|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay marriage and the law | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How is calling it something else achieving equal rights? Because what you call it is completely and totally immaterial. What is important is the equal rights. If we call it "humage" and we let anyone enter into humage that wants to enter into humage, then there is no discrimination on who can enter into humage. If we change the legal laws that refer to marriage in any way to refer instead to humage, then everyone that enters into humage gets the benefit of humage, and there is no discrimination on who can get the benefits of humage. Those that have an emotional tie to the word "marriage" or think that it has some special privileged religious significance can keep their precious definition, but it will have no effect on the secular institution of humage. Capice? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Then explain to me why you are advocating a scourge earth policy? You didn't do it. You did not go back and read my posts. You have convinced yourself of a fantasy that does not exist. Or... You can't read plain english. Figure it out yourself. I'll let you live with your fantasy of what I said (that is actually totally diametrically OPPOSITE to my real meaning) ... I can't waste my time on someone that won't take the effort to see IF they are wrong when the are TOLD they are wrong. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
I don't see how the first half of your message has anything to do with my position. Silly me. How did I ever get it into my pretty little head that the rationale behind a law has anything whatsoever to do with the way the law is written? Must be my time of the month.
What do you mean by "redlining"? Look it up.
Even the title of the act, the Defense of Marriage Act suggests that it was responsive. The pattern is familiar to anyone who knows the history any movement for equal rights: an unprecedented gain is achieved, only to be followed by a series of reversals. Two steps forward, one step back. This pattern was repeated after the Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage. That ruling quickly became a wedge issue in the 2004 election and was handily used by Republicans trying to activate the party's Christian fundamentalist base. The tactic worked. To repeat: The vast majority of miscegenation laws were passed after the Civil War. The entirety of anti gay marriage laws were passed after the Hawaii court decision.
I don't have a problem with gay people having equal access to federal and state benefits. I do have a problem with changing the understood definition of marriage without considering the ramifications that it will have on thousands of laws. The economic impact? The social impact? You need to be more specific.
They wouldn't be being discriminated against, because they could still do whatever they were doing, the state just wouldn't recognize it as sex. Since they could still have sex, according to the legal definition, that definition would not discrimiate against gay people. State recognition is fundamental to civil rights. Yet another race analogy: initially, black folks were recognized by the state as being only 3/5ths a person. To deny state recognition is to deny civil rights. Let's take another look at Lawrence v. Texas.
The majority opinion formulated the issue as involving “whether the petitioners were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.” This framing of the issue involved applying the Court’s substantive due process doctrine, under which the Court has protected a range of private activities. It also required the Court to reconsider its own decision upholding state sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick, decided in 1986 by a 5-4 majority. After reviewing its right-to-privacy precedents, the Court turned its attention directly to Hardwick. The majority first chided the Hardwick court for characterizing the issue as “whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy...” This characterization of the issue, said the Court, “demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a married couple were it said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.” In both Hardwick and this case, the Court emphasized, the laws at issue did more than simply prohibit a particular sexual act. “Their penalties and purposes,” said the Court, “touch upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home.” The Court questioned Hardwick’s historiography. In order to show that there is no tradition of protecting homosexual sodomy, and thus no justification for protecting it under the Due Process Clause, Hardwick had argued that “[p]roscriptions against such conduct have ancient roots.” Gollygeewillikers! That sound awfully familiar.
Work by historians since Hardwick has shown, however, that this view is simplistic and misleading. In fact, said the Court, “there is no longstanding history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter.” While sodomy laws in the states have prohibited a range of conduct, they have historically applied both to same-sex and opposite-sex conduct. Laws targeting gay couples did not appear until the last third of the 20th century. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held state sodomy statutes unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Writing for a majority of five was Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice O’Connor filed a concurring opinion holding sodomy laws targeted only at same-sex activity unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause . Analyzing Lawrence v. TexasPage Not Found If a law is targeted at same sex behavior ONLY, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the 14th Amendment. DOMA is bound to be ruled unconstitutional if it gets before the Supreme Court. Which is why Congressional bigots are fighting tooth and nail to prevent DOMA challenges from being heard in federal courts.
They wouldn't be being discriminated against, because they could still do whatever they were doing, the state just wouldn't recognize it as sex. Since they could still have sex, according to the legal definition, that definition would not discrimiate (sic) against gay people. The Supreme Court disagrees. Edited by molbiogirl, : sp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Even the title of the act, the Defense of Marriage Act suggests that it was responsive. Yes of course, that must be it. I mean, it's inconceivable that they called it that because they were pandering to the so-called "family values crowd." Politicians never pander, do they? Just like the Patriot Act is about patriotism, right? Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: By the way, you it's scorched earth policy, not scourge, which means: 1: whip; especially : one used to inflict pain or punishment2: an instrument of punishment or criticism3: a cause of wide or great affliction Or an Zerg Unit from Starcraft. And how is it a scorched earth policy?
quote: So by eliminating the legal definition of marriage and replacing it with civil unions open to virtually everyone, how is that not integration of everyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4115 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
quote: I don't think they understand this concept of less government regulation, interference and dictation = better outcomes...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: 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: 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.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Questionable content has been rendered invisible. If you must read content, use the Peek button but do not respond. AdminPD 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: 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?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein. Take comments concerning this warning to the Moderation Thread. AdminPD 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Reminder!
