Marriage Conservatives vs. The Bill of Rights

[corplinx]

I thought conservatives were all supposed to be strict constructionist guys whose guiding compass was supposed to be the constitution (at least thats what they say about their supreme court nominees).

If you are a liberal, you make up new interpretation of the consititution to fit you liberal agenda according to the conservatives.

So I got a big chagrin as I saw everyone running away from the Massachusetts decision and whipping out their 20 foot poles (democrats included).

This is an issue where we see who is a conservative in conserving the constitution and who is merely a conservative in the fact that they are reluctant to change in general (and of course, some democrats fell into this too).

Simply put, if Reverend Lovejoy says its okay in his religion for you to marry someone of the same sex, then your marriage should be protected by the first amendment's religious protections. Its that simple, the state cannot tell you that you can't marry.

Now, if the state recognizes marriages and gives special priveleges to married people, guess what it is if you deny these priveleges to homosexuals or refuse to recognize their marriage?

Its that simple folks. I've said this before that I think states should just recognize an "immediate heir". Two people can fill out a form and establish repricocity and sharing of personal property. It doesnt matter if they are 80 year old best friends, two 18 year olds that eloped to vegas, or Larry and his fabulous boyfriend Steve. The state is agnostic of it and should not care.

Marriage is then just a religious or traditional ceremony.

While I'm bashing the "conservatives", let me throw some vinegar at the democrats. Whatever happened to the "were better about seperation of chuch and state party". I guess so close to an election its okay to disenfranchise a voting block who is too apathetic to vote anyway (homosexuals).

[The Don]

Or that the gay vote would "understand" that the Democrats were nailing themselves to the bibile just to get in power.

[Hexxenhammer]

Yeah, this issue is going to bloody many a Catholic Democrat in Massachusettes.

[Tmy]

The govt isnt stopping anyone from going thru marriage ceremonies. Go marry a goat if you wish. There is no constitutional right to marriage.

The institution of marriage is a different story. When you are legally married it sets of a domino affect through all sorts of legal-government actions. Taxes, immigration, govt benefits, wills , estates, adoptions, military benefits, health proxys you can go on and on. Do you realize what kind of chaos will be caused by gay marriage. Espically since states are required to legally accept the others marriage laws.

What will happen with the military? Right now the gaything is taboo, how will they handle same sex spouces???

[Marc]

Originally posted by corplinx
I thought conservatives were all supposed to be strict constructionist guys whose guiding compass was supposed to be the constitution (at least thats what they say about their supreme court nominees).

If you are a liberal, you make up new interpretation of the consititution to fit you liberal agenda according to the conservatives.

Well that is what the fundi-whack-jobs say. In reality they can do just as much reinterpetations of the constitution to support their religious agenda. For example repeatedly denying the seperation of church and state.

Then there are the really far out ones like this one (http://www.illinoisleader.com/letters/lettersview.asp?c=9969)!! Check this quote and see if he might, just might, be making up new interpertations of the constitution:

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Christianity had already been dominantly established in this country."
:eek:

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by corplinx
Simply put, if Reverend Lovejoy says its okay in his religion for you to marry someone of the same sex, then your marriage should be protected by the first amendment's religious protections. Its that simple, the state cannot tell you that you can't marry.How can be make this into a devisive political battlefield with that kind of thinking?

[DavidJames]

"I thought conservatives were all supposed to be strict constructionist guys whose guiding compass was supposed to be the constitution (at least thats what they say about their supreme court nominees)."

I'm not aware of any conservatives in the congress today that fit that description.

If you are a liberal, you make up new interpretation of the consititution to fit you liberal agenda according to the conservatives

I'm not sure that fit's either although I don't believe the consititution should be considered Moses tablet chiseled in stone either. That's not to suggest it should be changed willy nilly.

I have to laugh when I read posts from conservatives on this board which suggest that somehow that the religious influence in the Republican party represents the fringe when in reality it's the conservatives on this board who are on the fringe when it comes to religion. In no way am I suggesting Democrats aren't also over sensitive to upsetting the religious majority and you have highlighted an excellent example.

