Gay Marriage Bans "Rationally Related to Legitimate State Interests"

[Mr. Kotter]

Says the 8th Cuircuit Court....

Tough couple of weeks for proponents of gay marriage.....suffer setbacks in MA, GA, NE, and TN. I suppose we'll be going back and forth on it for awhile.

Looks like one way or another, the next few years will be very intesting with this issue...:hmmm:



http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/14/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

Nebraska gay marriage ban reinstated

LINCOLN, Nebraska (AP) -- Supporters of banning gay marriage won two major court rulings Friday, with a federal appeals court reinstating Nebraska's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage and the Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that voters should have a say on the issue.

Last week, the highest courts in two others states also dealt gay rights advocates setbacks. The New York court rejected a bid by same-sex couples to win marriage rights, and the Georgia court reinstated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage there.

In the Nebraska case, U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon had ruled that the ban was too broad and deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process, among other things.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying in its ruling Friday that the amendment "and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States."

Seventy percent of Nebraska voters approved the ban in 2000.
Attorney General Jon Bruning had argued earlier for the ban should to be restored, saying it didn't violate anyone's freedom of expression or association.

Opponents of the ban "are free to gather, express themselves, lobby, and generally participate in the political process however they see fit," Bruning said. "Plaintiffs are free to petition state senators to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Plaintiffs are similarly free to begin an initiative process to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, just as supporters ... did."

The lawsuit challenging the ban was filed by New York-based Lambda and the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Project. Officials there could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Nebraska amendment went farther than similar bans in many states in that it also barred same-sex couples from many legal protections afforded heterosexual couples. For example the partners of gays and lesbians who work for the state are not entitled to share their health insurance and other benefits.

[patteeu]

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but the 8th Circuit is right on the money. The "rationally related to legitimate state interests" test shouldn't be seen as a very high hurdle. Let the people decide.

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm in favor of gay marriage, but the 8th Circuit is right on the money. The "rationally related to legitimate state interests" test shouldn't be seen as a very high hurdle. Let the people decide.

Yup. If this plays out, as I think it will....the gay marriage proponents will have to switch the conversation to "civil unions" or something similar to stand a chance in many states. Which, to my way of thinking, is a reasonable compromise.

[Nightwish]

In my opinion, the government needs to just stay out of the marriage game entirely. Legal rights should not be conferred to anyone, gay or straight, on the basis of being "married," because that is a religious institution at its base, not a civil one. Churches and religious bodies should recognize marriage, and confer whatever priveleges it is within their means and desire to confer, but anyone seeking legal rights or status from the government should go through civil union proceedings. Civil unions are the only game the government should have any involvement in, and they should not be limited by orientation. To put it bluntly, whether you're gay or straight - if you want rights, privelege and status within the church, get married; if you want rights, privelege and status from the government, get a civil union; if you want both, do both.

[Lurch]

Legitimate state interest, my ass.

[CRONUS]

So what are these rationale links, the states right to discriminate, by denying the legal rights afforded heterosexuals?

[htismaqe]

In my opinion, the government needs to just stay out of the marriage game entirely. Legal rights should not be conferred to anyone, gay or straight, on the basis of being "married," because that is a religious institution at its base, not a civil one. Churches and religious bodies should recognize marriage, and confer whatever priveleges it is within their means and desire to confer, but anyone seeking legal rights or status from the government should go through civil union proceedings. Civil unions are the only game the government should have any involvement in, and they should not be limited by orientation. To put it bluntly, whether you're gay or straight - if you want rights, privelege and status within the church, get married; if you want rights, privelege and status from the government, get a civil union; if you want both, do both.

**** THAT.

Tell that to the ex when she takes half your money and the judge says it's absolutely "legal".

[headsnap]

**** THAT.

Tell that to the ex when she takes half your money and the judge says it's absolutely "legal".
ROFL

Shot that one down quick!

[Baby Lee]

So what are these rationale links, the states right to discriminate, by denying the legal rights afforded heterosexuals?
Have a Rational Discussion? Demagogue the Issue?
Have a Rational Discussion? Demagogue the Issue?
Have a Rational Discussion? Demagogue the Issue?

:shrug:

Text of Decision (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)

My initial notes;

1. The matter isn't about whether the parties have a right to marriage or same-sex unions. The controversy arises because this is a Constitutional Amendment defining Marriage, which the Appellees argue places them on unequal footing when it comes to petitioning the legislature. Basically, a Constitutional Amendment carries too much finality for them to lobby against on an equal footing with their opponents.
2. The discussion then goes onto which standard of review is appropriate under the SC precedence in Romer, rational relationship, or strict scrutiny.
3. Strict scrutiny is reserved for suspect classes, and sexual orientation has never been ruled as such by the SC.
4. Rational basis is appropriate when characteristics of the individuals affected are relevant to state interests.
5. Marriage has a well-established history of being a state, as opposed to Federal, interest.
6. So the discussion moves on to whether the proffered rationale of "inducement to responsible procreation" for the conferring of benefits to 1-1 hereosexual marriage has a rational relation to legitimate state interests. NOT whether it's well-advised, but whether that relationship exists.
7. Since the Nebraska Constitutional Amendment only applied to marriages and civil unions, unlike Romer where any and all preferential policies based on orientation were erased, the court held that the rationale was not masking animus.

[CRONUS]

Have a Rationale Discussion? Demagogue the Issue?
Have a Rationale Discussion? Demagogue the Issue?
Have a Rationale Discussion? Demagogue the Issue?

:shrug:

Text of Decision (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)

My initial notes;

1. The matter isn't about whether the parties have a right to marriage or same-sex unions. The controversy arises because this is a Constitutional Amendment defining Marriage, which the Appellees argue places them on unequal footing when it comes to petitioning the legislature. Basically, a Constitutional Amendment carries too much finality for them to lobby against on an equal footing with their opponents.
2. The discussion then goes onto which standard of review is appropriate under the SC precedence in Romer, rational relationship, or strict scrutiny.
3. Strict scrutiny is reserved for suspect classes, and sexual orientation has never been ruled as such by the SC.
4. Rational basis is appropriate when characteristics of the individuals affected are relevant to state interests.
5. Marriage has a well-established history of being a state, as opposed to Federal, interest.
6. So the discussion moves on to whether the proffered rationale of "inducement to responsible procreation" for the conferring of benefits to 1-1 hereosexual marriage has a rational relation to legitimate state interests. NOT whether it's well-advised, but whether that relationship exists.
7. Since the Nebraska Constitutional Amendment only applied to marriages and civil unions, unlike Romer where any and all preferential policies based on orientation were erased, the court held that the rationale was not masking animus.

Interesting but I still do not see how the state has anything to gain from denying marriage to gays. On the one thing I saw you mention how is procreation a benefit to the state?

[Baby Lee]

Interesting but I still do not see how the state has anything to gain from denying marriage to gays. On the one thing I saw you mention how is procreation a benefit to the state?
1. It's responsible procreation they are seeking to promote. But thanks for leaving out the adjective that might make the position rational.
2. It's not about denying gays marriage, it's about limiting the group of people they offer the inducement of marriage benefits to, to those most rationally [in the STATES estimation] likely to responsibly procreate.

And BTW, I want to say ahead of time, just so my actions are clear, and not to be a dick, but I won't be sticking around for the same 'cycle of death' rehashing of the, "homophobic, no I'm not, but you'll have to legalize sex with chickens, what about polygamy, gays are great parents, my father's gay NTTAWWT, red state, blue state, AllState, works in Finland, gays dudes can marry a chick just like anyone else" brouhaha that may or may not ensue.

If I want reruns, I'll tune over to TV Land.

[keg in kc]

Regarding procreation, responsible or otherwise, should we then deny heterosexual couples that are either unable or unwilling to procreate?

[patteeu]

Regarding procreation, responsible or otherwise, should we then deny heterosexual couples that are either unable or unwilling to procreate?

