Civil Right?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clayton's description would INCLUDE blood relatives since he keeps using the term consenting adults. How again can they be discriminated against if no class of consenting adult may be so discriminated against for any reason?

I’ve made no ‘consenting adults’ argument.

I simply restate the Constitution’s requirement that all laws be applied consistently predicated on a rational basis.

Laws banning blood relatives marrying is rational, as no class of persons is being singled-out for exclusion, it applies to all races, genders, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations equally. Such laws are consequently Constitutional.

As WorldWatcher correctly notes, however, there is no rational basis or compelling reason for the state to ‘deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ and forbid homosexuals access to marriage.

Religious objection is certainty not rational. It may also be in violation of the First Amendment should the state attempt to use such a rationale to justify exclusion. In addition, that marriage has ‘traditionally’ been between men and women is also not Constitutionally valid. As the Court observed in Lawrence:

[T]he fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice…

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[Cecilie1200]

But the Constitution doesn't define marriage between a man and a women. So how can the government legally tell two consenting adults who they can marry, especially when you bring in the 14th amendment.

Is the US Constitution the only set of laws in the country? No? Then that would be how. The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, DOES define marriage - as recognized by the state - as being between one man and one woman, since marriage is properly a matter of state law, not federal.

Is there only one set of laws in this Country? No, is the correct answer.

However, ARTICLE XXII of the Arizona Constitution Section 21 says “The Legislature shall enact all necessary laws to carry into effect the provisions of this Constitution.” That means the statutory laws of Arizona are subordinate to the Arizona Constitution because the State Constitution provides the legislature the authority to create such statutory law.

Then there is ARTICLE II of the Arizona Constitution that notes that the United States Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. That is a recognition of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, para 2) which means that the Arizona Constitution (and the statutory laws subordinate to it) are subordinate to the United States Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the issue, except insofar as you cannot define a relationship as marriage between one couple and refuse to recognize the exact same relationship as marriage between another couple. A same-sex relationship is NOT "the exact same relationship" as defined by state law as a heterosexual relationship. Feel free to go look at the Arizona Revised Statutes for an example of the defined marital relationship which must be recognized as marriage in all cases.

14 Amendment:
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.​

The 14th Amendment provides that a State cannot deny persons under it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The legal standard though is not that they have to be “the exact same relationship”. If you were to research it you will find that the standard is “similarly situated situations”. In dealing with people you will probably never find people “in the exact same situation” as people are different. They of different races, different ages, live in different parts of the country (or state), have different incomes, some have children some don’t, most will have monogamous relationship some may voluntarily have outside sex partners, some are couples of different religious faiths, some may live together all the time others may have extended periods of separation. That’s why the standard is similar situation.

Now like situated couples, per the topic of Civil Marriage would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple who are allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple who are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

When a group is singled out to be excluded from equal treatment under the law, the responsibility rests with the government as to why the discriminatory treatment is allowed as an exemption to the Constitutions Equal Protection clause. The 14th doesn’t address Civil Marriage; it addresses equal treatment for all citizens.

So far I haven’t seen a compelling reason to warrant the different treatment.


>>>>

In other words, "I don't want to believe different, so no argument will ever be 'compelling'". I will be generous and assume that's why you don't even bother to answer the arguments given against your specious Fourteenth Amendment assertions, rather than assuming it's because you're too cowardly to do so and don't actually have anything to say that will counter them.

No, wait, I won't. I spend too much time responding to the most half-assed, uneducated arguments imaginable on this board, so you can bloody well SHOW us that the arguments are uncompelling, rather than just airily declaring them so. Otherwise, I will consider this a surrender and admission of defeat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No "class of persons" of persons were being excluded in Civil Marriage in the State of Virginia which prompted the Loving v. Virginia case.

As a matter of fact that same logic, which failed to sway the court, was presented by the State in defense of it's anti-miscegenation law. That logic being that no class was excluded because Civil Marriage was available to each individual. That because whites could marry whites, and coloreds could marry coloreds - neither was excluded because they could not choose to marry each other.



Seems the implication is that because an individual has access to Civil Marriage, that the access of a couple isn't, and cannot be, considered as part of the equation. Again that is not quite correct. Using that logic then the SCOTUS never would have accepted the Loving case. Mr. Loving had access to Civil Marriage with a member of his own race, Mrs. Loving had access to Civil Marriage with members of her own race. The court should have refused the case because neither was denied access to Civil Marriage, yet it was the treatment of the couple that was evaluated by the court and not just that of the individual.

The treatment of the status of the couple is similar in both the cases of anti-miscegenation and anti-same sex statutes because both are based on a biological conditions. Race and gender both being biological. If you don't think biology is the basis of the law, then go back and read the laws - they are all based on gender. For example we can examine Arizona's statute " 25-101. Void and prohibited marriages" which provides that "C. Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited." - the determining factor is gender and not sexual orientation.



>>>>

Let's allow Thomas Sowell to clarify the confusion on this, since he has already addressed the comparison of homosexual "marriage" and interracial marriage so well, I see no point in trying to come up with all new words for it:

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

First of all, I can appreciate the appeal to authority, but Thomas Sowell is an economist not a legal scholar. As such his opinions carry the same weight as yours and mine. In other words, in the grand scheme of things, not much.

You really don't comprehend English, do you? Or is it just that you don't really bother to read before shooting your mouth off?

