Equal justice under the law. Either we believe in equality or we don't. As long s Gay's are not equal under the law then it leaves the door open to speculate on who is equal and who isn't.
I can't believe that Americans cannot understand this simple premise. We can't say all are equall except this group or that group. If we are not all equal as Americans it leaves the door open for all of us to be discriminated against.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
The equivalent is the imaginary threat to children and society. In the case of interracial marriage, it was them producing so-called mud-blood babies who would not be able to function in either Black or White society. In the case of homosexual marriage, there is the idea that marriage is about children and will confuse the young about what marriage is for. Both were seen as a threat to traditional conservative values.Why? That's not something I believe. Besides, you would first need to prove that there is a heterosexual-purity equivalent to the racial purity stance supporting anti-interracial marriage first.
And in any case, anti-miscegenation had about as much to do with race as anti-SSM has to do with gender. Both are more incidental to the actual mode of oppression against sexual variance/deviance.
The point is that democratic/legislative processes cannot be relied upon to ensure minority rights.She asked, I answered, so you have no point.
Your faith in the law is disturbing, but a rational reading of the law is on the side of SSM advocates anyway.I do not agree. Anti-discrimination laws had precedence with other laws. This is how they were able to enact them. And using the law to support other laws is standard in legal and legislative practices in the US.
In contexts including but not limited to gay marriage. When they struck down prop 22, they reiterated it. State's top court strikes down marriage banNot in the context of marriage, as far as I know, but if that is true, please link to the case. And I agree. Gay marriage harms no one.That's incorrect. The California Supreme Court cited many decisions to support their contention that sexual orientation is a suspect criteria for discrimination. Though again, I care more about who is being harmed. Gay marriage harms nobody.
Though I should be clear that the level of suspect classification is state-specific. California, Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont all use sexual orientation as intermediate scrutiny:
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification]Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]The Supreme Court has additionally recognized national origin and religion as suspect classes and correspondingly analyzes any statutes discriminating against these classes under strict scrutiny. 
Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Quasi-suspect class, with its intermediate scrutiny, is typically reserved for government sponsored discrimination on the basis of sex or legitimacy.
Rational basis scrutiny is applied to all other discriminatory statutes. Rational basis scrutiny covers all other discriminatory criteria—e.g., disability, political preference, political affiliation, or sexual orientation (in every state in the United States except for California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa).
Here is Iowa’s Supreme Court citing the Connecticut case:
http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdfIn summarizing the rationale supporting heightened scrutiny of legislation
classifying on the basis of sexual orientation, it would be difficult to improve
upon the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut:
Gay persons have been subjected to and stigmatized by a long
history of purposeful and invidious discrimination that
continues to manifest itself in society. The characteristic that
defines the members of this group—attraction to persons of the
same sex—bears no logical relationship to their ability to
perform in society, either in familial relations or otherwise as
productive citizens. Because sexual orientation is such an
essential component of personhood, even if there is some
possibility that a person’s sexual preference can be altered, it
would be wholly unacceptable for the state to require anyone to
do so. Gay persons also represent a distinct minority of the
population. It is true, of course, that gay persons recently have
made significant advances in obtaining equal treatment under
the law. Nonetheless, we conclude that, as a minority group that
continues to suffer the enduring effects of centuries of legally
sanctioned discrimination, laws singling them out for disparate
treatment are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure
that those laws are not the product of such historical prejudice
Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 432.
I suggest you fully read the Iowa case to show that, even in terms of legality, there is a case for SSM. Though relying upon the law for determining what is right is extremely dubious.I already explained why that doesn't make sense. Denying a group of people the right to marry at all was not what anti-miscegenation laws were about, or anti-SSM marriage laws are about. Blacks could get married, they just couldn't marry Whites. Whites could get married, they just couldn't marry Blacks. Everybody could get married, but they're SOL if they happen to like the wrong person. Putting arbitrary restrictions on rights robs those rights of any meaning. Suppose somebody told you that you can marry, but you have to marry a specific kind of person regardless of whether you like them or not. Would you be able to meaningfully exercise your right to marry? Of course not.
Again, your argument lacks merit, standing, and support. Laws were on the books that allowed men to marry women. Discrimination was easily identified when a black MAN wanted to marry a white WOMAN or vise versa.
If people were to rely on the law in the colonial days, then Blacks in the South were considered property and marrying them would have made no more sense than marrying your dog. The assertion of the humanity of Blacks came from the federal branch, not the legislative and certainly not the populace of the South.
The man-woman requirement was never even articulated until the law few decades. And here we have plenty of precedence anyway, given that we have an equal protection clause.Plenty of precedence and old law just needed to be modified. Here, discrimination applied, as the concept of marriage was already established as man-woman.
Blacks weren't being prevented from marrying under anti-miscegenation either. And actually, gay people did start getting married in these liberal areas until laws were passed against it.What we are talking about is NEW law, that needs a different kind of support. Discrimination doesn't cut it. Gays are not being prevented from marrying.
If the category of people you want to marry is excluded from your choices, then you cannot have a meaningful marriage in terms of it being a relationship you want.And of course I would be allowed to marry and marry meaningfully.
Please be serious. You already acknowledge that gay marriage harms nobody, so don't start with murder-for-hire comparisons. A contract between two people is their business. When a 3rd party is killed, it become's the government's business.I want to kill someone, so I have a contract with someone to do that for me. There is no legality that supports this, just as there is no legality that supports man-man marriage, nor woman-woman marriage.Quote:
"want to" is consent. Informed consent is CENTRAL to contracts.