The way it's supposed to work in patteeu's ideal universe is that the courts don't try to figure out what the States should do, but instead satisfy themselves that the States have a rational interest in regulating the activity. It's up to the states to decide what they should or shouldn't do. It's theoretically possible that they could limit marriage benefits to couples who are fertile and express an interest in procreation or to couples where the woman is actually pregnant or to couples who actually have a live child, but so far the states seem to have decided to stick with heterosexual couples because that's a close enough approximation for them. It's not supposed to be up to the courts to second-guess the wisdom of this decision.

[CRONUS]

1. It's responsible procreation they are seeking to promote. But thanks for leaving out the adjective that might make the position rational.
2. It's not about denying gays marriage, it's about limiting the group of people they offer the inducement of marriage benefits to, to those most rationally [in the STATES estimation] likely to responsibly procreate.

And BTW, I want to say ahead of time, just so my actions are clear, and not to be a dick, but I won't be sticking around for the same 'cycle of death' rehashing of the, "homophobic, no I'm not, but you'll have to legalize sex with chickens, what about polygamy, gays are great parents, my father's gay NTTAWWT, red state, blue state, AllState, works in Finland, gays dudes can marry a chick just like anyone else" brouhaha that may or may not ensue.

If I want reruns, I'll tune over to TV Land.

No intent in leaving out the adjective. Responsible or otherwise I still do not see that as a benefit to the state.

[SBK]

Short and sweet. Let the citizens vote for what they want. Let each state decide for itself. It's how democracy works.

[CRONUS]

Short and sweet. Let the citizens vote for what they want. Let each state decide for itself. It's how democracy works.So you would be ok with slavery if only the states voted for it?

[Lurch]

So you would be ok with slavery if only the states voted for it?I agree with your position, but the slavery-homosexuality analogy is just silly. It's an emotional appeal. DNA determines race; sexuality, whether you like it or not, is much more complicated.

[go bowe]

i never found it complicated...

sex is as easy as falling off the wagon...

as far as sexuality is concerned, it's all about the birds and the bees, and what attracts you...

[mlyonsd]

The right answer is to let the states decide.

Invoking slavery into the discussion is childish.

[CRONUS]

The right answer is to let the states decide.

Invoking slavery into the discussion is childish.

Lets go beyond slavery then, how about just taking away the rights of Christians or Jews because the people vote to do so?

[Lurch]

Lets go beyond slavery then, how about just taking away the rights of Christians or Jews because the people vote to do so?
First Amendment? Duh.

[mlyonsd]

Lets go beyond slavery then, how about just taking away the rights of Christians or Jews because the people vote to do so?

Or let's go the other way. Like a 30 year old man has a right to marry their 18 year old daughter if they both consent.

[go bowe]

Or let's go the other way. Like a 30 year old man has a right to marry their 18 year old daughter if they both consent.would a 58 year old man with an 18 year old granddaughter work just as well?

or maybe an old uncle with a bunch of twenty something nieces?

i mean, after all, if we're gonna carry the notion to extremes, i want a piece of the action too... :p :p :p

[Lurch]

would a 58 year old man with an 18 year old granddaughter work just as well...

or maybe an old uncle with a bunch of twenty something nieces?
True. But the slippery slope argument is just as silly as comparing race to sexuality. Educated people can make distinctions.

[Nightwish]

**** THAT.

Tell that to the ex when she takes half your money and the judge says it's absolutely "legal".
I'm not sure how that was meant to refute anything I said. If it were to go the way I described, then those legal entitlements you're talking about would simply be provided for by the civil union contract rather than the marriage contract.

[CRONUS]

Or let's go the other way. Like a 30 year old man has a right to marry their 18 year old daughter if they both consent.

Yes I suppose this is another example of what the voters could decide was ok. So I guess you are cool with that?

[mlyonsd]

would a 58 year old man with an 18 year old granddaughter work just as well?

or maybe an old uncle with a bunch of twenty something nieces?

i mean, after all, if we're gonna carry the notion to extremes, i want a piece of the action too... :p :p :p

Why not? I mean if we want to keep moving the line in the sand and not let the voters determine what they want to allow I don't see any reason to draw that line.

If a guy wants to F**k a sheep he should be able to marry it.

If a grandpa wants to marry his grandaughter to get her on his medical plan why not?

[mlyonsd]

Yes I suppose this is another example of what the voters could decide was ok. So I guess you are cool with that?

Doesn't matter what I'm cool with. It would seem you think the courts should decide what I want.

[go bowe]

True. But the slippery slope is just as silly as comparing race to sexuality.what about ethnic background, national origin, religion?

these are all protected classes under various federal statues afaik, and what is the glaring difference between sexuality and ehnicity (which doesn't necessarily mean race, there are lots of ethnicities that are white, for example)...

national origin is even closer to sexuality...

you can't help where you were born, but it has nothing to do with dna...

and for those of you who think homosexuality is a choice, then lets compare religion and sexuality, since they are both reputedly about free will and choices...

it is not irrational to include sexuality among these quasi-protected classes, none of which are dna-based characteristics (gender or race), and i think one day the sc will one day find that either that sexuality is a protected class or that gender includes sexual orientation...

for patteeu's sake, i hope these changes are accomplished through the legislative process rather than the judicial process...

but unless the president is able to appoint another justice, the current supremes will one day find a rationale to include sexuality as a protected class...

clearly homosexuals are discriminated against, just like women and other minorities have been (and still are in too many instances)...

and sooner or later, equal protection will apply to sexuality under one rationale or another...

just like it does for women and other minorities...

[go bowe]

True. But the slippery slope argument is just as silly as comparing race to sexuality. Educated people can make distinctions.speak for yourself, bub... :p :p :p

[CRONUS]

First Amendment? Duh.Decent point, so the people want to vote in taking away the rights of all rap, why would that not be ok?

[CRONUS]

Doesn't matter what I'm cool with. It would seem you think the courts should decide what I want.

Not sure where you are getting that, I am just against voting determing that is ok to deny people their rights.

[patteeu]

Lets go beyond slavery then, how about just taking away the rights of Christians or Jews because the people vote to do so?

What rights are you talking about? I thought this thread was about gay marriage.

[go bowe]

Why not? I mean if we want to keep moving the line in the sand and not let the voters determine what they want to allow I don't see any reason to draw that line.

If a guy wants to F**k a sheep he should be able to marry it.

If a grandpa wants to marry his grandaughter to get her on his medical plan why not?why not?

well, all my granddaughters and nieces are too damn pretty to have anything to do with an old fart like me, let alone the possible incest related issues that might arise...


as to your point about letting the voters decide, there are some things that should absolutely be decided by the voters and/or their elected representatives...

but protecting our civil rights under the constitution, as those rights pertain to and are shaped by today's world, is the province of the courts and gay "rights" are, at the core, civil rights (imo)...

[Lurch]

Decent point, so the people want to vote in taking away the rights of all rap, why would that not be ok?Rap? Sure. Hell, that would be great. LOL

Seriously though, Rap might have some First Amendment issues as well though (censorship, freedom of expression.)

The right to privacy is the closest thing we might be able to hang your that on with homosexuality, but that's not an amendment (nor is it even expressed, explicityly in the Constitution) but rather it is an implied right the Court pulled from the 4th, 5th, and 9th. And, for now, BL's point that homosexuals are not, presently, a "protected class" which would subject this to the strict scrutiny test, makes it tough.

Maybe you and I think it should be a fundamental right, but at present the court doesn't see it that way. Though maybe it should, and will.
What rights are you talking about? I thought this thread was about gay marriage.
That's the whole problem, right now. Marriage is not a right. Some of us think it should be though.

[mlyonsd]

Not sure where you are getting that, I am just against voting determing that is ok to deny people their rights.

Then you are ok with a father marrying his consenting 18 year old daughter.

