Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.