The US Supreme Court has agreed for the first time to hear challenges to laws banning gay marriage in the US.
The court will hear challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (Doma), which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
It will also consider Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment in California that overturned a state law allowing gay weddings.
The court is likely to hear the cases in March next year.
A ruling could be issued in June.
Both Proposition 8 and Doma have been previously struck down by lower courts.
The Supreme Court has the option of reversing the lower judgements - thus reinstating both laws - or upholding them, which could afford gay weddings legal status under the US Constitution.
However, the justices have also reserved the right to decide that they do not have jurisdiction to hear the cases.
'Unfair discrimination'
Backers of the California case argue that voters in the state breached the US Constitution by passing Proposition 8
They will argue that a state Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage to go ahead should stand. No gay weddings are currently allowed in California, pending the outcome of the Proposition 8 case.
Doma, a federal law signed by former President Bill Clinton, has been overturned by four federal courts and two courts of appeal. They said Doma unfairly discriminated against same-sex couples.
It was most recently rejected by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which ruled 2 to 1 on October that it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
President Barack Obama, who backed gay marriage in May, also took the unusual step of announcing that his administration would not back Doma in court.
Although the federal government no longer defends Doma, it is the New York case, first brought by a widow called Edith Windsor, that the Supreme Court will hear.
She was forced to pay more than $350,000 (£220,000) in taxes after the death of her wife because Section 3 of Doma defines "marriage" and "spouse" as only relating to unions of men and women.
The law is supported by Republicans in Congress, and lawyers acting for the House of Representatives leadership are defending the law instead of the US government.
The court was also asked to consider the merits of a challenge to part of a 2009 Arizona law granting marital benefits only to legally married state employees. Gay marriage is not legal in Arizona.
But the nine justices chose not to hear that case, instead opting for the two cases analysts say offer a chance of a broad ruling.
They will find that the parties that ate trying to enforce it and are appealing don't have the legal right to enforce it and it will be send back to the lower courts that struck it down.
So no real verdict on the legality of the DOMA or the California law, just that a lower court struck it down and congress or special interest groups can't appeal something that the executive refuses to enforce so the lower courts ruling stands.
Well, I guess we're about to find out what the ratio of bigoted s to decent and sensible people on the supreme court is.
Well actually it should be about the letter of the law and not about whether they are bigoted or not. Really the states could so easily correct this by not calling the act of civil union marriage. It's a religious term and should be left to religion, you only really get these kind of issues when you mix religion and policy in the first place.
Ratbarf wrote: Well actually it should be about the letter of the law and not about whether they are bigoted or not. Really the states could so easily correct this by not calling the act of civil union marriage. It's a religious term and should be left to religion, you only really get these kind of issues when you mix religion and policy in the first place.
Do you honestly believe that? Renaming "marriage" to "civil union" isn't going to satisfy the people who oppose same-sex marriage, it's going to make them start shouting "See! See! They killed marriage!"
Not to mention the complete screwup it's going to be to ensure compatibility between marriage states and civil union states, given the problem is defined by irrational opposition to same-sex marriage. For example, if you travel to the UK, are their laws going to give the same rights to civil unions as to marriages?
Do you honestly believe that? Renaming "marriage" to "civil union" isn't going to satisfy the people who oppose same-sex marriage, it's going to make them start shouting "See! See! They killed marriage!"
Not to mention the complete screwup it's going to be to ensure compatibility between marriage states and civil union states, given the problem is defined by irrational opposition to same-sex marriage. For example, if you travel to the UK, are their laws going to give the same rights to civil unions as to marriages?
Which part? The issue about legality or misuse of a religious term for state policy?
If it's the prior, well, that's what judges are for in this case, to determine the legality of a law, not to write it the way they feel it should be written.
If it's the latter, I am against same sex marriage for religious reasons. If they changed it to civil union then I would have no issue with it, because then it wouldn't be marriage, and my religion wouldn't give two feths.
Marriage has not always had religious meaning.
Right around the colonisation of american, Marriage was nothing more then a way to control people into certain roles. That is what marriage really got started, a way to control and mold people into acceptable roles.
Marriage is as much a civil contract and a legal status as it is a religious concept. And it always has been; going back millenia.
Looking forward to seeing what comes of this. Although I suspect that DoMA may get shot down in the way that d-usa described, by the Supremes deciding that Congressional Republicans have no standing to defend it, the fact that they decided to handle Prop 8 at the same time makes me a bit more optimistic that we could get a broader ruling.
Mannahnin wrote: Marriage is as much a civil contract and a legal status as it is a religious concept. And it always has been; going back millenia.
Looking forward to seeing what comes of this. Although I suspect that DoMA may get shot down in the way that d-usa described, by the Supremes deciding that Congressional Republicans have no standing to defend it, the fact that they decided to handle Prop 8 at the same time makes me a bit more optimistic that we could get a broader ruling.
But I think Prop 8 has been handled similarly, with the governor and AG refusing to enforce it so all the appeals and such have been filed by special interest groups and not the executive.
I would like a clear ruling on this, but I think this is the way they will punt.
If they do it will also be fuel for democrats though for every election until they do a real ruling. "Vote for us and marry, but if a Republican wins they will enforce it so don't vote for them!"
But then we'll get religious fanatics screaming, "THEN PEOPLE WILL MARRY ANIMALS, BLOW-UP DOLLS, AND DEAD BODIES!" and making other strawman arguments.
Marriage has not always had religious meaning.
Right around the colonisation of american, Marriage was nothing more then a way to control people into certain roles. That is what marriage really got started, a way to control and mold people into acceptable roles.
Really? Because I would love to look at that, every marriage law I've ever heard of has always been based in the religion of the time for it's justification, making it a religious thing.
Ratbarf wrote: Really? Because I would love to look at that, every marriage law I've ever heard of has always been based in the religion of the time for it's justification, making it a religious thing.
So what? If you're a Christian, why do you give a damn what the Greek pantheon had to say about marriage?
Ratbarf wrote: Really? Because I would love to look at that, every marriage law I've ever heard of has always been based in the religion of the time for it's justification, making it a religious thing.
