Shameful Bigotry Amendment Passes In Florida

[Sefarst]

Please point out where the 14th Ammendment says anything about Marriage.

It doesn't say anything explicitly about marriage, but we don't need it to.

Section 1. 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 amendment also doesn't say anything explicitly about abortion but was used to defend it. Obviously you'll never get the textualists on the court to support it (Scalia and Thomas), but it's a pretty cut and dry argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

The state can (and does) legally discriminate (and rightfully so) when there is a compelling state interest at hand.

How is public safety impeded by recognizing same-sex marriages?

Public safety is not the only interest the state has. The state doesn't institute marriage in the first place because of public safety. It doesn't discriminate against married people when assessing taxes because of safety. Marriage is about encouraging behavior that the state has an interest in (namely, the creation of stable families for the reproduction of future citizens). So the state absolutely has an interest in sex in regards to marriage. I can already anticipate your objections (what about infertile couples, etc), but they are irrelevant: the state is not obligated to pursue its interests in an optimal manner. That is what the state should ideally do, but it is up to legislatures to decide what is most likely to be optimal, not the courts, and if the legislatures fail to do so, then it is voters who must bring them to heel, not judges. Which is why I've long said that the only way gay marriage is going to stand is if the population at large accepts them, in which case they will be enacted through the legislature, and not from the bench.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

Public safety is not the only interest the state has. The state doesn't institute marriage in the first place because of public safety. It doesn't discriminate against married people when assessing taxes because of safety. Marriage is about encouraging behavior that the state has an interest in (namely, the creation of stable families for the reproduction of future citizens). So the state absolutely has an interest in sex in regards to marriage. I can already anticipate your objections (what about infertile couples, etc), but they are irrelevant: the state is not obligated to pursue its interests in an optimal manner. That is what the state should ideally do, but it is up to legislatures to decide what is most likely to be optimal, not the courts, and if the legislatures fail to do so, then it is voters who must bring them to heel, not judges. Which is why I've long said that the only way gay marriage is going to stand is if the population at large accepts them, in which case they will be enacted through the legislature, and not from the bench.

Your confusing what I actually said. We should have segregated restrooms due to public safety. I then asked what role safety plays with respect to marriage because you likened the states discrimination between the sexes in marriage to its discrimination between the sexes in restrooms.

Actually I was going to point out that there already exist families based on gay/lesbian partnerships. If the state has its hands in marriage in order to stabilize families for the reproduction of future citizens, then what is the reason for discriminating against families that involve gay/lesbian couples (We do have children believe it or not). Do these families not need stabilization?

If there is no valid state interest in discriminating against these families (even if its only in terminology) then indeed this IS a case for the courts to handle and not the legislature or the people.

 

[PhantomWolf]

If there is no valid state interest in discriminating against these families (even if its only in terminology) then indeed this IS a case for the courts to handle and not the legislature or the people.

Would it not be better though to fight to end the discrimination rather then trying to widen a loophole so you can avoid the discrimination? The discrimination is against unwed couples as a whole, not just same sex. What you seem to want is to be able to get through the same loophole that different sex couples can use, marriage, rather than actually ending the discrimination against all families where the parents are unwed. Personally I think ending the discrimination entirely is the more righteous fight, and is likely to get you further than trying to widen the loophole.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your confusing what I actually said. We should have segregated restrooms due to public safety.

And you didn't get my point. I'm not arguing that we discriminate on the basis of sex in marriage for the same reasons that we discriminate on the basis of sex in restrooms. Rather, I'm pointing out that discrimination on the basis of sex is acceptable in cases where discrimination on the basis of other factors such as race is not, and that the public is comfortable making such discriminations. And I think it's rather plain that bathroom segregation on the basis of sex would NOT disappear even if bathrooms could be made perfectly safe.

Actually I was going to point out that there already exist families based on gay/lesbian partnerships.

Falls under the same heading, and is indeed one of the arguments I anticipated. A real difference still exists (such couples cannot have conceived their children within the marriage). How that difference should best be handled is beside the point, because the state need not pursue its interests optimally.

 

[Gazpacho]

And those Americans and non-Americans in de facto relationships will not be helped while people merely focus on Gay Marriage instead of the real issue, equal rights for all people in a commited long term relationship, marriage licence or no.

