Arkansas judge strikes down same sex marriage ban.

[MasterOfUsers]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban

"This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality," Piazza wrote. "The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent."

Piazza's ruling also overturns a 1997 state law banning gay marriage. In his decision, Piazza cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 decision that invalidated laws on interracial marriage.
"It has been over 40 years since Mildred Loving was given the right to marry the person of her choice," Piazza wrote, referring to that ruling. "The hatred and fears have long since vanished and she and her husband lived full lives together; so it will be for the same-sex couples. It is time to let that beacon of freedom shine brighter on all our brothers and sisters. We will be stronger for it."



I wonder how long it will take until one of these cases reaches the USSC and the discriminatory practice is deemed unconstitutional once and for all.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Supreme Court, tasked with the job of finding the objective truth as to whether this or that matter is constitutionally accurate, will decide the matter, in my opinion, only if that judgment in it's objective form, corresponds to what is popularily believed by the people in general, and in particular, popularily believed by that party leaning represented by each judge. In short, I believe that tHe obvious fact that a person who is gay should be able to marry another gay person, if both desire it, will become law exactly when conservatives realize truth, this truth, for what it is.

 

[nehalem256]

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/arkansas-judge-strikes-down-gay-marriage-ban

"This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality," Piazza wrote. "The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent."

Piazza's ruling also overturns a 1997 state law banning gay marriage. In his decision, Piazza cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 decision that invalidated laws on interracial marriage.

Funny. There was a court case shortly after the Loving v. Virginia case that found there was no right no same-sex marriage:

It found the plaintiffs' reliance on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Loving v. Virginia, finding an anti-miscegenation law unconsititional, failed to provide a parallel: "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

A case with amply answers the question of the rational reason reason for excluding a minority from marriage.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Funny. There was a court case shortly after the Loving v. Virginia case that found there was no right no same-sex marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

A case with amply answers the question of the rational reason reason for excluding a minority from marriage.

Too bad, you are losing. 10 years max. Then you'll have to find a new troll to replace this one. Or, I guess, you could 'retro troll' the issue.

Either way, doesn't matter. You end up losing little troll. Time to find a new toaster lover to console yourself with.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Funny. There was a court case shortly after the Loving v. Virginia case that found there was no right no same-sex marriage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

A case with amply answers the question of the rational reason reason for excluding a minority from marriage.

I don't think it DOES answer the question of rational reason.

I also think that the USSC will eventually be forced to hear this and apply the principle that if there is no rational reason against it, there is no reason to discriminate.

Which rational reason do you think Baker v. Nelson concluded?

 

[MasterOfUsers]

The Supreme Court, tasked with the job of finding the objective truth as to whether this or that matter is constitutionally accurate, will decide the matter, in my opinion, only if that judgment in it's objective form, corresponds to what is popularily believed by the people in general, and in particular, popularily believed by that party leaning represented by each judge. In short, I believe that tHe obvious fact that a person who is gay should be able to marry another gay person, if both desire it, will become law exactly when conservatives realize truth, this truth, for what it is.

It is a problem that the judges are appointed, it is a problem that politics has anything what so ever to do with how the constitution should be interpreted but it's also a necessary evil i think.

 

[nehalem256]

I don't think it DOES answer the question of rational reason.

I also think that the USSC will eventually be forced to hear this and apply the principle that if there is no rational reason against it, there is no reason to discriminate.

Which rational reason do you think Baker v. Nelson concluded?

The rational reason is that men and women are fundamentally different. Therefore a relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different than a relationship between two men.

Treating fundamentally different relationships differently is not illegal discrimination and is completely rational.

This is clearly distinct from interracial relationships because there is no fundamental difference between a black person and a white person.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

The rational reason is that men and women are fundamentally different. Therefore a relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different than a relationship between two men.

Treating fundamentally different relationships differently is not illegal discrimination and is completely rational.

This is clearly distinct from interracial relationships because there is no fundamental difference between a black person and a white person.

Is a relationship between a man and a woman in love and a man and a man in love actually fundamentally different except in opinion? I don't think anyone can actually argue that it is.

However, that is irrelevant because to legally discriminate you will have to show that it causes harm.

Now i know that most people argue aids and promiscuity as harmful and that gays tend to be more prone to contract aids and be promiscuous but that actually works in the favour of allowing them to enter into a legally recognized monogamous relationship.

