Gay marriage and the law

In the Huckabee thread, Nemesis Juggernaut and Rrhain have been going back and forth on the implications of the Constitution and DOMA on gay marriage. Because a full discussion of this topic goes beyond the scope of the Huckabee thread, I thought I'd start this one.The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legal issues around gay marriage, not moral or religious, except as those things impact the legal questions. I don't mind if some discussion of the stance of various current candidates creeps in, but let's not make that the focus, okay kiddies?The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment provides in part, "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." In essence, this means that laws must apply equally to all persons. This language has been interpreted many times by the Supreme Court in many different contexts. To briefly summarize, the Court has developed three different tests depending on the type of classification a challenged law contains.The Court will use what is called strict scrutiny if a law is based on a suspect classification, such as race or national origin, or if it impinges on a fundamental Constitutional right. Under strict scrutiny, a law must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest before it will be upheld. In addition, it must be the least restrictive means to achieve the end.The Court will use what is called intermediate scrutiny when examining a law that classifies on the basis of gender. Where a law relies on a gender classification, it must be substantially related to an important state interest.The lowest level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause is called rational basis. Under this test, the law must be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest. The rational basis test is used for any classification in law that does not fall under strict scrutiny or intermediate scrutiny.Any state action that treats one group of people differently from another is potentially subject to review by the courts to make sure that it does not run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.The question then becomes whether laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.The first question is what level of scrutiny should a court apply in analyzing these laws. There is an argument that strict scrutiny must apply, because the laws impinge on a fundamental Constitutional right, the right to marry.That marriage is a fundamental right was established by the Court at least 40 years ago in the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), wherein Mr. Chief Justice Warren, writing for a unanimous court, said

quote:

---

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

​

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. 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.

---

388 U.S. at 12.Since marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution, any law that infringes upon it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, and it must be the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling interest.Here is where my analysis begins to break down, because those who advocate bans on gay marriage are seldom particularly clear about what state interest the ban is intended to serve. There is frequently talk about "protecting traditional marriage." I suspect that a court would have no trouble finding that protecting marriage is a compelling state interest. But I have yet to hear anyone describe in what way allowing gays to marry will harm or even change in any way anyone else's marriage. Absent a showing that gay marriage presents a threat to marriage, I can't imagine how it could be described as narrowly tailored to serve that end, or be the least restrictive means to achieve it.When pressed, some people will frankly admit that gay marriage is against god's law. I hope it doesn't take much discussion to make it plain that enforcing a particular vision of god's law on the rest of the populace is not a compelling state interest.If anyone else cares to advance what they think is a compelling state interest that is served in banning gay marriage, I'd be delighted to discuss it. In fact, I'd be overjoyed. In all the years I've been discussing this, and in all the places, I've yet to come across anyone who advanced any kind of legitimate reason for banning gay marriage.Arguably, one could distinguish the holding that marriage is a fundamental right based on the language talking about the importance of marriage being "fundamental to our very existence and survival." (Please note carefully, I don't agree with this distinction, but I recognize that the argument is there. What follows is an alternate analysis.) If the case is not decided under strict scrutiny, the next level of analysis is intermediate basis. The argument to apply this level of scrutiny is that laws banning gay marriage are not gender neutral. It makes the question of whether two people can marry one another turn on their gender. (The objection to this reasoning is that gay marriage bans are gender neutral, they apply equally to men and women. A version of this argument, based instead on race, was considered and rejected by the Court in Loving.)Under intermediate scrutiny, the question becomes whether the ban is substantially related to an important governmental interest. Once again, the analysis at this point depends on the governmental interest advocated. Again assuming that the interest is protecting marriage, that would likely be considered an important interest. But we still run into the problem of articulating exactly how a gay marriage ban serves that interest in any way.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

The question then becomes whether laws prohibiting homosexuals from marrying are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

---

Some, not including myself, would argue that homosexuals are being treated just the same as heterosexuals and that no violation of the Equal Protection Clause has been made by the prohibition of same-sex marriage. Anyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, including homosexuals.

quote:

---

That marriage is a fundamental right was established by the Court at least 40 years ago in the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), wherein Mr. Chief Justice Warren, writing for a unanimous court, said

---

Again, some would argue that no fundamental right has been violated because anyone, reguardless if he's homosexual or heterosexual, is free to marry anyone of the opposite sex.

quote:

---

There is frequently talk about "protecting traditional marriage."

