|
Author
|
Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
Message 77 of 448 (467057)
05-19-2008 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by iano
05-18-2008 10:20 PM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
State reasons for support of the institution of marriage are currently and traditionally child-focussed. Couples who have no intention of producing children can get married. Sterile couples can get married. Convicted felons can get married. Wife- and child-beaters can get married. Child molesters can get married. Murderers can get married. No arguments regarding marriage that has anything whatsoever to do with children holds any water at all. Marriage has nothing to do with children. It never has. Being a "potentially child-bearing couple" has never been any sort of rational requirement for getting married in the Unites States, ever. There is no focus on children in current marriage law. Current and traditional marriage law has, in the US, always been nothing more than a contract granting certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities to those who enter into the contract. Some of those rights and responsibilities do involve children, but nowhere in the contract is there a requirement that the two signatories be capable of having children, or even want to have children. Your "child-focused" argument regarding the state's interest in marriage is bullshit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 72 by iano, posted 05-18-2008 10:20 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 133 by iano, posted 05-21-2008 8:44 AM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 89 of 448 (467094)
05-19-2008 3:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 81 by Fosdick
05-19-2008 12:13 PM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Oh, Granny, let's do what subbie and I did, take a cruise across America and ask a simple question of Mr. and Mrs. Jones, our model married couple: "Does the legalization of "gay marriage" interfere in any way with your own marriage?" We'll keep score, go have a cocktail, and ask ourselves two questions: Whose opinion on this matter counts most: the vast majority or the slim minority? And what's the meaning of democracy? Isn't it a very good thing that the US is not actually a true democracy? I sure think so. I mean, it's a Very Bad Thing to be any sort of minority, gay or otherwise, when all legal concerns are strictly a matter of how many people agree with you. I rather like the fact that we have a Constitution, a Judicial branch to make sure that we don't legislate anything that contradicts it, and the other checks and balances in our government that prevent the tyranny of the majority. Or did you really think that simple "majority rules" carried weight in America with no further consideration? Because if you did, you need to go reread the Constitution. In your world, a lynching is fine because the majority in the inbred redneck town agree with it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 81 by Fosdick, posted 05-19-2008 12:13 PM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 93 by Fosdick, posted 05-19-2008 4:20 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 97 of 448 (467125)
05-19-2008 5:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 93 by Fosdick
05-19-2008 4:20 PM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
quote:
rahvin writes: Isn't it a very good thing that the US is not actually a true democracy? I sure think so. I mean, it's a Very Bad Thing to be any sort of minority, gay or otherwise, when all legal concerns are strictly a matter of how many people agree with you. I rather like the fact that we have a Constitution, a Judicial branch to make sure that we don't legislate anything that contradicts it, and the other checks and balances in our government that prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Then how in hell did we get ourselves into Iraq to kill its dictator and propagate democracy? Where were the legislative and judicial branches when we needed them? Wasn't there a vote in Congress? Come on, rahvin, we have to deal with majority-rule politics to run this country, even if it is not a pure democracy, and even if the majority is wrong. Of course we need to "deal" with it. Popular opinion is important - but the fact remains that we have checks and balances in effect for the express purpose of avoiding a tyrannical rule by majority where conformity is mandated by law. In the case of the Iraq debacle, well...Congress essentially let Bush do whatever he wanted. It was a Republican majority, and he is the Commander in Chief. I never said the system always works out for the best. Constitutionality never even came into the debate - that would only have happened if the President tried to carry out war with out congressional approval. Hell, if we were in a true "majority rules" system right now, Bush wouldn't even remain in office with a < 20% approval rating. The facts remain as I said: we do not live in a true democracy where "majority rules" is the final consideration. Your silly suggestion that we do a mass opinion poll and find out how the majority of Americans feel about gay mariage has absolutely nothing to do with whether denying gay mariage is Constitutional - and that is the consideration that will or will not make gay marriage a reality in America, as opposed to a simple opinion poll. Your position is a meaningless red herring.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 93 by Fosdick, posted 05-19-2008 4:20 PM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 100 by Fosdick, posted 05-19-2008 7:48 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 102 of 448 (467150)
05-19-2008 8:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 100 by Fosdick
05-19-2008 7:48 PM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
