Best commentry on gay marriage I've seen yet [Archive]

RendeR

03-02-2004, 06:56 PM

http://www.desertdispatch.com/cgi-bin/newspro/viewnews.cgi?newsid1078237616,96134,

COMMENTARY: Public opinion shouldn't affect our rights

By SCOTT SHACKFORD

If Americans got to vote on whether or not you could actually marry your girlfriend or boyfriend, do you think you'd pass muster?

Imagine standing before a minister at your own wedding and hearing him say, "America has been following your whole courtship and has seen all the petty arguments and insults that happen behind closed doors. We've seen dishes thrown.

We've seen you sleeping on the couch occasionally. Given the high divorce rate in this country, voters have decided that the likelihood of your relationship lasting is too low to support. I'm sorry -- you may not get married at this time."

Fortunately, no heterosexual couple needs to deal with such an outrageous situation. Most people are allowed to get married whether the general public supports their relationship or not.

That's why I find it mystifying that people I've never met think they should have a say in whether or not I can marry.

Polls fill media reports about gay marriages, ascribing percentages to how Americans feel. The numbers vary, but the results are generally consistent -- a majority of Americans don't want gay people to get married.

But my question is this: Why should the opinions of a majority have any bearing on my rights as a human being to marry the one that I love?

Public opinion doesn't have such an impact on other rights. If a man expresses an unpopular opinion, the government wouldn't attempt to deprive him of his freedom of speech. If a woman were to practice an unpopular religion, lawyers wouldn't go to a judge to seek an injunction against her.

But somehow Americans have decided that they can stick their noses in everybody else's relationships and make laws based on their own beliefs of what constitutes love.

I won't sit idly by for others to decide the fate of my relationships.

Marriage is a right. I find it inconceivable that people would argue otherwise. There are fewer restrictions on marriage than on some of the rights set forth in Constitutional amendments. It's easier to get married than to buy a gun. A person in prison can't vote -- but he or she may get married.

Invoking God and "sanctity" to claim marriage is a privilege, not a right, simply doesn't wash, and not just because it's a violation of gay Americans' religious freedoms. Couples don't have to believe in God at all to have a marriage recognized, as long as the two participants qualify.

If we're getting God involved, we might as well argue that breathing is a privilege not a right, if we extend the argument logically that God is the originator of all life.

The thing about rights is that people get them regardless of whether or not the public agrees. In fact, that's the whole point. We have a "right" to speak out, to sue, to worship, to vote, and to marry, among other things.

In order for a right to be restricted, it must present a threat to the rights of others. The argument that gay marriages somehow present a danger to the "institution" is a lackluster attempt at curtailing civil rights. The idea that one group of people could threaten the success of relationships entered by a totally different group of people is an insult to the intelligence of every person in America.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's acts of civil disobedience are hardly a threat to the rule of law. They are a reminder of what our laws are supposed to protect. They remind us that the law should have a very good reason before it denies us our rights -- and "majority rule" isn't always good enough.

There is no harm originating from Newsom's edict to allow gay marriages to take place in his city. In fact, the tears of joy on the faces of the newlyweds and the celebrations show that his actions are bringing about an end to unjustifiable harm forced upon millions of Americans.

Last Friday, hundreds of couples waiting in line at San Francisco City Hall were surprised by deliveries of bouquets of flowers, paid for by anonymous supporters from across the country. For the couple who received a bouquet with a card reading "Congratulations on your commitment, from Scott in Barstow," I wish long life and great happiness.

Someday, when I'm ready to take that step, it will be me in that line. And I won't be taking no for an answer.

wig

03-02-2004, 07:04 PM

So get married. Just don't ram it down my throat.

Draft Dodger

03-02-2004, 07:24 PM

I thought we already agreed that I had the best arguement

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 07:28 PM

heybrad

03-02-2004, 07:37 PM

I think we should pass a law that says that while gays are still allowed to celebrate their birthdays, straights get to have more cake.

Joke stolen from Bill Maher, who I normally cant stand, but I liked this one

Masked

03-02-2004, 07:40 PM

Interesting point that I heard in an interview with the SF mayor yesterday. Back in the 60's when about 15 states had laws against interracial marriage, polls indicated that an even larger majority (compared to polls today on the gay marriage issue) favored keeping those laws.

Because the majority favored keeping laws against interracial marriage, were the states right not to sanction those marriages?

Blackadar

03-02-2004, 07:48 PM

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

Nope. The majority does not, and should not, always rule. If that were the case, we might still have slavery in the South. There's no doubt that we'd have different water fountains...

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 07:49 PM

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

Like slavery was supported by a majority in say, South Carolina in 1861?

Like denying women the right to vote was favored by the majority in the US prior to 1920?

Like the majority favored denying the few courageous black students who wanted to attend state universities and white high schools in the South in the 1950's and 60's?

For that matter, if the majority should always have their way, exactly why is there a Bush in the White House right now?

Fonzie

03-02-2004, 07:57 PM

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

As governmental functions go, securing and defending the rights of the minority is even more important than enforcing the will of the majority. See above for some good examples.

panerd

03-02-2004, 08:35 PM

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 08:51 PM

Like slavery was supported by a majority in say, South Carolina in 1861?

Like denying women the right to vote was favored by the majority in the US prior to 1920?

Like the majority favored denying the few courageous black students who wanted to attend state universities and white high schools in the South in the 1950's and 60's?

For that matter, if the majority should always have their way, exactly why is there a Bush in the White House right now?

Interesting that constitutional amendments were required for all of those instances you note above. Constitutional amendments which require passage in 3/4 (not 2/3, sorry Quik) of all states.

The majority of the electoral college votes went to President Bush in 2000, so that argument doesn't really apply either.

Protection for minorities is great. I'm all for it. I'm also for letting the people, not the judiciary, have the final say. As noted above, it wasn't judicial fiat that allowed women the right to vote, allowed blacks the right to exist as free men and women, allowed black men and women to enter colleges and universities. Yes, Brown vs. Board of Education ruled segregation unconstitutional, but it was President Kennedy who called for, and Congress who passed, legislation which ensured equal rights for those of both colors.

I've proposed here before, and I propose it again, a constitutional amendment calling for marriage to be defined as "two people of either gender, unrelated by blood or marriage". I'm sure better legalese could be used, but I'm just a simple caveman lawyer.

I'm just really tired of the comparisons to the civil rights movement. Please tell me what these couples are risking by getting married? A parking ticket for letting the meter expire? I see the mayor of New Paltz, NY was charged with solemnizing marriages without a license, which is good... but this is not the stuff of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Clara Luper, and others. You want equal rights? You've got 'em. You and I can both marry someone of the opposite sex, and neither one of us can marry someone of the same sex. Now, if you want to redefine the concept of marriage as sanctioned and sponsored by the state, you're more than welcome do it. Just don't be surprised if a majority of Americans feel like marriage is a concept they don't feel like changing.

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 08:53 PM

Not that I entirely feel this way, but couldn't the author had written that piece about why he wants to marry a 10-year old girl? What if her parents approved and he loved her? While I most certainly do not believe that gays are pedophiles, it is basically the same arguement. I personally feel there should be more restrictions on marriage, not less. (Actually add more restrictions on having children as well)

EDIT: I have never read any of the other gay threads, so be light on the attacks if someone else already got flamed to hell for this.

I highly encourage you to look at the other threads where this whole topic has been beaten into a greasy stain that used to be a dead horse.

However, on your specific point, this is a false slippery slope argument. To equate homosexuality with pedophilia is ludicrous. A large number of people are at least ambivalent toward the rights of gays and lesbians. I sincerely doubt you could find much of anybody whose going to say that pedophiles deserve anything less than jail terms.

As for your suggestions about putting more restrictions on marriage or children...who is to be the judge of who will or won't be a good parent or husband/wife? Churches? Mosques? Synagogues? Politicians? Here's a solution the religious right ought to love. Let's let radical Islamists decide who can and can't marry. That will maintain the sanctity of marriage as a religious ceremony, which is what some conservatives are insisting on.

The whole gay marriage debate is being used by Bush in this present context to divert attention the fact that as a commander-in-chief he's a war-mongerer, and as a manager of the economy, he's watched nearly 3,000,000 jobs evaporate on his watch while running up record deficits.

To make matters worse, he's now planning on trying to amend the most sacred document in our country's history for political purposes to shore up his conservative base. I think that Americans, regardless of where they stand on the debate, ought to be up in arms over one of the most cynical moves foisted on the American people during an election.

Fritz

03-02-2004, 08:55 PM

can we just let this issue rest for a week or two unless something revolutionary pops up one way or the other?

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 08:57 PM

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 08:59 PM

The whole gay marriage debate is being used by Bush in this present context to divert attention the fact that as a commander-in-chief he's a war-mongerer, and as a manager of the economy, he's watched nearly 3,000,000 jobs evaporate on his watch while running up record deficits.

To make matters worse, he's now planning on trying to amend the most sacred document in our country's history for political purposes to shore up his conservative base. I think that Americans, regardless of where they stand on the debate, ought to be up in arms over one of the most cynical moves foisted on the American people during an election.

Dola,

Just to clear up a few things: it wasn't Bush that issued the Mass. Supreme Court decision. It wasn't Bush who started marrying folks in San Francisco. It wasn't Bush who made this an issue. He's issued exactly one statement on the matter, and mentioned it for about twelve seconds in his SotU address.

Secondly, President Bush can't amend the constitution. You know that, right?

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 09:00 PM

double dola:

you're right Fritz... although the mayor of New Paltz was charged today... is that revolutionary enough?

Subby

03-02-2004, 09:08 PM

We should wait. After Bush loses the election this whole thing will die down anyway...

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 09:09 PM

Interesting that constitutional amendments were required for all of those instances you note above. Constitutional amendments which require passage in 3/4 (not 2/3, sorry Quik) of all states.

The majority of the electoral college votes went to President Bush in 2000, so that argument doesn't really apply either.

Protection for minorities is great. I'm all for it. I'm also for letting the people, not the judiciary, have the final say. As noted above, it wasn't judicial fiat that allowed women the right to vote, allowed blacks the right to exist as free men and women, allowed black men and women to enter colleges and universities. Yes, Brown vs. Board of Education ruled segregation unconstitutional, but it was President Kennedy who called for, and Congress who passed, legislation which ensured equal rights for those of both colors.

I've proposed here before, and I propose it again, a constitutional amendment calling for marriage to be defined as "two people of either gender, unrelated by blood or marriage". I'm sure better legalese could be used, but I'm just a simple caveman lawyer.

