Seriously? Why isn't Gay Marriage legal? Besides the fact that a mystical man in the sky says that men shouldn't bonk other men, can anyone come up with a good reason why it isn't?

You got plans then?

I thought it was.

Oh, you're US. Apologies.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:You got plans then?

Yes I do.

Move over here then (free healthcare too!)...

...and congratulations

Flashman wrote:Move over here then (free healthcare too!)...

...and congratulations

Or try canada if you want to stay closer to home.

It is in some countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Oh hang on, we're only civil partnerships. Don't apply for British citizenship just yet

Flashman wrote:Oh hang on, we're only civil partnerships. Don't apply for British citizenship just yet

Civil partnerships are marriage in all but name tbh, you can get a priest to do the ceremony in a church anyway and the legal aspect is almost identical.

I support gay marriage.

samusaran253 wrote:I support gay marriage.

Congratulations, you are in the overwhelming majority.

Because there are a bunch of people who are not gay enough with the issue.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Flashman wrote:Oh hang on, we're only civil partnerships. Don't apply for British citizenship just yet

Civil partnerships are marriage in all but name tbh, you can get a priest to do the ceremony in a church anyway and the legal aspect is almost identical.

A priest cant do a civil ceremony, as a civil ceremony cannot have any relegious aspects.

dirkthe1 wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Flashman wrote:Oh hang on, we're only civil partnerships. Don't apply for British citizenship just yet

Civil partnerships are marriage in all but name tbh, you can get a priest to do the ceremony in a church anyway and the legal aspect is almost identical.

A priest cant do a civil ceremony, as a civil ceremony cannot have any relegious aspects.

What can happen however is all the religious components of a marriage ceremony in a church and the civil ceremony/legal side occurring separately after or before.

We will never get gay marriage as marriage is a religious event, most religions believe it wrong to be gay.

It is worth noting that even in Britain married couples are still required to sign the marriage registry to be counted as being a couple.

Gay marriage is illegal? Where?

Do you go to jail for it?

corpsesarefun wrote:

samusaran253 wrote:I support gay marriage.

Congratulations, you are in the overwhelming majority.

I'm also in favor of gay marriage, but we do not have an overwhelming majority. Telling people we have an overwhelming majority is telling others, and yourself what you want to believe. Telling yourself what you want to believe is drinking your own cool aid. Drinking your own cool ail is dangerous, and has consequences such as Prop 8 passing back in 2008. People in favor of gay marriage love to blame the Mormons for prop 8 passing rather than take any responsibility themselves for the election. People like you assumed that they were in the overwhelming majority, ignored the issue on the assumption that it would never win, and ignored the fact that minorities are less likely to be in favor of gay marriage despite the fact that Obama was going to create record minority turn outs at the voting poll. There is a lot more to elections than simply buying them with money, because if money alone could purchase a California election Meg Whitman would have won last year. Prop 8 passed because too many people in favor of gay marriage assumed they were in the overwhelming majority, and you know what they say about assumptions.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Flashman wrote:Oh hang on, we're only civil partnerships. Don't apply for British citizenship just yet

Civil partnerships are marriage in all but name tbh, you can get a priest to do the ceremony in a church anyway and the legal aspect is almost identical.

That is incorrect.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Registeringlifeevents/Marriagesandcivilpartnerships/DG_175715

Tri wrote:We will never get gay marriage as marriage is a religious event, most religions believe it wrong to be gay.

Does that mean atheists can't get married?


Doesn't fly here in Aus at the moment either, BTW.

Tri wrote:We will never get gay marriage as marriage is a religious event, most religions believe it wrong to be gay.

It is worth noting that even in Britain married couples are still required to sign the marriage registry to be counted as being a couple.

That is how you legally become married in the UK. You sign the register.

The same for civil partnerships, except you sign the civil partnership register rather than the marriage register.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Gay marriage is illegal? Where?

Do you go to jail for it?

Zimbabwe. You get hanged for it.

Chowderhead wrote:Seriously? Why isn't Gay Marriage legal? Besides the fact that a mystical man in the sky says that men shouldn't bonk other men, can anyone come up with a good reason why it isn't?

Because your country is gak.

Secondly? Who cares? The only reason I'd ever get married is for financiel reasons.... So, just on paper, no ceremony, no nothing, just sign here please.

Soladrin wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Seriously? Why isn't Gay Marriage legal? Besides the fact that a mystical man in the sky says that men shouldn't bonk other men, can anyone come up with a good reason why it isn't?

Because your country is gak.

Secondly? Who cares? The only reason I'd ever get married is for financiel reasons.... So, just on paper, no ceremony, no nothing, just sign here please.

Yeah, I often find weddings just seem like an over-blown celebration of a couples love.

Waste of money would be my choice of words.

I am gay for gay marriage.

Gay marriage? I'm all for it! It always did amuse me that those who cry the loudest about government staying out of peoples lives and not telling them what to do are often the same ones why cry just as loud to have the government tell people they can't get married because they think it's icky.

Despite ones "personal" feelings concerning the institution of "Marriage",the fact that Gay couples are unable to join in "civil unions" in many areas is ridiculous...

However,so long as poloticians continue to cater to the hyper- religious don't expect an changes.

It sure is in Canada. Then again, we've allowed openly gay people in our military for two decades now as well, which only until a few months ago the Americans still had that stupid 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

The problem isn't with gays, its with the illusion of separation of church and state that sometimes gets the curtain pulled up. All marriage should be a non-issue, personal choice, private contract, be it with multiple wives, husbands, homosexuals, whatever. If it is a moral or religious ideal then the state has no business saying what is or is not legal.

This includes the problem that marriage is also a civil union involving things like taxes, certain rights like not testifying in court or child support in the case of divorce, and such other things that really have no business dictating gender roles, just legal standings, in which church morality again, should have no business dipping their mass delusion fingers in.

I see no reason why deciding to be BFFs and making a public spectacle of it should allow for special priveliges/penalties beyond what unmarried people have. You decide to get married and your status changes from a legal perspective. I know plenty of people who may as well be married and have been together for 10+ years and for whatever reasons never paid the court fee to be 'married' in the eyes of anyone other than themselves, which to me, is how it should be.


It should have absolutely no legal standing, proprietal rights, or anything else beyond what any other written, signed, notorized contract would, and as such, should be an available option to anyone who wants to commit on such a level. Unfortunately, a few hundred years of scientific progress have still not found the solution to the needs of some to believe in the laws of long dead archaic cultures allegedly passed to them by a shrub, and still have the power to insinuate their stone age mentalities under the protection of modern cultural acceptance, even in a place where we are allegedly separated legally from any church idealism involved in our lawmaking. Oh well, horray for the bible belt for showing that against all human progress in spite of its efforts, delusional ideas can still hold legal power because the book says that stubborn faith will win over common sense.

Cheesecat wrote:Yeah, I often find weddings just seem like an over-blown celebration of a couples love.

That strikes me as one of the best possible reasons to have an overblown celebration.

Gay or straight, if a couple wants to spend a pile of cash on a great big party to announce how much they love each other, go for it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Gay marriage is illegal? Where?

Do you go to jail for it?

Zimbabwe. You get hanged for it.

Not for getting married you don't. Zimbabwe has a lot of other problems to deal with before they start talking about gay marriage.

sebster wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:Yeah, I often find weddings just seem like an over-blown celebration of a couples love.

That strikes me as one of the best possible reasons to have an overblown celebration.

Gay or straight, if a couple wants to spend a pile of cash on a great big party to announce how much they love each other, go for it.

I can see the appeal, it's just not how I would approach the situation. Maybe I'm just cheap.

Because of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Why do people care so much if some like boys or grils if you wanna love someone love them, but just because people like those in the Westburo Baptist Church say AND I QUOTE "God hates gays" dosent mean the government has to go OH and say no gay marriage. ugh this whole topic is sooo annoying.

BTW this is the best http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4 you will pee (dont worry its on this topic)

Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

corpsesarefun wrote:

samusaran253 wrote:I support gay marriage.

Congratulations, you are in the overwhelming majority.

Yeah, we're such an overwhelming majority that California kept the bill passed by sheer dint of people supporting it!





Oh, wait, that's right, the opposite happened and popular opinion had the bill repealed in CALIFORNIA of all places.

We supporters are definitely NOT the overwhelming majority.

I'd like for everyone to realize that the Bible and the Catholic Church are very, very different things.

It goes back to the Protestant Revolution with John Locke and Martin Luther where this was revealed.

I do plan to read the bible one day to see this for myself.

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Karon wrote:I'd like for everyone to realize that the Bible and the Catholic Church are very, very different things.

Eh? In the area around gay marriage? The Bible specifically instructs gay people to be stoned to death. If anything the Catholic Church is a liberal rainbow-loving hippie compared to the specifics of some areas in the bible.

It goes back to the Protestant Revolution with John Locke and Martin Luther where this was revealed.

I do plan to read the bible one day to see this for myself.

Go for it. No offence, but that might mean you know what you are talking about next time you speak up about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

I believe there is a rational opposition, but this pertains as to whether or not Same-sex families are a healthy environment for children to be raised in and whether they should be allowed to have children (and my knowledge regarding this area is very limited so I can't cast an opinion either way). I don't see any real rational reasons to prevent same-sex marriages though.

Blacksails wrote:It sure is in Canada. Then again, we've allowed openly gay people in our military for two decades now as well, which only until a few months ago the Americans still had that stupid 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.

And you silly Canadians allow S&M shops on the main street.

Saw one named 'North Bound Leather' with creepy dummies with creepy gear on while in Toronto. I laughed quite a bit.

Emperors Faithful wrote:but this pertains as to whether or not Same-sex families are a healthy environment for children to be raised in and whether they should be allowed to have children (and my knowledge regarding this area is very limited so I can't cast an opinion either way).

The problem with this argument is that it's predicated on the false belief presented as "fact" that a heterosexual family is a healthy environment to be raised in.

Bad/abusive/disinterested/etc. parents are that way regardless of sexual orientation, while a healthy, loving family is a healthy environment regardless of the same.

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Ok..I'll bite,besides the alleged "Word" of an as yet unseen " Sky Father"...what would be the "rational" argument against gay marriage??

Platuan4th wrote:Bad/abusive/disinterested/etc. parents are that way regardless of sexual orientation, while a healthy, loving family is a healthy environment regardless of the same.

See, I haven't seen any evidence to support this idea.

I'm not saying that abusive heterosexual parents are automatically more suitable than loving, caring same-sex parents, that would be ludicrous. But I do think it's irresponsible to disregard the possible factor off-handedly.

biccat wrote:So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

The religious thing? If the topic were truly about religion, then gay marriage couldn't be outlawed as that would violate the first amendment. The familial thing? Having children, nor the desire to do so, nor the desire to adopt if one cannot have children, is not a requirement for marriage. Tradition? By itself it is not a logical basis for anything, and arguments based off of tradition are logically fallacious.

FITZZ wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Ok..I'll bite,besides the alleged "Word" of an as yet unseen " Sky Father"...what would be the "rational" argument against gay marriage??

I don't think there is a non-moral or non-religious argument* against gay marriage, and according to Loving, in the United States at least, gay marriage should be allowed.

I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

Although I don't know why you have to demean Christians by mocking their faith.

edit: * but if there is, I'm not aware of one.

I never said such a position doesn't exist. I just stated a reason why gay marriage is illegal in the US.

biccat wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Ok..I'll bite,besides the alleged "Word" of an as yet unseen " Sky Father"...what would be the "rational" argument against gay marriage??

I don't think there is a non-moral or non-religious argument* against gay marriage, and according to Loving, in the United States at least, gay marriage should be allowed.

I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

Although I don't know why you have to demean Christians by mocking their faith.

edit: * but if there is, I'm not aware of one.

Wait... you're ok with gay marriage? this would be the first non-conservative thing i've ever read you post if so....

biccat wrote:So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

Maybe Biblical Law is a valid argument against Gay marriage (and gays in general too then). It's hardly a rational argument though.

frgsinwntr wrote:Wait... you're ok with gay marriage? this would be the first non-conservative thing i've ever read you post if so....

Honestly, I could care less one way or the other. If I absolutely, positively had to vote on it, I'd probably say no. But if I were a voter in California, I'd have left the spot blank.

Fortunately for me, the pro-gay marriage crowd has decided that votes don't have anything to do with it.

From a legal perspective, Loving and especially Lawrence make it clear that laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are more than likely unconstitutional.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Maybe Biblical Law is a valid argument against Gay marriage (and gays in general too then). It's hardly a rational argument though.

Christianity isn't rationale?

Besides, you can make a moral case without appealing to religion.

biccat wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

Ok..I'll bite,besides the alleged "Word" of an as yet unseen " Sky Father"...what would be the "rational" argument against gay marriage??

I don't think there is a non-moral or non-religious argument* against gay marriage, and according to Loving, in the United States at least, gay marriage should be allowed.

I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

Although I don't know why you have to demean Christians by mocking their faith.

edit: * but if there is, I'm not aware of one.

I suppose I could ask why Christians feel the need to demean and belittle others as "sinners or Immoral" ,yet for some reason seem to think their "Faith" is above reproach ?
However...Perhaps my comment was inflamitory ,so I'll just say "With out the doctrines found in religious text...what would be the "rational" argument against same sex marriage?"

biccat wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Maybe Biblical Law is a valid argument against Gay marriage (and gays in general too then). It's hardly a rational argument though.

Christianity isn't rationale?

Do we really need to walk down this road again?

Besides, you can make a moral case without appealing to religion.

I can't?

Wait...what's this? Breaking News? No! Is it possible? Heaven forbid...apparently, according to our latest sources...I can!

Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

FITZZ wrote:

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

Gillette! The Best a non-religous Man can Gehttt!

Platuan4th wrote:We supporters are definitely NOT the overwhelming majority.

Overwhelming may be putting to fine a point on it but it is true. The problem though is that the opposition votes in greater numbers. Many of those that don't care or are for it are part of the large number of people who can't be arsed to vote.

Also, one of the reasons it hasn't happened is becuase it is a wedge issue and more important to use it as a stick to get the core out to vote. Conservative politicians know they can say two men are getting married and the money will come rolling in to defeat this unholy abomination. In other words, it is about money. A liberal politician can do the same in reverse of course.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

Gillette! The Best a non-religous Man can Gehttt!

That made my beard very happy...