[patteeu]

what about ethnic background, national origin, religion?

these are all protected classes under various federal statues afaik, and what is the glaring difference between sexuality and ehnicity (which doesn't necessarily mean race, there are lots of ethnicities that are white, for example)...

national origin is even closer to sexuality...

you can't help where you were born, but it has nothing to do with dna...

and for those of you who think homosexuality is a choice, then lets compare religion and sexuality, since they are both reputedly about free will and choices...

it is not irrational to include sexuality among these quasi-protected classes, none of which are dna-based characteristics (gender or race), and i think one day the sc will one day find that either that sexuality is a protected class or that gender includes sexual orientation...

You make good arguments here (as far as living document arguments go at least, ;) )

for patteeu's sake, i hope these changes are accomplished through the legislative process rather than the judicial process...

LOL, thanks for thinking of me. :)

but unless the president is able to appoint another justice, the current supremes will one day find a rationale to include sexuality as a protected class...

clearly homosexuals are discriminated against, just like women and other minorities have been (and still are in too many instances)...

and sooner or later, equal protection will apply to sexuality under one rationale or another...

just like it does for women and other minorities...

I'm expecting that if Bush doesn't get another chance to appoint a SCOTUS, the next Republican president will follow his lead and finally make the court right.

[Lurch]

what about ethnic background, national origin, religion?...14th explicitly covers those, and/or the SC has subsequently included them as "suspect classifications," as BL point out. They have not included sexuality in that group. Yet, anyway.

[mlyonsd]

why not?

well, all my granddaughters and nieces are too damn pretty to have anything to do with an old fart like me, let alone the possible incest related issues that might arise...


as to your point about letting the voters decide, there are some things that should absolutely be decided by the voters and/or their elected representatives...

but protecting our civil rights under the constitution, as those rights pertain to and are shaped by today's world, is the province of the courts and gay "rights" are, at the core, civil rights (imo)...

Fine, I can live with that.

But I should have a chance to negate your "opinion" and percieved view of today's world. My only chance to do that is at the ballot box.

[go bowe]

You make good arguments here (as far as living document arguments go at least, ;) )



LOL, thanks for thinking of me. :)



I'm expecting that if Bush doesn't get another chance to appoint a SCOTUS, the next Republican president will follow his lead and finally make the court right.i almost made a thread about:

Imagine - rudy gets elected and appoints two or three moderate (o'connor types) who are pro-roe...

wouldn't that be the shits? :p :p :p

[Lurch]

i almost made a thread about :

Imagine - rudy gets elected and appoints two or three moderate (o'connor types) who are pro-roe...

wouldn't that be the shits? :p :p :p

RWNJs would refuse to allow Rudy or McCain to select justices. Heck, they even might go so far as to coerce and pay under-the-table the cons to stay on the court...until they die.

[patteeu]

i almost made a thread about:

Imagine - rudy gets elected and appoints two or three moderate (o'connor types) who are pro-roe...

wouldn't that be the shits? :p :p :p

ROFL That would hurt.

[go bowe]

14th explicitly covers those, and/or the SC has subsequently included them as "suspect classifications," as BL point out. They have not included sexuality in that group. Yet, anyway.i don't think the 14th amendment explicitly says anything about ethnicity, national origin or religion...

those protections started with various civil rights acts in the 60's, iirc (but i could easily be wrong about that)...

the fourteenth doesn't say anything about gender either...

it doesn't even explicitly mention race...

just the rights to life, liberty and property and of equal protection of the laws...

[patteeu]

i don't think the 14th amendment explicitly says anything about ethnicity, national origin or religion...

those protections started with various civil rights acts in the 60's, iirc (but i could easily be wrong about that)...

the fourteenth doesn't say anything about gender either...

it doesn't even explicitly mention race...

just the rights to life, liberty and property and of equal protection of the laws...

Maybe we should get rid of suspect classes altogether. :p

[go bowe]

Fine, I can live with that.

But I should have a chance to negate your "opinion" and percieved view of today's world. My only chance to do that is at the ballot box.like vlad was getting at, rights secured under the constitution are not something that can be negated by popular vote...

and whether or not rights exist under the constitution is the province of the courts, not the legislative branch...

and it's not my opinion that matters, it's the opinion of the supremes that matters in this arena...

i'm just suggesting possible ways that the supremes could rationalize including sexuality as a suspect class at some future point...

but i am definitely asserting that judicial determinations of rights should not be voted away under any circumstances, short of a constitutional amendment...

(and that, of course, is why gay rights issues are framed as "rights" and not privileges)...

[go bowe]

RWNJs would refuse to allow Rudy or McCain to select justices. Heck, they even might go so far as to coerce and pay under-the-table the cons to stay on the court...until they die.i don't think the rwnj's have a majority in the senate...

and there's only 4 cons on the court right now, so nobody would have to pay them to stay on... ROFL ROFL ROFL

[go bowe]

ROFL That would hurt.hee hee...

[Lurch]

i don't think the 14th amendment explicitly says anything about ethnicity, national origin or religion...

those protections started with various civil rights acts in the 60's, iirc (but i could easily be wrong about that)...

the fourteenth doesn't say anything about gender either...

it doesn't even explicitly mention race...

just the rights to life, liberty and property and of equal protection of the laws...
You are right, the 14th is about "equal protection," but...

Section 5, 14th Amendment:
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

From, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 201:
....discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

I don't think you find a comparable piece of legislation, to include sexuality as one of the classes to be protected under "equal protection." But maybe I'm wrong.

i don't think the rwnj's have a majority in the senate...

and there's only 4 cons on the court right now, so nobody would have to pay them to stay on... ROFL ROFL ROFL

Kennedy's position as a moderate and swing vote, especially on this issue, cannot be counted on.

[mlyonsd]

like vlad was getting at, rights secured under the constitution are not something that can be negated by popular vote...

and whether or not rights exist under the constitution is the province of the courts, not the legislative branch...

and it's not my opinion that matters, it's the opinion of the supremes that matters in this arena...

i'm just suggesting possible ways that the supremes could rationalize including sexuality as a suspect class at some future point...

but i am definitely asserting that judicial determinations of rights should not be voted away under any circumstances, short of a constitutional amendment...

(and that, of course, is why gay rights issues are framed as "rights" and not privileges)...

My point is once the courts break open the dam and point to "rights secured under the constitution" I don't see the difference of that being what two men or women decide as opposed to say, a father and consenting daughter.

At some point the public should make that call.

[go bowe]

Maybe we should get rid of suspect classes altogether. :pin go bo's ideal world, there wouldn't be any classes... :p :p :p

[go bowe]

You are right, the 14th is about "equal protection," but...

Section 5, 14th Amendment:
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

From, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, section 201:
....discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

I don't think you find a comparable piece of legislation, to include sexuality as one of the classes to be protected under "equal protection." But maybe I'm wrong.no, there isn't any such class now, but what i was saying is that there are rationales that could be used to create such a class, either legislatively or by the supremes on their own using the fifth and fourteenth amendments...

[go bowe]

Kennedy's position as a moderate and swing vote, especially on this issue, cannot be counted on.wasn't he with the majority in romer?

kennedy is actually a bit of a conservative, but not enough to satisfy many conservatives...

[go bowe]

My point is once the courts break open the dam and point to "rights secured under the constitution" I don't see the difference of that being what two men or women decide as opposed to say, a father and consenting daughter.

At some point the public should make that call.the courts broke that dam open quite some time ago...

and no, i'm not sure i agree with the notion that the public should make calls about fundamental civil liberties...

in fact, i'm quite sure i don't agree with you on that score...

and, while i'm not trying to bust your balls here, my opinion is is that if the daughter is of legal age, then why not?

(i know, i know, incest and birth defects and all that stuff - but isn't that the answer to your question? the state can indeed regulate on those grounds and that's why there won't be any legalized incest even after gay marriage is established (someday)...)

[go bowe]

My point is once the courts break open the dam and point to "rights secured under the constitution"...the right of privacy emanated from the "Bill of Rights or its penumbras", using the language from roe v. wade...

the "penumbras" have broken the dam wide open, in my humble view...