That's ridiculous. Infertile people don't have to show that their marriage will benefit society in some way outside of providing a stable environment for kids. Judicially, gays are not being treated the same, so no legislative intervention is appropriate nor required.In order to enact this, a different angle must be used. Showing how gay marriage benefits the government, society, AND the couple and any family they may choose to have bypasses all of the pot holes that those for GM keep encountering.
Incidentally, though, it would benefit society. If marriage promotes stability in relationships, then it will cause less transmission of STDs among the gay and bisexual, and due to bisexuals the heterosexual populace. It is also more efficient for people to cohabitate under one household. While this would be a great case for polygamy, it applies to expanding the definition of marriage as well if we assume marriage encourages cohabitation, which it does even if it merely promotes relationship stability.
But to say that benefit to society beyond treating a minority unfairly is a prerequisite for a law, even if you were to insist a legislative angle, is totally baseless. Gays are harmed by being denied the right to meaningfully marry. Why wouldn't that be enough?
Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-06-09 at 08:42 AM.
Everything must be approached from a moral standpoint, which is based upon logic, not emotion. This should include the law, which is quite obviously illogical most of the time when it relies upon its own traditions to make policy. To treat somebody unequally under the law without gain to society is extremely counterproductive to the well-being of society.Your issue here is that you are looking at this from a moral/emotional standpoint. I am pro-GM. However, winning this position will NOT be on moral/emotional grounds. It will be on legal grounds. The discrimination position has far to many holes. The government/society/couple/family benefit argument, in as far as enacting new law can win and win easily.
At this point, I'm not even sure you comprehended it.Of course I did. Easily.You didn't even come close to shredding it.
I know some Christians are heartless Christbots (or Paul/Mosesbots, quite frankly), but I know some of them are also capable of empathy.That's the point I've been trying to make with you. They won't. Which is precisely why you cannot argue from this position. This is why the discrimination argument and "marrying because I want to" argument will not work. Anti-GM folks, most of them at least, could care less about caring about the feelings of gays. The way around this is the government/society/couple/family benefit argument.Love is only one possible motive. It's presence isn't necessary, I was just hoping that those against gay marriage would learn to have empathy for other people.
If you insist on arguing from a legal standpoint, it is still quite simple. Heterosexuals DO marry based upon love, lust, wealth, or whatever criteria they want. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether society benefits from their union. Homosexuals should be treated the same way. It's that simple.
Where do you get that from? The fact that bureaucracies begin to function for the sake of their own self-preservation is a FLAW, not their purpose.Of course the government is set up to look after it's own interests. This may not be direct, mostly, but it is certainly indirect in nearly all things. The government is not going to do something that harms it...that would make no sense, since harming the government harms the people.The government isn't set up to look after it's own interests, but that of the people. Since nobody has a tangible stake against gay marriage, there is no basis to deny gay marriage. The purpose of marriage is not only to benefit society. We don't subject marriages to a test to check to see if it would benefit society. The relevant criteria is that both people consent to the contract, and provided that contract doesn't harm anybody there is no basis to deny it.
Do you seriously believe that what is good for the government is good for the people? If so, I'm not sure how you can be reasoned with. Do you remember Nazi Germany? Was what was good for the Nazi's good for Germany? No, obviously not.
It's an extreme example, but is morality subordinate to the laws of Nazi Germany if you live in Germany? Of course not. The law does not determine what is right and wrong.
Marriage is an individual right, its benefit to society is incidental.And marriage benefits society. There is plenty of research that supports that. This is why proving that gay marriage benefits society (of which there is plenty of research that supports this) will win this issue. Easily.
More from Iowa SC:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion
of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not
substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature
has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely
important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification.
There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.
Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa
Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise
would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people
must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive
justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal
protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2
denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by
the Iowa Constitution.It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or
lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation.The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and
lesbian people as a class.
Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 07-06-09 at 08:38 AM.
I don't think the "it's for the children" argument will win many hearts out there. I can totally see where you all are coming from with that and it's a good solid argument. However, the majority of people who oppose gay marriage that I've come across do so because the idea of same-sex relationships repulses them on an instinctual level. They see it as abnormal, unnatural, sinful and disgusting. The idea that these people they look upon with such scorn are actually raising children is even more shocking to them. I've even heard the argument that the best thing for these children would be to take them away from this "damaging" environment. Solid as the argument may be, I highly doubt it will sway any significant number of gay-marriage opponents.
"Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?".- Northern Irish joke
Perversely enough, the same sex marriage debate itself is the proof that lays this canard to rest, for if it were as you claim, same sex couples would not feel compelled to pursue a quest for a right to marry.
I want to take a moment to reiterate an important point here: "different" is not universally "better". Not every loving couple requires the sacrament of marriage to fulfill the potential of their relationship. Each individual, within their particular relationships, must decide whether the sacrament of marriage will or will not enhance their relationships. That is not in question here.
However, society in general does take a more positive view of married couples as opposed to unmarried couples, and the empirical data is quite clear that the sacrament of marriage positively correlates to stronger, healthier relationships, as well as healthier individuals. As healthy relationships, leading to healthy families, are the foundation of a healthy society, if government is going to regulate marriage--which it will for at least the foreseeable future--having such regulation be guided by a principle of facilitating strong relationships and strong families across the broad swath of society is prudent and proper.