The only red-herring positions I ever assume are postured against red herrings. rahvin, here's an bigotry test for you: Do you feel this passionately about those poor Mormons in Texas who were disturbed by the law for just trying to live faithful and decent lives and have their morally rightful polygamy? Polygamy I have no problem with - inherantly there is no legitimate legal argument for restricting the civil marriage contract to only two parties. However, there is an extremely large state interest in disallowing minors from entering into contracts. In other words, calling something "marriage" does not allow statutory rape to become legal. If you are somehow trying to tie homosexuality to pedophilia, you're an idiot as well as a bigot. I note also that you completely disregarded my post, instead deflecting the topic to your hamfisted attempt at a tu quoque fallacy by insinuating that gosh, we're all just bigots. If mormons or anyone else wants to have multiple spouses, I have no problem with that and I'd support any attempts to go to the Supreme Court and force the issue. If mormons or anyone else want to force children to marry prior to the age of consent, I'll call them "child molesters," and support their long internment in a federal prison. There is a very large difference between a contract between two (or more) consenting adults and forcing minors who are by definition incapable of entering a contract to marry. If you can't tell the difference, perhaps your opinion is worth less than the thread space it takes up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 100 by Fosdick, posted 05-19-2008 7:48 PM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 103 by Fosdick, posted 05-19-2008 8:25 PM | | Rahvin has not replied | | | Message 105 by Taz, posted 05-19-2008 8:33 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 110 of 448 (467246)
05-20-2008 2:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 108 by Fosdick
05-20-2008 2:18 PM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
Then please take my simple test for bigots: If you have four children, and if you have no prejudice against homosexuality, then you will hope that two of your children become gay. If you hoped otherwise then you're a bigot. Mary: Oh, I sure do hope two or our four kids turn gay. John: Yeah, me, too. I hope the two girls become lesbians. Mary: Why? John: Because I can't bear to picture our my sons as gay. Mary: Why not? John: It's man thing, Mary. A guy's nuts should count for something. This isn't a bigotry test, it's a test designed by a bigot. If I were to have children, I wouldn't care whether they were gay or straight. Either way, they'd be my kids, and I'd love them. I wouldn't "hope" for them to be of any sexual orientation any more than I'd "hope" for them to be right- or left-handed. That you seriously think one should "hope" one way or another is part of what defines you as a bigot.
quote:
Then it's not a choice. You could say the exact same thing about many forms of cancer. Stupid people...choosing to have cancer. I now feel no sorrow for my late father (a victim of cancer) now that I know it was a choice he made. You're a real piece of work there, Hoot Mon.
I'd pick a different simile to support your argument. Tell me this: It won't be very long before they discovery the biological roots of homosexuality. A gene maybe. Or maybe a queer chemical experience. And when they do make that discovery they will find a way to reverse homosexuality into heterosexuality. Some form of therapy will become available to correct that condition. Now, FliesOnly, when that happens are you still going to claim that choice is not a factor in being gay? A biological cause for homosexuality does not mean a procedure for reversal is possible. Even if it were possible, it's highly unlikely that homosexuals would undergo such a procedure - sexual orientation is a part of what identifies you. Changing it means giving up your current relationship and social structure. The environment built up because of having a history with one sexual orientation would come crashing down by changing it, and the emotional stress and pain involved would mean I seriously doubt any doctor would condone the practice (for the same reason doctors will refuse to do gender alteration surgeries on mentally unsound patients). In any case, it's irrelevant - you are admitting that homosexuality is not a choice. I'm now extremely confused as to what your position is, since you've previously claimed that it is a choice. All I know at this point is that you get all upset at the thought of the state recognizing gay marriage, and that you get really grossed out when you picture two men kissing. And that ""gay marriage" is a only a device used by gays to annoy people for the sake of coming of the closet," which is a preposterous argument on its face. Gay marriage is exactly like straight marriage: a contract between consenting adults granting certain specific rights, privileges, and responsibilities to those bound by it. It's not a goddamned political statement intended to piss people off, it's a demand for equal treatment under the law. Since your suggestion that all marriage be eliminated from the law is impossible to sell to the public, equal treatment for homosexuals by allowing gay marriage is the only other option, legally.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 108 by Fosdick, posted 05-20-2008 2:18 PM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 112 by Fosdick, posted 05-20-2008 3:20 PM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 114 of 448 (467257)
05-20-2008 3:52 PM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by Fosdick
05-20-2008 3:20 PM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
This is a very narrow point of view. If you are sincerely interested in "equal treatment under the law," then you should be as passionate about legalizing polygamy I am, nitwit. I strongly favor viewing the marriage contract as nothing more than a contract, and I see no viable legal argument for limiting the marriage contract to two parties. But then, you're actually trying to insinuate that I support pedophilia by bringing the Mormon polygamy example into the debate. News flash, Hoot: a contract is valid only between consenting adults. Children cannot enter a contract becasue they lack the ability to make their own decisions.
and bestiality. And there you go again. What part of CONSENTING ADULTS do you not comprehend? A dog can no more consent to enter a contract than an infant or a toaster.