A fact that many members of the forum seem to either forget or not realize is religion forms the basis for moral decisions for an overwhelming majority of Americans. Atheists and agnostics are in the distinct minority. Never mind whether that's right or wrong or consistent with the constitution, it's the reality. As much as we might like politicians to use the constitution as their barometer when making political decisions, they will also look to their constituency as well. This is what's going on here.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by corplinx
I thought conservatives were all supposed to be strict constructionist guys whose guiding compass was supposed to be the constitution (at least thats what they say about their supreme court nominees).

If you are a liberal, you make up new interpretation of the consititution to fit you liberal agenda according to the conservatives.

So I got a big chagrin as I saw everyone running away from the Massachusetts decision and whipping out their 20 foot poles (democrats included).

This is an issue where we see who is a conservative in conserving the constitution and who is merely a conservative in the fact that they are reluctant to change in general (and of course, some democrats fell into this too).

Simply put, if Reverend Lovejoy says its okay in his religion for you to marry someone of the same sex, then your marriage should be protected by the first amendment's religious protections. Its that simple, the state cannot tell you that you can't marry.

Now, if the state recognizes marriages and gives special priveleges to married people, guess what it is if you deny these priveleges to homosexuals or refuse to recognize their marriage?

Its that simple folks. I've said this before that I think states should just recognize an "immediate heir". Two people can fill out a form and establish repricocity and sharing of personal property. It doesnt matter if they are 80 year old best friends, two 18 year olds that eloped to vegas, or Larry and his fabulous boyfriend Steve. The state is agnostic of it and should not care.

Marriage is then just a religious or traditional ceremony.

While I'm bashing the "conservatives", let me throw some vinegar at the democrats. Whatever happened to the "were better about seperation of chuch and state party". I guess so close to an election its okay to disenfranchise a voting block who is too apathetic to vote anyway (homosexuals).

Actually, the idea of religious marriage and civil marriage are completely different. The statutes refer to civil marriage. The First Amendment does not apply to civil marriages. The Fourteenth Amendment does. (Equal protection under the law)

Under the First Amendment, the church may not be compelled to perform or recognize religious marriages for people they wish to exclude.

[Samus]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I have to laugh when I read posts from conservatives on this board which suggest that somehow that the religious influence in the Republican party represents the fringe when in reality it's the conservatives on this board who are on the fringe when it comes to religion. Actually, the official platform of the Republican party in no way suggests that it's the party for Christians who like their Jesus loud and proud. The problem is actually two-fold:

1. The so-called religious right, which are conservatives (usually Republican) who seem to think that they are doing god's duty. That would logically make their opponents agents of Satan. Even though they are very vocal and very cohesive as a sect, I don't think they make up the majority of the party.

2. Leading elected officials of the Republican party have very strong religious beliefs, and they like to make it known. With our weak party system in the U.S., those elected officials (read: celebrities) end up being the voice of the party, even if they stray from party ideals.

The Conservative Party does make mention of Christian ideals in its platform, the Republican Party does not. In other words, while there may be a great many theists/Republicans, I don't think that being non-religious puts you on the fringe of the party.

Understand that I am a Northeast Republican, and we tend to be more moderate than our hard-charging southern counterparts, so my portrayal of the party as a whole is based on my own experiences, which may be quite different than yours.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
The govt isnt stopping anyone from going thru marriage ceremonies. Go marry a goat if you wish. There is no constitutional right to marriage.

No, but there is a Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. There is quite simply no legitimate reason to treat homosexual and heterosexual relationships differently.

If you say that heterosexual marriages can produce children, I would point out that an increasing number of married couples (including my wife and myself) are choosing not to have any children. There are also many gay people with children, and it's only a matter of time before we have the technology to allow two same-sex people to reproduce biologically.

The institution of marriage is a different story. When you are legally married it sets of a domino affect through all sorts of legal-government actions. Taxes, immigration, govt benefits, wills , estates, adoptions, military benefits, health proxys you can go on and on. Do you realize what kind of chaos will be caused by gay marriage. Espically since states are required to legally accept the others marriage laws.

What's the big deal? So the form says "M" instead of "F." What does gender have to do with any of the above?

Edited to add: Besides, you could use the "it'll be hard to change things" argument to justify slavery, segregation, not allowing minorities to vote, etc. Legal equality is a more important concern than temporary social discomfort. We got past all of those things and we'll get past this. This is much more minor, really -- consider the logistical problems of suddenly freeing hundreds of thousands of slaves!

