PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Judge declares US gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional


petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:13 PM
A federal district court judge in Boston today struck down the 1996 federal law that defines marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman.

Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that the federal Defense of Marriage law violates the Constitutional right of married same-sex couples to equal protection under the law and upends the federal government’s long history of allowing states to set their own marriage laws.

"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."

Tauro drew on history in his ruling, writing that the states have set their own marriage since before the American Revolution and that marriage laws were considered "such an essential element of state power" that the subject was even broached at the time of the framing of the Constitution. Tauro noted that laws barring interracial marriage were once at least as contentious as the current battle over gay marriage.

“But even as the debate concerning interracial marriage waxed and waned throughout history, the federal government consistently yielded to marital status determinations established by the states,” Tauro wrote. “That says something. And this court is convinced that the federal government’s long history of acquiescence in this arena indicates that, indeed, the federal government traditionally regarded marital status determinations as the exclusive province of state government.”

Gay rights activists cheered the ruling, saying it affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as other married couples.
The Boston-based group Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders had, in March 2009, brought one of two suits challenging the law, on behalf of seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts who contended that it violated their federal constitutional right to equal protection.

“Today the court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, a lawyer from the group who argued successfully in the 2003 Supreme Judicial Court case that first legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. “This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

Attorney General Martha Coakley, who brought the second suit challenging the law, also applauded the ruling. Her office had argued that the federal law, known as DOMA, violates the Constitution by interfering with the state’s authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents.

Coakley’s office also contended that DOMA exceeds Congress’s authority because it requires Massachusetts to violate the constitutional rights of its residents by treating married same-sex couples differently from other married couples in order to receive federal funds for various programs.

“Today’s landmark decision is an important step toward achieving equality for all married couples in Massachusetts and assuring that all of our citizens enjoy the same rights and protections under our Constitution,” Coakley said in a statement. “It is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate, as it does because of DOMA’s restrictive definition of marriage. It is also unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who is married and to create a system of first- and second-class marriages.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage condemned the ruling. Kris Mineau, president of Massachusetts Family Institute called it “another blatant example of a judge playing legislator.”

“Same-sex marriage activists have tried time and time again to win public approval of their agenda, and they have failed each time,” Mineau said in a statement. “This is why their strategy is to force same-sex ‘marriage’ through judicial fiat, as they did here in Massachusetts and other states.”

He said he was “confident that an appeals court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will uphold the government’s right to define marriage, strengthening and protecting children and families.”

The law was defended in court by the US Justice Department, even though President Obama supports DOMA’s repeal and has called the law discriminatory. In a hearing with Tauro in May, the Justice Department argued that Congress and President Clinton, who signed the law, had a legitimate interest in preserving marriage as a heterosexual institution.

Today, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, declined to comment on Tauro’s ruling, saying in a statement, “We're reviewing the decision.”

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:16 PM
I support this decision for a few reasons...

1. Gay people pay are entitled to live their life as they see fit
2. The Fed Gov needs to stay the **** out of marriage, be it hetero or homosexual, it's none of their ****ing business
3. and to a lesser extent of my reasoning, Gay people pay taxes just like everyone else and therefore should be treated like everyone else, enjoying the same freedoms and whatnot.

Marriage should be a religous ordeal in and of itself. A church that doesn't want to marry gay people doesn't have too. A church that wants too should be able too. The Fed Gov needs to just mind their own ****ing business. And so does the State Gov for that matter.

Mr. Kotter
07-08-2010, 09:17 PM
Over-turned....on appeal. :rolleyes:

Due to very legitimate concerns over full-faith-and-credit provisions. In this case, "full faith and credit" will prevail. CA, MA, and NY are NOT going to be allowed to define "marriage" for more normal states. Period.

Watch... :)

WoodDraw
07-08-2010, 09:18 PM
Interesting. The government will no doubt appeal to the first circuit.

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:23 PM
I just have to ask the question that begs to be asked....what ****ing business is it of any government to who I marry? Aside from marrying a minor, and that is more for contractualy agreement laws and such, it's really none of their business.

They weaved this web when they decided they would try to cash in on people being married. Which is stupid. Get out of my life with that shit.

And more to the point, to define marriage as one man to one woman is borderline religous and could be seen as a violation of the Separation clause. After all, who says marriage has to be between man and woman?

The most I am willing to give on this is that the law would say that you are only allowed to marry or they will only recognize marriage to one spouse, regardless of sex.

max sleeper
07-08-2010, 09:30 PM
I just have to ask the question that begs to be asked....what ****ing business is it of any government to who I marry? Aside from marrying a minor, and that is more for contractualy agreement laws and such, it's really none of their business.

They weaved this web when they decided they would try to cash in on people being married. Which is stupid. Get out of my life with that shit.

And more to the point, to define marriage as one man to one woman is borderline religous and could be seen as a violation of the Separation clause. After all, who says marriage has to be between man and woman?

The most I am willing to give on this is that the law would say that you are only allowed to marry or they will only recognize marriage to one spouse, regardless of sex.

:thumb:

Mr. Kotter
07-08-2010, 09:36 PM
I just have to ask the question that begs to be asked....what ****ing business is it of any government to who I marry? Aside from marrying a minor, and that is more for contractualy agreement laws and such, it's really none of their business.

They weaved this web when they decided they would try to cash in on people being married. Which is stupid. Get out of my life with that shit.

And more to the point, to define marriage as one man to one woman is borderline religous and could be seen as a violation of the Separation clause. After all, who says marriage has to be between man and woman?

The most I am willing to give on this is that the law would say that you are only allowed to marry or they will only recognize marriage to one spouse, regardless of sex.

You can't say, "it's up to the states!" and then have full-faith-and-credit dictate to the states...one way or the other. Period.

FTR, I agree with civil unions/domestic partnerships sanctioning homosexual "couples," if states so desire. But, yes, that SHOULD be up to each state. No mandate based on full-faith-and-credit.

Allowing full-faith-and-credit to shove liberal/progressive/democratic opinions on what constitutes "marriage" (an institutional historically, legally, and socially defined union between man and woman) down the throats of red states is an absolute non-starter.

If they think the tea-bagger movement started a shitstorm over healthcare--just let them try this bullshit. They won't know what hit them....

notorious
07-08-2010, 09:39 PM
One human can marry another human. I don't care.



Why is this an issue again?

petegz28
07-08-2010, 09:41 PM
You can't say, "it's up to the states!" and then have full-faith-and-credit dictate to the states...one way or the other. Period.

FTR, I agree with civil unions/domestic partnerships sanctioning homosexual "couples," if states so desire. But, yes, that SHOULD be up to each state. No mandate based on full-faith-and-credit.

Allowing full-faith-and-credit to shove liberal/progressive/democratic opinions on what constitutes "marriage" (an institutional historically, legally, and socially defined union between man and woman) down the throats of red states is an absolute non-starter.

If they think the tea-bagger movement started a shitstorm over healthcare--just let them try this bullshit. They won't know what hit them....

So who is to say marriage is to be between one man and one woman? And where do they get such a right to do so? If the Gov just got the fuck out of marriage altogether it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

WoodDraw
07-08-2010, 09:47 PM
You can't say, "it's up to the states!" and then have full-faith-and-credit dictate to the states...one way or the other. Period.

FTR, I agree with civil unions/domestic partnerships sanctioning homosexual "couples," if states so desire. But, yes, that SHOULD be up to each state. No mandate based on full-faith-and-credit.

Allowing full-faith-and-credit to shove liberal/progressive/democratic opinions on what constitutes "marriage" (an institutional historically, legally, and socially defined union between man and woman) down the throats of red states is an absolute non-starter.

If they think the tea-bagger movement started a shitstorm over healthcare--just let them try this bullshit. They won't know what hit them....

It's a hard issue. Should states be forced to recognize adoptions made by same-sax couples?

go bowe
07-08-2010, 10:44 PM
It's a hard issue. Should states be forced to recognize adoptions made by same-sax couples?i think so...

if same sex marriages and/or adoptions are legal under a state's laws, then i think full faith and credit requires other states to recognize them...

personally, i'm more concerned with adoptions because of the involvement of children and not wanting to disrupt their lives or their relationships with their parents...

edit: wiki says "in August 2007, a federal appeals court held that the clause did require Oklahoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma) to recognize adoptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption) by same-sex couples which were finalized in other states

Mr. Kotter
07-09-2010, 12:16 AM
It's a hard issue. Should states be forced to recognize adoptions made by same-sax couples?

Adoptions? Not, cart blanc. Given the sorry state of foster-care and adolescent adoption...in the U.S.? Maybe, in specific circumstances.

EDIT: "Otherwise....NO."

ClevelandBronco
07-09-2010, 12:26 AM
Over-turned....on appeal. :rolleyes:

Due to very legitimate concerns over full-faith-and-credit provisions. In this case, "full faith and credit" will prevail. CA, MA, and NY are NOT going to be allowed to define "marriage" for more normal states. Period.

Watch... :)

I support allowing homosexual marriage in the state of Colorado, but I share your concerns over full faith and credit. Also, I would have to leave my church if it ever performed such a marriage.

But it's going to happen sooner or later and in every state. Truly I understand your position, but you're on the wrong side of history on this one.

alnorth
07-09-2010, 04:37 AM
I agree with the conclusion of the decision... but the legal means by which the judge travelled to reach his conclusion looks a little funky to me. It is a little complicated too, it doesn't really make federal gay marriage bans unconstitutional in the whole US, just in gay marriage states.

He basically said states should be allowed to define marriage within the state (ok, fine but the feds are not standing in the way of that) but the feds are not allowed to define marriage. If the feds say "married" people get such and such, that word must be interpreted using the state's definition, not some universal federal definition.

I don't know that I agree with that. If the states want to give state benefits to married people and define marriage however they want within their borders, fine but assuming you aren't going to actually declare gay marriage bans to be unconstitutional, why cant the feds define marriage for federal benefits? I'd have preferred the judge to just take the Iowa decision, Xerox it, edit a few words, and be done with it. Gay marriage bans should be unconstitutional, period under equal protection. I think it is the only civil rights issue still remaining to be resolved correctly.

Taco John
07-09-2010, 05:36 AM
Over-turned....on appeal. :rolleyes:

Due to very legitimate concerns over full-faith-and-credit provisions. In this case, "full faith and credit" will prevail. CA, MA, and NY are NOT going to be allowed to define "marriage" for more normal states. Period.

Watch... :)


Full faith and credit will prevail, but it will prevail in favor of the people who are reserving their right to equal protection. CA, MA, an NY aren't defining "marriage" for more "normal" states. They're merely offering their citizens equal protection.

At the end of the day, the government cannot discriminate based on gender biases. This is just the Jim Crow laws being played out in the gender arena. And like has already been commented, you're on the wrong side of history here.

If marriage was strictly a religious institution, you'd have a good point. But it's not. Marriage has been compromised by government and turned into a public institution, complete with federal subsidies. Welcome to the America that would give our founding fathers nightmares.

JohnnyV13
07-09-2010, 07:01 AM
Full faith and credit will prevail, but it will prevail in favor of the people who are reserving their right to equal protection. CA, MA, an NY aren't defining "marriage" for more "normal" states. They're merely offering their citizens equal protection.

At the end of the day, the government cannot discriminate based on gender biases. This is just the Jim Crow laws being played out in the gender arena. And like has already been commented, you're on the wrong side of history here.

If marriage was strictly a religious institution, you'd have a good point. But it's not. Marriage has been compromised by government and turned into a public institution, complete with federal subsidies. Welcome to the America that would give our founding fathers nightmares.

Marriage has had a public legal nature going back to england, well before the American Revolution.

Mile High Mania
07-09-2010, 09:20 AM
I just have to ask the question that begs to be asked....what ****ing business is it of any government to who I marry? Aside from marrying a minor, and that is more for contractualy agreement laws and such, it's really none of their business.

They weaved this web when they decided they would try to cash in on people being married. Which is stupid. Get out of my life with that shit.

And more to the point, to define marriage as one man to one woman is borderline religous and could be seen as a violation of the Separation clause. After all, who says marriage has to be between man and woman?

The most I am willing to give on this is that the law would say that you are only allowed to marry or they will only recognize marriage to one spouse, regardless of sex.

So, why the limit of just 1 spouse? If govt shouldn't interfere with it at all... why limit how many people you can legally marry?

petegz28
07-09-2010, 09:27 AM
So, why the limit of just 1 spouse? If govt shouldn't interfere with it at all... why limit how many people you can legally marry?

This is a fair question. I was just looking for a happy medium. Truth be told though, if someone wants to marry 5 people and those 5 people are ok with it, WTF is it to me?

Dave Lane
07-09-2010, 09:34 AM
Over-turned....on appeal. :rolleyes:

Due to very legitimate concerns over full-faith-and-credit provisions. In this case, "full faith and credit" will prevail. CA, MA, and NY are NOT going to be allowed to define "marriage" for more normal states. Period.

Watch... :)

Ok Rob I'll bite what is full faith and credit?

noa
07-09-2010, 10:01 AM
Over-turned....on appeal. :rolleyes:

Due to very legitimate concerns over full-faith-and-credit provisions. In this case, "full faith and credit" will prevail. CA, MA, and NY are NOT going to be allowed to define "marriage" for more normal states. Period.

Watch... :)

FYI New York and California don't have gay marriage.

Taco John
07-09-2010, 11:12 AM
Marriage has had a public legal nature going back to england, well before the American Revolution.

The point in time at which the religous institution has intersected with the public institution is irrelevant to the fact that they have intersected.

HolyHandgernade
07-09-2010, 11:13 AM
So, why the limit of just 1 spouse? If govt shouldn't interfere with it at all... why limit how many people you can legally marry?

This is why marriage should be a religious institution and civil unions should be a government enterprise. You can claim people can only enter into one civil union at a time becaus of the tax benefits/responsibilities it carries. Religions could marry whoever and however many people they want according to the precepts of their religious organization. The Fds and stat, however, would only recognize one civil contract at a time.

Taco John
07-09-2010, 11:17 AM
Ok Rob I'll bite what is full faith and credit?

Full Faith and Credit Clause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause)

It's basically what makes your state drivers lisence useful from state to state... And marriage liscences.

alnorth
07-09-2010, 12:08 PM
This is a fair question. I was just looking for a happy medium. Truth be told though, if someone wants to marry 5 people and those 5 people are ok with it, WTF is it to me?

well, given the abuse and brain-washing that often occurs in polygamy, I don't think it is hard to argue that the government has a public interest in restricting this relationship to two people. That, and taxes of course.

alnorth
07-09-2010, 12:10 PM
So, why the limit of just 1 spouse? If govt shouldn't interfere with it at all... why limit how many people you can legally marry?

Simple, because we said so. This argument is about as invalid as saying men are going to go marry dogs and dolphins.

"This is a slippery slope, where do we draw the line!!!" We draw the line here, at two people. There's several pretty damned good reasons to not marry multiple people and animals.