I'm just really tired of the comparisons to the civil rights movement. Please tell me what these couples are risking by getting married? A parking ticket for letting the meter expire? I see the mayor of New Paltz, NY was charged with solemnizing marriages without a license, which is good... but this is not the stuff of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Clara Luper, and others. You want equal rights? You've got 'em. You and I can both marry someone of the opposite sex, and neither one of us can marry someone of the same sex. Now, if you want to redefine the concept of marriage as sanctioned and sponsored by the state, you're more than welcome do it. Just don't be surprised if a majority of Americans feel like marriage is a concept they don't feel like changing.

First, if Congress were to propose a Constitutional Amendment stating something akin to what you suggest, I'd be calling my congressmen and senators to praise them.

Re. the civil rights comparison, it's not what they are "risking" Cam, it's what they are being denied.

Women could have easily just retreated to the kitchen and never fought for the right to vote, and they wouldn't have been "risking" anything.

Blacks and other minorities could have just accepted seperate but unequal conditions for education, job opportunities, etc, and not "risked" anything.

Gays and lesbians could just as easily stay in the closet, or for that matter, come out of the closet, and be unable to offer health benefits to their long term same sex partner, be unable to visit them when hospitalized since they aren't legally related, have to fight for custody for their partner's child at a disadvantage, and not have the legal protections that heterosexual married couples take for granted.

And I would suggest to you that they are "risking" quite a bit. If a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage passes (and the one currently being looked at in Congress makes no attempt at guaranteeing civil unions in any way shape or form) it would be a great deal harder for them to reopen the issue in the future. It would also be the first time the Constitution has "ever" been amended to deny rights to a group or class of people in this country.

I'd also like to see the constitutional amendment that led to the end of Plessy vs. Ferguson. That was actually ended by a number of court decisions followed by Federal legislation, not a Constitutional Amendment.

Maple Leafs

03-02-2004, 09:21 PM

However, on your specific point, this is a false slippery slope argument.It's a slippery slope, but I'm not sure it's a false one, and I'm fairly sure that we didn't reach that consensus in the (many, many) other threads. Sometimes slippery slopes can be valid, although I think you and I would agree that there are probably better examples to use in this case. Polygamy comes to mind.

P.S. I like the line about the greasy stain/dead horse. Do you mind if I steal that and pass it off as my own?

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 09:23 PM

Dola,

Just to clear up a few things: it wasn't Bush that issued the Mass. Supreme Court decision. It wasn't Bush who started marrying folks in San Francisco. It wasn't Bush who made this an issue. He's issued exactly one statement on the matter, and mentioned it for about twelve seconds in his SotU address.

Secondly, President Bush can't amend the constitution. You know that, right?

Agreed on all points in your first paragraph. And honestly, we don't know how this is all going to play out. Those marriage licenses in San Francisco could very well be annulled. DOMA seems to limit Massachusetts licenses from being honored in other states. Ultimately, that's going to be tested in the Supreme Court, as it should where it will ultimately be upheld or overturned.

Re. Bush. Trust me, it's only the second of many times we're going to hear about it between now and November. If not from him, from his pit bulls in the Christian Coalition et al.

As for your not very clever swipe at my knowledge of the Constitution and the Amendment process, I just got off the tuna boat from Cuba last week. Tell me more about this Constitution you speak of. :rolleyes:

The fact that he can't pass it on his own doesn't mean he can't try to make a hypothetical Constitutional amendment a campaign issue. :rolleyes:

Fritz

03-02-2004, 09:26 PM

I highly encourage you to look at the other threads where this whole topic has been beaten into a greasy stain that used to be a dead horse.

You seem to be very enthusiastic about leading the beating this evening.

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 09:28 PM

It's a slippery slope, but I'm not sure it's a false one, and I'm fairly sure that we didn't reach that consensus in the (many, many) other threads. Sometimes slippery slopes can be valid, although I think you and I would agree that there are probably better examples to use in this case. Polygamy comes to mind.

Hmm. Polygamy and child molestation are at lot closer bedfellows than you seem to realize. Don't believe me? Do a Google search using "Polygamy", and "Colorado City, Arizona" sometime. You'd be surprised. I'll stand by my original statement.

P.S. I like the line about the greasy stain/dead horse. Do you mind if I steal that and pass it off as my own?

Go ahead. It's not mine either. :)

kcchief19

03-02-2004, 09:41 PM

and that is a good argument for public opinion not mattering when it comes to a private, religious ceremony. However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?That's the mistake a lot of people make. This is the kind of argument you might expect in a democracy, but this is not a democracy -- we are a republic. And the structure of our republic and the foresight of our founding fathers has allowed us to avoid too many tyranny of the majority or minority moments.

We don't need a constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage -- we already have one. The 14th amendment has already spoken, and it did it in a profound and eloquent way. How amazing that in 1868 our electe officials were prescient enough to grant all of us equal protection under the constitution.

I also don't think you can deflect criticism of Bush by using the "He didn't start the fire" argument. Bush lieutenants both publicly and annonymously have been quoted in a number of sources as saying that this is going to be a great wedge issue the president will use this fall. And the two times he mentioned it, he spoke firmly and in a high profile fashion. The president can't do anything much more high profile than mention something in the SoTU and demand Congress pass a constitutional amendment. That speaks volumes to where he is on the issue. It's not like he said this is a state's rights issue and that's it. He has given this as a high a profile as the president can without him and Cheney going on a Truman-esque whistlestop tour to stop gay marriages like some sot of heterosexual homophobic Batman and Robin crusade.

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 09:53 PM

You seem to be very enthusiastic about leading the beating this evening.

I will never fail to stand up and speak about what I believe in, no matter what you, or anybody else may think of it.

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 09:57 PM

That's the mistake a lot of people make. This is the kind of argument you might expect in a democracy, but this is not a democracy -- we are a republic. And the structure of our republic and the foresight of our founding fathers has allowed us to avoid too many tyranny of the majority or minority moments.

We don't need a constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage -- we already have one. The 14th amendment has already spoken, and it did it in a profound and eloquent way. How amazing that in 1868 our electe officials were prescient enough to grant all of us equal protection under the constitution.

I also don't think you can deflect criticism of Bush by using the "He didn't start the fire" argument. Bush lieutenants both publicly and annonymously have been quoted in a number of sources as saying that this is going to be a great wedge issue the president will use this fall. And the two times he mentioned it, he spoke firmly and in a high profile fashion. The president can't do anything much more high profile than mention something in the SoTU and demand Congress pass a constitutional amendment. That speaks volumes to where he is on the issue. It's not like he said this is a state's rights issue and that's it. He has given this as a high a profile as the president can without him and Cheney going on a Truman-esque whistlestop tour to stop gay marriages like some sot of heterosexual homophobic Batman and Robin crusade.

Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Ah, yes. That clears things up. Of course the judiciary should have the power to decide this issue, rather than the representatives we have chosen as citizens.

14th amendment (at least its relevant portions pertaining to this argument): No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Please tell me how someone is being denied a right guaranteed to others in federal law, since the DoMa states: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

In reading this, I'm trying to see how my lesbian neighbor is denied any right that I have. We both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and neither of us have the right to marry someone of the same sex and have that marriage recognized by the federal government. I go back to my statement that this isn't about granting equal rights to anybody, but rather redefining the concept of a legal union called marriage, as defined by the state and by the federal government to incorporate new eligibility for that union. Once it has been redefined for one group of people, based solely on sexual preference, on what grounds would you oppose (or would you oppose) further redefinition based on other groups demanding that same right based on their sexual preference?

The 14th amendment argument you present is one, not of "equal rights for all" (which we currently have, in my opinion), but in terms of legality of marriages which may be recognized by one state and not another.

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 09:57 PM

I will never fail to stand up and speak about what I believe in, no matter what you, or anybody else may think of it.

dola: I guess that's one thing we have in common.

wig

03-02-2004, 09:58 PM

FOFC is exactly like the real life gay marriage debate.

You keep pounding on it and pounding on it and pounding on it until I'm so sick of hearing about it that I just don't give a shit anymore.

clintl

03-02-2004, 10:00 PM

In reading this, I'm trying to see how my lesbian neighbor is denied any right that I have. We both have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and neither of us have the right to marry someone of the same sex and have that marriage recognized by the federal government.

She is being denied the right to marry the person she is in love with. You are not.

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:01 PM

I fail to see love mentioned in either the 14th amendment or the DoMa. Could you point it out to me?

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 10:08 PM

Wuss,

to be fair, I don't think panerd was trying to use the "slippery slope" argument. I think he was honestly saying that you could replace the word gay with child lover and have the same argument. It's not quite the same thing. Close, maybe... but not exact.

Just out of curiousity, why does the opinion of the majority suddenly matter when it's a matter of ambivelence towards gays versus disapproval of pedophiliacs? It either matters or it doesn't.

Since when is this an either/or argument?

If you are seriously equating homosexuality with child molestation, I'm afraid I've lost all respect for you as anybody with something credible to say on this issue (something I actually have a fair amount of, even though we disagree). Is this really what you are trying to say?

I don't know that the majority matters here so much as the minority. A decent sized minority (5+%) of people consider themselves gay/lesbian/bisexual). A much larger percentage of people know somebody who fits in that category as friends, coworkers, or family.

I'm not sure you're going to find more than a handful of people who are going to have any sort of empathy for pedophiles or child molestors and most of them are in jail.

Finally, as both the victim of a pedophile at one time, and as somebody who has a couple of friends who came out of the closet in recent years, the attempt by certain segments of the right to turn this into a slippery slope argument is the most pathetic, childish, and stupid thing I've ever heard anybody say.

clintl

03-02-2004, 10:08 PM

Hahaha.

The DoMa's sole purpose is to deny rights, not to affirm them, and hopefully, we'll soon see the day when the Supreme Court flushes that piece of legislative sewage down history's toilet, where it belongs.

As far as marriage is concerned, I don't think that it would be much of an intellectual stretch to presume that it is one of those unnamed rights covered under the 9th Amendment, and thus also covered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:11 PM

clintl

03-02-2004, 10:13 PM

We are not talking about the right to love. We are talking about the right to marry. However, I will go so far as to say that I think the right to love is covered under the 9th Amendment as well, and I would be extremely amused to hear a public figure make the argument that we do not have the right to love.

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:14 PM

dola: don't see love mentioned in the 9th amendment as well.

You don't really want this to hinge on whether or not people should be allowed to marry anyone they love, do you Clintl?

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:15 PM

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 10:28 PM

so, in other words, you're wrong, Clintl? Can't find love anywhere, right?