OT,I have a gay Aunt and a gay Cousin,and have witnessed firsthand the type of crap they have to put up with (particularly here in the South) simply for who they are and whom they choose to spend their lives with.
Both are Nurses and have done more "good" for they're "fellow man" than most self rightious "pulpet pounders" who would condem them as " Immoral hell bound sinners" and their relationships should not be a matter of politics,but rather their own personal business.

FITZZ wrote:

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

I'm just bringing up for the people, when being anti-gay marriage, say they follow the Bible as law (I had a better way to put this and blanked, someone help lol) because if they do, they shouldn't shave (is my point)

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

I'm just bringing up for the people, when being anti-gay marriage, say they follow the Bible as law (I had a better way to put this and blanked, someone help lol) because if they do, they shouldn't shave (is my point)

I get what your saying BBL,but as Ahtman pointed out,the whole situation becomes one of political tub thumping for funds and votes,while using "select" Biblical referances as "justification".

FITZZ wrote:

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Doesn't the Bible say men should never shave?

I say you can't pick and choose from the Bible, all or none.

Ahhh...But politicians can't "rally voters" running on an anti-Gillette platform.

I'm just bringing up for the people, when being anti-gay marriage, say they follow the Bible as law (I had a better way to put this and blanked, someone help lol) because if they do, they shouldn't shave (is my point)

I get what your saying BBL,but as Ahtman pointed out,the whole situation becomes one of political tub thumping for funds and votes,while using "select" Biblical referances as "justification".

Thats why my campaign slogan will be 'All or None'
Everybody takes it all to the fullest, or none at all can be used for justification.

Cheesecat wrote:I can see the appeal, it's just not how I would approach the situation. Maybe I'm just cheap.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:I'd like for everyone to realize that the Bible and the Catholic Church are very, very different things.

It goes back to the Protestant Revolution with John Locke and Martin Luther where this was revealed.

I do plan to read the bible one day to see this for myself.

Umm, no. First up, it was the Protestand Reformation, not Revolution. Second up, you're probably thinking of John Calvin, not John Locke. Thridly, it wasn't 'revealed' that Catholcism and the bible are different things, the bible remains the primary source for Catholics as it does for Christians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Christianity isn't rationale?

Christianity is rational. Attempts to enforce biblical morality onto a population that is not universally Christian, in a country that prides itself on seperating its government from any religion, are irrational, though. And they only get more irrational when only the shallowest, most selective reading of the Bible could lead someone to conclude the book is particularly concerned with homosexuality compared to issues like poverty and compassion.


Oh, and do you really want me to put [sic] after rationale in your post above? Because I could, but it would be very lame... though it might answer why you did something that inane in your response to me in the other thread.

Guitardian wrote:The problem isn't with gays, its with the illusion of separation of church and state that sometimes gets the curtain pulled up. All marriage should be a non-issue, personal choice, private contract, be it with multiple wives, husbands, homosexuals, whatever. If it is a moral or religious ideal then the state has no business saying what is or is not legal.

This includes the problem that marriage is also a civil union involving things like taxes, certain rights like not testifying in court or child support in the case of divorce, and such other things that really have no business dictating gender roles, just legal standings, in which church morality again, should have no business dipping their mass delusion fingers in.

I see no reason why deciding to be BFFs and making a public spectacle of it should allow for special priveliges/penalties beyond what unmarried people have. You decide to get married and your status changes from a legal perspective. I know plenty of people who may as well be married and have been together for 10+ years and for whatever reasons never paid the court fee to be 'married' in the eyes of anyone other than themselves, which to me, is how it should be.


It should have absolutely no legal standing, proprietal rights, or anything else beyond what any other written, signed, notorized contract would, and as such, should be an available option to anyone who wants to commit on such a level. Unfortunately, a few hundred years of scientific progress have still not found the solution to the needs of some to believe in the laws of long dead archaic cultures allegedly passed to them by a shrub, and still have the power to insinuate their stone age mentalities under the protection of modern cultural acceptance, even in a place where we are allegedly separated legally from any church idealism involved in our lawmaking. Oh well, horray for the bible belt for showing that against all human progress in spite of its efforts, delusional ideas can still hold legal power because the book says that stubborn faith will win over common sense.

Harrumph, Bully, and Good Job!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That said... I'd really like to see more people use the "I just don't like it." or "It creeps me out." arguments a bit more. More straightforward.

Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one. You have to earn/work for it. Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Karon wrote:I'd like for everyone to realize that the Bible and the Catholic Church are very, very different things.

Eh? In the area around gay marriage? The Bible specifically instructs gay people to be stoned to death. If anything the Catholic Church is a liberal rainbow-loving hippie compared to the specifics of some areas in the bible.

It goes back to the Protestant Revolution with John Locke and Martin Luther where this was revealed.

I do plan to read the bible one day to see this for myself.

Go for it. No offence, but that might mean you know what you are talking about next time you speak up about this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

So there's no such thing as rational opposition to gay marriage? Just old fashioned bigotry?

I believe there is a rational opposition, but this pertains as to whether or not Same-sex families are a healthy environment for children to be raised in and whether they should be allowed to have children (and my knowledge regarding this area is very limited so I can't cast an opinion either way). I don't see any real rational reasons to prevent same-sex marriages though.

I wasn't aware of that, and my comment wasn't aimed at the topic at hand.

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one. You have to earn/work for it. Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

Actually the right to marry is listed as a basic human right in UN charter and american courts have previously ruled that couples cannot be prevented from marrying due to race, ethnicity, religion etc. So yes you do have a right to marriage

youbedead wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one. You have to earn/work for it. Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

Actually the right to marry is listed as a basic human right in UN charter and american courts have previously ruled that couples cannot be prevented from marrying due to race, ethnicity, religion etc. So yes you do have a right to marriage

States aren't subject to the UN charter. If they were, this wouldn't be an issue.

Stormrider wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one. You have to earn/work for it. Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

Actually the right to marry is listed as a basic human right in UN charter and american courts have previously ruled that couples cannot be prevented from marrying due to race, ethnicity, religion etc. So yes you do have a right to marriage

States aren't subject to the UN charter. If they were, this wouldn't be an issue.

No but they under the authority of the US government which follows UN charter. States are also subject to the rulings of the SCOTUS thats why interracial couples are allowed now. Further more this

t will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

is not how the system works and it never has.If something is in violation of the Constitution it is not up to the majority to change it it is the duty of the supreme court. Or do you believe that states where the majority of people are opposed to guns should abolish them

Because Lady Gaga isn't president

I've started wearing a "Support Gay Marriage" button to work. It annoys me that I can hear old women talking crap about gays being immoral and I'm not allowed to say anything about it because I might offend a customer (and yes, this has happened). I figure they can deal with it and complain if they have the balls, the crusty broads. I've even had a few say things to my face in idle chit chat, yet seem completely unaware that they're saying it to a guy in eyeliner with a rainbow belt.

The irony is prop 8 passed by selling it's self as protecting the separation of church and state.

The thing people need to realize is either stance on gay marriage can be sold as protecting the separation of church and state.

It's easy to convince people preventing gay marriage is a clear attack on the separation of church and state by the church forcing it's moral views upon the state. That one is a really easy sell to a rational human being.

It's easy to convince people that allowing gay marriage is a clear attack on the separation of church and state by the state dictating what does and doesn't constitute a marriage, and that the state might punish churches that don't recognize a marriage that the state recognizes. It's really easy to convince the anti gay marriage crowd that once gay marriage passes their priests/pastors will be forced by the government to marry gays inside their church by state anti-discrimination laws. It's telling the anti gay marriage crowd what they want to believe anyways.

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one.

sbuh?

If a straight couple wants to get married they can. They don't have to earn anything, they can just do it. If a gay couple wants to get married they apparently need to 'earn' it by getting half the population of their state to support it.

Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

That would be true if the US was a pure democracy. It isn't. It's a liberal democracy that recognises certain rights exist beyond the willingness of the mob to grant them.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Gay marriage is illegal? Where?

Do you go to jail for it?

Zimbabwe. You get hanged for it.

Not for getting married you don't. Zimbabwe has a lot of other problems to deal with before they start talking about gay marriage.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/28/zimbabwe-gay-rights-workers-released-torture

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/africa/27zimbabwe.html

http://allafrica.com/stories/201007310173.html

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/07/18/Zimbabwe_President_Mugabe_No_to_Gay_Rights/

To the christian church I believe it is HERESY!!!! (blasphemy actually but yeah)

Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

As Robin Williams says (NSFW): at 1:58min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M1XVE9W67g

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

AvatarForm wrote:Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

As Robin Williams says (NSFW): at 1:58min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M1XVE9W67g

The benefits are very similar, but it's not really the same thing here.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

I believe the argument goes along the lines of the problems regarding the inherent self-destructiveness that such a society would experience.

Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Neither do religions... since when has a faith had legal say-so over the rights of individuals or businesses?

Emperors Faithful wrote:I believe the argument goes along the lines of the problems regarding the inherent self-destructiveness that such a society would experience.

Which is really nothing but unproven speculation and fear-mongering. Not exactly rational.

Melissia wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I believe the argument goes along the lines of the problems regarding the inherent self-destructiveness that such a society would experience.

Which is really nothing but unproven speculation and fear-mongering. Not exactly rational.

I was talking about the distribution of Child Pornography.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I believe the argument goes along the lines of the problems regarding the inherent self-destructiveness that such a society would experience.

Which is really nothing but unproven speculation and fear-mongering. Not exactly rational.

I was talking about the distribution of Child Pornography.

Thereby demonstrating the problem.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

I believe there is a rational opposition, but this pertains as to whether or not Same-sex families are a healthy environment for children to be raised in and whether they should be allowed to have children (and my knowledge regarding this area is very limited so I can't cast an opinion either way). I don't see any real rational reasons to prevent same-sex marriages though.

Research shows the healthiest households for children are lesbian households.

My bad, I was still talking about gay marriage, which I assumed this thread was about.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Bigamy should be allowed., Child porn... that endangers the child. I think it's a pretty clear (and rational) cut step to say child porn is bad and hurts the child.... there fore should be illegal.

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Bigamy should be allowed., Child porn... that endangers the child. I think it's a pretty clear (and rational) cut step to say child porn is bad and hurts the child.... there fore should be illegal.

No joke. At the very least there is measurable psychological trauma for the child.

AvatarForm wrote:Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

Who decides what is and isn't "a relationship"? Some relationships are more serious than others, what's the criteria? Where's the burden of proof? I assume two blokes sharing a flat for a year or so won't find that one guy is entitled to keep half the stuff when the other moves out.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

Who decides what is and isn't "a relationship"? Some relationships are more serious than others, what's the criteria? Where's the burden of proof? I assume two blokes sharing a flat for a year or so won't find that one guy is entitled to keep half the stuff when the other moves out.

US case law disagrees with you depending on the facts. Be careful what you wish for dudes, you might get it.

Half your stuff..gone!

That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

That's why the idea of heterosexual "marriage in all but name" is rather silly.

The only reason for having two different classes of marriage would be if the obligations on the contracting persons are different.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just curious why no one accepts that there's a valid argument against what they believe.

I'm perfectly willing to believe people have rational grounds to believe the opposite of what I believe, but after a decade of hearing people attempt to justify their opposition to gay marriage, I'm yet to hear one valid argument. The only sensible conclusion from there is that no such valid argument exists.

I'm curious as to why you think there must be a valid argument despite having never heard one, over the decades this debate has taken place.

I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Bigamy should be allowed., Child porn... that endangers the child. I think it's a pretty clear (and rational) cut step to say child porn is bad and hurts the child.... there fore should be illegal.

No joke. At the very least there is measurable psychological trauma for the child.

....How in the hell is child porn/pedo -actions ( in which "half" of the individules involved in the "relationship" aren't mentally evolved enough to even begin to comprehend /comtemplate a "sexual relationship") in anyway be compared to a relationship between two (or more) consenting individuals?

Both are frowned upon by the invisible man, so they must be the same...

Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

That's why the idea of heterosexual "marriage in all but name" is rather silly.

The only reason for having two different classes of marriage would be if the obligations on the contracting persons are different.

Oh its even murkier KK. There's caselaw supporting "reallocation of assets" including alimony type payments for couples where marriage is not even an issue (thanks California...)

sebster wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Do hetorosexaul people have a "right" to a spouse? No. You don't get a wife or husband just because you want one.

sbuh?

If a straight couple wants to get married they can. They don't have to earn anything, they can just do it. If a gay couple wants to get married they apparently need to 'earn' it by getting half the population of their state to support it.

Same goes for Gay marriages, until enough people think it's alright, it will remain this way. It will remain unrecognized by states until true majorities allow it. It's how the system works.

It should never get beyond a states rights issue. Let the indivual states decide and leave it at that.

That would be true if the US was a pure democracy. It isn't. It's a liberal democracy that recognises certain rights exist beyond the willingness of the mob to grant them.

That's not entirely true the US is a representative democracy (or if you really want to be specific "Federal presidential constitutional republic") and also US politics can't be entirely liberal in nature because

Republicans are more conservative than liberal, although the party and president in power is liberal at this moment in time.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

That's why the idea of heterosexual "marriage in all but name" is rather silly.

The only reason for having two different classes of marriage would be if the obligations on the contracting persons are different.

Oh its even murkier KK. There's caselaw supporting "reallocation of assets" including alimony type payments for couples where marriage is not even an issue (thanks California...)

Lets be clear, all (most?) of these cases are out of California. I don't think the insanity has spread outside of the West Coast.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

That's why the idea of heterosexual "marriage in all but name" is rather silly.

The only reason for having two different classes of marriage would be if the obligations on the contracting persons are different.

Oh its even murkier KK. There's caselaw supporting "reallocation of assets" including alimony type payments for couples where marriage is not even an issue (thanks California...)

Lets be clear, all (most?) of these cases are out of California. I don't think the insanity has spread outside of the West Coast.

Good point although it has spread somewhat.

Cheesecat wrote:

sebster wrote:That would be true if the US was a pure democracy. It isn't. It's a liberal democracy that recognises certain rights exist beyond the willingness of the mob to grant them.

That's not entirely true the US is a representative democracy (or if you really want to be specific "Federal presidential constitutional republic") and also US politics can't be entirely liberal in nature because

Republicans are more conservative than liberal, although the party and president in power is liberal at this moment in time.

Chowderhead wrote:Seriously? Why isn't Gay Marriage legal? Besides the fact that a mystical man in the sky says that men shouldn't bonk other men, can anyone come up with a good reason why it isn't?

