Is Gay Marriage an Issue ?

[Deleted]

This week the Supreme Court will take up the issues of DOMA and Prop 8 in CA. What they decide may change the route of history in this country for years to come, if not for eternity. Should they decide that DOMA and Prop 8 are in fact legal, the gay (that's fomosexual as opposed to the word I prefer which means happy community will have no other recourse than to wait until the atmosphere is good to try again. If the Court decides they are illegal, this country will have it's moral fabric changed forever.

A recent poll noted that in 1992 (I think), only 32% of Americans agreed with homosexual marriage. Now 58% do. What has caused the dramatic increase in the approval rating? The only possible conclusion I can come to is that the media has played the major role in "educating" the American public.

Personally, I agree with both the DOMA and Prop 8. However, if two people of any sex wish to live together as a family unit, I have no problem with it. The legal issues of whether or not they should be granted the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples still need to be determined. I'm not sure that if the Court was Republican rather than Democratic leaning that there would be any doubt that both laws would be upheld. With this court, I don't know, however.

[jerryfmcompushaft]

I've had am 'epipheny' on this subject. i don't really care who sleeps with who or who is married to who BUT I do have a major problem with five unelected individuals having the power to overturn the will of the people as in the case of California. The people have spoken and they should be heard - five unelected individuals should not have more power than the majority of the citizens of any state. If those ctiizens should change their minds next year, they can change their constitution again - should not be done with the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court.

[Sir John]

Can the Supreme Court make it compulsory?

[dontom]

Mar 24, 2013 18:28:47 GMT -5 @kylenedenny said:

Personally, I agree with both the DOMA and Prop 8.

Sure, why not? You already have your equality under our laws, why should you care about anybody else?

-Don-

[/size]

[dontom]

Mar 24, 2013 18:53:36 GMT -5 jerryfmcompushaft said:

BUT I do have a major problem with five unelected individuals having the power to overturn the will of the people as in the case of California. The people have spoken and they should be heard - five unelected individuals should not have more power than the majority of the citizens of any state. If those ctiizens should change their minds next year, they can change their constitution again - should not be done with the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court.

So you're saying if the majority of the voters say it should be legal to kill gays (or whatever group you don't think much of), the people have spoken and they should be heard?

BTW, the people cannot vote away our constitution with a simple majority vote. And there is no reason to change what it says. Read the 14th amendment as well as the "Full Faith and Credit" and many more. The SCOTUS is supposed to decided if the DOMA and prop 6 is constitutional. And the answer is very clear to anybody who can read.

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice."
--Johann von Schiller

-Don Quoteman-

[dontom]

Mar 25, 2013 6:22:24 GMT -5 @muleskinner07 said:

I think 58% of the people are saying they don't give a s--t one way or the other and lets move on .

If people want the issue to go away forever, they have to allow same-sex marriage in every state in the USA. Otherwise, the issue will NEVER go away.

-Don-

[Deleted]

Mar 25, 2013 6:06:39 GMT -5 dontom said:

Mar 24, 2013 18:28:47 GMT -5 @kylenedenny said:

Personally, I agree with both the DOMA and Prop 8.

Sure, why not? You already have your equality under our laws, why should you care about anybody else?

-Don-

[/size][/quote]

Good question. Why should I if it's the law of the land?

[jerryfmcompushaft]

So you're saying if the majority of the voters say it should be legal to kill gays (or whatever group you don't think much of), the people have spoken and they should be heard?

As if that would ever happen. Anyway - the Supreme Court is not your protector in that regard - murder is not a Federal offense (unless you happen to be a Federal official).

[boxcar]

D>Read the 14th amendment as well as the "Full Faith and Credit"<

You are actually reading the amendments now? The last time we exchanged messages, you indicated that you did not need to read the first amendment, that you KNEW what it meant. And it meant exactly what you intended it to mean, separation of church and state.

[dontom]

Mar 25, 2013 8:35:05 GMT -5 @kylenedenny said:

Good question. Why should I if it's the law of the land?

It comes to how much government you want in our lives. Why do we need our government to tell adults which other adult we may and may not marry?

-Don-

[Deleted]

I'm not sure that we do. However, tradition thus far has dictated what marriage is and I for one agree with it. That said, I'd rather see some loving couple adopt a child who otherwise would not have any future, than have that child get lost in the system. I would accept another form of "togetherness", perhaps a legal union or some other term. However, I will always believe that marriage is between a woman and a man.

[dontom]

Mar 25, 2013 18:11:55 GMT -5 @kylenedenny said:

I'm not sure that we do. However, tradition thus far has dictated what marriage is and I for one agree with it. That said, I'd rather see some loving couple adopt a child who otherwise would not have any future, than have that child get lost in the system. I would accept another form of "togetherness", perhaps a legal union or some other term. However, I will always believe that marriage is between a woman and a man.

The SCOTUS has already said that "tradition" is never to be considered in such cases. If it were, think about how marriage has changed over the years, as well as countless other things. For one example, mixed race marriages were once a much hotter issue than the same-sex marriage issue of today.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)

-Don-

[dontom]

Mar 25, 2013 18:17:49 GMT -5 @muleskinner07 said:

The purpose of marriage is to procreate with legitamacy .

I agree 100%. So when are we going to stop letting people marry who are too old to have kids?

And even my own uncle could not have kids because of a WW2 war injury. They should have never let him marry, right?

-Don- SSF, CA

[/size]

[dontom]

Mar 25, 2013 10:04:12 GMT -5 jerryfmcompushaft said:

As if that would ever happen. Anyway - the Supreme Court is not your protector in that regard - murder is not a Federal offense (unless you happen to be a Federal official).

You seem to be missing the point. We're a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. The voters cannot overrule the Constitution by a simple majority.

Letting everybody vote on gay marriage when only around 3% of the population is gay, is pure nonsense. Our constitution is supposed to protect all minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Our 14TH amendment doesn't say voters can take away the equal protection of laws that our 14TH amendment gives. And there are many other constitutional issues with same-sex marriage.

If you don't like what the constitution says, there is a procedure to change it. It was meant to be difficult to change so a simple majority cannot take the rights away from the minorities, like happened here in CA.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-- Ben Franklin

-Don Quoteman-

[dontom]

Mar 25, 2013 20:16:08 GMT -5 @muleskinner07 said:

Chief Justice Tanney said I think it was the Dred Scott that Negroes were only 5/8th human , we have had and interesting Supreme Court .

What I don't like about the Supreme Court is that the justices are all too old. Their decisions mainly affect younger people who have to live the longest with the decisions these 9 old farts make.

-Don-