Wuss, I'm not trying to make a comparison at all. There is none to be made. I'm just curious because your statement was that legalizing pedophelia would never happen because a majority of people despise it. I agree. But why do peoples feelings matter on that issue and not on others? It's not a slippery slope, it's not a comparison, it's just a question. We're talking about legal issues. Feelings either matter or they don't, and from a legal perspective, if you're going to bring feelings into one issue, you're going to be hard pressed to not allow feelings to matter in another.

I'll take up Clint's argument a little bit more.

Forget love and step back a minute. Imagine not being able to visit your wife when she's in hospital because you aren't a legally sanctioned partner, and can't become one without paying a lawyer a ton of money. Imagine having to leap through extra hoops to arrange your estate, to provide for your wife to have custody of your children if something happens to you. Imagine not being able to provide health benefits for your wife if she is no longer able to work (and not eligible for Medicare/Medicaid). There are a lot more examples of this, but to tell me that a pair of women in a committed, serious, long-term monogamous relationship should be denied these rights while a bimbo like Elizabeth Taylor, who has married and divorced just about everybody over 40 in the state of California, certainly seems to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

There...it seems to me that I've argued this on a firmer legal ground than love. Ya happy? :cool:

As for why feelings matter in one case vs. the other. I'm not sure they do. Forget feelings and think societal norms. It is a far more commonly accepted societal norm that adults should not be able to sexually prey on kids than it is for same-sex couples to be denied at least some rights of heterosexual couples.

EDIT: Killed my knee jerk emotional reaction to your last paragraph in favor of something a bit more reasonable.

clintl

03-02-2004, 10:34 PM

Amendment Nine

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It seems to me that what it is saying is that we have rights beyond those specifically mentioned. Again, I say that it is logical that marriage and love are among them. As far as whether people should be able to marry anyone they love - you better have a good reason to deny it. There are strong biological reasons to deny close relatives from marrying. Children are not intellectually and emotionally ready to form the level of consent required. Too often, polygamy doesn't involve consent at all.

However, I see no reason to deny equal marriage rights to any two adults who love each other and aren't close relatives.

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:37 PM

Wuss,

this is why I hate arguing with liberals. Must I quote you?

"However, on your specific point, this is a false slippery slope argument. To equate homosexuality with pedophilia is ludicrous. A large number of people are at least ambivalent toward the rights of gays and lesbians. I sincerely doubt you could find much of anybody whose going to say that pedophiles deserve anything less than jail terms."

This was yourargument, not mine. You're arguing a legitimacy for public opinion in one instance and against in another. My question is not to imply that one leads to another, or that one is equal to another. I'm simply asking: why does public opinion matter for one, and not for another?

As to your other argument, Rosie O'Donnell can get married to 14 different guys in California just like Elizabeth Taylor. And Elizabeth Taylor still can't marry a woman. That's equal protection under the law. You might not like it, but everyone has the same right.

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 10:42 PM

So get married. Just don't ram it down my throat.

Interesting statement. The people making the biggest noise about it are the opposition, not the supporters.

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:44 PM

It seems to me that what it is saying is that we have rights beyond those specifically mentioned. Again, I say that it is logical that marriage and love are among them. As far as whether people should be able to marry anyone they love - you better have a good reason to deny it. There are strong biological reasons to deny close relatives from marrying. Children are not intellectually and emotionally ready to form the level of consent required. Too often, polygamy doesn't involve consent at all.

However, I see no reason to deny equal marriage rights to any two adults who love each other and aren't close relatives.

Two arguments. First, the long one:

So what would be the argument (legally speaking) against two brothers who wanted to get married? I've already pointed out in one of the previous threads that we don't bar people who have an almost 100% chance of producing children who are deaf, blind, or otherwise born with genetic birth defects the ability to marry. Not sure the biological argument holds up, especially when you add the same sex component to it.

As to children marrying... you should look at enlightened Europe. Germany, England, and other countries are looking at lowering the voting age (in fact, there's support in Germany for allowing infants to vote). If children are intellectually capable of deciding who should best represent them politically, are they not capable of deciding who they love? Hell, just look at the stability it would provide if all of our 13 year olds who've been told it's okay to have sex could get married when they get pregnant.

You say "too often polygamy doesn't involve consent". You have some stats to back that up? I think too often the cases of polygamy without consent that we hear about are court cases in Utah. There've been about three or four of them. There are an estimated 30,000 polygamist families in that state. You only hear about the trouble cases.

Second argument, the short one:

Why are you able to decide what's a good reason to deny people in love the right to marry, but I'm not? Or should neither one of us get to decide and let the courts decide for us?

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 10:44 PM

However, something that's state sanctioned should probably have the support of a majority of the state, wouldn't you say?

Is this an argument for mob rule?

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 10:46 PM

Wuss,

this is why I hate arguing with liberals. Must I quote you?

Like conservatives can't draw conclusions based on false logic. :rolleyes:

This was yourargument, not mine. You're arguing a legitimacy for public opinion in one instance and against in another. My question is not to imply that one leads to another, or that one is equal to another. I'm simply asking: why does public opinion matter for one, and not for another?

My argument is that it matters for both. But remember, public opinion 50 years ago supported Separate But Equal for African Americans. Public opinion can change, and those changes can be led by the judicial and legislative branches, rather than merely react to them. That's leadership.

As to your other argument, Rosie O'Donnell can get married to 14 different guys in California just like Elizabeth Taylor. And Elizabeth Taylor still can't marry a woman. That's equal protection under the law. You might not like it, but everyone has the same right.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court disagrees with you. Ultimately, I suspect we'll see whether the US Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with you. In any case your conclusion isn't nearly as clear cut legally as you seem to think.

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 10:46 PM

Because the majority favored keeping laws against interracial marriage, were the states right not to sanction those marriages?

Yes, of course. Anything the "majority of people" want must always be what is right for everyone. ;)

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:47 PM

Is this an argument for mob rule?

If you replace mob with "citizens, as opposed to judges", I suppose it could be taken that way.

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 10:49 PM

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 10:50 PM

If you replace mob with "citizens, as opposed to judges", I suppose it could be taken that way.

And this is the most scary line of reasoning I've seen you take in this debate so far. Our government exists as much to protect the few against the tyranny of the many as it does the other way around.

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 10:50 PM

no, we're talking (or you are anyway) about the right to marry someone we love and have that marriage recognized and legalized by the government. Is that a fundamental and constitutional right? Nope, sorry.

Not allowing two people who are legally recognized as adults, of sound mind and body, who are otherwise trusted to conduct themselves properly in all other aspects of their lives, to marry is rather discriminatory, isn't it?

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:52 PM

Like conservatives can't draw conclusions based on false logic. :rolleyes:

My argument is that it matters for both. But remember, public opinion 50 years ago supported Separate But Equal for African Americans. Public opinion can change, and those changes can be led by the judicial and legislative branches, rather than merely react to them. That's leadership.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court disagrees with you. Ultimately, I suspect we'll see whether the US Supreme Court agrees or disagrees with you. In any case your conclusion isn't nearly as clear cut as you seem to think.

Mass. also hadn't passed DoMa, which California had. US Gov't has also passed DoMA. Methinks the argument about DoMa will be more related to whether or not states have the right to not recognize other marriages, rather than "equal protection" clause arguments.

If public opinion matters to both, then what is the magic number? 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage. 98% of Americans oppose marriage to children (and I'd say after covering the court system for 18 months as a reporter... that number's actually high. There are a lot of sickos out there). At what point do we start paying attention to public opinion? And if public opinion does matter... why are you so opposed to the legislative, rather than the judicial branch handling this?

Sorry, I've got to get some sleep. I'll check back in after 9 a.m. CST tomorrow (don't want to be accused of dodging any arguments like last time).

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 10:52 PM

And this is the most scary line of reasoning I've seen you take in this debate so far. Our government exists as much to protect the few against the tyranny of the many as it does the other way around.

It would not take much of a government to enforce the will of the majority. It takes a strong government to protect the minorities from the majority.

CamEdwards

03-02-2004, 10:53 PM

Subby

03-02-2004, 11:00 PM

Cam is just getting pummeled in this thread.

pjstp20

03-02-2004, 11:07 PM

Sorry I'm a noob to this argument but I just want to know: what is the oppostions argument to gay marriage? Is it the slippery slope thing, same sex marriage will lead to pedophiles and those into beastiality the right to marriage? Or is it religion? What is it? I dont see the big deal live and let live. There not trying to hurt anyone, I dont know why some people what to impose their beliefs and their morality on everyone else.

SFL Cat

03-02-2004, 11:16 PM

Actually, I think some pro-life mayor in California should follow San Fran's lead and declare Abortion illegal in his city -- screw the law, it's the right thing to do!!!

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 11:20 PM

Mass. also hadn't passed DoMa, which California had. US Gov't has also passed DoMA. Methinks the argument about DoMa will be more related to whether or not states have the right to not recognize other marriages, rather than "equal protection" clause arguments.

If public opinion matters to both, then what is the magic number? 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage. 98% of Americans oppose marriage to children (and I'd say after covering the court system for 18 months as a reporter... that number's actually high. There are a lot of sickos out there). At what point do we start paying attention to public opinion? And if public opinion does matter... why are you so opposed to the legislative, rather than the judicial branch handling this?

Sorry, I've got to get some sleep. I'll check back in after 9 a.m. CST tomorrow (don't want to be accused of dodging any arguments like last time).

You want my opinion? 60% to me is not a compelling number. It's certainly not enough of a majority to warrant setting something in the concrete that a constitutional ban would represent. As for your comment on the other half, I'd be very surprised if it were less than 99%. Remember that one percent of a nation of 270 million is 2.7 million. That leaves room for an awful lot of creeps.

I'm going to turn this one on its ear. What is the magic number? You tell me. You're the one who continues to link polygamy and child molesting with homosexuality.

As for your last comment, if I'm the one who suggested you'd dodge arguments (can't remember whether I did or didn't at this point, and frankly don't care), I regret the comment. I will say this much for you. We both share the quality of never backing down from a fight.

That being said, however, I doubt I can add much more to this argument than just repeating myself.

EagleFan

03-02-2004, 11:31 PM

So get married. Just don't ram it down my throat.

I think that's after the wedding....

On a more serious note. A marriage is a religious union and I don't know of one religion that does not frown upon a gay lifestyle. Therefore to allow gay marriages is by definition wrong.

As far as the statement that was quoted saying that marriage is a right. That can't be farther from the truth. Having a relationship with someone is a right and that is not being taken away from anyone.