If I were to take up the position of a polygamist I would have lot a people to call bigots. If I had been alive a couple hundred years ago, I'd have to call even more people bigots. What's your point? I oppose bigotry regardless of the number of bigots, or against which group they are bigoted. Stop with the polygamy and bestiality bullshit. The topic of this thread is gay marriage - your attempts at a tu quoque argument are completely irrelevant. Present your argument for deying homosexuals the right to marry as is granted for heterosexual couples or concede.
It's the convenient thing for pompous people to do. And your POV is so myopic you can't see the broader picture of societal implications. And what are the societal implications of gay marriage? Please, do tell.
All we have here are opinions on the matter. No one has moral authority on this issue over anyone else. None of my arguments are based on morality, Hoot. You'll notice I keep on bringing up pesky terms like "Constitutional" and "legal argument" and "legal age of consent." I'm not arguing from a position of morality, as you would know if you've been reading at all. I'm arguing about equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution.
It's just opinionation. Bullshit. Legal arguments are not simple "opinions." The legal opinion of a Judge is a fuck of a lot different from the random redneck down the street's opinion.
And the prevailing opinionation about gay marriage is still negative, just as it is with polygamy. Irrelevant, bigot. Anti-civil rights activists were bigots back in the first half of teh 20th century even when they outnumbered the rational people who supported equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution. "Prevailing opinion" is meaningless when the prevailing opinion violates the Constitution.
You have to face that and quit calling people bigots just because the disagree with you. I'll call a spade a spade, bigot. Just because it pisses you off that you're a bigot doesn't make you any less of a bigot. I don't call you a bigot because you disagree with me, mind you. I call you a bigot because you are intolerant of homosexuals, and seek to deny them equal treatment under the law as guaranteed by the Constitution.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by Fosdick, posted 05-20-2008 3:20 PM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 121 by Fosdick, posted 05-20-2008 7:40 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 126 of 448 (467310)
05-20-2008 8:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 123 by Fosdick
05-20-2008 7:53 PM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
quote:
You're not a bigot for preference, you're a bigot for pushing your preference on other people.
Wouldn't that make bigots out of the gay-marriage advocates? Immediately support your assertion that allowing homosexual marriage "forces" anything on heterosexual couples, or retract. Gay marriage doesn't force you to marry a man, Hoot, it just stops you from telling anyone else they can't. Your retarded arguments are the exact same ones used to argue against interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. That's the proof you're a bigot, bigot.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 123 by Fosdick, posted 05-20-2008 7:53 PM | | Fosdick has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by Fosdick, posted 05-20-2008 9:24 PM | | Rahvin has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 139 of 448 (467375)
05-21-2008 10:41 AM
|
Reply to: Message 133 by iano
05-21-2008 8:44 AM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
There is no need for the State to micro-manage to the extent you suggest in order that overall State goals be achieved. Excuse me? How does simply applying the law equally to all parties and no longer considering gender micromanaging?! It seems to me the practice of restricting marriage by gender is the option that increases the red tape, iano. But it's irrelevant: the Constitution of the US guarantees equal treatment under the law. This is non-negotiable. It means there are two options: either remove marriage as a legal concern and make it an entirely private matter withotu state recognition, or give homosexuals the right to marry each other. There are no other options that satisfy the Constitution. Since the former is almost universally opposed, carries a huge set of legal consequences for laws that refer specifically to marriage (like the tax code), and generally is cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's unlikely in the extreme. Gay marriage then becomes the wiser option.
Some people not being able to have kids won't affect the overall result. Some people not wanting to won't either. If many people decide they don't want kids then the state can add more inducement to do so. If there are too many kids then the State can add disincentive (the one child policy in China being an case in point) What should be plain as the nose on your face is that the State will seek to encourage stable family platforms of a type which produce children and rear them to adulthood. And the means whereby it will do so is to attach rights and privileges and benefits to the desired family unit and/or disincentivise non-desirable family units. To suppose the State would do otherwise (however you read US law) is to suppose a State wishing extinction upon itself. You don't know the US very well then, iano. Marriage here has nothing whatsoever to do with children inherantly. There is no requirement or even encouragement in the marriage contract for having children. Once again, this retarded argument carries no weight in a legal system where people who don't want children, sterile couples, couples past senility/menopause, convicted felons, child molesters, murderers, rapists, and all manner of others are allowed to be married. Obviously a "household that encourages childbearing" has nothing to do with marriage in the United States. Aside from that, gay couples even now have children - they simply use artificial insemination or adoption or other methods to form their family unit, and it has been solidly shown that children raised by gay couples are exactly the same as children raised by straight couples. The "think of the children" argument is contradicted by facts, iano. But I can' stress this enough: The Constitution of teh United Statres guarantees equal treatment under the law. This is exactly the same fight we went through regarding interracial marriage, which was illegal in most (all?) states until the case of Loving v. Virginia. Feel free to look it up - the reasons gay marriage must be legalized are the exact same reasons that interracial marriage had to be legalized. It has nothing to do with children, nothing to do with "family units," nothing to do with whether bigots like Hoot get all squicked out when they see two men (or a white woman and black man) kissing, and everything to do with equal treatment under the law.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 133 by iano, posted 05-21-2008 8:44 AM | | iano has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 140 by Taz, posted 05-21-2008 11:11 AM | | Rahvin has not replied | | | Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 05-21-2008 11:24 AM | | Rahvin has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 144 of 448 (467393)
05-21-2008 12:07 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by Fosdick
05-21-2008 11:24 AM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
To compare the opposition to “gay marriage” to racial bigotry is to compare Bugs Bunny to Humphrey Bogart. Mmmm hmmmm.