---

Which is why the people of Alabama decided to keep segregation laws, including their ban on interracial marriage, in their constitution in 2004. You can read about it here Alabama clings to segregationist past | World news | The Guardian

quote:

---

Absent a showing that gay marriage presents a threat to marriage, I can't imagine how it could be described as narrowly tailored to serve that end, or be the least restrictive means to achieve it.

---

Obama and Keyes explained why same sex marriage ought to be illegal.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0ARepublicans explained why gay marriage ought to be banned at the following youtube link.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A

quote:

---

If anyone else cares to advance what they think is a compelling state interest that is served in banning gay marriage, I'd be delighted to discuss it. In fact, I'd be overjoyed. In all the years I've been discussing this, and in all the places, I've yet to come across anyone who advanced any kind of legitimate reason for banning gay marriage.

---

I think people who have a problem with it have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to marry somebody of the same sex. In fact, have you visited the dumb laws website before? We have a whole nation's history of people coming up with dumb laws because they didn't know any better. The marriage protection act is just another one of these.

quote:

---

Under intermediate scrutiny, the question becomes whether the ban is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

---

Actually, recognizing gay marriage on a national level would be interfering with don't ask don't tell. After all, Private Steve Ryan has to put down "Robert Hyman" in the spouse section for him to get benefits.

quote:

---

But we still run into the problem of articulating exactly how a gay marriage ban serves that interest in any way.

---

It would give republicans most of the evangelical votes.

quote:

---

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

---

I personally believe that marriage is a basic right. Upon saying that, my detractors immediately would say, "See, so you can't deprive them of that right."But here is the fundamental difference. My detractors notoriously neglect CONTEXT. If it is a basic right to marry, then we first need to describe what a marriage is. Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, as Nature/God has doled out. As a testament to that, almost every nation on earth, irrespective of religion or cultural differences, have had an aversion towards it, and have in some capacities outlawed it. That speaks for itself, and no one should take that too lightly.It is also noted that when saying freedom is indispensable, and shall not be infringed upon, what are its entailments? While this statement is wholly factual, it neglects to define what "freedom" actually entails. If we were free to do every single thing that crossed our mind, we would actually be engaging in criminal activity much of the time. Though we are free, we are not free to do every single thing imaginable. There are parameters of freedom, which are the very things that protect that freedom. It is a hedge of protection. To pervert the word to entail whatever the hell we want, we actually undermine that very freedom we hold up so high. Homosexuals marrying would likely not do anything to some heterosexual marriage. Anyone that makes that argument is making an incredibly specious one, IMO. What I believe is that it does is open the floodgates to more degradation. Without trying to illicit religious connotations, I believe that there is a pure and less pure way of living life -- one that is productive and healthy, and the other counterproductive and unhealthy -- unhealthy not only to the person, but to society as a whole.The downward spiral of a society is imperceptible in real time, just as watching one's finger nails is imperceptible in real time. You are not aware that your nails are growing until one day you realize it is time for a trim. Its the same thing as a society. Its slow.I doubt anyone would really argue the fact that society has changed much in 20, 30, 40, 50 years. Some say for the better, some say we've lost our way. I will leave that up to the reader. But I think that even those who say that we are making progress in some areas might concede that we are losing other critical aspects. We have grown more calloused. I will say this much: A very large part of me, the libertarian side of me, says that in a free society, a person should be allowed to make choices for themselves so long as it does not immediately subvert any one else's will.The interesting thing to note is that the acceptance of societies views on homosexuality does psychologically impact a society in such a way that the answer is virtually made for you. If you go against the grain, you will be all but ostracized and referred to as a bigot should you go against that grain. I was looking at another forum the other day and had a bit of a revelation. The members were discussing sexuality. I noticed that almost all of the younger people on the forum expressed that they were bisexual, whereas the older folk were somewhat disturbed by it.Are you telling me that everyone is now born bisexual, whereas a slightly older generation was not? Absolutely not! Its a perfect example of monkey see, monkey do. Today's generation is taught not only to respect other people's sexual preference, but to embrace it, and even to believe that it is innate within you (see Kinsey). And so what we have now is young people believing, because they were told so, that they are essentially bisexual. It is a complete psychological manipulation, yet people say that Christians are the sheep, bleating the night away in total conformity?!?!?!? And then, what about YOU, the reader? Have not your own views been changed to conform to the majority? Do you think you are above the influence of a society? Perhaps you need to ask yourself that.The other belief that conforms to libertarian qualities is that by prohibiting such things will invariably lead to a backlash -- which just makes people want to do it even more. So in that sense, passing laws that outlaw homosexual marriage may in many ways encourage it.But then there is the other side of the coin. By idly sitting back and watching society go, you are inadvertently counting on disaster, and the complete lack of inhibition. Because after homosexual marriage is a-okay, what is next? Do you really, honestly believe that this is going to be the last taboo fought for? I don't -- not for a second. After this comes will be the next battlefront -- pedophilia.I am making this prediction in front of all of you. If I am wrong, I will eat my words. In the next 15-20 years, you will see a major battle being fought for pedophile rights. Its already at the doorstep, under the ubiquitous guise of love.The argument will come down to a matter of allowing children the right to consent of their own volition, and the antagonists will decry that it is an injustice to assume that children haven't the emotional or mental capacity to make forthright decisions about their lives.Now I ask the reader: Given that I have made both pro and con points about homosexual marriage, can any of you, even if you lean towards homosexual marriage, at least understand where I am coming from? Have you ever honestly considered the repercussions for allowing it?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Quite so. And I anticipated that argument and responded to it with this bit from the OP: Emphasis mine.Not that I'm trying to come to the defense of Alabama, but that's not correct, at least according to the article.

