News of the day

The T wrote: Dean wrote: ...and which amendment to your constitution defines marriage? Marriage is defined by society and it has been re-defined. That should be enough. Time has turned the man-woman institution into a person-person one. Some countries like mine of origin define marriage in some way in some legal document but even then a piece of paper can't turn back the tide of times, even if one doesn't agree with it.  So, even if in my mind marriage was, is and will be something that should be done between man and woman (and not for religious reasons), let's welcome the chance for everybody to define marriage in their own terms.

^Dean - no amendment defines marriage, I'm saying that at the time that amendment was ratified, marriage was considered to be between a man and woman and gay marriage would have been out of the question.  I support an original intent interpretation of the constitution whenever possible and thus do not support the twisting of this amendment to make it support something it was never intended to.

^^Teo, if the government redefines marriage to include gay couples, is that really letting people define marriage on their own terms or is it imposing a new definition of marriage on society?  That's not a debate-seeking question, as much, by the way - I want to know what you think because I don't know your opinion on the issue.  I think that the government should stop issuing marriage licenses and have nothing to do with marriage at all, because I don't see marriage as a function of government but as an agreement between individuals in the sight of their community (I see God as being involved also but we're obviously not just talking about Christians getting married here).

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^Dean - no amendment defines marriage, I'm saying that at the time that amendment was ratified, marriage was considered to be between a man and woman and gay marriage would have been out of the question.  I support an original intent interpretation of the constitution whenever possible and thus do not support the twisting of this amendment to make it support something it was never intended to.

Dean wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: ^Dean - no amendment defines marriage, I'm saying that at the time that amendment was ratified, marriage was considered to be between a man and woman and gay marriage would have been out of the question.  I support an original intent interpretation of the constitution whenever possible and thus do not support the twisting of this amendment to make it support something it was never intended to. And vice versa. At the time of the amendment several forms of inequaity were not considered at that are now covered by the amendment, not only through the Equal Proetection Clause but also the Due Process Clause (I gather - I have to learn this nonsense for the first time in these discussions because no other country uses their Bill of Rights so heavily to prevent laws being passed). Equality is equality regardless of colour, race, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

Amendment XIV, Section 1 wrote: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Homosexuals aren't being deprived of equal protection under the law.  If someone robs a homosexual's house the police still have to protect him; if a company rips him off he still has the right to sue.  Like Teo pointed out, homosexuals even have the right to marry - they just don't have the right to marry a person of the same sex.  This issue is not with equal protection but with the definition of marriage.  If someone has a sexual attraction to dogs and wants to marry his dog, the government is not depriving him of his rights by prohibiting him from marrying the dog, because dogs are not included in the definition of marriage (note - I'm not equating homosexuality with bestiality; it is merely an illustration of the matter of definition).  The government has to redefine marriage for gay marriage to be included under the equal protection clause.  DOMA violated the clause because the federal government was depriving married gay couples of their rights as married people in their states.  Prop 8, on the other hand, dealt with the definition of marriage itself and thus was not unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment. 

Padraic wrote: So redefine marriage.

The Biblical definition of marriage:

^ But that will stunt straight peoples' motivation to marry and seriously jeopardize the very fabric of society.

Atavachron wrote: ^ But that will stunt straight peoples' motivation to marry and seriously jeopardize the very fabric of society.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/snowdens-father-on-today-show-he-has-betrayed-his-government/2013/06/28/d942d404-e000-11e2-963a-72d740e88c12_story.html?tid=pm_world_pop

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: The very idea of "betraying your government" doesn't make much sense to me.  I consider my loyalty to the United States government to be practically nonexistent.  My government does not command my allegiance - my country does.  The government is not the country.  If anything, the idea betraying the government without betraying the country seems to be a universally good thing.

I applaud this.