Of course they used religion for justification, because saying "marry so that I can make sure that the heirs you provide me with are my biological children and I don't let some other guy's kids inherit my wealth" or "I need a contract to prove that I own this woman" isn't going to be very persuasive. Instead you make up a bunch of nonsense about how god demands marriage and you'll burn in hell if you have sex outside of it, and suddenly it has more "legitimacy".
Also, my religion says that gay marriage is the ONLY allowable kind of marriage, so please stop claiming that your religion's definition of marriage is the only one.
Peregrine wrote: Instead you make up a bunch of nonsense about how god demands marriage and you'll burn in hell if you have sex outside of it, and suddenly it has more "legitimacy".
d-usa wrote: And we are away from talking about how the Supreme Court might decide and why and are back to our usual talk about marriage and religion.
Of course we are, because there's not really much to talk about. Legally and ethically it's perfectly clear what the correct answer is, so the only question is whether the court will make the obvious correct ruling, deal with the case on a technicality and avoid making any substantial comment on the law, or have five votes out of bigoted spite and uphold the existing law. The only real news here is that the court has decided to accept the case, and there's not much to say about that besides "it's about time".
Also, my religion says that gay marriage is the ONLY allowable kind of marriage, so please stop claiming that your religion's definition of marriage is the only one.
Well it is for me and my religion. That's why I would prefer state marriage to be called civil union. That way I could have my cake and you can unionise with all the blokes you want.
Also, my religion says that gay marriage is the ONLY allowable kind of marriage, so please stop claiming that your religion's definition of marriage is the only one.
Well it is for me and my religion. That's why I would prefer state marriage to be called civil union. That way I could have my cake and you can unionise with all the blokes you want.
Fine, as long as ALL state-recognized marriage is called a civil union, whether it's between a man and a woman, a man and a man, three men and sixteen women, whatever. Have whatever ceremony you want in your church for whatever people you want, call it "marriage", or "bdofjgd", or whatver you want, but it doesn't mean anything unless you go to the courthouse and sign the civil union paperwork.
Not that your preference matters, as your religion doesn't have a monopoly on the term "marriage", and there's absolutely no reason for the state to grant you exclusive use of it. The court should (and hopefully will) ignore your preference, just like it would ignore a (hypothetical) preference that "marriage" only applies to white people.
Peregrine wrote: Legally and ethically it's perfectly clear what the correct answer is, so the only question is whether the court will make the obvious correct ruling...
Ethically maybe, legally not at all. In fact, I suspect you're conflating the two.
Peregrine wrote: Legally and ethically it's perfectly clear what the correct answer is, so the only question is whether the court will make the obvious correct ruling...
Ethically maybe, legally not at all. In fact, I suspect you're conflating the two.
Prohibiting same-sex marriage is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. If a consenting adult man can obtain a particular set of rights and protections by marrying a consenting adult woman, there needs to be a damn good reason to forbid that same set of rights and protections to a consenting adult woman. And no, the "whites and blacks are equally forbidden from marrying outside their race, so it's not discriminatory" argument has already been thrown out.
dogma wrote: Ethically maybe, legally not at all. In fact, I suspect you're conflating the two.
Legally it's perfectly clear in two ways:
1) The whole "equal protection" thing has been settled many times already. The same reasoning that strikes down laws against interracial marriage also strikes down laws against gay marriage, and the only thing keeping DOMA and other similar laws around is the fact that race-based discrimination is socially disapproved, while sexuality-based discrimination still has support.
2) The "full faith and credit" clause also settles it. DOMA doesn't just let states decide who they will issue marriage licenses to, it bans recognition of legal contracts issued in some states and causes a couple that is legally married in one state to magically become un-married as soon as they cross the wrong state line. There's obvious precedent, if not explicit rulings, that marriage and similar contracts should be valid across state lines, as the alternative is a confusing mess. The only reason some marriages are considered unquestionably valid while others aren't is that this particular form of discrimination is still socially acceptable, not because of some fundamental legal difference between the two.
If the supreme court wants to rule according to the law instead of out of bigotry and spite, they have only two options: strike down the laws, or reject the standing of the third-party defense and allow the lower court rulings to stand (at least until a new administration decides to defend the law).
AlexHolker wrote: Prohibiting same-sex marriage is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
No it isn't. The 14th Amendment, in this case, provides for equal protection under the law. If marriage is defined as a particular union between a man and a woman it is not unconstitutional as said law does not stipulate that the partners need to be in a loving, sexual relationship; ie. a gay man could very readily marry gay woman. It would, however, be unconstitutional if there existed a law that defined marriage as above, but further stated that homosexuals were not permitted to marry.
In this last case equal protection is violated because a specific stipulation exists to deny equal protection to a select group.
If a consenting adult man can obtain a particular set of rights and protections by marrying a consenting adult woman, there needs to be a damn good reason to forbid that same set of rights and protections to a consenting adult woman.
Morally, yes. Legally, not necessarily. It is important to recognize the difference between the two.
And no, the "whites and blacks are equally forbidden from marrying outside their race, so it's not discriminatory" argument has already been thrown out.
Yes, that is a terrible argument, because laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman are discriminatory. However, that does not make them unconstitutional.
dogma wrote: No it isn't. The 14th Amendment, in this case, provides for equal protection under the law. If marriage is defined as a particular union between a man and a woman it is not unconstitutional as said law does not stipulate that the partners need to be in a loving, sexual relationship; ie. a gay man could very readily marry gay woman. It would, however, be unconstitutional if there existed a law that defined marriage as above, but further stated that homosexuals were not permitted to marry.
"
Except this reasoning has already been struck down in other cases. You can't define marriage as "a union between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman" and ban interracial marriage just because that's what the definition says.
Yes, that is a terrible argument, because laws defining marriage as being between a man and a woman are discriminatory. However, that does not make them unconstitutional.
The courts have very clearly decided that laws banning interracial marriage are unconstitutional, and the same reasoning applies to gay marriage.
