US Supreme Court to look at same-sex marriage

[nehalem256]

By your logic heterosexual marriage must be unconstitutional; men and women are treated differently as they each have a different set of eligible spouses.

Men and women are different.

By the way, the racists who put forth anti-miscegenation laws made almost this exact argument, that both races were treated the same. White people AND black people were both equally barred from interracially marrying, therefore they were treated the same.

Guess how that turned out.

Black people and white people are the same.

 

[Cozarkian]

By your logic heterosexual marriage must be unconstitutional; men and women are treated differently as they each have a different set of eligible spouses.

Yes, marriage laws do discriminate based upon one's sex, the question then becomes whether the differences between men and women justify that discrimination. But that isn't the argument that is raised by the gay marriage movement. If the lawyers raised that argument in their case, then the Supreme Court can consider the question of discrimination based on sex.

By the way, the racists who put forth anti-miscegenation laws made almost this exact argument, that both races were treated the same. White people AND black people were both equally barred from interracially marrying, therefore they were treated the same.

Guess how that turned out.

It turned out correctly, because the argument is wrong when applied to interracial marriage. It is quite easy to find an example proving they were treated differently. Marriage laws don't discriminate based on sexual orientation any more than anti-ferret laws discriminate based on affinity for a particular kind of pet.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, marriage laws do discriminate based upon one's sex, the question then becomes whether the differences between men and women justify that discrimination. But that isn't the argument that is raised by the gay marriage movement. If the lawyers raised that argument in their case, then the Supreme Court can consider the question of discrimination based on sex.

So then the question becomes whether the differences between gay men and straight men justify that discrimination. That is in fact the argument that is raised by the gay marriage movement, and it's one where states have continually failed to find even a rational basis for such laws.

See how this applies just as easily?

It turned out correctly, because the argument is wrong when applied to interracial marriage. It is quite easy to find an example proving they were treated differently. Marriage laws don't discriminate based on sexual orientation any more than anti-ferret laws discriminate based on affinity for a particular kind of pet.

They weren't treated differently at all as both were barred from interracially marrying. Can't get any more equally applied than that.

 

[SMOGZINN]

The only way laws against interracial and same-sex marriage can be compared is if

(a) You believe men and women are fundamentally the same. Which makes you an idiot

This is a classic moving goalpost argument. I can tell you millions of ways that men and women are the same, but no matter how many ways I tell you they are the same you will find a way they are different. In truth we can do this about any two things you name. We can have this same conversation about how apples and oranges are the same or different. But when the question is if they should be eaten what is important is in their fundamental sameness as eatable.

In the case of marriage the fundamental sameness is that both people that are capable of consenting to and wanting to marry each other.

 

[nehalem256]

So then the question becomes whether the differences between gay men and straight men justify that discrimination. That is in fact the argument that is raised by the gay marriage movement, and it's one where states have continually failed to find even a rational basis for such laws.

But there is no discrimination between gay men and straight men. Gay men and straight men have exactly the same rights.

In the case of marriage the fundamental sameness is that they both people that are capable of consenting to and wanting to marry each other.

Which equally applies to polygamy and incestuous marriage.

Funny you don't see liberals jumping to support those relationships.

And in fact them not updating the law to allow incestuous marriage is particularly damning as they have explicitly rejected the only rational basis for prohibiting it.

 

[IronWing]

US Supreme Court to look at same-sex marriage

Movie night?

 

[MrPickins]

Yes, marriage laws do discriminate based upon one's sex, the question then becomes whether the differences between men and women justify that discrimination. But that isn't the argument that is raised by the gay marriage movement. If the lawyers raised that argument in their case, then the Supreme Court can consider the question of discrimination based on sex. It turned out correctly, because the argument is wrong when applied to interracial marriage. It is quite easy to find an example proving they were treated differently. Marriage laws don't discriminate based on sexual orientation any more than anti-ferret laws discriminate based on affinity for a particular kind of pet.

I suggest you read the Appellate Court's opinion:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2388:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412338:S:0

All the arguments you are bringing up have been shot down rather thoroughly.

 

[nehalem256]

I suggest you read the Appellate Court's opinion:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2388:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412338:S:0

All the arguments you are bringing up have been shot down rather thoroughly.

The couple appealed the district court's decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court. In a brief opinion issued on October 15, 1971, the state's highest court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. Based on the common usage of the term "marriage" and gender-specific references elsewhere in the same chapter, the Court held that the statutes prohibited marriage between persons of the same sex.[8] This restriction, the Court reasoned, did not offend the Due Process Clause because procreation and child rearing were central to the constitutional protection given to marriage.[9]

With respect to the claim of an equal-protection violation, the Court found that childless marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection in the state's rationale for limiting marriage to different-sex couples. 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

Why is your court case right and mine wrong?

 

[Retro Rob]

How would that help? Gay marriage isn't within the confines of law.

