Gay Marriage (The True Conservative View)

[Mark Kerr]

I find it funny how the "conservatives" are against gay marriage. In fact, I think it is hypocritical. Here is why...

1. The God Argument

People like to say, "It isnt right. Such marriages are against God, therefore, should be banned." Well, wouldnt that be the churches decision, and not the governments? If you were a true conservative, you wouldnt want the government making decisions on the behalf of God/churches. Thats what the Taliban does.

2. The Legal Argument

People like to say, "The statutes say man and woman." Well, then let the states change the statutes if they want. Thats EXACTLY what state legislatures are for, and they do it all the time.

3. The Political Argument

"The President needs to step-up as our leader and ban gay marriage." Where exactly in the Constitution does it say the President has the power to ban such state interests? Where in the Constitution? He could propose a Constitutional Amendment, but why do you want him to? True conservatives think the states should decide such matters, so why make the government any bigger when it doesnt need to be?

I say, let the states each vote on it. If California wants gay marriages, then I dont care. Good for them. Its simple. All Gay-Marriage states will acknowledge the marriages as legal, and all Straight-Marriage states will not acknowledge the marriages as legal.

This isnt difficult, so why even get the federal government involved? Let the states choose, just like the 10th Amendment says.

 

[KOMT]

I heard mark kerr the fighter was bisexual, so your post does not surprise me.

the people have overwhelmingly spoken against gay marriage. deal with it.

 

[Alphamale23]

damn man take it easy he is just contemplating a different point of view.

 

[Mark Kerr]

the people have overwhelmingly spoken against gay marriage. deal with it.

1. Don't ever fucking flame me. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about you. Grow-The-Fuck-Up.

2. LOL. You made my point for me. If the people of each state are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, then let the state prohibit it. I take it from your post (which seems to say that if the people want something, then they get it), that if a state overwhelmingly supported it, then you would legalize it? Or would you not be able to "deal with it?"

It seems to me, from comparing our posts, that you seem to be the one who cannot "deal with it." Why are you so defensive? Did I hit a nerve?

 

[Mark Kerr]

Also, KOMT, in case you werent around for all the latest changes, it is against board policy to make fun of people's sexual orientation. So I would appreciate it if you could not imply that I was bisexual. Thanks.

 

[novicebb]

I find it funny how the "conservatives" are against gay marriage. In fact, I think it is hypocritical. Here is why...

1. The God Argument

People like to say, "It isnt right. Such marriages are against God, therefore, should be banned." Well, wouldnt that be the churches decision, and not the governments? If you were a true conservative, you wouldnt want the government making decisions on the behalf of God/churches. Thats what the Taliban does.

2. The Legal Argument

People like to say, "The statutes say man and woman." Well, then let the states change the statutes if they want. Thats EXACTLY what state legislatures are for, and they do it all the time.

3. The Political Argument

"The President needs to step-up as our leader and ban gay marriage." Where exactly in the Constitution does it say the President has the power to ban such state interests? Where in the Constitution? He could propose a Constitutional Amendment, but why do you want him to? True conservatives think the states should decide such matters, so why make the government any bigger when it doesnt need to be?

I say, let the states each vote on it. If California wants gay marriages, then I dont care. Good for them. Its simple. All Gay-Marriage states will acknowledge the marriages as legal, and all Straight-Marriage states will not acknowledge the marriages as legal.

This isnt difficult, so why even get the federal government involved? Let the states choose, just like the 10th Amendment says.

I dont see how a USA constitutional ban on marriage would make the government bigger. It would just state that marriage between same sex couples would be outlawed. Many feel that gay marriage is already banned by most christain and other secular religions but still want to make it federal ban. Many places you don't have to be married by a individual of the church and you still have to apply for a marriage license at a state licensing location. I really don't care one way or the other because I believe that Gays will be allowed to marry in the near future anyway.

 

[Mark Kerr]

I dont see how a USA constitutional ban on marriage would make the government bigger. It would just state that marriage between same sex couples would be outlawed. Many feel that gay marriage is already banned by most christain and other secular religions but still want to make it federal ban. Many places you don't have to be married by a individual of the church and you still have to apply for a marriage license at a state licensing location. I really don't care one way or the other because I believe that Gays will be allowed to marry in the near future anyway.

It would become bigger because it would move power reserved to the states into the realm of the federal government. Also, if there is a Federal ban, then there is probably going to be a small federal agency established to regulate/enforce it.

 

[Kayz]

Okay, here is my thing with gay marriage...and Mark, maybe you can help me understand this more as you are in law school and I know shit about the law regarding this matter.

First, isn't it true that no state has to recognize another states marriage??? If that is the case, then the argument "well what do we do if a couple that gets married in Massachusettes moves to Ohio....Ohioans should not have to accept/recognize their marriage".

Second, say if a couple gets married in Massachesettes, which will recognize that union as a lawful marriage. Those 2 individuals will be allowed to file a tax return either jointly or separately, correct??? But, if they move to Ohio, will they be forced ("against their will") to file separately since this is a state, and not a federal, issue???

It sounds really pety, but I see this being a problem. Gay couples who live in a state that does NOT recognize their marriage, but want to file tax returns jointly, are gonna throw a fit. I can hear it now: "...our rights are being violated....Massacusettes allowed us to file jointly".

Or...will the fact that this is a state issue not matter at all.

Mark...if you can, please enlighten me as this is confusing as hell to me. Thanx bro.

 

[Kayz]

then there is probably going to be a small federal agency established to regulate/enforce it.

...I wouldn't want that job.

"Freeze...take your dick out of his ass. We are the homo police".

 

[Instock]

Being gay is a genetic flaw (I Hope), that should not be recognized. It will eventually be eleminated by natural selection. You will probably say well gays have been around forever and natural selection has not taken care of it. I have two thoughts on this

1) In the past being gay was not an open topic like today, so gays would marry and have children, while fucking the same sex on the side. Today it is more open and this does not happen nearly as much. So hopefully the genes are getting weeded out.

2) Being gay is not genetic, and these men and women are just royally fucked up in the head. In which case, why should we recognized these messed up individules lifestyles?

I hope its one, but if its two, then maybe the church had it right all along, that being gay is a choice people make.

Either way I don't want gay marriages, but I'm not opposed to common law for them where they can share health benefits and such. But they should not have the term MARRIED attached to them.

What has always confused me about gays is that they will almost always still fuck the opposite sex if given the oppertunity. Most straight people will not fuck the same sex if given the oppertunity. I wouldn't be able to get it up at all knowing I was going to fuck a guy. I mean if you are a gay man, and don't like the opposite sex, how is it you get it up so easily to fuck a woman??

 

[Mark Kerr]

First, isn't it true that no state has to recognize another states marriage??? If that is the case, then the argument "well what do we do if a couple that gets married in Massachusettes moves to Ohio....Ohioans should not have to accept/recognize their marriage".

Generally, yes, states have to acknowledge the legal marriages of other states. Its called Full Faith and Credit. However, it isnt necessarily legally binding, more like really really persuasive. It wouldnt be a problem, legally speaking. However, I really dont see why Ohio wouldnt acknowledge it. I'll get to that last.

Second, say if a couple gets married in Massachesettes, which will recognize that union as a lawful marriage. Those 2 individuals will be allowed to file a tax return either jointly or separately, correct??? But, if they move to Ohio, will they be forced ("against their will") to file separately since this is a state, and not a federal, issue???

Well, this would be a federal issue, but it would be a federal taxation issue, for which there are already marriage codes. There would not need to be any change in federal tax code. Again, I'll answer that last.

It sounds really pety, but I see this being a problem. Gay couples who live in a state that does NOT recognize their marriage, but want to file tax returns jointly, are gonna throw a fit. I can hear it now: "...our rights are being violated....Massacusettes allowed us to file jointly".

Ok, to answer all the questions, I will respond with a similar law that one can compare it to. That law is the state law of age of consent for marriage.