I didn't "appeal to authority". I liked the way he explained it, and saw no reason to reinvent the wheel, something I already said and have now had to repeat, since you were too lazy to read it the first time.

He doesn't have to be a legal scholar. Last time I checked, our laws are written for EVERYONE to live under, and everything he addressed is written in plain English, rather than "legalese".

And no, his opinions carry considerably more weight than yours, because he's infinitely smarter, and not struggling under the aforementioned attitude of "no argument that supports a worldview I want to hold can possibly be valid".

The only real appeal to authority as to the constitutionality of law that discriminate based on gender in regards to Civil Marriage will be the SCOTUS. Of course to date the Supreme Court has never heard a case and issued a detailed analysis of the constitutionality of denying Civil Marriage based on gender.

I like that. "The only real authority is the Constitution, and I believe the Supreme Court is the Constitution." Can you sound any sillier?

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Of course it’s not discrimination against people. However if the law says that only males may operate an automobile on public highways – well – then that is discriminating against people. Men and women are both people. Even though there are differences between the two, they are like situated and there would be no compelling government interest in denying females the ability to operate an automobile on public highways.

Well, thank you for postulating a hypothetical that has shit-all to do with either the topic at hand OR with any law anywhere in the country. Now, if you could perhaps say something RELEVANT, that would be very nice.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions.

In other words, while race and sex are both biological, race is not and never has been part of the definition of the word "marriage", but sex has always been the very core of that definition. And however much you might want to pretend people are interchangeable, marrying a member of the opposite sex is NOT the same action as marrying a member of the same sex, any more than riding your bicycle on the freeway is the same action as driving a car there, simply because "they're both vehicles".

Actually, under our legal system of the past, race was a part of the definition of marriage under the various anti-miscegenation laws which existed because whites and colored were specifically banned from entering into Civil Marriage.

ACTUALLY, in neither case - "homosexual" marriage or interracial marriage - are we talking about the definition of marriage in terms of something brand-new that some special interest group has tried to shoehorn into it to suit their desires. In fact, in both cases we are talking about DEFENDING the definition of marriage as it has existed in Western civilization - and very nearly EVERY civilization since the dawn of time.

However much you might want to pretend people are not interchangeable, marrying a member of the same sex IS the same action as marrying a member of the opposite sex, because even though motorcycles and cars might be different types of motor vehicles they both have equal access to the highways.

I don't have to pretend people aren't interchangeable, you halfwit public school graduate. They AREN'T. Christ, you have only to observe a man and a woman naked to recognize THAT, and that's not even counting the utterly innumerable scientific studies that have been conducted and discovered all the OTHER ways, mentally and emotionally, that men and women are different (which sensible people already knew for millenia, but leftist retards needed science to "discover" for them).

And I'm not even going to comment on the sentence "marrying a member of the same sex is the same as marrying a member of the opposite sex". I'm just going to let it hang there and laugh at it.

Currently there are 8 States (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) plus Washington, D.C. which recognize Same-sex Civil Marriages in some fashion. Those Civil Marriages in those States ARE the same action and it doesn't matter if the couples are of the same or opposite genders.


>>>>

No, they AREN'T the same action. They are a DIFFERENT action, which has been erroneously declared, in almost all cases by illegal court fiat, to hold the same legal value.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is the US Constitution the only set of laws in the country? No? Then that would be how. The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, DOES define marriage - as recognized by the state - as being between one man and one woman, since marriage is properly a matter of state law, not federal.

Is there only one set of laws in this Country? No, is the correct answer.

However, ARTICLE XXII of the Arizona Constitution Section 21 says “The Legislature shall enact all necessary laws to carry into effect the provisions of this Constitution.” That means the statutory laws of Arizona are subordinate to the Arizona Constitution because the State Constitution provides the legislature the authority to create such statutory law.

Then there is ARTICLE II of the Arizona Constitution that notes that the United States Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. That is a recognition of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, para 2) which means that the Arizona Constitution (and the statutory laws subordinate to it) are subordinate to the United States Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the issue, except insofar as you cannot define a relationship as marriage between one couple and refuse to recognize the exact same relationship as marriage between another couple. A same-sex relationship is NOT "the exact same relationship" as defined by state law as a heterosexual relationship. Feel free to go look at the Arizona Revised Statutes for an example of the defined marital relationship which must be recognized as marriage in all cases.

14 Amendment:
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.​

The 14th Amendment provides that a State cannot deny persons under it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The legal standard though is not that they have to be “the exact same relationship”. If you were to research it you will find that the standard is “similarly situated situations”. In dealing with people you will probably never find people “in the exact same situation” as people are different. They of different races, different ages, live in different parts of the country (or state), have different incomes, some have children some don’t, most will have monogamous relationship some may voluntarily have outside sex partners, some are couples of different religious faiths, some may live together all the time others may have extended periods of separation. That’s why the standard is similar situation.

Now like situated couples, per the topic of Civil Marriage would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple who are allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple who are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

When a group is singled out to be excluded from equal treatment under the law, the responsibility rests with the government as to why the discriminatory treatment is allowed as an exemption to the Constitutions Equal Protection clause. The 14th doesn’t address Civil Marriage; it addresses equal treatment for all citizens.

So far I haven’t seen a compelling reason to warrant the different treatment.


>>>>

In other words, "I don't want to believe different, so no argument will ever be 'compelling'".

