gdp's Comments

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 22:18:25 +0000

You are so impatient. I gave an answer to your last comment. Here it is again: Okay, so you are saying that a man's right to take a wife now means that a wife can be a man, whereas, originally, a wife meant a woman. I claim the two lls to save you the bother of continuing your game. It's late in the UK, and tomorrow I will be travelling to visit my dad to celebrate his ninetieth birthday. I know you will all miss me. Parting is such sweet sorrow that I’ll say good night ...

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:54:35 +0000

Okay, so you are saying that a man's right to take a wife now means that a wife can be a man, whereas, originally, a wife meant a woman. The law can be so confusing to us dimwits.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:17:30 +0000

Shouldn't you be thanking me for giving everyone the chance to shine so brightly?

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 21:03:03 +0000

When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal," he did not mean social or economic egalitarianism. Rather he and others of the Founding generation believed that society by its nature could never be socially or economically homogeneous because men differ in their abilities and virtues. They did not want to level society, but rather give to each individual the opportunity to make the most of his abilities. In order for this opportunity to exist, all men (and at the time they were only concerned with men) had to stand before the law on an equal footing. There could not be one law for the rich and another for the poor, although the Founders ignored the fact that there was clearly one law for white people and another for slaves. A generation later, when Andrew Jackson's Democrats talked about equality, they meant the same thing — equality of opportunity based on equal treatment by the law.

http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeo... So, all men, rich or poor, had the right to take a wife. This was the original right. How was this right changed?

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 20:15:48 +0000

Who takes the bible literally? I most certainly don't.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:39:41 +0000

You are too kind.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:37:54 +0000

Following your reasoning, any adult should be allowed to marry any other adult unless the State can prove that it is not in the State's interest. Which means that no individual or institution should be protected, under any circumstances, because it might infringe upon other people's rights. Well, if that's the society you want, go for it, and good luck!

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:50:27 +0000

That is an assumption on your part. You are saying that the Institution of Marriage cannot be protected because it is discriminatory, and therefore the Institution itself must be changed. You are also saying that it is wrong to want to protect the Institution of Marriage. Yet you know only too well that two men alone cannot produce a child, neither can two women, the purpose for which marriage was established. As a defence against this argument, infertility is thrown out as somehow vindicating the sterility of a homosexual relationship. This is a very poor argument since infertile couples often suffer numerous miscarriages and still born births, something a homosexual couple would never have to suffer. Childless couples are not synonymous with same sex couples; they are oceans apart.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:19:36 +0000

You offer your personal situation as grounds for allowing same-sex couples to marry, yet stubbornly reject that marriage was never meant to be a ceremony other than that for the union of one man and one woman. Yes, fight for equal rights, fight for a civil partnership to be recognised in law with equal benefits to those afforded married couples. The Institution of Marriage was set up for the union of a man and a woman. Nothing you say will change that. I hope your partner has fully recovered and is enjojing good health and continues to do so.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:15:42 +0000

The hypothesis did not exclude homosexuals; they would exclude themselves by choice.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:40:20 +0000

Our founders clearly revealed their central purpose was defending Americans’ rights and liberties against encroachment, particularly by an overbearing national government. The Supreme Court’s major purpose is preventing such overstepping. That requires following the Constitution as the highest law of the land in fact as well as on paper ...

Constitution first, Supreme Court second.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 15:24:49 +0000

Thank you. What people want and what laws governments are allowed to enforce seem to be very much at odds. Homosexuals see themselves as victims because they cannot form legal marriages that give them the same rights as heterosexuals. This brings the Institution of Marriage into question. If it didn't exist, how would society organise itself? If a group of like-minded people gathered together and said that they wanted to set up a contract that formed a binding relationship between a man and a woman, and only a man and a woman, would the state be able to sanction this, or would it be unconstitutional?

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:09:42 +0000

... but it says nothing about marriage.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:55:07 +0000

There is no precedence to say that, which is why the constitution was written that way. The only way to preserve marriage, as it was at the time of writing, was to leave out any reference to marriage. You cannot amend something that does not exist. The founding fathers wanted it that way, and who is the Supreme Court to put itself above the founding fathers?

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:41:59 +0000

Where in the American constitution does it say that marriage is a fundamental right?

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:10:55 +0000

As far as the law is concerned, there is no such thing as gay; there are men and there are women. Same-sex marriage according to the law is the union of one man and one man or one woman and one woman. In the UK, single-sex marriages are recognised, but they are not equal to opposite-sex marriages. Same-sex couples can divorce, but not on the grounds of adultery; sex between same-sex couples is not recognised in UK divorce courts. In 2013, this memo written by a gay man was published in Hansard. In it, he wrote: "I welcome the fact that the Government intends to extend marriage to same sex couples. However, I was very disappointed to note that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill 2013 contains provisions that mean that same sex couples will be prevented from relying on adultery as a ground for divorce, or non- consummation as a ground for annulment. By excluding only same sex couples from these provisions the Government undermines its commitment to truly equal marriage." The bottom line: he wanted homosexual sex to be on a par with heterosexual sex, so that homosexuals could be seen to consummate a marriage in as acceptable a way as heterosexual couples. The Government disagreed and added a clause that excluded homosexuals from the annulment of marriages that were not consummated. The right to annulment was not the real basis of his complaint; the Government's refusal to accept that homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are the same was his main objection. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/.../memo/m0...

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:54:50 +0000

Allowing all men the right to marry a man and all women the right to marry a woman does not dignify same-sex marriage; it reduces marriage to a legal contract between two adults, and degrades the Institution of Marriage, which is held in very low regard by the activists fighting for the right to marry.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Sun, 31 May 2015 23:48:48 +0000

Why is a homosexual man legally different to a heterosexual man? Marriage allows every man the right to marry a woman. It gives no man the right to marry a man. That's equality. Forget sexual orientation. If one man is allowed to marry one man then all men are allowed to marry a man. This is not a gay rights issue. It is the right of a man to marry a man, and the right of a woman to marry a woman.

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Sun, 31 May 2015 23:38:36 +0000

So why would an unmarried couple apply to adopt a child? Why would the authorities allow it? Why was a condition not put on married couples ensuring that they would always reside in a State that recognised the couples' marriages?

Equality on Trial : Marriage equality at SCOTUS: could sex discrimination tip the scale?

Sun, 31 May 2015 23:32:14 +0000

Earlier this year, two men were arrested and held in prison under an old statute. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/02/20/36247...