Lets say that Louisiana's age of consent for marriage is 15 years of age. That means, if you are 15, you can get married in LA. This is a state law. However, lets say in Washington (state) the age of consent is 18, because Washington's residents believe anything younger than that is immoral. That means if you are 18, you can get married in WA. Now, if a LA resident moves to Washington, their marriage is still legal (Full Faith and Credit, remember) but that DOES NOT mean that marriage under the age of 18 is "legal" in Washington. See my point.

So, one could argue, that even with existing laws, that WA is "violating the rights" of those under 18 by not allowing them to be married, but that isnt the case at all, is it? Why? Because that right doesnt exist. One cannot violate a right right that doesnt exist.

So, what I was trying to point out was, that just because state's law differ, does not mean that tax code has to change or that people's rights are being violated. Gay marriage will be the same as age of consent. State's laws will differ, and so what? They ALREADY differ, and there are no problems.

The only possible problem that might arise, is if a gay couple gets married in WA, moves to LA (and still has a legal marriage, mind you) and then files to get a divorce in LA state court. If the court issues a legal divorce in LA, so the logic goes, it must be able to issue a legal marriage as well. Well, LA could easily just deny jurisdiction, or allow only gay divorces and not marriages.

The idea that conflicting state laws regarding marriage will cause problems is sort of a red herring, because there are already greatly conflicting state laws and there really arent any huge problems.

And of course, enacting a federal ban or a federal right regarding gay marriage would make things simpler, but that is obvious. The role of government is not simplicity anyways, as dictatorships and kingdoms are EXTREMELY simple.

Overall, I believe that there wont be as many problems as people think, especially considering 95% of all states would ban gay marriage anyways. I say, let the states decide.

 

[Kayz]

Generally, yes, states have to acknowledge the legal marriages of other states. Its called Full Faith and Credit. However, it isnt necessarily legally binding, more like really really persuasive. It wouldnt be a problem, legally speaking. However, I really dont see why Ohio wouldnt acknowledge it. I'll get to that last.



Well, this would be a federal issue, but it would be a federal taxation issue, for which there are already marriage codes. There would not need to be any change in federal tax code. Again, I'll answer that last.



Ok, to answer all the questions, I will respond with a similar law that one can compare it to. That law is the state law of age of consent for marriage.

Lets say that Louisiana's age of consent for marriage is 15 years of age. That means, if you are 15, you can get married in LA. This is a state law. However, lets say in Washington (state) the age of consent is 18, because Washington's residents believe anything younger than that is immoral. That means if you are 18, you can get married in WA. Now, if a LA resident moves to Washington, their marriage is still legal (Full Faith and Credit, remember) but that DOES NOT mean that marriage under the age of 18 is "legal" in Washington. See my point.

So, one could argue, that even with existing laws, that WA is "violating the rights" of those under 18 by not allowing them to be married, but that isnt the case at all, is it? Why? Because that right doesnt exist. One cannot violate a right right that doesnt exist.

So, what I was trying to point out was, that just because state's law differ, does not mean that tax code has to change or that people's rights are being violated. Gay marriage will be the same as age of consent. State's laws will differ, and so what? They ALREADY differ, and there are no problems.

The only possible problem that might arise, is if a gay couple gets married in WA, moves to LA (and still has a legal marriage, mind you) and then files to get a divorce in LA state court. If the court issues a legal divorce in LA, so the logic goes, it must be able to issue a legal marriage as well. Well, LA could easily just deny jurisdiction, or allow only gay divorces and not marriages.

The idea that conflicting state laws regarding marriage will cause problems is sort of a red herring, because there are already greatly conflicting state laws and there really arent any huge problems.

And of course, enacting a federal ban or a federal right regarding gay marriage would make things simpler, but that is obvious. The role of government is not simplicity anyways, as dictatorships and kingdoms are EXTREMELY simple.

Overall, I believe that there wont be as many problems as people think, especially considering 95% of all states would ban gay marriage anyways. I say, let the states decide.

That makes sense, thanx Mark. Now I know why I never wanted to go to law school.