quote:
From the Loving v. Virginia decision: The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. 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.
Now, let's change just a couple of words:
quote:
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious gender discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of any gender resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
It's the same goddamned argument, Hoot. "It's an abomination before god!" "It makes me feel icky!" "It's not the traditional definition of marriage!" "The majority opposes it!" "Think of the children!" "They're forcing their views on us!" "They're still free to marry someone of the (same race/opposite gender) just like everyone else!" They're all the same goddamned bigoted arguments, Hoot. Every last one. It's exactly the same.
There is nothing bigoted about opposing the legalization of “gay marriage,” and those who say there is are making cartoon characters out of themselves. Bigots rarely see themselves as bigots.
Get real! There is NOTHING mentioned in the U.S. Constitution about gay people and their equal rights to get married. There's nothing in the Constitution about marriage at all. There is, however, a very important part that guarantees equal treatment under the law for all citizens. Once again: the same arguments for and against interracial marriage apply to homosexual marriage. There is no difference whatsoever.
Gay people already have all the rights that I have. They are free to choose, just like me. There is no issue here that matters enough to bother the law with it. "They're free to marry someone of the (oppostite gender/same race) just like me!" See? It's the same bigoted argument as was used against interracial marriage.
But bigots like you have turned it into a comic strip. For some reason it's bigots like you who refuse to let people make their own decisions - you want to deny them the right to make a very important decision, and you have no rational or legal argument of any value. You're the comical one, Hoot. You can't even rationally support an argument beyond "Oh yeah? Well you're a bigot too! NYA NYA!!!"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by Fosdick, posted 05-21-2008 11:24 AM | | Fosdick has replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
|
|
Message 146 of 448 (467395)
05-21-2008 12:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by Fosdick
05-21-2008 12:23 PM
|
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
But we already have that. There is nothing I can do legally that a gay person can't. And don't give me the "Gays can't marry who they love" argument. If I loved two women and can only marry one a a time. Am I hollering for relief from such preposterous bigotry? Come on! We already are exactly equal under the law. Once again, Hoot, you are using exactly the same argument that was used against interracial marriage. "Them blacks can marry just like anybody else. They just have to marry the same race, is all, just like everybody else." "Them homos can marry just like everybody else. They just have to marry the opposite sex, is all, just like everybody else." Restricting the marriage contract by gender is sexist in exactly the same way that restricting the marriage contract by race was racist. Are you still not following here? Are you that dense? Let's make it really obvious. Explain specifically in detail how interracial marriage and gay marriage are different. Why does the 14th Amendment force interracial marriage to be legal, but not force homosexual marriage to be legal? What is the legal difference between discrimination by race and discrimination by gender? We are not equal under the law, just as interracial couples were not equal under the law until Loving v. Virginia.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by Fosdick, posted 05-21-2008 12:23 PM | | Fosdick has not replied |
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
quote:
"They're free to marry someone of the (oppostite gender/same race) just like me!" See? It's the same bigoted argument as was used against interracial marriage.
Marriage wasn't defined as being between two people of the same race before Loving v. Virginia. Marriage, currently, is defined as being between a man and a woman. Incorrect. Loving v. Virgina was the result of a specific ban on interracial marriages, exactly like the California ban on same-sex marriages.
quote:
the Racial Integrity Act, a state law banning marriages between any white person and any non-white person.
quote:
The Racial Integrity Act required that a racial description of every person be recorded at birth, and felonized marriage between "white persons" and non-white persons. The law was the most famous ban on miscegenation (anti-miscegenation law) in the United States, and was overturned by the United States Supreme Court in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia.
Both from Wikipedia. While the marriage contract may not have technically included a racial component, the law did define marriage along racial lines. The fact remains that the arguments both for and against same-gender marriage are identical to those used in interracial marriage cases.