I didn't say "no argument will ever be compelling", I said none has been compelling to date. Instead of putting words in my mouth it would be helpful if you respond to what I actually say.

Feel free to provide such a compelling reason that applies uniquely to Same-sex Couples as a function of Civil Marriage and I'll be happy to consider it and it may change my mind. So lets go. Provide the compelling government interest in enacting laws based on gender that provide different treatment for like situated couples, those being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couples should be treated differently than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.

I will be generous and assume that's why you don't even bother to answer the arguments given against your specious Fourteenth Amendment assertions, rather than assuming it's because you're too cowardly to do so and don't actually have anything to say that will counter them.

Ahhh - I see you are starting down the ad hominem road. Have fun with that.

No, wait, I won't. I spend too much time responding to the most half-assed, uneducated arguments imaginable on this board, so you can bloody well SHOW us that the arguments are uncompelling, rather than just airily declaring them so. Otherwise, I will consider this a surrender and admission of defeat.

OK, let's take a look at the most common arguments proposed:

1. Marriage is a Religious Institution

Incorrect, "marriage" exists in two realms. Religious Marriages are a function of the religous organization, as soon as secular laws were written into the law, then it because also a Civil Marriage (a separate entity).​

2. If gays are allowed to Civilly Marry it violates the rights of those who are religious.

a. Incorrect, a persons free exercise of religion is not violated because someone else is allowed to do something to which the individual disagrees with on religous grounds.

b. If the logic of #2 were to be true, the Same-sex Civil Marriage would be declared a Constitutional right based on the fact that there are religious organizations currently performing Sam-sex Religious Marriages and to deny them equal treatment would be an actual violation of their rights.​

Basically the religious arguments have no merrit under secular law.

3. Then their is the procreation argument.

Again incorrect as the concept of equal treatment under the law calls for like situated citizens to be treated equally under the law barring a compelling government interest. If exceptions are made for one group then an exception is warranted for a similarly situated group. Since infertile different-sex couples are allowed to marry, infertility (with your partner) is not a basis for denying same-sex couples.

On top of that, same-sex couples that procreate in the same manner (IVF, artifical insemination, and we'll include adoption) as infertile different-sex couples are still denied Civil Marriage recognition. If Civil Marriage is about procreation, then why deny Civil Marriage to parents who have children?​

4. Homosexuals have equal access to Civil Marriage because the individual is not denied marriage, they can just marry someone of the opposite sex.

This logic was supplied by the State of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case and the court didn't buy it the either. The view of the court was based on the treatment of the couple and not the individual. This is obvious from the fact that the court accepted the case to begin with. Mr. Loving was allowed to marry - well - someone, if that is the case the would have been rejected. However it wasn't the examination of the individual that was ruled on it was the treatment of the couple (Mr. and Mrs. Loving) that was the basis of the ruling. That makes the "gays can marry, just not someone of the same sex" argument locally faulty based on past court actions.​

5. Homosexuals are denied Civil Marriage based on a choice and it need not be recognized.

The Lovings were denied Civil Marriage based on a choice, he choose to fall in love with a colored woman. Who someone chooses to marry is not within the purview of government.​

6. It's OK to discrimination based on behavior, which is different than discrimination based on race.

None of the laws that I've read say anything about behavior. The laws denying Same-sex Civil Marriage are all based on gender, which is biological not a behavior. Discrimination regarding Civil Marriage was found unconstitutional and (IMHO) will be found unconstitutional based on gender alone.

If the measure of the law is behavior, then show us some of the laws denying Civil Marriage to those who engage on oral sex or anal sex (those are behaviors), my understanding is all the laws are based on gender, which of course is biological.

BTW - Start outlawing Civil Marriage based on oral sex and there will be a lot of pissed off heterosexuals.​

Those are the biggies off the top of my head. Did you have a new one?



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

I'm out to run some errands, as I've shown - I shall return - and will address the second long post this afternoon or this evening.


>>>>

 

[Luissa]

The 14th amendment also states" no state shall" which means it also applies to state law. And when you can get a tax credit for being married I think it is also a federal issue. no the constitution is not the only laws in the land, but it is the back bone for issues like this. DOMA and any state law regarding same sex marriage in my opinion is unconstitutional.
If you are alright with this country abridging the privileges and immunities of two consenting adults, then you are obviously letting your emotions rule you. And please don't give me the argument they can marry, this country should not be in the business of defining who we are allowed to marry.

But the Constitution doesn't define marriage between a man and a women. So how can the government legally tell two consenting adults who they can marry, especially when you bring in the 14th amendment.

Except that everyone has equal access to marriage laws, since everyone in this country is either male or female. Granted, they may not WANT to make use of those laws, because they don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean they don't have access to them. The only way someone could NOT have access to the marriage laws is if they were some other sex besides male or female.

Is the US Constitution the only set of laws in the country? No? Then that would be how. The Constitution of the State of Arizona, for example, DOES define marriage - as recognized by the state - as being between one man and one woman, since marriage is properly a matter of state law, not federal.

The Fourteenth Amendment has nothing to do with the issue, except insofar as you cannot define a relationship as marriage between one couple and refuse to recognize the exact same relationship as marriage between another couple. A same-sex relationship is NOT "the exact same relationship" as defined by state law as a heterosexual relationship. Feel free to go look at the Arizona Revised Statutes for an example of the defined marital relationship which must be recognized as marriage in all cases.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is there only one set of laws in this Country? No, is the correct answer.

