Connecticut religous groups want same sex exemptions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miros
  • Start date Start date
If gays wanted to get married they'd have chosen to stay straight.
 
Back to the matter at hand.

Deciding whether a particular law violates the Constitution is not "legislation from the bench", but rather an intended action, designed into our system of government by the people who created it. The ability of the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) to strike down those laws it finds unconstitutional is one of the fundamental checks and balances that allow our system to function.

Loving vs Virginia is an interesting precedent, but it has been denied as a controlling precedent by a lower court. This is not to say that the Supreme Court will necessarily make the same decision, but the reasons behind the dismissal are relevant to the debate at hand, and indeed provide an angle of attack for those who would wish to see discriminatory laws struck down.

The New York Court of Appeals, for all intents and purposes, ruled that the issue was not whether or not homosexuals are not receiving equal protection, but rather whether or not they were, in fact, capable of fulfilling the very concept of marriage. The court held, erroneously in my opinion, that reproduction is a fundamental facet of marriage, and that because a homosexual couple is incapable of it, there is sufficient doubt cast upon their ability to actually "be married" that laws against it cannot fall under the same anti-discrimination precedent set in Loving vs Virginia.

Obviously, there are flaws in the Court's decision.

If a man or woman wished to marry but was for whatever reason incapable of producing a child, no laws would be broken. Even in those few states that still require the rather barbaric act of consummation before a marriage is considered valid, the sexual act itself could be performed, though no chance of children would be present.

The concept of marriage, therefore, must exist separately from the concept of procreation. While a divorce might be granted on the grounds that one party misled the other about their ability to conceive a child, the marriage, such as it was, would stand; again, even in those states that require consummation.
 
Zoolander said:
Thank you Mr. Obvious? Clearly missed the point I was making, any retard knows what you just said. You even made my argument for me by pointing out intent regarding profit does matter. This is just a ridiculous semantics debate at this point, and the law is on my side at this point in time.
Click to expand...

The point you were making was that a donation is not the same as getting money. It's not what you say, cause you know that's stupid. It is however what you implied. Donation doesn't equal payment in a transaction sense. Your point and argument hold no water. Semantics are very important in these discussions as they carry a lot of the weight. Much like you being called out for using the word "fag" implying that you hate gay people as the semantics are implied.

Now, my point was that despite the intent to profit it or now was unimportant because the method of getting the money is unimportant. You're still getting money for your service. So your entire argument/point against a Church being a business is moot and thoroughly disproven.

Also, in the end all this discussion is just completely outside of what these people are aiming for. We are pandering to the fact that they are looking for any loophole possible to stop fags from getting married there and are essentially grasping at straws. They don't give a shit about the constitution, they are only obsessed with "saving the institution of marriage."
Click to expand...

Speaking of loopholes. Since Congress isn't supposed to pass laws against religious practices (so long as they don't hurt anyone or their pursuits), I think a religious establishment that centered on Gay Marriage should be created. That way it would be Unconstitutional to prevent them to marry Gay people. It wouldn't stop the other religions from trying to find ways to stop/prevent it, so it doesn't hurt their pursuits. Note goals aren't guaranteed by any means. Unless of course you block all religions from being able to marry anyone and wouldn't that be grand =D
 
Javir said:
Since Congress isn't supposed to pass laws against religious practices (so long as they don't hurt anyone or their pursuits), I think a religious establishment that centered on Gay Marriage should be created. That way it would be Unconstitutional to prevent them to marry Gay people. It wouldn't stop the other religions from trying to find ways to stop/prevent it, so it doesn't hurt their pursuits.
Click to expand...

That is a phenomenal idea.
 
Just make it civil marriage between 2 people instead of civil marriage between a man and a women. At the same time, to please everyone, we can keep religious married between a women and a man. Everyone's married this way.
 
Raesvelg said:
The concept of marriage, therefore, must exist separately from the concept of procreation. While a divorce might be granted on the grounds that one party misled the other about their ability to conceive a child, the marriage, such as it was, would stand; again, even in those states that require consummation.
Click to expand...

Speaking of the concept of marriage. Remember when divorces went against religious tradition so Henry VIII broke away from Rome and now divorces are acceptable virtually worldwide?
 
Raesvelg said:
Back to the matter at hand.

Deciding whether a particular law violates the Constitution is not "legislation from the bench", but rather an intended action, designed into our system of government by the people who created it. The ability of the judicial branch (the Supreme Court) to strike down those laws it finds unconstitutional is one of the fundamental checks and balances that allow our system to function.

Loving vs Virginia is an interesting precedent, but it has been denied as a controlling precedent by a lower court. This is not to say that the Supreme Court will necessarily make the same decision, but the reasons behind the dismissal are relevant to the debate at hand, and indeed provide an angle of attack for those who would wish to see discriminatory laws struck down.

The New York Court of Appeals, for all intents and purposes, ruled that the issue was not whether or not homosexuals are not receiving equal protection, but rather whether or not they were, in fact, capable of fulfilling the very concept of marriage. The court held, erroneously in my opinion, that reproduction is a fundamental facet of marriage, and that because a homosexual couple is incapable of it, there is sufficient doubt cast upon their ability to actually "be married" that laws against it cannot fall under the same anti-discrimination precedent set in Loving vs Virginia.

Obviously, there are flaws in the Court's decision.

If a man or woman wished to marry but was for whatever reason incapable of producing a child, no laws would be broken. Even in those few states that still require the rather barbaric act of consummation before a marriage is considered valid, the sexual act itself could be performed, though no chance of children would be present.

The concept of marriage, therefore, must exist separately from the concept of procreation. While a divorce might be granted on the grounds that one party misled the other about their ability to conceive a child, the marriage, such as it was, would stand; again, even in those states that require consummation.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything here, Raes. We see eye to eye on some things!

Even your point on Loving v Virginia not being a completely useful precedent. I just pointed it out as an example of how the courts are well within their jurisdiction to judge the constitutional merits of certain laws and overturn them if they are found lacking. It doesn't mean that we'll receive the same ruling with the whole case of same-sex marriage, but the courts can question the majority decision without people shouting "activist judges!!" from the rooftops.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top