Gay marriage and the law

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

pedophilia is on the rise.

---

Why is it you keep telling us about your fantasies of sex with children?You do realize that most instances of pedophilia are heterosexual in nature, yes? Gay people are the least likely to have sex with children. If you truly cared about the safety of children, then you must be in favor of the active promotion of homosexual relationships.Why is it that the thought of having sex with someone of your own sex immediately makes you think of having sex with a child, NJ? Are you trying to tell us something?

quote:

---

Can you feel the pride?

---

I don't know...can you?As soon as you start railing against Mardi Gras, Lover's Lane, any random billboard on Los Angeles, and completely wipe Las Vegas off the face of the map, then I'll believe that you are behaving rationally out of some aspect of homosexuality that is beyond the pale of what heterosexuals do.Until then, you're just sublimating. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

When I mention things like pedophilia, rape, incest, etc, I am not attempting to equivocate the action of homosexuality to be as bad, less bad, or more bad than any of those things.

---

Then why bring them up? They have no connection to sexual orientation. Therefore, the only reason to bring them up is because you wish to equivocate.Tell us, NJ, what is it about thinking of sex with someone of your own sex makes you think of raping your infant son? Are you trying to tell us something?Why is it we allow heterosexuality but don't allow you to rape your infant son? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

explain to me how the Constitution applies to homosexual marriage.

---

No, you explain to us how the Constitution applies to heterosexual marriage. It isn't mentioned anywhere in there. Therefore, it is your responsibility to show why it is a "fundamental right" and is protected by the Constitution as the SCOTUS found in Loving v. Virginia.Or are you saying the SCOTUS got it wrong in Loving v. Virginia? This is not the first time I've asked this of you. It would be pleasant if you would actually answer that question this time.

quote:

---

So, explain to me why homosexual marriage is a basic right.

---

No, you explain to us why heterosexual marriage is a basic right.You'll find your answer there.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

molbiogirl writes:

quote:

---

When DOMA reaches the Supreme Court, it will be struck down as unconstitutional for this reason.

---

Now, now...let's be honest. When DOMA reaches the Supreme Court, given the current makeup of the court, they will find a reason to deny Loving v. Virginia, deny Lawrence v. Texas, reaffirm Bowers v. Hardwick, and declare that gay people have no rights.After all, Scalia has already said exactly that. He directly stated that Lawrence v. Texas means that gay people have the right to get married and it is clear he will never allow that. He will come up with some tortuous excuse for logic which is his wont and declare that gay people are to be strangers to the law.

quote:

---

The Supreme Court will also strike down DOMA re: the Full Faith and Protection Clause.

---

And again, not so fast. The Supreme Court has already declared that states do not need to recognize the legal marriages of other states if they are incestuous, polygamous, or otherwise against the law. Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216 (1934): I would predict that Scalia would use this to declare that same-sex marriages are "declared void by statute" and thus are exempt from the Full Faith and Credit clause. I would be slightly (but only slightly) surprised if he then declared the marriages performed in Massachusetts to be null and void, for DOMA does not declare same-sex marriage to be illegal...just that it isn't recognized for Federal purposes and that no other States have to recognize them. That is, Massachusetts can do whatever it wants, but it won't affect anything anywhere else.What would really be an interesting case to see Scalia and his ilk try to wriggle out of would be a case of support and/or custody. If a divorce decree were to come with an order of support and/or custody and one of the parties moved to another State, that State is supposed to assist in the collection of support and the enforcement of custody. But those orders are coming from a contract the new State does not recognize as valid.So do we punish the children by denying them the support they are due lest we recognize the marriage? Or do we recognize the marriage? It would seem to be quite a piece of double-think to claim that the law recognizes the marriage solely for the purposes of establishing support/custody and not for any other reason.But then again, that's not beyond the lunacy of the SCOTUS (see Bush v. Gore where they explicitly state that their decision establishes no precedent).

quote:

---

As soon as we kick the Republican trash out of the White House (and believe you me we will), DOMA is toast.