However, ARTICLE XXII of the Arizona Constitution Section 21 says “The Legislature shall enact all necessary laws to carry into effect the provisions of this Constitution.” That means the statutory laws of Arizona are subordinate to the Arizona Constitution because the State Constitution provides the legislature the authority to create such statutory law.

Then there is ARTICLE II of the Arizona Constitution that notes that the United States Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. That is a recognition of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, para 2) which means that the Arizona Constitution (and the statutory laws subordinate to it) are subordinate to the United States Constitution.

14 Amendment:
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.​

The 14th Amendment provides that a State cannot deny persons under it’s jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. The legal standard though is not that they have to be “the exact same relationship”. If you were to research it you will find that the standard is “similarly situated situations”. In dealing with people you will probably never find people “in the exact same situation” as people are different. They of different races, different ages, live in different parts of the country (or state), have different incomes, some have children some don’t, most will have monogamous relationship some may voluntarily have outside sex partners, some are couples of different religious faiths, some may live together all the time others may have extended periods of separation. That’s why the standard is similar situation.

Now like situated couples, per the topic of Civil Marriage would be law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in a different-sex couple who are allowed to Civilly Marry and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-family, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple who are not allowed to Civilly Marry.

When a group is singled out to be excluded from equal treatment under the law, the responsibility rests with the government as to why the discriminatory treatment is allowed as an exemption to the Constitutions Equal Protection clause. The 14th doesn’t address Civil Marriage; it addresses equal treatment for all citizens.

So far I haven’t seen a compelling reason to warrant the different treatment.


>>>>

In other words, "I don't want to believe different, so no argument will ever be 'compelling'".

I didn't say "no argument will ever be compelling", I said none has been compelling to date. Instead of putting words in my mouth it would be helpful if you respond to what I actually say.

Feel free to provide such a compelling reason that applies uniquely to Same-sex Couples as a function of Civil Marriage and I'll be happy to consider it and it may change my mind. So lets go. Provide the compelling government interest in enacting laws based on gender that provide different treatment for like situated couples, those being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couples should be treated differently than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.

I will be generous and assume that's why you don't even bother to answer the arguments given against your specious Fourteenth Amendment assertions, rather than assuming it's because you're too cowardly to do so and don't actually have anything to say that will counter them.

Ahhh - I see you are starting down the ad hominem road. Have fun with that.

No, wait, I won't. I spend too much time responding to the most half-assed, uneducated arguments imaginable on this board, so you can bloody well SHOW us that the arguments are uncompelling, rather than just airily declaring them so. Otherwise, I will consider this a surrender and admission of defeat.

OK, let's take a look at the most common arguments proposed:

1. Marriage is a Religious Institution

Incorrect, "marriage" exists in two realms. Religious Marriages are a function of the religous organization, as soon as secular laws were written into the law, then it because also a Civil Marriage (a separate entity).​

2. If gays are allowed to Civilly Marry it violates the rights of those who are religious.

a. Incorrect, a persons free exercise of religion is not violated because someone else is allowed to do something to which the individual disagrees with on religous grounds.

b. If the logic of #2 were to be true, the Same-sex Civil Marriage would be declared a Constitutional right based on the fact that there are religious organizations currently performing Sam-sex Religious Marriages and to deny them equal treatment would be an actual violation of their rights.​

Basically the religious arguments have no merrit under secular law.

3. Then their is the procreation argument.

Again incorrect as the concept of equal treatment under the law calls for like situated citizens to be treated equally under the law barring a compelling government interest. If exceptions are made for one group then an exception is warranted for a similarly situated group. Since infertile different-sex couples are allowed to marry, infertility (with your partner) is not a basis for denying same-sex couples.

On top of that, same-sex couples that procreate in the same manner (IVF, artifical insemination, and we'll include adoption) as infertile different-sex couples are still denied Civil Marriage recognition. If Civil Marriage is about procreation, then why deny Civil Marriage to parents who have children?​

4. Homosexuals have equal access to Civil Marriage because the individual is not denied marriage, they can just marry someone of the opposite sex.

This logic was supplied by the State of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case and the court didn't buy it the either. The view of the court was based on the treatment of the couple and not the individual. This is obvious from the fact that the court accepted the case to begin with. Mr. Loving was allowed to marry - well - someone, if that is the case the would have been rejected. However it wasn't the examination of the individual that was ruled on it was the treatment of the couple (Mr. and Mrs. Loving) that was the basis of the ruling. That makes the "gays can marry, just not someone of the same sex" argument locally faulty based on past court actions.​

5. Homosexuals are denied Civil Marriage based on a choice and it need not be recognized.

The Lovings were denied Civil Marriage based on a choice, he choose to fall in love with a colored woman. Who someone chooses to marry is not within the purview of government.​

6. It's OK to discrimination based on behavior, which is different than discrimination based on race.

None of the laws that I've read say anything about behavior. The laws denying Same-sex Civil Marriage are all based on gender, which is biological not a behavior. Discrimination regarding Civil Marriage was found unconstitutional and (IMHO) will be found unconstitutional based on gender alone.

If the measure of the law is behavior, then show us some of the laws denying Civil Marriage to those who engage on oral sex or anal sex (those are behaviors), my understanding is all the laws are based on gender, which of course is biological.