quote:

---

A statute banning interracial marriage in the state was struck down only four years ago by 59% to 41%, with a majority of whites voting against the change.

---

That seems to be the same link twice. I'll look later when I have the time. Yes, well, even assuming that there's a compelling governmental interest there, prohibiting all gays from marrying is hardly the least restrictive means to achieving it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Quite so. And I anticipated that argument and responded to it with this bit from the OP:

---

And yet you already have one person using this exact argument but on a bigger scale.

quote:

---

Not that I'm trying to come to the defense of Alabama, but that's not correct, at least according to the article.

---

Ok, you're right, but look at the percentage of people who wanted to keep interracial marriage ban.

quote:

---

That seems to be the same link twice. I'll look later when I have the time.

---

My mistake. The republican link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kyiOI3HFr0

quote:

---

Yes, well, even assuming that there's a compelling governmental interest there, prohibiting all gays from marrying is hardly the least restrictive means to achieving it.

---

I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I'm saying that the only way for us to solve this problem is for new legislation, because the old legislations were never meant to apply to same sex marriage. In fact, I'm willing to go as far as say that the people who pushed for the equal protection clause and people like Justice Warren had never even thought about applying their rulings on same sex marriage. We didn't end slavery by applying an old amendment or law. We ended it with a new amendment. And let's not forget selective incorporation into the 14th amendment to apply many of the federally protected rights on a state level.Judges in the past have been known to interpret the law based on the context of when it was written. I think in this case the only sure way to ensure true equality for homosexuals is to start anew.

Yes you are also free to marry the ugliest most obnoxious selfish filth encrusted odoriferous person of the opposite sex you know.It's all in how you look at "freedom" eh?But the issue is not whether people are free to marry the spouse of their desires, but whether they have the same legal rights and benefits under all laws and conventions as other people living in similar situations, or does the law give privileges to some that it restricts others from having.The poll tax was used to keep certain people from voting, but they were always just as free as everyone else to pay the tax to vote eh? I'd say replace all legal reference to marriage with "civil union" so that religions can have marriages as they choose (gay, hetero, multi, whatever), but that the legal benefits are available to all with equal acceptance.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : laws

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

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.

quote:

---

Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, as Nature/God has doled out.

---

Wives (until very recently) have "always" had to obediently submit to the sexual advances of their husbands, by the definition of marriage, thus making marital rape an extremely recent concept that people just a few decades ago would have thought unnatural and ridiculous.Just because something has "always been" doesn't mean it should go on being so.

quote:

---

Anyone that makes that argument is making an incredibly specious one, IMO. What I believe is that it does is open the floodgates to more degradation.

---

Er, maybe you can explain how promoting marriage, which is the basic unit of society, and supporting greater numbers of consenting adults to engage in it, will lead to a less stable society.If you want people to stop fornicating and sleeping around, thet them get married. Encourage marriage and monogomy.

quote:

---

Are you telling me that everyone is now born bisexual, whereas a slightly older generation was not? Absolutely not!