BECAUSE IT'S IMMORAL AND THE BIBLE SAYS SO

/Various other bigoted statements.

As a Bisexual, I think it's pretty disgusting that they can't even call it 'Marriage' in this country (or that it's illegal in the states).
I don't force my sexual preferences on anyone else, they shouldn't be able to force their's on mine.

You can call it marriage, you just don't get all the beneifts of the color of law unless you arrange it properly.

i laugh when people call it immoral to be gay in this modern culture, but seem not to bat an eye at all the sexually charged images gracing the media.
For the "Its creepy..." argument...
OMG these gay neighbors of ours are GARDENING!!!
NOW THIER EATING DINNER!!!
and... now... thier.... PAYING THIER TAXES!

Freedom is what Americas recogized for, and freedoms what you are going to get... If your a rich, white,hetrosexual male

The Crusader Of 42 wrote:i laugh when people call it immoral to be gay in this modern culture, but seem not to bat an eye at all the sexually charged images gracing the media.
For the "Its creepy..." argument...
OMG these gay neighbors of ours are GARDENING!!!
NOW THIER EATING DINNER!!!
and... now... thier.... PAYING THIER TAXES!

Freedom is what Americas recogized for, and freedoms what you are going to get... If your a rich, white,hetrosexual male

No. Freedom is what the United States is recognized for, not "America."

Frazzled wrote:

The Crusader Of 42 wrote:i laugh when people call it immoral to be gay in this modern culture, but seem not to bat an eye at all the sexually charged images gracing the media.
For the "Its creepy..." argument...
OMG these gay neighbors of ours are GARDENING!!!
NOW THIER EATING DINNER!!!
and... now... thier.... PAYING THIER TAXES!

Freedom is what Americas recogized for, and freedoms what you are going to get... If your a rich, white,hetrosexual male

No. Freedom is what the United States is recognized for, not "America."

After-all there's a reason why Canada is sometimes nicknamed "Soviet Canuckistan".

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Case Law is the area that predominantly labels marriage as, essentially, a contract. Legislation rarely terms it as such, and there is a lot more to marriage than "Goverment Control is Bad!".

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Case Law is the area that predominantly labels marriage as, essentially, a contract. Legislation rarely terms it as such, and there is a lot more to marriage than "Goverment Control is Bad!".

Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

I like it. It works, sort of...

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

I like it. It works, sort of...

Except it doesn't at all. It's not the Far Left or Far Right that's keeping it from being passed, it's the vast majority of people which are moderate versions of their parties or politically middle of the road. Believe it or not, most people in the US, conservative or not, still don't like it.

As I said earlier, supporters are NOT the majority in the US, vocal or otherwise.

Platuan4th wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

I like it. It works, sort of...

Except it doesn't at all. It's not the Far Left or Far Right that's keeping it from being passed, it's the vast majority of people which are moderate versions of their parties or politically middle of the road. Believe it or not, most people in the US, conservative or not, still don't like it.

As I said earlier, supporters are NOT the majority in the US.

We were talking about the specifics of the analogy.

It worked like a snowplow in Jamaica.

Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

As it should be, I don't believe in foisting the trappings of marriage upon people who clearly haven't agreed to it. If you want the pros and cons of marriage then that's a matter for you and your partner to decide and make a point of signing a public document to do so. I see no benefit in granting this to people who are not married and just living together no matter how long they are married. If they wanted it they would ask for it. By equal measure that's why I think pre-nups are a bit daft. If you don't want 'marriage' don't get married.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That's why in the UK you don't get "common law married" by living together for six months.

That's why marriage is formed by signing a legal contract with witnesses. Civil partnership is the same in all but name.

As it should be, I don't believe in foisting the trappings of marriage upon people who clearly haven't agreed to it. If you want the pros and cons of marriage then that's a matter for you and your partner to decide and make a point of signing a public document to do so. I see no benefit in granting this to people who are not married and just living together no matter how long they are married. If they wanted it they would ask for it. By equal measure that's why I think pre-nups are a bit daft. If you don't want 'marriage' don't get married.

I think people are confused on how Common Law Marriages actually work(either that or it makes less sense outside of Louisiana and Napoleonic Law). You're not married just because you live together for x amount of time, you're married because you've presented yourself as married for that x amount of time whilst living together.

Melissia wrote:Because a lot of people in the US are stupid bigots who claim that their beliefs are based off of whatever parts of an old book which happens to align with their beliefs no matter how skewed their interpretation has to be to get said old book to agree. And they only want to apply the constitution where it benefits them directly, too.

There seems to be a perception here (and amongst many gay marriage proponents) that its strictly religious people that are blocking same sex marriage and thats simply not true. There are cultures in America that, regardless of religious preference or practice, are simply against it because that is how they are brought up. Patriarchal cultures revolve around the supposedly inherent strength of men and the place of women in these cultures, and homosexuals (or more accurately, stereotypes of it) are viewed as an antithesis to their cultural viewpoints. "Men should be strong, and gay men are sissies" "Women should be making babies" types of view. These cultures run a spectrum of racial colors and rarely is religion involved, but mainly the home and neighborhood where the culture is prevalent.

Religious folks get the brunt of criticism from pro-same sex marriage proponents because they are the loudest opponents, but the root cause of its opposition is much more deeply rooted then one dude standing at a pulplit once a week telling people what to think. If organized religion (of any denomination) was really that effective at swaying peoples thoughts, we'd probably see a marked decrease in murder, theft, cheating and everything else that the bible or other preferred religious tome restricts.

Mainstream religion changes with people to stay relevant, so until some cultures become more liberal and tolerant, it will stay the course.

It is true that it isn't entirely based on religion, polliung data shows a strong correlation. The greatest opponents of it are also those that self identify as 'very religious'. Culture obliviously plays it's part to, such as in the African American community has historically has little tolerance for it, a fact utilized in Prop 9. Age is a factor as well and as the generations that grew up under less open times are more likely to be against it. Even those numbers drop by a few percentage points every few years though as it becomes less of an issue. Still a long way to go, and it is fair to say that religion is the engine that pulls the train to keep it illegal, but it is not the only car on the track, as it were. This also shouldn't be used to paint religion as a whole, as not all religious people are opponents.

In fact recently released data shows that for the first time a majority of Americans are pro-gay marriage. link

biccat wrote:I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Even moral arguments are drawn from a rational basis. Well, the good moral arguments are. The bad moral arguments are plentiful, and should be included in that big list of 'crappy reasons people have tried to oppose gay marriage that ultimately don't make any sense'.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Really? You honest and truly are unaware of non-moral arguments against bigamy and child pornography?

Bigamy should not be recognised by government as marriage already as incredibly complex situations relating to child custody and property ownership. Consider how complex and messy it gets to determine who gets the children and the house, and who owes on-going support to who when a couple breaks up, now imagine how messy that would get when there's four wives and six husbands in the relationship.

Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Yeah, I agree with this exactly. Two private individuals want to contract privately, they're welcome to. If those two individuals want to contract privately with a church to make their wedding a religious one, and the church wants to go along with it, then they're welcome to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:Neither do religions... since when has a faith had legal say-so over the rights of individuals or businesses?

But the religion doesn't have say-so. It can refuse to be part of the service, but it can't stop them getting married. If another church wants to marry them, it can.

Or at least, that's how it should be. Free right to contract and all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:That's not entirely true the US is a representative democracy (or if you really want to be specific "Federal presidential constitutional republic") and also US politics can't be entirely liberal in nature because

Republicans are more conservative than liberal, although the party and president in power is liberal at this moment in time.

I'm using the term in the classical sense, which is a democratic society that recognises core freedoms as fundamental, specifically basing those freedoms around personal liberty. It is a form of representative democracy.

It doesn't matter what political party the government of the day is, it's describing the form of government itself.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:I think I said there are plenty of rational arguments that are based on religion and/or morality, but I am not aware of any non-moral arguments against it.

Even moral arguments are drawn from a rational basis. Well, the good moral arguments are. The bad moral arguments are plentiful, and should be included in that big list of 'crappy reasons people have tried to oppose gay marriage that ultimately don't make any sense'.

Then again, I'm not aware of any non-moral arguments against bigamy or child pornography either. Does that mean these laws should be repealed?

Really? You honest and truly are unaware of non-moral arguments against bigamy and child pornography?

Bigamy should not be recognised by government as marriage already as incredibly complex situations relating to child custody and property ownership. Consider how complex and messy it gets to determine who gets the children and the house, and who owes on-going support to who when a couple breaks up, now imagine how messy that would get when there's four wives and six husbands in the relationship.

Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Yeah, I agree with this exactly. Two private individuals want to contract privately, they're welcome to. If those two individuals want to contract privately with a church to make their wedding a religious one, and the church wants to go along with it, then they're welcome to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:Neither do religions... since when has a faith had legal say-so over the rights of individuals or businesses?

But the religion doesn't have say-so. It can refuse to be part of the service, but it can't stop them getting married. If another church wants to marry them, it can.

Or at least, that's how it should be. Free right to contract and all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:That's not entirely true the US is a representative democracy (or if you really want to be specific "Federal presidential constitutional republic") and also US politics can't be entirely liberal in nature because

Republicans are more conservative than liberal, although the party and president in power is liberal at this moment in time.

I'm using the term in the classical sense, which is a democratic society that recognises core freedoms as fundamental, specifically basing those freedoms around personal liberty. It is a form of representative democracy.

It doesn't matter what political party the government of the day is, it's describing the form of government itself.

Isn't that Libertarianism not liberalism?

sebster wrote:Bigamy should not be recognised by government as marriage already as incredibly complex situations relating to child custody and property ownership. Consider how complex and messy it gets to determine who gets the children and the house, and who owes on-going support to who when a couple breaks up, now imagine how messy that would get when there's four wives and six husbands in the relationship.

Polygamy has been going on for a long, long time before the United States was even a twinkle in Thomas Jefferson's eye. These issues are not new, and are easily overcome.

Also, do you understand what bigamy is? Because four wives and six husbands is not bigamy.

sebster wrote:Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.

This is a moral argument. There's no rational, amoral reason to suggest that children under 18 can't grant consent.

There is, however, a very strong moral case against child pornography.

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Bigamy should not be recognised by government as marriage already as incredibly complex situations relating to child custody and property ownership. Consider how complex and messy it gets to determine who gets the children and the house, and who owes on-going support to who when a couple breaks up, now imagine how messy that would get when there's four wives and six husbands in the relationship.

Polygamy has been going on for a long, long time before the United States was even a twinkle in Thomas Jefferson's eye. These issues are not new, and are easily overcome.

Also, do you understand what bigamy is? Because four wives and six husbands is not bigamy.

bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another

through extremely convoluted and sit-com worthy hijinks there could end up being four wives and six husbands

sebster wrote:Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.

This is a moral argument. There's no rational, amoral reason to suggest that children under 18 can't grant consent.

There is, however, a very strong moral case against child pornography.

Aside from the fact that there is plenty of evidence that children cannot understand the concept and therefore can't willingly consent. Its the same reason that having sex with someone who is unable to knowingly give consent (such as under the influence of drugs like ruphes) is often classed as rape

Wolfun wrote:As a Bisexual, I think it's pretty disgusting that they can't even call it 'Marriage' in this country (or that it's illegal in the states).
I don't force my sexual preferences on anyone else, they shouldn't be able to force their's on mine.

Bis ftw!

biccat wrote:

sebster wrote:Child pornography is wrong because a person under the age of 18 is not capable of entering into a contract on their own behalf, such as agreeing to be photograpged nude or in simulated sex.

This is a moral argument. There's no rational, amoral reason to suggest that children under 18 can't grant consent.

There is, however, a very strong moral case against child pornography.

Since children have not developed full cognitive faculties, they are unable to grant consent. They literally do not understand what they are agreeing to.

Frazzled wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:Many of my friends have had Civil Unions overseas, then the AUS government recognises them as a couple, legally.

Though here, if you live together in a relationship for more than 6 months you are de facto by Law. Im not sure how much that entitles you to, but it is a beginning.

Who decides what is and isn't "a relationship"? Some relationships are more serious than others, what's the criteria? Where's the burden of proof? I assume two blokes sharing a flat for a year or so won't find that one guy is entitled to keep half the stuff when the other moves out.

US case law disagrees with you depending on the facts. Be careful what you wish for dudes, you might get it.

Half your stuff..gone!

Not if you are serious about a long-term commitment...

Actually they should make ALL marriage Illegal

Just jokes ... each to there own I reckon

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Yeah, I agree with this exactly. Two private individuals want to contract privately, they're welcome to. If those two individuals want to contract privately with a church to make their wedding a religious one, and the church wants to go along with it, then they're welcome to.

The idea of marriage as a contract and nothing else is a relatively new idea in law, and (to be honest) not one I'm entirely comfortable with.

I want to Marry the Grey Knight codex...is that legal?

Cheesecat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

The Crusader Of 42 wrote:i laugh when people call it immoral to be gay in this modern culture, but seem not to bat an eye at all the sexually charged images gracing the media.
For the "Its creepy..." argument...
OMG these gay neighbors of ours are GARDENING!!!
NOW THIER EATING DINNER!!!
and... now... thier.... PAYING THIER TAXES!

Freedom is what Americas recogized for, and freedoms what you are going to get... If your a rich, white,hetrosexual male

No. Freedom is what the United States is recognized for, not "America."

After-all there's a reason why Canada is sometimes nicknamed "Soviet Canuckistan".

I am so stealing this and sending to some of my comrades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Case Law is the area that predominantly labels marriage as, essentially, a contract. Legislation rarely terms it as such, and there is a lot more to marriage than "Goverment Control is Bad!".

You literally don't know what you're talking about. Go away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Government has no right ot be involved in marriage. Why is government telling people what they can and can't do? Its a contract, as long they are legally able to contract its their business.

Pretty sure it isn't. It's covered by legislation in most states.

New flash: thats the government. You want to get married-hey your funeral. The government should butt the out.

Case Law is the area that predominantly labels marriage as, essentially, a contract. Legislation rarely terms it as such, and there is a lot more to marriage than "Goverment Control is Bad!".

You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Chowderhead wrote:Not really. It's the crazy God-Fearing Conservatives who makes the entire system shut down like a raid on a brothel.

You need to work on your analogies.

It did sound cool though.

Frazzled wrote:
You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.

Really? You don't even understand that law doesn't just derive from legislation?


It's okay though, this is just another thread where you are completely ignorant of much of the material. Nothing new.

My question is why does the government have any say in marriage to begin with? Seriously, it's a case of the government assuming a power it had no business ever taking up. As far as the government should be concerned everyone is just a citizen. How we decide to pair off amongst ourselves should be our business alone.

I am not aware of any scientific evidence or non-religious rationale for preventing two men or two women from getting married. The Constitution doesn't allow the government to promote a religious view which throws out the "Bible says so," reason for preventing it. So with no good non-religious reason to prevent gay couples from being married the government should be allowing it if they insist on staying involved.

Also, when it comes to kids if I have to choose between leaving a kid a ward of the state in foster care or growing up with two mommies or two daddies, I'd rather see them with a stable loving gay couple.





In other news, I support gay marriage...


...if both chicks are hot.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.

Really? You don't even understand that law doesn't just derive from legislation?


It's okay though, this is just another thread where you are completely ignorant of much of the material. Nothing new.

You're right, the law doesn't come from legislation. Don't say that on a bar exam though.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.

Really? You don't even understand that law doesn't just derive from legislation?


It's okay though, this is just another thread where you are completely ignorant of much of the material. Nothing new.

You're right, the law doesn't come from legislation. Don't say that on a bar exam though.

Nice, a lawyer that's never heard of the Doctrine of Precedent. Bravo.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.

Really? You don't even understand that law doesn't just derive from legislation?


It's okay though, this is just another thread where you are completely ignorant of much of the material. Nothing new.

You're right, the law doesn't come from legislation. Don't say that on a bar exam though.

Nice, a lawyer that's never heard of the Doctrine of Precedent. Bravo.

You mean stare decisis? If you're going to play lawyer you need to use the big words.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.

Really? You don't even understand that law doesn't just derive from legislation?


It's okay though, this is just another thread where you are completely ignorant of much of the material. Nothing new.

You're right, the law doesn't come from legislation. Don't say that on a bar exam though.

Nice, a lawyer that's never heard of the Doctrine of Precedent. Bravo.

You mean stare decisis? If you're going to play lawyer you need to use the big words.

Fantastic, so you do know something, Frazzy. You just failed to realize it had anything to do with making law.

Tyyr wrote:My question is why does the government have any say in marriage to begin with? Seriously, it's a case of the government assuming a power it had no business ever taking up.

I agree. If you can conceive morality without religion, you should be able to conceive society without government.

Tyyr wrote:

In other news, I support gay marriage...


...if both chicks are hot.

I agree. If you can conceive the hot sex of straight marriage, you should be able to conceive the burning sex of Lesbian marriage.

Not to sound smug or anything, but it must be weird to live in a place with such open anti-gay prejudice...

I'm not saying the situation here is perfect in that regard, but still...

Albatross wrote:Not to sound smug or anything, but it must be weird to live in a place with such open anti-gay prejudice...

I'm not saying the situation here is perfect in that regard, but still...

Wait you live in the UK. Didn't they have to suspend antiviolence against homsexual marches because it would have offended other ethnic groups?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.

Really? You don't even understand that law doesn't just derive from legislation?


It's okay though, this is just another thread where you are completely ignorant of much of the material. Nothing new.

Actually if you look up Marriage Act you will find that there have been a number of Marriage Acts in the UK and Australia since the 18th century, e.g;

The Marriage Act 1753 (England)
The Marriage Act 1961 (Australia)

These show that there is primary legislation on the topic. Importantly, the 1753 Act replaced the kind of Common Law marriage that had previously been practiced.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
You literally don't know what you're talking about. After all, if it wasn't bassed on legislation it wouldn't be law that needed to be changed now would it? Go away.

Really? You don't even understand that law doesn't just derive from legislation?


It's okay though, this is just another thread where you are completely ignorant of much of the material. Nothing new.

Actually if you look up Marriage Act you will find that there have been a number of Marriage Acts in the UK and Australia since the 18th century, e.g;

The Marriage Act 1753 (England)
The Marriage Act 1961 (Australia)

These show that there is primary legislation on the topic. Importantly, the 1753 Act replaced the kind of Common Law marriage that had previously been practiced.

/Lawyered

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Not to sound smug or anything, but it must be weird to live in a place with such open anti-gay prejudice...

I'm not saying the situation here is perfect in that regard, but still...

Wait you live in the UK. Didn't they have to suspend antiviolence against homsexual marches because it would have offended other ethnic groups?

Source?

Also, 'homosexual' isn't an ethnic group. 'Ethnic' isn't shorthand for 'non-mainstream people that I dislike', you know...

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Not to sound smug or anything, but it must be weird to live in a place with such open anti-gay prejudice...

I'm not saying the situation here is perfect in that regard, but still...

Wait you live in the UK. Didn't they have to suspend antiviolence against homsexual marches because it would have offended other ethnic groups?

Source?

Also, 'homosexual' isn't an ethnic group. 'Ethnic' isn't shorthand for 'non-mainstream people that I dislike', you know...

This may be in unity with your "don't let the facts hold me back stance", which Frazzled identified in another thread.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/14/east-end-pride-should-be-cancelled-gay-campaigners-say/
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/3/16/east-end-gay-pride-march-cancelled.html

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/03/east-end-gay-pride-cancelled-amid.html#

Frazzled wrote:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/14/east-end-pride-should-be-cancelled-gay-campaigners-say/
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/3/16/east-end-gay-pride-march-cancelled.html

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/03/east-end-gay-pride-cancelled-amid.html#

Did you read them? Because you added several very quickly...

They're all about the same story, which has absolutely no relation to what you were talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:

This may be in unity with your "don't let the facts hold me back stance", which Frazzled identified in another thread.

Frazzled doesn't 'identify' jack gak - he's a childish reactionary. Be wary about clinging to his skirt.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/14/east-end-pride-should-be-cancelled-gay-campaigners-say/
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/3/16/east-end-gay-pride-march-cancelled.html

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/03/east-end-gay-pride-cancelled-amid.html#

Did you read them? Because you added several very quickly...

They're all about the same story, which has absolutely relation to what you were talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:

This may be in unity with your "don't let the facts hold me back stance", which Frazzled identified in another thread.

Frazzled doesn't 'identify' jack gak - he's a childish reactionary. Be wary about clinging to his skirt.

"Clinging to his skirt"?

At least you are On Topic...

however, you will notice that you are the first item of discussion that Frazzled and I have 100% agreed upon.

AvatarForm wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/14/east-end-pride-should-be-cancelled-gay-campaigners-say/
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/3/16/east-end-gay-pride-march-cancelled.html

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/03/east-end-gay-pride-cancelled-amid.html#

Did you read them? Because you added several very quickly...

They're all about the same story, which has absolutely relation to what you were talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:

This may be in unity with your "don't let the facts hold me back stance", which Frazzled identified in another thread.

Frazzled doesn't 'identify' jack gak - he's a childish reactionary. Be wary about clinging to his skirt.

"Clinging to his skirt"?

At least you are On Topic...

however, you will notice that you are the first item of discussion that Frazzled and I have 100% agreed upon.

And what item of discussion would that be? That I make you mad and you're unable to deal with it properly? For what it's worth, I agree with both of you on that.

Frazzled seemed to be claiming that a Pride march was canceled because police refused to protect it from attack, and posted articles purporting to support that. It's nonsense. It was cancelled not because it was a Gay Pride march, but because it was a Gay Pride march organised by one of the founders of the English Defence League, an anti-Islamic organisation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And how is 'clinging to his skirt' on-topic? What, because all gay men wear skirts?

Stay Classy, AvatarForm.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/14/east-end-pride-should-be-cancelled-gay-campaigners-say/
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2011/3/16/east-end-gay-pride-march-cancelled.html

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2011/03/east-end-gay-pride-cancelled-amid.html#

Did you read them? Because you added several very quickly...

They're all about the same story, which has absolutely relation to what you were talking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:

This may be in unity with your "don't let the facts hold me back stance", which Frazzled identified in another thread.

Frazzled doesn't 'identify' jack gak - he's a childish reactionary. Be wary about clinging to his skirt.

Childish? Come on haggislander get it right. Petty, mean, vindictive, block headed, luddite, well read (for 12th century peasant), but childish? Nah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:however, you will notice that you are the first item of discussion that Frazzled and I have 100% agreed upon.

Can we also then agree that chocolate and/or beer is excellent?

It's a pretty straight forward issue: it's hard to really read gay marriage as a constitutional right. There are some arguments for it, but frankly i think they're all lacking, as there is no precedent for orientation as a protected class (which is why Loving doesn't apply) and there is a difference between criminlizing behavior based on sex and refusing to actively encourage behavior based on sex (whcih i why lawrence doesn't apply).

So, if it's not a constituational right at the federal level, it needs to either be based on State constitutions or legislative action.

There is some honest to goodness bigotry in the anti-gay marriage issue, but they're the minority. I think they're the impetus, with a lot of the money coming from religious groups that are fighting the secularization of society. The votes, though, aren't from either group. I think there's just a big old silent majority in this country that deep down doesn't think it's right. Based on morality, personal disgust, religious views, ignorance, what have you, but the bulk of voters that oppose gay marriage are probably not Archie Bunker style bigots.

Civil marriage has little to do with love, religion, raising children, or living togeter. It has to do with legally creating families. Those creations have enormous repurcussions on issues of property, taxes, insurance, etc.

Is heterosexual marriage a constitutional right?

Kilkrazy wrote:Is heterosexual marriage a constitutional right?

Not in the strictest sense of myself and my (hypothetical) wife having a right to our marriage being recognized by the state.

Once the state starts recognizing marriages, however, like any other state action it cannot discriminate on unconstitutional grounds.

So, for example, Ohio could stop granting marriage licenses. They would still have to recognize marriages outside the state (full faith and credit), but nobody has the right (unless it's in the Ohio constiution, which it might be) for their marriage to be granted by Ohio.

What Ohio could not do is refuse to grant licenses due to race, ethnicity, or religion. They can, and do, deny based on age.

Basically, marriage isn't considered a consitutional right, but due process is, and due process requires equal treatment under the law.

Polonius wrote:It's a pretty straight forward issue: it's hard to really read gay marriage as a constitutional right. There are some arguments for it, but frankly i think they're all lacking, as there is no precedent for orientation as a protected class (which is why Loving doesn't apply) and there is a difference between criminlizing behavior based on sex and refusing to actively encourage behavior based on sex (whcih i why lawrence doesn't apply).

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree.

Lawrence made it clear that morality was insufficient even under the "rational basis" test for a law to survive a due process challenge.

Based on that precident, gay marriage is allowable. However, I'm sure we would agree that the strict holding of Lawrence is overbroad. Or, alternatively, that sexual orientation should be afforded at least intermediate scrutiny. That is, assuming you're not OK with overturning Lawrence, which is almost as bad a case as Roe.
(based on the legal reasoning, not the outcome)

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:Gay marriage is illegal? Where?

Do you go to jail for it?

Zimbabwe. You get hanged for it.

Not for getting married you don't. Zimbabwe has a lot of other problems to deal with before they start talking about gay marriage.

Try Uganda - they're attempting to pass a law to allow the death penalty for repeat offenders (referring to gay sex, not gay marriage). Have a search for Scott Mills' recent programme, The World's Worst Place to be Gay.

Now I've got the rest of the thread to read.

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is heterosexual marriage a constitutional right?

Not in the strictest sense of myself and my (hypothetical) wife having a right to our marriage being recognized by the state.

Once the state starts recognizing marriages, however, like any other state action it cannot discriminate on unconstitutional grounds.

So, for example, Ohio could stop granting marriage licenses. They would still have to recognize marriages outside the state (full faith and credit), but nobody has the right (unless it's in the Ohio constiution, which it might be) for their marriage to be granted by Ohio.

What Ohio could not do is refuse to grant licenses due to race, ethnicity, or religion. They can, and do, deny based on age.

Basically, marriage isn't considered a consitutional right, but due process is, and due process requires equal treatment under the law.

Most states had laws against mixed race marriages until 1948, and later in some cases.

Was this unconstitutional?

Polonius wrote: probably not Archie Bunker style bigots.

Bigotry isn't just a caricature. Generally good people can still be bigoted in relation to certain issue. Someone who would generally not considered a bigot that feels homosexuals don't deserve equal rights becuase they were taught (at home or in Sunday School) that homosexuality is wrong still holds a bigoted view. Most bigots don't look like Archie Bunker. They look like a normal person and sound like a normal person till whatever their prejudice is pops its head up. I recall a youth church meeting where the discussion was on racism. Of course they were against it...until interracial marriage came up. They felt that different 'races' shouldn't marry. This wasn't that long ago. If people can still hold that miscegenation is wrong, why should I believe that just becuase they also think that gays shouldn't be allowed to be married that it is a rational choice not from ignorance?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is heterosexual marriage a constitutional right?

Not in the strictest sense of myself and my (hypothetical) wife having a right to our marriage being recognized by the state.

Once the state starts recognizing marriages, however, like any other state action it cannot discriminate on unconstitutional grounds.

So, for example, Ohio could stop granting marriage licenses. They would still have to recognize marriages outside the state (full faith and credit), but nobody has the right (unless it's in the Ohio constiution, which it might be) for their marriage to be granted by Ohio.

What Ohio could not do is refuse to grant licenses due to race, ethnicity, or religion. They can, and do, deny based on age.

Basically, marriage isn't considered a consitutional right, but due process is, and due process requires equal treatment under the law.

Most states had laws against mixed race marriages until 1948, and later in some cases.

Was this unconstitutional?

It was determined to be unconstitutuional under the Post Civil War amendments to the consititution and legislation under those amendments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote: probably not Archie Bunker style bigots.

Bigotry isn't just a caricature. Generally good people can still be bigoted in relation to certain issue. Someone who would generally not considered a bigot that feels homosexuals don't deserve equal rights becuase they were taught (at home or in Sunday School) that homosexuality is wrong still holds a bigoted view. Most bigots don't look like Archie Bunker. They look like a normal person and sound like a normal person till whatever their prejudice is pops its head up. I recall a youth church meeting where the discussion was on racism. Of course they were against it...until interracial marriage came up. They felt that different 'races' shouldn't marry. This wasn't that long ago. If people can still hold that miscegenation is wrong, why should I believe that just becuase they also think that gays shouldn't be allowed to be married that it is a rational choice not from ignorance?

translation: if you believe differently than I you are a bigot.

Kilkrazy wrote:Most states had laws against mixed race marriages until 1948, and later in some cases.

Was this unconstitutional?

Come on, this isn't fun. That's an easy question.

Here's a fun one: was Dred Scott on solid ground, constitutionally?

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:It's a pretty straight forward issue: it's hard to really read gay marriage as a constitutional right. There are some arguments for it, but frankly i think they're all lacking, as there is no precedent for orientation as a protected class (which is why Loving doesn't apply) and there is a difference between criminlizing behavior based on sex and refusing to actively encourage behavior based on sex (whcih i why lawrence doesn't apply).

Sorry, but I'd have to disagree.

Lawrence made it clear that morality was insufficient even under the "rational basis" test for a law to survive a due process challenge.

Based on that precident, gay marriage is allowable. However, I'm sure we would agree that the strict holding of Lawrence is overbroad. Or, alternatively, that sexual orientation should be afforded at least intermediate scrutiny. That is, assuming you're not OK with overturning Lawrence, which is almost as bad a case as Roe.
(based on the legal reasoning, not the outcome)

You're applying an overly broad reading of Lawrence. Lawrence struck down laws that criminlized behaviors that the court felt were private (I'm not going to pretend that there's constitutional basis for it, but they did). The argument, which is similar to Roe, is that certain actions are so private that the government cannot interfere.

It doesn't apply to marriage, because the government creates marriage (at least it's recognition of it) for it's own ends. Lawrence could be used to overturn laws prohibiting same sex cohabitation, but the "right to use ones body as he wishes" (the essential liberty behind Lawrence ) does not imply government sanction and support. It simply prevents criminilzation.

Morality alone is not sufficient under rational basis, although any case involving a some form of due process require more that rationale basis. Nobody denies that hte state has a rational basis in banning abortion, or even contraception, yet those are allowed.

Besides, rational basis is a really weak standard to meet. The state can simply say that same sex marriage is banned because it can never result in children, and the state wants to encourage children. You don't need to be consistent (old people, the sterile, etc.) just have a rational basis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Most states had laws against mixed race marriages until 1948, and later in some cases.

Was this unconstitutional?

Yes. Any state action that discriminates based on race is held to strict scrutiny, and there is no compelling governmental interest in prohibiting mix race marriages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

Polonius wrote: probably not Archie Bunker style bigots.

Bigotry isn't just a caricature. Generally good people can still be bigoted in relation to certain issue. Someone who would generally not considered a bigot that feels homosexuals don't deserve equal rights becuase they were taught (at home or in Sunday School) that homosexuality is wrong still holds a bigoted view. Most bigots don't look like Archie Bunker. They look like a normal person and sound like a normal person till whatever their prejudice is pops its head up. I recall a youth church meeting where the discussion was on racism. Of course they were against it...until interracial marriage came up. They felt that different 'races' shouldn't marry. This wasn't that long ago. If people can still hold that miscegenation is wrong, why should I believe that just becuase they also think that gays shouldn't be allowed to be married that it is a rational choice not from ignorance?

I'd distinguish between having a bigoted view and being a bigot. It's narrow, but I'm trying to be polite.

Polonius wrote:You're applying an overly broad reading of Lawrence. Lawrence struck down laws that criminlized behaviors that the court felt were private (I'm not going to pretend that there's constitutional basis for it, but they did). The argument, which is similar to Roe, is that certain actions are so private that the government cannot interfere.

The court didn't apply any scrutiny. Which is one problem with the decision.

Polonius wrote:Morality alone is not sufficient under rational basis, although any case involving a some form of due process require more that rationale basis. Nobody denies that hte state has a rational basis in banning abortion, or even contraception, yet those are allowed.

You're assuming that the case was a substantive due process claim. But it was more of an equal protection claim than due process. The statute on its face discriminated against homosexuals, and therefore it should have been decided at least on equal protection grounds.

Polonius wrote:Besides, rational basis is a really weak standard to meet. The state can simply say that same sex marriage is banned because it can never result in children, and the state wants to encourage children. You don't need to be consistent (old people, the sterile, etc.) just have a rational basis.

You're right, it should be a weak standard, but according to Kennedy (and Stevens, per his dissent in Bowers, adopted by the court) argue that morality has no place in laws.

Read Scalia's dissent, he pretty much tears apart the reasoning in Lawrence.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:You're applying an overly broad reading of Lawrence. Lawrence struck down laws that criminlized behaviors that the court felt were private (I'm not going to pretend that there's constitutional basis for it, but they did). The argument, which is similar to Roe, is that certain actions are so private that the government cannot interfere.

The court didn't apply any scrutiny. Which is one problem with the decision.

Polonius wrote:Morality alone is not sufficient under rational basis, although any case involving a some form of due process require more that rationale basis. Nobody denies that hte state has a rational basis in banning abortion, or even contraception, yet those are allowed.

You're assuming that the case was a substantive due process claim. But it was more of an equal protection claim than due process. The statute on its face discriminated against homosexuals, and therefore it should have been decided at least on equal protection grounds.

Polonius wrote:Besides, rational basis is a really weak standard to meet. The state can simply say that same sex marriage is banned because it can never result in children, and the state wants to encourage children. You don't need to be consistent (old people, the sterile, etc.) just have a rational basis.

You're right, it should be a weak standard, but according to Kennedy (and Stevens, per his dissent in Bowers, adopted by the court) argue that morality has no place in laws.

Read Scalia's dissent, he pretty much tears apart the reasoning in Lawrence.

At this point, I'm really not sure what you're saying. I'm sure I read the case in Con Law, and Scalia is a brilliant originalist.

You're also overreading Steven's analysis. He's not saying that morality has no place in laws. If that were the case than there could be few, if any, obscenity laws. His statement was "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice." Sodomy in particular has a troubled legal past. It was seldom explicitly defined, and was never really illegal for any reason other than religious or overall ickiness. It's also one of the few things that you can think of banning solely on moral grounds. Additionally, if you go back and see Bowers (the case Steven's quote is from), it's actually the first clause of a sentence. The second reads that traditionally morality wasn't enough to save anti-miscegenation laws. So, his point wasn't that morality has no place, but that morality can't trump personal liberty, especially when there are protected rights.

If you're point is that the Court does a lot of hand waving when it really wants to overturn laws it doesn't like, than I wholly agree. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Polonius wrote:If you're point is that the Court does a lot of hand waving when it really wants to overturn laws it doesn't like, than I wholly agree. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

My point is, if you ignore the handwaving and interpret Lawrence as a legitimate opinion as far as stare decisis is concerned, laws such as anti-obscenity and laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman should be struck down.

In short, morality is insufficient, even under rational basis, to support the constitutionality of a law. This is a problem.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:If you're point is that the Court does a lot of hand waving when it really wants to overturn laws it doesn't like, than I wholly agree. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're arguing.

My point is, if you ignore the handwaving and interpret Lawrence as a legitimate opinion as far as stare decisis is concerned, laws such as anti-obscenity and laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman should be struck down.

In short, morality is insufficient, even under rational basis, to support the constitutionality of a law. This is a problem.

Don't make the mistake of confusing analysis with the holding of a case. The holding was:
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "

The stuff about morality wasn't the holding of the case. It certainly hasn't been used as precedent, that I'm aware of.

And, as I've stated, it's not hard to come up with a non-moral reason for only approving heterosexual marriages. Propagation of children is one of them.

On an aside, maybe I'm missing something, but if there is no reason for a law other than "morality," than maybe it really shouldn't be a law, you know? I mean, if nobody is hurt, and nothing bad happens, why make it illegal?

Polonius wrote:Don't make the mistake of confusing analysis with the holding of a case. The holding was:
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "

I'm not confusing the holding with the analysis.

"JUSTICE STEVENS' analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here." It's hard to argue that this wasn't the reasoning for the court reaching its decision.

Although, if you really want to be pedantic, the specific holding of the case was "The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Don't make the mistake of confusing analysis with the holding of a case. The holding was:
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "

I'm not confusing the holding with the analysis.

"JUSTICE STEVENS' analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here." It's hard to argue that this wasn't the reasoning for the court reaching its decision.

Which is why I'm not. The analysis was used to reach it's decision. The analysis wasn't the decision.

Even so, you can't cherry pick one clause and run with it. The original paragraph from Bowers:
"First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. [Footnote 4/9] Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965). Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried, as well as married, persons. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678 (1977); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972). "

Does not disallow prohibiting things that are immoral, merely those things that are viewed as immoral. Also, you need to have a reason to challenge a law. His point is that if there is some right being infringed, the state can't simply say "well, it's always been bad."

Although, if you really want to be pedantic, the specific holding of the case was "The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

Not quite. It's actually the order. A legal holding is the courts determination on a matter of law. Many lawyers have tried to expand holdings far out of proportion. It seldom ends well.

Polonius wrote:Not quite. It's actually the order. A legal holding is the courts determination on a matter of law. Many lawyers have tried to expand holdings far out of proportion. It seldom ends well.

If you ask 100 different lawyers the holding of a case, you will get 99 different answers.

Assuming one of them is an associate.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Not quite. It's actually the order. A legal holding is the courts determination on a matter of law. Many lawyers have tried to expand holdings far out of proportion. It seldom ends well.

If you ask 100 different lawyers the holding of a case, you will get 99 different answers.

Assuming one of them is an associate.

Ask a 100 lawyers that do appellate work what they'd argue to a court what the holding a case is, and you'll get far fewer answers. I'm not sure if you're comment is based on anything other than a deep rooted cynicism on the legal system, because these areas aren't as unsettled as you seem to think.

I'm also assuming that since you keep avoiding my points in order to argue tangential issues that you're more or less giving up on those. which is a shame, because I think you have some interesting ideas,

Polonius wrote:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Not quite. It's actually the order. A legal holding is the courts determination on a matter of law. Many lawyers have tried to expand holdings far out of proportion. It seldom ends well.

If you ask 100 different lawyers the holding of a case, you will get 99 different answers.

Assuming one of them is an associate.

Ask a 100 lawyers that do appellate work what they'd argue to a court what the holding a case is, and you'll get far fewer answers. I'm not sure if you're comment is based on anything other than a deep rooted cynicism on the legal system, because these areas aren't as unsettled as you seem to think.

I'm also assuming that since you keep avoiding my points in order to argue tangential issues that you're more or less giving up on those. which is a shame, because I think you have some interesting ideas,

I'm not sure which points you think I've been ignoring.

Well, pretty much all of my discussion on the ramifications on a holding that morality is insufficient to uphold a law.

I guess in general you've been responding to one point I make, and not to the entire post.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Marriage Act 1961 (Australia)

These show that there is primary legislation on the topic. Importantly, the 1753 Act replaced the kind of Common Law marriage that had previously been practiced.

This Act in particular is the one we are currently studying.

When I was talking about Case Law, I was reffering to precedent set by Cohen v Stellar in regards to engagement gifts and how these worked like a contract.

It really is a fascinating case, and (having been decided in 1923) the judge was having difficulty with asserting that marriage (especially the engagement gifts beforehand) should at like a contract. Beforehand such issues were almost solely a matter for the church.

Cheesecat wrote:Isn't that Libertarianism not liberalism?

No, it isn't. Liberal has multiple meanings. When used in the context of liberal democracy it has a very specific, technical meaning.

You can read about it if you want, the wiki entry isn't great but it's a start;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Polygamy has been going on for a long, long time before the United States was even a twinkle in Thomas Jefferson's eye. These issues are not new, and are easily overcome.

Then solve it. Come on. Explain how courts are to decide property and child access in the event of a divorce between one man and two women.

Also, do you understand what bigamy is? Because four wives and six husbands is not bigamy.

Yes. Did you follow the logical end position of your very silly claim about bigamy, why not polygamy and polyamory?

This is a moral argument. There's no rational, amoral reason to suggest that children under 18 can't grant consent.

It's not a moral argument. It's a rational position drawn from our ideas of contract, and who is capable of entering in to such a contract and who is not.

Something tells me you've never really read anything about how morality and reason can interact, and seem to have wandered into this thread thinking the two are completely seperate from each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:The idea of marriage as a contract and nothing else is a relatively new idea in law, and (to be honest) not one I'm entirely comfortable with.

In terms of the law, marriage has always been a contract and nothing else. Any religious trappings the couples wants to place on it has always been irrelevant to how the marriage is dealt with in a court of law.

Polonius wrote:Well, pretty much all of my discussion on the ramifications on a holding that morality is insufficient to uphold a law.

I guess in general you've been responding to one point I make, and not to the entire post.

Well, I apologize for not addressing it. The only place I had seen you make that argument was in an edit which was after I had clicked "quote". So again, sorry for missing it.

I think that the use of morality to create law is a policy decision and not a Constitutional one.

sebster wrote:Then solve it. Come on. Explain how courts are to decide property and child access in the event of a divorce between one man and two women.

First, you would have to explain what the status of the marriage is. Is the husband married to each of the women? Are the women married to each other? Marriage is essentially (although it isn't) a contract. This requires two people. So in the example you suggest, there would have to be at least two marriages (possibly three). H to W1 and H to W2.

Assuming this as the simple case, then we have to turn to what is meant by "divorce." Is the husband divorcing one of the wives or both of them? I'll assume that there is only one divorce - between H and W1.

On the division of property, case law assumes that a husband and wife contribute equally to the wealth of the household. There are, therefore, two possible situations:
each wife & husband pair contributes equally (H gets 50%, W1 gets 25%, W2 gets 25%).
everyone contributes equally to the 'family unit' (H gets 33%, W1 gets 33%, W2 gets 33%).

Equity would suggest that H shouldn't be counted twice for no additional work, so option 2 is best, although a policy argument can be made for either. When H and W1 break it off, H and W2 get 66% of the assets and W1 gets 33% of the assets.

On child custody, it's even easier. Parental rights are inherent in the biological father and mother. If H and W1 get divorced, there's no custodial issue regarding W2's children. If the issue is custody of W1's children, then it's resolved exactly as it is today (that is, very poorly).

sebster wrote:In terms of the law, marriage has always been a contract and nothing else. Any religious trappings the couples wants to place on it has always been irrelevant to how the marriage is dealt with in a court of law.

It's a "marriage contract," not a contract. There is a substantial difference.

Contracts require a minimum of two contracting parties and this is the most common form of contract seen, however it is not a legal limit, and there is no reason in principal why a contract of marriage should not be formed between three or more people.

Other than bigamy laws, of course.

Kilkrazy wrote:Contracts require a minimum of two contracting parties and this is the most common form of contract seen, however it is not a legal limit, and there is no reason in principal why a contract of marriage should not be formed between three or more people.

Other than bigamy laws, of course.

Bigamy laws generally read "no married person shall marry another person," and presume a two-party marriage.

biccat wrote:I think that the use of morality to create law is a policy decision and not a Constitutional one.

I'm not sure entirely what you mean. Are you saying that morality should be used, even if it would conflict with a constitutional right?

Morality can be a basis for laws, it happens all the time. It conly because a constitutional issue when the morality conflicts with the constitution.

So, regulating prostitution on moral grounds is probably ok. Regulating pornography on moral grounds runs into 1st amendment issues.

Banning pork because red meat is unhealthy is ok. banning pork because pig farming is cruel is probably ok. Banning pork because it's not Kosherwould not be, as it runs counter to the establishment clause.

SCOTUS, for the last 70 years or so, has consistently not allowed morality to trump constitutional rights.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Marriage Act 1961 (Australia)

These show that there is primary legislation on the topic. Importantly, the 1753 Act replaced the kind of Common Law marriage that had previously been practiced.

This Act in particular is the one we are currently studying.

When I was talking about Case Law, I was reffering to precedent set by Cohen v Stellar in regards to engagement gifts and how these worked like a contract.

It really is a fascinating case, and (having been decided in 1923) the judge was having difficulty with asserting that marriage (especially the engagement gifts beforehand) should at like a contract. Beforehand such issues were almost solely a matter for the church.

Breach of Promise is a common theme in Victorian Era comic theatre, however by the early 20th century its significance had faded.

The government of England has been issuing Acts relating to marriages since at least 1235, so there is substantial statue law on the topic separate to common law and church law.

I"m not sure how much I'd call marriage a contract. The agreement to get married is very much a contract (which is why I have an engagment ring in a saftey deposit box), but marriage is a recognitiion that two people have become family.

It has broad affects across many areas of government. you can't otherwise contract for a person you know to recieve widow(er)'s benefits, or to file your taxes with as a married couple (although head of household fills some of that).

A big chunk of the benefits of marriage can be gained through other legal avenues: wills, power of attorney, etc. But there are a lot that cannot. Marriage has a lot of benefits (and costs) that all come at once.

Polonius wrote:So, regulating prostitution on moral grounds is probably ok.

How is this OK? If there's a right to engage in private consentual sex (as you're suggesting is the holding of Lawrence), then you're trumping that right by outlawing prostitution.

Polonius wrote:Banning pork because red meat is unhealthy is ok. banning pork because pig farming is cruel is probably ok. Banning pork because it's not Kosherwould not be, as it runs counter to the establishment clause.

Only under the Lemon test. Which has it's own problems. For example, if you ban pork because pig farming is cruel and because pork is not Kosher, the law would be struck down. Even mentioning Kosher laws during congressional debate would be enough to get the law struck under Lemon.

Polonius wrote:SCOTUS, for the last 70 years or so, has consistently not allowed morality to trump constitutional rights.

You will have to be clearer what you mean about "constitutional rights." I assume you have some amount of legal education, and therefore understand that constitutional rights are not absolute but rather, laws limiting rights guaranteed by the Constitution are analyzed based on varying levels of scrutiny: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis.

Morality should be sufficient to satisfy a rational basis for a law. Therefore, laws discriminating against non-suspect classes (which currently includes sexual orientation) should be sustained even if the only reason for the discrimination is morality.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:So, regulating prostitution on moral grounds is probably ok.

How is this OK? If there's a right to engage in private consentual sex (as you're suggesting is the holding of Lawrence), then you're trumping that right by outlawing prostitution.

It's an interesting argument, and one that I'm sure has been attempted. I would imagine prostitution would be distinguished based on being neither private (money changed hands) and oftentimes not completely consensual. It's a hairline distinction, but it can be distinguished. Prostitution also has ramifications on the community, spreads disease, and encourages sex slavery. Consensual sodomy doesn't (few sodomites are promiscous enough to spread disease as much as a pro.)

Polonius wrote:Banning pork because red meat is unhealthy is ok. banning pork because pig farming is cruel is probably ok. Banning pork because it's not Kosherwould not be, as it runs counter to the establishment clause.

Only under the Lemon test. Which has it's own problems. For example, if you ban pork because pig farming is cruel and because pork is not Kosher, the law would be struck down. Even mentioning Kosher laws during congressional debate would be enough to get the law struck under Lemon.

The pork example is weak, because no state would do that. I think you're overstating the impact of the Lemon test. If lemon had the power you state, than gay marriage bans in nearly every state would be struck down, as somebody mentioned religion in nearly every debate. Also, if a state said "we are passing a law to make the laws of Torah binding" you wouldn't need the Lemon test to strick it down: that's plainly establishing religion. Lemon is used when a religion is benefitted, but the actual affect was secular.

Polonius wrote:SCOTUS, for the last 70 years or so, has consistently not allowed morality to trump constitutional rights.

You will have to be clearer what you mean about "constitutional rights." I assume you have some amount of legal education, and therefore understand that constitutional rights are not absolute but rather, laws limiting rights guaranteed by the Constitution are analyzed based on varying levels of scrutiny: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis.

I remember some of that from law school, yeah.

There plenty of different level of scrutiny. When you look at first amendment law, things get really fuzzy.

Morality should be sufficient to satisfy a rational basis for a law. Therefore, laws discriminating against non-suspect classes (which currently includes sexual orientation) should be sustained even if the only reason for the discrimination is morality.

Which they are. When aren't they?

Equal protection is only one way a law can be struck down, of course. A law that prohibits wearing stupid t-shirts won't be struck down on equal protection (as hipster isn't a protected class), but on first amendment grounds.

Lawrence wasn't decided on equal protection grounds (aside from O'Connors concurring opinion), but on substantive due process grounds.

Polonius wrote:

Morality should be sufficient to satisfy a rational basis for a law. Therefore, laws discriminating against non-suspect classes (which currently includes sexual orientation) should be sustained even if the only reason for the discrimination is morality.

Which they are. When aren't they?

Under a fair reading of Lawrence, which is the point I've been making.

Polonius wrote:Lawrence wasn't decided on equal protection grounds (aside from O'Connors concurring opinion), but on substantive due process grounds.

The court didn't state that there was a fundamental right to engage in sodomy. They overruled the specific result in Bowers, but didn't overrule the rationale that led there.

Somehow, the right to "due process" changed to the right to "liberty."

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Morality should be sufficient to satisfy a rational basis for a law. Therefore, laws discriminating against non-suspect classes (which currently includes sexual orientation) should be sustained even if the only reason for the discrimination is morality.

Which they are. When aren't they?

Under a fair reading of Lawrence, which is the point I've been making.

So, you're saying that if the courts read Lawrence the same way you do, they would then make future decisions that would rely on faulty analysis. yet they haven't yet, either because they're not reading it correctly, or becasue they've changed their mind.

Of course, it's possible that you're reading their decision incorrectly. I really don't mean to sound impolite, but I think you're seeing something in Lawrence that isn't there, and are now convinced that it is going to overturn laws all over the place. The fact that seven years later it hasn't should show that maybe you're not analysing it properly.

I'm struggling to see what your point actually is, other than you seem to think that Lawrence's holding could lead to soemthing bad.

Polonius wrote:Lawrence wasn't decided on equal protection grounds (aside from O'Connors concurring opinion), but on substantive due process grounds.

The court didn't state that there was a fundamental right to engage in sodomy. They overruled the specific result in Bowers, but didn't overrule the rationale that led there.

Somehow, the right to "due process" changed to the right to "liberty."

taht's what substantive due process is. Yes, it's made up. It's the same rationale for about a half dozen cases on similar lines.

Polonius wrote:So, you're saying that if the courts read Lawrence the same way you do, they would then make future decisions that would rely on faulty analysis. yet they haven't yet, either because they're not reading it correctly, or becasue they've changed their mind.

Of course, it's possible that you're reading their decision incorrectly. I really don't mean to sound impolite, but I think you're seeing something in Lawrence that isn't there, and are now convinced that it is going to overturn laws all over the place. The fact that seven years later it hasn't should show that maybe you're not analysing it properly.

There's no mention in Lawrence that homosexual sodomy is a fundamental right.

"Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government."

Everyone agrees that 'liberty' under the due process clause is expansive. However, substantive due process doesn't care about liberties, it cares about fundamental liberties. The court did not say that sodomy (of any sort) is a fundamental right. I'm not sure why you continue to misinterpret what the court is saying in Lawrence.

"The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest"
This is the language of the rational basis test. The rational basis test doesn't apply to substantive due process. If this is a substantive due process case, why is the court applying the rational basis test?

Polonius wrote:I'm struggling to see what your point actually is, other than you seem to think that Lawrence's holding could lead to soemthing bad.

Bad decisions can lead to bad law. I was not aware that this was controversial.

Polonius wrote:

Lawrence wasn't decided on equal protection grounds (aside from O'Connors concurring opinion), but on substantive due process grounds.

The court didn't state that there was a fundamental right to engage in sodomy. They overruled the specific result in Bowers, but didn't overrule the rationale that led there.

Somehow, the right to "due process" changed to the right to "liberty."

taht's what substantive due process is. Yes, it's made up. It's the same rationale for about a half dozen cases on similar lines.

The 14th amendment allows that liberties may be infringed by the state. That's why the court has adopted tests. Line-drawing between those tests requires some differentiation between liberties (that is, the liberty to engage in prostitution).

The court has said that certain rights are fundamental, and therefore subject to a higher level of scrutiny. The court did not say that a fundamental right was implicated in this case.

This isn't a particularly hard case. Kennedy is a good writer and doesn't bury his rationale for deciding the case in the manner he did. I don't see why you're having such a hard time with this.

edit: fixed quote tags.

Ok, fine. I find all of these cases to be suspect in their reasoning, so frankly I didn't spend a lot of time reading every line. I see your point now about the use of rational basis, and then rejecting morality alone.

Rational basis is tricky, because the court rarely overturns anything with it, so when it does, it's assumed that they really used a slightly stricter test. Other thinkers think that the rational basis test is generally too lax. If you're starting to think that supreme court justices decide how a case should come out, and then draft their analysis to support it, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The problem in lawrence is that there is a fundamental right at stake: the right to have private, consensual sexual relations. Now, states regulate that all the time, with laws against incest, or laws regarding age of consent (which I supposed makes it a matter of consent, but nobody has been able to explain why Ohio girls gain the ability to consent two years before girls in California), but those involve some other state interests. What possible state interest was at stake in the sodomy laws? What reason is there for those laws, other than people simply think sodomy is bad?

Again, my question becomes, let's say that the holding of Lawrence is "morality alone is not enough to satisfy a rational basis test."

So what? What laws would be struck down that are so essential?

What laws can a state not come up with some reason outside of "we just dont' like it?"

Rational basis still requires at least some actual reason. I don't see the problem with eliminating "we've always thought it was wrong" as a such a reason.

Polonius wrote:Again, my question becomes, let's say that the holding of Lawrence is "morality alone is not enough to satisfy a rational basis test."

So what? What laws would be struck down that are so essential?

Prostitution, adult incest, obscenity, fornication, beastiality, bigamy, same-sex marriage, obscenity, and that's just the ones in the dissent.

Presumably laws regulating private drug use, animal cruelty, and adult bookstore zoning would likely be struck down.

Polonius wrote:What laws can a state not come up with some reason outside of "we just dont' like it?"

Rational basis still requires at least some actual reason. I don't see the problem with eliminating "we've always thought it was wrong" as a such a reason.

I think public perceptions of morality should be sufficient reason to support a law. The legislature should not have to have additional justification for their decisions unless a fundamental right is implicated (or certain classes of discrimination).

If a specific town outlaws the consumption of pork simply because "pork is bad", that should withstand rational basis review.

edit: I should note that this assumes that the Court (and the lower courts especially) will interpret Lawrence's reasoning as binding precedent, rather than the political theater that it appears to have been.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, my question becomes, let's say that the holding of Lawrence is "morality alone is not enough to satisfy a rational basis test."

So what? What laws would be struck down that are so essential?

Prostitution, adult incest, obscenity, fornication, beastiality, bigamy, same-sex marriage, obscenity, and that's just the ones in the dissent.

Presumably laws regulating private drug use, animal cruelty, and adult bookstore zoning would likely be struck down.

Of course, none of the above have yet, which given the time, means at least something.

Prostitution has problems outside of morality: increased crime, huge potentials for abuse of the women, and the spreading of disease. Those are all legitimate state interests. Of course, I'd argue that prostitution shoudl be legal and regulated, so the laws as such aren't essential. Either ways, they'd survive rational basis.

Obscenity is an interesting category, because there is no inherent right to obscenity, even given free speech. The lawrence analysis wont' apply, because obscenity is by definintion not protected speech. Again, I don't see the problem with allowing obscenity.

Are there still states with fornication laws? I didn't think it was a crime anywhere.

Beasitiality would be banned under the concept of consent. an animal cannot consent.

Bigamy and same sex marriage can be prohibited because the state has a legitimate interest in encouraing family structutes that produce kids and a minimum of hassle.

Private drug use is a tough one, but 1) drugs are unhealthy, and 2) drug use fuels criminal drug trade

Animal cruelty has the word cruelty in the title. Preventing cruelty, even to animals, is a legitimate interest. Tie in the link between animal abuse and eventual violence against humans, and that's easy to pass muster.

Adult bookstore zoning laws are tough because that darned first amendment protects the right to smut. They're on their way out, and you don't need Lawrence to do away with them. The secondary effects docrtine still holds some water though.

Most of those would still pass the Lawrence test. The ones that wouldn't would be fornciation and obscenity, although I fail to see why they should be banned.

Polonius wrote:What laws can a state not come up with some reason outside of "we just dont' like it?"

Rational basis still requires at least some actual reason. I don't see the problem with eliminating "we've always thought it was wrong" as a such a reason.

I think public perceptions of morality should be sufficient reason to support a law. The legislature should not have to have additional justification for their decisions unless a fundamental right is implicated (or certain classes of discrimination).

If a specific town outlaws the consumption of pork simply because "pork is bad", that should withstand rational basis review.

edit: I should note that this assumes that the Court (and the lower courts especially) will interpret Lawrence's reasoning as binding precedent, rather than the political theater that it appears to have been.