What will happen with the military? Right now the gaything is taboo, how will they handle same sex spouces???

They'll get over it. If they insist on maintaining the ban on homosexuality, then I suppose it'll be as simple as disallowing anyone in a gay marriage from joining, and discharging anyone who enters a gay marriage. Time will tell whether the loss of personnel will be significant enough to get the military to change their stance.

Jeremy

[Bluegill]

I don't see many reasons for the state to recognize any form of marriage.

The only two that I can think of are:

1) Not forcing a person to testify against a spouse in a court of law

2) legally acknowledging an heir for property and estate rights.

I'm not convinced that any other functions of the state's recognitions are worthwhile.

[DavidJames]

"the official platform of the Republican party in no way suggests that it's the party for Christians"

Of course it doesn't. But deeds speak much louder that words.

"Leading elected officials of the Republican party have very strong religious beliefs, and they like to make it known"

Thanks, that's exactly my point. Why are they the leaders if 1. strong religious beliefs aren't on the agenda or 2. they don't want them to be?

"I don't think that being non-religious puts you on the fringe of the party"

I think being "non-religious" puts you at the fringe of both parties. As an example, do you know how many elected officials have stood up and supported removing "God" from the pledge.

[Samus]

Cool/CC: I don't think that being non-religious puts you on the fringe of the party

DavidJames: I think being "non-religious" puts you at the fringe of both parties. As an example, do you know how many elected officials have stood up and supported removing "God" from the pledge. Touche, DJ! I don't really have a good answer to that. Although, I'm not sure if the reluctance to remove "under god" from the pledge is out of fear of constituent retribution, or fear that one's name will be smeared by the political god squad, a la 700 club, etc.

Either way, you make a valid point. The Court has ruled that the words shouldn't be in there, so technically, the pledge of allegiance is no longer the officially endorsed government pledge (it was overturned as unconstitutional). Hence, an apt politician will simply state there is nothing he/she needs to do, since The Court has already made the decision.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Tmy
Do you realize what kind of chaos will be caused by gay marriage.

Please elucidate. Thanks.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Ipecac


Please elucidate. Thanks.

Id be happy too..............err what does elucidate mean???



Are far as treating people different, isnt that what the marriage laws do! They create inequality tween people who are married and people who are not. If we truley want to treat people equal then we should get rid of the marriage laws.

Then theres the tradtional background to marriage. Even the gay marriage advocates still want the tradtional definition (man and women who join together), just broadend a little bit. Why should legal marriage be regulated to just two people?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Bluegill
I don't see many reasons for the state to recognize any form of marriage.

The only two that I can think of are:

1) Not forcing a person to testify against a spouse in a court of law

2) legally acknowledging an heir for property and estate rights.

I'm not convinced that any other functions of the state's recognitions are worthwhile.
If the state's only other interest in marriages is so that there is an heir for property rights, then why would they care about not forcing a spouse to testify?

Don't you think that having rules and laws regarding marriage breakdown is important - and in order to have those laws you need to establish that a couple is in fact married? What about medical decisions?

If marriage is considered to be a "good thing" for society (and in general, I think it is) then what is wrong with promoting it and recognizing this with certain laws?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Then theres the tradtional background to marriage. Even the gay marriage advocates still want the tradtional definition (man and women who join together), just broadend a little bit. Why should legal marriage be regulated to just two people?

Indeed, why? There may be good reasons, or there may not. But that's a debate for another thread.

Right now, I'd also appreciate it if you could address the point at hand: what do gay marriages have to do with taxes, immigration, inheritance, and the other things you said would be complicated by allowing them? In all seriousness, I really think that in 99% of cases there would be no difference except for the letter in the "Sex" box on government forms.

Jeremy

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Thanz


If marriage is considered to be a "good thing" for society (and in general, I think it is) then what is wrong with promoting it and recognizing this with certain laws?

Well, in the US there is nothing in the constitution that gives goverment the permission to do so.

Maybe the nuclear family is something good for society but the government has no business telling you it is.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by Tmy


Id be happy too..............err what does elucidate mean???



Explain what kinds of chaos will result from gay marriage.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by corplinx


Well, in the US there is nothing in the constitution that gives goverment the permission to do so.