If harm cannot be shown it cannot be grounds for discrimination either.

 

[Binarycow]

believe it or not there are decent people who live in Arkansas. Not all of them are backward-ass bigots who like doing the dirty deed with their trashy cousins.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The rational reason is that men and women are fundamentally different. Therefore a relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different than a relationship between two men.

that is true...but what about say a Japanese woman is different than an American woman so should an American man be able to marry a Japanese woman? After all there are huge differences in culture, lifestyle....etc....

 

[Harabec]

This is clearly distinct from interracial relationships because there is no fundamental difference between a black person and a white person.

Funny, I thought years ago many americans saw blacks as less than human slaves.
Then it changed.

 

[shira]

The rational reason is that men and women are fundamentally different. Therefore a relationship between a man and a woman is fundamentally different than a relationship between two men.

Treating fundamentally different relationships differently is not illegal discrimination and is completely rational.

This is clearly distinct from interracial relationships because there is no fundamental difference between a black person and a white person.

Why don't you explain to us what the essential difference is between same-sex and opposite sex couples?

The two people love each other? Check
The two people create a home together and live together? Check
The two people are affectionate with each other and have sex with each other? Check.
The two people feel financially, emotionally, and physically responsible for each other? Check.
The two people want all of the legal protections provided by the state to married couples? Check.

And, no, producing their own biological babies clearly isn't an "essential" difference, as the majority of married, heterosexual couples do NOT produce their own babies.

 

[nehalem256]

Is a relationship between a man and a woman in love and a man and a man in love actually fundamentally different except in opinion? I don't think anyone can actually argue that it is.

Your claim would make sense except for the fact that marriage is about sex, not love. Two men can platonicly love each other but no one is arguing for their right to marry.

And even those who had Texas abstinence only sex ed should be able to explain the fundamental difference between a same-sex and opposite-sex sexual relationship.

Now i know that most people argue aids and promiscuity as harmful and that gays tend to be more prone to contract aids and be promiscuous but that actually works in the favour of allowing them to enter into a legally recognized monogamous relationship.

Because clearly the people who are going around picking up random dudes in gay bars every friday night will suddenly stop and have a monogamous relationship because now the government will recognize it!

However, that is irrelevant because to legally discriminate you will have to show that it causes harm.

If harm cannot be shown it cannot be grounds for discrimination either.

(1) That isn't what the judge said. He said there is no rational reason. I provided it.

(2) No harm results from letting a guy marry his porn filled apple computer. Yet recently a judge ruled against that http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcom...-to-marry-his-porn-filled-apple-computer.html

Funny, I thought years ago many americans saw blacks as less than human slaves.
Then it changed.

That would seem to be in agreement with what I said. When women start growing penises and men start growing vaginas the comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will make sense!

 

[nehalem256]

Why don't you explain to us what the essential difference is between same-sex and opposite sex couples?

The two people love each other? Check
The two people create a home together and live together? Check
The two people are affectionate with each other and have sex with each other? Check.
The two people feel financially, emotionally, and physically responsible for each other? Check.
The two people want all of the legal protections provided by the state to married couples? Check.

And, no, producing their own biological babies clearly isn't an "essential" difference, as the majority of married, heterosexual couples do NOT produce their own babies.

I think there is a pretty big fundamental difference between sucking a dudes dick and sticking your dick in a woman's vagina.

But hey don't take my word for it. Take the word of former President Clinton.

 

[shira]

I think there is a pretty big fundamental difference between sucking a dudes dick and sticking your dick in a woman's vagina.

But hey don't take my word for it. Take the word of former President Clinton.

Many women suck their husband's cock, same as gay men.

Many men stick their dicks in their wife's behind, same as gay men.

Many men lick their wife's vagina and breasts, and put their fingers inside, same as lesbians

So explain to us the huge differences again?

 

[Harabec]

The main issue is people deciding what other people can or cannot do just because they feel like it.
They take ownership of the idea of marriage - it ONLY means what THEY want it to mean - and decide for others.
What gives anyone the right? All such laws are BS "morality laws".

 

[mikeymikec]

The rational reason is that men and women are fundamentally different.

That's like acknowledging that the colour red is not green, it provides no basis for logic. I think we're coming back once again to your "fundamental" notion of marriage being about reproduction, which I think most people would disagree with, as well as the obvious facts like for example that a marriage licence is not a licence to propagate the species.

