Hold on, have to Google "anti-miscegenation" to find out wtf you're talking about.....oh, you're talking about interracial marriage. It simply doesn't apply because interracial marriage shares nothing in common with gay-marriage.
Seriously? Did you even read my posts? Broadly, both had to do with denying a certain group of people (in both cases, people who are attracted to who they are not supposed to be attracted to), the right to marry the kind of person they want to marry. Both were popularly justified by some nebulous threat to children and/or society, and appeals to tradition.
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.
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.
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.
She asked, I answered, so you have no point.
The point is that democratic/legislative processes cannot be relied upon to ensure minority rights.
Gays can marry gays, though....I mean, yeah sure the other gay has to be of the opposit sex, but they also have to be of age and unrelated...etc..so, so what?
They have nothing in common. Create gay-marriage if you wish, but it's not a civil rights issue.
As I stated before, saying that gay people can just marry the opposite sex is not a meaningful choice because being gay is a part of who they are. It's like having a law that you have to marry outside of your religion, or having a law stating you have to marry somebody totally unlike the kind of person you like/want. Sure, everybody could still get married under such laws, but they can't get married to the kind of person they want to, so they are effectively denied meaningful access to marriage.
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.
Your faith in the law is disturbing, but a rational reading of the law is on the side of SSM advocates anyway.
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.
Not 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.
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 ban
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:
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. [2]
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).
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification]Suspect classification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Here is Iowa’s Supreme Court citing the Connecticut case:
In 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
49
that those laws are not the product of such historical prejudice
and stereotyping.
Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 432.
http://www.kcci.com/download/2009/0403/19084885.pdf
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Blacks weren't being prevented from marrying under anti-miscegenation either. :doh And actually, gay people did start getting married in these liberal areas until laws were passed against it.
And of course I would be allowed to marry and marry meaningfully.
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.
Quote:
"want to" is consent. Informed consent is CENTRAL to contracts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?