---

No. Everybody has always been born bisexual (more or less) and societal pressures to identify as and behave as exclusively heterosexual has been much greater in the past than it is today.Is this so difficult a concept to figure out that it has never even occurred to you?

quote:

---

Its a perfect example of monkey see, monkey do. Today's generation is taught not only to respect other people's sexual preference, but to embrace it, and even to believe that it is innate within you (see Kinsey). And so what we have now is young people believing, because they were told so, that they are essentially bisexual. It is a complete psychological manipulation,

---

Er, nobody can "manipulate" another person to become sexually aroused in response to a particular gender if they don't find that gender sexually arousing in the first place. Maybe you believe you could be "tricked" or "convinced" into thinking that you want to have hot gay sex (and judging by your insistance that gay men constantly hit on you, it seems that you think about it a lot), but it simply cannot be done unless the person has that innate attraction in the first place.Perhaps what you are noticing isn't "manipulation", but people not fearing to be honest about their sexuality. Certainly, people of older generations tend to be far more repressed, since they were socially and often literally, physically punished, often severely, for even hinting at being anything other than extremely heterosexual.I mean, it wasn't very long ago that any openly gay people were often regularly harassed, beaten and sometimes killed just for being gay. It doesn't take much imagination to understand that since that threat of harm or death is lessened (though far from eliminated in many places) that people would feel freer to be themselves, and thus not live a lie anymore.Gay and Bi folk have always been here, juggs, but people like you have forced them to pretend to be something they aren't just to survive.

quote:

---

Have you ever honestly considered the repercussions for allowing it?

---

Have you ever honestly considered that there are no repercussions to society other than religionists like you being put out because you can't control other people?All of the arguments you've made in this post have been seen before, except they were made 50 years ago by people who thought that society was headed down the tubes because blacks were going to be allowed to marry whites.Isn't it awful that many young people think that it isn't gross to be attracted to people of a different skin color, and don't give the idea of dating or marrying someone like that a second thought?Isn't it a sign of the degradation of our society? Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

In a nutshell, your whole position is based on the idea that society and societal "institutions" need to be protected from choices that individuals may make that might be harmful to society. My position is that the individual is much more in need of protection from society than the other way around. Society can take care of itself. The mob has always presented more dangers to the individual than has the individual to the mob. And, at bottom, that what society is, a mob. It tries to impose its will against the individual without regard for the wishes or well-being of the individual. Slavery, racism, sexism, religious persecution, fascism, communism; each of these societal institutions is based on the idea that what's best for society is best instead of what's best for the individual. Denying homosexuals the right to marry is simply more of the same.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Not that this has anything to do with the topic, but I would like for you to substantiate your claim, and furthermore, that no one really cared about such an issue of it were happening in abundance. Because of what it leads to. Offhand, can you think of any immediate damage that would incur should people en masse revert to bondage as a healthy sexual practice, even if it is consensual by both parties? Can you think of any immediate problems with polygamy? Incest? Is there any immediate problems associated with divorce, even though both parties want it? Ever heard of a young girl being pressured to have sex with her boyfriend when she isn't entirely comfortable with it? If she consents, should that remove the moral question? What comes as a result to our psyche, to our conscience, is the problem. We will become so detached and calloused of normalcy so as to make it a relic of the past. You can be monogamous without marriage. You are trying to use one practice, that does not have anything to do with the other, and trying to conflate them. Your husband is a psychologist and you don't see a correlation between the power of suggestion and culture? That's as basic as 1,2,3 a,b,c. Cultural influence has an enormous impact on how most people view the world. If an "authority" gives you the go-ahead, then on the basis of their position, you are more apt to listen. If you are a little teeny bopper girl infatuated by some pop idol, and she thinks homosexuality is kewls, chances are you will fall right in to line with your peers.Seriously think about it. Look at the acceptance of homosexuality. 20 years ago, virtually the entire population was weirded out by it. That, in and of itself, you could say was culturally induced. Now we see a radical shifting in polarity. How did that happen? Cultural influence. I mean, can you honestly deny that? Call it "awareness" if you want, its all the same thing. Sometimes people are beaten and killed over a glance. Its still culturally induced. You would have no way of knowing that, now would you? Supposing mass people have been hiding, did it ever occur to you that they do so because they know what they are doing is immoral? Should adulterers carouse in the broad daylight in the hopes that society won't be so gosh darn puritanical about it? No they didn't, and you've neglected to answer the question. Are there any repercussions to the complete acceptance of homosexuality? If not, why?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Does the same apply to incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, regulating drugs, regulating cigarettes and alcohol, etc, etc? Your argument is based upon individual desire, without examining the consequences. In your mind, the adage, "If it feels good, do it," should be the defining principle to look up to.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This is just you projecting your personal bias onto society. In the UK we have civil partnerships for same-sex couples (a clumsy compromise IMO), yet there has never been a worse time to be a British paedophile. They are regarded as the lowest of the low, and that is a trend that shows no sign of stopping, four years on from the first civil partnership. Same-sex marriage has been recognised for eight years in the Netherlands, and for nearly two decades in Denmark. Neither state shows any inclination to legalise paedophilia. Perhaps you would like to eat your words in Danish.
In truth, the two topics are unrelated, save that you revile them both in seemingly equal measure.