BTW - Start outlawing Civil Marriage based on oral sex and there will be a lot of pissed off heterosexuals.​

Those are the biggies off the top of my head. Did you have a new one?



>>>>

Ahh. I see you're starting down the "I can't argue with what you said, so I'll just try to force the arguments I WANT to answer down your throat" path. Have fun with that, but you'll have to do it alone, since now that you've unconditionally surrendered, I have no more use for you.

You can stop waving your white flag now that we've all seen it. Buh bye.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let's allow Thomas Sowell to clarify the confusion on this, since he has already addressed the comparison of homosexual "marriage" and interracial marriage so well, I see no point in trying to come up with all new words for it:

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

First of all, I can appreciate the appeal to authority, but Thomas Sowell is an economist not a legal scholar. As such his opinions carry the same weight as yours and mine. In other words, in the grand scheme of things, not much.

You really don't comprehend English, do you? Or is it just that you don't really bother to read before shooting your mouth off?

I didn't "appeal to authority". I liked the way he explained it, and saw no reason to reinvent the wheel, something I already said and have now had to repeat, since you were too lazy to read it the first time.

He doesn't have to be a legal scholar. Last time I checked, our laws are written for EVERYONE to live under, and everything he addressed is written in plain English, rather than "legalese".

And no, his opinions carry considerably more weight than yours, because he's infinitely smarter, and not struggling under the aforementioned attitude of "no argument that supports a worldview I want to hold can possibly be valid".



I like that. "The only real authority is the Constitution, and I believe the Supreme Court is the Constitution." Can you sound any sillier?



Well, thank you for postulating a hypothetical that has shit-all to do with either the topic at hand OR with any law anywhere in the country. Now, if you could perhaps say something RELEVANT, that would be very nice.






ACTUALLY, in neither case - "homosexual" marriage or interracial marriage - are we talking about the definition of marriage in terms of something brand-new that some special interest group has tried to shoehorn into it to suit their desires. In fact, in both cases we are talking about DEFENDING the definition of marriage as it has existed in Western civilization - and very nearly EVERY civilization since the dawn of time.

However much you might want to pretend people are not interchangeable, marrying a member of the same sex IS the same action as marrying a member of the opposite sex, because even though motorcycles and cars might be different types of motor vehicles they both have equal access to the highways.

I don't have to pretend people aren't interchangeable, you halfwit public school graduate. They AREN'T. Christ, you have only to observe a man and a woman naked to recognize THAT, and that's not even counting the utterly innumerable scientific studies that have been conducted and discovered all the OTHER ways, mentally and emotionally, that men and women are different (which sensible people already knew for millenia, but leftist retards needed science to "discover" for them).

And I'm not even going to comment on the sentence "marrying a member of the same sex is the same as marrying a member of the opposite sex". I'm just going to let it hang there and laugh at it.

Currently there are 8 States (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) plus Washington, D.C. which recognize Same-sex Civil Marriages in some fashion. Those Civil Marriages in those States ARE the same action and it doesn't matter if the couples are of the same or opposite genders.


>>>>

No, they AREN'T the same action. They are a DIFFERENT action, which has been erroneously declared, in almost all cases by illegal court fiat, to hold the same legal value.

Quoted to show that some don't want to answer logical questions that are on point but wouild rather lower what can be a pleasent debate into insults, name calling and personal insults when they can't provide a coherent answers to the issues raised.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

In other words, "I don't want to believe different, so no argument will ever be 'compelling'".

I didn't say "no argument will ever be compelling", I said none has been compelling to date. Instead of putting words in my mouth it would be helpful if you respond to what I actually say.

Feel free to provide such a compelling reason that applies uniquely to Same-sex Couples as a function of Civil Marriage and I'll be happy to consider it and it may change my mind. So lets go. Provide the compelling government interest in enacting laws based on gender that provide different treatment for like situated couples, those being law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a different-sex couples should be treated differently than law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-family, infertile, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.





Ahhh - I see you are starting down the ad hominem road. Have fun with that.

No, wait, I won't. I spend too much time responding to the most half-assed, uneducated arguments imaginable on this board, so you can bloody well SHOW us that the arguments are uncompelling, rather than just airily declaring them so. Otherwise, I will consider this a surrender and admission of defeat.

OK, let's take a look at the most common arguments proposed:

1. Marriage is a Religious Institution

Incorrect, "marriage" exists in two realms. Religious Marriages are a function of the religous organization, as soon as secular laws were written into the law, then it because also a Civil Marriage (a separate entity).​

2. If gays are allowed to Civilly Marry it violates the rights of those who are religious.

a. Incorrect, a persons free exercise of religion is not violated because someone else is allowed to do something to which the individual disagrees with on religous grounds.

b. If the logic of #2 were to be true, the Same-sex Civil Marriage would be declared a Constitutional right based on the fact that there are religious organizations currently performing Sam-sex Religious Marriages and to deny them equal treatment would be an actual violation of their rights.​

Basically the religious arguments have no merrit under secular law.

3. Then their is the procreation argument.

Again incorrect as the concept of equal treatment under the law calls for like situated citizens to be treated equally under the law barring a compelling government interest. If exceptions are made for one group then an exception is warranted for a similarly situated group. Since infertile different-sex couples are allowed to marry, infertility (with your partner) is not a basis for denying same-sex couples.

