I agree with this letter. The only rights we have are the ones specifically
mentioned over 200 years ago.States have the right to discriminate
and hate all they want, regardless of what the 14th amendment says. Equal protection clause? Meh! It's just words anyway.
Sorry, Mr. Poulson, but the right to marry has indeed been determined to be
constitutionally fundamental by multiple courts, including the US Supreme Court.
It looks like the soul purpose of electing representatives now is so they can
confirm judges and ballot initives can go out the window since judges will
overturn them anyway. Why are judges just now finding things in the
constitution that were not there before. And those that complain about money
spent defending traditional marriage, It is not the Governor and AG that is
wasting tax payer dollars which is a drop in the bucket as most school districts
have budgets well over a million dollars, It is the plantiff's that are
bringing on the suit. Just now finding things in the constitution. So called
same gender marriage will crumble under the weight of it's own iniquity.
How come there is a high rate of aids and other STD's among the gay
Interestingly enough one of your own addressed this tactic of "I don't
see in the constitution..." very nicely today In his weekly column.The failure of this tactic to accept the need to govern in the real world and
the underlying principle of rejecting the preeminence of federal law is a losing
argument. It's always been here in America but in the long run it has
always lost. From the rejection of the articles of confederation to the current
situation with the BLM, it is a losing principle and always will be.
The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that marriage is indeed a
fundamental constitutional right.
The problem with your logic is that you are seeking to allow states to decide
not to give bald guys drivers' licenses or let anyone under 5 feet tall to
get married. There are some umbrella clauses that have to be applied first,
equally and to all, before we can let states have their way with us.
You are correct. States can ban ALL marriages. So, in the name of fairness and
equal protection, if a state bans marriages of same-sex couples, shouldn't
it ban all marriages? Ridiculous argument, you say? Well, the Constitution
doesn't say anything about our obligations to treat one another with
fairness and dignity, but I am going to err on the side of treating everyone
"Couples don't have the right to be married, but they may be granted
the privilege to marry when they comply with the laws of the land. If they
don't comply with the law, they don't have a legitimate right to those
privileges."So how do LGBT folk "comply with the law?"
By becoming heterosexual? Get real. SSM is here to stay. And BTW everything
you have said was advanced against racial integration and inter-racial marriage.
Social conservatives like yourself want to pretend that the debate over SSM
comes completely fresh beyond historical context. Well it doesn't and you
are going to lose this round also. SSM is constitutional.
I personally don't care if you get married or not but I am convinced that
the majority of those in opposition to the right of gays to marry are concerned
they will be miraculously converted into that lifestyle.
I hope Mr. Poulson wasn't vying for a seat on a judicial bench somewhere
because this letter just took him out of the running.
So, marriage is a "special right" that should only be granted to
heterosexuals? And yet, people are always complaining about homosexuals wanting
"special rights". Seems to me everyone should have the same rights-gay
To "dmcvey" right now everybody has teh same rights when it comes to
marriage, regardless of sexual orientation.Right now in all 50
states and in any US territory marriage anybody can get married to a person of
the opposite gender. Love is not required for marriage, neither is the ability
to have children, the only requirements that are the same is that each person is
at least 18 years old and not the same gender.You have 100% equality
right there.Gays are asking to change the laws so that now love is
the only qualifier for marriage. Since love is a qualifier for marriage then
why limit it to 1 person. Since people are capable of loving more than 1
person, why not allow any number of people to be married, regardless of sexual
orientation? What limit can there be when the only qualifier is
"love"?Can government regulate who and how many people we
@Redshirt"You have 100% equality right there."How'd that argument work for people who supported interracial marriage
bans?"Gays are asking to change the laws so that now love is the
only qualifier for marriage. "Absolutely not, there'd still
be requirements on things like age and lack of family relation. "Can government regulate who and how many people we love?"No, but it can regulate who and how many people can marry to the extent that
those regulations are deemed to be constitutional.