[Lurch]

...the "penumbras" have broken the dam wide open, in my humble view...

For activist courts, perhaps. The question is, do we have an activist court. It's why I'm not too hopeful.

[patteeu]

kennedy is actually a bit of a conservative, but not enough to satisfy many conservatives...

Very true.

[BucEyedPea]

(and that, of course, is why gay rights issues are framed as "rights" and not privileges)...

Putting the word "gay" before "rights" is special interest rights.
They have the same rights as all "persons" under the Constitution.
Therefore they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex...the same as the rest of us. To go an alternate route is a special right/privilege I don't care what you want to call it.

This issue is NOT a Constitutional matter as marrying someone of the same sex is not a fundamental right: like life. You may argue "liberty" on it but the powers of Federal Constitution are also "specific" and "enumerated" and was written primarily as a restraint of Federal power. Please tell me where our Federal Congress has made laws pertaining to marriage liscenses and who could marry who?

The Congress also has the power to disallow the SC to even hear certain types of cases. I believe that was done with this congress under Bush at one point iiric.

This is a state matter, not a federal matter and yes it is up to each state to decide how they want to handle it unless of course, one has bought into the modern notion ( including spurious precedents...using far flung penumbras,the 14th Amendment being one which was ratified under duress and meant for black people originally) that the breakdown of our federalist system is actually Constitutional. That would be a modern "liberal" view.

IMO the only way to compromise on this issue is to keep the whole matter private for all...including civil unions. Otherwise, making it a federal "inalienable" rights matter just sets up this movement up to force others acceptance. It's not an "inalienable" right particularly when they have to seek permission or liscense to do something. Thus, it is a value judgement. These get left to community standards or the states and can be determined by the people—not some judge's opinion.

You understand money right?
What about discrimination suits on private insurance, suing private businesses who may refuse to cover gay's benefits, or worse suing private restaurants who may put their foot down if they make-out in public. Don't forget we also live in a welfare state, where the consequences of other people's choices impinge on our wallets.

Based on a post on another board, with a link I no longer have, there was a gay-owned business that had to stop covering their health benefits because the cost was soaring due to claims. They are in a risky bracket healthwise, which is not suprising due to their lifestyles. You know things like the average promiscuous gay man having 500 partners a lifetime compared to the average straight promiscuous male who has 100. They are NOT monogamous. Note I said average, so I don't wanna hear about the exceptions to the rule like the Wilt Chamberlains as I am sure athletes have a higher number as well...just like musicians.

You can't just say that this issue has no impact on other people's lives.
The solution must be one that prevents them from forcing others to pay for their choices and not setting things up for them to sue those who don't accept it. You know a real true each to their own and live and let live as it can get. Having the courts declare this as a "right" will not do this either.

[BucEyedPea]

I see the Fourteenth Amendment as more of the culprit here as I've posted before for those relying on it :

This is an edited re-post.

This is an amendment that has been used to erode the idea of the Framers that the Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on Fed Gov't powers.

The idea of the Bill of Rights being interpreted against the states in a way which put them more under the thumb of the Fed Gov't...something the Framers were against and states were afraid of which was why the Bill of Rights were added in the first place. Let's not forget that the Federal govt got it's right to exist from the states—not the other way around. The states existed before it.

The history of the 14th Amendment's passing includes the claim that such erosion on the states would be the result was DENIED by those recommending it, as it was originally intended to protect freed blacks in the post-Civil War period. Further its "privileges or immunities" do not clearly claim all the rights in the Bill of Rights...if you actually read it and which was understood by most of the ratifiers in 1866.

Unfortunately, even libertarians (such as Pilon at Cato) fall on both sides of this amendment. But imo it's arguable--as in NOT perfectly clear. So, why should it give us fundamental change to the federalist system we were given 1789?

It was also ratified at the point of a gun—under duress. The southern and border states decisely rejected it but had to ratify in order to end military rule.

IMO the 14th Amendment should be repealed and rewritten with tighter language.

[mlyonsd]

the courts broke that dam open quite some time ago...

and no, i'm not sure i agree with the notion that the public should make calls about fundamental civil liberties...

in fact, i'm quite sure i don't agree with you on that score...

and, while i'm not trying to bust your balls here, my opinion is is that if the daughter is of legal age, then why not?

(i know, i know, incest and birth defects and all that stuff - but isn't that the answer to your question? the state can indeed regulate on those grounds and that's why there won't be any legalized incest even after gay marriage is established (someday)...)

Leave it to you to not have a problem with my extreme example. :) I'll call your crazy and raise you an outrageous...why worry about birth defects when there already is a remedy in place? a.k.a abortion. All right, enough of that. Take your peace love hippy crap somewhere else. :p

I'm not sure marriage is a fundamental civil liberty. Nobody is saying gay people don't have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness here. What they aren't being afforded is a piece of paper labeled "Marriage Certificate".

And if you want use the constitution the way you are for one class of people I don't see how you can close the door on all the others. My view is the people of a state should be allowed to make that choice.

I believe activist judges have hurt the gay community cause to some degree. Because of them you see these goofy laws being passed by state legislatures trying to protect what is a percieved threat on the morality of the majority.

If the courts would stay out of it and let states decide the acceptance of gay marriage would eventually envelope the nation IMO. Trying to force it down the throats (no pun intended) on the majority only slows down that process.

[banyon]

not sure why this is big news. Not giving laws against gay marriage/homosexuality protected status and the benefit of "strict" or even "intermediate" scrutiny has been the status quo since Bowers v. Hardwick in 1972.

Basically this court just said that's the way it still is.

Not that I really give a f*** which way this issue goes. It doesn't really affect me either way.

[FringeNC]

I read something the other day that I feel might kill off the support for gay marriage...

In Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legalized (via the courts), firms are no longer allowing gays to put significant others on firm benefit packages (else they'd have to allow us to do the same thing)....in other words, it forces gays to get married to receive this benefit. Now I have a feeling a lot of gays aren't going to like this too much, but I could be wrong.

[Nightwish]

I read something the other day that I feel might kill off the support for gay marriage...

In Massachusetts, where gay marriage has been legalized (via the courts), firms are no longer allowing gays to put significant others on firm benefit packages (else they'd have to allow us to do the same thing)....in other words, it forces gays to get married to receive this benefit. Now I have a feeling a lot of gays aren't going to like this too much, but I could be wrong.If they had previously allowed only gays to do that, as a way of making up for the fact that they couldn't marry and get all the legal entitlements accorded to married couples, then losing that particular privelege would be a logical consequence of the legalization of gay marriage. They lose one benefit, but gain several others.

On the other hand, if they were allowing both gay and straight couples who were not married to include a "significant other" on the benefit packages, then it would be wrong to eliminate gays from that privelege (if they previously held it) without also eliminating straights from it.

[go bowe]

For activist courts, perhaps. The question is, do we have an activist court. It's why I'm not too hopeful.we do have an activist court...

and if the conservatives gain the majority, we'll still have an activist court...

if there were no controversy or question of how the law should be applied to the facts of a case, there would not be a case before the supremes to act on...

the court can't issue declaratory opinions, they can only act on actual cases...

and any decision the court makes that reinterprets or attempts to clarify the law seems activist to those who disagree with the decision...

it's the nature of a legal system in a free democracy that everybody gets to criticize the judiciary and openly disagree with them...

and somebody always will...

left or right or moderate, it makes no difference...

[go bowe]

Leave it to you to not have a problem with my extreme example. :) I'll call your crazy and raise you an outrageous...why worry about birth defects when there already is a remedy in place? a.k.a abortion. All right, enough of that. Take your peace love hippy crap somewhere else. :p

* * *you know, i never thought of that...

abortion as remedy for incestual pregnancy...

that puts the issue in a whole new light... :p :p :p

[go bowe]

* * *
I'm not sure marriage is a fundamental civil liberty. Nobody is saying gay people don't have the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness here. What they aren't being afforded is a piece of paper labeled "Marriage Certificate".

