Three Simple Questions No One Can Seem to Answer About Gay Marriage

[BDBoop]

I have a friend who is an attorney, and he posted the above image on Facebook, after which a lively debate ensued (involving other attorneys as well). This is my favorite bit.

"But this is a peculiar sort of redefinition that ignores the only reason marriage exists or ever existed."

This is a patently indefensible position. If the contract of legal marriage existed solely, or even primarily, to further the interests of childbearing, then childbearing would be part of the contract. It isn't. Marriage is a contract of domestic partnership, not a contract of agreement to bear children. The roots of marriage as a means of encouraging legitimate childbirth developed under a system of women as property, a system I am more than happy to see abandoned. There are countless tangible benefits to a legally-recognized, socially-normalized domestic partnership that have absolutely nothing to do with two individuals bearing children. Those benefits, and their arbitrary exclusivity, are at the heart of this issue.

 

[bodecea]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

First some basic givens:

A. Lemon v. Kurtzman establishes a three part test on whether a law is constitutional in regards to religion.

1) It must have a secular primary purpose
2) It can neither advance nor inhibit religion
3) It can not result in excessive entanglement with religion​

This means that religion may not be used as the basis for law in the United States. If your argument is religious or relies on religious teaching or belief, it’s completely irrelevant.
.
.
B. Marriage has been defined by the SCOTUS as a “right”

Loving v. Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men….Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Turner v. Safely: “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and marriage is an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”

Zablocki v. Redhail: “The right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur: “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”​

No less than four times and at least once more that I know of, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a “right”
.
.
C. According to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution a citizen of the United States is entitled to equal protection under the law and equal access to the law. If a homosexual is a United States citizen they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

.
.
D. Cleveland Board of Education v LaFleur and Loving v. Virginia, et. al. as well as the 8th and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have determined that same-sex marriage falls under the protection of the 14th Amendment.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals: "Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation. The freedom to marry is recognized as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause."


The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals:" ...Proposition 8 has the 'peculiar property,' of withdrawing from homosexuals but no others an existing legal right - here, access to the official designation of 'marriage'..."

"We consider whether [Proposition 8] violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We conclude that it does."​

.
.
E. No less than three ultra-liberal states have voted to ban gay marriage including California, Oregon, and Michigan by wide margins. In some of these liberal states even civil unions, domestic partnerships, and benefits related to domestic partnerships are banned. It is ridiculous to suggest that those bans passed in those states without significant support from Democrats.

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

There is no valid argument.

2) If question #1 cannot be satisfactorily answered, how can conservatives claim to be defenders of the United States Constitution while opposing the right of homosexuals to marry? Isn't a person who claims to defend the Constitution yet endorses the denial of Constitutional rights to a segment of society a flaming hypocrite?

They cannot claim to be defenders of the Constitution (if they fight against legalized civil gay marriage).

3) How can liberals point at the Republican party and feign any degree of contempt regarding gay marriage when in multiple states liberals have voted to deny homosexual rights (in some states) to an even greater level of extremity than Republicans have? How can they act contemptuous when for two years they had super-majorities (or very near it) in both houses of Congress and a liberal in the Oval Office and yet did absolutely nothing to address gay rights? Only later as the election neared did they repeal DADT (BFD). Can't liberals be considered flat out liars (or at the very least disingenuous) for claiming to support gay rights but dragging their feet to take action or flat out voting them down when the time comes?

Sadly, throughout our history we have had the majority start by slamming the minority's rights through the ballot box. Happily, throughout our history, we've also seen the majority eventually come around (sometimes kicking and screaming) to including said minority in equal civil rights. We saw this with unlanded citizens, black men, women, hispanics, native americans. Looking at the voting TRENDS, it is only a matter of time. (Let us remember that in some states, none of the civil rights for blacks were gained by the vote...had to be done by judicial fiat. Let us also remember that the ERA failed when voted on)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have a friend who is an attorney, and he posted the above image on Facebook, after which a lively debate ensued (involving other attorneys as well). This is my favorite bit.

"But this is a peculiar sort of redefinition that ignores the only reason marriage exists or ever existed."

This is a patently indefensible position. If the contract of legal marriage existed solely, or even primarily, to further the interests of childbearing, then childbearing would be part of the contract. It isn't. Marriage is a contract of domestic partnership, not a contract of agreement to bear children. The roots of marriage as a means of encouraging legitimate childbirth developed under a system of women as property, a system I am more than happy to see abandoned. There are countless tangible benefits to a legally-recognized, socially-normalized domestic partnership that have absolutely nothing to do with two individuals bearing children. Those benefits, and their arbitrary exclusivity, are at the heart of this issue.