To "Schnee" interracial marriage is different. People can't choose
their sexual orientation. Right now there is no scientific evidence
saying definitatively that people are born gay. Scientists are still debating
nature vs. nuture regarding homosexuality.But you are wrong. They
gays want you to be able to marry the person that that you love. If a 40 year
old man loves a 16 year old girl, why should age prevent them from getting
married? The only reasons why they can't get married now have to do with
signing legal contracts, not marriage. If a brother and sister love each other,
why can't they get married? Gays justify their idea of marriage based on
loving the other person. What is difference between 2 men loving eachother
enough to get married and a brother and sister loving eachother enough to get
married?Since marriage is the qualifier for marriage now, if the
government says that polygamy is illegal, then they are in fact regulating how
many people you can love.So, if you are for gay marriage, unless you
are a hypocrite, you must also be for incest, polygamy, and anything else that
people want to call marriage.
@RedShirt: "So, if you are for gay marriage, unless you are a hypocrite, you
must also be for incest, polygamy, and anything else that people want to call
marriage."Do these marriages all take place on Gilligan's
Island or Fantasy Island?Marriage joins two legal strangers together
in a legally recognized relationship. A brother and sister already
have a legally recognized relationship. They are not legal strangers. Marriage
does not apply. Under the current formulation, marriage is a civil
contract between two people, not a group of people. So, while some might argue
extending marriage to include polygamy, that would require rewriting many, many
laws and changing many legal precedents. It might happen, but it is not the
direct path you seem to envision. Some people feel marijuana should
be legalized. That does not mean they think heroin should be served in
kindergarten cafeterias. As with your previous Thought Exercise - an
experiment yields new information, an exercise gives predetermined answers - I
do not have to follow your dubious logic simply because you state that is the
Let's try this post again, minus a certain historical example...@Redshirt"So, if you are for gay marriage, unless you are a
hypocrite, you must also be for incest, polygamy, and anything else that people
want to call marriage."Absolutely not. Each of these things are
different. Contrary to what you stated the argument for same-sex marriage is not
based on people being able to marry who they love. That's a large part of
why people marry the person they do but it's not the legal argument. The
legal argument is that my side of the debate believes there's no reason to
limit marriage to just an adult man and woman who are unrelated/etc and that it
should be extended to include same-sex couples as well. Those who
wanted to allow interracial marriage certainly argued that they wanted to marry
the person they loved too, but I take it you don't consider them hypocrites
for not supporting incest too.
To "TrihsDer" but a brother and sister do not have the same protections
as marriage. They cannot file joint returns, nor can a sister make medical
decisions for her brother.Who says that marriage must be legal
strangers? I know people that did not fit that requirement before they were
married.Why do you want to allow the government to limit how many
people you can love? Since love is not a commodity, a person can love more than
one other person. Why do you want to deny polygamists the same protections that
the gays are obtaining?Laws are being changed for gays, so why
can't laws be changed for polygamists or incestuous marriages?You are not consistant. You want to allow marriage for one group, yet deny it
for others based on arbitrary reasoning.To "Schnee" so what
you are saying is that you want to continue to deny marriage to brothers and
sisters who want to marry eachother and to polygamists. Are you really wanting
to deny them the same legal protection afforded to the gays?Justify
why you want to deny marriage to polygamists and incestuous groups? Why
can't they be married like the gays?
Redshirt 1701:Each type of law is made in the right kind of court.
The courts for polygamists and for incest are not in the same types of courts as
regular marriage (gay or straight) because they violate the laws of the land.
Polygamy and incest is already against the law and the people that would like
those things legal need to prove that the laws are not right. So far, that
doesn't look to be plausible what with the horrible things like Warren
Jeffs and all of the sad incest stories we've heard in polygamist
populations as well as in other populations.Gay marriage isn't
against the law, but those that are gay are just trying to show the courts how
it should be made part of marriage for TWO people.
Redshirt, your claim that the rights are the same is disingenuous. Straight
people can marry the person they are in love with, gay people cannot. If a law is unfair it should be changed.
To "Kimber" but what is to stop the polygamists or anybody else from
doing exactly what the gays did. Only in a few instances did they get gay
marriage legalized through a state's legislature. The gays typically use
the courts to obtain the ends they desire.Now that we have the
precedent, what is to stop the polygamists? It is quite possible. The
Netherlands were the first to adopt gay civil unions, and within 10 years they
had gay marriage. Just last year they had their first polygamist civil union.