The arguement given in the original post about allowing the country to decide if you can get married is nothing more than hiding your head in the sand. By that same definition why not carry it out to the next level... Someone can't marry your sister because it has been decided by others that is wrong, or marry your dog, why let others say you can't do that?

What's wrong are a$$holes like that mayor of San Francisco deciding to start making his own laws and allowing the 'marriages'. If a change goes through that allows it, so be it, but for one person to think that they can just change the law on their own, that is wrong and should be grounds for removal from office.

stevew

03-02-2004, 11:32 PM

Gay=Lifestyle choice
Fucking Dogs=Lifestyle choice

How long til someone wants to marry their german shepard?

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 11:38 PM

On a more serious note. A marriage is a religious union and I don't know of one religion that does not frown upon a gay lifestyle. Therefore to allow gay marriages is by definition wrong.

How do you rationalize the government requiring you pay them a fee and meet their varying registration requirements then? Do they require fees and licenses to engage in ANY OTHER religious acts? In the State of Georgia they require blood be taken and tested, and may refuse to grant the license based on how the testing goes. Frankly, I am a little surprised that something so religious, and granted by God alone, is interfered with by so many human bureaucrats and there is no outrage.

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 11:43 PM

How long til someone wants to marry their german shepard?

I bet somebody has already wanted to do that. With the number of human beings that have come and gone during the time the "german shepherd" breed of dog has been around, it is unlikely that someone has not thought of that already. What relevance does that question have to the issue being discussed in this thread? Are you saying that because some sexual deviant (which homosexuality is not considered to be, by psychology standards) may want to marry an animal, same gender marriages cannot be allowed? What data do you have that explains your theory that the desire for humans to wed with animals will greatly increase once same-gender marriage is legal? I'm sure it would be an interesting study. :rolleyes:

SFL Cat

03-02-2004, 11:44 PM

You're the one who continues to link polygamy and child molesting with homosexuality.

If you want to make the case that genetics determines homosexuality, then you have to make the case that it determines ALL forms of human sexuality. You can't say its wrong to condemn homosexuality as immoral and unnatural, but then turn around and condemn such sexual deviancies as pedophilia. If gay folks were born the way they are, so were pedophiles.

First and foremost, marriage has traditionally been a sacred covenant, a "religious" ceremony performed by a "church" to join a man and woman in a relationship designed to serve as the basis for creating and raising a family.

This was a fact long before any government, let alone the U.S. government, decided to pass laws recognizing this union as one of the foundational relationships in human society.

Gay union can never be equivalent to the covenant of marriage because a gay union will NEVER produce children.

Since most corporations already provide benefits to significant others of employees (regardless of gender or marital status), I'm not sure why gays are pushing so hard to make society "recognize" their unions as equivalent to traditional marriage other than it being just another political tool of the gay agenda to "legitimize" their lifestyle.

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 11:49 PM

Here's my challenge to anyone who wants to deny same-gender marriages: Put a law on the books that makes adultery a criminal act, too. After all, adultery is actually addressed in the Ten Commandments while gay marriage is not. It seems like that should come a little higher on the list of priorities for those who really want to maintain the sanctity of 'marriage' and keep us on that Christian code.

SFL Cat

03-02-2004, 11:51 PM

Actually adultery is still a misdemeanor crime on most state books. It is definitely a grounds for divorce.

And while gay sex isn't specifically mentioned in the 10 Commandments, it was a capital offense under the Law of Moses.

Tekneek

03-02-2004, 11:57 PM

Actually adultery is still a misdemeanor crime on most state books. It is definitely a grounds for divorce.

When do you think was the last time somebody was charged with that? I don't know, but I certainly have never read, heard, or seen it happen. Any law banning same-gender marriage should reaffirm the bans against adultery, IMHO. I can't see how you are "maintaining the sanctity of marriage" with one while leaving out the other. Adultery is a much larger problem in this society.

WussGawd

03-02-2004, 11:58 PM

I think that's after the wedding....

On a more serious note. A marriage is a religious union and I don't know of one religion that does not frown upon a gay lifestyle. Therefore to allow gay marriages is by definition wrong.

Bzzt. Wrong answer. A marriage is a religious union and a civil union. One can get married without setting foot in a church, synagogue or mosque, via civil ceremony. The rest of your flawed logic is therefore invalid.

As far as the statement that was quoted saying that marriage is
a right. That can't be farther from the truth. Having a relationship with someone is a right and that is not being taken away from anyone.

The arguement given in the original post about allowing the country to decide if you can get married is nothing more than hiding your head in the sand. By that same definition why not carry it out to the next level... Someone can't marry your sister because it has been decided by others that is wrong, or marry your dog, why let others say you can't do that?

Hmm. One would hope, when posting in a thread that has 58 something posts, that you MIGHT ACTUALLY READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS. :mad: Many arguments have been made that dispute your self-righteous position on this matter. Feel free to disagree, but to dismiss opposing views without addressing these concerns again weakens your arguments.

What's wrong are a$$holes like that mayor of San Francisco deciding to start making his own laws and allowing the 'marriages'. If a change goes through that allows it, so be it, but for one person to think that they can just change the law on their own, that is wrong and should be grounds for removal from office.

Or perhaps it is an act of personal and political courage that might ultimately sway some people into rethinking their positions on the issue. Naw, we should all just bow our heads and hope that the majority might free us from slavery, or give us the right to vote, or give us equal access under the law.

SFL Cat

03-03-2004, 12:00 AM

Sodomy is still against the law in most states too. When was the last time someone was arrested for that?

Tekneek

03-03-2004, 12:04 AM

Sodomy is still against the law in most states too. When was the last time someone was arrested for that?

This isn't directly related to the issue of the "sanctity of marriage." The only reason the laws against adultery and sodomy are still on the books are because they are not being enforced.

SFL Cat

03-03-2004, 12:05 AM

Then why did you bring up adultery?

EagleFan

03-03-2004, 12:10 AM

Bzzt. Wrong answer. A marriage is a religious union and a civil union. One can get married without setting foot in a church, synagogue or mosque, via civil ceremony. The rest of your flawed logic is therefore invalid.

Hmm. One would hope, when posting in a thread that has 58 something posts, that you MIGHT ACTUALLY READ THE PREVIOUS POSTS. :mad: Many arguments have been made that dispute your self-righteous position on this matter. Feel free to disagree, but to dismiss opposing views without addressing these concerns again weakens your arguments.

Or perhaps it is an act of personal and political courage that might ultimately sway some people into rethinking their positions on the issue. Naw, we should all just bow our heads and hope that the majority might free us from slavery, or give us the right to vote, or give us equal access under the law.

Flawed logic? My statement was about the origins of marriage. McFly?....

Self righteous position? I was merely stating the hypocrasy of the article quoted in the original post. The logic in that article was why let the majority tell you what you can and can't do. Please tell me where you set the boundaries and just why you set them where you do. That sounds to me like another decision that must be made, perhaps by a majority again (what a tangled web of logic this leads to).

Personal and political courage? BZZZT!!!! Wrong Answer!!!!!! It's a perfect reason to be removed from office. See, that's why we have a politcal process and laws, to keep one person frmo making their own laws. US History 101 kind of stuff here (branches of government ring a bell?).

WussGawd

03-03-2004, 12:15 AM

If you want to make the case that genetics determines homosexuality, then you have to make the case that it determines ALL forms of human sexuality. You can't say its wrong to condemn homosexuality as immoral and unnatural, but then turn around and condemn such sexual deviancies as pedophilia. If gay folks were born the way they are, so were pedophiles.

The research I've seen does not confirm this conclusion. Pedophilia and child molestation (which btw, is much more common than pedophilia, and they aren't the same thing) are more learned behaviors than genetic, which is why victimized children of pedophiles/child molestors are far more likely to become predators themselves.

First and foremost, marriage has traditionally been a sacred covenant, a "religious" ceremony performed by a "church" to join a man and woman in a relationship designed to serve as the basis for creating and raising a family.

So were witch burnings, the Inquisition, and if you want to go back further, crucifixions, stonings, and throwing members of other religions to the lions. Somehow, these traditions have fallen by the wayside.

Nonetheless, to take the argument into more reasonable territory, no reasonable person denies the right of a church to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple, heterosexual or same-sex (both are done routinely). In fact, I can't imagine it being constitutional to do so in light of Bill of Rights protections for religion. OTOH, one can get married in every legal sense of the word without being "church" sanctioned.

This was a fact long before any government, let alone the U.S. government, decided to pass laws recognizing this union as one of the foundational relationships in human society.

Yet civil marriages are (and will remain) a fact of life. This you are unable to deny.

Gay union can never be equivalent to the covenant of marriage because a gay union will NEVER produce children.

You would be surprised at the number of heterosexual marriages that will never produce children, particularly since an ever increasing number of married couples are consciously making the choice *not* to have children. So are you saying that a married heterosexual couple that has no children (whether through choice or the vagaries of biology) are less married than a heterosexual couple with children? And I won't even bring up the number of gay couples who bring children with them from former marriages or gain custody through adoption. :rolleyes:

Since most corporations already provide benefits to significant others of employees (regardless of gender or marital status), I'm not sure why gays are pushing so hard to make society "recognize" their unions as equivalent to traditional marriage other than it being just another political tool of the gay agenda to "legitimize" their lifestyle.

Some, not most corporations provide benefits. A large number don't. And Health insurance is only one of a myriad of concerns that such couples face.

And who says that the Religious Right's lifestyle is any more "legitimized" than a loving, nurturing relationship between two people of the same sex.

I'm not so sure why people who claim to be adherents of a religion built around the teachings of the loving, forgiving, caring Son of God are so hell bent on enforcing a narrow form of prejudice against some of God's children.

WussGawd

03-03-2004, 12:17 AM

Flawed logic? My statement was about the origins of marriage. McFly?....

Self righteous position? I was merely stating the hypocrasy of the article quoted in the original post. The logic in that article was why let the majority tell you what you can and can't do. Please tell me where you set the boundaries and just why you set them where you do. That sounds to me like another decision that must be made, perhaps by a majority again (what a tangled web of logic this leads to).

Personal and political courage? BZZZT!!!! Wrong Answer!!!!!! It's a perfect reason to be removed from office. See, that's why we have a politcal process and laws, to keep one person frmo making their own laws. US History 101 kind of stuff here (branches of government ring a bell?).

Sure it's a reason to remove him from office. I never denied this.

Thanks for the civics lesson. Apparently you missed the chapter on civil disobedience though.