The state has no logical public interest in banning gay marriage AT ALL. It is purely religious (which is crap) and/or from animosity towards those icky queers.

Amnorix
07-09-2010, 12:39 PM
I just have to ask the question that begs to be asked....what ****ing business is it of any government to who I marry? Aside from marrying a minor, and that is more for contractualy agreement laws and such, it's really none of their business.

They weaved this web when they decided they would try to cash in on people being married. Which is stupid. Get out of my life with that shit.

And more to the point, to define marriage as one man to one woman is borderline religous and could be seen as a violation of the Separation clause. After all, who says marriage has to be between man and woman?

The most I am willing to give on this is that the law would say that you are only allowed to marry or they will only recognize marriage to one spouse, regardless of sex.


As a philosophical matter, the police powers of a state relate to regulating the health, welfare, safety and MORALS of its populace. That's state with a small "s". Any government. Anywhere in the world. In general this would include matters relating ot marriage, including:

1. age of consent. How old do you have to be before you can be married. Think this doesn't matter? Think again. You hvae to be 18 to be married in Alabama, but with a parent's consent you can be as young as 14. California has it at 18, but no minimum age with parent consent is specified. In Mississippi it's 21, but 17 for boys and 15 for girls with parental consent.

http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-basics/state-age-of-consent-laws.html

2. What medical examinations are required in order for couples to marry. This is now outdated, but some states still require certifications that each member is free of syphilis or certain other diseases.

3. Waiting periods/licensure. Most states require you go to get a marriage license. And in many cases there is a waiting period before you can get your license, just to make sure that you're not going ot change your mind. While it's only a few days long, it's still a requirement that you wait. Also, the license is only good for so many days.

4. Common law marriage. Most states have laws regarding being deemed to be married, even if you never formally got married, as a result of living together with another person (with no other roommates) for stipulated periods of time.

5. Bigamy/miscegenation. Most states still have laws regarding how many people you can be married to, and many previously had laws regarding interracial marriage.

6. Divorce. Every state has all kinds of rules about how you get a divorce, and what happens if you get divorced.


And none of this is new. It's as old as America, and so you say it's nobody's business, but the fact is that it's always been the state's business.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 01:43 PM
Simple, because we said so. This argument is about as invalid as saying men are going to go marry dogs and dolphins.

"This is a slippery slope, where do we draw the line!!!" We draw the line here, at two people. There's several pretty damned good reasons to not marry multiple people and animals.

The state has no logical public interest in banning gay marriage AT ALL. It is purely religious (which is crap) and/or from animosity towards those icky queers.

In your opinion. To many, it means funding their lifestyle when HC benefits are paid to govt workers. A lifestyle that make it more expensive. There was even a gay company, ( yes these exist and they prefer to hire one another often enough which means they discriminate), that had to cancel their HC benefits for this reason. It got too expensive. It is not fair to pay for anyone's risky lifestyle—anyone's.

I'm for govt out of marriage but the one area I've always felt the gay issue (as well as polygamous) is that no one should pay for their choices. That should be a matter of what private insurance wants to offer for a policy and charge accordingly....which means freedom to discriminate.

I also don't see how everyone being able to marry one person, that one person has to be the opposite sex, and of a certain minimum age is not applying a law equally. Gays have the same option and right to do these. They choose not too on one point. Anything else is a special right. Govt out of marriage is the only way to go.

healthpellets
07-09-2010, 02:08 PM
In your opinion. To many, it means funding their lifestyle when HC benefits are paid to govt workers. A lifestyle that make it more expensive. There was even a gay company, ( yes these exist and they prefer to hire one another often enough which means they discriminate), that had to cancel their HC benefits for this reason. It got too expensive. It is not fair to pay for anyone's risky lifestyle—anyone's.

I'm for govt out of marriage but the one area I've always felt the gay issue (as well as polygamous) is that no one should pay for their choices. That should be a matter of what private insurance wants to offer for a policy and charge accordingly....which means freedom to discriminate.

I also don't see how everyone being able to marry one person, that one person has to be the opposite sex, and of a certain minimum age is not applying a law equally. Gays have the same option and right to do these. They choose not too on one point. Anything else is a special right. Govt out of marriage is the only way to go.

whoa there tiger. slow your role.

now, you don't want to pay for the "choices" of others. fine. but let's look at how many people HIV / AIDS (because we ALL know that's what you're saying without saying it) kills each year.... ~15,000.

now, what do a lot of queer hating, backwoods, tobacco spitting, dog f*cking rednecks have in common? obesity. hey, i don't want to pay for the choices of others. but alas, i must. because how many obesity related deaths are there per year? ~300,000. hell, that's more people per month than AIDS kills in a year.

see, here's the thing. eating those 99 cent heart attacks in a sack for lunch every day is a much riskier behavior than having sex with someone that has the same sex organ as i do.

so if you want to go around saying that you don't want to pay for other people's "risky behavior", then at least acknowledge that 90% of the population engages in much more risky behavior than those got-a-death-wish homosexuals.

noa
07-09-2010, 02:11 PM
I also don't see how everyone being able to marry one person, that one person has to be the opposite sex, and of a certain minimum age is not applying a law equally. Gays have the same option and right to do these. They choose not too on one point.

That was the same logic used to uphold anti-miscegenation laws in Pace v. Alabama.

Everyone had the same right to marry one person, that one person has to be of the same race, and of a certain minimum age. All races have the same option and right to do that.

Brock
07-09-2010, 02:13 PM
In your opinion. To many, it means funding their lifestyle when HC benefits are paid to govt workers. A lifestyle that make it more expensive. There was even a gay company, ( yes these exist and they prefer to hire one another often enough which means they discriminate), that had to cancel their HC benefits for this reason. It got too expensive. It is not fair to pay for anyone's risky lifestyle—anyone's.

LOL. I'd wager the average gay dude is much, much healthier than the average hetero.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 02:21 PM
That was the same logic used to uphold anti-miscegenation laws in Pace v. Alabama.
Everyone had the same right to marry one person, that one person has to be of the same race, and of a certain minimum age. All races have the same option and right to do that.
Nope you're confusing similarities, differences and identities to make your argument work. As well as redefining a basic word—Newspeak—plus adding inapplicable data, It's a point of illogic to call something the same when it is not the same. Marriage for one has always been defined as a man and a woman. That's what it is —factually. That was because they produced the future race and ensured it's survival in a state of nature. So that's a natural right no matter what race of ethnicity the two genders are. It was never defined as one man and one woman in the same race. People that added race to the issue was just a "we said so." Your argument only works only if if put a color on a gender. It is not a civil rights issue. One is seeking permission from govt to do something....one is not seeking the right from another citizen to be able to do something.

Marriage is not a right in this country. If it were one would not need a license. A license is seeking permission to do something. Marriage is a public institution. I was responding to alnorth's argument because of his "we said so." His argument was also just a "we said so" with an exception.

There's no such thing as "gay rights." There are only rights. Gays have the same natural rights as the rest of us— life, liberty, property. The only way to settle the matter is to provide more liberty which means less govt. Just get govt out of it. I admit that when it comes to HC benefits this idea has other issues. But HC is not a right either.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 02:26 PM
whoa there tiger. slow your role.

now, you don't want to pay for the "choices" of others. fine. but let's look at how many people HIV / AIDS (because we ALL know that's what you're saying without saying it) kills each year.... ~15,000.

now, what do a lot of queer hating, backwoods, tobacco spitting, dog f*cking rednecks have in common? obesity. hey, i don't want to pay for the choices of others. but alas, i must. because how many obesity related deaths are there per year? ~300,000. hell, that's more people per month than AIDS kills in a year.

see, here's the thing. eating those 99 cent heart attacks in a sack for lunch every day is a much riskier behavior than having sex with someone that has the same sex organ as i do.

so if you want to go around saying that you don't want to pay for other people's "risky behavior", then at least acknowledge that 90% of the population engages in much more risky behavior than those got-a-death-wish homosexuals.

Gee, I wasn't even thinking of HIV or AIDs. Just the higher rate of STDs from much higher levels of promiscuity ( even when with a partner), use of drugs and the subsequent health problems from those including earlier death. Let private insurance sort it all out with fees like they already do when they ask if you smoke etc.

noa
07-09-2010, 02:31 PM
Nope you're confusing similarities, differences and identities to make your argument work. As well as redefining a basic word....Newspeak. It's a point of illogic to call something the same when it is not the same. Marriage for one has always been defined as a man and a woman.That's what it is —factually. It was never defined as one man and one woman in the same race. Your argument only works only if if put a color on a gender. It is not a civil rights issue. One is seeking permission from govt to do something....one is not seeking the right from another citizen to be able to do something.

Marriage is not a right in this country. If it were one would not need a license. A license is seeking permission to do something. Marriage is a public institution. I was responding to alnorth's argument because of his "we said so." His argument was also just a "we said so" with an exception.

There's no such thing as "gay rights." There are only rights. Gays have the same rights as the rest of us— life, liberty, property. The only way to settle the matter is to provide more liberty which means less govt. Just get govt out of it. I admit that when it comes to HC benefits this idea has other issues. But HC is not a right either.

The whole idea of rights doesn't really matter that much.

Regardless of whether or not it is a right, when a state bestows a benefit upon some and not upon others based on a classification such as sexuality, that policy has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

Once the state undertakes to provide that benefit, it can't just willy-nilly discriminate because the benefit is "not a right." But it can discriminate so long as the government can put forth a single legitimate reason for the classification to stand, which is not a tough burden to meet.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 02:38 PM
The whole idea of rights doesn't really matter that much.
Rights matter completely here.

Regardless of whether or not it is a right, when a state bestows a benefit upon some and not upon others based on a classification such as sexuality, that policy has to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Well, then you can't exclude the benefit to anyone else that wants to marry more than one person argument either. But marriage is all about sexuality so you're now trying to separate that point from marriage while using sexuality at the same time. Illogical. You can't have it both ways.

Once the state undertakes to provide that benefit, it can't just willy-nilly discriminate because the benefit is "not a right." But it can discriminate so long as the government can put forth a single legitimate reason for the classification to stand, which is not a tough burden to meet.
That's only if you think the state is acting "willy-nilly" which it is not. The state has claimed to have a compelling interest in the issue, up to now, to provide order for society including a mother and a father for the stable rearing of children. Yes, I know some don't want children but still the whole idea of man and woman coming together has historically been to further the human race. This is why societies like ancient Greece and Athens didn't allow gay marriage but were still tolerant of homosexual practices....even participating in them but still marrying a woman.

There's nothing wrong with discrimination. If one didn't discriminate at all ever we'd be in a huge heap of trouble. You discriminate everyday....in fact you discriminate in who you choose for a partner. The public doesn't have to agree with it. If you don't want gays prevented from marrying, then just get the govt out. Because I assure you the state discriminates every day on many things including who gets welfare benefits such as medicaid and medicare which is age discrimination.

It's just your opinion that it's wrong to deny marriage while still being a public institution is wrongful discrimination. Nothing more than an opinion. One you want to enforce on the public at large in complete disregard to their opinions on it.

philfree
07-09-2010, 02:38 PM
This is not high on my list of things to worry about but gays don't produce offspring. Hetro couples produce more people to add to the population and in turn that adds to the GNP. Isn't that why we have tax deductions for married couples and more deductions for their offspring? Gays can get married but why should they get the benefits of people who bring more to the table then just themselves?

I hardly ever post in this forum so feel free to make me look foolish.

PhilFree:arrow:

noa
07-09-2010, 02:51 PM
It's just your opinion that it's wrong to deny marriage while still being a public institution is wrongful discrimination. Nothing more than an opinion. One you want to enforce on the public at large in complete disregard to their opinions on it.

I never expressed my opinion on the matter. I never claimed it to be wrongful discrimination. My only point is that the state has to be able to justify the classification by pointing to some legitimate interest that it is serving, and I don't doubt they can do that.

And I disagree with your argument that it isn't a classification. Straight people can marry, gay people can't. That is the effect of the policy. Your argument that gay people could choose to marry, so long as they chose to marry members of the opposite sex is unpersuasive to me.

mlyonsd
07-09-2010, 02:57 PM
This is not high on my list of things to worry about but gays don't produce offspring. Hetro couples produce more people to add to the population and in turn that adds to the GNP. Isn't that why we have tax deductions for married couples and more deductions for their offspring? Gays can get married but why should they get the benefits of people who bring more to the table then just themselves?

I hardly ever post in this forum so feel free to make me look foolish.

PhilFree:arrow:

I think in most states gay couples can adopt which would technically put them in the same scenario.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 03:03 PM
I never expressed my opinion on the matter.
Yes you did as did I. It's just your opinion and nothing more.

I never claimed it to be wrongful discrimination.
It was implied. Just because you didn't use those exact words doesn't mean it can't be paraphrased.

My only point is that the state has to be able to justify the classification by pointing to some legitimate interest that it is serving, and I don't doubt they can do that.
They do it ALL the time. And in more and more areas these days.
For thousands of years marriage was a private institution—not a public one.

And I disagree with your argument that it isn't a classification.
If you think I said that then you misunderstood what I wrote or you're creating a strawman.

Straight people can marry, gay people can't.
Gays can still get married in their own ceremony if they wish. They just can't get public recognition for getting all the legal privileges and benefits...but they can still get most of those with a contract. Save for next of kin issues.

Gays can still marry under the same rules that exist for everyone else. They CHOOSE not too. I don't care what the basis of that choosing is.

That is the effect of the policy. Your argument that gay people could choose to marry, so long as they chose to marry members of the opposite sex is unpersuasive to me.
Of course. It's your opinion....but I was not trying to persuade you at all. You responded to my post to alnorth....and why it wasn't valid. I was just parsing why your arguments are not logical or valid....unless you want to redefine words and compare apples and oranges.

Despite that, I didn't say that exactly either. You're not reading what I actually wrote but are changing my words around into a strawman because you need to reframe categories and change definitions. I actually proposed a way to allow gays to marry which you seem to ignore like it was a blank in my posts. That proposal was getting the govt out of it so they CAN marry. Did you NOT read that? I just don't think it's something the state has to offer to them, being a public institution as if it's some fundamental natural right that the state is compelled to enforce whether or not others agree with it. It's a private matter. Marriage was never a public thing earlier. People used to just up and marry.

Brock
07-09-2010, 03:07 PM
This is not high on my list of things to worry about but gays don't produce offspring. Hetro couples produce more people to add to the population and in turn that adds to the GNP. Isn't that why we have tax deductions for married couples and more deductions for their offspring? Gays can get married but why should they get the benefits of people who bring more to the table then just themselves?

I hardly ever post in this forum so feel free to make me look foolish.

PhilFree:arrow:

LMAO Wow.

philfree
07-09-2010, 03:08 PM
I think in most states gay couples can adopt which would technically put them in the same scenario.