Well, no courts are going to interpret the reasonin in lawrence as binding, because courts don't find reasoning to be binding. They find holdings to be binding. Still, even under your interpretation of Lawrence it seems that the only things that are at risk are "victimless" crimes. There seems to be no harm to society from sodomy, fornication, or obscenity other than the fact that many people think those things are immoral.

I mean, I know your problem seems to be that you think that states should be able to legislate morality, particularl a fairly old school puritanical one. And that's a fine philosophy, and arguably even what the founders intended. I agree that the court has stretched the constiution to protect rights it thinks we should have. I'm happy with the result (as I enjoy the hell out of fornication, heterosexual sodomy, and contraception), but I'm worried about the ramifications of having current taste, not the text and it's history, determine our rights.

That said, you're predicting a doomsday scenario that 1) isn't really a doomsday, and 2) won't happen because the facts are different.

OBJECTION!




Am I doing it right?

Albatross wrote:OBJECTION!




Am I doing it right?

You need to give the grounds for your objection.

This is an interesting legal discussion, because the argument that Lawrence (and nearly all similar cases) were poorly decided is pretty hard to refute.

On the other hand, I agree that a state needs to say more than "buttsecks is wrong" to ban it. Laws can't be arbitrary, even if they reflect a majority veiw.

Polonius wrote:

Albatross wrote:OBJECTION!




Am I doing it right?

You need to give the grounds for your objection.

Overruled.

Suffice to say we disagree on the preceding points.

Polonius wrote:Well, no courts are going to interpret the reasonin in lawrence as binding, because courts don't find reasoning to be binding. They find holdings to be binding.

Then you don't understand much about how courts interpret decisions by the SCOTUS. The reasoning is binding because not all cases are the same, and the courts will look to the SCOTUS to determine how to decide a case.

Polonius wrote:Still, even under your interpretation of Lawrence it seems that the only things that are at risk are "victimless" crimes. There seems to be no harm to society from sodomy, fornication, or obscenity other than the fact that many people think those things are immoral.

No harm to individuals, but the purpose of public morality is that there is a harm to society by legalizing immoral acts.

Polonius wrote:I mean, I know your problem seems to be that you think that states should be able to legislate morality, particularl a fairly old school puritanical one. And that's a fine philosophy, and arguably even what the founders intended. I agree that the court has stretched the constiution to protect rights it thinks we should have. I'm happy with the result (as I enjoy the hell out of fornication, heterosexual sodomy, and contraception), but I'm worried about the ramifications of having current taste, not the text and it's history, determine our rights.

I agree with the last point. Which is why I think that the most intellectually consistent position is originalism and textualism.

The problem is, you like the result that the court has given you. But what about when the court recognizes a private right that you don't agree with? Also, do you really think that the sale of contraception would still be illegal absent a Supreme Court decision to the contrary? I think that people probably would have elected representatives to overturn such a law by now.

Polonius wrote:That said, you're predicting a doomsday scenario that 1) isn't really a doomsday, and 2) won't happen because the facts are different.

You can't simply distinguish Lawrence on it's facts. It is a case in the SCOTUS' substantive due process portfolio (maybe) and arguably equal protection, and therefore should be given due consideration.

I haven't Shepardized the case, so I can't comment on how often it's been followed, but it's still a relatively young case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

Albatross wrote:OBJECTION!




Am I doing it right?

You need to give the grounds for your objection.

Just say "OBJECTION, HEARSAY!"

That works for just about anything. And the rest you can strenuously argue until you remember what your objection was supposed to be.

biccat wrote:No harm to individuals, but the purpose of public morality is that there is a harm to society by legalizing immoral acts.

Or by illegalising immoral acts, amirite?

(the joke there is that the war on drugs has done more damage to the united states than drugs ever could have hoped for themselves, and has been utterly ineffective in preventing their spread to boot)

biccat wrote:Then you don't understand much about how courts interpret decisions by the SCOTUS. The reasoning is binding because not all cases are the same, and the courts will look to the SCOTUS to determine how to decide a case.

They are going to look at all of the reasoning, though, not just one tidbit. When a case comes up, they'll decide if there is a fundamental right at issue (such as private consunsual sex), they will then need to decide if there is legitimate state interest. I'm struggling to come up with another example of a case that would be overturned under the lawrence standard, but not any other.

No harm to individuals, but the purpose of public morality is that there is a harm to society by legalizing immoral acts.

What harm? This is going round and round, because you're trying to figure out a way for a state to ban soemthing simply because people think it's wrong, but with no actual negative effects. Lots of things used to be banned because people thought there were negative effects, but these have been cleared up. Hell, homosexuality was seen as a mental illness 50 years ago. So yeah, laws forbidding it made sense, because we didn't want people to be mentally ill.

What harm is done to society to allowing oral and anal sex? I mean, really?

I agree with the last point. Which is why I think that the most intellectually consistent position is originalism and textualism.

textualilsm is a pretty intellecutally shallow stance. originalism is very different, and it's my view, thanks to a brilliant con law professor.

The problem is, you like the result that the court has given you. But what about when the court recognizes a private right that you don't agree with? Also, do you really think that the sale of contraception would still be illegal absent a Supreme Court decision to the contrary? I think that people probably would have elected representatives to overturn such a law by now.

I dont' know. You seem to think that I'm defending Lawrence, when I'm really not. I'm merely trying to explain why the effects you predict based on it are unlikely.

I've, I believe in this exact thread, stated that I don't think it's the role of the courts to decide on gay marriage at the federal level. In a generation, enough states will legalize it, and DOMA will be repealed, and it just won't be a huge issue.

You can't simply distinguish Lawrence on it's facts. It is a case in the SCOTUS' substantive due process portfolio (maybe) and arguably equal protection, and therefore should be given due consideration.

I haven't Shepardized the case, so I can't comment on how often it's been followed, but it's still a relatively young case.

It will be, but there's about one substantive due process case a decade (yoder, griswold, the one after griswold, Roe, Casey, Lawrence) and they tend to be pretty narrow in application.

Facts are how you distinguish cases. I'm not sure how else you distinguish them. I mean, let's say for argument sake that the holding of Lawrence is "morality is not enough to pass rational basis." Aren't private sex acts about the only moral issue left that you can't trace back to another state interest?

Not to sound like a total liberal, but think there's also an establishment clause arugment to be made here. Fundamentally, when we talk about "sexual morality" in terms of things like sodomy, we're really talking about religious tenets. Now, they're deeply laid, and impossible to seperate from our overall culture, but the real reason we as a society feel that sodomy is "wrong" is because1) we've always felt that way, and 2)many of us belong to religions that teach that. Contrast that to say, animal cruelty, where we feel it is wrong because animals have at least the right to not be abused. No traditional or religious morality (that had broad reach in this country) felt that way, we developed that moral though fairly recently.

And that's one word we've overlooked in Steven's analysis "traditionally." By that holding, if something is "currently" still found immoral by a majority, it would pass the Lawrence test (as you've articulated it).

Polonius wrote:They are going to look at all of the reasoning, though, not just one tidbit. When a case comes up, they'll decide if there is a fundamental right at issue (such as private consunsual sex), they will then need to decide if there is legitimate state interest. I'm struggling to come up with another example of a case that would be overturned under the lawrence standard, but not any other.

*sigh*

Lawrence doesn't deal with fundamental rights.

Polonius wrote:What harm?

The harm of an immoral society. Is there a specific, individualized harm? Nope.

Polonius wrote:This is going round and round, because you're trying to figure out a way for a state to ban soemthing simply because people think it's wrong, but with no actual negative effects. Lots of things used to be banned because people thought there were negative effects, but these have been cleared up. Hell, homosexuality was seen as a mental illness 50 years ago. So yeah, laws forbidding it made sense, because we didn't want people to be mentally ill.

What harm is done to society to allowing oral and anal sex? I mean, really?

It makes society more sexually permissive.

Also, if you look at the history of prohibitions on sodomy, they weren't often prosecuted, because the willing accomplice was a co-conspirator, and therefore not available as a witness. The laws were used to punish instances of non-consentual sodomy.

Polonius wrote:textualilsm is a pretty intellecutally shallow stance. originalism is very different, and it's my view, thanks to a brilliant con law professor.

Originalism should include some element of textualism. I didn't mean to separate the two, but rather intended a combination.

Polonius wrote:I dont' know. You seem to think that I'm defending Lawrence, when I'm really not. I'm merely trying to explain why the effects you predict based on it are unlikely.

I agree that they're unlikely to result. But the effects I suggested shouldn't come to pass because they're outside the authority of the Court, not because we have a benevolent Court that wouldn't decide these things.

It's like the so-called "broccoli objection" to Obamacare. That is, if Congress can pass a mandate, they can force you to eat broccoli. The problem isn't that Congress will at some point force you to eat broccoli, the problem is that the decision gives Congress the power to force you to eat broccoli.

And forgive me for going overly Conservative, but I don't like the idea of a government of unlimited powers.

Polonius wrote:Facts are how you distinguish cases. I'm not sure how else you distinguish them. I mean, let's say for argument sake that the holding of Lawrence is "morality is not enough to pass rational basis." Aren't private sex acts about the only moral issue left that you can't trace back to another state interest?

We're going back to the point where we're arguing about specific cases, which I don't think is going to advance anything. Like I said, prostitution, animal cruelty, obscenity, etc. are all laws that are grounded in morality rather than a rational state interest.

Polonius wrote:And that's one word we've overlooked in Steven's analysis "traditionally." By that holding, if something is "currently" still found immoral by a majority, it would pass the Lawrence test (as you've articulated it).

Except at the time, homosexual sodomy was found immoral by a majority.

But that's irrelvant, because the majority should not be able to decide the scope of Constitutional rights. Assuming there's a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy today, then there must have been a right to homosexual sodomy 100 years ago (or even 30 years ago). The fact that rights have 'evolved' over time is troubling.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:What harm?

The harm of an immoral society. Is there a specific, individualized harm? Nope. ...It makes society more sexually permissive.

There is no measurable harm, but it's still harmful?

biccat wrote:
Lawrence doesn't deal with fundamental rights.

Sorry. Part of the libererties protected by substantive due process then.

The harm of an immoral society. Is there a specific, individualized harm? Nope.

What is the harm of an immoral society?

It makes society more sexually permissive.

Also, if you look at the history of prohibitions on sodomy, they weren't often prosecuted, because the willing accomplice was a co-conspirator, and therefore not available as a witness. The laws were used to punish instances of non-consentual sodomy.

How is a sexually permissive society harmful? There is evidence that the relaxing of sexual taboos has had a positive impact on many people.

Non-consenual sodomy would be rape in ohio. I dont know why any other state would need to ban a practice in it's entirety to prevent the non-consensual instances.

Originalism should include some element of textualism. I didn't mean to separate the two, but rather intended a combination.

Fair enough. I'd also defined originalism as inherently including the text, but it's the same difference.

I agree that they're unlikely to result. But the effects I suggested shouldn't come to pass because they're outside the authority of the Court, not because we have a benevolent Court that wouldn't decide these things.

I agree, but that's just the nature of a court. They can decide what they want, and absent an amendment, there's not much that can be done.

It's like the so-called "broccoli objection" to Obamacare. That is, if Congress can pass a mandate, they can force you to eat broccoli. The problem isn't that Congress will at some point force you to eat broccoli, the problem is that the decision gives Congress the power to force you to eat broccoli.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but wouldn't a tax on every person, with a matching deduction if covered by health insurance, accomplish the same thing and be legal? Per Capita taxes are legal, and congress can spend as it sees fit.

And forgive me for going overly Conservative, but I don't like the idea of a government of unlimited powers.

Who does?

We're going back to the point where we're arguing about specific cases, which I don't think is going to advance anything. Like I said, prostitution, animal cruelty, obscenity, etc. are all laws that are grounded in morality rather than a rational state interest.

Most criminal law is grounded in morality. But that morality is based on a reason: prostituion is bad because it has these effects, etc.

Your argument seems to be that think the Court will simply strike down any law it doesn't like. Which it always has the threat of doing. You're making two big leaps though: 1) that the Court won't actually find legitimate state interests outside of morality, and 2) that those rationales don't exist. Murder isn't just illegal because we think it's wrong, it's illegal because we think that people have a right to their life, and you shouldn't take it away. That's one extreme. Sodomy is at the other end, where there's a sort of vague "people just shouldn't do that" reason. Most laws fall closer to murder, in that there is another right at stake.

Sodomy laws are a pretty unique case. They criminialize a behavior with no victim, no social cost, and a decidedly mixed social acceptance.

Except at the time, homosexual sodomy was found immoral by a majority.

But that's irrelvant, because the majority should not be able to decide the scope of Constitutional rights. Assuming there's a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy today, then there must have been a right to homosexual sodomy 100 years ago (or even 30 years ago). The fact that rights have 'evolved' over time is troubling.

Well, don't spend too much time reading first amendment law. Those rights have evolved tremendously the last 100 years.

I don't think that the right to homosexual sex has evolved, but I think our idea of how the state's legitimate interest applies has changed. 30 years ago, there was still plenty of legitimate, scientific concern about the effects of homosexuality. Much (although not all) of that has changed.

Hell, even look at anti-miscegination laws. 100 years ago you could find scientists, experts in their field, that would testify that interracial marriage would lead to racial weakness. We know that's not true anymore. Facts can change.

The other problem with the law in Lawrence is that it prohibits all sodomy. iHow many people really find oral sex between heterosexual couples immoral? What's the state interest in prohibiting me from going down on a girl?

If we wanted to get interesting, you could see what would happen if a state passed a law saying that all acts of sodomy must use barrier protection (condom or dental dam), on the grounds that it's more likely to spread disease. Include an exception for married couples. I bet that would pass muster.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:This is going round and round, because you're trying to figure out a way for a state to ban soemthing simply because people think it's wrong, but with no actual negative effects. Lots of things used to be banned because people thought there were negative effects, but these have been cleared up. Hell, homosexuality was seen as a mental illness 50 years ago. So yeah, laws forbidding it made sense, because we didn't want people to be mentally ill.

What harm is done to society to allowing oral and anal sex? I mean, really?

It makes society more sexually permissive.

What's wrong with that?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:What harm?

The harm of an immoral society. Is there a specific, individualized harm? Nope. ...It makes society more sexually permissive.

There is no measurable harm, but it's still harmful?

I'm hesitant to put words in biccat's mouth, but I'm getting the impression that he feels that non-procreative sex (or perhaps just non-vaginal sex) is inherently wrong, and should be prohibited.