---

Oh, please. Need I remind you that while it was only Democrats and a lone, gay Republican that voted against DOMA, it is also true that DOMA was overwhelmingly passed by Democrats? Out of 47 Democrats in the Senate, 32 voted for it. Out of 198 Democrats in the House, 118 voted for it. Neither Clinton nor Edwards have said that it should be overturned. And when Obama was running for the Senate in 2004, he said that he was not in favor of overturning it...it is only now that he has had a change of heart. And considering that Obama is now putting forth Republican talking points, how long do you think it will be before he says that there are "more important things" to focus on? And with Congress never passing any bill to overturn it, he'll never have to face the issue of signing it.That's what Schwarzenegger was hoping for: He said he'd not stand in the way of same-sex marriage if the Legislature sent him a bill. Well, they did.And he vetoed it.Twice.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

molbiogirl responds to me:

quote:

---

Didn't know that about Scalia. He just came out and said it, huh? Do you have a source?

---

It's in his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas. Didn't you read it? He directly states that Lawrence v. Texas was mistakenly decided using heightened scrutiny rather than rational-basis, that Loving v. Virginia was decided correctly using heightened scrutiny because miscegenation laws were "designed to maintain White Supremacy." He strictly denies that there is any similar attempt to maintain heterosexual supremacy in laws that prohibit gay people from engaging in sexual activity.In fact, if you read his section V, it is amazing to see the double-think. He actually brings up the "it applies equally to all" argument, comparing it to Loving v. Virginia. In that case, it was ridiculous to claim miscegenation laws "applied equally to all" since it affected blacks and whites the same. And yet, he immediately turns around and says that anti-sex laws apply "equally to all" since they affect both straights and gays.In doing so, he calls non-penis/vagina sex "deviate."Later on: And later on: You can practically feel the spittle landing on your cheek.

quote:

---

If what you say is true, why are the idjits in Congress pushing so hard to prevent DOMA from being heard in federal courts?

---

Because it's an election issue. Because they can't trust the Court. Sure, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are going to vote against it, but what about Kennedy, Bryer, and Souter? O'Conner filed an opinion in favor of Lawrence v. Texas, but tried to claim that it didn't lead to same-sex marriage: So since O'Conner couldn't bring herself to agree that there was no legitimate interest in denying the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples and she signed onto Lawrence, what makes anybody think that any of the others would?

quote:

---

They were in the minority and it was election eve.

---

What does that have to do with anything? It is always an election eve and even though they are in the majority, they still can't seem to figure out how to do anything. Now, part of the problem is that their majority in the Senate is a single vote. Therefore, in order to get anything done in the Senate, it is not enough that all the Democrats line up: Because of Republican obstructionism, it requires 60 votes to get anything done. And since there are quite a few Democrats in the Senate that are Democrats in name only (for example, Lieberman), they don't even have the 50 votes they need to get anything passed.So why didn't the Democrats do then what the Republicans are doing now? There was no reason for DOMA to make it past the Senate, even though they were in the minority.And yet, it did.The idea that Democrats, as a party, pay anything more than lip service to gays is to show one to be a naif in the extreme.

quote:

---

I believe that with a Democratic President and Congress, DOMA is toast.

---

They said that about gays in the military when Clinton was elected: A Democratic Congress and a Democrat in the White House. And what did we get?Discharges for being gay actually INCREASED. People started dying.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

molbiogirl responds to me:

quote:

---

Signing DOMA was political CYA.

---

And when will it not be? Do you seriously think a super-majority of Senators are going to vote to repeal it? And make no mistake: It will require a super-majority as the obstructionist Republicans will ensure that any such bill will not get to the floor.

quote:

---

the dems are going to pick up more seats.

---

Unless they can get 60 votes...er...make that 66 in order to ensure that the likes of Lieberman are countered, then it won't really matter. The Republicans have the game plan down: Block everything thus requiring 60 votes in order for a bill to get to the floor. They know the Democrats will not attempt to invoke the nuclear option, they know the Democrats will never require an actual filibuster on their part (and make no mistake...that little stunt of bringing in cots was not an actual filibuster), so they can carry out exactly what they said they were going to do: Make sure nothing gets done in the Senate.

quote:

---

There have been plenty of times in the past year and a half when all the dems voted the party line.

