- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,915
- Reaction score
- 510
- Location
- ND
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
If women were denied the right to drive a car, then it would be.
uh oh, do we need to talk about gender discrimination again?
If women were denied the right to drive a car, then it would be.
Then we agree.
The government should simply get out of the marriage business altogether and let churches marry whomever they choose. Some churches can choose to marry only heteros. Others will marry straight and gays. Sounds perfect.
This is not the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court.Then we agree. The government should simply get out of the marriage business altogether and let churches marry whomever they choose. Some churches can choose to marry only heteros. Others will marry straight and gays. Sounds perfect.
No they aren't. Two men can not get married.
Captain, need I remind you that the position of "no religion" is itself a religious position, and thus, paradoxically, "'NO' religion" is still religion?
You can disclaim the need for a sacred text -- that is a religious statement.
You can deny the existence of a Deity -- that is a religious statement.
You can deny that anything beyond the empirical world of the senses exists -- that is a religious statement.
When you make religious statements, you are practicing religion.
What unites the Atheist with the Fundamentalist is their fervent faith in their own beliefs; one is neither more nor less religious than the other.
You mean it's against the law to marry your sister? Maybe gays should be fighting for that too.Neither can 2 related people. You're point?
You mean it's against the law to marry your sister? Maybe gays should be fighting for that too.
That's where we disagree. We agree that the government should get out of the marriage business. However, my position is that if we are going to allow the government to stay in the marriage business, they should be required to comply with the Constitutional safeguard of equal protection. Your "minority housing grant" argument fails because it would undergo a different analysis under equal protection than gay marriage would. One involves a Constitutionally recognized fundamental right, the other does not.Absolutely, HOWEVER, if we are going to permit the government to establish an unconstitutional institution it makes no sense to cry afoul when it runs amiss of the Constitution. A gay couple has as much of a "right" to a state-sanctioned marriage as I do to a minority housing grant.
You mean it's against the law to marry your sister? Maybe gays should be fighting for that too.
gays wouldn't be marrying their sister :doh...that's more of a red neck right-wing thing to do.
Then why are you cheering on a court ruling that most emphatically puts Government in the marriage business?I never said it WAS the ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court, I was simply agreeing with Etheral that Government should be out of the marriage business.
Iowa Code section 595.2 is unconstitutional because the County has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage. A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution. This record, our independent research, and the appropriate equal protection analysis do not suggest the existence of a justification for such a legislative classification that substantially furthers any governmental objective. Consequently, the language in Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil
marriage to a man and a woman must be stricken from the statute, and the remaining statutory language must be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage.
As for your second point, let me clarify. I agree with that position. However, when I said it was unpersuasive, I was saying that it is unpersuasive as an argument for arguing that bans on gay marriage are constitutional. As an argument for that it fails sadly. However, as a policy matter, it makes absolute sense.
Then why are you cheering on a court ruling that most emphatically puts Government in the marriage business?
celticlord said:My argument is that civil marriage is unconstitutional, that it is violative of the First Amendment, and should be discontinued forthwith. If you accept the constitutionality of civil marriage, if you accept that marriage licensure is a power reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment (which, if you accept the institution, it must be), then you acknowledge the power of the States to regulate marriage accordingly; a State's refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is quite constitutional in that framework.
celticlord said:Gay marriage is not a constitutional issue. Civil marriage is.
They both are absolutely constitutional issues. So long as states are involved in civil marriage, they must comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
I'm going to say this one last time and then drop off before I rip you a new asshole and earn another 2 day vacation....
There are no requirements in the constitution regarding marriage.
Marriage is not a power afforded the Fed nor is it a power denied the Fed. Therefore, and I'll go slow on this part so you can keep up....therefore, per the 10th Amendment, marriage is a state issue and not a federal issue at all.
Have fun chasing your tail :2wave:
I am arguing no such thing. The Iowa statutes--as is generally the case in state laws defining marriage--allow every man to seek a marriage license from the state with the woman of his choice, and allow every woman to seek a marriage license from the state with the man of her choice. The law is applied equally without regard to race, creed, or sexual orientation (keep in mind that sexual union is not a predicate nor a prerequisite for marriage). The law does not handicap any person more than another; it does not preclude two men (or two women) from cohabiting, from bequeathing property to each other, from raising children, or from any other practical practice of "marriage".No it isn't. States aren't free to disregard the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection simply because civil marriage is a power reserved to the States. Basically you are arguing that States are free to do anything they want. That simply isn't true.