Tekneek

03-03-2004, 12:24 AM

Then why did you bring up adultery?

Because it is directly related to the sanctity of marriage. Without marriage you don't have adultery. Kind of hard to explain how someone would say they are maintaining the sanctity of marriage while they do nothing to stop blatant violations of the Ten Commandments that are already destroying these religious unions everyday in this country. Adultery is already a large threat to marriages. I fail to see how allowing same-gender marriages could do anywhere near as much damage.

Tekneek

03-03-2004, 12:29 AM

I'm not so sure why people who claim to be adherents of a religion built around the teachings of the loving, forgiving, caring Son of God are so hell bent on enforcing a narrow form of prejudice against some of God's children.

If I had to guess, it would be because there are lots of other people who will stand alongside them. Somebody who wants life to be led strictly by the Bible would find far fewer people willing to share that life with them.

ISiddiqui

03-03-2004, 12:33 AM

You know, I always wondered about this majority rules crap. The majority has never trumphed over the Constitution. Why should it now? "Equal Protection under the Law" is pretty clear.

Tekneek

03-03-2004, 12:36 AM

You know, I always wondered about this majority rules crap. The majority has never trumphed over the Constitution. Why should it now? "Equal Protection under the Law" is pretty clear.

The 'loophole' for the majority is to have such an overwhelming majority that it makes it into the Constitution itself.

SFL Cat

03-03-2004, 12:49 AM

The research I've seen does not confirm this conclusion. Pedophilia and child molestation (which btw, is much more common than pedophilia, and they aren't the same thing) are more learned behaviors than genetic, which is why victimized children of pedophiles/child molestors are far more likely to become predators themselves.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are both LEARNED behaviors. Even the gung-ho "gay gene" crowd is now grudgingly admitting that there is a "learned behavior" component to homosexuality.

So were witch burnings, the Inquisition, and if you want to go back further, crucifixions, stonings, and throwing members of other religions to the lions. Somehow, these traditions have fallen by the wayside.

Actually, depending on where you go, a lot of this stuff still goes on. I know a lot of secular humanists who would love to see throwing Christians to the lions come back in vogue.

Nonetheless, to take the argument into more reasonable territory, no reasonable person denies the right of a church to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony for a couple, heterosexual or same-sex
Actually, gays pitched quite a bitch about this as well, especially during the early to mid 80s. "How dare you not marry us," they screeched indignantly. In most cases, they found rogue clergy sympathetic to their cause (sometimes even closet gays themselves) who defied Church laws to perform ceremony (San Fran all over again). Once again, they got their way by circumventing the rules. While some clergy were given the boot for doing this, many denominations were more concerned about being P.C., and backed down to avoid being labeled "intolerant."

Yet civil marriages are (and will remain) a fact of life. This you are unable to deny. Have no problem with civil unions. I guess gays need legal protections when they split up just like heteros do. But no way a gay civil union is equal to marriage.

You would be surprised at the number of heterosexual marriages that will never produce children, particularly since an ever increasing number of married couples are consciously making the choice *not* to have children. So are you saying that a married heterosexual couple that has no children (whether through choice or the vagaries of biology) are less married than a heterosexual couple with children?

:rolleyes: The potential to create children is there, whether they have children or not. That potential doesn't exist for a same sex couple.

And I won't even bring up the number of gay couples who bring children with them from former marriages or gain custody through adoption. In my book, a person who tosses aside his/her family to "discover" his/her gayness is no better than a straight person who leaves his/her family to have a fling with someone else. You make a family and kids, you live up to your responsibility, even if it means denying yourself.

I'm sure most gays will vehemently dispute this, but most legitimate studies show that a traditional home with a male-female couple is the best possible environment for children.

Other than children produced from previous marriages, I don't think gay couples should be allowed to adopt children. Get dogs or cats instead.

Some, not most corporations provide benefits. A large number don't. And Health insurance is only one of a myriad of concerns that such couples face. In these cases, they probably don't provide great coverage for straights either. If your current company does not provide the benefits you want, you have the freedom to find a company that does, just like any straight person.

And who says that the Religious Right's lifestyle is any more "legitimized" than a loving, nurturing relationship between two people of the same sex.
In the case of the Religious Right, the Bible does.

I'm not so sure why people who claim to be adherents of a religion built around the teachings of the loving, forgiving, caring Son of God are so hell bent on enforcing a narrow form of prejudice against some of God's children.
Because in addition to all the "LOVE" stuff that the Religious Left likes to throw around, Christianity also teaches such foreign concepts (at least to the Religious Left) as obedience and right and wrong living. Christ himself said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

Man's original sin was disobedience. "Look God, I know you said don't eat this thing, but look at it!!! Obviously you don't know what you're talking about, because boy this thing is mmmm mmmmm good!!! And after eating it, I'm so much smarter now!!!!"

It's still the same today, "Okay, look I know you said a guy should leave his mom and dad and become one flesh with a woman, but I just don't feel that way. So obviously, you screwed up somewhere. So I'm just gonna ignore what your Word teaches and do "what feels right for me."

Tekneek

03-03-2004, 01:14 AM

By "civil union", I don't think they were even talking about homosexuals. Every marriage in the US is a civil union. Whether it is also a religious union is up to those involved and is unimportant legally.

For instance, if a couple has not been 'licensed' by the government, and appropriate paperwork is not filed after the "ceremony", then a couple is not married no matter if the Pope himself conducted the ceremony here in the US.

I have been to two weddings, and in both cases they were legally married before the ceremony ever took place. The church officials themselves would admit as much, although they did have the option to do it afterwards. They seemed to think it was much more convenient, and better for show, to do that stuff beforehand so everyone can enjoy the ceremony fully. At mine (which I wasn't counting), we signed everything afterwards and only then did it become legal.

Honolulu_Blue

03-03-2004, 02:54 AM

:rolleyes: The potential to create children is there, whether they have children or not. That potential doesn't exist for a same sex couple.

Been over this before, but what about heterosexucal couples that DON'T have the potential to have children? Elderly couples, couples where either the male is sterile or the female is intfertile? What about them? They have just as much potential to have children as any gay couple.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 05:58 AM

pjstp20

03-03-2004, 07:10 AM

So I guess thats it then, according to you conservatives gay marriage will lead to chester the molester marrying some 14 year old or some zooaphile marring fido?????? Please, give me a break, why dont you just admit that you don't like homosexuals pure and simple. You don't agree with their lifestyle and you think you should impose your morals on everyone else.

Its quite simple really, gay marriage is hurting no one, where as pedophilia and beastiality is, one shoiuld be allowed one shouldnt. It doesnt get any simpler.

John Galt

03-03-2004, 07:19 AM

I fail to see love mentioned in either the 14th amendment or the DoMa. Could you point it out to me?

Cam, this is just a dumb argument. You can argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to gays, but this is just dumb. Unless you believe Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) was a bad decision under the 14th Amendment, then you aren't making any sense. At least stick to coherent reasons why the 14th Amendment may not apply.

John Galt

03-03-2004, 07:21 AM

John Galt

03-03-2004, 07:25 AM

I was going to go ahead and post some more responses, but it really is like a beating your head against the wall. The issue of equal protection keeps coming up, and I've yet to see a good argument as to why all men and women don't have the same rights under the law right now. It seems like the larger argument here is to define a group as a minority based on their sexual preference, and if that's going to be the case, then I'd say that slippery slope argument becomes an awfully valid concern.

double dola, if you don't want to read Loving v. Virginia, let me explain it this way. Arguing that you couldn't marry another race is EXACTLY the same in terms of the 14th Amendment as arguing that you can't marry the same gender. Everyone is not treated the same because the restriction is unequal in effect. Your only argument here is that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to gays (and that race and sexual orientation are different) - stick with that argument instead of making nonsense points about it not applying to "love."

cuervo72

03-03-2004, 07:29 AM

Gay=Lifestyle choice
Fucking Dogs=Lifestyle choice

How long til someone wants to marry their german shepard?

Ok, now we're just being rediculous :)

Actually, if you're going to use a "slippery slope" like approach here I would think the next step would not be bestiality but polygamy. Society can't dictate who we should or should not love, how can it dictate how many people we love? Especially if not all of these loves (80 year olds have been used as an example) are sexual in nature? The opposition to gay marriage has been based on traditional societal and religious customs/beliefs - can't the same be said for polygamy? If all parties are willing and consentual, what would be the problem? It's another example of society's imposing of their beliefs on others.

John Galt

03-03-2004, 07:30 AM

Ok, I'm done with this thread because you have SFL Cat making the same homophobic arguments that have been beaten over and over again in other threads. I'm not saying there aren't still points of controversy, but continuing to treat being gay as a choice as an agreed fact and arguing that a traditional family structure is always better is just crazy. The other threads have hashed this out to death. I just wanted to interject because Cam was making a ridiculous new argument.

John Galt

03-03-2004, 07:32 AM

Gay=Lifestyle choice
Fucking Dogs=Lifestyle choice

How long til someone wants to marry their german shepard?

Ok I lied - one more thing:

Being Christian=lifestyle choice
Fucking Dogs=liftestyle choice

How long until someone wants to fuck a Christian poodle?

Fido

03-03-2004, 07:41 AM

So I guess thats it then, according to you conservatives gay marriage will lead to chester the molester marrying some 14 year old or some zooaphile marring fido??????
I resent that last bit.

pjstp20

03-03-2004, 07:43 AM

Lol all apologies

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 08:03 AM

Cam, this is just a dumb argument. You can argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to gays, but this is just dumb. Unless you believe Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) was a bad decision under the 14th Amendment, then you aren't making any sense. At least stick to coherent reasons why the 14th Amendment may not apply.

John,

I wasn't the one who brought love into the argument. I was merely pointing out the lack of logic involved in invoking the "l" word.

Was the Loving v. Virginia decision a bad one under the 14th amendment? No. But read the decision.

"Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City, Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York, 336 U.S. 106 (1949), or an exemption in Ohio's ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse, Allied Stores of Ohio, [388 U.S. 1, 9] Inc. v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522 (1959). In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race."

In other words, Loving v. Virginia dealt with the 14th amendment as it applied to racial discrimination only. Futhering the point that it might not buttress the gay marriage argument,

"There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality." Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. (emphasis mine)".

Finally, what does Loving v. Virginia have to say about the institution of marriage?

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

So I'd say Loving v. Virginia pretty clearly spells out that it's dealing with a 14th amendment aimed at ending racial discrimination. In fact, I think it would be an interesting argument to interpret the line ""Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" as it relates to gay marriage. I would think an argument could be made that gay marriage doesn't contribute one whit to our very existence or survival.

