Obama-Marriage Debate - Harrodsburg, KY

I am a gay man! I am an equal citizen, l should have the same rights as straight citizens! It's not based on a religious beliefs, it's based on legal equality!

Michael Nowlin wrote:

I am a gay man! I am an equal citizen, l should have the same rights as straight citizens! It's not based on a religious beliefs, it's based on legal equality!

You already have equal rights.

Digger wrote:

<quoted text>
I find it knee slapping funny each and every time someone thinks they understand the Constitution better than the Supreme Court justices.

I think some people DO in fact understand the Constitution better than the Justices on the Supreme Court.

Obviously the 9 justices on the SCOTUS don't understand all they know about the Constitution as if they did they would not disagree on matters that pertain to it ALL THE TIME.

You state in another post that the Court is supposed to base its rulings on what the Constitution "says". IF they are doing that how come we don't see 9-0 decisions instead of 5-4 ones all the time?

If these nine are (some of) the most gifted legal beagles around (as they must be or else the SCOTUS would not be the "expert" it is on Constitutional matters), why do they come to different conclusions to the same question?

Either they are NOT as gifted as one might hope in knowing and understanding what the Constitution says OR they are basing their rulings on personal beliefs and not what the Constitution SAYS.

Newman wrote:

<quoted text>
I think some people DO in fact understand the Constitution better than the Justices on the Supreme Court.
Obviously the 9 justices on the SCOTUS don't understand all they know about the Constitution as if they did they would not disagree on matters that pertain to it ALL THE TIME.
You state in another post that the Court is supposed to base its rulings on what the Constitution "says". IF they are doing that how come we don't see 9-0 decisions instead of 5-4 ones all the time?
If these nine are (some of) the most gifted legal beagles around (as they must be or else the SCOTUS would not be the "expert" it is on Constitutional matters), why do they come to different conclusions to the same question?
Either they are NOT as gifted as one might hope in knowing and understanding what the Constitution says OR they are basing their rulings on personal beliefs and not what the Constitution SAYS.

I think that may have to do with how well each side makes their arguments as to why an issue is Constitutional or unconstitutional. You may be convinced by one side and I may be convinced by the other. These arguments by opposing counsel are intended to influence the justices' interpretation of the Constitution.

For example, look at the Second Amendment. No need to paste the text whereas I am certain that you are an expert on the Constitution and able to recite it to the tiddle by heart. Does it guarantee my right to own a gun, or only if I am in a militia?

Digger wrote:

<quoted text>
I think that may have to do with how well each side makes their arguments as to why an issue is Constitutional or unconstitutional. You may be convinced by one side and I may be convinced by the other. These arguments by opposing counsel are intended to influence the justices' interpretation of the Constitution.
For example, look at the Second Amendment. No need to paste the text whereas I am certain that you are an expert on the Constitution and able to recite it to the tiddle by heart. Does it guarantee my right to own a gun, or only if I am in a militia?

Or it could well be that (at least) some of the justices don't give that "tiddle" you speak of what the Constitution says, they are going to vote their own personal convictions.

Justice John Paul Stevens constantly voted against the death penalty being appiled in every case as he felt it was (morally??) wrong. Not just in that particluiar instance before the Court, but in evey instance in general.

The Constitution clearly mentions "capital crimes" and the way they were to be handled, which would leave one to believe that the founding fathers intended that the death penalty should be considered legal, at least in some instance.

Clearly there needs to be some rules as to how and when it is applied but Stevens was against the very concept.

No matter who argued the case before Stevens, he would not be swayed to vote "yes".

As for the Second Amendment, look at how many times "right of the people" is mentioned in the Bill of Rights and (being the constitutional expert that you are) tell us how many times that "right" has been interpreted to mean an individual right.

Newman wrote:

<quoted text>
Or it could well be that (at least) some of the justices don't give that "tiddle" you speak of what the Constitution says, they are going to vote their own personal convictions.
Justice John Paul Stevens constantly voted against the death penalty being appiled in every case as he felt it was (morally??) wrong. Not just in that particluiar instance before the Court, but in evey instance in general.
The Constitution clearly mentions "capital crimes" and the way they were to be handled, which would leave one to believe that the founding fathers intended that the death penalty should be considered legal, at least in some instance.
Clearly there needs to be some rules as to how and when it is applied but Stevens was against the very concept.
No matter who argued the case before Stevens, he would not be swayed to vote "yes".
As for the Second Amendment, look at how many times "right of the people" is mentioned in the Bill of Rights and (being the constitutional expert that you are) tell us how many times that "right" has been interpreted to mean an individual right.

The Fifth says that no person shall be deprived of life... without due process of law. However it also states that no person shall "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." One could conclude that this means they intended that cutting off someone's arm was acceptable! Then along comes #8 which states that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. This created a gray area and muddied that waters.

Would cutting off someone's arm for stealing bread be cruel? Is killing someone convicted of murder cruel? I supposed it all depends on what you consider cruel. Some have argued that it says "cruel AND unusual" not "cruel or unusual." In that case a cruel punishment could be administered so long as it was not unusual.

That's the great thing about our Constitution. It's a guideline that can be changed with the times. Some have also argued that when the writers of the Constitution thought it was okay for citizens to be armed, they never imagined the amount of gun violence in today's society and/or the ability to fire 11 rounds per second with an AK-47.

man & woman together forever ! Although some gay men make the best stylest. But really, I don't think its a good thing for our children to see. I sure never ever seen or heard of homosexuality when I was little. Just my op.

Digger wrote:

<quoted text>
The Fifth says that no person shall be deprived of life... without due process of law. However it also states that no person shall "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." One could conclude that this means they intended that cutting off someone's arm was acceptable! Then along comes #8 which states that cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. This created a gray area and muddied that waters.
Would cutting off someone's arm for stealing bread be cruel? Is killing someone convicted of murder cruel? I supposed it all depends on what you consider cruel. Some have argued that it says "cruel AND unusual" not "cruel or unusual." In that case a cruel punishment could be administered so long as it was not unusual.
That's the great thing about our Constitution. It's a guideline that can be changed with the times. Some have also argued that when the writers of the Constitution thought it was okay for citizens to be armed, they never imagined the amount of gun violence in today's society and/or the ability to fire 11 rounds per second with an AK-47.

The Constitution should say and mean the same thing (and the law be the same) regardless of who is wearing the black robes on the SCOTUS. Justices do not simply interpret the law and make a ruling based on the wording of the Constitution. They interject their own personal bias and agenda into the fray. They are supposed to be neutral and open minded but they are not. The very fact that an aging justice will wait on a president to be elected who will appoint a like minded replacement proves this.

I would have a lot more faith in our Supreme Court and the decisions they make if the SCOTUS put out opinions that were 9-0 and not 5-4. Some argue that the POTUS is the most powerful man in the United States if not the world. I would argue that it is often Justice Kennedy as he is usually the "5th" vote need to determine the final say on any matter.

And I thought that the only way to change the Constitution was by the people ( as in "you and me") amending it. The implication that the justices can interpret it to mean different things at different points in time just shot that all to hell. Now it is no longer government "of the people, by the people and for the people".

Well if everyone worried more about their selfs and their family the world would be a better place who am I do say that people can't get married to who they want and be happy.. Keep your nose out of other peoples business..

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
You already have equal rights.

No I do not! What rights do I have that are equal? Not being allowed to marry the one I chose is what this issue is!

Michael Nowlin wrote:

<quoted text>No I do not! What rights do I have that are equal? Not being allowed to marry the one I chose is what this issue is!

You have the right to marry any woman that will marry you back, assuming she ain't already married, is "of age" and she ain't your sister.

That is the exact same right I have and I am not queer.

You want the "right" to marry a woman or a man. That is an additional right.

Newman wrote:

<quoted text>
You have the right to marry any woman that will marry you back, assuming she ain't already married, is "of age" and she ain't your sister.
That is the exact same right I have and I am not queer.
You want the "right" to marry a woman or a man. That is an additional right.

You are correct sir. They don't want equal, they want more.

Michael Nowlin wrote:

<quoted text>No I do not! What rights do I have that are equal? Not being allowed to marry the one I chose is what this issue is!

You can join a legal relationship with one other person of the opposite sex who isn't a close relation, just like everyone else.(yes, that is the legal and historical definition of marriage in the US)

Being able to marry the one person you choose is not a right. Siblings cannot marry, right?

Can a right be denied simply based on genetics or lineage? Slave owners thought so but that was overturned.

BTW, why limit it to "one" person you choose? Are you a bigot against polygamists?

No Sawber, Nutz,& Newman! Wanting to marry someone of the same sex in NOT asking for additional/more rights! Our constitution gives every citizen the right marry whomever they chose!You all are mixing the bible and the constitution! We are not asking for a religeous acceptance, just a legal one! I'm not against polygamy, nor do I chose to be part of it either! Those who chose to be part of that, that is their right! Nor am I condoning marriage of siblings or relatives! However, it has been proven that marrying first cousins and farther relatives does not matter! I know a man and a woman that married, they were first cousins, had 13 children, all were healthy and normal! Four of the children later died of diseases, not birth defects! as for same sex couples, I have been with my partner for 17 yrs! Is that not a committment? It is, so why can not have it in legal form, on a piece of paper?

the debate for gay marriage is dumb imo. Let gay people have cibil unions, and keep traditional marriage as is.

mi oh my wrote:

man & woman together forever ! Although some gay men make the best stylest. But really, I don't think its a good thing for our children to see. I sure never ever seen or heard of homosexuality when I was little. Just my op.

Why you being so stereotypical of gay men? And what do you mean,''it's not good thing for our children to see." SEE WHAT? And you never seen or heard of 'gay people' when you were little!! Where did you grow up, in a cave, with no opening?

Michael Nowlin wrote:

No Sawber, Nutz,& Newman! Wanting to marry someone of the same sex in NOT asking for additional/more rights! Our constitution gives every citizen the right marry whomever they chose!You all are mixing the bible and the constitution! We are not asking for a religeous acceptance, just a legal one! I'm not against polygamy, nor do I chose to be part of it either! Those who chose to be part of that, that is their right! Nor am I condoning marriage of siblings or relatives! However, it has been proven that marrying first cousins and farther relatives does not matter! I know a man and a woman that married, they were first cousins, had 13 children, all were healthy and normal! Four of the children later died of diseases, not birth defects! as for same sex couples, I have been with my partner for 17 yrs! Is that not a committment? It is, so why can not have it in legal form, on a piece of paper?

Polygamy and incest are illegal, same sex marriage is also illegal in Kentucky. You can always move to one of the few states that allow it.

Michael Nowlin wrote:

No Sawber, Nutz,& Newman! Wanting to marry someone of the same sex in NOT asking for additional/more rights! Our constitution gives every citizen the right marry whomever they chose!You all are mixing the bible and the constitution! We are not asking for a religeous acceptance, just a legal one! I'm not against polygamy, nor do I chose to be part of it either! Those who chose to be part of that, that is their right! Nor am I condoning marriage of siblings or relatives! However, it has been proven that marrying first cousins and farther relatives does not matter! I know a man and a woman that married, they were first cousins, had 13 children, all were healthy and normal! Four of the children later died of diseases, not birth defects! as for same sex couples, I have been with my partner for 17 yrs! Is that not a committment? It is, so why can not have it in legal form, on a piece of paper?

I am having a bit of trouble finding the phrase from the Constitution that you reference. Please help me to locate the part that guarentees "every citizen the right marry whomever they chose".

There is no such guarentee that I am aware of in our Constitution.(Give Obama another Supreme Court nomination or two and the Supreme Court may find one)The founding fathers never mentioned anything about homosexual marriage as I am quite sure they never dreamed anyone would ever even think of it much less want to actually do it. Can you imagine old Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, well just imagine.

Michael Nowlin wrote:

No Sawber, Nutz,& Newman! Wanting to marry someone of the same sex in NOT asking for additional/more rights! Our constitution gives every citizen the right marry whomever they chose!You all are mixing the bible and the constitution!

No it doesn't. For example, I cannot marry my sister. I cannot marry multiple people.

Michael Nowlin wrote:

I'm not against polygamy, nor do I chose to be part of it either! Those who chose to be part of that, that is their right! Nor am I condoning marriage of siblings or relatives! However, it has been proven that marrying first cousins and farther relatives does not matter! I know a man and a woman that married, they were first cousins, had 13 children, all were healthy and normal! Four of the children later died of diseases, not birth defects! as for same sex couples, I have been with my partner for 17 yrs!

All of that is great but still doesn't prove anything except that marriage is not a right.

Michael Nowlin wrote:

Is that not a committment? It is, so why can not have it in legal form, on a piece of paper?

Why do you need it in legal form? If you want it on paper, you can always write a commitment vow on paper and hand it to your girlfriend/boyfriend.

Sawber wrote:

<quoted text>
No it doesn't. For example, I cannot marry my sister. I cannot marry multiple people.
<quoted text>
All of that is great but still doesn't prove anything except that marriage is not a right.
<quoted text>
Why do you need it in legal form? If you want it on paper, you can always write a commitment vow on paper and hand it to your girlfriend/boyfriend.

I wish I had known that a person had a "right" to marry whomever they wanted. You see, growing up I had this thing for Cybill Shepherd and if I had only known that I had the "right" to marry whomever I wanted, well there is a better than average chance that I would have been "Mr Cybill Shepherd right now.