The courts have very clearly decided that laws banning interracial marriage are unconstitutional, and the same reasoning might be interpreted as applying also to gay marriage.
There, I inserted a bit of comprehension of the judiciary system into your post.
The courts have very clearly decided that laws banning interracial marriage are unconstitutional, and the same reasoning might be interpreted as applying also to gay marriage.
There, I inserted a bit of comprehension of the judiciary system into your post.
You are welcomed.
Yeah, there's always the strong chance of finding five s to do god's work and ensure that traditional marriage is "defended".
Kovnik Obama wrote: I'd like to live in a world where marriage, let alone gay marriage, is no longer discussed.
That's a pretty bad world given how useful marriage is for avoiding having millions of slightly different variations of contracts for taxes/child custody/hospital visitation and decision rights/inheritance/etc. Standardizing it all into a single marriage contract avoids a legal nightmare.
(Unless of course you're a lawyer, in which case I just described your ideal, and very profitable, world.)
I'd also like to live in a world where women conforms themselves to heteronormativity, but by their own accord.
1) The whole "equal protection" thing has been settled many times already. The same reasoning that strikes down laws against interracial marriage also strikes down laws against gay marriage, and the only thing keeping DOMA and other similar laws around is the fact that race-based discrimination is socially disapproved, while sexuality-based discrimination still has support.
Loving v. Virginia turns specifically on laws containing racial classifications, which you will have a hard time equating with sexual orientation in a colloquial argument, let alone in a court of law.
2) The "full faith and credit" clause also settles it. DOMA doesn't just let states decide who they will issue marriage licenses to, it bans recognition of legal contracts issued in some states and causes a couple that is legally married in one state to magically become un-married as soon as they cross the wrong state line.
That is a decent argument for striking down DOMA, but it isn't relevant here as the plaintiffs (as far as I know) are not contending that a violation has occurred under "full faith and credit".
If the supreme court wants to rule according to the law instead of out of bigotry and spite, they have only two options: strike down the laws, or reject the standing of the third-party defense and allow the lower court rulings to stand (at least until a new administration decides to defend the law).
They have no grounds on which to strike down the laws, and claiming otherwise would have serious legal ramifications for standards regarding what constitutes legitimate grounds for suit.
Except this reasoning has already been struck down in other cases. You can't define marriage as "a union between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman" and ban interracial marriage just because that's what the definition says.
No, it actually hasn't. There is a significant difference between a definition containing stipulations regarding sex and race, and a definition regarding only sex.
The courts have very clearly decided that laws banning interracial marriage are unconstitutional, and the same reasoning applies to gay marriage.
Kovnik already said it, but like it or not, race and gender are not the same thing. Reasoning regarding one need not apply to reasoning regarding the other.
dogma wrote: Loving v. Virginia turns specifically on laws containing racial classifications, which you will have a hard time equating with sexual orientation in a colloquial argument, let alone in a court of law.
Of course it isn't a literal precedent, but the same reasoning for why racial discrimination is banned also applies here.
They have no grounds on which to strike down the laws, and claiming otherwise would have serious legal ramifications for standards regarding what constitutes legitimate grounds for suit.
How exactly do they not? It's a clear case of violating the constitution, just like laws banning interracial marriage, enforcing segregated schools, etc, were unconstitutional. And even if you argue that it's ambiguous, it's still enough of an argument to justify a decision.
No, it actually hasn't. There is a significant difference between a definition containing stipulations regarding sex and race, and a definition regarding only sex.
And what exactly is that difference, besides "one is A, one is A and B"? What makes sex different from race?
How exactly do they not? It's a clear case of violating the constitution, just like laws banning interracial marriage, enforcing segregated schools, etc, were unconstitutional. And even if you argue that it's ambiguous, it's still enough of an argument to justify a decision.
It, admittedly, depends on the nature of the plaintiff and defendant. From what I understand the plaintiffs are a series of interest groups objecting to the non-enforcement of DOMA and Prop 8. If that is the case the Supreme Court has no grounds on which to act because said group have no legitimate claim to injury.
However, I could be wrong about the nature of the cases as they will be heard.
dogma wrote: What makes species different from race?
Because a non-human species can't sign a legal contract of any kind, therefore excluding them from participating in marriage is not discrimination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: It, admittedly, depends on the nature of the plaintiff and defendant. From what I understand the plaintiffs are a series of interest groups objecting to the non-enforcement of DOMA and Prop 8. If that is the case the Supreme Court has no grounds on which to act because said group have no legitimate claim to injury.
That's why I said there's a second option: take the easy way out, avoid issuing a ruling with any substance to it, and deny that the third-party group has any right to be part of the case. But if you're going to make a ruling on the law itself instead of on a technicality the answer is clear.
They're different categories of being, defined by different things. Perhaps most importantly, being of different races does not preclude the bearing of children.
First of all, so what if they're different categories of being? There is overwhelming precedent that race-based discrimination isn't the only form of discrimination that is wrong, and the same fundamental reasoning for WHY it is wrong applies. The argument isn't that the earlier cases are a specific precedent, but that the underlying reasoning is the same and it's inconsistent to rule one way on race and the other way on sex.
Second, what do children have to do with anything?
Fine, as long as ALL state-recognized marriage is called a civil union, whether it's between a man and a woman, a man and a man, three men and sixteen women, whatever. Have whatever ceremony you want in your church for whatever people you want, call it "marriage", or "bdofjgd", or whatver you want, but it doesn't mean anything unless you go to the courthouse and sign the civil union paperwork.
Because a non-human species can't sign a legal contract of any kind, therefore excluding them from participating in marriage is not discrimination.
You missed the point, which was analogical. Different categories of being are treated differently, which is why very few bat an eye with respect to anti-discrimination law but lots of people bat them with with respect to laws that permit homosexual marriage.
As hard as it may be to believe, what people want in a democracy is somewhat important to how the democracy acts.
There is overwhelming precedent that race-based discrimination isn't the only form of discrimination that is wrong, and the same fundamental reasoning for WHY it is wrong applies.
That is an awful argument. You're essentially claiming that, because many forms of discrimination have been ruled against, that this form of discrimination should also be; without any regard for why those forms of dsicrimination were ruled against.