Marriage is a contract between two people who have joined together as one in a normal lifestyle with the thought of creating children. It's not a deal breaker if you don't, it's a desperate argument from people who want to redefine abnormal too normal. I could care less what your friend is and what he does.

 

[BDBoop]

Sadly, throughout our history we have had the majority start by slamming the minority's rights through the ballot box. Happily, throughout our history, we've also seen the majority eventually come around (sometimes kicking and screaming) to including said minority in equal civil rights. We saw this with unlanded citizens, black men, women, hispanics, native americans. Looking at the voting TRENDS, it is only a matter of time. (Let us remember that in some states, none of the civil rights for blacks were gained by the vote...had to be done by judicial fiat. Let us also remember that the ERA failed when voted on)

Exactly. That's why wanting it to be voted on 'by the people' is so senseless. People will vote emotions Every. Time. Not logic, Not law.

 

[BDBoop]

I have a friend who is an attorney, and he posted the above image on Facebook, after which a lively debate ensued (involving other attorneys as well). This is my favorite bit.

"But this is a peculiar sort of redefinition that ignores the only reason marriage exists or ever existed."

This is a patently indefensible position. If the contract of legal marriage existed solely, or even primarily, to further the interests of childbearing, then childbearing would be part of the contract. It isn't. Marriage is a contract of domestic partnership, not a contract of agreement to bear children. The roots of marriage as a means of encouraging legitimate childbirth developed under a system of women as property, a system I am more than happy to see abandoned. There are countless tangible benefits to a legally-recognized, socially-normalized domestic partnership that have absolutely nothing to do with two individuals bearing children. Those benefits, and their arbitrary exclusivity, are at the heart of this issue.

Marriage is a contract between two people who have joined together as one in a normal lifestyle with the thought of creating children. It's not a deal breaker if you don't, it's a desperate argument from people who want to redefine abnormal too normal. I could care less what your friend is and what he does.

You do know you're arguing against someone who practices law for a living. Right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sadly, throughout our history we have had the majority start by slamming the minority's rights through the ballot box. Happily, throughout our history, we've also seen the majority eventually come around (sometimes kicking and screaming) to including said minority in equal civil rights. We saw this with unlanded citizens, black men, women, hispanics, native americans. Looking at the voting TRENDS, it is only a matter of time. (Let us remember that in some states, none of the civil rights for blacks were gained by the vote...had to be done by judicial fiat. Let us also remember that the ERA failed when voted on)

Exactly. That's why wanting it to be voted on 'by the people' is so senseless. People will vote emotions Every. Time. Not logic, Not law.

Gays have rights their is no right to break the law and live in a gay marriage.

 

[BDBoop]

Since the interest of the government is reproductive capacity, should all potential partners receive fertility tests before marriage? Should married couples be required to produce children? Should couples that can't afford to produce children be denied a marriage license? Should the government provide free health services to married women for all procedures and medical services related to pregnancy?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have a friend who is an attorney, and he posted the above image on Facebook, after which a lively debate ensued (involving other attorneys as well). This is my favorite bit.

Marriage is a contract between two people who have joined together as one in a normal lifestyle with the thought of creating children. It's not a deal breaker if you don't, it's a desperate argument from people who want to redefine abnormal too normal. I could care less what your friend is and what he does.

You do know you're arguing against someone who practices law for a living. Right?

I don't give a fuck what he does invite his ass here.

 

[BDBoop]

Reb, would you be upset if America passed a law requiring everyone to obey Sharia law? You would? Then why do you think it's OK for America to pass Christian law? Simply because that is your religion? Come now, let's not have a double standard here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Reb, would you be upset if America passed a law requiring everyone to obey Sharia law? You would? Then why do you think it's OK for America to pass Christian law? Simply because that is your religion? Come now, let's not have a double standard here.

You would have to amend the first amendment to allow Sharia law

 

[BDBoop]

You would for Christian law as well.

You can't deny a group of Americans the same rights we have, because it's against your religion. You just can't.

By the way, I have a new picture up of May-z.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You would for Christian law as well.

You can't deny a group of Americans the same rights we have, because it's against your religion. You just can't.

By the way, I have a new picture up of May-z.

When you have a same sex marriage case presented to the courts and ruled on by the supreme court you will have precedence and a leg to stand on.

 

[BDBoop]

You would for Christian law as well.

You can't deny a group of Americans the same rights we have, because it's against your religion. You just can't.

By the way, I have a new picture up of May-z.

When you have a same sex marriage case presented to the courts and ruled on by the supreme court you will have precedence and a leg to stand on.

Reb, I'm sorry the law doesn't make any sense to you, but the decision is already on the books. It's just a matter of time, now.

 

[hortysir]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

<snip>

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

<snip>

There is no legitimate way to answer your questions, as you have successfully restricted the answers to suite your own preconceived answer.

One can't honestly discuss marriage without delving into the history of the practice and the religious undertones.

So, you'll never get answers to your questions except your own.

 

[BDBoop]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

<snip>

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

<snip>

There is no legitimate way to answer your questions, as you have successfully restricted the answers to suite your own preconceived answer.

One can't honestly discuss marriage without delving into the history of the practice and the religious undertones.

So, you'll never get answers to your questions except your own.

That's how the law works.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You would for Christian law as well.

You can't deny a group of Americans the same rights we have, because it's against your religion. You just can't.

By the way, I have a new picture up of May-z.

When you have a same sex marriage case presented to the courts and ruled on by the supreme court you will have precedence and a leg to stand on.

Reb, I'm sorry the law doesn't make any sense to you, but the decision is already on the books. It's just a matter of time, now.

Could it be that it doesn't make sense to you? I fully understand it. When you end any laws
that makes homosexual act illegal no court ruling on marriage that has happen will not be precedence for your argument. Until all act of Homosexuals are legalized no justice will rule that a person can violate the law because his rights are restricted.

 

[hortysir]

Well it seems no one on other threads can answer these questions so I will throw it out to everyone. So far only one person has even tried to answer them and his very first sentence invalidated his argument. Everyone else has avoided answering them like the plague.

<snip>

QUESTIONS

1) What is the argument for denying United States citizens equal access to and protection under the law and denying their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment that meets the conditions defined in Lemon v. Kurtzman by the Supreme Courts? (Hint: the moment you mention God, religion, or any moral code that is linked to religion you automatically invalidate your argument.)

<snip>

There is no legitimate way to answer your questions, as you have successfully restricted the answers to suite your own preconceived answer.

One can't honestly discuss marriage without delving into the history of the practice and the religious undertones.

So, you'll never get answers to your questions except your own.

That's how the law works.

The laws and rulings cited say nothing about someone having the right to marry someone of the same sex.
They discuss race and child support issues and rulings made by STATES.

None of the case law attempts to redefine 'marriage'.

 

[BDBoop]

There is no legitimate way to answer your questions, as you have successfully restricted the answers to suite your own preconceived answer.

One can't honestly discuss marriage without delving into the history of the practice and the religious undertones.

So, you'll never get answers to your questions except your own.

That's how the law works.

The laws and rulings cited say nothing about someone having the right to marry someone of the same sex.
They discuss race and child support issues and rulings made by STATES.

None of the case law attempts to redefine 'marriage'.

I do believe you just changed the subject. You addressed how the questions led to one specific answer. That's how the law works. Now you're trying to change the subject.

 

[hortysir]

That's how the law works.

The laws and rulings cited say nothing about someone having the right to marry someone of the same sex.
They discuss race and child support issues and rulings made by STATES.

None of the case law attempts to redefine 'marriage'.

I do believe you just changed the subject. You addressed how the questions led to one specific answer. That's how the law works. Now you're trying to change the subject.

We are discussing Marriage, which has been historically defined as between a man and a woman.
Inter-racial marriages should have never been denied because they fit the definition.

Idiots trying to make the bestiality connection use "male and female" instead of "man and woman" are just that, IDIOTS.

Civil Unions? Yea.
Domestic Partnership? Sure.

But put an eraser on my Sharpie and try to tell me it's a pencil.

 

[BDBoop]

The laws and rulings cited say nothing about someone having the right to marry someone of the same sex.
They discuss race and child support issues and rulings made by STATES.

None of the case law attempts to redefine 'marriage'.

I do believe you just changed the subject. You addressed how the questions led to one specific answer. That's how the law works. Now you're trying to change the subject.

We are discussing Marriage, which has been historically defined as between a man and a woman.
Inter-racial marriages should have never been denied because they fit the definition.

Idiots trying to make the bestiality connection use "male and female" instead of "man and woman" are just that, IDIOTS.

Civil Unions? Yea.
Domestic Partnership? Sure.

But put an eraser on my Sharpie and try to tell me it's a pencil.

I foresee that in the not-too-distant future, Sharpies will come with erasers and be called pencils.

And same-sex marriage will be legal.

Bank on it.