Pretty moving speech by Olberman on Prop. 8 and Religious maniacs...

[MCWAY]

supposedly around 30something percent...did you read my other post on here l dawg and see how they come up with the 50%?

Whatever the rate is, it's WAY too high. And frivolous, "no-fault" divorces (combined with people's lack of character and committment) play a role in that.

With that said, citing divorce rates doesn't help supporters of gay "marriage" (or those who take issue with marriage amendments) one bit. On one hand, they're downing the institution itself; on the other, they're claiming that it's so great of a thing, that not allowing homosexuals to re-define it is such a travesty of justice.

Again, this virulent reaction we've seen come isn't coming from the mere passage of a marriage amendment, as 29 other states have done that over the past 5 years.

The SHOCK comes from the fact that this occured in CALIFORNIA, after that court legalized it and homosexuals had licenses in hand. Throw in the state attorney general's questionable title on Prop. 8, and many were of the mindset that Prop. 8 would get voted down.

But, it passed. And, the pundits CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!

[24KT]

Gays aren't a separate race, Judi.

I never said they were, ...but like times past, they are a group of people for whom equality under the law does not exist. They are also a group of people that other people seek to ensure do not receive equality under the law. How anyone can miss that or even pretend to miss that is beyond me.

[Arnold jr]

I never said they were, ...but like times past, they are a group of people for whom equality under the law does not exist. They are also a group of people that other people seek to ensure do not receive equality under the law. How anyone can miss that or even pretend to miss that is beyond me.

You're right, they have been subject to inequality under the law in the past, i.e. jobs, wages, etc. These are all things protected by the constitution, where as the topic at hand is not.

The topic at hand simply has to do with choice, it has nothing to do with anything that is out of any persons control.

[24KT]

You're right, they have been subject to inequality under the law in the past, i.e. jobs, wages, etc. These are all things protected by the constitution, where as the topic at hand is not.

The topic at hand simply has to do with choice, it has nothing to do with anything that is out of any persons control.

They do not have the freedom of choice to marry or not like the rest of the population.

...or more accurately, what prop 8 does is to strip them of that ability to marry that the rest of the population enjoys.

[Buffgeek]

What are the laws regarding this up in your neck of the woods jag?

[Arnold jr]

They do not have the freedom of choice to marry or not like the rest of the population.

...or more accurately, what prop 8 does is to strip them of that ability to marry that the rest of the population enjoys.

"Freedom of Choice" that was the term I was waiting of you to use in the way you did just there.

When it comes to freedom of choice, there is only one law in the U.S. that this applies to so adamantly...abortion. Now it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I am pro life, but I'll use this arguement to back my point.

The idea with freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, the idea here is a woman becomes pregnant, she is now faced with something she cannot control, that baby is in there whether she likes it or not...no matter what she is pregnant. Yes, the arguement can be made and should be made that in most cases she chose to have sex and take that risk, but it was an arguement that was left out of the majority when this law passed.

Now, based on this arguement, things that are out of our control should not be subject to violations of freedom of choice, if you're pregnant you have the right to choose what you do with it. Same as when it come to race, this is something that is out of your control.

Being homosexual, this is deemed purely a choice, all medical evidence points no where else, there is no genetic factor and this is what most have recognized. So in turn, there is no violation of freedom of choice when it comes to gay marriage, they made the choice to be gay.

Now, you could easily argue that there is something in the constitution that protects freedom of choice on something that is a personal choice and not beyond control...religion, this is a fact, it is protected in this manner. However the institution of religion is protected in this manner due to the view of it's importance to society as a whole and functioning society. The right of gay marriage would have no such effect and neither does denying it have the adverse effect.

I'm sure at some point, the gay marriage issue will reach the Supreme Court, when that time comes the constitution may add a new amendment...we'll see. Of course as Justice Sutherland once said, just because a decision was made by the court, does not mean it was the right decision. This phrase has been used by the dissenting minority ever since. (BTW, don't quote me on it being justice Sutherland, I'm almost positive it was he who said it but I may be remembering incorrectly.)

