TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote: If there is no right, it's not possible to infringe on it.

You're overlooking the fact that the constitution says that all men are created equal.
To me, that means that we must treat men equally, regardless of "protected class/status". In regard to homosexuals, it's pretty well documented that they haven't been treated equally.
If we had true equal options from homosexual unions, you'd find that I for one wouldn't support making changes to secular marriage... We've only had about 60 years or so to get it right.

baldeagle wrote: Gay activists have been quite clear that their goal is not marriage. They could care less about marriage, and their idea of marriage is an "open" relationship where sex with other parties is perfectly acceptable. Their real goal is to destroy the institution of marriage entirely. To devalue it to the point that it disappears from society entirely.

Let me get this straight: You believe that the gay agenda is really to destroy marriage as an institution? And you believe this because of gay activists?
Would you humor me with a reference to one of these activists? I'm curious if you actually believe that? I do believe that you can find a reference to any one nut-job regardless of political persuasion, but believing that this person speaks collectively for a group is pretty far out there.

I can't speak for these particular gay activists that will be referenced shortly, but I can tell you that none of the gay people that I know couldn't care at all about destroying marriage. They just want to be treated equally... Saying that they are out to destroy marriage is just political fear mongering and grand-standing. I guess it works with uneducated and weak minded people. It would certainly make me angry and motivate me if I believed it were true.

baldeagle wrote: Furthermore, approving of gay marriage fundamentally changes the the purpose of marriage from child rearing to sexual satisfaction.

No one told me when I got married that I was required to have children. What if I married an infertile woman? The government really needs to make that more clear.

chuck j wrote:I'm actually serious when I say that I dont understand why homosexuals would want to live in a conservative state when the whole west coast is ready to welcome them with open arms . Each state has a different social environment , Texas is a conservative state so why try to change it . Does not make sense .

Couldn't you ask that same question about Texas in regard to African Americans about 30 years ago? Should we have kept things the way they were?

In regard to Texas being a conservative state, it is. Head over to Austin - you know, the capital of Texas. It might open your eyes.

Things evolve.

In a more serious response to your question, lots of homosexuals seek like minded people in communities, cities, and I'm sure states.. However, they've got to make a living and you can't always pick and choose the best geography and social conditions for your career/job/etc.

DEB wrote: It wasn't to very long ago that Homosexuality was considered a mental illness, now it is mainstream?

It was added to the DSM-I as personality disorder (sociopathic) the 50s and removed from the DSM-II 1973. The DSM-V was just released in 2013.

Personally, I'm happy to see how far medicine and psychology has come in 50 years, aren't you?

DEB wrote: They are a minority for a reason, they cannot reproduce.

That statement indicates that it's a genetic defect and can be passed through DNA. Sure you don't want to argue that it's a choice? Alternately, if it is genetic, you're advocating unequal treatment due to the way a person was born. And yes, that strongly compares to racial issues. It's not very fair is it?

It's really too bad that straight couples keep having gay kids! Maybe we should make it illegal for people with the gay gene to reproduce. That might solve the problem!

Beiruty wrote:If SCOTUS allowed gay marriage, I would petition for my religious right to marry up to 4 ladies at the same time. Enough of the hypocrisy. I love my hypothetical 2nd to 4th wives too. They should be all treated equally. Where is the justice?!

The court intentionally didn't rule on the legality of gay marriage.. They were pretty careful about that.

On polygamy: Clearly you've never watched Big Love. More wives = exponentially more trouble. Not worth it!

talltex wrote: Can't say that I blame them for wanting that recognition...they pay in the same money, they should receive the same benefits. Recognition of legal status as a civil union would give same-sex couples legal standing regarding health insurance, death benefits, ability to file joint tax returns, Social Security survivor benefits, etc...things which heterosexual couples take for granted. They are NOT recognized by the Federal government in those instances, and it's not just a matter of setting up a partnership to rectify those inequities. I've been married to the same woman for 29 years...who someone else wants to marry has no effect on my marriage and I don't have a problem with it.

Personally, if we could find a way for things to be fair, then I'd support this protection of marriage thing. There is more than one way to make things fair and "protect" the legal definition of marriage. Unfortunately, we've had decades since homosexuals have started to come out of the closet openly and we have chosen as citizens and elected leaders to allow things to be unfair and actively legislate against fairness.

Our attempts at separate but equal have also failed (historically), which also makes subsequent attempts at parallel rights somewhat suspect.

The only thing that really irks me is when people openly indicate that we're not discriminatory now and that homosexuals DO have equality under the law currently. If you think that, you've never really looked into the facts.

And if you accept that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as other people and support that view, well, I'll let history judge you in context.

First, thanks for being willing to have a reasonable and objective discussion.. even if we disagree... Free of political spin.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Both what?

You can't have marriage be both a religious institution and a state institution and expect it to work. To do so inherently causes a conflict. Different churches differ on the rules around marriage. Catholics don't recognize 2nd marriages the way the state does, other denominations have different rules and restrictions. Besides, we're not an entirely Christian country.

cb1000rider wrote: You changed your position somewhat by speaking of "separate religion from the running of government." Originally, you use the buzz phrase "separation of church and state" and that phrase was not used by the founding fathers. The only thing the First Amendment intended was to prevent the United States from creating/mandating one single church as did England with the Church of England. It was never intended to allow atheists to thwart religion as is now the case.

I think the statements of "separate religion from running the government" and "separation of church and state" are somewhat indistinct. Our country was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. Religious persecution, at some level is people of a particular religious affiliation not granting the same rights as those who are not associated. I agree with you that there is nothing constitutional guaranteeing a separation of church and state, but I believe it is a fundamental principle.

cb1000rider wrote: Homosexuality is not a constitutionally protected class, so your attempt to harken back to racial issues fails.

There were no protected classes when the constitution was drafted. I think that fact validates my argument even more. The fact is that as we evolve as a country, the things that need protection change.

cb1000rider wrote:I'm an attorney and I know precisely what all citizens rights are in terms of currently available partnerships. Taxation is different in terms of the different marriage deduction for federal income tax purposes, but apparently you forgot about the so-called "marriage penalty" that actually penalized married couples.

No, I didn't forget. If you're an attorney, you're probably well educated and I can't imagine that you believe that same-sex couples have the exact same rights as married couples. A few examples:
Medicare
Surviorship benefits
Estate Tax
Gift benefits

I'll be honest with you, if I thought that there were equal options, I would have very little support for any sort of class-protection. Unfortunately, every time we try to make up alternate rules for some other class to be "fair" we do it incorrectly. And in this particular case, we're not even close to equality.

cb1000rider wrote: If you contend that those who support same-sex marriage in the gay community don't claim a "right" to marriage, then you are paying attention to their position. "Inherent fairness" is not a constitutional issue and that's why this decision is so dangerous.

I don't disagree that many claim a right to marry. You and I disagree on the root cause.
I'm indicating that I believe in most cases it stems from inequality. The same inequality that you're indicating doesn't exist.
You're indicating that it is rooted in social acceptance. That might be part of it, but it's certainly not a basis that I find very moving personally.

cb1000rider wrote: I don't make "my morality," and this is precisely the problem. When liberals and those supporting them argue that there is no "truth," no "right," and that each person should establish their own morality, then society is doomed. There is one morality, like it or not, accept it or not.

We all make our own morality to some degree. If personal morality was black and white, things would be a lot easier.
To me, this isn't an issue about a moral right.. I don't argue morality here. I argue equality. If I felt that there was civil equality and legal equality, then things would be different on my end.

cb1000rider wrote: I also could not disagree with you more on the issue of what our servicemen fought and died for in so many wars.
Chas.