That definition would have to be changed. That definition is assumed in over a thousand laws that mention the word marriage in them. We do not know all the ramifications of a simple change to the definition. To simply change it, willy-nilly, is irresponsible and potentially dangerous. Be specific. Give a specific law that would be significantly changed in its function by allowing gay marriage. This is also not an "whimsical" change, CS. This is a change necessitated by the Constitution of the United States. All other laws are secondary to the Constitution.
For example, the Nevada Marriage License requires information for the bride and the groom. That form would be obsolete and need to be changed/replaced if gay marriage was allowed in Nevada. Oh no! A form would need to be changed! Think of teh cost of a word processor! We might need to make new copies! Heaven forbid! Note that the repeal (and initial passage) of the Racial Integrity Act also necessitated new forms be drawn up because of the "racial information" required by the law.
Now, that isn't a big deal, really, but it is one consequence of allowing gay marriage. With thousands of laws mentioning the word marriage, I think we should make sure everything is going to work out fine before we just "flip the switch" and allow gay marriage. Those laws that mention marriage are the reason gays want to be married in the first place. You know, the laws that define inheritance when one partner dies, or that grant the right to be at their partner's bedside without interferance from the family in case of incapacitation, or tax status, etc. How do any of those laws stop functioning in a meaningful way by allowing two men or two women to be married? Again, demonstrate a single law that would be meaningfully changed in its function by allowing two parties of the same gender to marry.
I think a better way to do it would be to just use civil unions and add them to the laws as needed. Right, so gay marriage can work as long as we call them "butt buddies." Adding a different word is discrimination, CS. It doesn't solve the problem at all. Equal treatment is guaranteed under the law, and what you're proposing does not satisfy that guarantee. There are two options: Remove marriage from the law entirely and replace every instance of the word "marriage" with "civil union," allow any two consenting adults to enter into a "civil union" regardless of gender or race, and let the word "marriage" be used however individuals want it to be used in a non-legalized, non-state-recognized fashion; or allow gays to be married by removing any laws or definitions that forbid same-gender marriage. The first will never be supported by enough of the citizenry to happen, and is unnecessarily complex. The second is what happened in Loving v. Virginia, and what should happen now, as California and Massachusetts have both done.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
quote:
Incorrect. Loving v. Virgina was the result of a specific ban on interracial marriages, exactly like the California ban on same-sex marriages.
I was unaware of the Racial Integrity Act. Obviously.
I think that a ban on gay marriage is uncalled for. But the way marriage currently is, two men cannot marry. I don’t think that it is a right for two men to marry each other. They still have the right to marriage, but it must be within the bounds of marriage. I just don’t want to change marriage one day because we don’t know what the ramifications will be. Why? Give a legal argument for restricting marriage by gender. "I don't think it's right" is an opinion, and has no basis unless you can support it with a legal argument. Of course, you're "Who knows what will happen" argument is also bullshit. What will happen is that a segment of society will be treated equally under the law, as guaranteed in the Constitution. If we have to change a few forms, so be it.
If states want to do it individually, then that is up to them. They’ll have to do the redefining themselves. Generally, marriage is state-defined. As far as I know, the federal government requires that marriages in one state be recognized in other stated, and recognizes marriage for tax purposes, but that's about it. DOMA is the only federal marriage law...and its Constitutionality is exactly what we're calling into question.
quote:
The fact remains that the arguments both for and against same-gender marriage are identical to those used in interracial marriage cases.
You can’t identify race like you can gender. Having marriage defined by race has nothing to base the definition on. Its really not the same thing at all. You say that becasue you aren't racist. You most certainly can identify race exactly the same way as you can identify gender - they're both genetic and are for the most part easily observable visually. But here's the situation: "Marriage is defined as between two individuals, except that no white person may marry a non-white person." = "Marriage is defined as between two individuals, except that no person may marry anyone of the same gender." Both of these constitute what was traditionally defined as marriage. Of course, traditional marriage has changed many times over the years. The legalization of interracial marriage was a huge redefinition in "traditional" marriage at the time. The question is "does the traditional definition of marriage as it exists today meet the requirements for equal treatment under the law as set down in the Constitution?" If the answer is "no," as it was in the Loving v. Virginia decision, then the definition must be changed. That's the whole purpose behind the courts.
quote:
Give a specific law that would be significantly changed in its function by allowing gay marriage.
Some states require marriages to be consummated to be valid. ...this may startle you, CS, but homosexuals are perfectly capable of having sex. They might put different bits and pieces into different orifices, but we took care of that when we struck down the sodomy laws (for the same reasons, I might add). So again, what changes? What law is functionally changed by having two men or two women marry? Does gender somehow prevent tax status from being applied? You've made an assertion, and have so far been unable to support it beyond "they can't do it missionary style!" or "we'd have to rewrite some documents! TOTAL CHAOS!"
quote:
Oh no! A form would need to be changed! Think of teh cost of a word processor! We might need to make new copies! Heaven forbid!