Then of course there is the notion of "The Right to Privacy" something the court held on to when making abortion legal, even though the very idea and wording is unconstitutional in this manner...something that almost every judge since has acknowledged, even ones who support abortion. So using that as an arguement would be a stretch, simply because it was made an exception when it came to abortion and has rarely been used again, actually I can't think of any major cases since.

The Right to Privacy only applies to things such as:
1. making known a plaintiff's identity for the defendant's benefit
2. placing a plaintiff in an damaging or dangerous position in the public eye of perception
3. publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff
4. unethically intruding upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff

These were the original measures taken, later to be added would be such issues as health and certain financial matters, communication and the home.

So yes, the right to privacy would protect a homosexuals privacy concerning what they do in their home, but the right to privacy gives no inclination to protect against denying gay marriage. There is no where to fit it in there with what we have now, which is why only a constitutional amendment could change this.

Last thing, be gay, don't be gay, I don't care either way. Do I think it's wrong and immoral? Yes, but it is not up to me to judge others actions, but it doesn't mean someones actions that are a personal choice and by no means thrust upon them, should be thrust on me in a manner that damages things I hold as a sanctity.

[24KT]

What are the laws regarding this up in your neck of the woods jag?

Our supreme court determined that it was unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
As such same sex marriage is legal in Canada with full spousal and survivor benefits etc.

The very idea that a bunch of people could get together and say... "Hey, let's strip gay people of their right to marry", and it is even entertained is beyond belief.

[timfogarty]

"Freedom of Choice" that was the term I was waiting of you to use in the way you did just there.
.....

how about "equal protection".  what ever the government provides to one group they have to provide to all groups

[24KT]

Last thing, be gay, don't be gay, I don't care either way. Do I think it's wrong and immoral? Yes, but it is not up to me to judge others actions, but it doesn't mean someones actions that are a personal choice and by no means thrust upon them, should be thrust on me in a manner that damages things I hold as a sanctity.

How does Bob & Joe getting married something that "is thrust" upon you?
No one says you have to attend the ceremony.
How does Bob & Joe getting married "damage" anything you hold?
How does it affect YOUR marriage?

The fact is prop 8 is the intellectual equivalent of allowing voters in Texas to decide how much snow should be allowed to fall in New Hampshire. Gay marriage does not affect straight people, ...even if it did, ...we should not be allowed to take away their right to marry. If you want to outlaw marriage period... that's something else, ...but to arbitrarily take it away from a segment of society for no valid reason is beyond bigotry. It leaves people in a very vulnerable and precarious state of existence, without the assurances we all take for granted.

[24KT]

how about "equal protection".  what ever the government provides to one group they have to provide to all groups

Not only that Tim, ...but gay marriages don't even have to be recognized or accepted as valid.

Can you imagine how gays could now be taken advantage of? Insurance companies can now arbitrarily refuse to pay spousal survival benefits on insurance policies. People can literally steal property away from spouses upon the death of one spouse.

Arnoldjr goes on and on speaking mouthfulls of BS in an attempt to justify the legislated discrimination against a segment of society. It's just plain wrong.

[Arnold jr]

how about "equal protection".  what ever the government provides to one group they have to provide to all groups

The full term as well as the most important factor you left out is "Equal Protection Under the Law."

From a legal standpoint there is nothing that protects the right to marry, this could change, but as of now it hasn't.

How does Bob & Joe getting married something that "is thrust" upon you?
No one says you have to attend the ceremony.
How does Bob & Joe getting married "damage" anything you hold?
How does it affect YOUR marriage?

The fact is prop 8 is the intellectual equivalent of allowing voters in Texas to decide how much snow should be allowed to fall in New Hampshire. Gay marriage does not affect straight people, ...even if it did, ...we should not be allowed to take away their right to marry. If you want to outlaw marriage period... that's something else, ...but to arbitrarily take it away from a segment of society for no valid reason is beyond bigotry. It leaves people in a very vulnerable and precarious state of existence, without the assurances we all take for granted.

I will freely admit that much of my opinion is based on my own moral conviction. Because of that I see it as something that degrades marriage. The idea of marriage is family based, whether you have children or not. I see it as something that takes away from this value, it causes it to lose some of it's luster.

