Marriage Amendments....

[Metsfanmax]

Anyone here familiar with the Arizona photographer case, who is being sued for refusing to be hired by a gay couple for their wedding album?

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M.—A professional photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs violated New Mexico discrimination law, a human rights panel ruled.

and guess who is run out of town, right or wrong?

New Mexico is a state where gay marriage is not legal, and the photographer was ruled to be acting against the state's anti-discrimination law. You know, the one where if you have a public business, you have to treat all people equally. So like, Chik-fil-A can't refuse to let gay people dine in their restaurants. This has nothing to do with gay marriage, and everything to do with treating people with the basic respect they deserve.

Even Minnesota protects sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination laws.

[Phatscotty]

Sounds a lot like the complete opposite of what happened in Massachusetts with the Catholic orphanages as soon as gay marriage was passed (not by the people, by the legislature)....

Why would the gay couple lose?

Your example would be perfect, if the people had just passed an amendment saying that a woman cannot be refused any job that is offered to a man.

And the Catholic Churches would be overrun by female priests!

The Catholic Churches would be ruined because the women would be flooding through the church doors and taking all the priest-jobs!!!

(1) Wait, would this happen?
(2) Or is this my imagination going wild?

(PS is #2), in more ways than one. :p

I'm glad your point is comical, and major ups for wild imagination about the great flood of females and the Church overrun by barefoot women trapped in the kitchen too long

[BigBallinStalin]

Sounds a lot like the complete opposite of what happened in Massachusetts with the Catholic orphanages as soon as gay marriage was passed (not by the people, by the legislature)....

Why would the gay couple lose?

Your example would be perfect, if the people had just passed an amendment saying that a woman cannot be refused any job that is offered to a man.

And the Catholic Churches would be overrun by female priests!

The Catholic Churches would be ruined because the women would be flooding through the church doors and taking all the priest-jobs!!!

(1) Wait, would this happen?
(2) Or is this my imagination going wild?

(PS is #2), in more ways than one. :p

I'm glad your point is comical, and major ups for wild imagination about the great flood of females and the Church overrun by barefoot women trapped in the kitchen too long

I like how you're unintentionally funny!

[Phatscotty]

and who doesn't remember....

[Symmetry]

and who doesn't remember....

While it's clear that uploader has not made the video available in my country, Chick fill a does not actually appear to be banned in Chicago as their website indicates they have two restaurants in the city.

Look em up http://www.chick-fil-a.com/Locations/Locator

[Phatscotty]

and who can forget how a little ruling legalizing gay marriage impacted private companies...

[Symmetry]

Does the homophobia ever stop with you Scotty? You seem like an endless source of gay panic sometimes.

[Phatscotty]

Does the pointing out of the consequences ever stop with you Scotty? You seem like an endless source of sound reason sometimes.

Nope.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ments.html

France set to ban the words 'mother' and 'father' from official documents
France is set to ban the words "mother" and "father" from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

[Symmetry]

Does the pointing out of the consequences ever stop with you Scotty? You seem like an endless source of gay panic sometimes.

Nope.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ments.html

France set to ban the words 'mother' and 'father' from official documents
France is set to ban the words "mother" and "father" from all official documents under controversial plans to legalise gay marriage.

You're genuinely quite afraid of gay people getting married, aren't you?

[Phatscotty]

unintended consequences need to be considered.

Catholic bishops in Illinois have followed their colleagues in other states and shutdown adoption centers rather than comply with anti-discrimination laws requiring equal treatment for gay couples.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/29/ca ... tion-laws/

Whats next? Is the government just going to order religious institution spit on their holy books and their values before everything they do?

[Symmetry]

unintended consequences need to be considered.

Catholic bishops in Illinois have followed their colleagues in other states and shutdown adoption centers rather than comply with anti-discrimination laws requiring equal treatment for gay couples.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/29/ca ... tion-laws/

Whats next? Is the government just going to order religious institution spit on their holy books and their values before everything they do?

We covered that irrational fear earlier, and you moved on to irrationally fearing that gay marriage would damage the economy. Then you got worried about France.

You just seem irrationally afraid.

[Phatscotty]

unintended consequences need to be considered.

Catholic bishops in Illinois have followed their colleagues in other states and shutdown adoption centers rather than comply with anti-discrimination laws requiring equal treatment for gay couples.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/29/ca ... tion-laws/

Whats next? Is the government just going to order religious institution spit on their holy books and their values before everything they do?

We covered that irrational fear earlier, and you moved on to irrationally fearing that gay marriage would damage the economy. Then you got worried about France.

You just seem irrationally afraid.

excellent point. most excellent

[Symmetry]

unintended consequences need to be considered.

Catholic bishops in Illinois have followed their colleagues in other states and shutdown adoption centers rather than comply with anti-discrimination laws requiring equal treatment for gay couples.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/29/ca ... tion-laws/

Whats next? Is the government just going to order religious institution spit on their holy books and their values before everything they do?