Second, what do children have to do with anything?
The state has a natural incentive to encourage a replacement birth rate. However, I edited the original post because the reason presented was needlessly abstract.
Fine, as long as ALL state-recognized marriage is called a civil union, whether it's between a man and a woman, a man and a man, three men and sixteen women, whatever. Have whatever ceremony you want in your church for whatever people you want, call it "marriage", or "bdofjgd", or whatver you want, but it doesn't mean anything unless you go to the courthouse and sign the civil union paperwork.
Sigh.... That's what I've been saying all along.
I agree with Civil Partnership. Just makes it the same rights as marriage on paper. Homosexuals: Happy, Traditionals: Happy
dogma wrote: You missed the point, which was analogical. Different categories of being are treated differently, which is why very few bat an eye with respect to anti-discrimination law but lots of people bat them with with respect to laws that permit homosexual marriage.
Except there's no meaningful "different category of being" here. Your pet dog being unable to sign a marriage contract is a functional difference, it's not allowed because it isn't possible. Being unable to sign a marriage contract with someone of your own gender, on the other hand, is just an arbitrary rule.
As hard as it may be to believe, what people want in a democracy is somewhat important to how the democracy acts.
And sometimes the job of the courts is to tell the people to go themselves and overrule the majority decision.
All legal rulings turn on technicalities. This is why I noted earlier that you seem to conflate moral reasoning with legal reasoning.
Oh FFS, do you really not see the difference between a "technicality" that addresses the substance of a law, and a technicality that ignores the question of whether or not the law should exist in favor of dismissing the case on the grounds that they didn't follow the right procedure to challenge the law?
Race and sex/gender aren't treated the same way in common parlance, or even academic parlance, so why should the government follow suit?
Because there's no fundamental difference in reasoning between the two sets of laws.
That is an awful argument. You're essentially claiming that, because many forms of discrimination have been ruled against, that this form of discrimination should also be; without any regard for why those forms of dsicrimination were ruled against.
No, what I'm claiming is that because the underlying reasoning behind the laws against gay marriage and interracial marriage is the same (deny certain privileges to a group that at least 51% of the population hates, based on nothing more than bigotry) the laws should be treated the same and either both struck down, or both upheld.
The state has a natural incentive to encourage a replacement birth rate. However, I edited the original post because the reason presented was needlessly abstract.
Except that argument is shown to be laughably false by the fact that we don't prevent infertile couples from marrying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rockerbikie wrote: I agree with Civil Partnership. Just makes it the same rights as marriage on paper. Homosexuals: Happy, Traditionals: Happy
Why should keeping "traditionals" happy matter? Should we also call interracial marriage "civil partnership" to keep the racists happy?
Why should keeping "traditionals" happy matter? Should we also call interracial marriage "civil partnership" to keep the racists happy?
How would that keep the racists happy? You would still have interracial procreation and association, which is what they're against. Not defining "marriage" as a union between two people of opposite genders and the same ethnicity.
You know for a fellow who likes to shout strawman you sure don't seem to recognize when you have a scarecrow in your own backyard.
And sometimes the job of the courts is to tell the people to go themselves and overrule the majority decision.
But only when said majority decision is actually against the law. Which is what the Supreme court is ruling on, not it's moral or ethical correctness, and any argument for it that hinges on its correctness is not a true legal argument.
Ratbarf wrote: How would that keep the racists happy? You would still have interracial procreation and association, which is what they're against. Not defining "marriage" as a union between two people of opposite genders and the same ethnicity.
Err, yes, racists are against calling it marriage. Sure, they're outraged about the other stuff too, but that's just like how bigoted s are outraged about people having gay sex outside of their gay marriages. By your argument we should just go ahead and call it marriage because the "traditionals" have already lost everything else and can't be perfectly happy.
But only when said majority decision is actually against the law. Which is what the Supreme court is ruling on, not it's moral or ethical correctness, and any argument for it that hinges on its correctness is not a true legal argument.
See previous comments about why it is against the law.
Also, given how much people whine about "activist judges" it's kind of amusing that you'd argue that the court will only decide based on the strict legal arguments.
Also, given how much people whine about "activist judges" it's kind of amusing that you'd argue that the court will only decide based on the strict legal arguments.
There is a very big and significant difference between striking down an unconstitutional law and in effect rewriting a law as the judge see fit. The prior is a symptom of a good judiciary, the latter is asking for judiciary reform.
Err, yes, racists are against calling it marriage. Sure, they're outraged about the other stuff too, but that's just like how bigoted s are outraged about people having gay sex outside of their gay marriages. By your argument we should just go ahead and call it marriage because the "traditionals" have already lost everything else.
They're against calling it marriage because they can then use it as a legal argument to end mixed association and procreation. They don't really give to flying feths if they call it marriage or not, they just want the act itself to end. It would seem you have your cause and effect backwards on this particular one.
See previous comments about why it is against the law.
You see I will trust the Supreme Court on its legality, you however Peregrine I will not.
By your argument we should just go ahead and call it marriage because the "traditionals" have already lost everything else.
With this one here I think you've mixed up your persons, I'm for not calling it marriage for everyone, not calling it marriage for everyone.
They're against calling it marriage because they can then use it as a legal argument to end mixed association and procreation. They don't really give to flying feths if they call it marriage or not, they just want the act itself to end. It would seem you have your cause and effect backwards on this particular one.
And you think that people who oppose gay marriage are perfectly content to stop at just not calling it marriage? Or that somehow if you deny two people the ability to get married you can in any way use that to prevent them from associating or having kids?
You see I will trust the Supreme Court on its legality, you however Peregrine I will not.
We'll see.
Of course even if they support the law, that could just mean there were five activist judges willing to write the law based on their religious beliefs, not based on the facts of the case.
Oh FFS, do you really not see the difference between a "technicality" that addresses the substance of a law, and a technicality that ignores the question of whether or not the law should exist in favor of dismissing the case on the grounds that they didn't follow the right procedure to challenge the law?