 

[bustafood]

I'm totally against gay MARRIAGE. Why does it have to be called marriage for them? Why can't they just leave it a Civil Union if they have to have it so bad? First off it's totally disgusting and wrong. Secondly, it's very degarding to people who have a real marriage.

marriage n.
-The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Also, on another point. Let's say we allow gays to get married. What happens when someone wants to marry multiple people? For example, a bisexual saying he/she has a right to marry a man AND a woman. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it's already been drawn. DONT LET IT HAPPEN BUSH.

 

[Kayz]

I'm totally against gay MARRIAGE. Why does it have to be called marriage for them? Why can't they just leave it a Civil Union if they have to have it so bad? First off it's totally disgusting and wrong. Secondly, it's very degarding to people who have a real marriage.

marriage n.
-The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

Also, on another point. Let's say we allow gays to get married. What happens when someone wants to marry multiple people? For example, a bisexual saying he/she has a right to marry a man AND a woman. You have to draw the line somewhere, and it's already been drawn. DONT LET IT HAPPEN BUSH.

Good point. What if I want to marry my mom or my sister??? I know it sounds stupid, but why is that "wrong", but marrying a man is "acceptable"??

What if I want to marry 5 women?? Why can't I if they all agree to it??? Am I being discriminated against??

Where do we draw the line???

 

[bustafood]

Good point. What if I want to marry my mom or my sister??? I know it sounds stupid, but why is that "wrong", but marrying a man is "acceptable"??

What if I want to marry 5 women?? Why can't I if they all agree to it??? Am I being discriminated against??

Where do we draw the line???

Exactly. If we allow gays to be married it's gonna have a snowball effect and there will be even more controversy than before.

 

[Mark Kerr]

Good point. What if I want to marry my mom or my sister??? I know it sounds stupid, but why is that "wrong", but marrying a man is "acceptable"??

What if I want to marry 5 women?? Why can't I if they all agree to it??? Am I being discriminated against??

Where do we draw the line???

Thats the point. If you want to draw the line at man and woman, then vote for it, and make that the line.

But if another state doesnt mind having it, then why not let them? Just because you draw the line somewhere, doesnt mean the rest of the world should draw it in the same place...

Put it to a state vote...

 

[Grizzly]

It would become bigger because it would move power reserved to the states into the realm of the federal government. Also, if there is a Federal ban, then there is probably going to be a small federal agency established to regulate/enforce it.

Yeah, what he said. And what are the other "secular religions"? You can't be secular and religious at the same time.

 

[MICKEYDOYLE]

My problem is also with the term MARRIAGE...it was touched on above, but what people are fighting for is to legally re-define a word. Thats very fucked up. I Love my dog, but I dont expect someone to give me a legal marriage license to get married to him. I also have a problem with that once you allow gays to "MARRY", where do you then draw the line with anything else in our society. I own a bar in NY, where the drinking age is 21, why cant I say that I'd like it to be 16??? Because its the FUCKING LAW, the same reason gays cant marry...because marriage is between a man and a woman...pretty simple to understand if you ask me

 

[Grizzly]

Holy shit that was a terrible bunch of arguments! I'm not trying to put you down, I'm just pointing out that those arguments are horrendous.

Dude, don't know if you're aware of this, but the drinking age has changed NUMEROUS times in the history of this country. On top of that, the legality of drinking itself has changed.

That's sort of way laws are designed, bro. They are malleable and subject to change. Roe v. Wade, anyone? No Ultimate fighting this week, but next week it's fine.

And definitions of a word? Do you know how many changes the language has gone through in its history? Go to England and ask them to define "fag". It's a cigarette. Or maybe it was up until 20 years ago.

Dude, just say it. "I hate homos and I don't think they're real people" because that's the essence of your "arguments".

 

[Kayz]

I got another question regarding health insurance. As an employer, I provide health insurance to my employees and their immediate family if they choose to accept it. Now, I pay premiums based on the number of people on the plan.

The fact that homosexuals are at a MUCH higher rate to contract AIDS...would that infect health insurance rates??? 60% of all cases of AIDS in males is contracted via homosexual intercourse.

Would a gay couple automatically be placed in a "high risk" category for insurance??