Hello:

You'd think that a third world country would be waaaaayyyyy behind us on civil rights issues, wouldn't you? Well, you'd be wrong. I don't know why, but the very Catholic Mexican people just don't have the same viewpoint about homosexuality as we do.

Truth is, most people in the world aren't as scared of things as we are. Hmmm. I wonder if it has to do with our politicians always trying to scare us? Nahhh, that couldn't be it... But, I digress...

It's my belief that gay marriage WILL eventually be legal here. I don't know when. We're really slow on the uptake. Maybe 10 - 15 years. But, I believe it WILL happen.

Do those of you who argue against it, believe that you'll prevail forevermore?

excon

Calderone is going to take the issue to court. I don't know Mexican law so I don't know how it will play out . Maybe the married hombres need the approval of the local drug lord.

When they get married and then become illegal aliens will we be required to honor their marriage contract ? On the bright side;at least there won't be anchor baby issues to resolve.

Mexico City move to allow gay marriage irks some residents / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Maybe the very Catholic Mexicans were not asked to vote on this issue; who cares what the people think.

Me personally, I think it is great that 2 consenting adults want to pledge their love till death do them part; but using the state to redefine what is a religious sacrament is going to far.


G&P

Hello again,

While I'm interested in your opinion on the merits of gay marriage, that isn't really what I asked here.

excon

As a Christian, who cares, from a christian view point it is the sin, the actual state of having the homosexual sex that is the moral christian issue. So that fight was lost long ago, and the world won.

Marriage is merely a legal status governments put on relationship that are bing talked about, since a bibical union or marriage is or can not be controlled by the state,

I would say let them have all the same issues of divorce, property settlement, spouse support and the other issues the rest of us have,

Happy equal rights

If marriage was just a contract then I'd have no dispute with it. But In is correct about what marriage really is .

As to the question on the OP... every time it has come down to an actual expression of the will of the people traditional marriage has prevailed.
Maybe the next generation of voter and leader will have different views but I'm confident at this point it is status quo ante.

Hello again, tom:

That's the best reason for our rights to REMAIN UN out votable.

excon

You keep on calling marriage a "right" . On that we fundamentally disagree.

Hello tom:

Marriage isn't a right... But there ARE rights attached to marriage. On that, I'm sure we DON'T disagree. I'd be fine with the government REMOVING all the rights married people have. I just want us to be "equal". In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment to our wonderful Constitution, says that we share "equal protection under the law"...

As long as SOME people have rights, and others don't, it's unequal... I don't know how else you could look at it. But, I'm sure you'll find a way.

excon

We've been over this before . The rights you refer to are contractual . I say that calling all the contractual civil aspects a " civil union " and leave the word marriage to the religions would comply with any equal rights issues and you say in return that it is no good because of separate but equal .Again on that issue we fundamentally diasgree.

Even the contractual aspects are not a constitutional right because one states version is not universally applied. The States all have their own version of what is a legal marriage and they are not all the same. There are many requirements states have before they will license a marriage.

Hello tom:

Yes, we have...

As I've mentioned before here on these pages, when negotiating, start high...

I wonder HOW I'd feel IF the government offered ALL the rights a marriage has, and just wants to call it something else... Actually, I don't wonder at all. I'm much more into RIGHTS than WORDS. I could live with gay marriage being called rama frama.

Any more red herrings you want to throw out?

excon

It is not a red herring at all because you failed to address the issue of the various state intepretations of marriage. Are other people besides gays banned from state marriages ? Yes indeed . Restrictions against polygamy have been consistently upheld . No one questions the right of the states to ban incestuous unions even though they also vary from state to state .You could make the same due process arguments for all of them .But they haven't become a special interest block big enough to make waves yet. How about age of consent and marriage ? They vary also . So your argument about the universality of the right seems very weak to me.

Hello tom:

Red herrings?? Oh, yes... Nonetheless, I'll address yours, if you'll address mine.

Polygamist's aren't banned from marrying. They're banned from marrying more than one person. But, you're verging on making the standard right wing STUPID argument, that if gays are allowed to marry, then so will horses.

I KNOW you drank the right wing koolaid, but you're not going to offer that tripe as an argument, are you? Cause if you do, I'm out of here. I don't address STUPID.

Your turn. You have failed to address WHY the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't give gay people the same rights straight people have..

Waiting...

excon

You completely ignored the rest of the posting where I mentioned other 2 person relationships that the state can restrict or outright ban. Either the State has the right to ban certain marriages or all marriages between consenting people should be the right . (no I did not mention horses or other species ) .


Since the definitions of marriages has always been in this nation the perusal of the states;and so far only 3 states courts have even raised an overwhelming states interest issue ;and indeed each state has set it's own standards... even those states whose courts have ruled against a compelling states interest ; and those standards have been constitutionally upheld ;and in at least one state the court was overruled by a State Constitutional amendment , and the DOMA federal law has not been ruled unconstitutional... then it cannot be defined as a US constitutional right unless there is an amendment that says so.
And since it is not a right in the 1st place there is no 14th amendment argument here.

Have a good day.

Hello again, tom:

Uhhhh, no. We don't need an amendment. Congress can write another law, OR the Supremes can step up to the plate and do their duty.. You DO realize that laws aren't Constitutional that codify discrimination, and that IS exactly what DOMA does.

I want you to cogently argue with me, that if YOU have the right to visit YOUR spouse at the hospital, that a gay person should not have that same right. THAT is the right I'm talking about. It's a pretty narrow issue. It's a right YOU have that your fellow citizens DON'T. Consequently, it is absolutely a Fourteenth Amendment issue.

Have I been dismissed?

excon

I have a remedy for what I called the contractual aspects involved that I'm sure would have no problem gaining approval . But you know and I know that is already attainable and that the issues about gay marriage is one of acceptance and that cannot be legally imposed on people.

Like I said ; perhaps the next generation will be more accepting . But for now ; to impose a solution that the people fundamentally do not agree with (and gay marriage is 0-30 when put to the test ;including the changing of state constitutions to overturn the courts )is a solution worthy of an imperial oligarchy like the judiciary. .

Hello again, tom:

We can stop now, cause I see you're getting tired. You're forgetting American history...

You're right. The law can't make people accept gay marriage. But, it absolutely can be IMPOSED. People didn't accept black people sharing a lunch counter with them. But, a law was IMPOSED upon them. People didn't accept a woman's right to vote, but a law was IMPOSED upon them. People didn't accept that a criminal should be afforded an attorney at states expense.. But a law was IMPOSED upon them

Our history, isn't one of waiting for acceptance before we did the right thing. Our history is doing the right thing WHEN we realize we've been doing the wrong thing. That time is NOW.

excon

Yawn... you are right I am tired. This debate has been rehashed in dozens of threds . We will not agree on the issue of the "right" .

Hello again, tom:

I thought you guys weren't into PC.

So, YOU can DO something, that another citizen CAN'T legally do, but you don't want to call what YOU can do, a right. You want to call it something else.

How about rama frama? That term is still available.

excon

Look... I said it would take a constitutional amendment . You know what it takes to pass a constitutional amendment .
It takes two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate just to get one proposed. Then it takes 38 of 50 States to ratify. You can't Impose that on the nation.

As proof you give me a recital of rights that have not been imposed but instead became part of the framework of the constitution though the amendment process.

I rest my case.

As I said... maybe in the next generation the country will be as ready as you say it is. But I don't think it is now .Not when 30 states voted the so called right down .