---

And you seriously think DOMA will be one of them? Two-thirds of the Democratic Senators voted for it. Most of them are still there. Why on earth would they change their mind now?

quote:

---

And DOMA challenges have continued unabated since 1996.

---

A dozen years and no progress. In fact, the situation has become much worse.

quote:

---

After the next election, the Republicans will be unable to block access to the federal courts.

---

They don't have that ability now. One does not need Congressional approval in order to sue. One needs court approval. That's why Newdow's case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance was dismissed: He was declared not to have standing. The only way any case is going to get before the court is to have somebody sue. That's why there is a case winding its way up the California courts. But until somebody files a joint Federal tax return, nothing is going to happen.There's already a case regarding an out-of-state divorce for a couple married in Massachusetts. The couple moved to Rhode Island and filed for divorce there, but the court ruled that they have no ability to handle a same-sex marriage. The couple claims it would be prohibitive for them to move back to Massachusetts in order to establish the residency requirement for them to avail themselves of the divorce statutes there.There's another one regarding a couple who had a civil union in Vermont where they had a child. The biological mother moved to Virginia and renounced being gay. The Vermont courts upheld custody rights while the Virginia court denied them.Since Congress and the President will never overturn DOMA, the only hope is the Supreme Court and with its current make up, it will never happen there, either.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:

---

Do you not understand that you have neglected to explain why homosexual marriage is a right?

---

Do you not understand that you have neglected to explain why heterosexual marriage is a right?Therefore, until you do, mixed-sex marriage is equivalent to same-sex marriage.

quote:

---

Why not then just extrapolate it even further to mean that we all can marry oranges?

---

Why is it that thinking of having sex with someone of the same sex makes you want to have sex with an orange? Are you trying to tell us something, NJ?Unless and until you can explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to you raping your infant son, then mixed-sex marriage remains equivalent to same-sex marriage.

quote:

---

Everyone has the right to marry within the confines of what defines a marriage.

---

So Loving v. Virginia was wrongly decided, yes? After all, the definition of marriage was between people of the same race. The prohibition against marrying outside of one's race applied to all races equally. And then the definition of marriage got redefined.So by your logic, the Supreme Court erred in Loving v. Virginia and we should go back to the laws that prohibited miscegenation, right?

quote:

---

The context of marriage, by all definitional rights, is a union between an adult male, and an adult female.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? In the context of marriage, by all definitional rights, it is a union of an adult male with as many females of any age he cares to take on.Why should we accept your definition over the historical definition?

quote:

---

If we were to go by your loose definition, we could marry cars, and boats, and kids, and cats.

---

Why does having sex with someone of your own sex make you think of raping your infant son while blowing the cat and then scooping out the leavings and pouring them into the intake manifold? Are you trying to tell us something, NJ?Until you can explain why heterosexuality doesn't lead to this, we are left to conclude that mixed-sex marriage and same-sex marriage are equivalent.

quote:

---

Then the government should get out of marriage altogether since it is a religious institution.

---

Then why is there a law about it? The law involves questions of inheritance, medical decisions, custody, immigration, property rights, all of which are subsumed under the contract of marriage. The idea that marriage is only a religious institution is disingenuous in the extreme.If you want to make your religious ceremony special, then find another word for it. You can call it "sanctification." Leave the term "marriage" for the law if your objection is based upon semantics.Note, we all know it isn't...after all, you keep on telling us about your fantasies of raping your infant son every time the question comes up. That has nothing to do with the word used, so clearly your problem is not the word "marriage."So out with it, NJ: What is the legal justification for heterosexual marriage? It exists right here, right now. Why should it? Unless and until you can justify it, then we are left concluding that mixed-sex marriage is equivalent to same-sex marriage.

quote:

---

Nobody seems to be outraged over that little incursion which is unconstitutional.