On top of that, same-sex couples that procreate in the same manner (IVF, artifical insemination, and we'll include adoption) as infertile different-sex couples are still denied Civil Marriage recognition. If Civil Marriage is about procreation, then why deny Civil Marriage to parents who have children?​

4. Homosexuals have equal access to Civil Marriage because the individual is not denied marriage, they can just marry someone of the opposite sex.

This logic was supplied by the State of Virginia in the Loving v. Virginia case and the court didn't buy it the either. The view of the court was based on the treatment of the couple and not the individual. This is obvious from the fact that the court accepted the case to begin with. Mr. Loving was allowed to marry - well - someone, if that is the case the would have been rejected. However it wasn't the examination of the individual that was ruled on it was the treatment of the couple (Mr. and Mrs. Loving) that was the basis of the ruling. That makes the "gays can marry, just not someone of the same sex" argument locally faulty based on past court actions.​

5. Homosexuals are denied Civil Marriage based on a choice and it need not be recognized.

The Lovings were denied Civil Marriage based on a choice, he choose to fall in love with a colored woman. Who someone chooses to marry is not within the purview of government.​

6. It's OK to discrimination based on behavior, which is different than discrimination based on race.

None of the laws that I've read say anything about behavior. The laws denying Same-sex Civil Marriage are all based on gender, which is biological not a behavior. Discrimination regarding Civil Marriage was found unconstitutional and (IMHO) will be found unconstitutional based on gender alone.

If the measure of the law is behavior, then show us some of the laws denying Civil Marriage to those who engage on oral sex or anal sex (those are behaviors), my understanding is all the laws are based on gender, which of course is biological.

BTW - Start outlawing Civil Marriage based on oral sex and there will be a lot of pissed off heterosexuals.​

Those are the biggies off the top of my head. Did you have a new one?



>>>>

Ahh. I see you're starting down the "I can't argue with what you said, so I'll just try to force the arguments I WANT to answer down your throat" path.

Sorry, I'm not the one that has run away from answering any question. I've responded point-by-point.

The "arguments" I raise are exactly the points of argument that are raised in courts of law when evaluating the situation, and since the discussion is about Same-sex Civil Marriage under the law - they are the issues.

Have fun with that, but you'll have to do it alone, since now that you've unconditionally surrendered, I have no more use for you.

You can stop waving your white flag now that we've all seen it. Buh bye.

Hmmm - I haven't surrendered. Seven years ago there were no States that recognized Same-sex Civil Marriage at all. Now there are 8-states that recognize it in some fashion, of those 8 in 6 same-sex couples can enter into Civil Marriage in addition to Washington DC.

Why would I "surrender" when the cause of liberty, justice, and equal protections under the law are winning?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let's allow Thomas Sowell to clarify the confusion on this, since he has already addressed the comparison of homosexual "marriage" and interracial marriage so well, I see no point in trying to come up with all new words for it:

The "equal protection of the laws" provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

First of all, I can appreciate the appeal to authority, but Thomas Sowell is an economist not a legal scholar. As such his opinions carry the same weight as yours and mine. In other words, in the grand scheme of things, not much.

You really don't comprehend English, do you? Or is it just that you don't really bother to read before shooting your mouth off?

I didn't "appeal to authority". I liked the way he explained it, and saw no reason to reinvent the wheel, something I already said and have now had to repeat, since you were too lazy to read it the first time.

He doesn't have to be a legal scholar. Last time I checked, our laws are written for EVERYONE to live under, and everything he addressed is written in plain English, rather than "legalese".

And no, his opinions carry considerably more weight than yours, because he's infinitely smarter, and not struggling under the aforementioned attitude of "no argument that supports a worldview I want to hold can possibly be valid".



I like that. "The only real authority is the Constitution, and I believe the Supreme Court is the Constitution." Can you sound any sillier?



Well, thank you for postulating a hypothetical that has shit-all to do with either the topic at hand OR with any law anywhere in the country. Now, if you could perhaps say something RELEVANT, that would be very nice.






ACTUALLY, in neither case - "homosexual" marriage or interracial marriage - are we talking about the definition of marriage in terms of something brand-new that some special interest group has tried to shoehorn into it to suit their desires. In fact, in both cases we are talking about DEFENDING the definition of marriage as it has existed in Western civilization - and very nearly EVERY civilization since the dawn of time.

However much you might want to pretend people are not interchangeable, marrying a member of the same sex IS the same action as marrying a member of the opposite sex, because even though motorcycles and cars might be different types of motor vehicles they both have equal access to the highways.

I don't have to pretend people aren't interchangeable, you halfwit public school graduate. They AREN'T. Christ, you have only to observe a man and a woman naked to recognize THAT, and that's not even counting the utterly innumerable scientific studies that have been conducted and discovered all the OTHER ways, mentally and emotionally, that men and women are different (which sensible people already knew for millenia, but leftist retards needed science to "discover" for them).

And I'm not even going to comment on the sentence "marrying a member of the same sex is the same as marrying a member of the opposite sex". I'm just going to let it hang there and laugh at it.

Currently there are 8 States (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, California, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) plus Washington, D.C. which recognize Same-sex Civil Marriages in some fashion. Those Civil Marriages in those States ARE the same action and it doesn't matter if the couples are of the same or opposite genders.


>>>>

No, they AREN'T the same action. They are a DIFFERENT action, which has been erroneously declared, in almost all cases by illegal court fiat, to hold the same legal value.