...but they are tax-payers, so what I am ultimately saying is that it should be available to them because its available to hetero tax-payers.

This makes me wonder, though, how many things that were previously not within the confines of the law that you were hoping to change because it restricted you in some way.

I don't think you sat back and accepted it because it wasn't within the confines of law, especially when other citizens were enjoying the service afforded to them.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Why is your court case right and mine wrong?

Federal appellate court trumps state courts.

 

[nehalem256]

...but they are tax-payers, so what I am ultimately saying is that it should be available to them because its available to hetero tax-payers.

It is available to them. Nothing keeps a gay man from marrying someone of the opposite sex. And according to the liberal definition of marriage there is no reason they shouldn't.

This makes me wonder, though, how many things that were previously not within the confines of the law that you were hoping to change because it restricted you in some way.

You in favor of legalized dog fighting then? In your opinion was Michael Vick wrongly persecuted for his hobbies?

 

[nehalem256]

Federal appellate court trumps state courts.

In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[15] However, since this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[16] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issue the Court necessarily adjudicated in dismissing the case

Supreme Court trumps Federal appellate court

 

[dank69]

It is available to them. Nothing keeps a gay man from marrying someone of the opposite sex. And according to the liberal definition of marriage there is no reason they shouldn't.



You in favor of legalized dog fighting then? In your opinion was Michael Vick wrongly persecuted for his hobbies?

As already mentioned, when comparing two things you will find similarities and you will find differences. The majority of your posting history consists of highlighting similarities when it suits your point while ignoring differences that run counter to it, and highlighting differences when it suits your point while ignoring similarities that run counter to it. Then you project this same behavior on to "liberals."

 

[fskimospy]

Supreme Court trumps Federal appellate court

Later SCOTUS decisions have pre-empted that one. 🙂

 

[SMOGZINN]

But there is no discrimination between gay men and straight men. Gay men and straight men have exactly the same rights.

Must get tiring moving that goalpost all the time. They are only the same if you ask what sex they are allowed to marry, if you ask if they are allowed to marry the person of their choosing then they are not the same.

Which equally applies to polygamy and incestuous marriage.

Funny you don't see liberals jumping to support those relationships.

And in fact them not updating the law to allow incestuous marriage is particularly damning as they have explicitly rejected the only rational basis for prohibiting it.

I would agree, but the law moves slow. I'm sure we will get around to those eventually. The government should not be telling people who they can and can't marry.

When there is not coercion close incestuous relationships are relatively rare. I suspect our society can handle a few siblings marring, as it did in the past. Seeing as there were no Federal or State laws against incestuous marriage before the US Civil War, and even the ULC has recommended that such laws be repealed.

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

Why is your court case right and mine wrong?

That is exactly why we need SCOTUS to hear one of these cases.

 

[Retro Rob]

It is available to them. Nothing keeps a gay man from marrying someone of the opposite sex. And according to the liberal definition of marriage there is no reason

 

[piasabird]

I Think every case involves two things. The Court is ruling that the state can not define what marriage is. Second they are ruling that same sex marriage has to be allowed based on equal rights.

I think in reality the federal government wants to rewrite the definition of marriage for every state. So my question is do the states have any rights at all? This looks like Tyranny on behalf of the federal government.

This is my view and you may disagree.

 

[SMOGZINN]

So my question is do the states have any rights at all?

The answer is no. We fought a war to determine that. The Federal government makes the rules and if some States don't like the rules we use the military to change their minds.

 

[fskimospy]

I Think every case involves two things. The Court is ruling that the state can not define what marriage is. Second they are ruling that same sex marriage has to be allowed based on equal rights.

I think in reality the federal government wants to rewrite the definition of marriage for every state. So my question is do the states have any rights at all? This looks like Tyranny on behalf of the federal government.

This is my view and you may disagree.

They are not saying a state cannot define what marriage is, they are simply saying that a state cannot define marriage in a way the violates the constitution.

 

[MrPickins]

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

Why is your court case right and mine wrong?

I was speaking more about the arguments that were raised and refuted than the court's ultimate decision.

I know, you can't be arsed to read 30 pages of your arguments being lambasted...

 

[theeedude]

Fine. If it's broadly supported, then pass a law that reflects that.

There is already a law reflecting this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[ctbaars]

The court should look at this. Besides, I would favor changing marriage such that there is no "marriage" per the government anymore but a legal business contract only. Leave the morals to the spiritual and religious. Also, there should be no "married" tax column.

 

[TheSiege]

I say let the federal courts deal with it until its practically unanimous

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Nothing keeps a gay man from marrying someone of the opposite sex.

And once gay marriage is legalized, nothing can keep you from marrying someone of the same sex. Why are you trying to limit your own rights?

 

[lopri]

Men and women are different.

How are they different, and what legal effects must be given to that alleged difference?