---

Why? Why is marriage unconstitutional? Do you deny that there are questions the law must answer with regard to things like inheritance, property rights, immigration, medical decisions, custody, etc.? Since those questions are answered legally by the contract of marriage, which defines a person as next-of-kin, why do you think that it is unconstitutional for the government to be involved in those things?Or are you saying that the government is prohibited from being involved in those things? Where do you find that in the Constitution?Are you about to treat the Constitution as a laundry list? That if we don't find the word "marriage" in it, that necessarily means that the government has no business involving itself in it? If so, then explain to me why it is illegal for you to have a nuclear weapon for the phrase "nuclear weapon" makes no appearance in the Constitution and yet everyone seems to think the government has the ability to regulate the possession of nukes.Or do you think the government doesn't have that ability? You should be able to have a nuke if you wish? Wasn't that the supposed reason we invaded Iraq? To stop them from getting nukes? Why should we stop a foreign country from having the same things we allow our common citizens?

quote:

---

Doesn't mean God will honor it

---

Except god already does. Gay people have religious marriage rites in church with the blessings of god all the time.Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "not."

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:

quote:

---

Alan Keyes

---

Alan Keyes is not in a position to dictate the law in the United States. Try again.By the way, the argument he put forward is based upon procreation. If that were true, then there would necessarily be a fertility test for people to get married and lack of issue would be grounds for annulment. Neither is the case, therefore it necessarily is true that procreation is not the basis for marriage.Too, this assumes gay people don't have children. They clearly do by simple inspection. If marriage is about the children, why do you wish to punish the children simply because their parents are gay?Why is heterosexual marriage a fundamental right?

quote:

---

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.

---

But you haven't explained why heterosexual marriage of two, non-related adult humans is nothing more than an arbitrary whim. After all, the traditional definition of marriage was of a male to as many females of any age as he cared to take on. What was the justification for the introduction of the arbitrary whim that it was only two and that they had to be adults?

quote:

---

Absolutely not since race has never been a qualifier of a marriage, but gender is.

---

Huh? The law directly stated that you couldn't marry people of a different race. Therefore, race was a qualifier of marriage by simple inspection.If it wasn't a qualifier, why on earth were the Lovings arrested for marrying each other? Why did they have to go to court to overturn a law that criminalized their marriage?

quote:

---

You are adding a superfluous element to it that does not (dis)qualify a marriage.

---

And how is the sex of the participants something other than a superfluous element? You have yet to explain why.

quote:

---

Because its an historical fact.

---

Except it isn't. Marriage has quite commonly been polygamous. And yet, somewhere along the line it was arbitrarily decided on a whim that it should only be couples. Marriage has quite commonly been between a male adult and female children. And yet, somewhere along the line it was arbitrarily decided on a whim that it should only be between adults.Well, scratch that last. It is still legal for an adult to marry a child in this country if the parents approve.And since we have evidence of same-sex marriage going all the way back to Ancient Egypt, it seems clear that same-sex marriage is just as historical as your arbirtrary, whimsical definition.So why do you want special rights?

quote:

---

Where is the line in the sand?

---

At the same place it always has been. What is it about sex with someone of the opposite sex that doesn't send you skittering off into thoughts of raping your infant daughter? That's the line you claim isn't there.

quote:

---

Until you define marriage within specified parameters, its loose meanings will trek on with the wild vagaries of man's mind.

---

But you haven't justified the parameters that exist. They are nothing more than arbitrary whim. So why are your whims the ones that are chosen? If you can't explain why you deserve special rights, then we are left concluding that mixed-sex marriage is the same as same-sex marriage.

quote:

---

Then you should have no problem with a civil union, if the symbolism is completely irrelevant in your mind.

---

No, you have it backwards. The law will keep the term "marriage" because it has been using the term "marriage" for quite some time. If you want to make your religious ceremony distinct from the legal contract of marriage, then you can call it something else. Call it "sanctification." If your problem truly is merely semantic, then choose another word for your relationship.

quote:

---

Why should I, since its been hijacked?!?!?

---

Because you're the one with the problem. And you still haven't justified why your arbitrary, whimsical idea of what marriage is should be the standard. In reality, you're the one who hijacked it. Why do you think your peculiar brand of intimacy is deserving of special rights?

quote:

---

Not a single one of you can explain to me why homosexual marriage is a right in the first place.