I had a conversation with a friend once about why homosexuality was actually bad, and it lead to a chain of "well it leads to..." situations that in the end, resulted in "confusing kids about gender roles." I asked why that was bad, and he looked at me like I had asked why gangrene was bad.

My view on this is that if you can articulate a reason why something is bad, or harmful, or a problem, than there's no problem in restricting it (aside from other rights). If, however, something is bad simply because it's different and abnormal, but for no other reason.... well I think it shoudl be allowed.

Polonius wrote:The other problem with the law in Lawrence is that it prohibits all sodomy. iHow many people really find oral sex between heterosexual couples immoral? What's the state interest in prohibiting me from going down on a girl?

It didn't.

"The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct."

Polonius wrote:If we wanted to get interesting, you could see what would happen if a state passed a law saying that all acts of sodomy must use barrier protection (condom or dental dam), on the grounds that it's more likely to spread disease. Include an exception for married couples. I bet that would pass muster.

Actually, I'll bet it wouldn't. The right to use "contraception" is a fundamental right. I'm pretty sure barrier protection for sodomy would fall under this limitation.

Besides, if sodomy is more likely to spread disease, shouldn't that be sufficient rational basis (beyond morality) to ban sodomy?

Also, the harm in immoral acts on a society is that you get an immoral society. If a majority of people think you shouldn't be able to walk around naked, then they should be able to live in a society that prohibits such conduct. Despite such actions not causing any harm, except by offense.

biccat wrote:Also, the harm in immoral acts on a society is that you get an immoral society.

By whose standards?

biccat wrote:If a majority of people think you shouldn't be able to walk around naked, then they should be able to live in a society that prohibits such conduct. Despite such actions not causing any harm, except by offense.

Are we to govern by poll?

Biccat/Polonius no more sighs or other slants please. You're carrying on a reaonable conversation and I don't want that to slide downwards.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:The other problem with the law in Lawrence is that it prohibits all sodomy. iHow many people really find oral sex between heterosexual couples immoral? What's the state interest in prohibiting me from going down on a girl?

It didn't.

"The question before the Court is the validity of a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct."

yeah, but O'connor I think did a pretty good explaining why that statute is particular wouldn't pass equal protection muster. You can't have something be a crime when done by a guy, but not be a girl. So the real issue is sodomy as a whole, which is pretty broad.

Actually, I'll bet it wouldn't. The right to use "contraception" is a fundamental right. I'm pretty sure barrier protection for sodomy would fall under this limitation.

Besides, if sodomy is more likely to spread disease, shouldn't that be sufficient rational basis (beyond morality) to ban sodomy?

Contraception is a right because it involves procration, which is a right. Barrier protection for disease prevention would not fall under that category.

Banning sodomy based on disease prevention would be an interesting angle. I think if the court applies a "rational basis with bite" standard, you'd need to show some actual reason for the decision. So, banning oral sex, but not vaginal, would be tough. Banning anal sex might work out. The problem is that the court seems to view sex as part of substantive due process, so you can't be overly broad. Banning all anal sex, even between married couples, due to disease prevention would seem to run counter to that standard. I would love to see the state legislator that decides to try to ban oral sex though...

Also, the harm in immoral acts on a society is that you get an immoral society. If a majority of people think you shouldn't be able to walk around naked, then they should be able to live in a society that prohibits such conduct. Despite such actions not causing any harm, except by offense.

Again, what is the harm in an immoral society? I'm curious where you'd go with this that doesn't involve slippery slope.

Well, why do people think we shouldn't be able to walk around naked? Is it because being naked in public is immoral? Or is it because we don't want to have children exposed to nudity, and it would be distracting, and people are likely to be bothered by having to deal with naked people all the time? In other words, there is a harm to others.

I have no problem with people walking around naked. I just dont' really want to deal with it. Is walking around naked in a nudist resort immoral? What about in your own home? Yet even I think it's immoral to walk naked at a playground.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The underlying rational behind criminal law is that certain acts harm society, either by individuals or as a whole. This is why criminal proceedings are "People" v. Defendent, not the victim.

I think that crimes should have some, identifiable if not measurable, harm to qualify.

This is one reason sodomy used to be a crime: people thought it weakened family life, and it lead to all kinds of madness, etc. We know it doesn't anymore.

On the reverse, certain things, while harmful, can't be criminilized because of protected rights. It's harmful to write and publish books explaining why Catholics are secretly satanists, but I have the right under the first amendment.

There are balancing tests. I have the right to use my prioperty as I wish, but the city has the authority to tell me to cut my grass. It's a weak right, and so they only need a weak reason. I have the right to practice religion, but the government has the right to prohibit human sacrifice. Strong right, even stronger reason.

Right to buggery vs. right to stop disease? Tough call, although I'd imagine the court would see through the pretext.

It's fun to jump to the last page and see what complex arguments a few people are sill carrying on.

And forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't banning sodomy for the prevention of the spread of disease be counterintuitive, as you can get an STI from oral or vaginal sex too?

Se what it seems to be is that it is like the social edge right now. But many people are seeing that their is nothing wrong with gay people of any gender. So give it a few years and people will come around to the idea. Once it becomes a major thing in the eyes of the people the government can only prolong what they want for so long.

micahaphone wrote:It's fun to jump to the last page and see what complex arguments a few people are sill carrying on.

And forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't banning sodomy for the prevention of the spread of disease be counterintuitive, as you can get an STI from oral or vaginal sex too?

To pass Rational Basis muster, a law doesn't have to make total sense, it just needs to make some sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

Polonius wrote:

micahaphone wrote:It's fun to jump to the last page and see what complex arguments a few people are sill carrying on.

And forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't banning sodomy for the prevention of the spread of disease be counterintuitive, as you can get an STI from oral or vaginal sex too?

To pass Rational Basis muster, a law doesn't have to make total sense, it just needs to make some sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

That makes sense. But couldn't such a ruling be overturned in a court if the judge/jury listened to logic?

micahaphone wrote:

Polonius wrote:

micahaphone wrote:It's fun to jump to the last page and see what complex arguments a few people are sill carrying on.

And forgive my ignorance, but wouldn't banning sodomy for the prevention of the spread of disease be counterintuitive, as you can get an STI from oral or vaginal sex too?

To pass Rational Basis muster, a law doesn't have to make total sense, it just needs to make some sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_basis_review

That makes sense. But couldn't such a ruling be overturned in a court if the judge/jury listened to logic?

i'm not sure you completely understand things. Rulings of law are made by a judge, never by a jury. Juries decide facts.

Basically, if a state decided to ban margarine, because it wants people to consume less hydrogenated vegetable oil, it could. It doesn't need a particularly good reason, just a non-arbitrary one.

biccat wrote:
Also, the harm in immoral acts on a society is that you get an immoral society.

Then all society is fundamentally immoral, as no legislation will serve to isolate immoral activity from society.

biccat wrote:If a majority of people think you shouldn't be able to walk around naked, then they should be able to live in a society that prohibits such conduct. Despite such actions not causing any harm, except by offense.

There are college students in California who do this. The only problem? If they get an erection while on college campus, it can be seen as sexual harassment.

I remember seeing this years ago, so I do not know if it is still legal to do. This isn't a subject I normally keep on the back of my mind, ya know, lol.

I support gay marriages. Hell, the less back-water, white trash homo-hating bigots in my neighborhood (I live in Florida... they are everywhere), the better. I bet if everyone in my neighborhood were all women and/or gay men, the crime rate would drop to, um zero. Everything would be better. The food. The clothing. The politics. Everything.

biccat wrote:On the division of property, case law assumes that a husband and wife contribute equally to the wealth of the household. There are, therefore, two possible situations:
each wife & husband pair contributes equally (H gets 50%, W1 gets 25%, W2 gets 25%).
everyone contributes equally to the 'family unit' (H gets 33%, W1 gets 33%, W2 gets 33%).

Except you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that assets aren't split 50/50 automatically in normal divorce proceedings, but instead the focus is on overall equality, that also considers what each party brought to the marriage, how the marriage's assets grew in value over the course of the marriage, and how any division will leave the different parties after the divorce... and that different priorities are given to each in different jurisdictions.

On child custody, it's even easier. Parental rights are inherent in the biological father and mother. If H and W1 get divorced, there's no custodial issue regarding W2's children. If the issue is custody of W1's children, then it's resolved exactly as it is today (that is, very poorly).

Except you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that the primary concern of the courts in child custody isn't who gets ownership by dint of genetics, but what is best for the welfare of the child.

What you've demonstrated above is how simply you might resolve an issue, if you ignore current legal practices, the fact that other people will have very different views, and the nature of real life to introduce all kinds of complexities.

Thinking that you could take the complexity of divorce and add in a third party and not end up with a much more complicated arrangement is very odd. Even if you personally believe that you've got such a profound insight into divorce proceedings that you could write laws and build precedent that ensures equitable divorce for marriages including three or more people, you have to recognise that the vast majority of us do not have that insight nor that level of confidence.

At which point you have to realise that most people can oppose bigamy on grounds of legal practicality, having nothing to do with a purely moral dislike.

sebster wrote:It's a "marriage contract," not a contract. There is a substantial difference.

In the way the law approaches the issue, not really. And that's the point in the context of this discussion.

Except you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that assets aren't split 50/50 automatically in normal divorce proceedings, but instead the focus is on overall equality, that also considers what each party brought to the marriage, how the marriage's assets grew in value over the course of the marriage, and how any division will leave the different parties after the divorce... and that different priorities are given to each in different jurisdictions.

Thats not accurate, or more properly that depends on the jurisdiction. Aussie follows British law which has its rules. In the US, the states follow different rule sets, and time has evolved different customs. For example, California's and Texas' law was originally based on Spanish principles which can be quite different. Louisiana is based on Napoleonic code. All these have evolved over time with new case law or state legislation.

sebster wrote:Except you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that the primary concern of the courts in child custody isn't who gets ownership by dint of genetics, but what is best for the welfare of the child.

No...just...

This is so wrong that I'm not even sure how to respond to it. Standing is probably a good place for you to start educating yourself on the issue.

Look, please try to stick to topics that you at least have some idea what you're talking about.

Don't pretend you know anything about law, because obviously you don't.

A reminder language people. If you're going to post lets be polite about the other party. I've grown tired of the attacks between posters in this section of the board and Dakka Rule #1 is going to be enforced more appropriately.
To Biccat's statement, yes child custody does revolve around the interests of the child, at least technically, at least in Texas.

Frazzled wrote:To Biccat's statement, yes child custody does revolve around the interests of the child, at least technically, at least in Texas.

The best interests of the child doesn't mean the court gives the kid to the best looking guy off the street.

This doesn't happen.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:To Biccat's statement, yes child custody does revolve around the interests of the child, at least technically, at least in Texas.

The best interests of the child doesn't mean the court gives the kid to the best looking guy off the street.

This doesn't happen.

No gak sherlock, but you're both making absolute statements like they are, well absolute.
Sebster's an Aussie. His rule of law is completely different. Trial By Drop Bear, for example, is not a common method of Appeal in Texas. Inversely, I don't think women inn Australia have access to the "he needed killin' your honor" wive's defense commonly employed here.

Your rule of law is completely different and you know it or should. States have different rules of procedure, driven by different legislation and different case law.
Further in the realm of family law, at least in the US there are No absolutes.

Frazzled wrote:

Except you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that assets aren't split 50/50 automatically in normal divorce proceedings, but instead the focus is on overall equality, that also considers what each party brought to the marriage, how the marriage's assets grew in value over the course of the marriage, and how any division will leave the different parties after the divorce... and that different priorities are given to each in different jurisdictions.

Thats not accurate, or more properly that depends on the jurisdiction.

Yeah, I said "that different priorities are given to each in different jurisdictions". I probably gave too much weight to listing priorities, and too little to the idea of things varying by jurisdiction, so fair point.

But that only really increases the idea that divorce is complicated enough, without courts having to adapt all those considerations to three or more people marriages.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:The best interests of the child doesn't mean the court gives the kid to the best looking guy off the street.

Who said that? Stop being silly and try actually debating the argument that's been presented.

sebster wrote:

biccat wrote:The best interests of the child doesn't mean the court gives the kid to the best looking guy off the street.

Who said that? Stop being silly and try actually debating the argument that's been presented.

I would be willing to debate the issue, but you've made it clear that you really don't know what you're talking about. And you're not actually presenting counter arguments, you're just being insulting.

Just because you don't understand how a legal principle works doesn't mean that no one understands how it works. Simply because you can't understand how divorce and child custody work (or would work) in a polygamous relationship, doesn't mean that the same principles would not work.

sebster wrote:Except you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that assets aren't split 50/50 automatically in normal divorce proceedings

I am aware of this fact. But you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that a 50/50 split is the presumptive starting position in a divorce proceeding. The court may, according to facts presented and applying a legal test balancing the interests of the parties, modify this starting position.

Regardless, the presumptive starting position in a divorce proceeding between H and W1 (since you haven't made your example clear) would be 33/33 of the marital assets (for those assets held in common in the marriage). Any assets held in common solely between H and W1 would be presumed to be 50/50.

The law has procedures for dealing with these issues. This would not be an issue of first impression. Since you're so fond of defining a marriage as a contract, the H-W1-W2 relationship could easily be treated as a partnership with all three being equal partners.

sebster wrote:Except you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that the primary concern of the courts in child custody isn't who gets ownership by dint of genetics, but what is best for the welfare of the child.

Except you've forgotten, or were never aware of, the fact that in order to even get to contest child custody, one must have standing. This means (basically) that you have an interest in the child that bears protecting. Non-parents (and I'm using the legal term here) have a heavy burden to show that they have an interest in raising the child. Generally this means that they have some deep emotional attachment or history of caring for the child as a parent.

If H and W1 get divorced, then the child custody dispute is between H and W1. W2 may be able to meet the high standard and establish that she has a parental relationship with the child, but as long as she's married to H, a court would likely conclude that her interest is already sufficiently protected by H's presence in the suit (that is, when he gets the kid, she will be presumed to have access to the kid).

This situation is no different than a custody dispute between a mother and her new husband who have been raising a child and her ex-husband who is asking for visitation rights (or h-w-xw).

These issues branch out in increasing complexity when you have more than 2 wives (or husbands) and/or more than 1 divorce at a time, but they don't increase in difficulty.

This thread is closed.