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

Not that this has anything to do with the topic, but I would like for you to substantiate your claim, and furthermore, that no one really cared about such an issue of it were happening in abundance.

---

Marital rape - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Because of what it leads to.

---

What does promoting marriage lead to that you would consider detrimental to society? the rest of your "examples" are irrelevant to marriage.

quote:

---

You can be monogamous without marriage.

---

It is an awful lot harder, though. Don't you agree?From my own experience, I can certainly tell you that if it wasn't for the fact that I am married, I might not still be with my partner. He would probably say the same.The institution of marriage is vital to promoting monogamy and stable families. Surely you aren't going to contest that, are you?

quote:

---

Your husband is a psychologist and you don't see a correlation between the power of suggestion and culture?

---

He's not a Social Psychologist. He's a Cognitive Psychologist and studies things like memory and face recognition.Psychology is a big, big field, remember.

quote:

---

That's as basic as 1,2,3 a,b,c. Cultural influence has an enormous impact on how most people view the world. If an "authority" gives you the go-ahead, then on the basis of their position, you are more apt to listen. If you are a little teeny bopper girl infatuated by some pop idol, and she thinks homosexuality is kewls, chances are you will fall right in to line with your peers.

---

So, how come "culture" can't turn gay people straight?It didn't work for Ted Haggerd, did it?Look, Juggs, you have to stop thinking of sexuality is such either/or terms. Just about every trait in a population can be plotted on a bell curve distribution, and I don't see why sexuality should be much different. ...especially considering the very strong social bonding role sex has in our species.Anyhow, there will be a few "very hetero" and "very homo" at either end of the curve, but most people fall somewhere in the middle. Culture will serve to influence where they feel free to publically express their sexual feelings and take mates, but this doesn't mean they don't still have the ability to respond sexually to the same gender given the right circumstances.

quote:

---

Seriously think about it. Look at the acceptance of homosexuality. 20 years ago, virtually the entire population was weirded out by it. That, in and of itself, you could say was culturally induced. Now we see a radical shifting in polarity. How did that happen? Cultural influence. I mean, can you honestly deny that? Call it "awareness" if you want, its all the same thing.

---

Same thing with interracial marriage. Most people were "wierded out" by that concept as well. So what?

quote:

---

Sometimes people are beaten and killed over a glance. Its still culturally induced.

---

That's not the point. The point is, terrorizing a group for certain behaviors is apt to have a chilling effect upon the behaviors. Remove the terrorist threats, and the behavior that was repressed will be more freely expressed.

quote:

---

You would have no way of knowing that, now would you?

---

Actually, if you read any history, you know that they have always been there. Repressed and persecuted, but there.

quote:

---

Supposing mass people have been hiding, did it ever occur to you that they do so because they know what they are doing is immoral?

---

They probably believed that due to the bigoted and homophobic society in which they lived.Can you explain to me without using the a religious argument, why homosexuality is immoral?

quote:

---

Should adulterers carouse in the broad daylight in the hopes that society won't be so gosh darn puritanical about it?

---

Anyone who breaks a promise or lies to their family is doing wrong to others and as such is likely to be judged by society as having hurt others.How is being gay similar to adultery? Please explain.All of the arguments you've made in this post have been seen before, except they were made 50 years ago by people who thought that society was headed down the tubes because blacks were going to be allowed to marry whites.

quote:

---

No they didn't,

---

Of course they were, juggs.

quote:

---

and you've neglected to answer the question. Are there any repercussions to the complete acceptance of homosexuality?