Forgetting about the moral conviction aspect:

Marriage between a man and a woman is viewed as something viable for society. Gay marriage presents none of this. Happiness alone does not make something viable.

Back to moral conviction, which is the biggest factor IMO.

Most of the U.S. sees gay marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.
Do someone's values simply because they hold them make them right? No, of course not, but when it's those values that define a society are taken away or changed that values begin to shift and become meaningless.

If America were to speak as a majority and say "yes, legalize gay marriage" even though it would still be against my own moral values, the majority would have shown that it was in fact part of theirs and this would change the scope of the arguement.

Not only that Tim, ...but gay marriages don't even have to be recognized or accepted as valid.

Can you imagine how gays could now be taken advantage of? Insurance companies can now arbitrarily refuse to pay spousal survival benefits on insurance policies. People can literally steal property away from spouses upon the death of one spouse.

Arnoldjr goes on and on speaking mouthfulls of BS in an attempt to justify the legislated discrimination against a segment of society. It's just plain wrong.

When I am talking about the legislation factor I am not saying that the way such legislation is set up makes it right or wrong. I simply used that to show that there is no legal basis to have to allow gay marriage.

[timfogarty]

The full term as well as the most important factor you left out is "Equal Protection Under the Law."

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. (14th Amendment, section 1)

From a legal standpoint there is nothing that protects the right to marry,

the Supreme Courts of California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut disagree

Marriage between a man and a woman is viewed as something viable for society. Gay marriage presents none of this.

gay families exist.  couples take care of each other, they take care of children.  their children take care of them later on in life.  it is in societies best interest to help these families stay together and take care of each other.

Most of the U.S. sees gay marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.

1967: Most of the U.S. sees biracial marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.

whether overturning miscegenation laws caused major problems at the time, it was the right thing to do

[24KT]

The full term as well as the most important factor you left out is "Equal Protection Under the Law."

From a legal standpoint there is nothing that protects the right to marry, this could change, but as of now it hasn't.

I will freely admit that much of my opinion is based on my own moral conviction. Because of that I see it as something that degrades marriage. The idea of marriage is family based, whether you have children or not. I see it as something that takes away from this value, it causes it to lose some of it's luster.

Forgetting about the moral conviction aspect:

Marriage between a man and a woman is viewed as something viable for society. Gay marriage presents none of this. Happiness alone does not make something viable.

Back to moral conviction, which is the biggest factor IMO.

Most of the U.S. sees gay marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.
Do someone's values simply because they hold them make them right? No, of course not, but when it's those values that define a society are taken away or changed that values begin to shift and become meaningless.

If America were to speak as a majority and say "yes, legalize gay marriage" even though it would still be against my own moral values, the majority would have shown that it was in fact part of theirs and this would change the scope of the arguement.

When I am talking about the legislation factor I am not saying that the way such legislation is set up makes it right or wrong. I simply used that to show that there is no legal basis to have to allow gay marriage.

   Oh brother. When every Tom Dick & Harry started sporting BMW's, ...it caused mine to lose a little of it's luster, ...but that doesn't give me the right to tell them they can't own one. Good Grief Man, Listen to yourself! 

[Wiggs]

Very nice piece by Mr. Olberman.

I agree with what he said.

[DIVISION]

Oh and this video makes me want to stab my eyes out. Obermen it the biggest tool in media. So much better when he was on EPSN

Keith Olbermann is the same guy from those ESPN days.

He had the same views then as he does now, just that he does politics for MSNBC for a living.

You just hate him because you didn't know then what you know now.




DIV

[drkaje]

This discussion is getting boring quick, LOL!

Now anyone who disagrees is a bigoted, religions maniac. What's next, photoshops of black people and the Klan united against gay marriage?

Is an issue that affects whatever percentage of the 10% that are interested in marriage this important and crucial to society? I mean really?!

[MCWAY]

How does Bob & Joe getting married something that "is thrust" upon you?
No one says you have to attend the ceremony.
How does Bob & Joe getting married "damage" anything you hold?
How does it affect YOUR marriage?

