Same-Sex Marriage!! Your Thoughts

[saden1]

This can not be a state issue as there are interstate matters to consider. Let's also not forget the equal protection is a constructional issue. A same sex married couple should be able to move freely to other states much like married couple of opposite sex.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Sorry, I don't think this is all that big an issue for the s.c. Sure, there would politics, etc. But these same factors went into Roe v. Wade. Unlike abortion, this is an issue that has been in the public forum for close to a decade.

Further, the SC could simply ratify the "It's a State isssue" standard and do so in a manner that essentially washes their hands of the issue.

Well until the federal gov recognizes gay marraige they have not really accieved anything. I could see this becoming an issue in the next election. So in 30 days they can start to marry and in a few years after that we can watch them start to divorce and hate each other. How many of these relationships have stayed together because they had the common cause to fight for this right? They now get the right and one night look over at their partner and wonder WTF have I done.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I have four employees who are openly gay, and they went to the pride celebrations in DC a few weeks back. It's a great showing of solidarity for the gay community, and they had a wonderful time and garner from it a strong sense of identity. I think it's great. I can't imagine how difficult it is as a young adult in high school struggling with your own sexuality while dealing with all the other life challenges high school brings.

As long as you grant the straight employees time off to go to a swimsuit competition or a monster truck rally, I have no issues.


Also, since I don't smoke, can I have a break every hour to do something unproductive as well? Maybe I'll go putt some golf balls down the hallway. Recreational rights, right?


I do have a point to this nonsensical post...there's a fine line between "Equal Rights" and "Special Rights". This issue always brings up the question, what are the gays really after? Sometimes, it does seem like they want "Special Rights" above and beyond what heterosexuals are granted or entitled to.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

As long as you grant the straight employees time off to go to a swimsuit competition or a monster truck rally, I have no issues.


Also, since I don't smoke, can I have a break every hour to do something unproductive as well? Maybe I'll go putt some golf balls down the hallway. Recreational rights, right?


I do have a point to this nonsensical post...there's a fine line between "Equal Rights" and "Special Rights". This issue always brings up the question, what are the gays really after? Sometimes, it does seem like they want "Special Rights" above and beyond what heterosexuals are granted or entitled to.

Who said GMScud gave them special rights? He works in restaurant it was probably their day off. IF they are waiters they probably lost money by going to the parade since they missed a shift.

Your post makes you sound like you have a case of "sour grapes".

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

I do have a point to this nonsensical post...there's a fine line between "Equal Rights" and "Special Rights". This issue always brings up the question, what are the gays really after? Sometimes, it does seem like they want "Special Rights" above and beyond what heterosexuals are granted or entitled to.

I am trying to make sense of your sensical post. I want to know what these "Special Rights" are. Are they taking the day off and getting paid for it without taking some vacation time-off? Maybe it's their short notice on taking time off? What special rights are they getting that isn't afforded to you?

Enlighten us Mr. Buster.

[firstdown]

We ant going to have none of that going on around here.

[firstdown]

Speaking of gay rights.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am trying to make sense of your sensical post. I want to know what these "Special Rights" are. Are they taking the day off and getting paid for it without taking some vacation time-off? Maybe it's their short notice on taking time off? What special rights are they getting that isn't afforded to you?

Enlighten us Mr. Buster.

Don't expect a answer once Buster is cornered he becomes very quiet.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

So why are you asking Dirtbag?

See like this post. Buster got the OP mixed up with Dirtbag but he could never admit that too SS.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am trying to make sense of your sensical post. I want to know what these "Special Rights" are. Are they taking the day off and getting paid for it without taking some vacation time-off? Maybe it's their short notice on taking time off? What special rights are they getting that isn't afforded to you?

Enlighten us Mr. Buster.

Not to speak for the guy, but he raises one of the most common points conservatives/members of the far right bring up when opposing gay marriage:

* Please note, this is not my view, just the view that I've heard from republicans on the issue. *

They will say, that gay people are not denied any civil rights to marry. They can get married just like heterosexual people can. They just can't marry members of the same sex -- and neither can heterosexuals. In other words, nobody is being denied any civil rights. They'll say homosexuals are asking for special rights.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by saden1

This can not be a state issue as there are interstate matters to consider. Let's also not forget the equal protection is a constructional issue. A same sex married couple should be able to move freely to other states much like married couple of opposite sex.

There isn't any chance that the current make-up of the Supreme Court is going to find a sufficient connection between interstate commerce and marriage to make this a federal issue that Congress has the authority to make law on. No chance. In fact, I wonder whether even Breyer or Kagan would buy that argument. (The fact that NY stands to attract additional tourism, as some news stories have suggested, won't be enough). Second, equal protection might be invoked, but the argument would fare only slightly better than the first. If you're being discriminated against under a state law, and you are not alleging discrimination based on race or religious affiliation, the deck is stacked against you. In the Sup. ct. decision that struck down the Texas law that banned homosexual sex, O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion that the Texas law violated the EP clause. She was the only justice who believed that. And with regard to the constitutional right to travel being violated by the denial of same-sex partners to marry, that's kinda weak.

I'd like to see the NY story played out all over the country, but marriage equality ain't going to be delivered by the Supremes.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Not to speak for the guy, but he raises one of the most common points conservatives/members of the far right bring up when opposing gay marriage:

* Please note, this is not my view, just the view that I've heard from republicans on the issue. *

They will say, that gay people are not denied any civil rights to marry. They can get married just like heterosexual people can. They just can't marry members of the same sex -- and neither can heterosexuals. In other words, nobody is being denied any civil rights. They'll say homosexuals are asking for special rights.

I swear I have never heard that point of view. It makes sense.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by mredskins

See like this post. Buster got the OP mixed up with Dirtbag but he could never admit that too SS.

Smootsmack is to Dirtbag what Dave Semenko was to Wayne Gretzky. Hey look at all this extra room I have to skate.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Smootsmack is to Dirtbag what Dave Semenko was to Wayne Gretzky. Hey look at all this extra room I have to skate.

Que??

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

There isn't any chance that the current make-up of the Supreme Court is going to find a sufficient connection between interstate commerce and marriage to make this a federal issue that Congress has the authority to make law on. No chance. In fact, I wonder whether even Breyer or Kagan would buy that argument. (The fact that NY stands to attract additional tourism, as some news stories have suggested, won't be enough). Second, equal protection might be invoked, but the argument would fare only slightly better than the first. If you're being discriminated against under a state law, and you are not alleging discrimination based on race or religious affiliation, the deck is stacked against you. In the Sup. ct. decision that struck down the Texas law that banned homosexual sex, O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion that the Texas law violated the EP clause. She was the only justice who believed that. And with regard to the constitutional right to travel being violated by the denial of same-sex partners to marry, that's kinda weak.

I'd like to see the NY story played out all over the country, but marriage equality ain't going to be delivered by the Supremes.

agreed.