Adopting doesn't add to the population it just redistributes it so to speak. Now if a gay couple adopts a child then sure they should the same tax deductions for a dependant as a hetro couple. Just because they get married doesn't mean they should recieve the same benifits as the hetro couple because they have no intentions having offspring and can't even have one accidently. It's just a totally different circumstance.

Homosexuals adopting kids is a whole other ball of wax though. I'm not sure I'm down with that 100%.


PhilFree:arrow:

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 03:09 PM
I think in most states gay couples can adopt which would technically put them in the same scenario.

The same scenario he provided was they could not "produce" offspring. Adopting wouldn't be producing them either. Producing falls into defining what is a natural right as it just means what could be done in a state of nature. I mean they could if they wanted to, as some have married women too, but cannot with each other. When people use to just up and marry, if a man was found with a women, they were considered married. The whole idea of sex being used for creating offspring was the essence of marriage. They didn't have enough people then....children were needed to have the race survive and children were considered wealth then. That's the origins of marriage. Even in polygamous marriages.

petegz28
07-09-2010, 03:49 PM
As a philosophical matter, the police powers of a state relate to regulating the health, welfare, safety and MORALS of its populace. That's state with a small "s". Any government. Anywhere in the world. In general this would include matters relating ot marriage, including:

1. age of consent. How old do you have to be before you can be married. Think this doesn't matter? Think again. You hvae to be 18 to be married in Alabama, but with a parent's consent you can be as young as 14. California has it at 18, but no minimum age with parent consent is specified. In Mississippi it's 21, but 17 for boys and 15 for girls with parental consent.

http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-basics/state-age-of-consent-laws.html

2. What medical examinations are required in order for couples to marry. This is now outdated, but some states still require certifications that each member is free of syphilis or certain other diseases.

3. Waiting periods/licensure. Most states require you go to get a marriage license. And in many cases there is a waiting period before you can get your license, just to make sure that you're not going ot change your mind. While it's only a few days long, it's still a requirement that you wait. Also, the license is only good for so many days.

4. Common law marriage. Most states have laws regarding being deemed to be married, even if you never formally got married, as a result of living together with another person (with no other roommates) for stipulated periods of time.

5. Bigamy/miscegenation. Most states still have laws regarding how many people you can be married to, and many previously had laws regarding interracial marriage.

6. Divorce. Every state has all kinds of rules about how you get a divorce, and what happens if you get divorced.


And none of this is new. It's as old as America, and so you say it's nobody's business, but the fact is that it's always been the state's business.

I never said it hasn't been the state's business. I said it shouldn't be.

mlyonsd
07-09-2010, 03:52 PM
The same scenario he provided was they could not "produce" offspring. Adopting wouldn't be producing them either. Producing falls into defining what is a natural right as it just means what could be done in a state of nature. I mean they could if they wanted to, as some have married women too, but cannot with each other. When people use to just up and marry, if a man was found with a women, they were considered married. The whole idea of sex being used for creating offspring was the essence of marriage. They didn't have enough people then....children were needed to have the race survive and children were considered wealth then. That's the origins of marriage. Even in polygamous marriages.

There are thousands of hetero couples that can't produce either. When I say "can't" I mean its medically impossible. If they adopt they get a child tax break. I'm just pointing out it's the same thing as this scenario.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 03:55 PM
There are thousands of hetero couples that can't produce either. When I say "can't" I mean its medically impossible. If they adopt they get a child tax break. I'm just pointing out it's the same thing as this scenario.

I know that. You're preaching to the choir here on that. Those are exceptions to the biological rule that proves the rule. It's a fact that it takes the opposite sex to
"produce" offspring. My only point is that adopting is not the same as "producing." So I don't see it as the exact same thing. What is the same is that many other kinds of adult have a legal right to adopt even a single adult.

DenverChief
07-09-2010, 07:06 PM
Gee, I wasn't even thinking of HIV or AIDs. Just the higher rate of STDs from much higher levels of promiscuity ( even when with a partner), use of drugs and the subsequent health problems from those including earlier death. Let private insurance sort it all out with fees like they already do when they ask if you smoke etc.


Yawn--if you are going to fight bring your A-game--Gay men have a higher incidence syphillis--everthing else is owned by the heteros

Key Findings
Chlamydia
Chlamydia remains the most commonly reported infectious disease in the United States. There were more than 1.2 million cases of chlamydia (1,210,523) reported to CDC in 2008, an increase from the 1.1 million cases reported in 2007. Women, especially young and minority women are hardest hit by chlamydia.

Gonorrhea
There were 336,742 reported cases of gonorrhea in 2008, a slight decline from 2007 (355,991 cases), making gonorrhea the second most commonly reported infectious disease in the United States. For the eighth consecutive year, gonorrhea rates among women and men were similar.

Syphilis
In 2008, there were 13,500 reported cases of primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis—the most infectious stages of the disease—the highest number of cases since 1995 and an increase over 2007 (11,466 cases). The majority of reported syphilis cases in the United States continue to be among MSM.
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsSTDData/

Brock
07-09-2010, 07:16 PM
Adopting doesn't add to the population it just redistributes it so to speak. Now if a gay couple adopts a child then sure they should the same tax deductions for a dependant as a hetro couple. Just because they get married doesn't mean they should recieve the same benifits as the hetro couple because they have no intentions having offspring and can't even have one accidently. It's just a totally different circumstance.

Homosexuals adopting kids is a whole other ball of wax though. I'm not sure I'm down with that 100%.


PhilFree:arrow:

You're going to have to explain why people should be rewarded for bringing more kids into the world. It's pretty much the last thing America needs.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 07:38 PM
You're going to have to explain why people should be rewarded for bringing more kids into the world. It's pretty much the last thing America needs.

We need to keep up with the Mexicans coming into the country or we'll be gone. Same for Europe! There's enough room.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 07:39 PM
Yawn--if you are going to fight bring your A-game--Gay men have a higher incidence syphillis--everthing else is owned by the heteros


http://www.cdc.gov/Features/dsSTDData/

So then let the insurance companies sort it out with their fees. Doesn't change my stand at all.
Good lord, what a strawman argument you've concocted. This is your A game? Your link doesn't show a comparison between hetersexuals and gays.
I happen to have read the opposite and that its less so for lesbians. Not that I think promiscuity hasn't been on the rise with hetersexuals either.
I just don't want to pay higher fees for their lifestyle choices.

Brock
07-09-2010, 07:50 PM
We need to keep up with the Mexicans coming into the country or we'll be gone. Same for Europe! There's enough room.

Who's "we"?

Pioli Zombie
07-09-2010, 07:59 PM
www.doodie.com

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 08:14 PM
Who's "we"?

Whities of European descent.

Brock
07-09-2010, 08:18 PM
Whities of European descent.

Why should I care about that? It's got nothing to do with this discussion.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 08:31 PM
Why should I care about that? It's got nothing to do with this discussion.

It may not but it has something to do with your post:

Originally Posted by Brock View Post
You're going to have to explain why people should be rewarded for bringing more kids into the world. It's pretty much the last thing America needs.

We need to have more kids and there is a reward.

Brock
07-09-2010, 08:36 PM
It may not but it has something to do with your post:



We need to have more kids and there is a reward.

I don't agree with either point. We don't need to have more kids and there isn't any reward, other than more useless people sucking up more resources and helping themselves to my tax dollars.

DenverChief
07-09-2010, 08:53 PM
So then let the insurance companies sort it out with their fees. Doesn't change my stand at all.
Good lord, what a strawman argument you've concocted. This is your A game?

You just said that homosexuals have a higher incidence of STD's and now you are backpedaling

DenverChief
07-09-2010, 08:55 PM
.
I just don't want to pay higher fees for their lifestyle choices.

Then don't join a Ted Haggard church

listopencil
07-09-2010, 09:01 PM
One human can marry another human. I don't care.



Why is this an issue again?


http://www.giftbricks.com/images/engraved%20brick%20christian%20cross%20symbol.png

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 09:31 PM
Then don't join a Ted Haggard church

I don't go to church. I am just for less govt including being out of marriage. So if you want to marry a man feel free.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 09:31 PM
You just said that homosexuals have a higher incidence of STD's and now you are backpedaling

Apparently you cannot read if you think I'm backpedaling.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 09:32 PM
I don't agree with either point. We don't need to have more kids and there isn't any reward, other than more useless people sucking up more resources and helping themselves to my tax dollars.

Not if they're productive and contribute. Meanwhile the Hispanics will have huge families. I'd just our people to continue on in this world too.

Brock
07-09-2010, 09:42 PM
Not if they're productive and contribute. Meanwhile the Hispanics will have huge families. I'd just our people to continue on in this world too.

I take it you're against racial miscegenation, then?

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 09:44 PM
I take it you're against racial miscegenation, then?

Not at all. I just want to see my people as a people also continue on to. So we should have big families or be gone from the face of the earth. There can still be different kinds of mixing or non-mixing based on individual preferences. Myself, I just prefer WASP men. I won't even date an Italian. LMAO

Now if my original post on this has nothing to do with this thread then why are you continuing it? Hmmm.......

Brock
07-09-2010, 09:46 PM
Not at all. I just want to see my people as a people also continue on to. There can still be different kinds of mixing or non-mixing based on individual preferences. My I just prefer WASP men. I won't even date an Italian. LMAO

Now if my original post on this has nothing to do with this thread then why are you continuing it? Hmmm.......

I guess I must be bored.

BucEyedPea
07-09-2010, 09:46 PM
I guess I must be bored.

Sounds like it.

DenverChief
07-10-2010, 12:03 AM
Apparently you cannot read if you think I'm backpedaling.

Gee, I wasn't even thinking of HIV or AIDs. Just the higher rate of STDs from much higher levels of promiscuity ( even when with a partner), use of drugs and the subsequent health problems from those including earlier death. Let private insurance sort it all out with fees like they already do when they ask if you smoke etc.
LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

Who can't read again?

Baby Lee
07-10-2010, 04:23 AM
Simple, because we said so. This argument is about as invalid as saying men are going to go marry dogs and dolphins.

"This is a slippery slope, where do we draw the line!!!" We draw the line here, at two people. There's several pretty damned good reasons to not marry multiple people and animals.

The state has no logical public interest in banning gay marriage AT ALL. It is purely religious (which is crap) and/or from animosity towards those icky queers.

How the heck does that square with couching the issue in terms of equal protection?

It's basically saying 'equal protection is the prime motivator, everyone should be treated equal under the law, and by everyone I mean gays, not those other people, fuck those other people we gotta draw the line somewhere because some people aren't equal under the law.'

RJ
07-10-2010, 10:35 AM
Not at all. I just want to see my people as a people also continue on to. So we should have big families or be gone from the face of the earth. There can still be different kinds of mixing or non-mixing based on individual preferences. Myself, I just prefer WASP men. I won't even date an Italian. LMAO

Now if my original post on this has nothing to do with this thread then why are you continuing it? Hmmm.......


I guess I'm lucky to not have a race to propogate.

And they do say mutts make the best dogs.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 01:28 PM
I guess I'm lucky to not have a race to propogate.

And they do say mutts make the best dogs.

Uh no, it's not just a race. I said whites of European descent. We are in danger of being wiped out. It's not a matter of being a master race as you disgusting post implies. There's nothing wrong with want one's group or culture to endure amongst all others. I welcome the same for all other groups too. Including mutts. See, that's called fairness and equality—treating everyone as to having the same. You're just snob of a different stripe.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 01:31 PM
LMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAOLMAO

Who can't read again?

'Eh no, you still haven't duplicated what I wrote. Your link provided no comparison on such rates between heteros and homos.
When you can't make a point with facts, but switch to different ones.....you have a strawman—a logical outpoint.
Yup, you're a dumb illiterate cop* who can only engage in nervous laughter that mocks another when they lose.
Clear evidence, you've proved nothing.


* what goes around comes around

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 01:43 PM
http://www.hookedonphonics.com/WebData/Product/35762/Images/Medium_LTR_DRTV_New_Bonus-v3.jpg

patteeu
07-10-2010, 02:11 PM
What's the "separation clause"?

RJ
07-10-2010, 02:20 PM
Uh no, it's not just a race. I said whites of European descent. We are in danger of being wiped out. It's not a matter of being a master race as you disgusting post implies. There's nothing wrong with want one's group or culture to endure amongst all others. I welcome the same for all other groups too. Including mutts. See, that's called fairness and equality—treating everyone as to having the same. You're just snob of a different stripe.


Really?

I had no idea I was being snobbish. And I'm not sure how I implied "master race". I'll read it again.

RJ
07-10-2010, 02:34 PM
Really?

I had no idea I was being snobbish. And I'm not sure how I implied "master race". I'll read it again.


Nope, still can't see it.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 02:37 PM
Really?

I had no idea I was being snobbish. And I'm not sure how I implied "master race". I'll read it again.

It was implied by acting superior because you proclaimed not having any race to survive. Not that what I said was soley raced based but also cultural heritage that came from Western Civilization. That's my opinion of how it came off as it sought to make wrong for an opinion as if it were a hard fact. You seem to subscribe to a "the world is one" pov which is a PC correct povas if no one can be for ensuring survival of a particular group and it's culture as if it's a binary option. It is not binary unless one side denies and prevents the other. One can still have melting-pots and mixed groups/races/ethnicities while still have groups say like the Amish co-existing. ( just as an example). Nothing wrong with that at all. It's only wrong when govt institutions aka public ones enforce separation.

BTW what does this veering off at such length have to do with the Constitutionality of gay marriage. I support the Tenth Amendment aspects of this decision.

patteeu
07-10-2010, 02:43 PM
Gay marriage bans should be unconstitutional, period under equal protection. I think it is the only civil rights issue still remaining to be resolved correctly.

I can sympathize with your personal sense of fairness, but do you really think the people of the US, circa 1866-67, who ratified the 14th Amendment, intended to make all existing marriage laws in the US unconstitutional? Don't you think that such a significant change to the constitution should be run past the people for their consent before it takes effect?

RJ
07-10-2010, 02:46 PM
That's my opinion of how it came off as it sought to make wrong for an opinion as if it were a hard fact. You seem to subscribe to a "the world is one" pov which is a PC correct pov because no one can be for ensuring survival of a particular group and it's culture as if it's a binary option. It is not one can still have melting pots and mixed groups while still have groups say like the Amish co-existing.


Wow, you read a lot into my two sentences.

Lucky for you I'm not Amish or I would shun you. And once you've been shunned by a mutt you'll never go back to wasps!

ClevelandBronco
07-10-2010, 02:55 PM
Is there a graceful way of telling an inferior person that others aren't acting superior? That they really are superior?

patteeu
07-10-2010, 02:59 PM
I never expressed my opinion on the matter. I never claimed it to be wrongful discrimination. My only point is that the state has to be able to justify the classification by pointing to some legitimate interest that it is serving, and I don't doubt they can do that.

And I disagree with your argument that it isn't a classification. Straight people can marry, gay people can't. That is the effect of the policy. Your argument that gay people could choose to marry, so long as they chose to marry members of the opposite sex is unpersuasive to me.