The point was that there are some things that are going to have to change if gay marriage is allowed. I’ve seen replies before that there won’t be any changes at all so I was trying to be preemptive The changes I'm aware of are the entire point. They're the changes that actually grant equal treatment under the law to homosexual couples. So you tell me a specific law that is functionally changed by the gender of the members of a contract. Provide an example of a law that will be significantly modified in its functionality, as opposed to simply applying to two people of the same gender instead of two people from different genders. If you cannot do this, your suggestion that gay marriage is somehow "reckless" is completely invalid.
quote:
Those laws that mention marriage are the reason gays want to be married in the first place. You know, the laws that define inheritance when one partner dies, or that grant the right to be at their partner's bedside without interference from the family in case of incapacitation, or tax status, etc. How do any of those laws stop functioning in a meaningful way by allowing two men or two women to be married?
Health Insurance policies would have to change too if any two people can be married. No, they don't. "Spouse" still works just fine. If a married couple are covered by health insurance, what is the functional difference in the gender of that married couple? Is there something fundamentally different regarding healthcare coverage if you have a man and a woman or two men or two women? You're saying "it's different," but you aren't providing any reason that it's different. Provide the reason or concede.
quote:
Equal treatment is guaranteed under the law, and what you're proposing does not satisfy that guarantee.
But there is already equal treatment in that anyone can get marriage. The problem is with what marriage has been assumed to be (husband and wife) and how that is going to have to change. "But there is already equal treatment in that anyone can get married. The problem is with what marriage has always been assumed to be (members of the same race) and how that is going to have to change." There is no difference here, CS. Your argument was used in Loving v. Virginia, and it was wrong then just as it is now.
quote:
Adding a different word is discrimination, CS.
Not really. Everybody can get married and everybody can get a civil union. They are just different things. quote:
Discrimination: 2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
You are making a distinction between the functionally identical terms "marriage" and "civil union" based not on the merits or properties of either, but rather based on the gender of the parties entering into each contract. That's the fucking definition of discrimination, CS. Once again, your arguments were used almost verbatim in Loving v. Virginia. Those arguments were wrong then, exactly as they are wrong now.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
quote:
Why? Give a legal argument for restricting marriage by gender. "I don't think it's right" is an opinion, and has no basis unless you can support it with a legal argument.
The 1000+ laws that mention the word marriage were written under the presumption that those marriages would be between one man and one woman. I don’t know all the laws and ramifications of undermining those laws with a simple definition change of the word marriage. This isn’t an argument for restricting marriage by gender, that is the default. This is a reason for not simply changing the definition without considering the ramifications at all. So, the "traditional marriage" argument. We've gone over this already. Tradition is irrelevant when tradition violates the Constitution. Definitions change all the time. The definition of the word "mariage" had changed very frequently.
quote:
Generally, marriage is state-defined. As far as I know, the federal government requires that marriages in one state be recognized in other stated, and recognizes marriage for tax purposes, but that's about it. DOMA is the only federal marriage law...and its Constitutionality is exactly what we're calling into question.
Not exactly. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, even before DOMA. DOMA was a response to the challenge to that definition. Right. Once again, DOMA is the only federal law that pertains to homosexual marriage, excepting of course the 14th Amendment that makes DOMA and similar gay marriage bans illegal.
Before the Racial Integrity Act, marriage was not defined as being between the same race. The RIA is different from DOMA in that it was redefining marriage, itself, but DOMA is maintaining the definition. From the Wiki article on the Racial Integrity Act:
quote:
The first law banning all marriage between whites and blacks was enacted in the colony of Virginia in 1691, and this example was followed by Maryland (in 1692) and several of the other Thirteen Colonies.
Defining marriage on the basis of race predates the United States. You'd have an awfully hard time convincing me that marriage was not defined as between the same race prior to the RIA. The current definition of "marriage" is still the core of the issue. If the definition violates the Constitutional guarantee to equal treatment under the law, the law must be changed or completely removed. There is no other course of action possible without violating the Constitution. Tradition is, as always irrelevant in such matters. The Loving v. Virginia case overturned centuries of tradition, and was counter to the opinions of over 90% of the population, and the miscegenation laws were still overturned becasue they violated the Constitution. The laws and acceptible practices regarding marriage were changed then exactly as they must be changed now.
quote:
You can’t identify race like you can gender. Having marriage defined by race has nothing to base the definition on. Its really not the same thing at all.
