• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Same-sex marriage and Faulty Comparisons

C

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I noticed the right wing has been making a lot of interesting comparisons between the Obergefell "rogue court" decision to legalize same-sex marriage and other historical decisions by the court and laws by Congress.

Some compared it to Dred Scott, a decision in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

Recently legislators in Kentucky compared it to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things restricted speech critical of the government[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif].

These seem like faulty comparisons to me.

[/FONT]Faulty Comparison

But I would like to hear people make a case that important differences are not being ignored in order to make these comparisons.
 
Last edited:
Marriage itself is the problem; it is legalized unequal treatment of partnerships recognized by the government.
 
CriticalThought said:
I noticed the right wing has been making a lot of interesting comparisons between the Obergefell "rogue court" decision to legalize same-sex marriage and other historical decisions by the court and laws by Congress.

Some compared it to Dred Scott, a decision in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

Recently legislators in Kentucky compared it to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things restricted speech critical of the government[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif].

These seem like faulty comparisons to me.

[/FONT]Faulty Comparison But I would like to hear people make a case that important differences are not being ignored in order to make these comparisons.
Click to expand...

Why don't you first make the case that important differences ARE being ignored in order to make these comparisons?

I don't know who "the right wing" is. Chief Justice Roberts thought the majority decision in Obergefell was most like the economic substantive due process classic, Lochner v. New York. I would agree with that, and I think it also is much like another notorious substantive due process decision, Roe v. Wade. I have never read a more arbitrary, poorly reasoned decision than Obergefell, except for Roe. One of the holdings in Dred Scott laid the foundation for economic substantive due process decision of the late 1800's like the Slaughter-House Cases, Allgeyer v. Louisiana, etc., and eventually the Lochner era of SDP, but I would not pick it as a case to compare with Obergefell.

You have not said why you think the comparison to Dred Scott is false. Do you think that Chief Justice Roger Taney and the other Southerners on the Court in 1857 were not trying to preserve slavery, or that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow lawmakers were not trying to promote the homosexual agenda?
 
matchlight said:
I don't understand what that means. Please explain.
Click to expand...

Here is one example:

Sue, once married to Joe (for at least 10 years) is entitled for life to Joe's SS benefits (even those Joe obtained outside of that period of marriage) unless Sue later marries Sam (yet she is free to live with Sam suffering no loss of entitllement to Joe's SS). Any new marriage (by Sue) somehow cancels (supercedes?) Sue's prior SS entitlement status (to Joe's SS) making her then dependent upon Sam, for support, only if she marries Sam - otherwise Sue and Sam can continue to live together and freely share Joe's SS benefits. The marriage law clearly does not want Sue to marry Sam or they will "tax" her at 100% of Joe's SS benefits.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I noticed the right wing has been making a lot of interesting comparisons between the Obergefell "rogue court" decision to legalize same-sex marriage and other historical decisions by the court and laws by Congress.

Some compared it to Dred Scott, a decision in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

Recently legislators in Kentucky compared it to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things restricted speech critical of the government[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif].

These seem like faulty comparisons to me.

[/FONT]Faulty Comparison

But I would like to hear people make a case that important differences are not being ignored in order to make these comparisons.
Click to expand...

Why do you think them faulty?
 
CriticalThought said:
I noticed the right wing has been making a lot of interesting comparisons between the Obergefell "rogue court" decision to legalize same-sex marriage and other historical decisions by the court and laws by Congress.

Some compared it to Dred Scott, a decision in which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.

Recently legislators in Kentucky compared it to the Alien and Sedition Acts, which among other things restricted speech critical of the government[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Nimbus Sans L, Arial, Liberation Sans, sans-serif].

These seem like faulty comparisons to me.

[/FONT]Faulty Comparison

But I would like to hear people make a case that important differences are not being ignored in order to make these comparisons.
Click to expand...

Nobody honest educated and objective would compare a huge equal rights victory to Dredd Scott. Anybody hat does so can be instantly identified as trolling, dishonest and or mentally retarded. NOBODY will be able to make a honest and logical case as to why they are the same.

That aside millions of people on the right support equal rights, unfortunately because of the squeaky wheels that dont they get labeled as a group and thats unfair just like it is for any group.
 
matchlight said:
Why don't you first make the case that important differences ARE being ignored in order to make these comparisons?

I don't know who "the right wing" is. Chief Justice Roberts thought the majority decision in Obergefell was most like the economic substantive due process classic, Lochner v. New York. I would agree with that, and I think it also is much like another notorious substantive due process decision, Roe v. Wade. I have never read a more arbitrary, poorly reasoned decision than Obergefell, except for Roe. One of the holdings in Dred Scott laid the foundation for economic substantive due process decision of the late 1800's like the Slaughter-House Cases, Allgeyer v. Louisiana, etc., and eventually the Lochner era of SDP, but I would not pick it as a case to compare with Obergefell.

You have not said why you think the comparison to Dred Scott is false. Do you think that Chief Justice Roger Taney and the other Southerners on the Court in 1857 were not trying to preserve slavery, or that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his four fellow lawmakers were not trying to promote the homosexual agenda?
Click to expand...

I am not even sure I understand the case your side has made. Are they supposed to be comparable because they are "bad" decisions/laws? Are they comparable for overstepping Constitutional parameters? I can't even see how they are comparable. So consider that my case. They are so fundamentally different that the only comparison that can be made is some people find them equally abhorrent based on their own subjective interpretations.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Marriage itself is the problem; it is legalized unequal treatment of partnerships recognized by the government.
Click to expand...

Red herring and not relevant to the thread. Whether you feel marriage is a form of discrimination against single people or whatever has no bearing on a discussion of why people are making faulty comparisons between the SCOTUS decision and other historical rulings.
 
joG said:
Why do you think them faulty?
Click to expand...

I can't even perceive how they are comparable. This isn't comparing apples to oranges, it is comparing apples to cats.
 
AGENT J said:
Nobody honest educated and objective would compare a huge equal rights victory to Dredd Scott. Anybody hat does so can be instantly identified as trolling, dishonest and or mentally retarded. NOBODY will be able to make a honest and logical case as to why they are the same.

That aside millions of people on the right support equal rights, unfortunately because of the squeaky wheels that dont they get labeled as a group and thats unfair just like it is for any group.
Click to expand...

One third of the GOP electorate supports bans on Muslims and believes most Hispanic immigrants are rapists...so I apologize to the moderates but this is not exactly the political climate to walk on eggshells.
 
CriticalThought said:
I can't even perceive how they are comparable. This isn't comparing apples to oranges, it is comparing apples to cats.
Click to expand...

The resemblance is in the precedent of high courts making opportunistic unethical decisions for political or populist reasons. This happens in every society and it is exceedinly important to remember that.
 
CriticalThought said:
One third of the GOP electorate supports bans on Muslims and believes most Hispanic immigrants are rapists...so I apologize to the moderates but this is not exactly the political climate to walk on eggshells.
Click to expand...

oh you dont have to walk on egg shells at all I was just pointing out the fact that millions on the right support equal rights thats all.
 
joG said:
The resemblance is in the precedent of high courts making opportunistic unethical decisions for political or populist reasons. This happens in every society and it is exceedinly important to remember that.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Obergefell went against the populace in order to protect a minority. Most states in the union had Constitutional bans against same-sex marriage that were passed by popular referendums. I am not seeing how it was "unethical". None of the justices were gay, so it didn't directly affect them in any political context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom