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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

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".

I'd like to live in a world where marriage, let alone gay marriage, is no longer discussed.

I'd also like to live in a world where women conforms themselves to heteronormativity, but by their own accord.

I'm sad.

 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.

What a boring world.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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".

 Peregrine wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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?

 Peregrine wrote:
Of course it isn't a literal precedent, but the same reasoning for why racial discrimination is banned also applies here.

A point which you have reiterated with great personal conviction.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

And what exactly is that difference, besides "one is A, one is A and B"? What makes sex different from race?

What makes species different from race? Or gender different from sex?

They're different categories of being, defined by different things.

 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?

As long as certain Churches can still not allow Same sex couples to marry in their churches.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

But if you're going to make a ruling on the law itself instead of on a technicality the answer is clear.

All legal rulings turn on technicalities. This is why I noted earlier that you seem to conflate moral reasoning with legal reasoning.

 Peregrine wrote:

First of all, so what if they're different categories of being?

Race and sex/gender aren't treated the same way in common parlance, or even academic parlance, so why should the government follow suit?

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Ratbarf wrote:

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

Because we have a history of being awesome at separate but equal.

 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?

So, people who say that gay marriage isn't okay because the Bible says no, I have some questions.

Do you ever cut your beard or shave your face? If so, you going to hell.

Do you have piercings? Do you have tattoos? If so, you going to hell.

Have you ever been divorced? If so, you going to hell.

Now, cutting beards is legal. Having tattoos is legal. Getting divorced is legal.

So, gay marriage should be legal.

Oh look, it's that list again that has absolutely zero to do with Christianity...

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.

 Peregrine wrote:
Being unable to sign a marriage contract with someone of your own gender, on the other hand, is just an arbitrary rule.

So is the law against murder.

That you can only kill person X in Y circumstances is necessarily arbitrary absent the ascent of, in this case, public opinion.

 Peregrine wrote:

And sometimes the job of the courts is to tell the people to go themselves and overrule the majority decision.

I agree, but this is probably not that time.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Because there's no fundamental difference in reasoning between the two sets of laws.

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

 Peregrine wrote:

...(deny certain privileges to a group that at least 51% of the population hates, based on nothing more than bigotry)...

That is not the underlying reasoning behind Loving v. Virginia. You would benefit from reading the decision.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 dogma wrote:
So is the law against murder.

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.

So "you can't call it what I call it because it makes me feel icky" should be a basis for law in this country...

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Not much for compromise eh?

 Bromsy wrote:
Not much for compromise eh?

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.