If the purpose of the marriage classification is to encourage child-producing, long-term families, why wouldn't a requirement of one man and one woman be adequately justified? And if that is the justification, why is the fact that everyone is eligible to join one of these man/woman partnerships persuasive to you on the point of equal protection? There are a lot of people who "settle" for someone other than their dream spouse in this life.

noa
07-10-2010, 03:05 PM
If the purpose of the marriage classification is to encourage child-producing, long-term families, why wouldn't a requirement of one man and one woman be adequately justified? And if that is the justification, why is the fact that everyone is eligible to join one of these man/woman partnerships persuasive to you on the point of equal protection? There are a lot of people who "settle" for someone other than their dream spouse in this life.

First, you can have a child-producing long-term family in a same-sex marriage thanks to adoption, surrogate parents, etc.

But like I said, I don't doubt that the government can offer at least one legitimate reason for the classification.

Second, I think there is a big difference between settling for less than your dream spouse and being told you can only marry someone of the gender you are not sexually oriented towards. If I told you that you could only marry a man, would you consider that the same as saying you had to lower your standards on your woman of choice by a bit?

petegz28
07-10-2010, 03:17 PM
If the purpose of the marriage classification is to encourage child-producing, long-term families, why wouldn't a requirement of one man and one woman be adequately justified? And if that is the justification, why is the fact that everyone is eligible to join one of these man/woman partnerships persuasive to you on the point of equal protection? There are a lot of people who "settle" for someone other than their dream spouse in this life.

I have to take issue with this. What if two people who can't have kids (infertile, diabetes, etc) want to get married? Is their marraige cheapened or less than someone who can have kids?

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 03:20 PM
I have to take issue with this. What if two people who can't have kids (infertile, diabetes, etc) want to get married? Is their marraige cheapened or less than someone who can have kids?

No but there are exceptions to all rules that prove the rule. This is just an inability of theirs handed to them in nature. There are still others who choose not to have children too. The origins of marriage and the general rule still holds. If they still wanted they could adopt which provides a child a home. Ideally, a child needs a mother and a father.

patteeu
07-10-2010, 03:22 PM
First, you can have a child-producing long-term family in a same-sex marriage thanks to adoption, surrogate parents, etc.

But like I said, I don't doubt that the government can offer at least one legitimate reason for the classification.

Second, I think there is a big difference between settling for less than your dream spouse and being told you can only marry someone of the gender you are not sexually oriented towards. If I told you that you could only marry a man, would you consider that the same as saying you had to lower your standards on your woman of choice by a bit?

1. For reasons already mentioned, adopting a child is different than producing a child, but even if we ignore that, those are just two different possible policy choices aimed at the same goal and our representative government ought to be allowed to make that choice absent a constitutional provision withholding that power (and no such provision has ever been consciously ratified).

2. Same, no. Worse, it depends on how much "a bit" is.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 03:24 PM
But like I said, I don't doubt that the government can offer at least one legitimate reason for the classification.

In your opinion there is no legitimate reason. That is not a hard fact.
There is nothing in our law or Constitution that forbids govt from any such classification. It's simply a matter of "we said so"—or—this is where we're drawing the line. They do it on many other things and they ignore the Constitution pretty much routinely these days.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 03:27 PM
Wow, you read a lot into my two sentences.

Lucky for you I'm not Amish or I would shun you. And once you've been shunned by a mutt you'll never go back to wasps!
I don't care if you shun me or not.

As for your accusation I think you did the same thing. Or perhaps you should communicate more clearly.

I prefer WASP men. So what? That's my right. I like them tall and lanky with caramel colored hair too. I don't care for most Italian men because of how they are with women. Some things yes, but in certain things no, which overules the positive for me. Probably because of how my father was. There's nothing wrong with that. As friends they're great though.

As far as races, ethnicities and cultures go, variety is the spice of life. I just don't see how some cultures can mix with others.....like the Arab/Muslims in Europe. Things like that are not workable.

vailpass
07-10-2010, 03:29 PM
Our country has too many REAL issues to face right now. I wish the govt. would table the rump ranger issue until we have the luxury of focusing resources on non-crucial cases.

noa
07-10-2010, 03:30 PM
1. For reasons already mentioned, adopting a child is different than producing a child, but even if we ignore that, those are just two different possible policy choices aimed at the same goal and our representative government ought to be allowed to make that choice absent a constitutional provision withholding that power (and no such provision has ever been consciously ratified).

There doesn't need to be an affirmative statutory provision telling the government it can't make that choice.

States are granting marriage licenses. Those are benefits to people being granted by state action. Most states will not grant a marriage license to gay couples based on their sexual orientation. That is a classification. When there is state action that grants a benefit to some while denying it to others based on a classification, it needs to past minimal constitutional muster -- that is, it must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. If states got out of the business of granting marriage licenses altogether, then it would be a different story. But as long as the state is granting to some while denying to others, it must do so without violating Equal Protection.

noa
07-10-2010, 03:32 PM
In your opinion there is no legitimate reason. That is not a hard fact.
There is nothing in our law or Constitution that forbids govt from any such classification. It's simply a matter of "we said so"—or—this is where we're drawing the line. They do it on many other things and they ignore the Constitution pretty much routinely these days.

Again Buc, I never said that was my opinion. You have created that fiction yourself, and I would appreciate if you read more closely so as to not mischaracterize my position. I have repeated throughout the thread that I think a state government can pass rational basis review on this issue.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 03:35 PM
States are granting marriage licenses. Those are benefits to people being granted by state action.
A license is not a benefit. It's simply permission to act or do something.

One shouldn't need any such permission to do what one has a right to do.
Liberty is freedom to act so long as no harm to another. Just get the govt out of it.

Most states will not grant a marriage license to gay couples based on their sexual orientation. That is a classification.

Classification is based on thousand year definition of marriage including precedent. You're trying to create special permission.
Govt classifies many other benefits by age, income bracket etc.

Age is a classification too. So are certain religious practices—polygamy and non religious like polyandry, or bigamy etc.

So is When there is state action that grants a benefit to some while denying it to others based on a classification, it needs to past minimal constitutional muster -- that is, it must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. If states got out of the business of granting marriage licenses altogether, then it would be a different story. But as long as the state is granting to some while denying to others, it must do so without violating Equal Protection.
State has a right to deny to others based on local laws because the Constitution grants moral policing to the states. It passes Constitutional muster. You just don't agree with it.

BucEyedPea
07-10-2010, 03:37 PM
Our country has too many REAL issues to face right now. I wish the govt. would table the rump ranger issue until we have the luxury of focusing resources on non-crucial cases.

:thumb:

patteeu
07-10-2010, 03:37 PM
I have to take issue with this. What if two people who can't have kids (infertile, diabetes, etc) want to get married? Is their marraige cheapened or less than someone who can have kids?

What issue are you taking with it?

The state could go to significant expense to screen for infertile couples and deny them a marriage license or they could just settle for a cheaper approximation and issue licenses to pretty much any man/woman couple who seeks to be married.

IMO, the marriage of a childless couple is less important than the marriage of a couple who have kids if that's what you're asking. Having said that, I'm in favor of two-party, lifetime, committed partnerships for all who want them whether there are government goodies involved or not. And I think the government should provide the basic infrastructure to make such partnerships manageable, including such things as default intestacy, divorce rules (preferably fault based), etc. but should otherwise stay out of them. I liked Holy Handgernade's post earlier describing a dual civil/religious system.

patteeu
07-10-2010, 03:41 PM
There doesn't need to be an affirmative statutory provision telling the government it can't make that choice.

States are granting marriage licenses. Those are benefits to people being granted by state action. Most states will not grant a marriage license to gay couples based on their sexual orientation. That is a classification. When there is state action that grants a benefit to some while denying it to others based on a classification, it needs to past minimal constitutional muster -- that is, it must be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. If states got out of the business of granting marriage licenses altogether, then it would be a different story. But as long as the state is granting to some while denying to others, it must do so without violating Equal Protection.

I agree with that except that IMO there IS a rational purpose to be served by man/woman marriages (even if I don't agree that the purpose is best pursued this way) and there shouldn't be an issue of equal protection since this application of that clause was almost certainly not contemplated by those who wrote or ratified the 14th amendment. I think changes to the constitution should be explicitly made through the amendment process not just created through reinterpretation.

noa
07-10-2010, 05:27 PM
A license is not a benefit. It's simply permission to act or do something.

One shouldn't need any such permission to do what one has a right to do.
Liberty is freedom to act so long as no harm to another. Just get the govt out of it.

A license is absolutely a benefit. That is how any court would interpret a license. Without a license, I may not engage in the given activity. If I hunted without a license, I would be subject to legal penalties. When a state gives out hunting licenses, it can discriminate rationally, but it couldn't, for example, deny hunting licenses to all women, because there wouldn't be adequate justification. When a state is conferring a license, it may not discriminate irrationally in its choices. But again, I am repeating myself when saying that the threshold for proving rationality for certain classifications if very low, and it would be extremely difficult for any opponent of the classification to successfully challenge. That person would have to show that there is not one single legitimate reason for the classification.

Frankly, it doesn't really even matter whether what the government is doing is conferring a benefit. If there is government action of any sort involving classifications, those classifications have to meet certain minimum standards.

I am also perplexed when you say "one shouldn't need permission to do what one has a right to do." First, you don't have a right to do things requiring a license without a license. Second, are you saying that marriage is a right? Because I thought earlier you said that it wasn't.

Classification is based on thousand year definition of marriage including precedent. You're trying to create special permission.
Govt classifies many other benefits by age, income bracket etc.

Age is a classification too. So are certain religious practices—polygamy and non religious like polyandry, or bigamy etc.

Yes, these are all classifications. A classification based on sexual orientation, no matter what it is rooted in, is still a classification. It does not seek to create special permission. The government itself is the one creating the classification when it grants marriage licenses to straight couples, but not to gay couples simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.

I think it would be helpful if we took a step back. Government action often involves classifications. Some of these classifications, like race, will trigger strict scrutiny and the government has a more difficult burden of justifying the classification. Others, like gender, trigger intermediate scrutiny. Most classifications, though, trigger rational basis review. This includes sexual orientation and age. The point is that even though these classifications are not of "protected groups," they are classifications nonetheless and need to be justified by a minimum threshold of showing a rational relation to a legitimate government interest. If the classification does not rationally serve that government interest, then the classification violates Equal Protection.

So my only point this whole time is that when dealing with a classification based on sexual orientation, the state's classification must pass rational basis review. I believe it could do that. And while I personally disagree with a ban on gay marriage, I do not believe that such a ban is unconstitutional. You have tried to portray my point as such, but it is not.


State has a right to deny to others based on local laws because the Constitution grants moral policing to the states. It passes Constitutional muster.

This is not true. The state only has a right to deny to others if it is doing so without violating Equal Protection or Due Process rights. There is no such thing as general moral policing that the states can engage in while violating Equal Protection or Due Process. States are always subject to Equal Protection and Due Process requirements. So again, if a state classification cannot pass the appropriate level of scrutiny based on the classification, then it is unconstitutional. If or certain Due Process rights are being affected without passing the appropriate level of scrutiny, then it is unconstitutional.

And while I'm beating a dead horse, I will repeat once more that I don't believe a state's ban on gay marriage is necessarily unconstitutional. My personal opinion is totally irrelevant to my take on the constitutionality, so please stop conflating the two.

Baby Lee
07-10-2010, 05:34 PM
How the heck does that square with couching the issue in terms of equal protection?

It's basically saying 'equal protection is the prime motivator, everyone should be treated equal under the law, and by everyone I mean gays, not those other people, fuck those other people we gotta draw the line somewhere because some people aren't equal under the law.'

Anyone?

noa
07-10-2010, 05:34 PM
I agree with that except that IMO there IS a rational purpose to be served by man/woman marriages (even if I don't agree that the purpose is best pursued this way) and there shouldn't be an issue of equal protection since this application of that clause was almost certainly not contemplated by those who wrote or ratified the 14th amendment. I think changes to the constitution should be explicitly made through the amendment process not just created through reinterpretation.

I agree with you that there most likely is a rational purpose to support the policy. I just don't personally agree with the rationales that I have heard offered, but I wouldn't presume that my opinion means no rational basis exists.

But I disagree that a change like this should be done though a constitutional amendment. We already have an amendment providing for equal protection when state action is involved. If a law or a policy violates that, then it is unconstitutional. That is, there is an existing provision in the constitution that is already being triggered, so we don't need to add another one. If, though, any legislative action needs to be taken on this, then you are right, the amendment process is the way to go. Passing a new statute wouldn't work because that would violate the separation of powers by telling the courts how to interpret the Constitution.

noa
07-10-2010, 05:36 PM
Anyone?

Well, I think the best argument (not one I think is a winning argument) is that the classification based on sexual orientation cannot be rationally supported, while a classification based on human/farm animal marriage or polygamy could for reasons already put forth in this thread.

go bowe
07-10-2010, 06:04 PM
hey, some farm animals are kinda cute...

RJ
07-10-2010, 06:10 PM
I don't care if you shun me or not.

As for your accusation I think you did the same thing. Or perhaps you should communicate more clearly.

I prefer WASP men. So what? That's my right. I like them tall and lanky with caramel colored hair too. I don't care for most Italian men because of how they are with women. Some things yes, but in certain things no, which overules the positive for me. Probably because of how my father was. There's nothing wrong with that. As friends they're great though.

As far as races, ethnicities and cultures go, variety is the spice of life. I just don't see how some cultures can mix with others.....like the Arab/Muslims in Europe. Things like that are not workable.



The shunning thing usually gets a laugh.

Why so serious?

DenverChief
07-10-2010, 08:08 PM
'Eh no, you still haven't duplicated what I wrote. Your link provided no comparison on such rates between heteros and homos.
When you can't make a point with facts, but switch to different ones.....you have a strawman—a logical outpoint.
Yup, you're a dumb illiterate cop* who can only engage in nervous laughter that mocks another when they lose.
Clear evidence, you've proved nothing.


* what goes around comes around

Apparently you need to RE-READ my post then--- I'm sorry grade school failed you

go bowe
07-10-2010, 08:17 PM
Apparently you need to RE-READ my post then--- I'm sorry grade school failed youno, you have a logical outpoint...

try to keep up... :p :p :p

go bowe
07-10-2010, 08:17 PM
you know that bug on my screen freaks me out just a little, don't you?

go bowe
07-10-2010, 08:20 PM
no, you have a logical outpoint...

try to keep up... :p :p :pand don't forget the dumb illiterate cop routine, i thought that was almost skip-like in its inanity (is that even a word?)...

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2010, 09:14 PM
Anyone?

Equal protection is NOT a legitimate argument in this context. That's why al, or Isaac, heck even John....and no one else will address it.

To use equal protection in this context, one would have to assume/presume that sexual orientation is akin to gender and race. That is, presently, a false assumption.