Hope that helps.

pjstp20

03-03-2004, 08:06 AM

So, restating a previous comment, only those interested in the survival and continuation of the species should be allowed to marry?

Cuckoo

03-03-2004, 08:28 AM

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 08:32 AM

Subby is just getting pummeled in this thread.

Cam, your comment about beating you head against the wall is right on. I understand it's in your nature to debate, but I'm sorry man. You're just not going to get anywhere with some of these people.

I know, but every now and then it's fun. It's like free show prep: argue with people here so you know what's coming when you argue the position on the air.

Although I have to admit that quoting court decisions typically doesn't make for compelling radio. :)

Honolulu_Blue

03-03-2004, 08:47 AM

John,

I would think an argument could be made that gay marriage doesn't contribute one whit to our very existence or survival.

I don't think that's true. Marriage that does not have the potential to result in children (gay marriage, marriage between a man or a woman where one (or both) is infertile) can still be very beneficial to society which, in some way, does contribute a whit or two to our existence.

Many studies that prove that married couples are happier, healthier, live longer, earn more, work more, and save more money. That sounds like it's a positive contribution to our society. People who make more are taxed more, giving more back to the public. People who are healthier will have less medical problems and will be less of a burden on our medical system, insurance, etc. Again, more contributions.

So, letting two consenting adults get married appears to have many benefits to society, other than simply producing kids.

Studies:

http://www.2-in-2-1.co.uk/university/publicbenefit/

http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/abenefitsofmar.html

and one for the kids:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0209-01.htm

Butter

03-03-2004, 08:52 AM

I'm sure better legalese could be used, but I'm just a simple caveman lawyer.

I'm not interested in getting involved, just wanted to note that I thought this sentence was awesome.

Samdari

03-03-2004, 09:11 AM

pjstp20

03-03-2004, 09:18 AM

Absent some religious conviction, how can someone feel so passionately about denying gays the right to marry? And if your opposition is based in religion, why should others' liberty be constrained by your religious beliefs?

In my opinion, gay marriage is as inevitable as history's view of those who presently oppose it.

And by the way, believing in freedom and the pursuit of happiness doesn't make someone a "liberal" any more than prejudice makes someone a "conservative."
I asked the same question earlier in this thread, and have yet to get a clear answer. Although you put it more eloquently so maybe you'll get a reply.

Butter

03-03-2004, 09:18 AM

Gays arent Black. Except for black gays.

Insight, thy name is stevew.

Honolulu_Blue

03-03-2004, 09:22 AM

The whole religious argument just doesn't fly. I'm sorry. If you want to base who can and can't get married on the Bible you're in a world of trouble, because the Bible does not stop at saying two people of the same gender can't marry. Oh no. That's just the begining. There is entire laundry list of utterly ridiculous rules about who can, can't, and has to marry. There is a great list of these on whitehouse.org. I'd post a link to it or list some examples they show, but I can't access it from work. Too political.

wig

03-03-2004, 09:29 AM

wig

03-03-2004, 09:30 AM

See, the condescending tactic can work both ways.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 09:31 AM

just to clear up a few things:

-Samdari: your argument has already been refuted. It took a constitutional amendment for slaves to be freed and for women to get the right to vote. It wasn't up to a few judges and politicians.

-Honolulu_Blue: I don't think this thread has focused on religion at all. Why bring it up?

-Delebar: my objection to gay marriage is not on religious grounds... at least not on any chapter in Leviticus. Yet I still feel passionately that a redefinition of the concept of marriage should not be decided by the courts, but rather by the people. Would you oppose a few judges and politicians deciding that they're going to redefine when life begins in order to provide equal rights to all people, born or unborn?

-

Tekneek

03-03-2004, 09:39 AM

The problem with this "debate" is the pro-gay crowd hasn't listened to one thing the opposition has said.

You're only argument is "but we love eachother". I have yet to hear a real reason why it's ok for you to break the law and get married.

I doubt I will, either.

No good reason has ever been made for making it illegal. FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) is all that has ever been used to justify it.

panerd

03-03-2004, 09:39 AM

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 09:41 AM

So you actually support gay marriage and just feel passionately about voting for it?

I support the issue being decided by the legislative branch as opposed to the judicial branch.

Now, how about answering my question.

pjstp20

03-03-2004, 09:41 AM

So you actually support gay marriage and just feel passionately about voting for it?
Exactly my thoughts. If this right is brought to the polls and gay marriage does become legal, are you then all for it?

wig

03-03-2004, 09:42 AM

If there was a vote, and gay marriage was legalized, I'd be for it.

clintl

03-03-2004, 09:42 AM

I support the issue being decided by the legislative branch as opposed to the judicial branch.

Well, that is always preferable, but sometimes the legislative branch passes unconstitutional laws, and the way our system of government is designed, the job of the courts is to strike them down.

RendeR

03-03-2004, 09:43 AM

wig

03-03-2004, 09:43 AM

Then Jeremy Shockey can finally get married

RendeR

03-03-2004, 09:52 AM

Haven't been back to the site since I posted last night, but I have to say that some of you guys sure don't know how to read an entire post before ripping it apart. I specifically said that I don't equate gays with pedophiles, but I did say the original article (which was the point of the thread, right?) was written in such a poor way that one only needs to substitute 10-year old girl for gays and it reads as a poor argument of marrying kids and adults. So to sum up my point, it wasn't a good argument for gay marriage, but a very weak one.

The other issue I would like to address is how my comments somehow make me a right-wing zealot? I am very conservative when it comes to personal issues and very liberal when it comes to economic ones. (Me and Cam are definitely on different sides of the fence on educational issues) What I think is funny is that people feel the need to agree with every stance taken by their political affailtion and have no original thoughts of their own. At the present time I plan on voting for Kerry, but I agree with Bush and Cam Edwards 100% on this issue.

So you agree with discriminating against a group of people, and not allowing them legal rights that the majority of people in this country take for granted?

The ONLY argument that carries any weight thus far is that the christianic background of this nation says marriage is one man, one woman. And if this country were based on christianity or any other religion, I would have no problem following along, however this country isn't based on religion, this country is based on every single persons right to believe as they so choose.

That basis alone, should be enough to make people realize that creating laws which deny rights to people based on a religious doctrine is wrong. Yes there are many non religious people who believe gay marriage is wrong, I understand that, what I am saying is that wether you LIKE gays and the idea of their getting married is IRRELEVENT. No single person or group of people has the right to deny anyone else the legal protections that the majority takes for granted. Religion and its dogmas, no matter how entrenched in our society are NOT a qualified basis for making discrimnating law.

Honolulu_Blue

03-03-2004, 09:52 AM

just to clear up a few things:

-Honolulu_Blue: I don't think this thread has focused on religion at all. Why bring it up?

-

Cam, you never brought it up, but it had been brought by others:

EagleFan:

On a more serious note. A marriage is a religious union and I don't know of one religion that does not frown upon a gay lifestyle. Therefore to allow gay marriages is by definition wrong.

SFL Cat:

Because in addition to all the "LOVE" stuff that the Religious Left likes to throw around, Christianity also teaches such foreign concepts (at least to the Religious Left) as obedience and right and wrong living. Christ himself said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

Man's original sin was disobedience. "Look God, I know you said don't eat this thing, but look at it!!! Obviously you don't know what you're talking about, because boy this thing is mmmm mmmmm good!!! And after eating it, I'm so much smarter now!!!!"

It's still the same today, "Okay, look I know you said a guy should leave his mom and dad and become one flesh with a woman, but I just don't feel that way. So obviously, you screwed up somewhere. So I'm just gonna ignore what your Word teaches and do "what feels right for me."

Delebar raised this question:

Absent some religious conviction, how can someone feel so passionately about denying gays the right to marry? And if your opposition is based in religion, why should others' liberty be constrained by your religious beliefs

My response was basically aimed towards Delebar's question to point out that even an objection based on the Bible is intellectually dishonest, because those people are basically picking and choosing which Biblical "law" they want to adhere to.

-----

Never meant to imply your arguments were based on religion, but it was brought up and I felt the need to respond.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 10:13 AM

I need to comment on one thing CAM mentioned early on here:

His stance is that for the government, wether that be the states or federal, to SANCTION marriage by homosexuals must be voted on by the people.

The major flaw in this is that the government isn't SANCTIONING anything, it isn't deciding what is right or what is wrong. Marriage licensing was not created to denote good/bad or right/wrong situations, its a registry of citizens who wanted to be joined legally together. The local/state and probably federal governemnt get a piece of the fees collected and the states have a record of who is legally a family member. So please, take the whole "states are sanctioning it as right" arguement away as the rubbish it is. Another example of this would be hunting licenses. I can't stand hunting, when it comes right down to it. Killing something to survive on is one thing, but its not required. I think killing animals is wrong, but the state licenses it anyway. Do I think that means the state sanctions it as a right and good thing? no, I think it allows it and registers everyone who chooses to partake in it, thereby collecting income for use in other areas. When it comes to how the states/government handle marriage and hunting, the licenses equate to about the same definition.

and so, because of this real definition of licensing, I say no, the majority does not have a right to say they can or can't be married.

The society at large decides for themselves what is right and wrong, every individual has that choice. Laws are created to protect the citizens and their property. Laws are NOT created to maintain the citizens peace of mind.

When you can prove to me and everyone else that a homosexual couple is going to do irreperable harm to a person or their property, then I MIGHT begin to agree with denying them legal spousal rights under the law.

DOMA is a piece of trash legislation that got rammed through congress because of MANY other factors. it certainly didn't manage it on its own merits.

The very idea of writing discrimination for ANY reason, into this countries constitution is patently irresponsible.

Render,

DoMA's been passed, not only by Congress, but by 39 other states. President Clinton signed the bill into law. Can you elaborate on the other factors that allowed such a "piece of trash legislation" wide support, not only in Congress, but in places like California and Hawaii?

As to your state sanctioning argument... would the state allow an enterprise or activity it does not consider to be acceptable for society? Can you point me to an instance where a state allows and regulates an activity that it does not consider to be acceptable?

John Galt

03-03-2004, 10:16 AM

So I'd say Loving v. Virginia pretty clearly spells out that it's dealing with a 14th amendment aimed at ending racial discrimination. In fact, I think it would be an interesting argument to interpret the line ""Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" as it relates to gay marriage. I would think an argument could be made that gay marriage doesn't contribute one whit to our very existence or survival.

Hope that helps.