Only the second example is a technicality. This is, again, why I noted that you seem to conflate legal and moral reasoning.
To the point: there is no difference between the two given your argument as presented.
Except that argument is shown to be laughably false by the fact that we don't prevent infertile couples from marrying.
Not really. It simply means that the state hasn't addressed the issue yet. Probably because it would be as impossible to enforce as "Gays can't marry!"
Of course even if they support the law, that could just mean there were five activist judges willing to write the law based on their religious beliefs, not based on the facts of the case.
Well we'll get to know that one when the ruling is published and can be picked apart. Until then, impartial until proven otherwise.
And you think that people who oppose gay marriage are perfectly content to stop at just not calling it marriage?
I am.
Or that somehow if you deny two people the ability to get married you can in any way use that to prevent them from associating or having kids?
Well if it was me no. Others? Not sure, I can just tell you that changing the name of the act would satisfy me and then they can go do whatever they wish.
rockerbikie wrote: As long as certain Churches can still not allow Same sex couples to marry in their churches.
I don't think it's actually possible to legislate a church to do something like that. First amendment rights and all that. This all goes back to Marriage (religion) and Marriage (legal status) not being the same thing.
Do you seriously not see the difference between laws against murder, a necessary part of a functioning society, and laws against gay marriage, which are an arbitrary rule based on one group's religious beliefs?
Only the second example is a technicality. This is, again, why I noted that you seem to conflate legal and moral reasoning.
To the point: there is no difference between the two given your argument as presented.
This is not complicated. The court has two options:
1) Rule on the substance of DOMA, addressing, based on legal arguments, whether the law is or isn't constitutional and either uphold it or strike it down.
or
2) Rule that the third-party group hasn't followed proper procedures and dismiss the case, ignoring the question of whether DOMA itself is a valid law.
Can you really not see how option #1 gives a meaningful answer, while #2 is just a technicality about this one specific case?
There appears to be, as there is much argument about the topic.
You aren't the only rational person on this board, and certainly not the only one in the US
Sorry, but arguments against gay marriage aren't based on rationality. "Ewww gross" isn't a rational argument.
Not really. It simply means that the state hasn't addressed the issue yet. Probably because it would be as impossible to enforce as "Gays can't marry!"
Except the state hasn't even attempted to address the issue, and shows no signs of intending to ever address it. Marriage for infertile couples is assumed to be an indisputable right, even among the same people who argue that gay marriage should be banned because it can't produce children.
I really do think that the majority of those willing to vote for 'the sanctity of marriage' would be okay with a legally equivalent thing called something else.
Ratbarf wrote: Not sure, I can just tell you that changing the name of the act would satisfy me and then they can go do whatever they wish.
Well you're going to be very disappointed then. Gay marriage is pretty much inevitable, the only question is whether the supreme court decides it now, or it takes a bit more time to pass state-by-state laws and eventually win at the national level. The shift in public opinion is pretty clear over the past few years, and eventually the bible belt isn't going to be enough.
Which is a good thing, of course, since the value of your satisfaction on this issue is meaningless, just like it's meaningless that racists aren't happy about interracial marriage being called "marriage".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: I really do think that the majority of those willing to vote for 'the sanctity of marriage' would be okay with a legally equivalent thing called something else.
Too bad. They aren't getting it, and they don't deserve it.
Do you seriously not see the difference between laws against murder, a necessary part of a functioning society, and laws against gay marriage, which are an arbitrary rule based on one group's religious beliefs?
I can conceive of a society that allows killing without restriction.
What constitutes murder is arbitrary, much as what constitutes marriage is arbitrary.
Now, that doesn't stop you from developing sound arguments in the favor of what you want, but if you make them here I will probably poke holes in them.
This is not complicated. The court has two options...
I already dealt with your argument, and I've explained my position. You can take my criticism or leave it, but please do not reiterate your arguments. It makes you appear convicted.
Ratbarf wrote: Not sure, I can just tell you that changing the name of the act would satisfy me and then they can go do whatever they wish.
Well you're going to be very disappointed then. Gay marriage is pretty much inevitable, the only question is whether the supreme court decides it now, or it takes a bit more time to pass state-by-state laws and eventually win at the national level. The shift in public opinion is pretty clear over the past few years, and eventually the bible belt isn't going to be enough.
Which is a good thing, of course, since the value of your satisfaction on this issue is meaningless, just like it's meaningless that racists aren't happy about interracial marriage being called "marriage".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: I really do think that the majority of those willing to vote for 'the sanctity of marriage' would be okay with a legally equivalent thing called something else.
Too bad. They aren't getting it, and they don't deserve it.
Nope, I don't feel the need to compromise with bigoted s who feel that "EWW GROSS" is a valid reason for limiting the rights of others.
And yet you assume that anyone who disagrees with you does so only for a specific reason and is of a specific mindset.
I do, because there is no other reason to oppose gay marriage besides "eww, gross".
You should work on those communication skills, because I am pretty much of the same ideological opinion as you, and everything about your methodology makes me want to switch my stance just to disagree with you.
Why can't I marry a fictional character? Or for that matter, and idea, or an object? We should be able to marry whoever or whatever we want.
My waifu doesn't need legal papers to prove her love, and neither do I, so everything works out. I know I can trust her, and we're always there to hold each other up. Still, I know there are lots of couples who want to take things to the next level that are being discriminated against just because their partner is 2 dimensional. It breaks my heart.
d-usa wrote: It's about fair time that gay people who split up end up with half as much fabulous stuff. Why should the heterosexuals have all the fun of divorce?
Agreed! Homosexuals should be as miserable as everyone else.
Well you're going to be very disappointed then. Gay marriage is pretty much inevitable, the only question is whether the supreme court decides it now, or it takes a bit more time to pass state-by-state laws and eventually win at the national level. The shift in public opinion is pretty clear over the past few years, and eventually the bible belt isn't going to be enough.
Lol, we already have it in Canada, doesn't mean I have to like it.
Which is a good thing, of course, since the value of your satisfaction on this issue is meaningless, just like it's meaningless that racists aren't happy about interracial marriage being called "marriage".