Well since Cecilie has indicated she has departed the discussion I really don’t see the need to do a segment by segment response so I’ll just address a couple of things.

*************

Using quotation marks Cecilie indicated that I’d said "The only real authority is the Constitution, and I believe the Supreme Court is the Constitution” which of course isn’t what I said. What I said was that the only appeal to authority that counts it to the SCOTUS. Seeing that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land (Article IV) and that the Constitution vests in the Supreme Court the final determination of constitutionality as to law and fact on Constitutional issues (Article III) – then ya, the SCOTUS is the final authority. Unless of course an amendment is made, but that would be a change to the Constitution and a change to the rules a previous court operated under.

*************

What’s really funny, Cecilie brought up hypothetical automobiles and bicycles (which have nothing to do with Civil Marriage) and I responded with a hypothetical about males and females. Since Civil Marriage laws are based on gender – such a hypothetical was on point. The result was the only response was to insult and dodge.

*************

Then of course there is an attempt to ignore the fact that anti-miscegenation laws in the past meant that the functional definition of (Civil) “Marriage” under the law (which of course is what Civil Marriage is) was between white people and between colored people, but not between colored and white people.

That of course is then followed with an appeal to tradition, an appeal that has been repeatedly been rejected by the courts as a compelling government reason in allowing continued discrimination.

*************

Finally she ends with the erroneous statement that “almost all cases by illegal court fiat” has Same-sex Civil Marriage been achieved. Currently there are 9 legal entities in the United States that recognize Same-sex Civil Marriage in some fashion. In 7 of those entities couples can enter into Civil Marriage.

• Connecticut – Judicial action in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
• Iowa – Judicial action in Varnum v. Brien
• Massachusetts – Judicial action in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health
• New Hampshire – Legislative action
• New York – Legislative action
• Vermont – Legislative action
• Washington, DC – Legislative action

So not only is it not “almost all cases” was Same-sex Civil Marriage the result of court “fiat”, the majority of those entities which currently allow same-sex couples to Civilly Marry did so under legislative action and not court action.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Quoted to show that some don't want to answer logical questions that are on point but wouild rather lower what can be a pleasent debate into insults, name calling and personal insults when they can't provide a coherent answers to the issues raised.

Pity, as this thread was unique in its relative civility, until a certain poster subscribed.

So not only is it not “almost all cases” was Same-sex Civil Marriage the result of court “fiat”, the majority of those entities which currently allow same-sex couples to Civilly Marry did so under legislative action and not court action.

Interestingly, the courts need not be involved at all if each state simply abided the Constitutional mandate that each citizen have equal access to all its laws though the legislative process.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Quoted to show that some don't want to answer logical questions that are on point but wouild rather lower what can be a pleasent debate into insults, name calling and personal insults when they can't provide a coherent answers to the issues raised.

Pity, as this thread was unique in its relative civility, until a certain poster subscribed.

So not only is it not “almost all cases” was Same-sex Civil Marriage the result of court “fiat”, the majority of those entities which currently allow same-sex couples to Civilly Marry did so under legislative action and not court action.

Interestingly, the courts need not be involved at all if each state simply abided the Constitutional mandate that each citizen have equal access to all its laws though the legislative process.

Leftist logic: "We wouldn't have to drag the courts in if you unreasonable bastards would just give in and let us have our way."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clayton's description would INCLUDE blood relatives since he keeps using the term consenting adults. How again can they be discriminated against if no class of consenting adult may be so discriminated against for any reason?

I’ve made no ‘consenting adults’ argument.

I simply restate the Constitution’s requirement that all laws be applied consistently predicated on a rational basis.

Laws banning blood relatives marrying is rational, as no class of persons is being singled-out for exclusion, it applies to all races, genders, ethnic groups, and sexual orientations equally. Such laws are consequently Constitutional.

As WorldWatcher correctly notes, however, there is no rational basis or compelling reason for the state to ‘deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws,’ and forbid homosexuals access to marriage.

Religious objection is certainty not rational. It may also be in violation of the First Amendment should the state attempt to use such a rationale to justify exclusion. In addition, that marriage has ‘traditionally’ been between men and women is also not Constitutionally valid. As the Court observed in Lawrence:

[T]he fact a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice…

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

You have yet to state a compelling reason why blood relatives can not marry. If the claim is defects then that does not wash for several reasons. One our Government allows people with defects that will occur 50 percent of time to marry and breed. 1st Generation children of blood relatives have almost no chance of developing defects.

If the argument is that blood relatives have children and that those children will marry is also not applicable. The argument does not hold that because blood relatives marry their offspring will also marry each other. Any more then it is to claim children of gay parents will be predisposed to be gay.

SO provide us with the reason it is prudent and reasonable to deny the right to marry to blood relatives while extending it to gays.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have yet to state a compelling reason why blood relatives can not marry. If the claim is defects then that does not wash for several reasons. One our Government allows people with defects that will occur 50 percent of time to marry and breed. 1st Generation children of blood relatives have almost no chance of developing defects.

If the argument is that blood relatives have children and that those children will marry is also not applicable. The argument does not hold that because blood relatives marry their offspring will also marry each other. Any more then it is to claim children of gay parents will be predisposed to be gay.

SO provide us with the reason it is prudent and reasonable to deny the right to marry to blood relatives while extending it to gays.

Every state has laws forbidding incest, relations between parent-child, brother-sister; these laws are consistently applied and based on evidence any court would find compelling:

Twenty-nine children of brother-sister or father-daughter matings were studied. Twenty-one were ascertained because of the history of incest, eight because of signs or symptoms in the child. In the first group of 21 children, 12 had abnormalities, which were severe in nine (43%). In one of these the disorder was autosomal recessive. All eight of the group referred with signs or symptoms had abnormalities, three from recessive disorders. The high empiric risk for severe problems in the children of such close consanguineous matings should be borne in mind, as most of these infants are relinquished for adoption.

Elsevier

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have yet to state a compelling reason why blood relatives can not marry. If the claim is defects then that does not wash for several reasons. One our Government allows people with defects that will occur 50 percent of time to marry and breed. 1st Generation children of blood relatives have almost no chance of developing defects.

If the argument is that blood relatives have children and that those children will marry is also not applicable. The argument does not hold that because blood relatives marry their offspring will also marry each other. Any more then it is to claim children of gay parents will be predisposed to be gay.

SO provide us with the reason it is prudent and reasonable to deny the right to marry to blood relatives while extending it to gays.

Every state has laws forbidding incest, relations between parent-child, brother-sister; these laws are consistently applied and based on evidence any court would find compelling:

Twenty-nine children of brother-sister or father-daughter matings were studied. Twenty-one were ascertained because of the history of incest, eight because of signs or symptoms in the child. In the first group of 21 children, 12 had abnormalities, which were severe in nine (43%). In one of these the disorder was autosomal recessive. All eight of the group referred with signs or symptoms had abnormalities, three from recessive disorders. The high empiric risk for severe problems in the children of such close consanguineous matings should be borne in mind, as most of these infants are relinquished for adoption.

Elsevier

Even if true irrelevant because it occurs at a lower rate then KNOWN defects that are allowed to marry and breed. Further the appeal to " it is already law" is irrelevant since we are talking about consistence due process and rights. Gays were once legally not allowed to have sex either.

You have not proven your case. By the way? You may not use consenting adult but 99 percent of those arguing for the right DO. As they also claim it is a civil right.

 

[westwall]

No one cares to chime in with the reason that Gay Marriage is somehow a Civil Right? Have I fairly portrayed the argument?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

I believe this covers it pretty well. Don't you?

 

[rdean]

Exactly, and equal protection under and access to the law also extends to the churches that are willing to perform the wedding rites, and having those rites as supported by state licenses as other churches are. Licensing one dogma's preference over another flies in the face of the establishment clause.

You know, it's really quite simple. When a government has a legitimate interest in preventing marriages (marriage between blood relatives, for example), it can, and should, do so. When there is no legimate reason to prevent marriages between certain types of people (inter racial marriage, marriage between gays), then the government cannot prevent such marriages.

There is no legitimate reason whatsover for preventing gay marriage. Intolerance and bigotry are not legitimate reasons. I have yet to hear a valid, logical argument against gay marriage - they are either red herrings or bull shit arguments designed to mask the true reason for the opposition: intolerance and bigotry.

How is it IN THE GOVERNMENTS interest to stop blood relatives from marrying?

I thought the criteria was that they love each other, be consenting adults and all was right with the world.

Be warned if you are going to claim defects first generation defects from blood relatives is so minor as to occurrence as to be irrelevant, further the Government allows people that have a 50 percent chance to pass on a defect to marry and breed.

Other then your ick factor why should blood relatives be prevented from marrying?

That's nasty. Blood relatives?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You may not use consenting adult but 99 percent of those arguing for the right DO. As they also claim it is a civil right.

The consenting adults aspect is a recognition that, from a Civil Law aspect, Civil Marriage involves three entities, the two individuals involved and the government. The two individuals must both consent to accept the rights, responsibilities, and obligations involved with Civil Marriage. The government is involved because it "agrees" to recognize the new family relationship where one did not exist before and then to extend those rights and privileges extended under the law to all Civilly Married couples. You cannot have a contractual arrangement between one of the individuals and the other individual where only one agrees to enter into the new relationship.

Some people confuse "consenting adult" to legally mean 18-years of age, in actuality that isn't what it means - in this context because one or both of the individuals can actually be under 18-years of age and still legally enter a Civil Marriage. For example, minors in New Hampshire can marry at age 14 for males and 13 for females with the parents and a Judge providing the consent. Now in this day and age, it's actually pretty rare and usually (IMHA - In My Humble Assumption) involves pregnancy, although it may not. Such as the recent famous case of Doug Hutchison (51-year old actor) who married Cortney Stodden (16-year old) with the parent providing the legal consent.


>>>>

 

[George Costanza]

So far I haven’t seen a compelling reason to warrant the different treatment.

And you never will - because none of these folks have the stones to just come right out and admit the real reason why they are opposed to gay marriage.

Nothing makes these bigots look worse than the gay marriage issue. I love it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So far I haven’t seen a compelling reason to warrant the different treatment.

And you never will - because none of these folks have the stones to just come right out and admit the real reason why they are opposed to gay marriage.

Nothing makes these bigots look worse than the gay marriage issue. I love it.

I don't say there is no compelling reason, I always try to say that none has been presented to date. Ya never know, someone might come up with a new, untested, rationale.

I would be open to think about it and give it an honest evaluation at least. It part of keeping an open mind and cultivating the ability to evaluate information and think critically.


>>>>