* * *
"aren't being afforded"...

that's the equal protection argument, different treatment for different groups...

without the benefit of being a suspect class, the equal protection issue still requires a rational relation to a legitimate state interest...

and you're absolutely right, marriage is not a fundamental liberty at all...

it's the access to the legal benefits of marriage that raises the equal protection issue...

(people often comment that marriage isn't a right, but that really isn't the issue, and i thought i'd take a minute and clarify that, as i perceive the world today, and all that)

[go bowe]

* * *
And if you want use the constitution the way you are for one class of people I don't see how you can close the door on all the others. My view is the people of a state should be allowed to make that choice.

* * *it's the rational relation to a legitimate state interest...

while some court may ultimately find that there is no legitimate state interest in denying marriage to same sex couples, it's less likely that a court would find no legitimate interest on the basis of potential birth defects (incest) or protecting underage people (as well as nonconsenting people - plural wives, in some instances if news reports are to be believed)...

where legitimate state interests are in play (as defined by the court), it doesn't take much to satisfy the rational relation test...

iow, there are other legal justifications for limiting marriage between close relatives, for example...

gay marriage, if it ever happens, will not open the floodgates to pedophiles, polygamists and practioners of bestiality, although i'd have to think pretty hard about polygamy...

picking up a young wife every few years does have a certain appeal...

hmmmmm...

[go bowe]

* * *
I believe activist judges have hurt the gay community cause to some degree. Because of them you see these goofy laws being passed by state legislatures trying to protect what is a percieved threat on the morality of the majority.

If the courts would stay out of it and let states decide the acceptance of gay marriage would eventually envelope the nation IMO. Trying to force it down the throats (no pun intended) on the majority only slows down that process.i think you're right about the backlash against the gay rights decisions that have come down lately (namely the gay marriage bans in an ever-growing number of states)...

and i think you're right that if the courts would stay out of it, eventually gay rights will be accepted and some form of gay marriage will be legalized...

it's just that gay people don't want to wait for a few more generations for legal equality, they want it now...

just like those pesky negros that couldn't wait another hundred years for the right to vote and sit at the same counter as other people...

all those demonstrations and fuss...

(no, i'm not suggesting that gay rights are equivalent or as far-reaching as race-based civil rights)

seriously, if it's going to happen anyway, why make (gay) people wait?

[BucEyedPea]

If this is supposed to be a free country, any business should be able to cover and not cover whoever they want. Those health and other benefits are not a right. They're benefits.

[mlyonsd]

i think you're right about the backlash against the gay rights decisions that have come down lately (namely the gay marriage bans in an ever-growing number of states)...

and i think you're right that if the courts would stay out of it, eventually gay rights will be accepted and some form of gay marriage will be legalized...

it's just that gay people don't want to wait for a few more generations for legal equality, they want it now...

just like those pesky negros that couldn't wait another hundred years for the right to vote and sit at the same counter as other people...

all those demonstrations and fuss...

(no, i'm not suggesting that gay rights are equivalent or as far-reaching as race-based civil rights)

seriously, if it's going to happen anyway, why make (gay) people wait?

heh, for a fag loving dope smoking hippy you have a nice calm way of making your point.

Seriously though I would say that because the gay population has won you over doesn't mean the majority believes the same thing.

The example of the incestal couple helps prove my point. I could argue that any reason they should not be allowed to marry can be negated. And just because you or the rest of the public doesn't agree with their way of life doesn't mean they shouldn't be afforded the same marriage rights as hetrosexuals, using your same line of thinking.

Unless of course we let the public decide where that line is in the sand.

[patteeu]

heh, for a Rump Ranger loving dope smoking hippy you have a nice calm way of making your point.

He does, doesn't he. I keep trying to get worked up over that mushroom-cloud-fearing, living-document-supporting, capital-letter-eschewing, Dick-Cheney-mocking, ivy league bastard but I just can't do it. :)

[keg in kc]

(no, i'm not suggesting that gay rights are equivalent or as far-reaching as race-based civil rights)Not equivalent, but similar in a myriad of ways.

My stance is what it always has been on this. Sexuality should not be a determinant with regards to the *legal* institution of marriage. If any couple of any combination of gender (polygamy is another issue here...) wishes to stand on the courthouse steps and make their partnership "legal"...I say go for it.

Marriage as a *religious* institution, is something else. Denominations must be given the freedom to determine who they can and will marry within the confines of their own particular doctrine. If a Catholic church, for instance, refuses to marry a gay couple under their steeple because it's a sin under their law, well, that's their choice and their right. If a Protestant church of some variety someday comes out and says they support homosexual marriage, then that's their right, as well.

Personally, I see this as an issue that we should all keep our noses out of, just like most social or sexual issues. Certain issues need to be addressed (sex with children, for instance) in order to protect individuals who can't protect themselves, but for the most part, I say live your life the way you think is right, and give others the freedom to do the same.

Too bad most of America doesn't support that kind of freedom.

[BucEyedPea]

Personally, I see this as an issue that we should all keep our noses out of, just like most social or sexual issues. ..Too bad most of America doesn't support that kind of freedom.


Usually anything that's public has to involve the public's say.
Marriage just happens to be a very "public" thing.
Why should anyone even need a liscense, aka permission to marry when for thousands of years people just up and married. Heck, you had sex with a woman you were married.

[ImAWalkingCorpse]

I don't care either way but I feel like if someone is stupid enough to get married they should be allowed to.

[headsnap]

If any couple of any combination of gender (polygamy is another issue here...) wishes to stand on the courthouse steps and make their partnership "legal"...I say go for it.



sounds like the definition of a Civil Union.

[CRONUS]

sounds like the definition of a Civil Union.I find this absolutely amusing, two heterosexuals go to the courthouse and it is a marriage. But let it be two gays and it has to be a civil union. What a load of crap.

[Lurch]

I find this absolutely amusing, two heterosexuals go to the courthouse and it is a marriage. But let it be two gays and it has to be a civil union. What a load of crap.
Yeah, I don't get it. Their rationale rests on that phrase: "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests." Personally, ending tax exempt status for religious groups would seem to be more "rationally related to a legitimate state interests." And before you Jesus freaks jump me, tax exempt status is a privilege, not a right; just as many of you are contending is the case here.

[keg in kc]

sounds like the definition of a Civil Union.I'd be fine with renaming legal marriages Civil Unions, regardless of the orientation of the couple seeking the union.

[keg in kc]

Usually anything that's public has to involve the public's say.
Marriage just happens to be a very "public" thing.
Why should anyone even need a liscense, aka permission to marry when for thousands of years people just up and married. Heck, you had sex with a woman you were married.I'm not sure what your point is, if you have one.

[htismaqe]

Yeah, I don't get it. Their rationale rests on that phrase: "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests." Personally, ending tax exempt status for religious groups would seem to be more "rationally related to a legitimate state interests." And before you Jesus freaks jump me, tax exempt status is a privilege, not a right; just as many of you are contending is the case here.

Requiring churches to pay taxes would be a gross violation of the separation of church and state. It goes both ways.

[BucEyedPea]

I'm not sure what your point is, if you have one.

Just that marriage, historically, was not the province of the state.
People just up and married for thousands of years without state interference as I have researched.

And also that "public" things get decided by public vote. Gov't can regulate public morality. So if marriage remains a public thing then the people can define it. If marriage becomes a private thing...then there is more freedom.

That's all.

[Nightwish]

Requiring churches to pay taxes would be a gross violation of the separation of church and state. It goes both ways.
I agree, to an extent. However, there are a lot of religious groups out there who involve themselves in politics, legislation, government lobbying, and so on. Those groups' qualifications for tax-exemption are a little more murky.

[Lurch]

Requiring churches to pay taxes would be a gross violation of the separation of church and state. It goes both ways.Actually, that is not true. Tax exempt status for religious groups is a tradition and privilege. The Courts have ruled that the exemption does not violate the First Amendment, but that states are not required to grant the exemption. Practically speaking though, the states have bowed to enormous political pressures to grant the exemptions.