Maybe the nuclear family is something good for society but the government has no business telling you it is.
I am not an American, so I won't comment too extensively on your constitution, but it was my understanding that in the division of powers any matters that are not specifically mentioned fall within the power of the state governments. (In Canada, the Feds get the "basket" clause). If that is the case, they have the right to regulate or promote marriage just like anything else, to the extent that it doesn't violate the constitution (like the equal protection clause).

[toddjh]

Originally posted by corplinx
Well, in the US there is nothing in the constitution that gives goverment the permission to do so.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Maybe the nuclear family is something good for society but the government has no business telling you it is.

That is arguable. But it's not a Constitutional issue.

Jeremy

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx

Well, in the US there is nothing in the constitution that gives goverment the permission to do so.


How about the Preamble?

Admittedly, my ignorance is boundless, but why have a Congress which can make laws, when the government has almost no persmission to do anything? I personally think the "strict constructionist" viewpoint is bogus.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
There is no constitutional right to marriage.

Hoo boy...

9th Amendment, people. 9th Amendment. (He said, for the 87,432,136th time on this forum, hoping that, just once, somebody might actually listen and understand that rights don't have to be enumerated in the Constitution.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I'm not aware of any conservatives in the congress today that fit that description.

Well, there's Ron Paul, but he's actually a libertarian...

[American]

If the Dems run on a pro-gay agenda, it will guarentee victories for conservatives. That's why Shannon O'Brien lost in massachusetts.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by shanek


Hoo boy...

9th Amendment, people. 9th Amendment. (He said, for the 87,432,136th time on this forum, hoping that, just once, somebody might actually listen and understand that rights don't have to be enumerated in the Constitution.)

Oh the 9th is a bunch of nonsense!!

Right now married people have an advantage in adoptions because we want kids to have a stable mom and pop (which makes sense). Could they continue to favor hetro couples over gay couples? Would that be some sort of violation.

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by shanek


Hoo boy...

9th Amendment, people. 9th Amendment. (He said, for the 87,432,136th time on this forum, hoping that, just once, somebody might actually listen and understand that rights don't have to be enumerated in the Constitution.)

Marriage is a right under the 1st, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

Religious marriage under the 1st.

Civil marriage under the 9th and 10th. The major problem is that many states have restrictions on who can marry. (Based on incest, age, possession of a STD, number of spouses) Since these apply to all people, they are reasonable.

Homosexual exclusion from civil marriage statutes violates the 14th Amendment equal protection under the law.

While rights do not need to be enumerated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court generally has to rule on the status of an act is a right or not.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


The major problem is that many states have restrictions on who can marry. (Based on incest, age, possession of a STD, number of spouses) Since these apply to all people, they are reasonable.

Homosexual exclusion from civil marriage statutes violates the 14th Amendment equal protection under the law.



It seems to me that exclusions based on incest, for example, is discriminatory in the same way that an exclusion based on homosexuality is discriminatory. Both only affect a segment of the population, right?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Valiant Dancer


Civil marriage under the 9th and 10th. The major problem is that many states have restrictions on who can marry. (Based on incest, age, possession of a STD, number of spouses) Since these apply to all people, they are reasonable.

Homosexual exclusion from civil marriage statutes violates the 14th Amendment equal protection under the law.



Thats debateable. Homosexuality has not be proven to be an immutable trait, nor are homosexuls considered a protected class (federally). Many of the marriage laws state it has to be done bettween a man and women , homosexuals are not barred from marrying.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Many of the marriage laws state it has to be done bettween a man and women

Which is the entire basis of the "equal protection" objection. What is it about a male/female relationship that deserves special treatment? If there is no satisfactory answer to that question (and so far, you have refused to even try to give one), then it is discriminatory.

homosexuals are not barred from marrying.

They are barred from marrying in any meaningful sense. If the shoe were on the other foot, and only same-sex marriages were allowed, I doubt you'd be singing the same tune.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Originally posted by toddjh


Which is the entire basis of the "equal protection" objection. What is it about a male/female relationship that deserves special treatment? If there is no satisfactory answer to that question (and so far, you have refused to even try to give one), then it is discriminatory.



They are barred from marrying in any meaningful sense. If the shoe were on the other foot, and only same-sex marriages were allowed, I doubt you'd be singing the same tune.

Jeremy

Well why was marriage codified in the first place? To legitimize children and their property rights. (?)