You most certainly can identify race exactly the same way as you can identify gender - they're both genetic and are for the most part easily observable visually.
They are not easily observable visually and genders can’t “blend” like races can. I’m not convinced that marriage defined by race has something to base the definition on. The RIA defined race in a testable way. It segregated groups of individuals, and said "this group cannot marry that group." DOMA and other gay marriage bans similarly say "this group cannot marry this group." Do you really want to propose that either racism or sexism do not exist? Because your argument that "marriage defined by race has nothing to base the definition on" rests on the idea that racism does not exist, and it plainly does. Defining marriage by gender is, by definition, sexist because it marks a distinction between genders without any discernable, objective difference between same-sex and different-sex marriages. The only objective difference is that gay couples cannot have children alone, but we already allow marriage between couples that cannot procreate alone. What's the legal argument for differentiating between gay and straight marriage, CS, except to "keep them damned homos from tarnishing the good name of marriage?"
quote:
Both of these constitute what was traditionally defined as marriage. Of course, traditional marriage has changed many times over the years. The legalization of interracial marriage was a huge redefinition in "traditional" marriage at the time.
But marriage wasn’t defined as being between the same race before the RIA like it is defined as being between one man and one woman even before DOMA. DOMA had to be written because the law didn’t explicitly define marriage and the definition needed to be stated. See above. The racial definition of marriage was in place long before the RIA was enacted - before the US even existed, as a matter of fact.
quote:
Give a specific law that would be significantly changed in its function by allowing gay marriage.
Some states require marriages to be consummated to be valid.
quote:
...this may startle you, CS, but homosexuals are perfectly capable of having sex. They might put different bits and pieces into different orifices,
So now you’ve redefined consummation. I have? How? Are you saying that homosexual sex is not sexual intercourse? Is this the Bill Clinton "BJs don't count" argument? And what about heterosexual couples who are incapable of "missionary-style" consummation due to disease or injury or deformity or even religion? Obviously any law involving consummation would need to be struck down as well anyway, regardless of gay marriage.
quote:
So again, what changes?
The consummation one still stands. No, it really doesn't. The functionality of the law does not alter because of same-gender couples. They are still able to have sex and consummate the marriage. The fact that the sex is not heterosexual is immaterial. You know, heterosexual couples have sex the same way gays do all the time. It's fun, you should try it sometime.
quote:
No, they don't. "Spouse" still works just fine. If a married couple are covered by health insurance, what is the functional difference in the gender of that married couple? Is there something fundamentally different regarding healthcare coverage if you have a man and a woman or two men or two women?
I have a question: After allowing gay marriage, will I be allowed to marry men that I am related to? Can I marry my brother or my cousin? Because it would be helpful to get my cousin on my insurance plan at work as he has none. Is that going to be legal? I honestly don’t know. See this, right here? This is where you just jumped the shark. Just wanted to point that out to you. Can you marry your female sibling or cousin right now, smartass? Of course not - there is a legal argument pertaining to the marriage of close relations ( > 90% of such relationships involve abuse of some sort, and any children run a significantly higher risk of birth defects). Why would removing the gender distinctions in marriage allow for close-relation marriage? This is nothing more than a typical "then we can marry toasters!" red herring argument, and if you have half a brain you know it.
quote:
You're saying "it's different," but you aren't providing any reason that it's different. Provide the reason or concede.
I don’t know all of the 1000+ laws that mention marriage. I’m assuming that some of them didn’t take into account that it might be two men instead of one man and one woman and that that failure of accounting could lead to these things your asking me to predict. I don’t know for sure either way, that’s why I think it should be taken into account before we simply change the definition. To not would be irresponsible, IMHO. So, "I don't know what will be affected by allowing gay marriage, but it could be REALLY BAD so we shouldn't do it!" That's not an argument, CS, it's a bare assertion. I'm not doing your homework for you. Either provide a law that is meaningfully changed in its functionality by allowing homosexual marriage or concede that you know of no such law.
|
Rahvin
Member Posts: 4046 Joined: 07-01-2005 Member Rating: 8.3
|
Re: Just take "marriage" out of the law
quote:
So, the "traditional marriage" argument. We've gone over this already. Tradition is irrelevant when tradition violates the Constitution. Definitions change all the time. The definition of the word "mariage" had changed very frequently.
But the tradition doesn’t violate the Constitution. Everyone still has equal protection because everyone can get married. That is the argument used in Virginia v. Loving! Are you just not paying attention, CS? "Blacks can get married, just only to other blacks. See? Equal treatment." "Homos can get married, just only to people of the opposite gender. See? Equal treatment." This tradition does violate the Constitution, becasue just as the interracial marriage laws discriminated by race, the current definition discriminates by gender! Equal treatment under the law is not being given, and so the current definition and laws must change.
quote:
From the Wiki article on the Racial Integrity Act:
quote:
The first law banning all marriage between whites and blacks was enacted in the colony of Virginia in 1691, and this example was followed by Maryland (in 1692) and several of the other Thirteen Colonies.