---

That's because it isn't our burden of proof. It's your burden to explain to us why heterosexual marriage is a right. There are laws concerning it on the books. By default, the Fourteenth Amendment specifically and directly states that all US citizens are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Therefore, if there is going to be marriage in the first place, then it necessarily applies to both gay people and straight people.But, that assumes that there is going to be marriage in the first place. It is your burden to show why you are deserving of the special right of marriage. Since you have never been able to do so, we are left concluding that mixed-sex marriage is the same as same-sex marriage.

quote:

---

Consequently, by your rationale you can't give me a legitimate reason not extrapolate marriage to mean a union between _________ (fill in the blank).

---

That's because it is not our burden to do so. The "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy. You are also guilty of the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. It is not for us to explain why straight people aren't entitled to special rights. It is your burden of proof to show why they are.Why does sex with someone of the opposite sex not send your mind skittering off into thoughts of raping your infant daughter? If you can answer that, then you have discovered what you sought.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why is marriage unconstitutional?

---

​

I never said, nor did I imply that marriage is unconstitutional.

---

Yes, you did: You were clearly claiming that the government regulation of marriage is a First Amendment violation. In fact, you go right on to state it directly, though you get the clause wrong:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or are you saying that the government is prohibited from being involved in those things? Where do you find that in the Constitution?

---

​

The Establishment Clause.

---

Er, you meant the Free Exercise clause. Establishment is religion invading government. When government invades religion, it's the Free Exercise clause.But that simply isn't true. Again, there are legal questions of things like inheritance, property rights, immigration, medical decisions, custody, etc. All of these are handled (in part) by the contract of marriage which designates somebody as next-of-kin.Are you saying that the government has no interest in regulating those things?But if it does, why do straights get the special rights? You need to justify why you are demanding special rights for straights. Why is your arbitrary whim deserving?

quote:

---

I just want someone to tell me why homosexual marriage is a basic right, per the Constitution.

---

For the same reason that heterosexual marriage is a basic right, per the Constitution. If you can explain why straights deserve special rights, you'll find what you seek. Burden of proof is on you, NJ. You're the one seeking special rights for straights. It is up to you to justify it.You can't do it. You have to provide a single piece of evidence to explain why you deserve special rights.

quote:

---

That doesn't mean that God Himself approves.

---

Yes, it does. They wouldn't be in church being blessed by god if god didn't approve.Oh! You didn't think that the god that truly exists was your little fantasy, did you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Don't we have a federal law that prevents discrimination based on sex, race, age and infirmity?

---

No, we don't.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

molbio girl responds to me:

quote:

---

Discrimination based on race, sex, religion, ethnicity,national origin is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

---

Not quite. Here is the preamble of Title VII: You will note that it is engaging in specificities. It is there to prevent discrimination in very specific areas, not in general. There is nothing in here that prevents discrimination in, say, immigration or custody or marriage or divorce.

quote:

---

Discrimination based on age is prohibited by Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.

---

Same problem. It only handles specificities, not the general case. The preamble to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967: There is no mention of other areas. It only handles the one concept.The preamble to the Age Discrimination Act of 1975: So that's great for Federal programs...no mention of lower levels. Business employment isn't usually on the receiving end of federal monies so this act doesn't help when your boss fires you because you're too old.

quote:

---

Discrimination based on disability is prohibited by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

---

Again, same problem. They only deal with specificities, not the general case. From the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: This is mostly about employment and housing.The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 actually does try and make a sweeping declaration: But when you look at the regulations spelled out, they are:Employment
Public Services
Wire or Radio CommunicationsThat's close, but it isn't a general statement. I was reading RAZD's question to be one of looking for a general comment and not laws that prevent it "just for work or finding lodgings."The laws we have are for specific instances and, quite often, only in those cases where the feds have a hand in the situation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Jaderis writes:

quote:

---

I can call myself married all day long, but what really matters is the protections and benefits.

---

And just like when miscegenation laws were struck down, we didn't create a contract of "interracial union" that had "all the rights and responsibilities" of "traditional marriage." No, we simply used the machinery of marriage that was already in place and declared that the contract between two people of differing races was also "marriage."There's no reason to try and come up with a different term. If those who don't like the concept of equality want to keep their relationships distinct, then they can come up with a new term. Call it "sanctification" since they seem to be stuck on the religious aspects of it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.