Cam, this was my point - Loving v. Virginia disproves your argument that a ban on gay marriage is facially neutral leaving you only with the argument that gays don't receive heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment (which is a legitimate argument). My point was that your line of argument in this thread was fundamentally flawed and that you should retreat to your normal stance that gays aren't protected under the 14th Amendment - arguing facial neutrality (as you were) is nonsense.

As to marriage being a basic right, that is true in the above passage whether or not it contributes to the survival of humankind (the court is saying it is a fundamental right that ALSO is important to survival).

And yes, you are a caveman lawyer, but try not to confuse your listeners by misconstruing the 14th Amendment. The real argument is that gays aren't a special/suspect class under Equal Protection, not this nonsense that a ban on gay marriage is facially neutral. At least speak the truth when you are spreading lies. ;)

panerd

03-03-2004, 10:19 AM

I need to comment on one thing CAM mentioned early on here:

His stance is that for the government, wether that be the states or federal, to SANCTION marriage by homosexuals must be voted on by the people.

The major flaw in this is that the government isn't SANCTIONING anything, it isn't deciding what is right or what is wrong. Marriage licensing was not created to denote good/bad or right/wrong situations, its a registry of citizens who wanted to be joined legally together. The local/state and probably federal governemnt get a piece of the fees collected and the states have a record of who is legally a family member. So please, take the whole "states are sanctioning it as right" arguement away as the rubbish it is. Another example of this would be hunting licenses. I can't stand hunting, when it comes right down to it. Killing something to survive on is one thing, but its not required. I think killing animals is wrong, but the state licenses it anyway. Do I think that means the state sanctions it as a right and good thing? no, I think it allows it and registers everyone who chooses to partake in it, thereby collecting income for use in other areas. When it comes to how the states/government handle marriage and hunting, the licenses equate to about the same definition.

and so, because of this real definition of licensing, I say no, the majority does not have a right to say they can or can't be married.

The society at large decides for themselves what is right and wrong, every individual has that choice. Laws are created to protect the citizens and their property. Laws are NOT created to maintain the citizens peace of mind.

When you can prove to me and everyone else that a homosexual couple is going to do irreperable harm to a person or their property, then I MIGHT begin to agree with denying them legal spousal rights under the law.

DOMA is a piece of trash legislation that got rammed through congress because of MANY other factors. it certainly didn't manage it on its own merits.

The very idea of writing discrimination for ANY reason, into this countries constitution is patently irresponsible.

Well, there will be two different parts to my answer.

1. I am opposed to the gay lifestlye as I persoanlly beleive it is a choice. I have a job where I see tons of research everyday and I have learned that you can gear research to say basically whatever you want. This is a personal belief (which I don't really like debating as I don't enjoy offending gays, I just don't agree with their lifestlye) and not really ever my original intents of entering the thread which was...

2. The thread starter said this was the best commentary they had seen on gay marriage yet. I don't. I think it is a very poorly written commentary and has a lot of holes in it. In my original post I explained how his argument was so weak that one could substitute 10-year old girl (or even animals) and will still be the same arguement. Not one part of the commentary was based on law or even homosexuality per se.

I am not a gay hater. I don't wish AIDS on the gay community. I don't think they are all going to hell for breaking God's law. I just think they are making a choice that I don't happen to agree with. And I don't think they should be protected by the law for making this choice.

panerd

03-03-2004, 10:24 AM

Dola:

I do believe in protecting gays from hate speech. Just like other races, religions, and lifestlyes. But I think the fat guy better buy two tickets on the airplane and the kid praying better leave the other kids out of it if they don't feel comfortable. I think this gay marriage is pushing their beliefs on those who don't agree with them.

clintl

03-03-2004, 10:26 AM

Render,

DoMA's been passed, not only by Congress, but by 39 other states. President Clinton signed the bill into law. Can you elaborate on the other factors that allowed such a "piece of trash legislation" wide support, not only in Congress, but in places like California and Hawaii?

As to your state sanctioning argument... would the state allow an enterprise or activity it does not consider to be acceptable for society? Can you point me to an instance where a state allows and regulates an activity that it does not consider to be acceptable?

I don't know what RendeR will say about it, but I will say that DoMA is a blatant violation of Article IV, Section I of the Constitution. Not only that, it was written precisely because Article IV, Section I exists, with the hope of somehow getting around it. That's why it's a "piece of trash legislation."

Honolulu_Blue

03-03-2004, 10:30 AM

pjstp20

03-03-2004, 10:32 AM

Yeah really, that makes no sense. Youre not forced to watch them get married or have anything to do with their life. In fact you are the one who is pushing your beleifs on them.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 10:32 AM

I don't know what RendeR will say about it, but I will say that DoMA is a blatant violation of Article IV, Section I of the Constitution. Not only that, it was written precisely because Article IV, Section I exists, with the hope of somehow getting around it. That's why it's a "piece of trash legislation."

ah. I think that's a legitimate claim, and in fact is the main reason why there are those who believe it is necessary to place DoMA within the constitution.

John,

My simple cavemen lawyer skills, combined with a lack of sleep, are unable to determine what you mean by "facially neutral". Is this still about clintl first saying that people who love one another should be allowed to marry, then stating that people who love one another should be allowed to marry unless the state can show a compelling reason why they shouldn't, and me saying that love has nothing to do with the state approval of a marriage contract?

Or does this go back to my argument that right now gays and straights have the same rights under the law?

pjstp20

03-03-2004, 10:37 AM

No one has brought a good argument on why gay people should not be allowed to marry. We understand why you think judges should not be the ones to grant the right but lets get to the real issue. Why do you oppose two people of the same gender being able to marry?

Your belief system is good for you and your life, but not everyone should have to follow your morals.

Butter

03-03-2004, 10:41 AM

You know who didn't like gay marriage?

Hitler.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 10:44 AM

Well, I'll answer your question with an observation. I am an attorney practicing primarily appellate law in state and federal court. So I regularly appear before both elected and appointed appellate judges. The popular belief is that "liberal" judges are "activist" and "conservative" judges "just apply the law" and do not overstep the legislature. This is half true. Many liberal judges are indeed "activist" in the sense that their personal politics and beliefs influence their decisions. And sometimes these judges overcome statutes and precedent contrary to their position in ways that make their decisions look like what they are: results driven. The half that is not true is that "conservative" judges don't do exactly the same thing. Many "conservative" judges ignore statutes and precedent with astonishing vigor. And their decisions frequently look like what they are: results driven.

Now all that sounds bad. And in a way it is. But it also preserves our system of justice. Why? Because almost all judges are motivated, to one degree or another, by a desire to be fair and to do the right thing. And our laws, and their interpretation through appellate court decisions, are numerous and complex enough that almost any resolution of almost any conflict can be "legally" justified some way, somehow.

Your arguments in this forum ignore the real issue that will ultimately decide this question: what is the fair and right thing to do? I think the fair and right thing to do is to treat people who are born gay the same way we treat people who are born straight. You think we should treat them differently. I think my view will prevail in time and your "legal" arguments will sound increasingly hollow and misguided. Whether this happens through the legislature or the courts I don't know, although I suspect it will be a combination of the two. That the courts may once again help us do the fair and right thing troubles you far more than it does me.

Wow, three paragraphs of pure bullshit that doesn't answer a simple question. You must be an attorney. :)

I didn't ask you to elaborate on the subject of why you support the judiciary deciding gay marriage. I asked you the following: Would you oppose a few judges and politicians deciding that they're going to redefine when life begins in order to provide equal rights to all people, born or unborn?

That doesn't require three paragraphs to answer. I know it's hard for people who get billed by the hour to come up with a pithy and simple response, but even a "yes" or "no" would suffice.

By the way, your argument seems to be summed up with "people are born gay, so therefore we can't discriminate". I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that homosexuality as a genetic trait had been established medically. In fact, I kind of thought the science was trending the other way. Either way, I'm not sure we've resolved whether we're born straight or gay, so your argument for gay marriage appears to be on as shaky a ground as those who quote Leviticus.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 10:45 AM

You know who didn't like gay marriage?

Hitler.

invoking Godwin's Law won't stop this thread, my friend. :)

John Galt

03-03-2004, 10:47 AM

John,

My simple cavemen lawyer skills, combined with a lack of sleep, are unable to determine what you mean by "facially neutral". Is this still about clintl first saying that people who love one another should be allowed to marry, then stating that people who love one another should be allowed to marry unless the state can show a compelling reason why they shouldn't, and me saying that love has nothing to do with the state approval of a marriage contract?

Or does this go back to my argument that right now gays and straights have the same rights under the law?

A quick lesson in Equal Protection Law

A law is unconsitutional if it does not give citizens equal protection under the law.

If the case deals with race, strict scrutiny is applied. That means the law never survives as the government must prove there is a compelling state interest in the racial classification and that the classification is necessary for the interest to be achieved. Almost no cases survive this test (I know of only two - Korematsu - strangely where the rule was created in a horrible decision and - the recent affirmative action case - there may be others, but they are very few).

If the case is about a gender classification, heightened scrutiny is applied (the name on this is less clear and this test is becoming more and more like strict scrutiny). This test requires the law to meet essentially the same things as strict scrutiny and until it becomes clearer what the new test is, it is hard to explain any more (without writing for another page).

If the case is about a fundamental right, strict scrutiny is applied.

If it is about any thing else, rational basis scrutiny. This test requires that the government show any rational basis for the classification. This test means almost EVERY classification survives (hence you have things like tax incentives which target certain groups).

Now to the debate at hand,

In applying the above tests, the court has determined that if a law of any kind uses a "classification" that classification is not facially neutral if it makes a distinction based on race, gender, religion, etc. That means you can't argue (as in Loving) that interracial marriage bans are "neutral" and you can't argue gay marriage bans are "neutral." Think of another example - a law that said you could only marry christians is neutral under the "Cam rule" because everyone is allowed to only marry christians. However, the Supreme Court would laugh at this because it has the effect of limiting people based on a religion (a fundamental right). Similarly, arguing that gay marriage treats both genders equally is IRRELEVANT because it still limits people based on gender choices.

So what does that leave conservatives:

They must argue two things to survive an equal protection test:

1) This isn't a gender/sex issue - this is a hard argument to make, but one that the current Supreme Court would probably support.

2) Marriage isn't a fundamental right - this is even a tougher argument given the Loving decision, but conservatives can use their normal distinctions (arguing that gay marriage is still allowed, just not protected and rewarded by law) which may also work with today's Supreme Court.

Hope that helps. While I'd love to convince everyone about gay marriage, my first goal is still to make the debate honest and based on viable arguments. In other words, let's not rely on skippy-logic. ;)

stevew

03-03-2004, 10:52 AM

You know who didn't like gay marriage?

Hitler.

Wasnt Hitler gay?

pjstp20

03-03-2004, 10:55 AM

By the way, your argument seems to be summed up with "people are born gay, so therefore we can't discriminate". I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that homosexuality as a genetic trait had been established medically. In fact, I kind of thought the science was trending the other way. Either way, I'm not sure we've resolved whether we're born straight or gay, so your argument for gay marriage appears to be on as shaky a ground as those who quote Leviticus.
All the scientific proof lies in the horses mouth. Ask any gay person wether they chose to be gay or not and you'll know the answer. Who would choose to be ridiculed and alienated and hated by certain members of society?

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 11:02 AM

A quick lesson in Equal Protection Law

A law is unconsitutional if it does not give citizens equal protection under the law.

If the case deals with race, strict scrutiny is applied. That means the law never survives as the government must prove there is a compelling state interest in the racial classification and that the classification is necessary for the interest to be achieved. Almost no cases survive this test (I know of only two - Korematsu - strangely where the rule was created in a horrible decision and - the recent affirmative action case - there may be others, but they are very few).

If the case is about a gender classification, heightened scrutiny is applied (the name on this is less clear and this test is becoming more and more like strict scrutiny). This test requires the law to meet essentially the same things as strict scrutiny and until it becomes clearer what the new test is, it is hard to explain any more (without writing for another page).

If the case is about a fundamental right, strict scrutiny is applied.

If it is about any thing else, rational basis scrutiny. This test requires that the government show any rational basis for the classification. This test means almost EVERY classification survives (hence you have things like tax incentives which target certain groups).

Now to the debate at hand,

In applying the above tests, the court has determined that if a law of any kind uses a "classification" that classification is not facially neutral if it makes a distinction based on race, gender, religion, etc. That means you can't argue (as in Loving) that interracial marriage bans are "neutral" and you can't argue gay marriage bans are "neutral." Think of another example - a law that said you could only marry christians is neutral under the "Cam rule" because everyone is allowed to only marry christians. However, the Supreme Court would laugh at this because it has the effect of limiting people based on a religion (a fundamental right). Similarly, arguing that gay marriage treats both genders equally is IRRELEVANT because it still limits people based on gender choices.

So what does that leave conservatives:

They must argue two things to survive an equal protection test:

1) This isn't a gender/sex issue - this is a hard argument to make, but one that the current Supreme Court would probably support.

2) Marriage isn't a fundamental right - this is even a tougher argument given the Loving decision, but conservatives can use their normal distinctions (arguing that gay marriage is still allowed, just not protected and rewarded by law) which may also work with today's Supreme Court.

Hope that helps. While I'd love to convince everyone about gay marriage, my first goal is still to make the debate honest and based on viable arguments. In other words, let's not rely on skippy-logic. ;)

first of all, if you really want to piss me off, you'll compare me to skippy. I've never called you a name... please respect me the same way.

Secondly, your example of the "Cam Rule" is ludicrous and isn't even close to the argument at hand. In essence what you're saying is that limiting peoples marriage based on "gender choices" is just as discriminatory as limiting peoples marriage based on "religious choices"?

I'm very confused. One one hand we have the argument from an attorney that gays are born that way and therefore have the right to marry because they're similar to a race-based minority. On the other hand we have an attorney arguing that gays choose to be gay and therefore have the right to marry because they're practicing something equal to religious freedom.

So regardless of whether or not homosexuality is chosen or pre-determined, not allowing gays to marry violates the constitution. And yet this argument doesn't open up the door to concept of marriage being changed by another group of people based on sexual preference?

I'll probably return to this thread tonight. I'm arguing on about four hours sleep and I'm sure a nap will help me be a little more concise in my points.

Anyway, thanks for making me think John.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 11:03 AM

All the scientific proof lies in the horses mouth. Ask any gay person wether they chose to be gay or not and you'll know the answer. Who would choose to be ridiculed and alienated and hated by certain members of society?

Christians?

John Galt

03-03-2004, 11:11 AM

first of all, if you really want to piss me off, you'll compare me to skippy. I've never called you a name... please respect me the same way.

Secondly, your example of the "Cam Rule" is ludicrous and isn't even close to the argument at hand. In essence what you're saying is that limiting peoples marriage based on "gender choices" is just as discriminatory as limiting peoples marriage based on "religious choices"?

I'm very confused. One one hand we have the argument from an attorney that gays are born that way and therefore have the right to marry because they're similar to a race-based minority. On the other hand we have an attorney arguing that gays choose to be gay and therefore have the right to marry because they're practicing something equal to religious freedom.

So regardless of whether or not homosexuality is chosen or pre-determined, not allowing gays to marry violates the constitution. And yet this argument doesn't open up the door to concept of marriage being changed by another group of people based on sexual preference?

I'll probably return to this thread tonight. I'm arguing on about four hours sleep and I'm sure a nap will help me be a little more concise in my points.

Anyway, thanks for making me think John.

Sorry about the skippy slam - he epitomizes the extreme of what I hate in these debates. You are not in skippy's ball park, zip code, or even planet. I'm just trying to help get the "facts" straight in this discussion so that the "real" arguments are the ones being debated.

The choice/genetic argument is probably irrelevant to the Equal Protection debate. I'm not arguing it is a choice, I just say IF it is a choice, then it should be compared to religion. Either way, it has a lot to do with the gay marriage debate, but the Equal Protection Clause doesn't make distinctions based on choice (although a different Supreme Court easily could).

As to whether an Equal Protection challenge would cause the slippery slope - it really shouldn't. Polygamists, beastialists (sp? - I kinda hope there really isn't a correct spelling for this), etc. can't argue that there discrimination is a "gender" issue so they will have rational basis scrutiny applied (which means the laws will be upheld). They could try the fundamental right argument, but the distinctions that could be used against gays are even stronger here.

I hope this makes more sense after a little rest. The Equal Protection argument will be VERY interesting if it is ever before the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure the current court would go against gay marriage, but they would have to strain some precedents and really clear up the confusion regarding the "heightened scrutiny" gender test.

Masked

03-03-2004, 11:32 AM

Gays arent Black. Except for black gays. And they dont deserve special treatment. That wasn't really my point. Cam had asked why should we allow gay marriages when public opinion was against them. I was just providing an example of marriage laws being changed that went against public opinion. In that case, nearly 40 years later we all agree that public opinion was morally wrong because the laws were discriminatory.

I was not trying to equate being black with being gay but merely refute Cam's argument that the will of the majority should always guide our laws by using an example of these very same laws being changed.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 11:51 AM

That wasn't really my point. Cam had asked why should we allow gay marriages when public opinion was against them. I was just providing an example of marriage laws being changed that went against public opinion. In that case, nearly 40 years later we all agree that public opinion was morally wrong because the laws were discriminatory.

I was not trying to equate being black with being gay but merely refute Cam's argument that the will of the majority should always guide our laws by using an example of these very same laws being changed.

one more before I go to sleep. The interracial marriage law that was referred to earlier: at the time of the court decision there were 16 states (I believe... it might have been twelve) that had laws banning interracial marriage on the books. Hardly the opinion of the majority of people in the United States. Compare that with 39 states with DoMA laws currently on the books.

GMO

03-03-2004, 06:40 PM

If the majority does not decide on issues, then who does decide? A minority? Then who chooses this minority? Is it self-appointed? What if two minorities have opposite points of view? Who decides which one to choose to enforce?

RendeR

03-03-2004, 07:24 PM

You know, after re-reading this thread and seeing how Cam's comments are being manhandled, no pun intended, I have to begin to wonder...

Maybe Cam really supports gay marriage and his constant arguments and denials are simply his way to bring forth the honest and complete reasonings for same sex marriages? Sort of using reverse psychology to help people get the whole story?

Blackadar

03-03-2004, 08:07 PM

Christians?

Must...refrain...from...using...fist-of-death.

Every time something comes up that Cam doesn't like, he starts waiving the "this is anti-Christian" banner. What a bunch of bullshit from a flat-earther.

Oh, the Ten Commandments HUGE monument had to be removed. Anti-Christian. Never mind that no one else could drop a 10-ton statue in the middle of a Government building in the middle of the night and not go to jail.

No organized prayer in schools. "Anti-Christian." But we have to let the "community" choose the people who lead the prayer, making it majority rule.

Everything else that Cam doesn't like - "anti-Christian".

Really, Cam, I've come to pitty you. You're so dogmatic and closed-minded that I imagine you really must miss the diversity that the world has to offer. One day, one can only hope that you really do find God and he helps you to see the world through different eyes.

CamEdwards

03-03-2004, 08:26 PM

Must...refrain...from...using...fist-of-death.

Every time something comes up that Cam doesn't like, he starts waiving the "this is anti-Christian" banner. What a bunch of bullshit from a flat-earther.

Oh, the Ten Commandments HUGE monument had to be removed. Anti-Christian. Never mind that no one else could drop a 10-ton statue in the middle of a Government building in the middle of the night and not go to jail.

No organized prayer in schools. "Anti-Christian." But we have to let the "community" choose the people who lead the prayer, making it majority rule.

Everything else that Cam doesn't like - "anti-Christian".

Really, Cam, I've come to pitty you. You're so dogmatic and closed-minded that I imagine you really must miss the diversity that the world has to offer. One day, one can only hope that you really do find God and he helps you to see the world through different eyes.

Blackie,

Did I say Christians in America? Did I say 20th century Christians? Nope. I specifically left it vague because I was hoping for a reaction like yours. This is as much about intolerance towards those of a religious faith as it is intolerance of those of a different lifestyle.

The question was asked: "Who would choose to be ridiculed and alienated and hated by certain members of society?"

Would early Christians qualify? They faced death for their religious beliefs. Would present day Christians in China, North Korea, Cuba, and other countries qualify? They face daily persecution for a choice they make.

Would you prefer I say Shi'a Muslims? After all, about 200 of them were killed yesterday in Iraq, all because of their faith.

I find it interesting that you assume so much about me. I've specifically NOT argued my position from a religious perspective because I don't believe it's relevant. Besides, I'm hardly what you'd call "dogmatic and closeminded". I haven't been to church in three years. I was raised Unitarian, have gone to Methodist Churches, went to a Catholic High School, flirted with neo-paganism, married an atheist, and have yet to find a denomination I would consider consistent with my spiritual beliefs.

I think your comments say far more about you than they do about me. Then again, I've learned that those who lecture me about tolerance could usually stand to look in the mirror while speaking.