[Nightwish]

To be honest, I'd be all for requiring churches to pay taxes. As much money as they bring in every year, they could balance the national budget on their own by the end of the decade!

[headsnap]

I'd be fine with renaming legal marriages Civil Unions, regardless of the orientation of the couple seeking the union.
:bravo:

I am ALL for that!!!

[go bowe]

heh, for a Rump Ranger loving dope smoking hippy you have a nice calm way of making your point. . .hey, i don't love any rump rangers, although i did stay at a holiday inn express a while back...


and as far as calm, isn't that what smoking dope is supposed to do for ya? :bong:

[Rausch]

I'd be fine with renaming legal marriages Civil Unions, regardless of the orientation of the couple seeking the union.

Exactly.

Most who oppose gay marriage do so for religous reasons, so keep calling marriages done inside (church of your belief) a marriage and anything done at the courthouse a civil union...

[go bowe]

* * *
The example of the incestal couple helps prove my point. I could argue that any reason they should not be allowed to marry can be negated. And just because you or the rest of the public doesn't agree with their way of life doesn't mean they shouldn't be afforded the same marriage rights as hetrosexuals, using your same line of thinking. . .basically, if one were to accept the premise that access to marriage is not an equal protection issue, then almost all of your arguments would be rock solid and quite correct (in most respects, i'm still thinking about polygamy)...

and not just in this post, but consistently throughout your posting on the subject...

iow, i disagree with you on the equal protection issue, but i can't really quibble with how you view the subject and express your opinions...

i can't do like bl and point out all the logical fallacies or reframe the debate to make you look silly, you make good solid reasonable points...

i like to disagree with people like you, it's actually intellectually stimulating for a home-bound old fart (i don't know about other people's reactions)...

[go bowe]

. . .Unless of course we let the public decide where that line is in the sand.i guess that's the other point that i disagree with you about...

as i've said, some lines should be and are drawn by the public through their representatives...

and some lines must be drawn by the courts, when fundamental liberties are involved (i know, i know, that's the other major point that we disagree on, at least i'm consistent (for now))...

[go bowe]

He does, doesn't he. I keep trying to get worked up over that mushroom-cloud-fearing, living-document-supporting, capital-letter-eschewing, Dick-Cheney-mocking, ivy league bastard but I just can't do it. :)hey, i don't mock dick cheney, i just needle you about him every once in awhile...

as for the rest, well...

[go bowe]

* * *
Personally, I see this as an issue that we should all keep our noses out of, just like most social or sexual issues. Certain issues need to be addressed (sex with children, for instance) in order to protect individuals who can't protect themselves, but for the most part, I say live your life the way you think is right, and give others the freedom to do the same.

Too bad most of America doesn't support that kind of freedom.that's pretty much my view too, and it is apparently the view of the supremes, more and more...

and we do support that kind of freedom, to an extent greater than any other country (with the possible exception of british columbia)...

i remain hopeful that the supremes will continue to protect our liberties and continue to view them in terms of present realities and developments over time (take that patteeu)...

[go bowe]

Requiring churches to pay taxes would be a gross violation of the separation of church and state. It goes both ways.yes it does...

where some churches get in trouble (i.e., lose their tax-exempt status) is when they get into profit-making business on a large scale (moonies, iirc) or when they get into politics in an organized way...

and even then, (i thnk) they only lose the tax-exmpt status for the part of the organization that is disqualified by operating a business or becoming directly involved in politics...

all of which seems quite appropriate to me, under the first amendment...

[go bowe]

Actually, that is not true. Tax exempt status for religious groups is a tradition and privilege. The Courts have ruled that the exemption does not violate the First Amendment, but that states are not required to grant the exemption. Practically speaking though, the states have bowed to enormous political pressures to grant the exemptions.that's interesting, do you have a case name or a link?

[go bowe]

or maybe you're referring to state sales tax exemptions (although i don't think religious tax exemptions at the state level are privileges)?

what about federal (irs) tax exemptions?

are they privileges too?

[Chief Faithful]

To be honest, I'd be all for requiring churches to pay taxes. As much money as they bring in every year, they could balance the national budget on their own by the end of the decade!

I don't know if you meant it this way, but I find it so humorous when people equate the deficit as a function of not enough taxes. Its the same humor as a shopping adict who saves money by going to every sale they can find. If only they had more money they could pay off that credit card so they could save even more.

It would seem like a big mistake to start taxing our charity foundations just to feed Congress's vote buying addiction.

[Baby Lee]

i can't do like bl and point out all the logical fallacies or reframe the debate to make you look silly, you make good solid reasonable points...
Honored or insulted?
Honored or insulted?
Honored or insulted?

:shrug: ;)

[go bowe]

Honored or insulted?
Honored or insulted?
Honored or insulted?

:shrug: ;)probably a little of both... :p :p :p

[Nightwish]

I don't know if you meant it this way, but I find it so humorous when people equate the deficit as a function of not enough taxes. Its the same humor as a shopping adict who saves money by going to every sale they can find. If only they had more money they could pay off that credit card so they could save even more.
No, it wasn't meant that way. It was meant by way of offering a TIC commentary about how much wealth is brought in by religious institutions every year. Have you ever heard the joke often made by the middle class that if they only had Bill Gates' interest on his savings, they would die wealthy? My meaning was in that vein.

It would seem like a big mistake to start taxing our charity foundations just to feed Congress's vote buying addiction.
Nobody said anything about charitable institutions. But since you bring it up, I would also be all for taxing them for any monies they bring in above and beyond what actually goes out to the cause they are representing. There are a lot of charitable institutions that give only a small percentage of their intake to the causes they ostensibly represent. Taxing their excess would certainly work toward making them more honest.

[BucEyedPea]

Nobody said anything about charitable institutions. But since you bring it up, I would also be all for taxing them for any monies they bring in above and beyond what actually goes out to the cause they are representing. There are a lot of charitable institutions that give only a small percentage of their intake to the causes they ostensibly represent. Taxing their excess would certainly work toward making them more honest.


I'm surprised to hear you say these things Nightwish.
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion...it doesn't
regulate and control and that includes it's manner or raising funds which are DONATIONS.

This is not free exercise. It's nobody's dang business how they collect their money or how they spend it. This isn't a communist country or a fascism. ( not fully anyway....let's not extend it)

As for charitable organizations only giving a percentage of what they get that's because of administrative overhead...that's NO different than a govt bureaucracy. Many times its the bureaucrats who don't want to be out of a job that want to keep a certain govt program...not because it's doing any good or helping people. There's far more room for abuse.

One of the reasons for the faith based programs ( and not I do not advocate them necessarily) is that private charities including those that are run by religious organizations have a far better record than govt ones. They can't afford not to because they just can't resort to FORCE like the govt by continuing to tax even when a program is not successful which is exactly what happens.

I 'm not saying they're perfect or that they should not beheld to any standards for fraud....but I just can't believe how those on the left think they have to right to regulate and control the free exercise of religion.

[Lurch]

that's interesting, do you have a case name or a link?It is interesting. Just to be clear, I should rephrase my previous statemement. It appears the Courts thus far have allowed the exemptions under the free exercise clause. However, I don't believe they (in a majority opinion) have ever said the exemption itself is guaranteed.

In some of the opinions, justices say that the idea of "taxing a church" could "inhibit" free exercise. Although, if they were treated the same as other organizations, I don't see how that argument holds weight. So donors would have to buck up the extra to cover the taxes, or activities cut back. Is that really undue "interference?" I don't know. The justices in the Walz decision do hint at that--that taxing chruches might actually create an unconstitutional entanglement.

