but it won't matter. http://www.catholicvote.org/gay-marriag ... not-exist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If anyone sincerely wants to learn about the real issue behind gay marriage, read this academic paper.

RoyGBiv wrote:- I frequently use "bad examples" to teach my kids. It's a GREAT learning tool. For example, we have a close friend.. their child (in their 20's) had a baby out of wedlock. It was an EXCELLENT opportunity for my kids to experience the consequences without having to live the experience. Then this kid had another child out of wedlock with a different father. My kids were ahead of me in condemning the irresponsible behavior. I made my kids watch the TV show "Cops" for similar reasons. A bad example is sometimes a better example, better still when it doesn't involve you directly. I'm not afraid of what effect gay activism has on my kids... I'm a better parent than that. That said..... Do you think homosexuality is a choice? I could certainly argue that social acceptance leads to more experimentation, certainly..... but.. fundamentally.... and not including people you read about in the tabloids..... do people choose homosexuality? And if you think it's possibly not a choice, why exclude homosexual partners from the protection of secular law?

One bad example doesn't destroy society. Many bad examples have an effect. When bad examples are codified in law as good and lawful behavior, society is destroyed - gradually - but destroyed nonetheless. See the Romans.

RoyGBiv wrote:- If we deny secular domestic partnership law to homosexuals, who's next?...... Interfaith? interracial? May/December couples (or maybe only May/December couples where the woman is unable to bear children?

All the examples you give do not change the purpose of marriage. Homosexual marriage does. This is a much bigger issue than whether or not Adam or Steve can live happily ever after. No one with any ethics would care one way or the other. I have a homosexual couple living on my cul-de-sac. I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home. But when they want to change a fundamental tenet of civilized society (that the purpose of marriage is to procreate and raise children who become responsible adult citizens) then I will oppose them. It has nothing to do with their behavior, and I have no problem with them getting favorable tax treatment under law just as married couples do.

RoyGBiv wrote:I think the gay community made a serious error not referring to a homosexual union as something other than "marriage". Religiously, "marriage" IS between a man and a woman. (I am very surprised to see how many religious organizations bless homosexual marriages, but again, they are at Liberty to do so.) Using the term "marriage" is just asking for that unsolvable conflict to be brought to the forefront. That would not have been my strategy. "Civil Union", whatever... would be an infinitely better choice if what you're after is for your union to be recognized within secular law, IMO.

Gay activists have been quite clear that their goal is not marriage. They could care less about marriage, and their idea of marriage is an "open" relationship where sex with other parties is perfectly acceptable. Their real goal is to destroy the institution of marriage entirely. To devalue it to the point that it disappears from society entirely.

Furthermore, approving of gay marriage fundamentally changes the the purpose of marriage from child rearing to sexual satisfaction. Now that that goal has been accomplished, marriage is already on the road to extinction. If you don't think that affects you and your children, you're crazy or blind. If you don't think that affects society as a whole, then you're even more crazy or more blind.

I won't provide the cites because those who disagree won't bother to read them, and those who are aware of this already don't need to see them. If you are sincerely open minded, then use Google and prepare to be shocked.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I personally am beyond caring now-a-days, but this pushing of deviancy as a normal activity, I refuse to be totally silent. Folks can do what they wish, until it intrudes upon me as this is doing now. I find it strange, can't marry more than one woman, but two people of like sex can get married? Up is down and down is up.

Again, please define exactly how it impacts your marriage.

There's an old expression that aptly describes how any change in society affects you as an individual. You can't get in a pig sty without getting some on you. You may not notice the smell, because you're in the middle of it. To an outside observer it's obvious. Every societal change either strengthens or weakens society. Often there are complex interactions, both positive and negative, that these changes have on society.

A simple example. At one time in America, if a young girl got pregnant, she was whisked off to another town or city to have the baby which was then given up for adoption. Now pregnancy out of wedlock is celebrated and even sought after. This has a direct impact on how your children view marriage and childrearing, and that impact is clearly negative.

So when one takes the attitude live and let live or I don't care what other people do in their private lives, one has simply chosen to ignore how much more difficult it has become to live one's own life in a way that doesn't accord with the new societal norm. It's like when a child asks their parent, did you have sex before you married? If they answer yes, what grounds to they have then to ask their children to abstain until marriage? Even if they say no, the child can respond, well you're just old fuddy duddies, because, after all, no one lives by those rules any more.

Does that clarify it for you?