Message 1 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. Gay marriage and the law. Period! This is not a debate about homosexuality itself.This is not a debate about illegal actions not dealing with marriage. Stick to the topic and argue the position not the person! Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread. Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout. Thank you Edited by AdminPD, : Removed closure explanation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Subbie, explain to me how the Constitution applies to homosexual marriage.
You say you just want to talk about the law. I point to a law, and you proceed to skirt completely around the issue. You then cite the Constitution, which is totally non-specific as to what the entailments of a "right" is. This is the problem: When talking about the Constitution, you have to interpret it from a moral perspective. Like it or not, your argument will end in the moral arena -- I guarantee it, because you will have no other way to justify the act. So, explain to me why homosexual marriage is a basic right. “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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2641 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
This is the problem: When talking about the Constitution, you have to interpret it from a moral perspective. Like it or not, your argument will end in the moral arena -- I guarantee it, because you will have no other way to justify the act. Juggs, I suggest you take a look at Message 123. Please note that the Court specifically rejected the idea that "[p]roscriptions against such conduct have ancient roots.” In other words, the Court rejected the "moral" argument. Please also note:
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court held state sodomy statutes unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Writing for a majority of five was Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice O’Connor filed a concurring opinion holding sodomy laws targeted only at same-sex activity unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause . Barring gay marriage is "targeted only at same-sex activity". When DOMA reaches the Supreme Court, it will be struck down as unconstitutional for this reason. The Supreme Court will also strike down DOMA re: the Full Faith and Protection Clause.
MBG Message 68 writes: Because DOMA has the effect of modifying the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, something that Congress does not have the power to do without following the proper procedures for constitutional amendment. Virtually all constitutional scholars agree that the U.S. Supreme Court -- especially the conservative justices who like to be consistent in constitutional interpretations -- would rule that full faith and credit takes precedent. DOMA hasn't been challenged in federal court yet. Wanna guess why?
wiki writes: Beginning in 2003, members of Congress have annually introduced a "court-stripping" provision that would prevent all federal courts from hearing claims challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. Bigots in Congress are blocking the effort. As soon as we kick the Republican trash out of the White House (and believe you me we will), DOMA is toast.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1254 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Subbie, explain to me how the Constitution applies to homosexual marriage. What the hell do you think I've been doing in this thread? Start with message one, which talks about the Fourteenth Amendment. Just in case that wasn't clear enough to you, that's the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States' Constitution. If that doesn't make it clear to you, you're going to have to be considerably more specific. Which words are too big for you, something like that.
I point to a law, and you proceed to skirt completely around the issue. Well, that's one way to look at it. Another is to say that you were wrong about what the law said, I corrected you, and you're unable to comprehend or accept what I said.
So, explain to me why homosexual marriage is a basic right. Marriage is a fundamental right. Why? Nothing to do with morals, but because that's what the Supremes said. Since it's a fundamental right, the government has to have a compelling state purpose in denying it to someone, and the denial has to be narrowly tailored to the compelling purpose and use the least restrictive means to meet the purpose. That, in a nutshell, is what I've been saying this entire thread. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
molbiogirl writes:
quote: 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: 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):
Marriages not polygamous or incestuous, or otherwise declared void by statute, will, if valid by the law of the State where entered into, be recognized as valid in every other jurisdiction. P. 223. 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't think they understand this concept of less government regulation, interference and dictation = better outcomes... What the government needs to be concerned about is families, and not sex lives. Having family units means they don't need to micromanage individual lives, but can let family groups take care of their own. There is a large body of law having to do with inheritance of property and other valuables that pretty much turn the decisions over to the families. Likewise medical procedures, etcetera. People acquire family by heredity\lineage and by marriage\crossing. The second is just a convention to allow people to form a family unit that is not based on heredity\lineage but on mutual support\dependency. What we call it doesn't matter. Likewise the sexual behavior of the members doesn't matter. Two single mothers raising kids can combine forces in a mutual support family, and functionally - as far as the government is concerned - they should be covered the same as a married couple with kids under the laws. Five octogenarians should be able to form a family and be covered the same as an elderly couple that are married. It's not just gays that are being discriminated against. There is absolutely no secular reason for the laws to qualify the benefits etcetera of any law based on the sexual behavior of the people that want to form families. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024