PS: Im against ALL marriage.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well why was marriage codified in the first place? To legitimize children and their property rights. (?)

And those don't apply to same-sex relationships? There are plenty of gay people with kids, both biological and adopted. There are also plenty of straight couples with no kids.

PS: Im against ALL marriage.

I'm not. It's a convenient shortcut for specifying the person you want to have certain privileges in your legal affairs. I'd like to see it divorced (so to speak) from romantic relationships, though.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Originally posted by toddjh


And those don't apply to same-sex relationships? There are plenty of gay people with kids, both biological and adopted. There are also plenty of straight couples with no kids.



I'm not. It's a convenient shortcut for specifying the person you want to have certain privileges in your legal affairs. I'd like to see it divorced (so to speak) from romantic relationships, though.

Jeremy

Yeah but those children do have real biological parents. Admittingly technology has really muddied the waters. I dont think that family law has really caught up yet.


Funny thing is tha love has nothing to do with our marriage laws.

[Tmy]

I would be ok with civil union thing to cover many of those issues.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yeah but those children do have real biological parents. Admittingly technology has really muddied the waters. I dont think that family law has really caught up yet.

That's the whole point. Family law could "catch up" by treating homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual ones. I'm still waiting to hear from you what exactly would be complicated by that.

Funny thing is tha love has nothing to do with our marriage laws.

That's not exactly true. Withholding affection and infidelity can have a huge impact in divorce cases. I'd like to see that change. If people want to make that part of their marriage (and I think that a lot of people would), they would be free to include it in a prenup.

Jeremy

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Ed


It seems to me that exclusions based on incest, for example, is discriminatory in the same way that an exclusion based on homosexuality is discriminatory. Both only affect a segment of the population, right?

It isn't. Incest is an exclusion based on health concerns. Homosexuality is not. If a homosexual couple uses technology to produce a child, the child does not have a serious chance for birth defects. Under incest, it does.

Promote the general welfare, dude. Incest can be a societal health risk. Also, incest is a choice, whereas homosexuality is not and subject to governmental regulation under the 10th Amendment.

[Tmy]

With family law who your parents are means quite a bit. When couples get divorced the "real" parent has alot of support by the law. Id think it'd be weird to have divorces where the childs custody is given to a non genetic parent.

This is sort of off topic, but Im uncomfortable with serrogates, sperm donars and the like that end up creating 5-6 "parents" of the child. The plus side is that you give children to the childless, the negative is that you create a potential mess when relationships braek down. Plus you end up with people waving the kids rights to know his real parents, and to being an heir to his rightful estate.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
With family law who your parents are means quite a bit. When couples get divorced the "real" parent has alot of support by the law. Id think it'd be weird to have divorces where the childs custody is given to a non genetic parent.

*shrug* That's no different than when adoptive parents get divorced. It already happens every day.

This is sort of off topic, but Im uncomfortable with serrogates, sperm donars and the like that end up creating 5-6 "parents" of the child. The plus side is that you give children to the childless, the negative is that you create a potential mess when relationships braek down. Plus you end up with people waving the kids rights to know his real parents, and to being an heir to his rightful estate.

This also already happens every day in cases of adoption. I'm still waiting to hear what homosexual relationships would complicate.

Jeremy

[Valiant Dancer]

Originally posted by Tmy


Thats debateable. Homosexuality has not be proven to be an immutable trait, nor are homosexuls considered a protected class (federally). Many of the marriage laws state it has to be done bettween a man and women , homosexuals are not barred from marrying.

Funny, there is a provision in EEOC and Equal housing that forbids discrimination on sexual orientation.

The APA disagrees with your immutable trait contention. Likewise, a study has started to identify genes in sequence which offer a predisposition to homosexuality.

The marriage laws which state that it may only exist between a man and a woman violate the 14th Amendment equal protection provision. When a clerk refuses to grant a civil marriage license to a homosexual couple, they are barred from their marriage being recognized by the state.

Again, I must draw the distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage. The ruling affects civil marriage and the rights and strictures placed upon the individuals entering these contracts.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by toddjh


*shrug* That's no different than when adoptive parents get divorced. It already happens every day.



This also already happens every day in cases of adoption. I'm still waiting to hear what homosexual relationships would complicate.

Jeremy

Yeah but theyre are not that many adoptive parents in hetero relationships.