Defining marriage on the basis of race predates the United States. You'd have an awfully hard time convincing me that marriage was not defined as between the same race prior to the RIA.
I’m starting to enter conjecture now, but I’m betting that bans on marriages between blacks and whites had more to do with other reasons than race. I mean, black people weren’t even citizens so could a citizen even marry a non-citizen? And it wasn’t a ban on interracial marriages explicitly, it was a ban on white/black marriages. What about a brown or yellow marrying a black? Those weren’t explicitly banned. Wow, issues of compounding racism. It's all irrelevant, CS. The racial laws discriminated by race, and were ruled Unconstitutional. The ant-gay marriage laws discriminate by gender and are Unconstitutional - DOMA simply hasn't yet been challenged in the Supreme Court yet. It took this long just to get the California state Supreme Court to look at its own state version.
If it was based mostly on race, then it would say that people can only marry people of the same race. But it was written as whites couldn’t marry blacks, which covers a lot more than just race. Yes, the RIA was secifically designed to promote "white superiority." That was one of the things brought up in the devision of Loving v. Virginia. The primary argument, however, was equal treatment under the law.
There’s also the problem of mixed races marrying so that clearly isn’t a good way to define marriage. They defined "white" very specifically with regard to mixed races in teh RIA, CS. You obviously haven't read anything about Loving v. Virginia.
quote:
I have a question: After allowing gay marriage, will I be allowed to marry men that I am related to? Can I marry my brother or my cousin? Because it would be helpful to get my cousin on my insurance plan at work as he has none. Is that going to be legal? I honestly don’t know. See this, right here? This is where you just jumped the shark. Just wanted to point that out to you.
Can you marry your female sibling or cousin right now, smartass? Of course not - there is a legal argument pertaining to the marriage of close relations ( > 90% of such relationships involve abuse of some sort, and any children run a significantly higher risk of birth defects). Why would removing the gender distinctions in marriage allow for close-relation marriage? This is nothing more than a typical "then we can marry toasters!" red herring argument, and if you have half a brain you know it.
What does “jumped the shark” mean? Meh, I just looked it up. I was honestly asking a question. Don't you think we should allow close realtion gay marriages as well? Close relation heterosexual marriages are not allowed, and I provided the reasons. Why would allowing homosexual marriage also allow close-relation homosexual marriage? They have nothing to do with each other, becasue there is a legal argument for denying close-relation marriage. There is no such argument for restricting marriage by gender. You jumped the shark because this is a compeltely ludicrous argument - a total red herring. Removing gender distinctions from the legal definition of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with whether individuals are related.
Its not the typical red herring. I realize that there are already laws against close relation marriages, but I thought that you could marry a first cousin. I don’t know. But the reasons for those laws, as you wrote too are: “> 90% of such relationships involve abuse of some sort, and any children run a significantly higher risk of birth defects”. But those really don’t apply to me and my brother so I don’t see why we shouldn’t be able to. And strictly speaking, I wouldn't oppose your right to marry your brother assuming there was no abuse involved. The problem is the vast majority of incestuous relationships do involve abuse, and so there is still a legal argument for disallowing close-relation marriage.
We love each other and want to get married so under the 14th amendment it is unconstitutional for us to not be allowed to get married, right? Except that the state does have an interest in ensuring the safety of its citizens, and so a practice where the vast majority involve abuse can be disallowed.
quote:
So, "I don't know what will be affected by allowing gay marriage, but it could be REALLY BAD so we shouldn't do it!"
That's not an argument, CS, it's a bare assertion.
Its not suppose to be an argument for why gay marriage should be banned. It was a reason for taking the time to make sure we don’t fuck anything up before we start changing definition all willy-nilly. Do you think people decided all of these things 5 minutes ago? How long do you think gay rights activists and their opponents have been considering this? A week? A month? Try decades. This is not a "willy-nilly" situation, CS, and if changes need to be made, then they need to be made even if those changes necessitate further changes to ensure compliance with the Constitution. How many laws do you think needed to be changed when we finally made minority races into full citizens? FACT: Disallowing gay marriage is a violation of the Equal Treatment clause of the 14th Amendment. Further considerations are wholly irrelevant. Marriage as it exists today must either be changed to comply with the 14th Amendment by allowing gay marriage, OR must be completely removed as a state-recognized practice. There ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS that comply with the law of the United States.
|
™ Version 4.2