This is the best I could do at the moment. It appears quite unsettled, (like so many cases involving the tension between the establishment and free exercise provisions) from my quick look at it. I don't see where the Court has ruled, directly, on the question other than to say states may grant the exemption, and that the exemption can be limited.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#f132

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&invol=664


It seems to me, worth noting that they have allowed the exemption in some instances to be taken away or limited. I'm no legal beagle, so perhaps someone can clarify it for us? :hmmm:

For the record, I'm not advocating that we do it--and actually take away their exempt status. I'm only pointing out that the potential for tax revenues and balancing the budget as being far more related to a "legitimate" state interest than keeping gays from marrying. But I guess the rational basis test only requires that it be legitimate, not necessarily more legitimate than other interests.

[Lurch]

In an interesting side-note from the Walz case, they quote Justice Holmes in another case, Jackman vs. Rosenbaum, 1922.

"If such a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a stong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it...

There's a bit of irony, given the thread topic.

[BucEyedPea]

In some of the opinions, justices say that the idea of "taxing a church" could "inhibit" free exercise. Although, if they were treated the same as other organizations, I don't see how that argument holds weight. So donors would have to buck up the extra to cover the taxes, or activities cut back. Is that really undue "interference?" I don't know. The justices in the Walz decision do hint at that--that taxing chruches might actually create an unconstitutional entanglement.


Wtf? Every Church has rules for how they give often based on it's belief system. Some have to tithe a certain amount, some pay for their pews others leave it up to voluntary amounts.

They should NOT be treated like other non-religious organizations no matter what some anti-religion socialist, commie or fascist judge thinks.

Thank heavens you mentioned that Walz decision.

That people would even entertain this idea is mid-boggling!

[BucEyedPea]

"If such a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a stong case for the Fourteenth Amendment to affect it...

May I ask what "such a thing" is referring to? :hmmm:

[mlyonsd]

basically, if one were to accept the premise that access to marriage is not an equal protection issue, then almost all of your arguments would be rock solid and quite correct (in most respects, i'm still thinking about polygamy)...

and not just in this post, but consistently throughout your posting on the subject...

iow, i disagree with you on the equal protection issue, but i can't really quibble with how you view the subject and express your opinions...

i can't do like bl and point out all the logical fallacies or reframe the debate to make you look silly, you make good solid reasonable points...

i like to disagree with people like you, it's actually intellectually stimulating for a home-bound old fart (i don't know about other people's reactions)...

I speak mainly from the midwest with no training in the law department so you probably know more about the legality of the issue than me.

I see things more from the redneck point of view where everything is more clear if you don't have to interrpret laws and chit.

As for bl, I agree with him most of the time only because I don't want him making me look like more of a fool than I already do. He can be brutal. :)

[mlyonsd]

i guess that's the other point that i disagree with you about...

as i've said, some lines should be and are drawn by the public through their representatives...

and some lines must be drawn by the courts, when fundamental liberties are involved (i know, i know, that's the other major point that we disagree on, at least i'm consistent (for now))...

IMO some issues are so finite that even our constitution can be read two different ways.

When it gets to that level I think the people should make the call instead of the courts. After that what is actually the right call will eventually fall into place at the ballot box.

[patteeu]

As for bl, I agree with him most of the time only because I don't want him making me look like more of a fool than I already do. He can be brutal. :)

Isn't that why everyone who agrees with BL does it? Half the time, I don't have any idea what he's saying but I agree with him anyway just to stay out of his crosshairs. :)

[Nightwish]

I'm surprised to hear you say these things Nightwish.
The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion...it doesn't
regulate and control and that includes it's manner or raising funds which are DONATIONS.

This is not free exercise. It's nobody's dang business how they collect their money or how they spend it. This isn't a communist country or a fascism. ( not fully anyway....let's not extend it)
We're kind of seesawing back and forth between two different subjects here. The comment to which you are objecting was not about donations to a religious institution or the free exercise of religion. That's the other subject, and my comments about taxing them to end the national debt was a joke. My comment was specifically regarding charitable organizations, and more specifically those ones who are wont to undercut the causes they claim to represent, or which are guilty of outright fraud, and though I would say most charities are on the up and up, there are still plenty of both of the former types.

As for charitable organizations only giving a percentage of what they get that's because of administrative overhead...that's NO different than a govt bureaucracy.
That's not what I'm talking about either. I know they have administrative overhead. I figured it should be a given that those monies are exempt from my critique. It's the organizations who, once they have cleared their overhead and distributed their monies to their represented causes, still have an excess which they keep for their own gain, an untaxed profit. I mostly brought that up because of a recent discussion about a fraudulent charity sponsored by Newt Gingrich (the Abraham Lincoln Opportunity Fund, which purported to raise money for underpriveleged inner-city children, but instead acted as a front to funnel money into GOPAC accounts to fund Republican Party propaganda ad campaigns).

[Mr. Kotter]

Gone for a couple of days. I'll try to catch up tomorrow....

I figured I could count on John to make it interesting, at least. :)

[CRONUS]

Isn't that why everyone who agrees with BL does it? Half the time, I don't have any idea what he's saying but I agree with him anyway just to stay out of his crosshairs. :)

Bah, it is fun getting in a big debate with Baby Lee. Course I have no fear, you win some, you lose some, and others you just never reach a conclusion.

[Chief Faithful]

Nobody said anything about charitable institutions. But since you bring it up, I would also be all for taxing them for any monies they bring in above and beyond what actually goes out to the cause they are representing. There are a lot of charitable institutions that give only a small percentage of their intake to the causes they ostensibly represent. Taxing their excess would certainly work toward making them more honest.

Based upon the IRS definition religious institutions and charitable organizations are different and I understand your point. My point was most people view their church as a charitiable institution, which is why the Bush administration created the term Faith Based Programs. The whole purpose was to encourage the kind of local community benevolance and heart felt giving that is common.

The money collected from the congregation of the church is already taxed money and I believe we are double taxed way too much as it is by our local governments. I don't have any issue with taxing a church on money collected from their business ventures, but I do not agree that it is a good idea to mine the charity of people who give trying to do good based on their religious beliefs. I don't believe the government should tax any charitiable institution faith based or not especially if the money collected has already been taxed.

[go bowe]

Based upon the IRS definition religious institutions and charitable organizations are different and I understand your point. My point was most people view their church as a charitiable institution, which is why the Bush administration created the term Faith Based Programs. The whole purpose was to encourage the kind of local community benevolance and heart felt giving that is common.

The money collected from the congregation of the church is already taxed money and I believe we are double taxed way too much as it is by our local governments. I don't have any issue with taxing a church on money collected from their business ventures, but I do not agree that it is a good idea to mine the charity of people who give trying to do good based on their religious beliefs. I don't believe the government should tax any charitiable institution faith based or not especially if the money collected has already been taxed.i'm not certain, but i think the irs distinctions have to do with how religious organizations and non-profit charities are defined in the law...

they both are tax exempt but the exemption for churches is based primarily on the first amendment...

while the tax exemptions for non-religious non-profit charities are a creature of statute...

afaik, nearly every state has constitutional or statutory provisions granting tax exemptions for such charities...

and you're absolutely right that churches can be taxed on their business revenues, and when they go too far in the political arena (as it should be)...

[Chief Faithful]

No, it wasn't meant that way. It was meant by way of offering a TIC commentary about how much wealth is brought in by religious institutions every year. Have you ever heard the joke often made by the middle class that if they only had Bill Gates' interest on his savings, they would die wealthy? My meaning was in that vein.




When most people say they want to find a way to increase taxes on others not themselves they typically are not just providing commentary they typically mean what they are saying. This is why the IRS was formed and the current tax format was created by the Federal government in 1909 (16th Amendment).

Most people who make suggestions of creating a new tax on another group as a means to paying off the deficit they are not joking they really mean it. When Mike Tyson wins a fight with a $100M purse then years later claims bankruptcy its not because the money wasn't sufficient its because he spent money like a drunken sailor. The deficit will not go away by creating a new tax because spending is the problem.

