What is wrong with the Supreme Court, another week of justice denied.

[Darwin333]

The right to vote is a clearly enumerated right in the Constitution. The right to marriage, whether hetero or not, is not. Thus your example is a poor one.

In fact, it seems to me, the whole matter turns upon the question of whether or not there is a Constitutional right to marriage. If not it would be left up to the states. E.g., there is no Constitutional right to drive a car on public roads, and therefore states can have different rules on who is eligible to drive and who is not. I.e., people in the USA can be treated differently for no other reason than the state says so.

Fern

Sorry bud but one correction, left up to the state OR THE PEOPLE.

And I agree, the .gov should not be in the marriage business at all and as far as I can tell has no authority to be in the marriage business in the first place.

Of course the right LOVES "big government" in this case because if the Feds got out of the marriage business gay marriage would be left up to individual churches and whatnot and they damn sure don't want some funny church marrying those funny acting gay folk.

 

[shira]

I somewhat agree. However, I think a strong legal case can be made that prohibitions against gay marriage violate the Constitution based on the equal protection clause, which IS a right, simply because marriage offers certain government benefits and guarantees which are not available to homosexuals, or at least, not without making a travesty of marriage. (Homosexuals can marry heterosexually but that would hardly fit the spirit of marriage.) On a deeper level I think a ban on homosexual marriage violates the concept of a free society. Government should have to demonstrate a clear and compelling societal need before it is allowed to restrict personal liberty, and at the least, denying homosexual marriage arguably restricts personal liberty at a practical level by arbitrarily denying homosexuals the rights, benefits and protections enjoyed by heterosexuals and therefore making the pursuit of happiness more difficult.

Also, this is a right which the majority can deny at no cost to ourselves and those always require strict scrutiny as it's simply too easy to give ourselves advantages at others' expense.

EDIT: I also think the states should be allowed to differ economically, but that our basic rights should be the same through the nation.

Well said.

 

[nehalem256]

Furthermore, our laws clearly differentiate between male and female. See healthcare, auto insurance etc. Again, if the Equal Protection clause doesn't apply here, why would recognizing the male/female difference in marriage apply?

Or abortion. Liberals seem to have no problems discriminating based on gender there.

 

[nehalem256]

Okay, so let's change the example to something the state regulates then (and there is no constitutional right to it):

What if a state passed a law saying only one gender/race could get a drivers license. Or even if they said that one gender could get one the current way, and the other had to pass a driver's test every two years to keep their license.

Gender has nothing to do with driving. Whereas it does to marriage. This is not just some inane rambling, but established court precedent.

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

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.[8]

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, 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."

Probably because you religious people don't believe that marriage is that "special", at least not when it comes to how it applies to yall.

I have said many times no-fault divorce should be eliminated. And am even willing to trade same-sex marriage to get it.

 

[Darwin333]

Or abortion. Liberals seem to have no problems discriminating based on gender there.

You didn't answer his question.


PS: While I agree there exists some "gender discrimination" (nowhere close to what I would call it but..) with the entire "abortion" issue since a man can't simply give up his responsibilities to the child during the first trimester but if that were the case, would you agree with the current abortion laws?

 

[Darwin333]

I have said many times no-fault divorce should be eliminated. And am even willing to trade same-sex marriage to get it.

Why?

 

[nehalem256]

While they are able to mimic the contractual benefits of marriage, I would think it's clearly punitive to grant one group a fast tracked method to those benefits, and not offer it to another. For example, it would be like requiring one group to register to vote once, and another to register to vote separately for local, state and national elections.* Requiring one group to vote with one ballot at one polling station, and another to vote at separate polling stations for each of local, state and national elections. Sure each group is given the right to vote, but I doubt many people would argue that they were in fact given equal rights.

Interesting. So you agree that gay people could have created a standard issue gay-marriage contract 15 years ago. And been enjoying the benefits of marriage since then and there is nothing straight people could have done to stop then.

Why wasn't this done? It seems to me like the real purpose behind pushing gay marriage has nothing to do with the rights. And everything to do with forcing people to recognize their relationship.

 

[nehalem256]

PS: While I agree there exists some "gender discrimination" (nowhere close to what I would call it but..) with the entire "abortion" issue since a man can't simply give up his responsibilities to the child during the first trimester but if that were the case, would you agree with the current abortion laws?

Yes. That seems perfectly fair and equitable.

Why?

I see no reason to grant special benefits to temporary life partners.

By establishing that marriage is a life-long relationship I believe that it has value to society. While this value is less for homosexual partners I am willing to make the trade.

 

[fskimospy]

The right to vote is a clearly enumerated right in the Constitution. The right to marriage, whether hetero or not, is not. Thus your example is a poor one.

In fact, it seems to me, the whole matter turns upon the question of whether or not there is a Constitutional right to marriage. If not it would be left up to the states. E.g., there is no Constitutional right to drive a car on public roads, and therefore states can have different rules on who is eligible to drive and who is not. I.e., people in the USA can be treated differently for no other reason than the state says so.

Fern

This is not correct. The right to vote is not enumerated in the constitution.

The constitution mentions a number of things that cannot be used to bar people from voting, but it never explicitly states that voting is a right we all have.

 

[actuarial]

Interesting. So you agree that gay people could have created a standard issue gay-marriage contract 15 years ago. And been enjoying the benefits of marriage since then and there is nothing straight people could have done to stop then.

Why wasn't this done? It seems to me like the real purpose behind pushing gay marriage has nothing to do with the rights. And everything to do with forcing people to recognize their relationship.

No, I don't agree. I should have said 'most' of the things could be covered off, but certainly not all of them can. Some of the benefits are provided by government, and you can't unilaterally write a contract for that.

 

[actuarial]

Gender has nothing to do with driving. Whereas it does to marriage. This is not just some inane rambling, but established court precedent.

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

Ask insurance companies if gender has nothing to do with driving.

It's nice that you cited precedent, but I disagree with the logic. While it cites childless marriages as a theoretical imperfection in the rational for denying gay marriage, this is not a theoretical imperfection for any woman past menopause or any person known to be sterile at the time of granting the marriage license. In that case, it is known with certainty that the pair cannot produce a child. I see no reason to allow those people to be married if child rearing is the basis for granting rights under marriage. I agree with the decision only so far as it's too people who are able (or at least not known to be unable) to have children but simply don't.

There are also more avenues for becoming parents than simply being the product of vaginal intercourse. Both male-male and female-female couples can produce children that have one set of their DNA. There is also adoption.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes. That seems perfectly fair and equitable.

See this just seems "odd" to me. You are on the "fair and equitable" side on this one yet you don't think that two consensual adults should be able to marry? Whats up with that?

I see no reason to grant special benefits to temporary life partners.

By establishing that marriage is a life-long relationship I believe that it has value to society. While this value is less for homosexual partners I am willing to make the trade.

Exactly which benefits are you referring to and how are they so great that one should be forced to live with another, virtually against ones will, for the rest of their lives barring very few circumstance?

 

[CycloWizard]

I somewhat agree. However, I think a strong legal case can be made that prohibitions against gay marriage violate the Constitution based on the equal protection clause, which IS a right, simply because marriage offers certain government benefits and guarantees which are not available to homosexuals, or at least, not without making a travesty of marriage. (Homosexuals can marry heterosexually but that would hardly fit the spirit of marriage.) On a deeper level I think a ban on homosexual marriage violates the concept of a free society. Government should have to demonstrate a clear and compelling societal need before it is allowed to restrict personal liberty, and at the least, denying homosexual marriage arguably restricts personal liberty at a practical level by arbitrarily denying homosexuals the rights, benefits and protections enjoyed by heterosexuals and therefore making the pursuit of happiness more difficult.

Also, this is a right which the majority can deny at no cost to ourselves and those always require strict scrutiny as it's simply too easy to give ourselves advantages at others' expense.

EDIT: I also think the states should be allowed to differ economically, but that our basic rights should be the same through the nation.

The problem with these arguments regarding marriage is that there is no real liberty being infringed by discarding marriage outright. If marriage were stricken from every law on the books, all of the protections are still available just like they are currently to non-married people. If we want to invoke the equal protection clause then you could only use it to throw out marriage since it gives married people benefits that are not extended to single people unless they jump through additional hoops.

From an economic perspective, the heterosexual marriage has traditionally been acceptable in the form of a social contract because the couple offers the possibility of producing more taxpayers that would presumably be raised in a stable household. Population growth fuels economic growth so society may choose to incentivize the relationship. I think this is bassackwards (why not simply give a tax cut to people who actually have children, adopted or otherwise? Surely that's more efficient) but every time I have this conversation with economists, this is their response.

My proposal is simply to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Replace the marriage license with a general-purpose form which takes care of the same arrangements that the traditional marriage does just to simplify the process. The contract could be entered into by arbitrary adult parties just like any other legal contract.

 

[Darwin333]

Ask insurance companies if gender has nothing to do with driving.

It's nice that you cited precedent, but I disagree with the logic. While it cites childless marriages as a theoretical imperfection in the rational for denying gay marriage, this is not a theoretical imperfection for any woman past menopause or any person known to be sterile at the time of granting the marriage license. In that case, it is known with certainty that the pair cannot produce a child. I see no reason to allow those people to be married if child rearing is the basis for granting rights under marriage. I agree with the decision only so far as it's too people who are able (or at least not known to be unable) to have children but simply don't.

There are also more avenues for becoming parents than simply being the product of vaginal intercourse. Both male-male and female-female couples can produce children that have one set of their DNA. There is also adoption.

More to the point, over 40% of kids are born out of wedlock today and if that number keeps up its trend it will be a majority very soon. So basically you don't need to be married to rear a child, and close to most are currently not, but you do need to be able to rear a child in order to get married???? What sense on what planet does that make?

 

[CycloWizard]

Would you apply the same rational if the terms of the social contract were based on race?

As I said in my reply to werepossum (after you posted this), the only real rationale for a legal marriage is as follows:

From an economic perspective, the heterosexual marriage has traditionally been acceptable in the form of a social contract because the couple offers the possibility of producing more taxpayers that would presumably be raised in a stable household. Population growth fuels economic growth so society may choose to incentivize the relationship. I think this is bassackwards (why not simply give a tax cut to people who actually have children, adopted or otherwise? Surely that's more efficient) but every time I have this conversation with economists, this is their response.

Thus, race is a completely illegitimate rationale for exclusion. Polygamy is illegitimately excluded for the same reason. However, in the end, I think this is a rather weak argument as I mentioned above and the real solution is discarding the legality of marriage contracts.

 

[Darwin333]

The problem with these arguments regarding marriage is that there is no real liberty being infringed by discarding marriage outright. If marriage were stricken from every law on the books, all of the protections are still available just like they are currently to non-married people. If we want to invoke the equal protection clause then you could only use it to throw out marriage since it gives married people benefits that are not extended to single people unless they jump through additional hoops.

From an economic perspective, the heterosexual marriage has traditionally been acceptable in the form of a social contract because the couple offers the possibility of producing more taxpayers. Population growth fuels economic growth so society may choose to incentivize the relationship. I think this is bassackwards (why not simply give a tax cut to people who actually have children, adopted or otherwise? Surely that's more efficient) but every time I have this conversation with economists, this is their response.

My proposal is simply to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Replace the marriage license with a general-purpose form which takes care of the same arrangements that the traditional marriage does just to simplify the process. The contract could be entered into by arbitrary adult parties just like any other legal contract.

Amen brother.

If you want to get married go find a church that will perform it otherwise sign here and here and you are now "arranged" (or whatever the hell the .gov wishes to name it).

 

[nehalem256]

More to the point, over 40% of kids are born out of wedlock today and if that number keeps up its trend it will be a majority very soon. So basically you don't need to be married to rear a child, and close to most are currently not, but you do need to be able to rear a child in order to get married???? What sense on what planet does that make?

You might want to look up the poverty rate of single mothers compared to married couples before you start advancing that as something positive.

 

[nehalem256]

No, I don't agree. I should have said 'most' of the things could be covered off, but certainly not all of them can.

So rather than get most of the rights with absolutely zero fight they decided the correct course of action was to throw a fit about their "rights" which they had just made up were being violated.

Now lets think here. What seems like a better course of action. Acting like you are legally married and gaining most of the rights, and slowly winning over people by them seeing you be "married". Or throwing a big fit and pissing people off.

But of course. Considering the entire liberal case for gay marriage is basically "WAHHHHHHHHH OUR RIGHTS". Its pretty clear why they took the course of action they did.

Some of the benefits are provided by government, and you can't unilaterally write a contract for that.

So its not just a private contract between 2 people after all :sneaky:

 

[actuarial]

So rather than get most of the rights with absolutely zero fight they decided the correct course of action was to throw a fit about their "rights" which they had just made up were being violated.

Now lets think here. What seems like a better course of action. Acting like you are legally married and gaining most of the rights, and slowly winning over people by them seeing you be "married". Or throwing a big fit and pissing people off.

But of course. Considering the entire liberal case for gay marriage is basically "WAHHHHHHHHH OUR RIGHTS". Its pretty clear why they took the course of action they did.

Holy straw man batman. People already do what you suggest they do. You don't think there's any homosexuals living together acting like they're married? Or are you claiming they should be happy being treated as second class citizens?

They're fighting for the rest of the benefits given to straight couples.

It shows a lot about the faith you have in the strength of your argument when you have to call on a bogeyman (Liberals) and build straw men with every post. What about Conservatives who are in favour of gay marriage?

So its not just a private contract between 2 people after all :sneaky:

Want to quote me saying it was, or is this once again another straw man?

 

[Geosurface]

I am fully in favor of abortion rights and full marriage equality.

But I've grown to hate the mindset of most other people who support them on several other issues, so at this point I don't really give much of a fuck.

In the end, all 50 states will have legally recognized gay marriage.

Whether that's 10 years from now or 50, in the interim yes it will be unfair to homosexuals. However, I don't think the level of tragedy in that unfairness is mind shatteringly huge. There are a lot of unfair things in this life. It takes time for society to wrap it's head around certain things.

