Gallup- Support for same-sex marriage hits new high majority-

They violated the constitution the first time there was a ban, which was in the 1970s. No such ban existed prior to that

- - - Updated - - -

Prop 8 specifically denied same sex couples marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

It wasn't illegal anywhere in the US until the 1970s

 

Banned EVERYWHERE in the US until 2003. Simply the word "marriage" in the statute prohibited marriage between two people of the same sex.

 

Prove me wrong. Show me ANY marriage statute that would permit such a marriage. Or I'll make it even easier. Show us even one example of a same sex marriage in the US any time between 1776 and 2002. Your silly little proclamations carry no weight.

 

It was definitiley illegal in the 1960s. I heard that homosexuality was illegal in every state as recently as the early 1960s.

 

Dixon, gays and lesbians wish to marry one another. There is no valid reason why they should not. NONE. The public is realizing this, the courts are ruling this. And the more such marriages are performed, the more people realize that the sky shows no sign of falling. The era of making these people suffer simply for the purpose of making them suffer is past, and there is no other reason for these laws. Which is probably why you have yet to come up with a single one.

Maybe you should calm down and spend a week or two pulling wings off flies.

- - - Updated - - -

You realize, you are not disagreeing with him, don't you?

 

As opposed to the courts claim that it specifically denied gay couples marriage based upon sexual oientation

- - - Updated - - -

Yes he is. Rahl claims it wasn't banned anywhere before 1970 and amazing claims it was

 

Duh. The push for same-sex marriage is a direct result of growing public acceptance of a same-sex orientation. However, even though we might reasonably decide (based on unanimous testimony) that people HAVE a same-sex orientation, the courts can't read minds. They can only rule that same-sex marriage is a protected right, EVEN IF someone someday should come up with some other reason than orientation for doing it.

 

I don't disagree with Dixon. I don't agree with every single thing he says, but I basically agree with his overall beliefs on this issue.

 

That's debatable. Whats the valid reason for excluding two closely related adults of the same sex who wish to marry one another. If you don't have one you have no justification for denying ANY TWO consenting adults who "wish to marry one another"

 

But the "it" that Rahl was talking about, isn't the "it" that Sam is talking about. To understand this, you must think clearly, which is evidently an insurmountable challenge for you.

Rahl is correct, there were NO laws against same-sex marriage before about 1970. The reason there were no such laws against such marriages was that there WERE laws against same-sex relationships in general. These were called sodomy laws. It wasn't until the Supreme Court tossed out the sodomy laws, that gays and lesbians could legally acknowledge often long-standing relationships without being arrested for them. And once they could acknowledge that such relatinships in fact existed and had existed all along, THEN they started wanting these relationships recognized as marriages by the civil government. And THEN states started passing laws saying they couldn't MARRY. Before that, the marriage issue was moot.

 

I believe she is saying you don't disagree with Rahl.

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I'm willing to agree that once same-sex marriages are legal, any two single adults who meet marryable criteria can go ahead and marry. Of course, heterosexuals have no desire to do so, and except for possible (profitable) notoriety, I don't expect any ever will.

Now, if you are talking about degree of consanguinity, this remains to be tested in the courts. I would expect that we'd see some conflicting decisions if such cases are actually brought. Why should two brothers NOT be permitted to marry, there being no danger of inbreeding between them? My speculation is that allowing such a marriage would start introducing "same sex exceptions" into the law unnecessarily. So far, if there have been any cases of same-sex partners being denied licences solely on the grounds of being too closely related, I'm not familiar with it.

 

No the issue was mute because ALL 50 states limited marriage to a man and a woman by law. Heres California 1872

"Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage... "

It has ALWAYS, and everywhere in the US required 1 "husband" and 1 "wife" WITHOUT exception, 1776 until 2003

 

I did explain that rahl is talking about marriage, and you are talking about sodomy, and these are different things.

I find your approach to this issue considerably more honest than dixon's. You recognize that objecting to same-sex marriage is simply an emotional extension of objecting to the very existence of such sexual orientations in the first place. You and many others sincerely wish that if such people don't go away entirely, at least they return to pretending to share the majority's orientation and not make you feel uncomfortable. But dixon is trying to justify and rationalize his emotional rejection, in order to avoid admitting to himself that he is the bigot he shows himself to be in the very process.

I'm also tired of the whole thing, but I know the genie isn't going to be stuffed back in the bottle, so now it's a slow and painful matter of public accommodation. And as the Sterling case shows us, it takes more than half a century (that is, more than a couple of generations) for old prejudices to fade.

 

I asked a question. You don't have ANY valid reason.

 

Uh, the word is "moot'. Look it up.

Ah, here is the "dixon dance" once again. Where in what you quoted is a same-sex marriage prohibited? The fact is, back in 1872 the thought of a same-sex marriage never even crossed anyone's mind, so it didn't occur to them to specifically disallow it. This is the meaning of "moot". What this law does is ASSUMES, tacitly, that only opposite-sex couples should ever wish to marry, and so it focuses on their being both single and old enough - and incidentally, it's interesting that girls become old enough younger than boys do.