Oh you and your scarecrows.
I do, because there is no other reason to oppose gay marriage besides "eww, gross".
Well, you know, there are biological reasons, not necessarily accepted reasons mind, but reasons they are.
Oh and religious ones, since I'm not made uncomfortable knowing that gays exist, what they do, and how they act, I think I'm allowed to say I'm against Gay Marriage for reasons aside from, "Eww, gross."
Lol, we already have it in Canada, doesn't mean I have to like it.
Oh man, this is making me nostalgia really hard. I miss Chretien and his "Shawinigan handshake." Most of our current crop of politicians just aren't as cool as that guy.
True. I should correct that to "there are no rational reasons besides 'eww gross'", since all of the other so-called reasons are incoherent nonsense and really little more than a way of pretending to the public that it isn't about "eww gross" and petty bigotry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: Well, you know, there are biological reasons, not necessarily accepted reasons mind, but reasons they are.
And what biological reasons would those be?
(Hint: it's not children, since infertile couples are allowed to marry.)
Oh and religious ones, since I'm not made uncomfortable knowing that gays exist, what they do, and how they act, I think I'm allowed to say I'm against Gay Marriage for reasons aside from, "Eww, gross."
Sorry, but it just comes down to "eww gross". There are religious reasons for having a nice god-approved heterosexual marriage for yourself, but there is no legitimate religious reason to deny the title "marriage" to other people. Plain and simple, it's just a case of "eww gross, I don't want my marriage associated with that".
Bromsy wrote: You should work on those communication skills, because I am pretty much of the same ideological opinion as you, and everything about your methodology makes me want to switch my stance just to disagree with you.
(Hint: it's not children, since infertile couples are allowed to marry.)
Well actually it is children! Since under that reason infertile people would also be denied marriage your argument contrary to it is moot.
The other half is treating homosexuality like any other kind of mental disorder. Can't sign a legally binding contract if you aren't of sound mind.
And before I get jumped on, I said there are reasons, they just aren't accepted. I neither advocate nor believe in these reasons for the denial of gay marriage.
Sorry, but it just comes down to "eww gross". There are religious reasons for having a nice god-approved heterosexual marriage for yourself, but there is no legitimate religious reason to deny the title "marriage" to other people. Plain and simple, it's just a case of "eww gross, I don't want my marriage associated with that".
I'm not sure what to do with you Peregrine, you're one of those people that gets into an argument and pretty much just yells the same thing until the other person gives up in frustration. Then you strut around like you presented an infallible and perfectly logical argument that led to your victory.
Ratbarf wrote: And before I get jumped on, I said there are reasons, they just aren't accepted.
Those aren't reasons, they're just excuses to avoid giving the real reason. Homosexuality being a mental disorder is just laughably false, and anyone with even a trivial understanding of the subject would never believe otherwise. Therefore the people saying that really just think "eww gross", but are trying to cover it with a pretense of it being about some kind of objective facts.
I'm not sure what to do with you Peregrine, you're one of those people that gets into an argument and pretty much just yells the same thing until the other person gives up in frustration. Then you strut around like you presented an infallible and perfectly logical argument that led to your victory.
What else is there to do but yell? I have yet to see a single argument besides "I don't like it", so all that's left is flaming. Feel free to post an actual argument against gay marriage if you want to have more of a discussion.
Those aren't reasons, they're just excuses to avoid giving the real reason. Homosexuality being a mental disorder is just laughably false, and anyone with even a trivial understanding of the subject would never believe otherwise.
Captain Fantastic wrote: Why can't I marry a fictional character? Or for that matter, and idea, or an object? We should be able to marry whoever or whatever we want.
Because a marriage is at heart a contract. A fictional character, an idea, an object, an animal, any of these things lack the capacity to provide the consent required to make the contract a reality. If you're going to make this kind of argument, at least make it interesting and say you want to be married to a corporation.
Captain Fantastic wrote: Why can't I marry a fictional character? Or for that matter, and idea, or an object? We should be able to marry whoever or whatever we want.
Because a marriage is at heart a contract. A fictional character, an idea, an object, an animal, any of these things lack the capacity to provide the consent required to make the contract a reality. If you're going to make this kind of argument, at least make it interesting and say you want to be married to a corporation.
Oooh now that is the first interesting ghost of an argument to visit this thread so far!
I wonder how exactly that would work... if say individual X got married to AIG. Hmmmm
LoneLictor wrote: But then we'll get religious fanatics screaming, "THEN PEOPLE WILL MARRY ANIMALS, BLOW-UP DOLLS, AND DEAD BODIES!" and making other strawman arguments.
That's already happening to a degree. At least in japan.
djphranq wrote: I pray to God that this some how ends well for the LGBT community.
They already have it good they get parades for just being gay or bi can't say the same for straight people, they have no reason to complain (this is not a serious post nor does it reflect my actual beliefs on how gays and bis are treated in society).
Kilkrazy wrote: "Religion" does not "own" the word marriage.
The constitution surely does not allow the United States to reserve a word for religious use.
The trouble is, I think, not over words but the things to which words refer.
Uh, no. Do you have any type of historical reference whatsoever to back that up?
Cheesecat wrote:
djphranq wrote: I pray to God that this some how ends well for the LGBT community.
They already have it good they get parades for just being gay or bi can't say the same for straight people, they have no reason to complain (this is not a serious post nor does it reflect my actual beliefs on how gays and bis are treated in society).
Then why post it?
Go look outside at a busy street. That is the parade for straight people. Our 'parade' happens every single Goddamned day.
And the LGBTQ community has many, many reasons to complain. They are persecuted and ostracized in many parts of society because they were born a certain way, and they are also denied legal rights as a result.
Go look outside at a busy street. That is the parade for straight people. Our 'parade' happens every single Goddamned day.
Except your example doesn't work because that has nothing with sexuality but the fact that the street is being used by lots of people, which is also isn't a parade either it's just a street that is busy.
I almost got frenched by a dungeon-leather type bear once at a gay pride parade. I barely had time to block his face with my hetero-marriage-ring wearing hand as he was leaning in and turning his head. Straight marriage saved me that day!