I'm much more concerned about the negative impact of other shit that people who strongly push for gay marriage are also pushing for.

And I'm starting to wonder if the rigid social structure of the past, unfair as it was to many people and stifling as it was in many ways, was necessary to keep the average dipshit from devolving into a subhuman piece of shit. I am seeing more and more evidence that MOST people need some sort of rigid structure. Probably need several. Harsh ass criminal penalties, religion, strictly defined gender roles, etc etc etc

All things I don't PERSONALLY believe in, but which I am beginning, nonetheless, to associate strongly with long term societal survival.

 

[werepossum]

I'm curious as to your reasoning here.

Aside from taxes, which I'll address below, I'm unaware of any contractual benefits etc that are unavailable to homosexual couples; they may need to utilize a different 'avenue' but I'm not sure that is legally significant.

As for taxes, the Constitution gives broad powers to Congress. E.g., married individuals are treated differently than single, minors are differently than adults etc. So, I don't see how the Equal Protection clause is remotely relevant here.

Furthermore, our laws clearly differentiate between male and female. See healthcare, auto insurance etc. Again, if the Equal Protection clause doesn't apply here, why would recognizing the male/female difference in marriage apply?

Fern

I think taxes would be enough; we are allowing single earner hetero couples the option of paying a lower rate (through marriage) than is available to single earner homo couples. But it goes far beyond that. Hospital visitation, inheritance, child custody, and extension of Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination also spring to mind. Other protections also apply, such as the federal government not allowing insurance companies or landlords to discriminate against mixed-race married couples without granting the same protection to homosexual couples. To make those legal differentiations effectively makes homosexuals second class citizens unable to enjoy the same protections as do we in the heterosexual majority.

 

[werepossum]

The problem with these arguments regarding marriage is that there is no real liberty being infringed by discarding marriage outright. If marriage were stricken from every law on the books, all of the protections are still available just like they are currently to non-married people. If we want to invoke the equal protection clause then you could only use it to throw out marriage since it gives married people benefits that are not extended to single people unless they jump through additional hoops.

From an economic perspective, the heterosexual marriage has traditionally been acceptable in the form of a social contract because the couple offers the possibility of producing more taxpayers that would presumably be raised in a stable household. Population growth fuels economic growth so society may choose to incentivize the relationship. I think this is bassackwards (why not simply give a tax cut to people who actually have children, adopted or otherwise? Surely that's more efficient) but every time I have this conversation with economists, this is their response.

My proposal is simply to get government out of the marriage business altogether. Replace the marriage license with a general-purpose form which takes care of the same arrangements that the traditional marriage does just to simplify the process. The contract could be entered into by arbitrary adult parties just like any other legal contract.

That is attractive. The only problem with this is that it continues the battle as more traditional folk try to carve out special protections and privileges for "real marriage" whilst homosexuals and their supporters try to stop them. (Granted, often while fighting for their own special special protections and privileges for homosexuals.) This battle wastes enormous amounts of time and money and in my opinion, just needs to go away. We went through this same thing with blacks in the sixties and in the end, the best way to get people to shut up about discrimination is simply to stop discriminating. The average person can only remain pissed that homosexuals are allowed to marry or blacks allowed to vote for so long before it just becomes normal to them, and in the end we're all better off for it.

 

[Fern]

Okay, so let's change the example to something the state regulates then (and there is no constitutional right to it):

What if a state passed a law saying only one gender/race could get a drivers license. Or even if they said that one gender could get one the current way, and the other had to pass a driver's test every two years to keep their license.

If they based it on gender I'd think they have trouble.

OTOH, different states have different age requirements etc. Also different rules on what it takes to lose your drivers license. In my state the first DUI conviction means loss of the license for a year. In many other states that's not the case. I.e., there is no equal treatment.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Sorry bud but one correction, left up to the state OR THE PEOPLE.

Same thing - the state and the people. The people would express their right by a state referendum. (I suppose a Constitutional amendment would be another way.)

And I agree, the .gov should not be in the marriage business at all and as far as I can tell has no authority to be in the marriage business in the first place.

Of course the right LOVES "big government" in this case because if the Feds got out of the marriage business gay marriage would be left up to individual churches and whatnot and they damn sure don't want some funny church marrying those funny acting gay folk.

Can't get around the fact the federal govt will be involved.

Aside from the passion this generates in some, the real 'play' here, IMO, is for federal benefits for gay couples. If that is in fact the case, there is no way to leave the federal govt out of it, the supporters won't stand for it.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This is not correct. The right to vote is not enumerated in the constitution.

The constitution mentions a number of things that cannot be used to bar people from voting, but it never explicitly states that voting is a right we all have.

For heaven's sakes, it mentioned numerous times throughout the Constitution.

E.g:

From Article 1

Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states

And four amendments post Civil War speak to voting rights.

Fern