Purely and simply, sexual orientation is not (legally speaking) the same as race or gender (at least the SC has never, yet, come close to suggesting otherwise.) One can wish that were the case, but it is not. Until we definitively demonstrate that sexual orientation is mostly nature versus nuture (or lack of nurture) the equal protection comparison will fail. Thus the "equal protection" argument is a straw man.

Period.

noa
07-10-2010, 09:39 PM
Equal protection is NOT a legitimate argument in this context. That's why al, or Isaac, heck even John....and no one else will address it.

To use equal protection in this context, one would have to assume/presume that sexual orientation is akin to gender and race. That is, presently, a false assumption.

Purely and simply, sexual orientation is not (legally speaking) the same as race or gender (at least the SC has never, yet, come close to suggesting otherwise.) One can wish that were the case, but it is not. Until we definitively demonstrate that sexual orientation is mostly nature versus nuture (or lack of nurture) the equal protection comparison will fail. Thus the "equal protection" argument is a straw man.

Period.

That is not true.

Any government classification can trigger equal protection.

Further, sexual orientation as a classification has ALREADY been addressed by the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans.

It's just that sexual orientation is not a "suspect classification" triggering high levels of scrutiny. But it is still a classification.

noa
07-10-2010, 09:43 PM
Hell, children of illegal immigrants has been a recognized classification. So have mentally retarded people, indigent rural parents, and yes, homosexuals.

These classifications have all been addressed in Supreme Court cases.

go bowe
07-10-2010, 09:49 PM
Equal protection is NOT a legitimate argument in this context. That's why al, or Isaac, heck even John....and no one else will address it.

To use equal protection in this context, one would have to assume/presume that sexual orientation is akin to gender and race. That is, presently, a false assumption.

Purely and simply, sexual orientation is not (legally speaking) the same as race or gender (at least the SC has never, yet, come close to suggesting otherwise.) One can wish that were the case, but it is not. Until we definitively demonstrate that sexual orientation is mostly nature versus nuture (or lack of nurture) the equal protection comparison will fail. Thus the "equal protection" argument is a straw man.

Period.there's no need to assume that sexual orientation is akin to gender and race in order for equal protection to apply...

under equal protection any classification must be rationally related to a legitimate state purpose...

suspect classes race and gender get highter scrutiny, but they aren't the only classifications covered...

i don't think the equal protection argument is a straw man at all...

comma...

go bowe
07-10-2010, 09:51 PM
Hell, children of illegal immigrants has been a recognized classification. So have mentally retarded people, indigent rural parents, and yes, homosexuals.

These classifications have all been addressed in Supreme Court cases.omg, homos?

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2010, 09:52 PM
It's just that sexual orientation is not a "suspect classification" triggering high levels of scrutiny. But it is still a classification.

THAT is the only part of your post that matters...without the "strict scrutiny" test, homosexuals will not join gender and race as "protected classes."

there's no need to assume that sexual orientation is akin to gender and race in order for equal protection to apply...

under equal protection any classification must be rationally related to a legitimate state purpose...

suspect classes race and gender get highter scrutiny, but they aren't the only classifications covered...

i don't think the equal protection argument is a straw man at all...

comma...

Without, "strict scrutiny"...homosexuals are out of luck with the equal protection argument.

Hell, children of illegal immigrants has been a recognized classification. So have mentally retarded people, indigent rural parents, and yes, homosexuals.

These classifications have all been addressed in Supreme Court cases.

Again, "addresed" does not afford them the status of a protected class....subject to strict scrutiny. And it ain't gonna happen as soon a gay rights advocates hope, either.

noa
07-10-2010, 10:04 PM
THAT is the only part of your post that matters...without the "strict scrutiny" test, homosexuals will not join gender and race as "protected classes."

Without, "strict scrutiny"...homosexuals are out of luck with the equal protection argument.

Again, "addresed" does not afford them the status of a protected class....subject to strict scrutiny. And it ain't gonna happen as soon a gay rights advocates hope, either.


Yes, but I don't think people are arguing for strict scrutiny.

People are just saying that equal protection is still implicated due to the classification -- a classification that would trigger rational basis review. You don't have to be a member of a class worthy of strict scrutiny to have your equal protection rights violated.

Now, if your argument is that the sexual orientation classification passes rational basis review, while I personally disagree that it is rational, I do agree with you that most courts would find it as such, and it is therefore constitutional.

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2010, 10:10 PM
Yes, but I don't think people are arguing for strict scrutiny.

People are just saying that equal protection is still implicated due to the classification -- a classification that would trigger rational basis review. You don't have to be a member of a class worthy of strict scrutiny to have your equal protection rights violated.

Now, if your argument is that the sexual orientation classification passes rational basis review, while I personally disagree that it is rational, I do agree with you that most courts would find it as such, and it is therefore constitutional.

To enjoy the level of protection activists envision, it will need to become a "protected class" subject to strict scrutiny. Regardless, you are right...also....about the 'rational basis' test; most courts, and eventually appeals courts and the Supremes, could very likely find it passes the "rational" basis test as well. In which case, activists are screwed. Heh.

THAT, of course though, could depend on whether Obama is another one-termer like Jimmy Carter (or if he's the Dem Reagan) and who he replaces on the S.C. :hmmm:

Regardless, it's an intriguing discussion. :toast:

patteeu
07-10-2010, 10:23 PM
I agree with you that there most likely is a rational purpose to support the policy. I just don't personally agree with the rationales that I have heard offered, but I wouldn't presume that my opinion means no rational basis exists.

I don't personally agree with the rationales here either so we agree on both counts.

But I disagree that a change like this should be done though a constitutional amendment. We already have an amendment providing for equal protection when state action is involved. If a law or a policy violates that, then it is unconstitutional. That is, there is an existing provision in the constitution that is already being triggered, so we don't need to add another one. If, though, any legislative action needs to be taken on this, then you are right, the amendment process is the way to go. Passing a new statute wouldn't work because that would violate the separation of powers by telling the courts how to interpret the Constitution.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because there's no way that the people who amended the constitution with the 14th amendment had anything close to an intention to extend marriage to same sex couples.

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2010, 10:25 PM
... there's no way that the people who amended the constitution with the 14th amendment had anything close to an intention to extend marriage to same sex couples.

The bottom-line. Period. :toast:

WoodDraw
07-10-2010, 11:46 PM
The bottom-line. Period. :toast:

Gay marriage won't come from the 14th amendment on a federal level; it will come from full faith and credit. And that's a much stronger case.

I brought up the adoption scenario earlier because I think it brings a more universal acceptance than gay marriage and it's advancing far more quickly.

Mr. Kotter
07-10-2010, 11:59 PM
Gay marriage won't come from the 14th amendment on a federal level; it will come from full faith and credit. And that's a much stronger case.

I brought up the adoption scenario earlier because I think it brings a more universal acceptance than gay marriage and it's advancing far more quickly.

Adoption, by gay couples is preferable to foster care. That's it.

It won't have much, if any bearing on the "marriage" or "equal protection" questions IMHO. Guess we'll see though.

:shrug:

DenverChief
07-11-2010, 12:01 AM
you know that bug on my screen freaks me out just a little, don't you?




:LOL: I'm sorry :p

irishjayhawk
07-11-2010, 12:05 AM
I don't personally agree with the rationales here either so we agree on both counts.



We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because there's no way that the people who amended the constitution with the 14th amendment had anything close to an intention to extend marriage to same sex couples.

The bottom-line. Period. :toast:


The people who created the Constitution and the people who changed the constitution through amendments didn't have a lot of things in mind. I think that's a piss poor way to look at history, the Constitution and the future.

WoodDraw
07-11-2010, 12:15 AM
Adoption, by gay couples is preferable to foster care. That's it.

It won't have much, if any bearing on the "marriage" or "equal protection" questions IMHO. Guess we'll see though.

:shrug:

It has bearing when couples move between state lines with their children.

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2010, 12:16 AM
The people who created the Constitution and the people who changed the constitution through amendments didn't have a lot of things in mind. I think that's a piss poor way to look at history, the Constitution and the future.

You choose to be wrong. Join the crowd. Whoopty-friggin'-doo. :shrug:


:rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2010, 12:17 AM
It has bearing when couples move between state lines with their children.

Primary guardianship solves that issue pretty easily, without the political cluster-fukk of "gay marriage"...don't it?

:)

go bowe
07-11-2010, 01:06 AM
To enjoy the level of protection activists envision, it will need to become a "protected class" subject to strict scrutiny. Regardless, you are right...also....about the 'rational basis' test; most courts, and eventually appeals courts and the Supremes, could very likely find it passes the "rational" basis test as well. In which case, activists are screwed. Heh.

THAT, of course though, could depend on whether Obama is another one-termer like Jimmy Carter (or if he's the Dem Reagan) and who he replaces on the S.C. :hmmm:

Regardless, it's an intriguing discussion. :toast:last time i checked, roberts, scalia, thomas and alito are all young men...

kennedy is the only old guy on the conservative bench while the libs are older and will need replacing sooner...

if all the old geezers would step down now and let obama nominate replacements for them, the court would stay 4-4 with kennedy as the kicker...

no second term makes it unlikely that retiring lib justices would be replaced with like minded jurists...

no second term could mean a sea change in the legal landscape that could last 20 years or more...

edit: ok scalia is in his mid-70's but he's too mean to die young...

go bowe
07-11-2010, 01:11 AM
but there will be a second term unless republicans can find a newcomer with the charm of clinton and the political savy of rove...

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2010, 01:16 AM
...
no second term could mean a sea change in the legal landscape that could last 20 years or more...

Works for me... :)

go bowe
07-11-2010, 01:19 AM
Works for me... :)i bet...

lostcause
07-11-2010, 01:53 AM
really? i still don't understand why this is an issue. The definition of marriage has nothing to do with child bearing and everything to do with union. Why do people oppose this? I don't get it. Who is threatened and how?

patteeu
07-11-2010, 09:43 AM
The people who created the Constitution and the people who changed the constitution through amendments didn't have a lot of things in mind. I think that's a piss poor way to look at history, the Constitution and the future.

Let's say you successfully rallied the American people to amend the constitution with the following amendment*:

The government shall pass no law intended to prevent, deter, or otherwise hinder atheists from speaking out against religion.

Now let's say that a state creates a licensing system for "atheists" and that they allow people to pay a hefty license fee (let's say $10,000 per year) for the privilege of becoming a licensed atheist and at the same time the state passes a law making it illegal for all but licensed atheists to criticize religion. You won't complain if the court upholds that law on the basis of a decision that redefines "atheist" to mean licensed atheist, right?

_______________
* For our purposes here, lets ignore any complications from other parts of the constitution like the first amendment.

patteeu
07-11-2010, 09:45 AM
really? i still don't understand why this is an issue. The definition of marriage has nothing to do with child bearing and everything to do with union. Why do people oppose this? I don't get it. Who is threatened and how?

Marriage has a lot to do with child bearing and child rearing.

patteeu
07-11-2010, 09:46 AM
no second term could mean a sea change in the legal landscape that could last 20 years or more...

*fingers crossed*

BucEyedPea
07-11-2010, 10:51 AM
really? i still don't understand why this is an issue. The definition of marriage has nothing to do with child bearing and everything to do with union. Why do people oppose this? I don't get it. Who is threatened and how?

You mean child rearing right? Because "child bearing" means getting and being pregnant ; then carrying a fetus in one's womb until birth. That's bearing a child. A woman's body does this.
However, getting her into that condition takes one man and one woman. This is a FACT of nature.


http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/childbearing.htm

healthpellets
07-11-2010, 11:42 AM
can someone that opposes gay marriage explain this to me please...

the government rewards those who marry with tax breaks, yet prevents all citizens that are subject to paying taxes from obtaining that tax break. and that's okay, how? and no, simply saying that gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex for the tax breaks is not acceptable. btw, i don't see this any differently than saying white people can't marry black people.

question two...what is it about gay people marrying that scares the shyte out of you so much? it doesn't devalue your heterosexual union in any way.

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2010, 12:00 PM
can someone that opposes gay marriage explain this to me please...

the government rewards those who marry with tax breaks, yet prevents all citizens that are subject to paying taxes from obtaining that tax break. and that's okay, how? and no, simply saying that gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex for the tax breaks is not acceptable. btw, i don't see this any differently than saying white people can't marry black people.

question two...what is it about gay people marrying that scares the shyte out of you so much? it doesn't devalue your heterosexual union in any way.

Your unspoken assumption is that homosexuality is biological, not behavorial. That's a crucial distinction, legally, between gender/race and homosexuality; that is the genetic basis for a class distinction that homosexuality does not, at this point, share. And likely won't.

Thus, race and gender, are suspect classes subject to a tough "strict scrutiny" test. Homosexuality may not even survive a the less stringent "rational basis" test in most courts. They'll keep tryin', but it's pissin' in the wind until science makes their case for them. Good luck.

irishjayhawk
07-11-2010, 12:21 PM
You choose to be wrong. Join the crowd. Whoopty-friggin'-doo. :shrug:


:rolleyes:

I'm unsure what you mean or are trying to say.

Let's say you successfully rallied the American people to amend the constitution with the following amendment*:



Now let's say that a state creates a licensing system for "atheists" and that they allow people to pay a hefty license fee (let's say $10,000 per year) for the privilege of becoming a licensed atheist and at the same time the state passes a law making it illegal for all but licensed atheists to criticize religion. You won't complain if the court upholds that law on the basis of a decision that redefines "atheist" to mean licensed atheist, right?

_______________
* For our purposes here, lets ignore any complications from other parts of the constitution like the first amendment.

First, I'm unsure what this hypothetical has to do with the antiquated view that whatever was written 200 years ago is how it should be looked at 200 years later, which was my main point.

Second, the analogy fails, for me, on many levels. On the one hand, I don't see any connection whatsoever between gay marriage and licensed marriage or civil unions. I'm seriously trying to see parallels in your analogy but, unfortunately, they're lost on me. Atheism, in today's world, is mostly a choice*. People defecting from religion. Whereas gay marriage is not defecting from being straight. Moreover, I'm not sure how this decision redefines marriage. All it does is remove the religious context from the term (religious context being man and wife only). Instead, it creates equality. It has nothing to do with married people and licensed married people.

I'm willing to bet I'm completely missing your point. So, perhaps rephrase because I see no connection whatsoever.

ClevelandBronco
07-11-2010, 12:51 PM
can someone that opposes gay marriage explain this to me please...

the government rewards those who marry with tax breaks...

I'm on your side of the marriage issue, but I have to point out that for a two-income family there's actually a marriage penalty in many cases. Married homosexuals will often find themselves paying higher income taxes than they would if they remained single.

Facing higher income taxes hasn't stopped heterosexuals from marrying and I doubt it will play into the decisions of any but perhaps a handful of homosexuals.

No cracks about a handful of homosexuals, please.

orange
07-11-2010, 01:41 PM
kennedy is the only old guy on the conservative bench while the libs are older and will need replacing sooner...


Kennedy said this week that he intends to wait out Obama... at least through 2012.