The fact is prop 8 is the intellectual equivalent of allowing voters in Texas to decide how much snow should be allowed to fall in New Hampshire. Gay marriage does not affect straight people, ...even if it did, ...we should not be allowed to take away their right to marry. If you want to outlaw marriage period... that's something else, ...but to arbitrarily take it away from a segment of society for no valid reason is beyond bigotry. It leaves people in a very vulnerable and precarious state of existence, without the assurances we all take for granted.

From "Hernandez v. Robles" (New York).

] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude......

Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian", violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification". It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause". There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.

The CA court took away the people’s right to define marriage in their state. What Prop. 8 simply did was give that power back to the citizens.



Marriage is provided for all. What’s at stake here is the definition of marriage itself. That definition is a union between one man and one woman. Once again, sexual preference holds no bearing on ability to participate in marriage. The fact that gays don’t want someone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean that they CAN’T participate in the institution of marriage.

The institution isn’t defined as simply two people. If gays want that changed, then (as I’ve said many times) they should start amendments themselves. If so many Californians are so up in arms about the issue, then homosexuals should have little trouble gleaning 695,000 signatures and getting an amendment put on the ballot.

The citizens did what was well within their right to do.

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. (14th Amendment, section 1)

Once again, Baker v. Nelson stated that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union DOES NOT run afoul of the 14th amendment.

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage......

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

And, from the Loving v. Virginia case,

The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race.

In short, the 14th amendment addressed SPECIFICALLY racial discrimination. 1M-1W laws and amendments don’t run afoul of that.

the Supreme Courts of California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut disagree

gay families exist.  couples take care of each other, they take care of children.  their children take care of them later on in life.  it is in societies best interest to help these families stay together and take care of each other.

Society seems to think differently about that "best interest" stuff, as shown by the citizens who have voted to amend their constitutions in their states to clearly define marriage as a 1M-1W union. If Prop. 8 violated the 14th amendment, it wouldn't have been on the ballot, in the first place. And, neither would Amendment 2 (Florida) or any of the 28 other state marriage amendments passed in the last 5 years.

1967: Most of the U.S. sees biracial marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.

whether overturning miscegenation laws caused major problems at the time, it was the right thing to do.

Correction: U.S. sees biracial marriage as a slap in the face, ONLY when one of those races is white. None of these folks fought to keep the black race pure (Quite the opposite, white men had been raping black women left and right). In fact, the Loving v. Virginia case pointed out that, "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. "

A footnote to the case reads something like this:

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

Virginia wasn't even abiding by its own rules, as it gave full recognition to interacial couples (provided that neither party was white).

And, lost in all this is the fact that, before Loving v. Virgina or Perez v. Sharp, marriage was a 1M-1W union. After both those cases, it still is a 1M-1W union. That didn't change with the issue of race.

From the Wikipedia blurb:

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".


And, from "Murphy v. Ramsey",

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement   

[Option D]

Im not familiar with all aspects of prop 8 but does it outlaw civil unions as well? Im not for defining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman however I do believe that these ppl deserve the same rights as anybody else. Olbierman is a HUGE and i mean HUGE jackass, the fact that he quotes the ignorant 50% divorce rate just affirms my belief of this...ps whoever put this guy on the football pregame show should be drug out into the streets and beat with rubber hoses until his is dead too...sorry just my honest opinion.

Civil Unions are still good. So they get the same tax inplecations. But its still wrong. LEt them marry.

My family is so divided on this. My father who is a Puerto Rican Catholic voted no on 8. Mother who is a black baptist (i guess, its one of those churches thats like 2 hours long) voted yes on 8. Me and sis voted No...

[Arnold jr]

From "Hernandez v. Robles" (New York).

] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude......

Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian", violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification". It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause". There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.

The CA court took away the people’s right to define marriage in their state. What Prop. 8 simply did was give that power back to the citizens.



Marriage is provided for all. What’s at stake here is the definition of marriage itself. That definition is a union between one man and one woman. Once again, sexual preference holds no bearing on ability to participate in marriage. The fact that gays don’t want someone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean that they CAN’T participate in the institution of marriage.