They absolutely cannot both be constitutional issues. If civil marriage is constitutional, then states are granted the power to regulate marriage, which amply validates the refusal to issue a marriage license to same sex couples as being constitutional. Similarly, in order for gay marriage to be a constitutional issue, civil marriage itself must be constitutional.They both are absolutely constitutional issues. So long as states are involved in civil marriage, they must comply with the requirements of the Constitution.
I am arguing no such thing. The Iowa statutes--as is generally the case in state laws defining marriage--allow every man to seek a marriage license from the state with the woman of his choice, and allow every woman to seek a marriage license from the state with the man of her choice. The law is applied equally without regard to race, creed, or sexual orientation (keep in mind that sexual union is not a predicate nor a prerequisite for marriage). The law does not handicap any person more than another; it does not preclude two men (or two women) from cohabiting, from bequeathing property to each other, from raising children, or from any other practical practice of "marriage".
As the law restricts all persons equally, there is no "equal protection" case to be made. Arguing that the law should not restrict is a worthy argument, but it is not an "equal protection" argument.
celticlord said:As for fairness, in constitutional arguments that is most often a canard. "Fairness" in constitutional terms is simply the equitable application of the law, and is merely a rhetorical addendum to the mantra of "equal protection" with which it is synonymous. Substantively, what is and is not constitutional is a matter of law, not fairness. Fairness is a question of social justice, and the place to debate and remedy social injustice is the legislature, not the courts.
celtliclord said:They absolutely cannot both be constitutional issues. If civil marriage is constitutional, then states are granted the power to regulate marriage, which amply validates the refusal to issue a marriage license to same sex couples as being constitutional. Similarly, in order for gay marriage to be a constitutional issue, civil marriage itself must be constitutional.
Declaring civil marriage unconstitutional precludes any discussion on the constitutionality of gay marriage. Demanding gay marriage be constitutional necessitates an acknowledgment of the constitutionality of civil marriage. The arguments are therefore mutually exclusive.
The Courts have ALWAYS been involved in issues of fairness. JUSTICE is the very principle under which the courts are intended to operate. This is why there are 3 distinct branches of government. To say that social justice is the sole role of the legislature fails to recognize that.
....think of the story of Judge Learned Hand and Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. After having lunch together, Justice Holmes entered his carriage to return to the Supreme Court. Overcome by a sudden bout of enthusiasm, Judge Hand ran towards Holmes' carriage and shouted, "Do justice, Sir! Do justice!" Judge Holmes replied, "That is not my job, sir. My job is to apply the law."
It is a fairly linear reasoning, and one the Iowa Court erred in rejecting.You essentially argue that because a gay man and a straight man are both free to marry a straight or gay woman, there is no violation. That is a rather simplistic reading and analysis that the Iowa Court rejected.
If civil marriage is not inherently and necessarily sexual in nature, if civil marriage and sexual expression are not inextricably intertwined, then the sexual orientation of individuals need not be given especial consideration in deriving regulations on civil marriage.
Hence why gay marriage advocates must fail in their argument. They are seeking special consideration, and, ultimately, a most unequal circumstance under the law.Thank you...you just made the argument as to why the state should not be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In deciding whether to issue marriage contracts to two consenting adults, the government should not give any special consideration to the sexual orientation of the individuals seeking to enter into that contract.
That's where we disagree. We agree that the government should get out of the marriage business. However, my position is that if we are going to allow the government to stay in the marriage business, they should be required to comply with the Constitutional safeguard of equal protection.
Your "minority housing grant" argument fails because it would undergo a different analysis under equal protection than gay marriage would.
One involves a Constitutionally recognized fundamental right, the other does not.
I see in Vermont the legislature approved gay marriage.........As much as I am against gay marriage I can respect their decision because it was done by the correct branch of Gov........That why marriage in Mass. and Iowa is so phoney.......It was approved by activist judges not the people or the legislature...........My hat is off to the people of California who overruled the activist judges there...........
Navy...you need to do your homework. The California Legislature TWICE passed gay marriage bills, only the have them Vetoed by our Republican Governor who said the issue should be decided by the Courts.
Since Gay Marriage in California was approved by the "Correct branch in Government", I must assume that you supported gay marriage in California, right?