You just watch.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Kieth Olberman's comment the other day is worth reading

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/

 

[ZirconBlue]

Another response to this has already been made, but here is another: There are no laws that I know of that dictate who the hospital allows to visit. The hospital can allow or exclude anyone they want for any reason. This is not something that is dictated by law or marriage. Further, I have not heard of any specific hospital denying visitation of unmarried partners, same sex or different as would have been accorded to married partners.

In Critical Care Areas, it is common for only immediate family members to be allowed to visit. From the first google link I found:

Critical Care Areas
Visitors are limited to members of the immediate family and two at a time may visit.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well pointed out in another of these threads, Article 16 of the UN The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is likely a better source.

What legal standing does that have in florida?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Here's a rant I went on to a friend of mine today. Before you ask, yes I was very angry at him for actually going out and voting for prop. 8.

The point is that the whole debate is silly! Ok, I'm an atheist and fully admit my bias...I have an illogical need to make sense! And concerning the ability and right for gays to be wed in fully legal fashions I am concerned with only one thing! Is there any secular reason that gays should not be wed? Is there any secular reason that they should not be allowed to have children?

You do no that nothing is stoping individual gays from having children right? It is just that a child can not be the child of a gay couple, as the non legal guardian parent would have no rights.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think "having children" could mean adoption.

Thats silly, gay people can't adopt, or have had previous heterosexual relationships.

And forget spermdonation for lesbians, that is technicaly impossible.

 

[Almo]

Kieth Olberman's comment the other day is worth reading

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/

Thanks for that link. I can see where the religious will argue with him, but I still like the way he puts it.

 

[Dragoonster]

Constitutionally, there is no such thing as minority rights (hell, constitutionally there's no such thing as minorities). What there is is equal protection. But prohibiting gay marriage doesn't exactly violate equal protection. As mentioned, gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people do, and straights are equally prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. Yes, it's not fair, but that's a different issue. And it's an issue that will ultimately need to be solved by swaying public opinion, not the courts.

Your argument makes sense if you lump the two genders together. But one could argue that there are two cases of gender-based discrimination at work in banning same-sex marriage. For the male spouse, males are discriminated against due to their not being able to marry him. For the female spouse, females are discriminated against. The discrimination may be "inequal", or could be argued as being so.

Also, an existing analogy--afaik providing different payscales strictly by gender is illegal. Not just for women, but for men. Just because both genders may be affected by the same type of discrimination "equally", doesn't mean it's legal to discriminate against either of them (or both of them). Or that "equal protection" is nullified by "equal discrimination".

Also possibly relevant--Title IX was meant to eliminate discrimination of females at Universities; one case however involved a school that failed to comply because it didn't offer enough scholarships to male athletes.

Legally, this is a question of gender, not one of sexuality. And if you think making distinctions on the basis of gender is the same as making distinctions on the basis of race, ask yourself if you seriously think American society wants genderless public restrooms.

Right, the effects are different. Different for other protected classes, such as churches not being required to set up worship facilities for every other religion. The state interests are different too, one reason affirmative action is legal even though it discriminates on the basis of race. Gender discrimination isn't crystal clear, there are plenty of precedents yet to be made, and though I'm fairly ignorant, there seem to be legitimate Constitutional arguments/interpretations that would enforce legalizing same-sex marriages.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I live in Okaloosa County (75% for McCain which is an all time low percentage for the GOP here), and I am still sickened by this institutionalized bigotry...

I also need to add some other thoughts:
- What is this fascination with legislating using a founding document?
- Since when are Amendments used to RESTRICT rights?
- Ask anyone who suffered through the civil rights movement what they think of "separate but equal" treatment.
- Is it just me, or is the rhetoric eerily similar to Loving v. Virginia?

 

[PhantomWolf]

What legal standing does that have in florida?

I would have said that it depends on if the US Ratified the Articles, but apparently even if they did it wouldn't matter because the US Govt refuses to give US Citizens more rights than they have already decided you should have, even if they ratify a human rights treaty that should indeed grant you more. I guess you really are the Land of the Free.....

Of course I could ask what legal standing does the US Supreme Court have in New South Wales?

 

[Ziggurat]

- What is this fascination with legislating using a founding document?

State constitutions have always been more politicized and policy-oriented than the US constitution. The reason in this case is rather clear: it prevents the state courts from overruling it.

- Since when are Amendments used to RESTRICT rights?

Prohibition springs to mind. Not saying it's a good precedent, mind you, but this definitely isn't the first precedent.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Constitutionally, there is no such thing as minority rights (hell, constitutionally there's no such thing as minorities).