I think they fought and died so we can have civil disagreements. So we can live in a country that is diversive in terms of belief system. So we can live in a country where the majority class doesn't try and exterminate a minority class, just because they judge themselves to be morally (or genetically) superior... And yea, I'm being dramatic, but in the past this country has a history of discriminating with great prejudice against unprotected minority citizens.

anygunanywhere wrote:There is no language in the Constitution regarding separation of church and state.
The constitution forbids the federal government from establishing a state sponsored religion and also prohibits the free exercise of religion.

I don't argue that fact. Are you professing that the separation of church and state isn't a founding principle?

If you're going to argue the principle, please let me know which church the federal government should align with. Let me know how well that will work out for anyone.

There is an interesting reference in an old treaty that the US signed in 1797:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries

Yea, I'm having trouble following you there, although I understand the GOP reference.

Chas, you can't have both.

Do you agree that one of our fundamental tenants as a country is that we separate religion from the running of government? Marriage is a religious idea, not a governmental concept... The government has it confused and because they're injecting a secular definition that requires equal acceptance to a religious concept, we've got a big conflict...

That facts are that gay people are disadvantaged in the areas that you've mentioned and as such, they don't have "separate but equal" options.
Oh, and by the way, we've tried "separate but equal" and it didn't work out so well.
If you think the options and rights are the same for same sex couples - do a little reading, particularly on inheritance and taxation differences. They're huge. I'll spare you the references. The options are very unequal in lots of cases.

Making a law doesn't mean society will accept it. Look at prohibition. Society isn't going to just do what the laws say. They're going to judge by personal morality, by what's legal, and probably with a little help from their local religious organization. I've seen no one here claim that gay is "right"... The courts decision simply recognizes the inherent class unfairness and indicates that it can't continue under the law.

You may be right that there are gay people that want more social acceptance. My opinion is that isn't what this is about and saying it's about "acceptance" is a political scare tactic.
We can't legislate social acceptance. We can legislate anti-descrimination. Feel free to have your own morality that aligns with your beliefs and/or religion. I'll have mine... And a 3rd parties can be different. It's part of what so many people fought and died for and continue to die for....

2firfun50 wrote: I'd go one step further and suggest we get rid of the over 1100 laws and government benefits that only apply to married people. Treat every individual equally under the law as the constitution requires. No special priveleges for a special class at all. This isn't about morality, its all about the money.

That's a great idea... And it would have my full support.

baldeagle wrote: So we should ignore the will of the people? Who gets to decide when they're wrong?

Judicially speaking, the people (or their elected officials) are wrong when they are responsible for implementing state laws that run counter to rules established by the Constitution.
If the people implemented a new amendment to the US Constitution that bans gay marriage, they'd be in the right judicially in terms of making similar state laws. Morally and ethically, clearly people have different opinions. Modifying the Constitution is tough, by design... So you're not going to get it done without super-majority support.

When is it OK for the majority to legalize discrimination or take away the life, liberty, or property of a group that is in a minority? Remember, the Nazis were a majority of the German population at one time. You can't count on the majority to do the right thing.

baldeagle wrote:By refusing to rule on the California amendment banning gay marriage, the Supreme Court has effectively said that government officials, by fiat, can chose to ignore the will of the people and refuse to defend a Constitutional amendment passed by the people.

Prior to 1965, there were many places in the USA where African Americans were not allowed to vote due to the will of the majority.
Prior to that, it was the will of the people that African Americans couldn't own property.
Prior to that, African Americans WERE property.
Women couldn't vote until 1920.

Clearly, we can't depend on the will of the people to make fair decisions. History teaches us over and over that an unprotected minority gets treated unfairly.


Want a marriage policy that we call can agree on?
Marriage is a religious institution. One of the basic founding principles of our country is separation of church and state.
The government should get out of the marriage business. If they want to regulate something, they can regulate civil unions.
Churches get to regulate marriage and via that means, they can include or exclude whomever they want per moral doctrine.
Rights granted to citizens should not be predicated on marriage. They should be predicated on civil union. To do anything else results in some form of inequality and discrimination.