Yeah, I know I'm replying to my own post. But I have to go to bed, and wanted to make myself perfectly clear on something before I go.

Laws are not meant to determine what is the norm; they're meant to be a reflection of what is the norm. And laws like this are not a reflection of such. 'Cause if there's more and more gay people wanting to get married; how is an amendment a reflection of such a societal shift in thats it creates a law to stop it? It's not. By a proper definition of what laws are supposed to be there for, this amendment is wrong.

[edited for further clarifacition, and cause I can't type]


[Edited on Aug 04, 2004 by Ahriman]

1stblindman.

Ok so the government should stay out of saying who can marry.

Does that mean we do away with all laws concerning marriage? How about Paternity Law? See I'd rather the people or their elected officals propose these changes. And that it be done in an open process.

You were talking about your roommate. You were making a point about marrying animals. That isn't an argument that holds water. That's the point I was trying to make. Don't change it to polygamy, because it just looks like you're trying to wiggle out of admitting that you were quite clearly wrong about your "marrying a dog" analogy.

Well, here in the world of legal theory where I happen to reside, that's apples and oranges. a five year old can be the recipient of a bequest. A five-year-old, however, may not enter into a legally binding contract. That's all because of a little something we call "mental capacity." Five year olds and dogs are not considered to have the mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of entering into a legally binding agreement. Mental capacity has nothing to do with receiving something in a will.

Bean. I disagree with them when it comes to the external affairs of the nation. International relations isn't a strong suit of the party. I think the main thrust behind the parties views on Gay Marriage is that our Marriage Laws are a basis in Social/Historical/Religious and that the government shouldn't dictate a change. That instead it should go the other way and that the changes should be forced on the Government by the people and the institutions involved.

Paternity laws aren't "marriage" laws. They have to do with biological fathers paying child support, regardless of whether the father and mother were married.

I blame all the prime-time law dramas for this. Curse you, David Kelley!

Lemonnier. First off the Government can decide who/what ever they want to be legally able to agree to a contract. That can and does change all the time. That is a legal theory/discussion that deserves its own thread.

Also I think that you would have to examine paternity laws because of the way you would be changing the make up of what a family was. And paternity laws are based on the notion of what a family is and the levels of responsiblity involved.



[Edited on Aug 04, 2004 by gaiseric]

Sittin here in the gay marriage capital of North America and everythings seems to be just fine.


*looks out window*

Yup. Everything going according to plan.

Carry on.

Lemonnier

Who am I thinking of? Who does gaiseric remind me of? Guy who used to post over and over in CE, and it never made much sense to anyone except him; just can't think of the name...

Anyway, I'm being reminded of him right now. Do you know who I mean?

There are certain things that should not be open for legislation. The right to marry whomever you want is one of these things. The right to vote is another. You know the list.

Courts, by the way, are open. People file suits. The two sides present their arguments. The courts decide on the merits of them. Courts aren't some quasi-governmental authoriy. They are part of the government, and one of their purposes is to clarify the law.

As for getting rid of all laws relating to marriage, that doesn't follow. Allowing everyone to vote, for instance, has not led to allowing everyone to vote seven times.

You do realize that's not anything even remotely approaching a rebuttal, don't you?

You're not fooling anyone. Stop trying to come up with rational justifications for your irrational intolerance. You feel very strongly that gays should not be allowed to marry, and you're trying to claim, rather disingenuously, that it's rooted in political philosophy or law or reason. You won't be able to do it, because there is no good reason, legal, moral or otherwise, against it. At least not in light of the U.S. Constitution.

FofKid.

Sorry if I don't make much sense atm. I normally would have racked out an hour or two ago. But I was interested in seeing peoples different viewpoints... Maybe I should have just gone to bed instead. Knew I was steping on a live one when I posted on this thread.

Guess it teaches me to have a contrarian viewpoint.

Christ, there are so many of them.

There was lessthan3, and we haven't heard from guildenstern in a while. But his profile is still there.

Then there was that guy Kliklak, but I'm pretty sure he got zotted.

I'm not getting it, right? I'm being dense here?

Edited because it really makes no sense to type links to members' names whose profiles are no longer around.

[Edited on Aug 04, 2004 by Lemonnier]

Bingo!

You? Dense? Nail on head, darlin'

Ahriman.

Ok so norms change. I'm not saying they don't. I'm saying that we should use the means in our government to change those laws, and how about doing it using something other than a lawsuit. This is a pretty radical departcher (or expansion) of the views we as a society have held before. Guess I'm just a bigot or a worse for wishing we would slowdown a little in the process.