I wonder; is it at all possible that had to do with the minorities in America at the time either being slaves or undergoing some good ole’ fashioned land stealing?

What there is is equal protection. But prohibiting gay marriage doesn't exactly violate equal protection. As mentioned, gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people do, and straights are equally prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex. Yes, it's not fair, but that's a different issue. And it's an issue that will ultimately need to be solved by swaying public opinion, not the courts.

“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 do consider this a legal and constitutional issue; I hold the sincere belief that Mr. Jefferson was doing more in that line than blowing smoke up our collective asses, and I see no asterisk on the Declaration of Independence that says “unless you’re gay”. So you’ll obviously forgive me if I consider these anti-gay amendments to be a travesty of justice and nothing short of illegal and immoral in these attempts to use the courts to trample the rights of law-abiding American citizens.

Fairness isn’t the issue; plenty occurs on a day-to-day basis that isn’t fair and yet is still legal. What we’re talking about here is legality and I see nothing, constitutional or otherwise, which states that a majority consensus may used to trample the rights of individuals whose life-styles are deemed unacceptable by public opinion.

Legally, this is a question of gender, not one of sexuality. And if you think making distinctions on the basis of gender is the same as making distinctions on the basis of race, ask yourself if you seriously think American society wants genderless public restrooms.

We’re not discussing public restrooms we’re talking about a majority in certain states wanting to eliminate the right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman on the basis that they do not like it alone. Under that issue it’s perfectly reasonable to compare it with anti-miscegenation laws of the past.

Surely if they use a surogate or a donar no one can stop them from having a kid, and as far as adoption, wouldn't De Facto or common-law marriages suffer the same issues? Surely it's better to change the law to allow adoption for those in a "long term stable relationship" rather than changing marriage and still preventing those that don't want the trouble of an expensive ceremony and piece of paper from being able to adopt.

You’ll find no protest here; I agree with you.

You do no that nothing is stoping individual gays from having children right? It is just that a child can not be the child of a gay couple, as the non legal guardian parent would have no rights.

I’m fully aware that an individual gay man or woman can have a child. And this is precisely why I agreed with phantomwolf above in regards to who should be able to legally adopt based on relationship status. I don’t believe the Adam & Steve scenario should prevent that couple from being able to legally adopt a child. Numerous semantic arguments from multiple parties so-noted.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Prohibition springs to mind. Not saying it's a good precedent, mind you, but this definitely isn't the first precedent.

And if I had a say in the matter it would have been the last one. Just because a precedent is set doesn't mean that a law which can come of it will be a good law.

 

[Ziggurat]

I wonder; is it at all possible that had to do with the minorities in America at the time either being slaves or undergoing some good ole’ fashioned land stealing?

Perhaps. It's also got something to do with this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

If all men are created equal, categorizations which create minorities should not be enshrined in the constitution.

I do consider this a legal and constitutional issue; I hold the sincere belief that Mr. Jefferson was doing more in that line than blowing smoke up our collective asses, and I see no asterisk on the Declaration of Independence that says “unless you’re gay”.

As I already said, and which this argument completely ignores, the legal distinction being made here is NOT between gays and heterosexuals, but between men and women. That the impact falls mostly on gays is, legally speaking, fairly incidental to the criteria used to make the distinction.

Fairness isn’t the issue; plenty occurs on a day-to-day basis that isn’t fair and yet is still legal. What we’re talking about here is legality and I see nothing, constitutional or otherwise, which states that a majority consensus may used to trample the rights of individuals whose life-styles are deemed unacceptable by public opinion.

Marriage isn't actually a right. It's a set of privileges, many of which can be replicated without marriage. Child custody rights could be extended without marriage very easily. The only ones not likely to be extended are tax advantages, and that is precisely an issue of fairness. Fairness is no small thing, and from a policy perspective it should matter quite a bit. But constitutionally, you're still not getting it, which is why you keep talking about discrimination against gays rather than discrimination on the basis of gender.

We’re not discussing public restrooms we’re talking about a majority in certain states wanting to eliminate the right for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman on the basis that they do not like it alone.

The right for a man to enter certain restrooms is denied on the basis that the majority doesn't like it.

 

[Ziggurat]

And if I had a say in the matter it would have been the last one. Just because a precedent is set doesn't mean that a law which can come of it will be a good law.

I never claimed otherwise. What I've been talking about is the constitutionality, not the advisability, of prohibiting gay marriages.