Besides, it has been proven twice (Reagan & Bush) that a federal tax cut spurs investment, which returns more money to the government. Why not give another tax cut and reduce spending to eliminate the deficit instead of taxing personal charity. This is a combination that Congress has not tried since the deficit has existed.

As for the effect of increased tax Kennedy knew the cause and effects, which is why he raised taxes in 1962 to slow the economy to keep it from growing too fast due to the war effort in Vietnam.

[Nightwish]

When most people say they want to find a way to increase taxes on others not themselves they typically are not just providing commentary they typically mean what they are saying. This is why the IRS was formed and the current tax format was created by the Federal government in 1912.

Most people who make suggestions of creating a new tax on another group as a means to paying off the deficit they are not joking they really mean it. When Mike Tyson wins a fight with a $100M purse then years later claims bankruptcy its not because the money wasn't sufficient its because he spent money like a drunken sailor. The deficit will not go away by creating a new tax because spending is the problem.

Besides, it has been proven twice (Reagan & Bush) that a federal tax cut spurs investment, which returns more money to the government. Why not give another tax cut and reduce spending to eliminate the deficit instead of taxing personal charity. This is a combination that Congress has not tried since the deficit has existed.

As for the effect of increased tax Kennedy knew the cause and effects, which is why he raised taxes in 1962 to slow the economy to keep it from growing too fast due to the war effort in Vietnam.
I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with "most people." I'm not most people. I'm me. And my comment was a joke. I figured the hyperbole about ending the national deficit by the end of the decade would have made that clear. I promise to include a smilie next time, as much as I tend to dislike the use of such.

[Nightwish]

Based upon the IRS definition religious institutions and charitable organizations are different and I understand your point. My point was most people view their church as a charitiable institution, which is why the Bush administration created the term Faith Based Programs. The whole purpose was to encourage the kind of local community benevolance and heart felt giving that is common.

The money collected from the congregation of the church is already taxed money and I believe we are double taxed way too much as it is by our local governments. I don't have any issue with taxing a church on money collected from their business ventures, but I do not agree that it is a good idea to mine the charity of people who give trying to do good based on their religious beliefs. I don't believe the government should tax any charitiable institution faith based or not especially if the money collected has already been taxed.
As long as they keep religious endorsement out of the political pulpit, and political endorsement out of the religious pulpit, then they should remain tax-exempt. When they try to blur the boundaries, that's when they deserve to be taxed, in my opinion.

[Chief Faithful]

i'm not certain, but i think the irs distinctions have to do with how religious organizations and non-profit charities are defined in the law...

they both are tax exempt but the exemption for churches is based primarily on the first amendment...

while the tax exemptions for non-religious non-profit charities are a creature of statute...



I don't think they are tax exempt because of the first amendment I think it is more a function of the government never applying the tax to the Church. The IRS is where everything is classified and the code changes every year so it has evolved over time. The original code was created by the Federal government (16th Amendment, 1909) to tax the rich as a response to an out-cry from the poor.

The rich responded by creating corporations to protect them from taxation. Then Congress became hungry for more money and kept finding more ways to tax people. Soon you had to be rich to afford the protection from taxation and the only people who suffered from taxes where the very people who demanded the Fed create the IRS and it is still that way today.

[Chief Faithful]

I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with "most people." I'm not most people. I'm me. And my comment was a joke. I figured the hyperbole about ending the national deficit by the end of the decade would have made that clear. I promise to include a smilie next time, as much as I tend to dislike the use of such.

Well as I said, I do find it humorous. It's better to know you're not serious.

[Chief Faithful]

As long as they keep religious endorsement out of the political pulpit, and political endorsement out of the religious pulpit, then they should remain tax-exempt. When they try to blur the boundaries, that's when they deserve to be taxed, in my opinion.

Agreed on endorsements although, people do vote their beliefs. What I hate just as much is when Church's hand over the pulpit to a politician. This is a common with Al Gore, Shrillary, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when they want to reach the black community.

Contrary to most media reports Christians are just as diverse in opinion as the rest of the people on the earth and they include both Republicans and Democrats. As Zell Miller tried to make a point of to the DNC, the party would do well to try and shore up their own Christian base.

Matthew 22:21 - "Then render to Ceasar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

[Nightwish]

Agreed on endorsements although, people do vote their beliefs. What I hate just as much is when Church's hand over the pulpit to a politician. This is a common with Al Gore, Shrillary, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when they want to reach the black community.

I agree that handing over the church pulpit to politicians to galvanize a political community within the church, is a bad thing to do, whether it is Dems or Republicans. But in your listing of politicians, I notice that you mentioned only Democrats, and didn't list the comparitively longer list of Republicans who have done the same.

[go bowe]

I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with "most people." I'm not most people. I'm me. And my comment was a joke. I figured the hyperbole about ending the national deficit by the end of the decade would have made that clear. I promise to include a smilie next time, as much as I tend to dislike the use of such.hey, what have you got against smilies? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

i use them all the time... PBJ PBJ PBJ

they're my friends... :) :) :)

[go bowe]

I don't think they are tax exempt because of the first amendment I think it is more a function of the government never applying the tax to the Church. . .tax exemption for churches has been the law of the land since the adoption of the first amendment, confirmed by long lines of cases before the supremes...

tax exemption and no public funds for religious organizations are the manifestations of the free exercise clause and the nonestablishment clause of the first amendment...

i'm pretty sure it's constitutional rather than a choice not to tax churches...

[Nightwish]

hey, what have you got against smilies? :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

i use them all the time... PBJ PBJ PBJ

they're my friends... :) :) :)
I've got nothing against others using them. I just don't usually like to use them myself. By the same token, you won't see me substituting "u" for "you," "4" for "for" and so on.

[go bowe]

I agree that handing over the church pulpit to politicians to galvanize a political community within the church, is a bad thing to do, whether it is Dems or Republicans. But in your listing of politicians, I notice that you mentioned only Democrats, and didn't list the comparitively longer list of Republicans who have done the same.i don't think that allowing public figures to speak at a church is a bad thing...

not at all...

church congregations are as entitled to hear what the speakers have to say as are any other group of citizens...

as long as they don't contribute money to a political organization or actively campaign for a candidate (as an organization, not just the activities of individual members), i don't see anything wrong with public speeches being given in religious buildings to church congregations...

both sides are free to do it, and you seem to have some knowledge of republicans doing it the same as democrats...

i'm not surprised...

[Nightwish]

i don't think that allowing public figures to speak at a church is a bad thing...

not at all...

church congregations are as entitled to hear what the speakers have to say as are any other group of citizens...

as long as they don't contribute money to a political organization or actively campaign for a candidate (as an organization, not just the activities of individual members), i don't see anything wrong with public speeches being given in religious buildings to church congregations...

both sides are free to do it, and you seem to have some knowledge of republicans doing it the same as democrats...

i'm not surprised...
I don't much of a problem with them just speaking, but campaigning or trying to shore up a candidate is another thing. There was a big hoodoo over one of the military generals making a tour of churches, in uniform, campaigning for Bush prior to the 2004 election. Not as big a hoodoo as the right-wing media made over Hillary speaking to a black congregation, but pretty big nonetheless. I'm not sure what Hillary said, so I don't know if her speech could be considered campaigning or not, but the general was definitely campaigning from the pulpit. It happens on both sides. Due to the closer relationship between Republicans and Christian churches, I suspect it probably happens more often on that side than it does on the other, and I'm fairly certain that they feature Republican speakers (of the acceptable sort) more often than Democratic ones. I know that locally when I hear of a celebrity or politician making a guest appearance at a church in the area, it is almost always a Republican (Bob Dole, for instance) spoke at one not too long ago.

[Baby Lee]

WA follows suit

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

[Baby Lee]

http://www.avclub.com/content/node/51434

Dan Savage has come a little unhinged. This is at least the second week in a row, possibly third.

Not saying he doesn't have a point, but how long can you stay in business authoring a sex advice column where you refuse to give advice because you're pissed at the world?