I am disappointed that this thread has gotten so far off track. If you go back and read my original post, it had nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with the elitist attitude of our Supreme Court Justices thinking that government officials are free to ignore any laws they disagree with. I'd appreciate it if we could get back on topic. This has serious implications to our gun rights. Basically the Court has ruled that government officials are free to impose anything they want on us by fiat and it will get their imprimatur.

cb1000rider wrote:Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution.

Our country was founded by people fleeing a government that wouldn't allow them to freely practice their religion.

cb1000rider wrote:Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated.

People don't grant rights to other people. People inherently have rights. To one degree or another, the governments under which they live either protect or do not protect those rights.

cb1000rider wrote:I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

Our Constitution does not articulate fundamental principles. It articulates a form of government designed to protect the rights that people inherently have.

cb1000rider wrote:There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted.

Really? Blacks didn't even have citizenship or protected rights.

cb1000rider wrote:I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

Wrong. Fundamental rights never change. Things do not need protection. This is where so many people err. There is no right to privacy. The Supreme Court simply created one out of the "penumbra" of "emanations" being emitted by the Constitution. There is no right to an abortion. There is no right to marriage. The Supreme Court simply created these out of thin air. There is no right to adequate healthcare. There is no right to a decent education or a good job. These are not rights. They are privileges.

cb1000rider wrote:No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples. A few examples:
Medicare
Surviorship benefits
Estate Tax
Gift benefits

I'll be honest with you, if I thought that there were equal options, I would have very little support for any sort of class-protection. Unfortunately, every time we try to make up alternate rules for some other class to be "fair" we do it incorrectly. And in this particular case, we're not even close to equality.

Medicare, survivorship benefits, estate taxes and gift benefits are not rights. They are artificial distinctions in the law that grant privileges to certain classes of people that are not granted to other classes of people.

Where does the right to equality in marriage exist in the Constitution? What logical argument can you articulate after this ruling that prohibits polygyny, polyandry or polygamy given that now the Supreme Court has created this new right of marriage? Why should a person who seeks to marry a horse be denied his or her rights? You may think this is ridiculous, but it's coming. And now there is nothing in law to reject it. "Equality" must rule the day.

The reason governments pass laws that favor a particular class are many and varied. They may think protecting a certain class benefits society. They may have evil intentions and want to harm society. But nowhere in the Constitution is any class granted special favors or denied special favors. The true purpose of government is to protect our unalienable rights and provide for the common defense. Nothing more. Nothing less. All else is piffle.

cb1000rider wrote:I don't disagree that many claim a right to marry. You and I disagree on the root cause.
I'm indicating that I believe in most cases it stems from inequality. The same inequality that you're indicating doesn't exist.

There is no inequality. People who associate together (for whatever reason) have the right to enter into contractual obligations at any time for any reason. I could make you my heir, if I chose to. We don't need to be married to do that. I can grant you medical power of attorney. Or complete power of attorney.

cb1000rider wrote:We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.

A breathtaking statement. Is the punishment for murder a black and white issue? It's a moral judgment. What about rape? Can you articulate why it's wrong to rape not based on any morality? We make moral judgments in law all the time. If we did not, then there would be no justification at all for criminal prohibitions.

Why is it wrong for me to shoot you for no reason but right for you to shoot me in self defense? What makes one action acceptable and the other not? Moral judgments. Black and white moral judgments.

VMI77 wrote:What if the will of the people is to confiscate all the wealth of people earning more than $50,000 a year and redistribute it among those "less fortunate?"

Selfishness will never let that happen, but liberals will enforce it.

VMI77 wrote:What if the will of the people is to ban all firearm ownership?

That will happen soon.

VMI77 wrote:Should the will of the people be ignored? This is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. What's supposed to happen is that an executive branch that implements the law is checked and balanced by representatives who understand and uphold the constitution and are checked and balanced by courts that understand and uphold the constitution. While the system doesn't work anymore, it was never meant to be an instrument for implementing the will of the people.

Sorry, I disagree.

Panda wrote:It really stinks for the polygamists.

Trust me. Their turn is coming. Pandora's box has been opened.

cb1000rider wrote:

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.

So we should ignore the will of the people? Who gets to decide when they're wrong?

By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people. This ruling effectively cedes even more power to the elites who believe it is both their right and their duty to decide what is best for us despite our desires. While this only impacts gay marriage in California, the broader impact is to put the Supreme Court's stamp on Obama's unconstitutional actions of choosing to ignore our immigration laws to achieve the results he wants despite legislative opposition. The Supreme Court has effectively silenced the voice of the people and ruled that government officials may do anything they choose without consulting with the people they govern.

America is officially dead. May she rest in peace. God help those of us who cannot afford to leave.