We covered that irrational fear earlier, and you moved on to irrationally fearing that gay marriage would damage the economy. Then you got worried about France.

You just seem irrationally afraid.

excellent point. most excellent

I removed the video from your post because it seemed like a distraction when we're making some headway. Why do you think you have this pathology? This fear?

[Metsfanmax]

unintended consequences need to be considered.

Catholic bishops in Illinois have followed their colleagues in other states and shutdown adoption centers rather than comply with anti-discrimination laws requiring equal treatment for gay couples.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/12/29/ca ... tion-laws/

Whats next? Is the government just going to order religious institution spit on their holy books and their values before everything they do?

ITT: Phatscotty does not understand the difference between gay marriage laws and anti-discrimination laws.

[crispybits]

I didn't answer because it's my opinion that all tax loopholes and breaks and whatever Greek makes sure to point out they are, should be closed. So your millions of church going heterosexual married couples would be right smack in the middle of it.

So Lucy has 2 kids, aged 2 and 4, from a previous relationship, and marries Joe. 10 years of happy marriage and family life later Lucy is killed in a car accident, but instead of Joe automatically becoming the kids legal guardian, kids aged 12 and 14 and who have come to view Joe as their father, he has to fight through the courts even to get the right to visit them as they are not his biological children and therefore the state does not recognise his relationship with them without having to fight like this. Does this do Joe or the kids any good? What message does it give the kids about their family?

Or Sam and Fran are happily married for 20+ years. They buy a house together (but because joint married property laws have been repealed the house gets put in Sam's name). Sam then dies suddenly without leaving a will. Fran has no property rights to the family home, by law, despite the act she's effectively paid half towards the equity they had built up on it so far, and instead it passes to either Sam's biological next of kin or to the state.

Or Mark and Anne have been married for 12 years and have two pre-teen kids together, but it's not working and they break up in a very messy and conflict-filled way. Without divorce laws there is no structure for how best to decide issues around shared property, child custody, etc. In fact instead of just having one court case which rules over the whole thing they are now looking at maybe 3-4 different court cases, in 3 or 4 different courts to decide all of this. Courts that may disagree, giving one partner custody but the other partner the family home.

That's just 3 very quick examples where the state is currently involved, and where married couples have enhanced status over unmarried couples at present. Add into that the fact that every single married couple in the USA right now would be thousands worse off on average and you start to get the idea of why the government getting out of marriage is both impractical and would never get popular support.

I don't know what you mean by "people voting against the first amendment" except for the people who are trying to enable to government (knowingly or not) of taking over the institution of marriage, based solely on the benefits it has promised married people in the past.

I mean that there are churches right now that would happily marry gay couples. By passing the discriminatory amendments you are restricting their religious freedom to allow marriage to same sex couples.

I've never seen you give an answer to "why shouldn't gay couples get married" that doesn't either revolve around an entirely impractical belief that the government should GTFO (which makes you an idealist rather than discriminatory in philosophy but discriminatory in practice), or that marriage somehow belongs to christians (and maybe other established religions) and they can have "civil unions" or whatever (which is deluded at best).

[thegreekdog]

I mean, we're going back to the beginning of this thread again P.S. For a supposed small government guy, you are having an extremely difficult time allowing the government to stay out of affairs. Let's go through the "evidence" you've posted thus far:

Law: Massachusetts requires adoption agencies to give to gay couples.
Response: Catholic Church stops running adoption agencies.
This is not an attack on religion and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.

Government Action: A couple of mayors say Chik-Fil-A will never do business again.
Response: Widespread ridicule of said mayors.
This is an attack on free speech and would be deemed unconstitutional.

Law: Gay marriage is protected under the equal protection clause.
Response: Gays can get married under federal law.
This is not an attack on religion.

Law: Churches of all denominations must marry gay people.
Response: Case brought by churches.
This is a violation of freedom of religion.

You are grasping at straws here. These are fears that have no basis in reality. They are merely points that social conservatives use to try to scare people about gay marriage. And they aren't working.

Further, you are relying entirely on the government (whether state or federal) to help you impose your worldview on others and you are completely ignoring the Constitution. In other words, you're being a statist (with respect to a social issue) and you are ignoring the Constitution (which you supposedly love and worship).

In summation:

(1) You are a statist.
(2) You are an anti-Constitutionalist.
(3) You are justifying your views on results that will not happen and have not happened in similar circumstances.

[dwilhelmi]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist resurrecting this gem here:

The reasoning here is quite simple.

(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.

No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.

End of discussion.

I would argue that both 1 and 3 are flawed in this case. The more accurate version is here:
(1) A man who likes women may legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.

If we treat homosexual and heterosexual perfectly equal, then all restrictions for legally recognized marriage must be applied in all cases. If you wish to make the case that one of those restrictions should not be in place, that is fine, but that is not a matter of equal protection nor a constitutional given. That is why, in my opinion, gay marriage is so often compared with polygamy. "Opposite gender" is just as much an arbitrary restriction of marriage as "one other person" is. The first one could argue is "discriminatory" against homosexuals, while the second one could argue is "discriminatory" against monogamists.