---

I can't think of any, other than religious and gay-hating people possibly getting so angry and fearful about their fading ability to dictate to other people what to do and how to live that they become desperate and violent.

quote:

---

If not, why?

---

Why aren't there any reprocussions? Maybe becasue it is a good thing.

Naturally, I assume you are exempt from projecting bias...? Its an opinion of mine. In a free society we grapple with ideas in a marketplace of ideas. I thought that would be appreciated. Just be patient. Dams don't rupture for no reason. They start with small fissures weakening the walls. The collapse may be sudden and swift, but not what leads up to it. But, I hope I am wrong if that offers any consolation. That's fantastically hilarious, if not totally ironic, that you mention it because not even one month ago, I just busted 4 out of 5 Danish sailors with child pornography. That's not to mention the Thai, Filipino, German, Ukrainian, etc sailors with the same materials. Either sailors are prone to debauchery (very likely, actually), or pedophilia is on the rise. No, there is a very special place in my heart for child molestors. If walking the plank were still a legal practice, I might assume it too light a punishment.But I know what you mean...Can you feel the pride? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

Some, not including myself, would argue that homosexuals are being treated just the same as heterosexuals and that no violation of the Equal Protection Clause has been made by the prohibition of same-sex marriage. Anyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex, including homosexuals.

---

And some would say before Loving that all people were treated equally. Blacks had just as much right to marry within their "race" as whites.

quote:

---

Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, as Nature/God has doled out.

---

If by always you mean for roughly the past 80 years in the United States, then you would be correct. But if by always you mean the forms of marriage that have been held throughout history, you are sorely mistaken on your facts.For starters, homosexual marriages have existed in areas such as China(through the 16th century) and portions of Africa(through the 19th century). Let us also note that marriage situations we would now consider pedophilia were common. My own grandparents married when my grandmother was 12 and my grandfather 27. But at that point in time in our location, that was acceptable and not uncommon.Also, does your view of "traditional" marriage incorporate viewing women as property which is still held in parts of the world? What about the Hindu sects that as recently as 6 months ago allow people to marry non-human animals? What about polygamy which is still practiced in parts of the globe?Traditional marriage? Please, don't make me laugh.

quote:

---

Does the same apply to incest, polygamy, prostitution, pedophilia, zoophilia, regulating drugs, regulating cigarettes and alcohol, etc, etc?

---

Consenting adults, mate.incest: depends on how close the relation is. In the UK first cousins may marry, not so in the U.S.polygamy: yes, my wife and I are polyamorous and our girlfriend of 3 years lives with us and helps us raise our son. We'd love nothing more than to be married to her.prostitution:yes, if a woman or man wish to use their body to make money, that is their choice. Nevada has allowed it outside city limits for some time now.pedophilia: your slippery slope fallacy falls through here. Consenting *adults*zoophilia: again, your slippery slope is flawed.regulating drugs: should be de-regulating drugs. Open legal access to drugs with government enforced restrictions increases the rate of people willing to seek help, allows for the purity of the substances to be regulated for safety, and removes power from drug kingpins. For examples look at the effect of harm-reduction centers in Canada as well as the effects of drug policy in the Netherlands. You may also want to check out information on Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (L.E.A.P.)Really, when we look at your argument the very best you can do is provide an alarmist slippery slope which is at its very best only undesirable on the most reactionary of first impressions. Upon critique, however, your argument falls through as being at best fallacious.

For those of you here who began posting without reading the OP, let me quote this little excerpt: The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legal issues around gay marriage, not moral or religious, except as those things impact the legal questions.Now, with that little reminder in mind.... Whether they should be "the defining principle to look up to" isn't the question. The question is what should the law say. The law shouldn't be about what I think is good for everyone else, or what you think is good for everyone else, or what anyone else thinks is good for everyone else. It should be about everyone making their own decision about what's good for themselves.The purpose of the law shouldn't be to mold free individuals into your (or anyone else's) icon of what a good person should be. It should be to protect people and their property from harm by others. This means that others will make personal choices for themselves that you disagree with. Tough shit, bucko. That's the price you pay to live in a free country. If you don't like it, get the fuck out, and take all your blue-nosed, tight-assed, anal retentive, brain-damaged friends with you. I understand that there are some really nice places in the Middle East where they think it's a good idea to write morality into the law.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat