|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay marriage and the law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yeah, but I was asking about laws other than those.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
The sole existence of all people is attendant upon the notion of procreation, which is the very basis for the institution of marriage itself. The very core of its existence in human civilization is to regulate the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. Playing a game of semantics assumes that the institution of marriage has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim. -Alan Keyes This, of course, is bullshit. "Procreation" has literally nothing to do with marriage - this is why sterile couples, old couples and couples with no intention of reproducing are allowed to get married. "Ideal parenting" is similarly bullshit - heterosexual child abusers, spousal abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, convicted felons, rapists, even murderers are allowed to get married. Hell, a smoker isn't an ideal parent, but they can get married too...as long as they aren't gay.
I'm simply telling you that if we are going to introduce arbitrary whims, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. It's not arbitrary, as you've been told repeatedly in this thread and others. The rational defining line is the same that defines every other contract: it must be between consenting adults. An orange, a child, a dog, and a toaster are all not consenting adults, and so cannot be married.
Absolutely not since race has never been a qualifier of a marriage, but gender is. You are adding a superfluous element to it that does not (dis)qualify a marriage. As has been explained to you multiple times, race was a qualifier, in that you had to be of the same race to legally marry. The reasoning you're using is the same that was used in Loving v. Virginia, and that ruling struck down the "same-race" portion of what was at that time the "traditional" definition of marriage as Unconstitutional. There is no difference today.
Because its an historical fact. So was slavery, and Jim Crow.
Where is the line in the sand? Until you define marriage within specified parameters, its loose meanings will trek on with the wild vagaries of man's mind. Once again, for the billionth time: consenting adults.
Then you should have no problem with a civil union, if the symbolism is completely irrelevant in your mind. If simply about legal questions concerning things like inheritance, medical decisions, custody, immigration, or property rights, then a civil union will provide that without butchering the institution of marriage. Sounds like a reasonable compromise. Except there is no reason to call an identical contract with identical rights by a different name except for the purpose of discriminating against a minority, which would be Unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
Why should I, since its been hijacked?!?!? Get your own definition for you and your boyfriend, Rrhain. Sanctification and marriage already have their definitions, and have for millennia. You can recognize or not recognize as you please in your church, The state must work under no religion lest it oppress all other religions.
Not a single one of you can explain to me why homosexual marriage is a right in the first place. Consequently, by your rationale you can't give me a legitimate reason not extrapolate marriage to mean a union between _________ (fill in the blank). In fact, barring anyone from redefining marriage to suit any particular hankering could be construed as unconstitutional. How progressive of you! You can't explain why heterosexual marriage is a right, in the first place. We have explained in detail why the 14th Amendment means that gays need to be treated equally under the law. Your repetition of the "redefining marriage" point is silly - the definition of the legal form of "marriage" has already been changed from what was traditional on several occasions, one of which was redefining marriage so that interracial marriage was legal.
The Establishment Clause. Marriage is not solely a religious enterprise, as people of all religions and even Atheists and Agnostics get married. Also, the state grants certain rights and privileges to married couples, so it cannot be the purview of religions only.
I just want someone to tell me why homosexual marriage is a basic right, per the Constitution. Is an incredibly simple question, but no one has touched it with a ten foot pole. Indeed they can't without injecting some moral basis to it. It's not - just as heterosexual marriage is not. Tjhe reason the Constitution is invoked is becasue the 14th Amendment demands equal protection under the law: no law may exist that treats one group of people differently from another group barring a specific state interest. Since the state has no interest in the sexual orientation of individuals, and gay families have shown to be just as stable and beneficial as heterosexual marriages, there is no rational state interest in distinguishing gay marriage from heterosexual marriage. Without a state interest, treating the two groups separately by disallowing gay marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment, exactly as disallowing interracial marriage was a violation back in the 50s. Since you'll bring up children and toasters and oranges again, they are not consenting adults, and cannot enter into any contract. Toasters and oranges don't even have rights becasue they are not alive, and the state has a rational interest in preventing children from entering into contacts before they are mentally and emotionally able to give informed consent, so they cannot be married either.
That doesn't mean that God Himself approves. That means liberal pulpits have butchered the very parameters their religion has set forth. Which is completely irrelevant to the law. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2667 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
The sole existence of all people is attendant upon the notion of procreation, which is the very basis for the institution of marriage itself. The very core of its existence in human civilization is to regulate the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. Playing a game of semantics assumes that the institution of marriage has no basis independent of your own arbitrary whim. -Alan Keyes Codswollop.
Proponents of same-sex marriage in Olympia, Wash., have introduced a ballot measure ... The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled. All other marriages would be defined as 'unrecognized,' making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits. http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid41804.asp How you like them apples, Juggs?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ... on a 4-3 vote, dismissed the procreation argument, pointing to opposite-sex couples in which the woman was over childbearing age or otherwise infertile. Could the state "rationally" tell them that they could not marry? It could not. Indeed, the court noted that, under state law, even those "who cannot stir from their death bed may marry," provided they were of the opposite sex. Moreover, infertility is not grounds for divorce, and so by inference it is not a bar to marriage, either. In addition, the court noted that Massachusetts law protects the parental rights of homosexuals and allows same-sex couples to adopt children. It was irrational for the state to enable "gay parenting" while also denying the children involved the benefits of "family stability and economic security" found in a marital home. Family Research Council Your line of "reasoning" has been rejected by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, as well as by the United States Supreme Court.
Such discrimination, he implies, could not survive a test by the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment.[3] Indeed, that usually faithful, conservative Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia, in his 2003 dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, noted: If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no state interest' for purposes of proscribing [private adult sex], what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. Family Research Council Scalia, fer chrissake. Scalia!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2667 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Except there is no reason to call an identical contract with identical rights by a different name except for the purpose of discriminating against a minority, which would be Unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Exactly, Rahvin. There are 1,138 federal statutes related to marriage benefits. If all 1,138 are included in a "civil union" (and they damn well better be), the only reason to give that contractual obligation between spouses a different name is discrimination.
We have explained in detail why the 14th Amendment means that gays need to be treated equally under the law. Juggs, acknowledge what Rahvin is saying here. Explicitly acknowledge it. Repeat after me: Treating people unequally under the law is unconstitutional.
You can't explain why heterosexual marriage is a right, in the first place. You got that, Juggs? You cannot claim het marriage as a right. You can't. If you think you can, give it a shot. Let's hear your reasoning. The United States Supreme Court, on the other hand, has declared marriage a RIGHT. Capiche? SCOTUS said marriage = civil right. This DOMA het-only bullshit is going to be struck down when DOMA is dragged before SCOTUS. Wanna know why? Kennedy wrote the majority opinion on Lawrence v. Texas. Hah!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Exactly, Rahvin. There are 1,138 federal statutes related to marriage benefits. If all 1,138 are included in a "civil union" (and they damn well better be), the only reason to give that contractual obligation between spouses a different name is discrimination. Unless when you give it a different name you also delete the old one, so that one term applies to all people. That may make it more politically expedient. Call it a family contract (after all that is what it is about eh?) for everyone, and get the heck out of the bedrooms. But lets also include groups that want to form families too. You can then let "marriage" be an optional ceremony run by the various religous and secular organizations according to their own rules (which will pretty well open it up to everyone and NJ's orange). Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
You can then let "marriage" be an optional ceremony run by the various religous and secular organizations according to their own rules (which will pretty well open it up to everyone and NJ's orange). I'd accept that option. And lets be honest - there's nothing that prevents a gay couple from referring to themselves as married. It's just not recognized by the state. Polygamous relationships still exist, and they refer to themselves as married. It's just not recognized legally. I suppose someone could say they were married to an orange...and assuming nobody called the men with the white coats to take him away, there is no law against that either. It just isn't recognized by the state. Removing the word "marriage" from the law completely and letting individual couples (and their religious institutions, if any) determine whether they call themselves "married" while assigning all of the rights formerly associated with marriage to a plain, simple contract sounds like the only compromise available. It's the only way to truly treat everyone fairly under the law without actually allowing gay marriage and calling a spade a spade. But do you really think enough of Congress, the American people, or Federal judges will go for removing the word "marriage" from the law completely? I doubt it. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But do you really think enough of Congress, the American people, or Federal judges will go for removing the word "marriage" from the law completely? I doubt it. A majority? yes, with a president that signs it into law. Everybody? no, certainly not the fanatics like Fred Phelps. It would probably have to supersede existing laws in a way that grandfathered all existing contracts\marriages\unions as existing forms of the contract. But it could be done. All it takes is political will. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
message 76
i'd like to see you answer this question.
Are you seriously telling us that you can see no moral distinction between the rape of a child and a consensual sexual act between two mature and responsible adults? mr. dodge-y mc dodgerstein. Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
Perhaps more in accordance with the topic of the thread, we should ask him to explain the rationale behind the legal difference.
Why is homosexual sex between consenting adults legal, and sex (even if consensual) with a child considered rape? Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
quote: Ever heard of Plessy v. Ferguson? exactly. we need a civil union law first, so then we can say , no, this is unconstitutional. gays are already constitutionally permitted to marry, we just need the government to recognize that. that should be a case and not a new amendment stating what already is. just as much as i want an ERA, that's not the way to do it. we need a case that says "this is already the law, now follow it!" just like roe v wade.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
exactly. we need a civil union law first...
Yes. Isn't that really all that matters?
...gays are already constitutionally permitted to marry, we just need the government to recognize that.
Ah, I don't think so, not specifically, not unless the Constitution also specifically permits sodomy. How else would a gay couple consummate their "marriage"? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3954 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
Yes. Isn't that really all that matters? no. absolute equality matters, and that includes traditional terminology. no body goes to a "civil unionization," they go to a wedding to witness a marriage.
Ah, I don't think so, not specifically, not unless the Constitution also specifically permits sodomy. How else would a gay couple consummate their "marriage"? you are aware there are gay people without penises, right? also, sodomy is not required for homosexual male sex. nor is sodomy restricted to gay men.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
Ah, I don't think so, not specifically, not unless the Constitution also specifically permits sodomy. How else would a gay couple consummate their "marriage"? First, consummation is irrelevant to marriage. There is no requirement when signing the marriage license that the couple must have intercourse. It can be grounds for divorce or annulment, but that doesn't mean a sex-less marriage is automatically null. Second, as to the "specifically permits sodomy" part:
quote: The states and people retain whatever rights are not specifically eliminated by law, not the other way around. The Constitution doesn't need to specifically permit heterosexual sex, for instance. And the Supreme Court has struck down the various and sundry sodomy laws that used to exist in the US as Unconstitutional, as well...so clearly sodomy is both allowed, and irrelevant to marriage. Besides, sodomy isn't restricted to homosexuals. Many heterosexuals consider other-than-vaginal intercourse to be a darned good time. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5526 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
I'm pretty sure that in every state a marriage can be legally annulled on the principle of consummation. I know of one marriage in Ohio that was. The law seems to have a consummation clause in it, far as I can tell. First, consummation is irrelevant to marriage. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 8.0 |
I'm pretty sure that in every state a marriage can be legally annulled on the principle of consummation. I know of one marriage in Ohio that was. The law seems to have a consummation clause in it, far as I can tell. The key words there are "can be" as opposed to "must be." There is no requirement to consummate a marriage in order for it to be legally valid, it is only a legal grounds for annulment if the couple decides to do so and even then only within a certain timeframe. And you didn't answer any of the other points - your entire statement was false. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024