The institution isn’t defined as simply two people. If gays want that changed, then (as I’ve said many times) they should start amendments themselves. If so many Californians are so up in arms about the issue, then homosexuals should have little trouble gleaning 695,000 signatures and getting an amendment put on the ballot.

The citizens did what was well within their right to do.

Once again, Baker v. Nelson stated that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union DOES NOT run afoul of the 14th amendment.

Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage......

Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

And, from the Loving v. Virginia case,

The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race.

In short, the 14th amendment addressed SPECIFICALLY racial discrimination. 1M-1W laws and amendments don’t run afoul of that.

Society seems to think differently about that "best interest" stuff, as shown by the citizens who have voted to amend their constitutions in their states to clearly define marriage as a 1M-1W union. If Prop. 8 violated the 14th amendment, it wouldn't have been on the ballot, in the first place. And, neither would Amendment 2 (Florida) or any of the 28 other state marriage amendments passed in the last 5 years.

Correction: U.S. sees biracial marriage as a slap in the face, ONLY when one of those races is white. None of these folks fought to keep the black race pure (Quite the opposite, white men had been raping black women left and right). In fact, the Loving v. Virginia case pointed out that, "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. "

A footnote to the case reads something like this:

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

Virginia wasn't even abiding by its own rules, as it gave full recognition to interacial couples (provided that neither party was white).

And, lost in all this is the fact that, before Loving v. Virgina or Perez v. Sharp, marriage was a 1M-1W union. After both those cases, it still is a 1M-1W union. That didn't change with the issue of race.

From the Wikipedia blurb:

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".


And, from "Murphy v. Ramsey",

For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement   

Perfect

[24KT]

Justify it all you want til the cows come home, ...it's still wrong. 

[Arnold jr]

Justify it all you want til the cows come home, ...it's still wrong. 

OK, I next question. I am not trying to be a smart ass with this one so don't take it that way.

If there was a man who wanted to marry his mother, or any other incestuous relationship you can think of, should a state recognize this as a legitimate marriage? Should they be given the same rights as a normal heterosexual couple? Would denying this be some sort of violation of their rights?

[Benny B]

If there was a man who wanted to marry his mother, or any other incestuous relationship you can think of, should a state recognize this as a legitimate marriage? Should they be given the same rights as a normal heterosexual couple? Would denying this be some sort of violation of their rights?

BUMP for the supporters of homo "marriage". Why can't a man marry his sister if they really love each other? Or a father and his daughter?

[24KT]

OK, I next question. I am not trying to be a smart ass with this one so don't take it that way.

If there was a man who wanted to marry his mother, or any other incestuous relationship you can think of, should a state recognize this as a legitimate marriage? Should they be given the same rights as a normal heterosexual couple? Would denying this be some sort of violation of their rights?

Incest is against the law, homosexuality isn't.

[timfogarty]

Incest is against the law, homosexuality isn't.

well, not exactly.  while any form of adultery was illegal in some states at one time, today it is not illegal for two consenting adults to have sex, even if they are related.   and if there were hundreds or thousands of related adults wanting the protection afforded by marriage, we might have to consider it.  but there aren't any significant number of related adults in such relationships, while there are millions of same sex couples already in committed long term relationships.     also, people who are related already have some of the protections of marriage, such as visitation rights, automatic inheritance, some social security benefits, etc.

[Arnold jr]

BUMP for the supporters of homo "marriage". Why can't a man marry his sister if they really love each other? Or a father and his daughter?

Some moral values should always be protected. Yes we live in a free society, but we do not live in a society that permits us to do whatever we want because we love it or enjoy it or want to do it.

Incest is against the law, homosexuality isn't.

For the sake of this arguement, forget the legal aspect about incest being against the law. Which Tim suggest it isn't against the law, he may be right, I don't know.

With what you said you kind of contradicted yourself. You said, incest is against the law. Well, homosexual marriage is against the law too in most places.

The question was, should incestuous relationships be granted the right to marry if it makes them happy?