I would guess he'll keep waiting through 2016 if his health allows.

The month or so that we had both Kennedy and Franken... should have packed the Court right then. :shake:

patteeu
07-11-2010, 01:48 PM
can someone that opposes gay marriage explain this to me please...

the government rewards those who marry with tax breaks, yet prevents all citizens that are subject to paying taxes from obtaining that tax break. and that's okay, how? and no, simply saying that gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex for the tax breaks is not acceptable. btw, i don't see this any differently than saying white people can't marry black people.

question two...what is it about gay people marrying that scares the shyte out of you so much? it doesn't devalue your heterosexual union in any way.

I don't oppose gay marriage (in fact, I support it), but I'll answer your first question anyway. Government rewards all sorts of different behaviors with tax breaks. Examples include, saving for retirement, having children, investing in the right type of capital equipment, owning a home, and marrying someone of the opposite sex. I don't see why the last one bothers you when you don't seem to be too upset that renters don't have access to the home mortgage deduction.

patteeu
07-11-2010, 02:02 PM
I'm unsure what you mean or are trying to say.



First, I'm unsure what this hypothetical has to do with the antiquated view that whatever was written 200 years ago is how it should be looked at 200 years later, which was my main point.

Second, the analogy fails, for me, on many levels. On the one hand, I don't see any connection whatsoever between gay marriage and licensed marriage or civil unions. I'm seriously trying to see parallels in your analogy but, unfortunately, they're lost on me. Atheism, in today's world, is mostly a choice*. People defecting from religion. Whereas gay marriage is not defecting from being straight. Moreover, I'm not sure how this decision redefines marriage. All it does is remove the religious context from the term (religious context being man and wife only). Instead, it creates equality. It has nothing to do with married people and licensed married people.

I'm willing to bet I'm completely missing your point. So, perhaps rephrase because I see no connection whatsoever.

I don't want to get sidetracked on a discussion of atheism, but atheism is no more obviously a choice than sexual preference. It may be less likely to be biological/genetic in origin, but homosexuality may not be either. Could you seriously just switch on a dime and choose to be devoutly religious (and really believe it)? I know I couldn't.

The point of the analogy, even if it's flawed, seems to have registered with you since you seem to think it matters that we're discussing an "antique" viewpoint. It doesn't matter how old that viewpoint is, that's the viewpoint that generated the 14th amendment. No one should come along 3 weeks later or 150 years later and change the definitions of the words to suit them without going through the amendment process themselves. If you want the constitution to mean something different than it did when the people ratified it, run the amendment gauntlet.

patteeu
07-11-2010, 02:03 PM
can someone that opposes gay marriage explain this to me please...

the government rewards those who marry with tax breaks, yet prevents all citizens that are subject to paying taxes from obtaining that tax break. and that's okay, how? and no, simply saying that gay people can just marry someone of the opposite sex for the tax breaks is not acceptable. btw, i don't see this any differently than saying white people can't marry black people.

question two...what is it about gay people marrying that scares the shyte out of you so much? it doesn't devalue your heterosexual union in any way.

I don't oppose gay marriage (in fact, I support it), but I'll answer your first question anyway. Government rewards all sorts of different behaviors with tax breaks. Examples include, saving for retirement, having children, investing in the right type of capital equipment, owning a home, and marrying someone of the opposite sex. I don't see why the last one bothers you when you don't seem to be too upset that renters don't have access to the home mortgage deduction.

go bowe
07-11-2010, 02:22 PM
Your unspoken assumption is that homosexuality is biological, not behavorial. That's a crucial distinction, legally, between gender/race and homosexuality; that is the genetic basis for a class distinction that homosexuality does not, at this point, share. And likely won't.

Thus, race and gender, are suspect classes subject to a tough "strict scrutiny" test. Homosexuality may not even survive a the less stringent "rational basis" test in most courts. They'll keep tryin', but it's pissin' in the wind until science makes their case for them. Good luck.actually race and national origin are suspect classes, and national origin has nothing to do with genetics...

sex is a quasi-suspect class which is not subject to strict scrutiny...

and fwiw the supremes have already held that discrimination against gays does not satisfy the rational basis test (romer)...

that wind is not much more than a gental breeze, so i'll piss away thank you very much...

Mr. Kotter
07-11-2010, 02:40 PM
actually race and national origin are suspect classes, and national origin has nothing to do with genetics...

sex is a quasi-suspect class which is not subject to strict scrutiny...

and fwiw the supremes have already held that discrimination against gays does not satisfy the rational basis test (romer)...

that wind is not much more than a gental breeze, so i'll piss away thank you very much...

Suspect class/protected class arguments get murky, yes. National origin, is not a behavioral/sociological issue though either. The supremes, at this point, have not afforded homosexuality the same protections as race/gender/or even national origin at this point. It's unlikely to happen in our lifetime, IMHO. Guess we'll see though. Regardless, I prefer to piss with the wind....even if it is a gentle breeze.

:D

irishjayhawk
07-11-2010, 05:47 PM
I don't want to get sidetracked on a discussion of atheism, but atheism is no more obviously a choice than sexual preference. It may be less likely to be biological/genetic in origin, but homosexuality may not be either. Could you seriously just switch on a dime and choose to be devoutly religious (and really believe it)? I know I couldn't.

Bullshit. And that's bullshit despite the fact I think people are born atheistic and are conditioned into religion. Equating the non-belief of a deity to sexual orientation is, as it was when you first proposed it, laughable.


The point of the analogy, even if it's flawed, seems to have registered with you since you seem to think it matters that we're discussing an "antique" viewpoint. It doesn't matter how old that viewpoint is, that's the viewpoint that generated the 14th amendment. No one should come along 3 weeks later or 150 years later and change the definitions of the words to suit them without going through the amendment process themselves. If you want the constitution to mean something different than it did when the people ratified it, run the amendment gauntlet.

So, what you're saying is that we need a civil rights movement or, god forbid a civil war, to generate an amendment process when we already have an existing amendment that can be easily interpreted to fit today's scenario.

That's an absolutely ludicrous view. I can't even put into words the stupidity of that stance.

lostcause
07-12-2010, 01:14 AM
Marriage has a lot to do with child bearing and child rearing.

pleae point me to where that is a legal connection

lostcause
07-12-2010, 01:16 AM
You mean child rearing right? Because "child bearing" means getting and being pregnant ; then carrying a fetus in one's womb until birth. That's bearing a child. A woman's body does this.
However, getting her into that condition takes one man and one woman. This is a FACT of nature.


http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/childbearing.htm

Thank you for the biology lesson. What does this have to do with a legal state of marriage and union between two people?

lostcause
07-12-2010, 01:19 AM
Your unspoken assumption is that homosexuality is biological, not behavorial. That's a crucial distinction, legally, between gender/race and homosexuality; that is the genetic basis for a class distinction that homosexuality does not, at this point, share. And likely won't.

Thus, race and gender, are suspect classes subject to a tough "strict scrutiny" test. Homosexuality may not even survive a the less stringent "rational basis" test in most courts. They'll keep tryin', but it's pissin' in the wind until science makes their case for them. Good luck.

It should be irrelevant whether it is biological or behavioral. I am not hear to make that point. I do believe that any two human beings on the planet that wish to be together and make that commitment should have the opportunity to.

ClevelandBronco
07-12-2010, 01:28 AM
It should be irrelevant whether it is biological or behavioral. I am not hear to make that point. I do believe that any two human beings on the planet that wish to be together and make that commitment should have the opportunity to.

Really? No restrictions at all?

lostcause
07-12-2010, 01:35 AM
Correct.

ClevelandBronco
07-12-2010, 01:39 AM
So let's say your 12-year-old son wants to marry his grandfather (assuming he's not married at the time). No restrictions?

lostcause
07-12-2010, 01:40 AM
fair reply, lets amend that to adult. 18+

ClevelandBronco
07-12-2010, 01:44 AM
fair reply, lets amend that to adult. 18+

Okay. Let's say that you and your 18 year old son want to get married. Are we okay now that he's old enough to make that decision?

lostcause
07-12-2010, 01:45 AM
Okay. Let's say that you and your 18 year old son want to get married. Are we okay now that he's old enough to make that decision?

yes.

ClevelandBronco
07-12-2010, 01:49 AM
yes.

I wish you both the very best.

lostcause
07-12-2010, 01:51 AM
I wish you both the very best.

Thank you for making this a personal attempt to discredit my views.

ClevelandBronco
07-12-2010, 01:56 AM
Thank you for making this a personal attempt to discredit my views.

You're welcome, I guess, but I've only asked questions. Your answers have brought you either credit or discredit.

Taco John
07-12-2010, 02:21 AM
Okay. Let's say that you and your 18 year old son want to get married. Are we okay now that he's old enough to make that decision?

I don't have a problem with this as a civil union under the state for the purposes of joining property and gaining the same subsidies and protections as a male and a female who have done the same under the banner "marriage." As far as a religious thing though, I wouldn't attend a church that performed a "marriage" of this type.

Saggysack
07-12-2010, 04:14 AM
As far as a religious thing though, I wouldn't attend a church that performed a "marriage" of this type.

That's okay. They probably wouldn't want to attend or get married in a church with a bigot like yourself being a member of it either.

|Zach|
07-12-2010, 05:57 AM
http://cdn2.sbnation.com/fan_shot_images/130888/87e265b1a1bd0be25ed209c444071501ef21337c.jpg

ClevelandBronco
07-12-2010, 10:20 AM
I don't have a problem with this as a civil union under the state for the purposes of joining property and gaining the same subsidies and protections as a male and a female who have done the same under the banner "marriage." As far as a religious thing though, I wouldn't attend a church that performed a "marriage" of this type.

The proper series of marriages, property transfers and divorces would ensure that no inheritance tax could be collected.

Baby Lee
07-12-2010, 10:44 AM
The whole 'marry your dog' thing misses the target and inflames the discussion. I've introduced it before for discussion and it's generally a conversation killer, but I think it goes to the heart of the issue, so I'll press it once again.

What are the rules we feel comfortable making about marriage that are truly equal?

Can I marry someone I've never met, that I'll only ever meet over the internet, who I'll never meet but will use our marriage to become a citizen.

Can more than two people marry, college roommates, fraternities/sororities, communes, neighborhoods.

Can there be a marriage craigslist, where people post their benefit profile and marry based on their best benefit fit.

Do we have to like each other, love each other, live together, live in the same city, interact electronically, have sex, have kids.

Can two old widowers marry, can a wing of an old folks home group marry?

We need to think comprehensively about this issue if we're talking about equality and justice. If we're not thinking comprehensively, we're just responding ad hoc to interest group pressure without true concern for equality and justice for all.

mlyonsd
07-12-2010, 10:47 AM
The whole 'marry your dog' thing misses the target and inflames the discussion. I've introduced it before for discussion and it's generally a conversation killer, but I think it goes to the heart of the issue, so I'll press it once again.

What are the rules we feel comfortable making about marriage that are truly equal?

Can I marry someone I've never met, that I'll only ever meet over the internet, who I'll never meet but will use our marriage to become a citizen.

Can more than two people marry, college roommates, fraternities/sororities, communes, neighborhoods.

Can there be a marriage craigslist, where people post their benefit profile and marry based on their best benefit fit.

Do we have to like each other, love each other, live together, live in the same city, interact electronically, have sex, have kids.

Can two old widowers marry, can a wing of an old folks home group marry?

We need to think comprehensively about this issue if we're talking about equality and justice. If we're not thinking comprehensively, we're just responding ad hoc to interest group pressure without true concern for equality and justice for all.

Nailed it.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2010, 10:47 AM
We need to think comprehensively about this issue if we're talking about equality and justice. If we're not thinking comprehensively, we're just responding ad hoc to interest group pressure without true concern for equality and justice for all.

Excellent point! :thumb:

healthpellets
07-12-2010, 10:58 AM
I don't oppose gay marriage (in fact, I support it), but I'll answer your first question anyway. Government rewards all sorts of different behaviors with tax breaks. Examples include, saving for retirement, having children, investing in the right type of capital equipment, owning a home, and marrying someone of the opposite sex. I don't see why the last one bothers you when you don't seem to be too upset that renters don't have access to the home mortgage deduction.

but everything you listed is something that one can do on his own, without sanctioning from the government. you can build retirement savings, invest in capital, and own a home without "permission" from the government.

patteeu
07-12-2010, 12:45 PM
but everything you listed is something that one can do on his own, without sanctioning from the government. you can build retirement savings, invest in capital, and own a home without "permission" from the government.

You can have a lifetime committed partnership and call it a marriage without the government too.

Edit: You can do all of those things, including marry, but if you want the special benefits, you have to meet the standards set by the government. Take out a mortgage to buy a home, get a tax break. Rent the same home, enjoy your life but no tax break. Marry someone of the opposite sex, get special treatment. Marry someone of the same sex, enjoy life but your choice doesn't make you eligible for special treatment.

patteeu
07-12-2010, 12:49 PM
Bullshit. And that's bullshit despite the fact I think people are born atheistic and are conditioned into religion. Equating the non-belief of a deity to sexual orientation is, as it was when you first proposed it, laughable.



So, what you're saying is that we need a civil rights movement or, god forbid a civil war, to generate an amendment process when we already have an existing amendment that can be easily interpreted to fit today's scenario.

That's an absolutely ludicrous view. I can't even put into words the stupidity of that stance.

Really? If you're going to invoke a fallacious argument from authority, I think you'd have a better chance of slipping it past the logic-challenged if your authority wasn't irishjayhawk.

Yes, I'm old-school in the sense that I think a constitutional amendment ought to be required to change the constitution, not just a novel reinterpretation. But for the purpose of gay marriage that shouldn't be required. A simple statute passed by the will of the majority should be adequate.

patteeu
07-12-2010, 12:54 PM
pleae point me to where that is a legal connection

You're going to have to make your question more clear.

Omaha
07-12-2010, 01:54 PM
Gee, I wasn't even thinking of HIV or AIDs. Just the higher rate of STDs from much higher levels of promiscuity ( even when with a partner), use of drugs and the subsequent health problems from those including earlier death. Let private insurance sort it all out with fees like they already do when they ask if you smoke etc.


wow....

BucEyedPea
07-12-2010, 01:56 PM
wow....

Yeah wow, letting insurance determine what fees someone should pay based on lifestyle. What a novel idea.

BucEyedPea
07-12-2010, 01:57 PM
That's okay. They probably wouldn't want to attend or get married in a church with a bigot like yourself being a member of it either.

In a free country a person has a right to be a bigot. Don't forget people on your side have their own bigotry too. Like on religion and Christians.

irishjayhawk
07-12-2010, 03:09 PM
Really? If you're going to invoke a fallacious argument from authority, I think you'd have a better chance of slipping it past the logic-challenged if your authority wasn't irishjayhawk.

I guess i'm missing where I made an argument from authority.