You say it has always REQUIRED 1 husband and one wife, but this is clearly not so. No such requirement is specified, because no such requirement was necessary or even considered at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

I answered your question, explicitly and at some length. But since you seem unable to read, I'll just repeat it:

I'm willing to agree that once same-sex marriages are legal, any two single adults who meet marryable criteria can go ahead and marry. Of course, heterosexuals have no desire to do so, and except for possible (profitable) notoriety, I don't expect any ever will.

Now, if you are talking about degree of consanguinity, this remains to be tested in the courts. I would expect that we'd see some conflicting decisions if such cases are actually brought. Why should two brothers NOT be permitted to marry, there being no danger of inbreeding between them? My speculation is that allowing such a marriage would start introducing "same sex exceptions" into the law unnecessarily. So far, if there have been any cases of same-sex partners being denied licences solely on the grounds of being too closely related, I'm not familiar with it.

 

Nonsense- Prop 8 was a response to the California Supreme Court's decision which allowed gay marriage, and my fellow Californians voted to make marriage limited to a man and a woman with the intent of preventing homosexuals from marrying in California.

I was living here during the campaign- and I heard the supporters of Prop 8 specifically state that many times.

 

Hmmm I don't see anything in that statement which prevents 2 18 year old unmarried males from getting married to each other.

Certainly I will agree it was assumed that would never happen.

But the law you quoted certainly makes no such restriction. We know that 17 year old men were not allowed to be married, but there is nothing there which says that 18 year old men cannot marry each other.

 

LOLOLOLOL! Why don't you copy and paste any post of mine you think best evidences this bigotry. And I think you will find you define any opposition to gay marriage as bigotry.
I don't have any moral opposition to homosexuality. Im an atheist. I say if it feels good do it. My recognition of the importance of mothers and fathers working together to provide and care for their children, ISNT some hidden animus towards homosexuals. But for their insistence of special privilege and making a mockery out of such an important human institution of marriage, of nuclear families, mothers and fathers providing and caring for their children because if they don't, the child has only the hope that someone else step forward and voluntarily assume those obligations, I wouldn't have a word of criticism for homosexuals. Im a product of the sexual revolution in the 60s and 70s and oppose any judgment of morality upon sexual behavior by government and only support its moral judgment that a man needs to be responsible for providing and caring for the children he creates. He most frequently fulfills those obligations in a marriage to the mother of his children and most frequently fails to do so when he is not so married.
I used to date an attorney for the state who was one of 5 who did nothing but attempt to get court orders of support from fathers of children on public assistance. Too many of them with no identifiable father, too many of them with a father who cant even be located, Too many unwilling to do so. AND virtually all of them never married to the mother.
And absolutely none of this has a damned thing to do with sexual orientation other than the fact that the above has nothing to do with homosexual couples unless its a lesbian couple with a biological child of one of them, collecting child support payments from the father.

 

????That would be the term "and" as opposed to or. "Any unmarried male ...and any unmarried female ...are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage." As well the requirement of both a male and a female to "consummate" the relationship. And finally the use of the term "marriage" defined as a man and woman.

 

Pretty much, yes, there being no VALID reason to oppose it. As you demonstrate.

Nor is it relevant to this discussion. Permitting same-sex marriage doesn't change any of that in any way, for anyone.

The "special privilege", of course, being precisely the same privilege as everyone else. So cut the crap and be honest for a change

But nobody is mocked, so this is another lie. Families as you like them are UNAFFECTED. Be honest for once.

So when he wants to get married and be responsible and provide for his children, you oppose it! Be honest for change, because that's a load.

And so when men WANT to be responsible, want to be located, are willing to support children, you wish to prevent them from doing so. Right. PLEASE be honest for once.

And none of what you've written has anything to do with the same-sex marriage that's currently spreading and gaining ground. If you claim you can't see any relationship between sexual orientation and marriage partner, you are even MORE dishonest than you've been all along.

After a while, one can only pity you.

 

Nothing there is exclusive. But I find it amusing that you think it is.

 

Except that two unmarried males are NOT disallowed. And they DO consummate their marriage. And the term "marriage" is NOT defined as a man and a woman. You are reading what you wish to see, and not what the words say. As usual.

 

THAT right there is the sole source of ANY focus upon homosexuals. You wont find it in Prop 8. Had the court found a right for a man to marry his dog and Californians responded with prop 9 limiting marriage to humans, Prop 9 isn't an intent to discriminate against men who want to marry their dogs. It would always be an intent to limit marriage to humans.

With such logic we couldn't reverse any court decision granting rights to select groups because any legislation or constitutional amendment in response could be alleged to be an intent to harm that select group. Stupid tortured logic that could be used to award any select group special treatment.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes they are but you feel free show me just ONE example to show I am wrong.

 

Slavery was never illegal throughout US history until the 1860's. Things change. Deal with it.