What is the deal with Gay Rights?

[Phoebe Ann]

And imho, this is not an Obama issue. It's not a Dem or Republican issue. It's a social issue that we've been dealing with for a long time and, as I said earlier, it's not going away. Most social issues become political issues eventually. When a majority gets fed up enough about an issue, they should speak with their vote. The power should be in the vote. Ted Kennedy should not be running this country, I should be (by my vote). He just represents me. (Using him as an example. I do live in Texas. He doesn't. That's just one of the strikes against hm. )

 

[Fisherman777]

It's a pervert issue. They choose to live that way. Why reward a perversion? Let's give shoplifters and bank robbers a special tax break while we're at it. It's all evil.

Everyone can make up reasons to justify their own special sin and try and make people accept it as normal.

 

[M. Sage]

Actually, it's the threat of action by a powerful impartial party (generally the state) that makes contracts between entities work. Otherwise the consequences of failure to abide by the terms of the agreement would be limited to whatever punishment that the aggrieved parties could inflict on the violators - which could be badly asymmetric if the violator is powerful and the aggrieved is weak.

There are tons of examples of personal contracts that don't involve the state directly. Tort law does a fine job of allowing for self-enforcement of those contracts.

 

[idleprocess]

While I have personal opinions regarding gay marriage, I still don't think it will work from a legal standpoint. This is not a federal issue and I don't think it will ever be passed on the federal level. So you're left with the State choosing to recognize gay marriage or not. But, the legal entanglements there would be so massive it would tie up the courts forever! I.e. - Joe and John get married in Vermont where Gay Marriage is recognized by the State. Joe and John now want to move to Nebraska to be farmers. But Nebraska doesn't recognize their legal union. What, are they now "unmarried?" They file suit in Nebraska and the legal web begins.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage - at the federal level - as a union between one man and one woman. This effects tax returns, social security benefits, and numerous other facets of the federal government. It also indicates that states that do not permit homosexual marriages are not required to recognize homosexual marriages from other states.

At the state level, multiple states have passed their own flavor of the Defense of Marriage Act and/or passed constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman.

The Federal DoMA basically grants states immunity from being sued for recognition of a homosexual marriage from another states under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. So instead one must fight state by state to change the law and grant reciprocity. I'm not fond of the Federal DoMA for breaking the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but its scope is quite narrow (although I do wonder if it was used to argue against the narrowly-defeated national CHL reciprocity legislation).

 

[idleprocess]

It's a pervert issue. They choose to live that way. Why reward a perversion? Let's give shoplifters and bank robbers a special tax break while we're at it. It's all evil.

Shoplifting and bank robbery are theft, where one party benefits by harming another party. There are clear victims and clear perpetrators. In the case of homosexuals, it is solely judgement (highly subjective at that) claiming a wrong being performed on any party.

I feel that whatever consenting adults do in private should irrelevant as far as the state is concerned - regardless of whether you approve of it. You may certainly disapprove and condemn away, but be very careful about making it the state's business because that sort of precedent could swing the wrong way in a fashion that hurts you and yours. Someone could devise some clever psycho-babble that catches on with the public stating that bowling, nose-picking, being right-handed, playing bridge, or any other activity is wrong, harmful, depraved, etc... then based on irrational disapproval you get nonsense laws against the activity if public feels strongly enough. Inter-racial marriage used to be illegal as did selling alcohol on Sunday; those laws have been repealed and society somehow managed to survive.

I mention this because the precedent that the left keeps trying to set where the term "The People" means something very different in the Second Amendment than everywhere else in the Constitution. I'm not sure they have any real appreciation of the horrific precedent they'd set if they can mutate a straightforward "the rights of the people..." into something other than what the words on their own without tortured semantics.

 

[sbailey]

Personally, I think it's primarily genetic, on a slighty sliding scale of the nature/ nurture debate applied to each individual. It always amazes me, when people on the right, lump all gay people into one group of perverts, lurking in the bushes, ready to snatch their kids. I've known, been friends with, and even served in the army with gay men, and can't help but view each as individuals. I've known gay's who went to church on a regular basis, and struggled with who they were and their religion. Most of them, that I know, only want the same legal rights to be able to care for their loved ones, ie., hospital, end of life power of attorney, tax issues, so on and so forth. They couldn't care less what ignorant people thought of them. They one wish to be left alone to live their lives. This issue has boiled down to what it should be called, with the vocal minority on one side clamoring for acceptance, instead of tolerance, while the other side takes their bait and flex's it's muscles instead of thinking for itself. FWIW, no offense to anyone intended.

 

[DCortez]

It always amazes me, when people on the right, lump all gay people into one group

I feel the same way about dems. Why do they lump all wealthy people, business owners, and successful businesses into the same group. The group that must have their success redistributed and carry the burden for those that are less successful.


As far as gays are concerned. When I was younger, I thought they were born that way. As I've grown older, I view it more as a deviant lifestyle. I'm not against them any more than I am against gamblers, drinkers, cheaters, etc..

 

[cuate]

GOD killed them. Ref: Sodom & Gomohrah....obama loves their votes, will likely make their acts legal, pray he doesn't make it manditory !!!