Yes, I'm old-school in the sense that I think a constitutional amendment ought to be required to change the constitution, not just a novel reinterpretation. But for the purpose of gay marriage that shouldn't be required. A simple statute passed by the will of the majority should be adequate.

So, we're basically back to civil war era. Some states accept and some don't. And to get equality (which is what every generation since has deemed the war got us) we'd need to go to war again.

I just don't see any merit in that logic whatsoever.

irishjayhawk
07-12-2010, 03:11 PM
The whole 'marry your dog' thing misses the target and inflames the discussion. I've introduced it before for discussion and it's generally a conversation killer, but I think it goes to the heart of the issue, so I'll press it once again.

What are the rules we feel comfortable making about marriage that are truly equal?

Can I marry someone I've never met, that I'll only ever meet over the internet, who I'll never meet but will use our marriage to become a citizen.

Can more than two people marry, college roommates, fraternities/sororities, communes, neighborhoods.

Can there be a marriage craigslist, where people post their benefit profile and marry based on their best benefit fit.

Do we have to like each other, love each other, live together, live in the same city, interact electronically, have sex, have kids.

Can two old widowers marry, can a wing of an old folks home group marry?

We need to think comprehensively about this issue if we're talking about equality and justice. If we're not thinking comprehensively, we're just responding ad hoc to interest group pressure without true concern for equality and justice for all.

With this stance we're arbitrarily assigning the historical/traditional definition of marriage as the correct one.

That is, the same set of questions could be asked of our current definition. What makes the current definition correct?

Saggysack
07-13-2010, 01:56 AM
In a free country a person has a right to be a bigot. Don't forget people on your side have their own bigotry too. Like on religion and Christians.

Wear it with pride, bigot.

patteeu
07-13-2010, 07:12 AM
I guess i'm missing where I made an argument from authority.



So, we're basically back to civil war era. Some states accept and some don't. And to get equality (which is what every generation since has deemed the war got us) we'd need to go to war again.

I just don't see any merit in that logic whatsoever.

The argument from "authority" was the "because I say so" nature of your argument. You were essentially using yourself as an authority rather than making an argument.

The 14th amendment was passed during the civil war era so in order to figure out what the people who went through the process of amending the constitution did we have to view it in that context. It's ridiculous to think that we have to go to war to resolve this issue. We have several options short of war. First, we could leave things as they are. Second, we could make changes legislatively. Third, we could pass another constitutional amendment. Where do you get the idea that we need a war?

patteeu
07-13-2010, 07:16 AM
With this stance we're arbitrarily assigning the historical/traditional definition of marriage as the correct one.

That is, the same set of questions could be asked of our current definition. What makes the current definition correct?

You're missing the point. The issue is whether or not it's acceptable to have a more-or-less arbitrary definition of marriage or whether a comprehensively non-discriminatory definition is required. If it's the former, then the current definition is clearly acceptable (as would be a definition embracing same sex marriage). If it's the latter, then real questions arise about whether it's adequate to open marriage up to gay couples.

go bowe
07-13-2010, 03:08 PM
You're missing the point. The issue is whether or not it's acceptable to have a more-or-less arbitrary definition of marriage or whether a comprehensively non-discriminatory definition is required. If it's the former, then the current definition is clearly acceptable (as would be a definition embracing same sex marriage). If it's the latter, then real questions arise about whether it's adequate to open marriage up to gay couples.that's why i support multiple partner marriage and i've got my eye on a heifer out at hog's place...

Cave Johnson
07-13-2010, 03:31 PM
You can have a lifetime committed partnership and call it a marriage without the government too.

Edit: You can do all of those things, including marry, but if you want the special benefits, you have to meet the standards set by the government. Take out a mortgage to buy a home, get a tax break. Rent the same home, enjoy your life but no tax break. Marry someone of the opposite sex, get special treatment. Marry someone of the same sex, enjoy life but your choice doesn't make you eligible for special treatment.

You say special, I say equal.

This (probably not this case specifically, but more likely the Cali case) is this generation's <u>Loving v. Virginia</u>. And to Buc's point, people have the right to bigotry. Governments don't.

Cave Johnson
07-13-2010, 03:37 PM
The anti-gay position was so strong in the Cali case, all but one of the opposition's witnesses opted not to testify at trial.

<object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/30183073001?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=110988111001&playerID=30183073001&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9/30183073001?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=110988111001&playerID=30183073001&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

Saul Good
07-13-2010, 08:25 PM
With this stance we're arbitrarily assigning the historical/traditional definition of marriage as the correct one.

That is, the same set of questions could be asked of our current definition. What makes the current definition correct?

If it's historical/traditional, it's not arbitrary.

irishjayhawk
07-13-2010, 08:28 PM
The argument from "authority" was the "because I say so" nature of your argument. You were essentially using yourself as an authority rather than making an argument.

This is partially true. It's also true I cannot fathom abiding by your stance.


The 14th amendment was passed during the civil war era so in order to figure out what the people who went through the process of amending the constitution did we have to view it in that context. It's ridiculous to think that we have to go to war to resolve this issue. We have several options short of war. First, we could leave things as they are. Second, we could make changes legislatively. Third, we could pass another constitutional amendment. Where do you get the idea that we need a war?

I'm not. Obviously, I'm drawing a correlation with the stance. Amending the constitution is hard. It's rarely done because of the hardship and it'd be even harder in today's fear mongering, bigoted culture. (I guess no more bigoted than it has been in the past, though.)

I also suggested we'd need a repeat of the civil rights movement, which seems to be what you're suggesting we need. Rather than utilize the principles that sparked the 14th amendment in the first place, you suggest we take up a legislative route knowing full well the country will be divided. Congress won't pass anything on it for a while and states will be divided, just as the civil war was. Actually, both aspects mirror the civil war. The Constitutional Committee ignored slavery. Congress ignoring gay marriage (on a federal level) is equivalent from a law/equality perspective.

I don't see how you can ignore the similarities and suggest we go through a similar process.

You're missing the point. The issue is whether or not it's acceptable to have a more-or-less arbitrary definition of marriage or whether a comprehensively non-discriminatory definition is required. If it's the former, then the current definition is clearly acceptable (as would be a definition embracing same sex marriage). If it's the latter, then real questions arise about whether it's adequate to open marriage up to gay couples.

All you are doing is making gay marriage itself the starting point of the "slippery slope" you guys are calling an "arbitrary definition". I'm just pointing out that if it's arbitrary, man-woman marriage would be equally as arbitrary as man-man.

I guess it's possible we're saying the same thing in different lights but I really do think I'm either not expressing my thoughts clearly enough (good possibility) or you are missing MY point.

irishjayhawk
07-13-2010, 08:28 PM
If it's historical/traditional, it's not arbitrary.

It most certainly is.

That's like saying god is traditional/historical therefore he exists. It just doesn't work that way.

Saul Good
07-13-2010, 08:36 PM
It most certainly is.

That's like saying god is traditional/historical therefore he exists. It just doesn't work that way.

There are a lot of smart posters on your side of the issues. Why don't you run your thoughts by them before you post something that is as nonsensical as what you just posted? I'm sure one of them can help you string together a coherent thought.

My argument wasn't that historical/traditional makes something correct, just that it isn't arbitrary.

Let's say that f I've driven down the highway for 100 miles, but I don't really know where I'm going. I'm not making an arbitrary decision to keep going straight every millisecond that I don't turn. I might be going the wrong way, but I'm not making an arbitrary decision to keep going the way that I've been going. If I suddenly make a U-turn for no reason, that's an arbitrary decision.

In short, inaction is not arbitrary.

Mr. Kotter
07-13-2010, 08:50 PM
You say special, I say equal.

This (probably not this case specifically, but more likely the Cali case) is this generation's <u>Loving v. Virginia</u>. And to Buc's point, people have the right to bigotry. Governments don't.

Governments are free to make distinctions between groups of people based on behavior and lifestyle choices, as long as it has a rational basis. It happens every day, in lots of ways. If the government wants to make distinctions between groups of people even based on genetic qualities (an false analogy--but just for the sake of discussion,) there are even provisions for that (gender and race distinctions that survive the strict scrutiny test.) So you, presently, are just flat out wrong.

You are free to disagree, and to try to change those facts. However, your side to date has failed to bring the changes you seek. And, sad for you, success for your side, if ever, is still a long way from happening--at least on a nation-wide scale.

So go suck an egg. :shrug:

lostcause
07-14-2010, 12:59 AM
Governments are free to make distinctions between groups of people based on behavior and lifestyle choices, as long as it has a rational basis. It happens every day, in lots of ways. If the government wants to make distinctions between groups of people even based on genetic qualities (an false analogy--but just for the sake of discussion,) there are even provisions for that (gender and race distinctions that survive the strict scrutiny test.) So you, presently, are just flat out wrong.

You are free to disagree, and to try to change those facts. However, your side to date has failed to bring the changes you seek. And, sad for you, success for your side, if ever, is still a long way from happening--at least on a nation-wide scale.

So go suck an egg. :shrug:

The government is also free to invade quebec. Power to do something does not equate that it is correct or moral. Law has always stated that same-sex marriage is illegal. There are also many other civil liberty laws, say Dred Scott, for example, that have withstood legal interpretation and finally been shot down. Invoking the law of the land is great, but using it to shield yourself is silly. The fact that something is not legal never means that it isnt correct.

irishjayhawk
07-14-2010, 03:31 AM
There are a lot of smart posters on your side of the issues. Why don't you run your thoughts by them before you post something that is as nonsensical as what you just posted? I'm sure one of them can help you string together a coherent thought.

My argument wasn't that historical/traditional makes something correct, just that it isn't arbitrary.

Let's say that f I've driven down the highway for 100 miles, but I don't really know where I'm going. I'm not making an arbitrary decision to keep going straight every millisecond that I don't turn. I might be going the wrong way, but I'm not making an arbitrary decision to keep going the way that I've been going. If I suddenly make a U-turn for no reason, that's an arbitrary decision.

In short, inaction is not arbitrary.

The point in history/tradition that it was decided marriage means man-woman is an arbitrary decision. That time has passed on top of the decision makes zero difference on it being arbitrary.

In your analogy, the decision to drive straight, not knowing where you're going, IS arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the fact you didn't turn every millisecond. You either chose to drive [N,S,E,W]. And you arbitrarily did so, as evidenced by your condition of not having a destination.

Saul Good
07-14-2010, 08:40 AM
The point in history/tradition that it was decided marriage means man-woman is an arbitrary decision. That time has passed on top of the decision makes zero difference on it being arbitrary.

In your analogy, the decision to drive straight, not knowing where you're going, IS arbitrary. It has nothing to do with the fact you didn't turn every millisecond. You either chose to drive [N,S,E,W]. And you arbitrarily did so, as evidenced by your condition of not having a destination.

Again, the initial decision may have been arbitrary (it wasn't), but inaction is not arbitrary.

Even as a supporter of gay unions\marriage, I recognize that marriage being between a man and a woman was done in order to encourage strong families and successful child rearing. In other words, it wasn't arbitrary. Whether or not it needs to be expanded to promote equality, monogamy, and track lighting is another subject entirely.

patteeu
07-14-2010, 09:23 AM
This is partially true. It's also true I cannot fathom abiding by your stance.



I'm not. Obviously, I'm drawing a correlation with the stance. Amending the constitution is hard. It's rarely done because of the hardship and it'd be even harder in today's fear mongering, bigoted culture. (I guess no more bigoted than it has been in the past, though.)

I also suggested we'd need a repeat of the civil rights movement, which seems to be what you're suggesting we need. Rather than utilize the principles that sparked the 14th amendment in the first place, you suggest we take up a legislative route knowing full well the country will be divided. Congress won't pass anything on it for a while and states will be divided, just as the civil war was. Actually, both aspects mirror the civil war. The Constitutional Committee ignored slavery. Congress ignoring gay marriage (on a federal level) is equivalent from a law/equality perspective.

I don't see how you can ignore the similarities and suggest we go through a similar process.

Gay marriage is not in any way related to the "principles that sparked the 14th amendment in the first place". When we decided to expand the vote to include women, we didn't just pretend that the civil war era amendments (which were aimed at racial inequality) were applicable, we did things the right way and amended the constitution again.

I'm afraid that no matter how hard you think it would be, if we want to change the constitution it should be done through the amendment process. It's supposed to be hard to do, but in this case it's not even necessary. All that is necessary to extend marriage to same sex couples is legislation, not a constitutional amendment, so that's no more difficult than passing a budget or health care reform.

All you are doing is making gay marriage itself the starting point of the "slippery slope" you guys are calling an "arbitrary definition". I'm just pointing out that if it's arbitrary, man-woman marriage would be equally as arbitrary as man-man.

I guess it's possible we're saying the same thing in different lights but I really do think I'm either not expressing my thoughts clearly enough (good possibility) or you are missing MY point.

I agree that man-woman marriage is arbitrary.* I don't have a problem with arbitrary. Exactly where the arbitrary line should be drawn ought to be a matter of majority rule, not a matter of constitutional right. Those who support gay marriage (as I do) need to persuade enough people to win the majority. It's already happening in many states and localities. It's only a matter of time before it happens across the nation but we shouldn't trash the constitution just to speed up the process.

______________
* "Arbitrary" isn't really the right word, as Saul has pointed out. There are reasons for keeping marriage in it's traditional form and there would be reasons for keeping marriage between two people even if it included two people of the same sex. I mean "arbitrary" only in a relative sense as compared to total equality. Baby Lee's post touches on some of the ways in which the types of marriages that I'm calling "arbitrary" wouldn't be pure expressions of equality.

patteeu
07-14-2010, 09:25 AM
You say special, I say equal.

This (probably not this case specifically, but more likely the Cali case) is this generation's <u>Loving v. Virginia</u>. And to Buc's point, people have the right to bigotry. Governments don't.

That's because you're just thoughtlessly repeating a mantra without paying any attention to what you're responding to.

Do IRAs get special treatment relative to regular savings accounts? Or do you say equal. Do home mortgage holders get special tax treatment relative to renters or do you say equal? Do married people get special intestacy treatment relative to live-ins or do you say equal?

irishjayhawk
07-14-2010, 02:07 PM
Again, the initial decision may have been arbitrary (it wasn't), but inaction is not arbitrary.

Even as a supporter of gay unions\marriage, I recognize that marriage being between a man and a woman was done in order to encourage strong families and successful child rearing. In other words, it wasn't arbitrary. Whether or not it needs to be expanded to promote equality, monogamy, and track lighting is another subject entirely.

I'm not going to argue that marriage meaning man-wife isn't based in evolution; it is. I'm talking about the social construct therein. The definition to EXCLUDE a subset of people is entirely arbitrary.

Of course, I think I'm arguing the "another subject entirely" and you opposite.

irishjayhawk
07-14-2010, 02:13 PM
Gay marriage is not in any way related to the "principles that sparked the 14th amendment in the first place". When we decided to expand the vote to include women, we didn't just pretend that the civil war era amendments (which were aimed at racial inequality) were applicable, we did things the right way and amended the constitution again.