[Frigidus]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist resurrecting this gem here:

The reasoning here is quite simple.

(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.

No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.

End of discussion.

I would argue that both 1 and 3 are flawed in this case. The more accurate version is here:
(1) A man who likes women may legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.

If we treat homosexual and heterosexual perfectly equal, then all restrictions for legally recognized marriage must be applied in all cases. If you wish to make the case that one of those restrictions should not be in place, that is fine, but that is not a matter of equal protection nor a constitutional given. That is why, in my opinion, gay marriage is so often compared with polygamy. "Opposite gender" is just as much an arbitrary restriction of marriage as "one other person" is. The first one could argue is "discriminatory" against homosexuals, while the second one could argue is "discriminatory" against monogamists.

Agreed. Polygamous marriage should also be legal.

[crispybits]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist resurrecting this gem here:

The reasoning here is quite simple.

(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.

No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.

End of discussion.

I would argue that both 1 and 3 are flawed in this case. The more accurate version is here:
(1) A man who likes women may legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.

If we treat homosexual and heterosexual perfectly equal, then all restrictions for legally recognized marriage must be applied in all cases. If you wish to make the case that one of those restrictions should not be in place, that is fine, but that is not a matter of equal protection nor a constitutional given. That is why, in my opinion, gay marriage is so often compared with polygamy. "Opposite gender" is just as much an arbitrary restriction of marriage as "one other person" is. The first one could argue is "discriminatory" against homosexuals, while the second one could argue is "discriminatory" against monogamists.

Lets change your example slightly:

(1) A white man who likes women may legally marry one other white adult human of the opposite gender.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a white man who likes men should also be able to legally marry one other white adult human of the opposite gender.

That wouldn't be discriminatory either though right? I mean it's just arbitrary conditions....

[Metsfanmax]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist resurrecting this gem here:

I would argue that both 1 and 3 are flawed in this case. The more accurate version is here:
(1) A man who likes women may legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.

If we treat homosexual and heterosexual perfectly equal, then all restrictions for legally recognized marriage must be applied in all cases. If you wish to make the case that one of those restrictions should not be in place, that is fine, but that is not a matter of equal protection nor a constitutional given. That is why, in my opinion, gay marriage is so often compared with polygamy. "Opposite gender" is just as much an arbitrary restriction of marriage as "one other person" is. The first one could argue is "discriminatory" against homosexuals, while the second one could argue is "discriminatory" against monogamists.

This argument rests on an antiquated understanding of sexual orientation, as if it is some personal choice that the law should be blind to. The absurdity of the argument can be shown, as crispybits points out, by replacing sexual orientation by race. That is, the current system is equivalent to

(1) The only legal type of marriage is a white person marrying another white person.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a black man can marry anyone he wants, so long as he's white.

[comic boy]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist resurrecting this gem here:

The reasoning here is quite simple.

(1) A man who likes women may legally marry the person of his interest.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry the person of his interest.

No part of this reasoning depends on how you feel about homosexuality or tyranny of the majority/minority. Unless some part of it is incorrect, or you like disregarding the Constitution, you are forced to conclude that gay marriage should be legal if marriage for heterosexual people is legal.

End of discussion.

I would argue that both 1 and 3 are flawed in this case. The more accurate version is here:
(1) A man who likes women may legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.
(2) The Constitution forbids any law from treating some citizens differently from others.
(3) Therefore, a man who likes men should also be able to legally marry one other adult human of the opposite gender.

If we treat homosexual and heterosexual perfectly equal, then all restrictions for legally recognized marriage must be applied in all cases. If you wish to make the case that one of those restrictions should not be in place, that is fine, but that is not a matter of equal protection nor a constitutional given. That is why, in my opinion, gay marriage is so often compared with polygamy. "Opposite gender" is just as much an arbitrary restriction of marriage as "one other person" is. The first one could argue is "discriminatory" against homosexuals, while the second one could argue is "discriminatory" against monogamists.

You are being absurd , your examples assume that gender must be stipulated and it need not be.

[Phatscotty]

the consequences of gay marriage passing will be felt in the coming gender redefinitions, all the way from marriage to boy and girl scouts

[MeDeFe]

the consequences of gay marriage passing will be felt in the coming gender redefinitions, all the way from marriage to boy and girl scouts

Ooooh... scary.

[Phatscotty]

the consequences of gay marriage passing will be felt in the coming gender redefinitions, all the way from marriage to boy and girl scouts

Ooooh... scary.

even so far as banning the words "mother" and "father". Sounds like families would be set to get sooooo much stronger!

[crispybits]

Can I make a reasonable reply to the points raised that differ from my opinion? Doesn't look like it.

Then I'll just go back to a previous, already thoroughly discredited point and take the argument round in another pointless circle in an effort to distract from the fact I already lost

An excerpt from "How to Debate", by Phatscotty