Kilkrazy wrote: "Religion" does not "own" the word marriage.
The constitution surely does not allow the United States to reserve a word for religious use.
The trouble is, I think, not over words but the things to which words refer.
I am sure you are right.
The fact that a subset of religious people is attacking the concept on the rather specious grounds of nomenclature shows that the "moral" fight is already lost, though.
Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.
Why, that's not sexist at all!
Not sure where you are going with that. I was speaking in broad strokes of the entire mammal class. Human beings, being the lone truly sentient creatures on this planet, are capable of ignoring the natural drives we have. However, if we have such power could we not then use it to purposely remove unwanted traits from the gene-pool?
Edit overlap... As for monogamy - we really don't value it as a species. Western civilization pushed monogamy due to its christian beliefs.
Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.
In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.
Except for the fact that human civilization has largely invalidated natural selection. Or are you trying to say individuals like Steven Hawking are inferior to you somehow?
Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.
In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.
Except for the fact that human civilization has largely invalidated natural selection. Or are you trying to say individuals like Steven Hawking are inferior to you somehow?
He is inferior in some ways. I can out perform him physically any day of the week. The man is brilliant in his field, but that does not make him perfect.
Civilization is what we make it. The world we live in is shaped by the winners of history. Change that and our civilizations are vastly different.
I edited it because I thought it was overly confrontational. But if you want the rationale behind the comment: you initial statement denies male agency.
I was speaking in broad strokes of the entire mammal class. Human beings, being the lone truly sentient creatures on this planet, are capable of ignoring the natural drives we have.
All motivations affecting any creature are natural.
However, if we have such power could we not then use it to purposely remove unwanted traits from the gene-pool?
One would imagine that, were homosexuality purely genetic, it would no longer exist. Natural selection would have long ago done away with it. The other problem you're running into here is the assumption that the distinction between hetero and homosexuality is binary. It isn't. Those terms are labels that people use to reinforce certain parts of their identities, but it is quite rare for someone to be purely heterosexual or homosexual.
Granted, heterosexual males generally will not admit to this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: As for monogamy - we really don't value it as a species. Western civilization pushed monogamy due to its christian beliefs.
The Ancient Greeks were monogamous, and certainly not Christian.
Well, Dogma, I am not saying that it is an infallible reason to oppose gay marriage. I am merely saying that for the heterosexual there can be a natural biological reaction of "Eww Gross" that shapes or affects their reasoning.
Granted that homosexuals (themselves being thus unaffected) will not understand this.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: Well, Dogma, I am not saying that it is an infallible reason to oppose gay marriage. I am merely saying that for the heterosexual there can be a natural biological reaction of "Eww Gross" that shapes or affects their reasoning.
Granted that homosexuals (themselves being thus unaffected) will not understand this.
Why wouldn't homosexuals be subject to an "Ewww Gross" response?
The Ancient Greeks were monogamous, and certainly not Christian.
Absolutely true, and they did contribute to western civilization. I don't claim that monogamy is exclusively christian. However, if Christianity had not been so violently enforced in Europe and the so called pagan beliefs thrived, western civilization could have been less monogamous.
How are we defining monogamy? Cause ancient Greeks certainly had relations with more than one individual depending on the city state being discussed, and only one of them may have been their wife (this is specifically men).
Why wouldn't homosexuals be subject to an "Ewww Gross" response?
We are talking about homosexual attraction. I stated that homosexuals would not have the "Eww Gross" reaction to seeing homosexuals that heterosexuals could have. And you ask why they would not have it?
I assume that if they had that reaction, they would not be homosexual. It is not a perfect assumption as a person could force themselves to have relations that they find revolting, but it is unlikely.
LordofHats wrote: How are we defining monogamy? Cause ancient Greeks certainly had relations with more than one individual depending on the city state being discussed, and only one of them may have been their wife (this is specifically men).
Social monogamy, not biological. That is, the social expectation is that each person will have only one partner, though not necessarily an exclusive sexual partner.
We are talking about homosexual attraction. I stated that homosexuals would not have the "Eww Gross" reaction to seeing homosexuals that heterosexuals could have.
And you ask why they would not have it?
I assume that if they had that reaction, they would not be homosexual. It is not a perfect assumption as a person could force themselves to have relations that they find revolting, but it is unlikely.
Why make that assumption? Many people do not enjoy viewing sexual relations of any kind, which is the root of the phrase "Get a room!"
Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.
In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.
An enormous amount of species in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behaviours, sometimes with the homosexual pairings being far longer lasting than their brief heterosexual encounters.
Many species are split in between finding temporary or life-long mates; between monogamy and polygamy; heck, some don't even have direct sexual contact. Some use homosexual displays to arouse their partners of the opposite sex.
Suffice to say that evolution is not powered by 'eww gross'. There are too many species which engage in the behaviour for it to be something which prevents evolution.
One thing that I'm concerned about is the potential rise of polygamy after gay marriage is passed as a law. I don't have anything against polygamy (in fact I think it is actually quite sensible), but the issue is that most arguments which are used to further the cause of gay marriage can be equally used to further the cause of polygamy, especially if the law does get changed. Polygamy is also still currently accepted practice in a number of countries around the world (many Islamic countries) whereas homosexual marriage is not. The only thing different is that public opinion is not yet on the side of polygamy. And it would be a pain in the ass to write tax + ownership laws for.
Gen. Lee Losing wrote: As for monogamy - we really don't value it as a species. Western civilization pushed monogamy due to its christian beliefs.
The Ancient Greeks were monogamous, and certainly not Christian.
The ancient greeks also said that our ability to be homosexual set us apart from and above the animals:
"All irrational animals merely copulate, but we rational ones are superior in this regard to all other animals. We discovered homosexual intercourse. Men under the sway of women are no better than dumb animals"
(source)
Frankly, any man marries more than one chick is crazy... but, that's just me.
I did say that I don't think it is a bad thing... just an observation that culturally the western world is probably not ready for polygamy but all the gay marriage arguments can be equally used for polygamy (and especially so when gay marriage laws are passed).
Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.
In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.
An enormous amount of species in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behaviours, sometimes with the homosexual pairings being far longer lasting than their brief heterosexual encounters.
Many species are split in between finding temporary or life-long mates; between monogamy and polygamy; heck, some don't even have direct sexual contact. Some use homosexual displays to arouse their partners of the opposite sex.
Suffice to say that evolution is not powered by 'eww gross'. There are too many species which engage in the behaviour for it to be something which prevents evolution.
I am not sure we are on the same wave length. You are saying that "an enormous" amount of the animal kingdom would choose to engage in sexual actives even when there are females available? Really? There are examples of animals "mounting" but that is usually accepted as a display of dominance not actual homosexuality as we apply it to humans. In other words, a dog may mount another dog as a display of dominance, but it would much rather have a female dog (technical term would be filtered) in heat.
Trasvi wrote: I did say that I don't think it is a bad thing... just an observation that culturally the western world is probably not ready for polygamy but all the gay marriage arguments can be equally used for polygamy (and especially so when gay marriage laws are passed).
This isn't really true. The (legitimate) objections to polygamy are based on the coercive nature of fundamentalist religious polygamy. So even if you allow multiple-partner relationships you still have a valid objection to forcing young girls to marry high-status old men, men keeping their wives locked away because god says they shouldn't be out in public, people marrying a second spouse without the first one knowing about it, etc. All of these problems are separate from the exact definition of marriage, and no amount of changes to who is able to get married will make them less of a problem.
On the other hand there's no ethical justification for banning relationships between multiple people (of whatever gender combination) acting as equals. There's a lot of practical concerns with how it would work for tax purposes, who gets automatic inheritance/medical decisions/etc, and other issues related to the current status of the marriage contract assuming two parties. But assuming the practical issues could be worked out and a functioning marriage contract developed to accommodate three or more people there's nothing wrong with, say, a woman having two husbands.
In Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the lunar inhabitants typically used a couple of forms of plural marriage, in part due to their shortage of females in the prison colony. It's definitely more complicated, but could be worked out and in theory could be even more stable in terms of the main practical functions of marriage- preservation of capital/pooling of resources, and caring for kids. Like raising kids in a close-knit clan structure, the kids have more caregivers available.
That all being said, I've seen it tried in real life a few times and it often seems to run into some problems; jealously, etc.
Evolution is powered by selective breeding where (among mammals) the female breeds with the male with the most advantageous traits.
In other words, "Eww Gross" is why humans are not hairy things flinging poo in jungles.
An enormous amount of species in the animal kingdom engage in homosexual behaviours, sometimes with the homosexual pairings being far longer lasting than their brief heterosexual encounters.
Many species are split in between finding temporary or life-long mates; between monogamy and polygamy; heck, some don't even have direct sexual contact. Some use homosexual displays to arouse their partners of the opposite sex.
Suffice to say that evolution is not powered by 'eww gross'. There are too many species which engage in the behaviour for it to be something which prevents evolution.
I am not sure we are on the same wave length. You are saying that "an enormous" amount of the animal kingdom would choose to engage in sexual actives even when there are females available? Really? There are examples of animals "mounting" but that is usually accepted as a display of dominance not actual homosexuality as we apply it to humans. In other words, a dog may mount another dog as a display of dominance, but it would much rather have a female dog (technical term would be filtered) in heat.
Applying human terms to animal sexuality lies somewhere between difficult and pointless. I think the modern understanding of animal mating behaviours is now shying away from the 'its all just dominance' explanation, though I don't have a source for that. There are a number of complex relationships that researchers previously said were about 'dominance', but work just as well or even better if you substitute 'trust and respect' or 'bonding'... I believe both male lions and male elephants engage in homosexual behaviour with a 'mentor' figure where the 'mentee' mounts the 'mentor' and vice-versa, which you wouldn't expect if it were simply a display of dominance by th mentor. There are animal species which do engage in same-sex couplings even when there are members of the opposite sex present, and in some species these pairings are for life. There have been studies showing some monkeys prefer homosexual copulation over heterosexual and will deny opposite-sex partners.
But the critical point of your post was suggesting that homosexual behaviour is somehow counter to evolution, or that sexual reproduction is necessary for evolution when that is clearly not the case considering that a large portion of life on earth is hermaphroditic or asexual.
EDIT: I really don't care one way or the other about gay marriage, but a significant portion of my job depends on evolutionary theory, so I get frustrated when people misappropriate it.
But the critical point of your post was suggesting that homosexual behaviour is somehow counter to evolution, or that sexual reproduction is necessary for evolution when that is clearly not the case considering that a large portion of life on earth is hermaphroditic or asexual.
There are also theories that suggest that the presence of some homosexual members within a population can be evolutionarily advantageous to the group. I'm certainly glad Alan Turing was on the side of the allies.
Kilkrazy wrote: "Religion" does not "own" the word marriage.
The constitution surely does not allow the United States to reserve a word for religious use.
The trouble is, I think, not over words but the things to which words refer.
I am sure you are right.
The fact that a subset of religious people is attacking the concept on the rather specious grounds of nomenclature shows that the "moral" fight is already lost, though.
If arguments of nomenclature are specious, then surely both of the opposing positions are specious.
Manchu wrote: If arguments of nomenclature are specious, then surely both of the opposing positions are specious.
Here's one that's not: defining same-sex marriage as something separate to heterosexual marriage means it is easier for unscrupulous lawmakers to make them out of sync. There is no reason why we need the redundancy of defining marriage twice, and it is harmful to the goal of maintaining equal treatment before the law. It makes as little sense as saying that we should have had a separate legal definition for civil unions between couples of different races.
I'm familiar with the argument that X must be treated as if it were Y. What I am saying is that such an argument does not proceed from any characteristic of X or Y other than nomenclature.
Manchu wrote: I'm familiar with the argument that X must be treated as if it were Y. What I am saying is that such an argument does not proceed from any characteristic of X or Y other than nomenclature.
s to decent and sensible people on the supreme court is.