I'm afraid that no matter how hard you think it would be, if we want to change the constitution it should be done through the amendment process. It's supposed to be hard to do, but in this case it's not even necessary. All that is necessary to extend marriage to same sex couples is legislation, not a constitutional amendment, so that's no more difficult than passing a budget or health care reform.

Okay, I'll agree with the extension of the 14th amendment to gay rights as a stretch but it's the principle therein and the stance you take on such principle that sparked my outrage to begin with. To view the constitution as settled and cannot be extrapolated or interpreted from to fit today's view is a very, very antiquated and, dare I say, dangerous view. Many rights we have today would not be available.



I agree that man-woman marriage is arbitrary.* I don't have a problem with arbitrary. Exactly where the arbitrary line should be drawn ought to be a matter of majority rule, not a matter of constitutional right. Those who support gay marriage (as I do) need to persuade enough people to win the majority. It's already happening in many states and localities. It's only a matter of time before it happens across the nation but we shouldn't trash the constitution just to speed up the process.

That's where we differ. Otherwise I agree.

I differ because if it comes to taxation, it is therefore an inherent "constitutional right" as the government is then actively discriminating. A defense for gays can be found in the Privacy amendment as well as a tenuous argument from the 14th on the basis that the government/states has already concluded discrimination among a subset of people is unconstitutional, per se.

Again, it's all rectified if we just eliminated marriage from legal documents and went with civil unions. Leave the definition of marriage to the churches.

______________
* "Arbitrary" isn't really the right word, as Saul has pointed out. There are reasons for keeping marriage in it's traditional form and there would be reasons for keeping marriage between two people even if it included two people of the same sex. I mean "arbitrary" only in a relative sense as compared to total equality. Baby Lee's post touches on some of the ways in which the types of marriages that I'm calling "arbitrary" wouldn't be pure expressions of equality.

I agree with this entirely. I think Saul and I are arguing the two different sense of arbitrary. I mean exactly like what I've bolded of yours.

CoMoChief
07-14-2010, 02:24 PM
So when is it going to be ok to marry your pets, or other animals for that matter?

CoMoChief
07-14-2010, 02:26 PM
I was in Walmart the other day and theres a lil kid w/ his parents. This kid sees 2 Men shopping together w/ 1 cart. This kid decides to blurt out, "Look mommy, gays!"

I just about died laughing

patteeu
07-14-2010, 02:39 PM
Okay, I'll agree with the extension of the 14th amendment to gay rights as a stretch but it's the principle therein and the stance you take on such principle that sparked my outrage to begin with. To view the constitution as settled and cannot be extrapolated or interpreted from to fit today's view is a very, very antiquated and, dare I say, dangerous view. Many rights we have today would not be available.

We don't know what would be available today, but we do know that if we don't bother to follow the constitution when we want to change the constitution we don't really have a constitution.

That's where we differ. Otherwise I agree.

I differ because if it comes to taxation, it is therefore an inherent "constitutional right" as the government is then actively discriminating. A defense for gays can be found in the Privacy amendment as well as a tenuous argument from the 14th on the basis that the government/states has already concluded discrimination among a subset of people is unconstitutional, per se.

No one is saying that gays can't be gay or that gays can't participate in private marriages.

The government can and does discriminate among subsets of people all the time. Again, people who choose to rent or purchase a home with cash are discriminated against in the tax code relative to people who choose to take a mortgage to buy a home. I could list countless other examples of discrimination like this.

irishjayhawk
07-14-2010, 02:59 PM
We don't know what would be available today, but we do know that if we don't bother to follow the constitution when we want to change the constitution we don't really have a constitution.

That's simply not true.

Flag burning, for example. It's not mentioned. In fact, only speech is mentioned which would include written and spoken word. Flag burning has since been interpreted as speech in itself.

This is the type of thing you are against, is it not?



No one is saying that gays can't be gay or that gays can't participate in private marriages.

The government can and does discriminate among subsets of people all the time. Again, people who choose to rent or purchase a home with cash are discriminated against in the tax code relative to people who choose to take a mortgage to buy a home. I could list countless other examples of discrimination like this.

Excuse me while I don't equate monetary methods with sexual preference.

And, yes, the state of Kansas, for example, won't recognize a gay marriage. That's the whole issue.

The Mad Crapper
07-14-2010, 03:04 PM
That's simply not true.

Flag burning, for example. It's not mentioned. In fact, only speech is mentioned which would include written and spoken word. Flag burning has since been interpreted as speech in itself.

This is the type of thing you are against, is it not?




Excuse me while I don't equate monetary methods with sexual preference.

And, yes, the state of Kansas, for example, won't recognize a gay marriage. That's the whole issue.

So...

Have you and Direkshun picked a date, yet?
Who's wearing the gown?

Garcia Bronco
07-14-2010, 03:16 PM
That's simply not true.

Flag burning, for example. It's not mentioned. In fact, only speech is mentioned which would include written and spoken word. Flag burning has since been interpreted as speech in itself.

This is the type of thing you are against, is it not?

It is true. What you just argued was "this will mean what I want it to mean when it suits me best"




Excuse me while I don't equate monetary methods with sexual preference.
.

-Speech is an expression and flag burning in and of it self is an expression of disatisifaction with the Government. It's at the very heart of why the Amendment is there in the first place; To restrain government

-Money, widgets, fairies, or unicorns...discriminatiion is discrimination and it's not always a bad thing.

patteeu
07-14-2010, 03:24 PM
That's simply not true.

Flag burning, for example. It's not mentioned. In fact, only speech is mentioned which would include written and spoken word. Flag burning has since been interpreted as speech in itself.

This is the type of thing you are against, is it not?

No. I'm open to hearing arguments from the other side, but my going-in opinion would be that there is no authority in the constitution for governmental action against flag burning as protest. The first amendment is just gravy.

But even if you're right that the original ratifiers of the constitution didn't intend to protect that kind of protest activity from government interference, we have no way of knowing whether or not an intervening generation would have amended the constitution to protect flag burning explicitly.

Excuse me while I don't equate monetary methods with sexual preference.

And, yes, the state of Kansas, for example, won't recognize a gay marriage. That's the whole issue.

Marriage laws aren't about sex or sexual preference, they're about money (and other forms of special treatment, most of which can be boiled down to money). For example, they're about social security spousal benefits and married filing jointly tax treatment. They're also about default rules of intestacy and divorce which can be handled outside of marriage through the use of lawyers and contracts which cost... money. The big exception to this is that there is a psychological factor involved in this issue in that many gays want the gay lifestyle to be recognized by the state as an equally acceptable alternative to the more traditional family. Renters usually aren't as passionate about that kind of recognition, but some of them could be.

The State of Kansas does not stand in the way of private gay marriages. Gay couples (or even groups of people of any sexual preference) can form committed, lifetime partnerships, say vows in front of a willing pastor/elder/boat captain, exchange rings, go on honeymoons, have sex, set up housekeeping together, and argue about finances whenever they want. What Kansas doesn't do is recognize those marriages for purposes of the special treatment that publicly recognized marriages receive (which, as I've pointed out above, are essentially about money).

Garcia Bronco
07-14-2010, 03:45 PM
Marriage laws aren't about sex or sexual preference, they're about money (and other forms of special treatment, most of which can be boiled down to money). For example, they're about social security spousal benefits and married filing jointly tax treatment. They're also about default rules of intestacy and divorce which can be handled outside of marriage through the use of lawyers and contracts which cost... money. The big exception to this is that there is a psychological factor involved in this issue in that many gays want the gay lifestyle to be recognized by the state as an equally acceptable alternative to the more traditional family. Renters usually aren't as passionate about that kind of recognition, but some of them could be.

The State of Kansas does not stand in the way of private gay marriages. Gay couples (or even groups of people of any sexual preference) can form committed, lifetime partnerships, say vows in front of a willing pastor/elder/boat captain, exchange rings, go on honeymoons, have sex, set up housekeeping together, and argue about finances whenever they want. What Kansas doesn't do is recognize those marriages for purposes of the special treatment that publicly recognized marriages receive (which, as I've pointed out above, are essentially about money).

This.

|Zach|
07-14-2010, 04:18 PM
So when is it going to be ok to marry your pets, or other animals for that matter?

A relationship between an animal and a person. A relationship between two consenting adults.

Yes.

That is ALMOST the same thing.

irishjayhawk
07-14-2010, 05:58 PM
-Speech is an expression and flag burning in and of it self is an expression of disatisifaction with the Government. It's at the very heart of why the Amendment is there in the first place; To restrain government

-Money, widgets, fairies, or unicorns...discriminatiion is discrimination and it's not always a bad thing.

My point, Garcia, is that, as written, the first amendment doesn't cover "expression". That's interpreted and extrapolated. As written:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

None of that includes flag burning or its umbrella "expression".

So, I'm glad we both conclude that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is antiquated, stupid and dangerous.

No. I'm open to hearing arguments from the other side, but my going-in opinion would be that there is no authority in the constitution for governmental action against flag burning as protest. The first amendment is just gravy.

But even if you're right that the original ratifiers of the constitution didn't intend to protect that kind of protest activity from government interference, we have no way of knowing whether or not an intervening generation would have amended the constitution to protect flag burning explicitly.

I like the non-asnwer but you're side stepping the main point. You said earlier:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one because there's no way that the people who amended the constitution with the 14th amendment had anything close to an intention to extend marriage to same sex couples.

That is a strict view of the constitution. It means that we cannot infer what other generations meant by their amendments and carry them over to today's problems.

That's what I'm getting at. Flag burning is an example that is explicitly NOT covered in the Constitution as written. It isn't even covered by an amendment. The only reason it was covered is because a judge interpreted freedom of speech to cover expressions like burning a flag.

Many people take that for granted yet still espouse the asinine view that the Constitution is the end all be all of documents and anything it doesn't say, isn't so. We cannot infer anything from it. It is not a living, breathing document.

It's that viewpoint, which you've espoused, that I am arguing against.


Marriage laws aren't about sex or sexual preference, they're about money (and other forms of special treatment, most of which can be boiled down to money).

Inherently, they are about sexual preference because they discriminate. I wholeheartedly agree that if you took out the word marriage and substituted civil union, the majority of the debate would be over because things would be equal.


For example, they're about social security spousal benefits and married filing jointly tax treatment. They're also about default rules of intestacy and divorce which can be handled outside of marriage through the use of lawyers and contracts which cost... money. The big exception to this is that there is a psychological factor involved in this issue in that many gays want the gay lifestyle to be recognized by the state as an equally acceptable alternative to the more traditional family. Renters usually aren't as passionate about that kind of recognition, but some of them could be.

The State of Kansas does not stand in the way of private gay marriages. Gay couples (or even groups of people of any sexual preference) can form committed, lifetime partnerships, say vows in front of a willing pastor/elder/boat captain, exchange rings, go on honeymoons, have sex, set up housekeeping together, and argue about finances whenever they want. What Kansas doesn't do is recognize those marriages for purposes of the special treatment that publicly recognized marriages receive (which, as I've pointed out above, are essentially about money).

Again, we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about equality from the perspective of the law. You seem to be talking about the fact gays can get married they just can't get recognition. The recognition is precisely the point of contention: equality.

If married couples get tax benefits etc., saying same sex couples - who as you point out are "married" - cannot receive the same tax breaks (and sometimes rights) is flat out discrimination.

I don't understand how you can say otherwise.

BucEyedPea
07-14-2010, 06:32 PM
A relationship between an animal and a person. A relationship between two consenting adults.

Yes.

That is ALMOST the same thing.

Well, both are animals.

patteeu
07-14-2010, 06:51 PM
My point, Garcia, is that, as written, the first amendment doesn't cover "expression". That's interpreted and extrapolated. As written:



None of that includes flag burning or its umbrella "expression".

So, I'm glad we both conclude that a strict interpretation of the Constitution is antiquated, stupid and dangerous.



I like the non-asnwer but you're side stepping the main point. You said earlier:



That is a strict view of the constitution. It means that we cannot infer what other generations meant by their amendments and carry them over to today's problems.

That's what I'm getting at. Flag burning is an example that is explicitly NOT covered in the Constitution as written. It isn't even covered by an amendment. The only reason it was covered is because a judge interpreted freedom of speech to cover expressions like burning a flag.

Many people take that for granted yet still espouse the asinine view that the Constitution is the end all be all of documents and anything it doesn't say, isn't so. We cannot infer anything from it. It is not a living, breathing document.

It's that viewpoint, which you've espoused, that I am arguing against.

You don't really understand this though. It should have been clear from my answer that I'm not arguing for a view of the constitution that requires completely explicit limitations on the government. I'm arguing for a view that takes the constitution as it was intended by those who ratified it. That means that interpretation is OK, but that interpretation should be based on what the people who approved that provision intended to approve. Not what we would mean if we were adding the provision today.

I haven't done the research required to know whether flag burning would fall into the kind of political action that those who ratified the original constitution would have intended to protect, but my inclination is to believe that it is. Like I said, I'm open to contrary arguments if you've got them.

But on the issue of gay marriage and the equal protection clause, there is no doubt in my mind that modern day liberals are pushing the document way past the breaking point. There is no way that those who ratified the 14th amendment intended to say that the government could no longer sanction marriage without extending that sanction to same sex couples.

Inherently, they are about sexual preference because they discriminate. I wholeheartedly agree that if you took out the word marriage and substituted civil union, the majority of the debate would be over because things would be equal.



Again, we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about equality from the perspective of the law. You seem to be talking about the fact gays can get married they just can't get recognition. The recognition is precisely the point of contention: equality.

If married couples get tax benefits etc., saying same sex couples - who as you point out are "married" - cannot receive the same tax breaks (and sometimes rights) is flat out discrimination.

I don't understand how you can say otherwise.

I agree that it's discrimination. Just as it's discrimination to give a tax benefit to those who save their money in IRAs instead of saving it some other way. But it's constitutionally permissible discrimination just as it's constitutionally permissible discrimination to exclude children from marriage. It's discrimination that is subject to the wisdom of the majority not discrimination that was constitutionally banned by people in the mid 1860s in the wake of the end of slavery and the civil war.

Mr. Kotter
07-14-2010, 09:19 PM
The government is also free to invade quebec. Power to do something does not equate that it is correct or moral. Law has always stated that same-sex marriage is illegal. There are also many other civil liberty laws, say Dred Scott, for example, that have withstood legal interpretation and finally been shot down. Invoking the law of the land is great, but using it to shield yourself is silly. The fact that something is not legal never means that it isnt correct.

So, you presume your wish to legislate your morality to be superior to that of others? How quaint. :rolleyes:

It's why our Constitution protects defined rights; not morally ambiguous social engineering.

Mr. Kotter
07-14-2010, 09:21 PM
A relationship between an animal and a person. A relationship between two consenting adults.

Yes.

That is ALMOST the same thing.

A relationship between people of the opposite gender. A relationship between people of the same gender.

Yes.

That is ALMOST the same thing. NOT.

:)