Your claim would make sense except for the fact that marriage is about sex, not love.

Err, what?

1) Without marriage, people would continue to have sex.

2) People don't marry purely because they want to have sex with each other.

The only ways I can readily think of to logically and correctly associate sex and marriage are:

1) People who get married are likely to have sex.

2) People who get married are almost invariably sexually attracted to each other. I say "almost invariably" because I can imagine a very elderly couple wanting to get married because they're simply that close to each other, but neither experience much in the way of sexual urges any more. I'm not saying all/most elderly people are like this btw...

Neither of these two points fundamentally restrict the right to marry based on sexual orientation between two consenting adults.

Because clearly the people who are going around picking up random dudes in gay bars every friday night will suddenly stop and have a monogamous relationship because now the government will recognize it!

Utterly, utterly irrelevant. Just like arguing for or against the notion of heterosexual marriage and bringing up people who don't want to get married would be utterly, utterly irrelevant.

 

[Vaux]

Then that makes the argument that allowing gays marriage would make them less promiscuous irrelevant as well.

---------"This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality," Piazza wrote. "The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent."

Yeah so that sounds like a great argument for incestuous and bigamous marriages as well. Why didn't he overturn that ban also? That judge is a bigot.

 

[mikeymikec]

Then that makes the argument that allowing gays marriage would make them less promiscuous irrelevant as well.

Yes it would, except specifically in response to when someone pipes up with the health argument against homosexuality, and that gay marriage would be seen as some sort of endorsement of their sexuality, so therefore they're anti-gay-marriage.

In relation to this, marriage is generally seen as an encouragement of monogamy. I have no idea whether it (still?) has that effect on society, perhaps it does. I would say if anything, it is going to encourage monogamy rather than discourage it.

Overall, I'd say marriage is a good thing, and I haven't heard a argument against gay marriage that is a) logical, b) agrees with the generally available evidence, and c) is in tune with why people want to get married in the first place.

 

[Vaux]

I haven't heard a argument against gay marriage that is a) logical, b) agrees with the generally available evidence

Then you either haven't been paying attention, or you have a warped idea of what you consider logical.

 

[mikeymikec]

Then you either haven't been paying attention, or you have a warped idea of what you consider logical.

Please, enlighten me.

I find it curious that you didn't include point c in your quote of what I wrote, which is pretty crucial to the topic.

 

[DrDoug]

Your claim would make sense except for the fact that marriage is about sex, not love. ...

I am going to guess that you are a single guy and if so, with that attitude I predict that you will remain a single guy for a long time. That or I married for the wrong reason.

Hmmm, married 27 years based on love and not sex? If loving her is wrong then I don't wanna be right. :awe:

Either way, I hope you and Rosie Palm enjoy your long term relationship.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Do yourselves a favor:

http://forums.anandtech.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist
nehalem256
Incorruptible

 

[Strk]

I am going to guess that you are a single guy and if so, with that attitude I predict that you will remain a single guy for a long time. That or I married for the wrong reason.

Hmmm, married 27 years based on love and not sex? If loving her is wrong then I don't wanna be right. :awe:

Either way, I hope you and Rosie Palm enjoy your long term relationship.

I think the funny part is marriage for love is kind of a modern thing. And even then, it's still not that way throughout the world. Dowries, arranged marriages etc were all pretty common not that long ago and are still practiced in plenty of places.

Personally, I'll take the modern view on marriage over traditional.

 

[DrDoug]

I think the funny part is marriage for love is kind of a modern thing. And even then, it's still not that way throughout the world. Dowries, arranged marriages etc were all pretty common not that long ago and are still practiced in plenty of places.

Personally, I'll take the modern view on marriage over traditional.

Yeah, I prefer the modern view of marriage. While sex in marriage is important, it's a very small part of modern marriages today. We live in a very small, conservative town and our poor daughter hates the selection of men around here. She calls them cavemen. She has no shortage of men wanting to date her but then, as she says, they open their mouths and tell her what they think a good woman needs.

A good Christian man to tell her what to do. It's game over at that point.

Sex is a small part of a good marriage, unless a woman marries a conservative. Then it's back to the prehistoric era for her while he visits hookers to get spanked and wear diapers.