How long until they allow polygamist marriages? England recently added gay
marriage to their laws, now a man is suing to allow him to marry his computer
because he loves it just like anybody else.Gay marriage is against
the law in many states.To "dmcvey" since when is love a
requirement for marriage? Right now the only requirement for getting married is
that you are of opposite genders, not closely related, and are 18 or have
permission from a guardian. Love has nothing to do with marriage laws in the
US. Gays now want to define marriage by love. We are going from a measurable
trait to unmeasurable.
@Redshirt1701: "To "Kimber" but what is to stop the polygamists or
anybody else from doing exactly what the gays did."And the
problem would be?Polygamy is a problem when practiced as a
patriarchal institution by monotheists. Those religions tend to treat women as
property.Other groups practice polygamy - more commonly called
polyamory - and it is more egalitarian, supportive and positive. Legalizing polygamy would bring it into the light - this would have a positive
impact on society as a whole because it would tend to give those who are being
abused by that system more resources and support to get help. Overall, the biggest problem I see is figuring out some of the legal aspects.
But that is why we have so many lawyers. I see little downside and
much hand-wringing about a slippery-slope bogeyman.
To "Stormwalker" I don't have a problem with polygamy. I have
noticed that the people that support gay marriage have a problem with it and
typically are against it.The problem is that the SSM supporters say
that gays should be allowed to marry the person they love, while denying that
same privelage to others that have alternate ideas of marriage.
I stand corrected....(didn't know gay marriage is actually against the law
in states just thought they didn't do it because it is written that they
should be the opposite sex. But, as we can see very quickly, that is changing.
Just last night, even Idaho had their law declared unconstitutional.Now as
to polygamy? Well, if they can change the law and show that they respect people,
not force them or get underage girls, then let them do it. But history has
shown that this lifestyle is basically a way for men to rule over women and make
them second class citizens. And with all the cases of young people running away
(or getting booted out of their communities so the old men can have the young
brides) it's not looking good for them. This is an ancient way of life in
some countries and they still continue it some places. But whenever they get
Democracy, it soon starts to go away because it isn't compatible with equal
To "Kimber" you are confusing the generic term polygamy with the
religious practices of a few groups. The fact is that the cultures that abuse
women, force teenage girls to get married and abuse them once they are married
would do so regardless of the number of wives they were allowed to have.Actually, if you look at the writings of many of the LDS women involved
in polygamy it was liberating to have polygamy. Think of it this way. You
don't need babysitters, you don't need daycare, most women that wanted
to persue education could because there were other adult women to care for the
children and house.The reason why polygamy goes away in a democracy
because the government doesn't kill off as many men, so the ratio of men to
women eventually goes back to a near 1:1 ratio.
@Redshirt1701: "I don't have a problem with polygamy. I have noticed
that the people that support gay marriage have a problem with it and typically
are against it."Actually, I think most SSM supporters are tired
of the hysterical slippery-slope fear-mongering that says if SSM happens then
incest/polygamy/beastiality must be accepted. They are tired of people
incessantly pushing buttons and making accusations and saying things like
"if you support this then you must support that."Sort of
like saying saying "if you support Biblical marriage you must support Niddah
laws and groups of men kidnapping women and claiming them as wives."Also, patriarchal polygamy treats women as property and powerful men
collect property. While some women did well under Utah polygamy, many did not.
And the faith promoting myth "we had to do polygamy because men died"
is, well, a faith promoting myth.
To "Stormwalker" but the arguments about the slippery slope are being
proven true. Here are some examples of what is going in around the world where
SSM has been legalized:From the Brussels Journal "First Trio
'Married' in The Netherlands". They were the first western nation
to legalize SSM, now they are headed down the same road with polygamy.From the UK Daily Mail "Is this the real-life 'Her'? Army
veteran who wants to MARRY his laptop says computers are his 'preferred
sexual object'".Consentual incest is already legal in
Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey. Switzerland is moving towards making it
legal too.You say that it is hysteria, yet the very things that you
claim wouldn't happen are happening.Do you think allowing
incest is a good or a bad thing for a nation? How do you think a nation goes
from marriage being between a man and a woman to allowing incest?