Do you think that gay marriages woudl fail more often than heteros. Since most gay marriages would not have the children bond that keeps many marriages together.? Could our divorce court handle the deluge.

Whould gay marriages "open the floodgates" when it comes to polygamy, and incest unions?

Many annulments laws allow for annulments if the marriage wasnt consumated. If (like n NH) the gay sex is not considered adultry, can you consumate a lesbian marriage?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Yeah but theyre are not that many adoptive parents in hetero relationships.

That's something we should encourage, not discourage.

Do you think that gay marriages woudl fail more often than heteros.

I don't know. I don't think there's enough information out there yet to really say.

Since most gay marriages would not have the children bond that keeps many marriages together? Could our divorce court handle the deluge.

The divorce rate today is much, much higher than it was 50 years ago. The courts manage. Supply and demand will take care of that side of things.

Whould gay marriages "open the floodgates" when it comes to polygamy, and incest unions?

I hope so. People should be free to marry whoever they want. Polygamy might render legal arrangements too complicated to be practical, so I can see why that might be out. But freedom is the magic word. Wherever practical, people should be free to do what they want and treated equally by the law in the process.

Many annulments laws allow for annulments if the marriage wasnt consumated. If (like n NH) the gay sex is not considered adultry, can you consumate a lesbian marriage?

That's an issue that needs to be addressed pragmatically, not an inherent problem with homosexual relationships. My solution would be the same as most people's, I think: fwap the court that said that homosexual sex isn't sex.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

If your in a gay marriage, and one of the partners is having hetero sex with soemone else can it be cheating? How can it be adultry if gay a person is having no gay sex. And vice verse.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
If your in a gay marriage, and one of the partners is having hetero sex with soemone else can it be cheating? How can it be adultry if gay a person is having no gay sex. And vice verse.

Sex is sex, gay or straight. If you're having sex with someone outside your marriage (without permission, of course), that's cheating. Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Well if your saying that a persons sexuality is imutable, then cant someone having gay sex really be cheating if the person is not gay. (Legally speaking, as a grounds for divorce.)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well if your saying that a persons sexuality is imutable, then cant someone having gay sex really be cheating if the person is not gay. (Legally speaking, as a grounds for divorce.)

Huh? I never said a person's sexuality is immutable. The jury's still out on that one, as far as I know.

Second, why would a person have gay sex if they were not gay? Third, (consentual) sex with someone outside the relationship and without the permission of your partner is cheating. Period. That's the way I see it.

Jeremy

[Tmy]

Originally posted by toddjh


Huh? I never said a person's sexuality is immutable. The jury's still out on that one, as far as I know.

Second, why would a person have gay sex if they were not gay? Third, (consentual) sex with someone outside the relationship and without the permission of your partner is cheating. Period. That's the way I see it.

Jeremy

Well theres bisexuals. And Bi-curious.

Most states have divorce grounds that punish the wrongdoer. Adultry is one of those grounds. If Im a swinger, isnt it a violation of equal protection to punish me for swinging.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Tmy
Well theres bisexuals. And Bi-curious.

Sure. When you said gay I thought you meant exclusively. Anyway, I hope we're on the same page now regarding the equivalence of gay and straight sex.

Most states have divorce grounds that punish the wrongdoer. Adultry is one of those grounds. If Im a swinger, isnt it a violation of equal protection to punish me for swinging.

That depends on how you define infidelity. Is it merely the act of having sex outside of the marriage, or is it the fact that you're dishonest about it? Since I'm in an open relationship myself, obviously I vote for the latter -- if there's no injured party, there's no wrongdoing. But I don't know how the law views it.

Actually, I vote for getting the government out of the bedroom entirely. I think things like fidelity, distribution of property in the case of divorce, etc., belong in an agreement between the individuals themselves, not in an agreement between the individuals and the state.

Jeremy

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Oh the 9th is a bunch of nonsense!!

Right now married people have an advantage in adoptions because we want kids to have a stable mom and pop (which makes sense). Could they continue to favor hetro couples over gay couples? Would that be some sort of violation.

The government should not be in the adoption business, nor should it have any say in who can or cannot adopt a child (except for convicted felons as part of their sentencing).

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tmy
Thats debateable. Homosexuality has not be proven to be an immutable trait,

Why does that matter?