Marriage Debate

[thaiboxerken]

It just means you want to keep denying them (and not just them) equal rights under the law.

And deny them equal treatment/rights/privaledges for only one reason. Hate. There has been no valid argument set forth to an same-sex marriage. It always comes down to one thing, hate, and it's usually religiously-taught hate.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's all true, but only if you look at it from the perspective of individual rights. However, married couples are assumed to be a legal unit, and the rights and responsibilities they have because of their married status are only meaningful in the context of them being together.

No they aren't. They're two individuals who have a specific contractual relationship with each other. They are not one unit.

While you can argue that gay individuals are not discriminated against by marriage law on the grounds of sexual orientation -- but as Scot says, are discriminated on grounds of anatomy (or legal gender) -- but gay couples are discriminated against for their orientation. Since marriage is about couples and not about single individuals, that's what matters.

"Discrimination" is a vague word. Is it illegal to discriminate? In general, no (nor would you want to make it so), though there are specific forms of discrimination which are outlawed. But "no discrimination" and "equal protection" are not the same thing. Marriage law discriminates on a lot of different grounds, such as age and blood relationship, and very few people want to do away with those forms of discrimination (which are intended to prevent pedophilia and incest, for example). So the fact that the law discriminates against homosexuals may make it unfair, as I stated, and it may be bad law because of that, as I also stated. But it does not violate equal protection, because individual rights ARE the basis for all rights under the constitution. Group rights, even a group as small as two people, have no basis in the constitution, nor should they. The constitution is not designed to prevent the passage of bad laws, and the fact that you and I agree that this isn't a good law doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

[Earthborn]

Group rights, even a group as small as two people, have no basis in the constitution, nor should they.

If that's true, then much of marriage law is unconstitutional, because it comes with a lot of rights, benefits and regulations that are only relevant to couples or families. Even treating companies and organisations as 'legal persons' would be unconstitutional. The fact of the matter is that governments use group rights all the time and treat some groups as legal units.

 

[morningstar2651]

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Nothing is being taken away from same-sex couples. It is not and has never been their right to marry. It wasn't even thought of until fairly recently.

False on all points. The nuclear family and monogamy are both relatively new.

Traditionally, relationships were polygamous. Or how about the tradition of arranged marriages? I don't see many people defending that tradition...

Of course, we can't forget...
Ancient China
Ancient Japan
Native American Tribes
Ancient Egypt
Premodern Europe

And, for the kill...
The Bible

 

[morningstar2651]

That's actually a very hard case to make. You can argue that it's unfair, you can argue that gays don't have EQUIVALENT rights under the law, but they do indeed have EQUAL rights under the law. Marriage laws state that marriage can only occur between one man and one woman. The law makes NO statement regarding the sexual orientation of either participant. Gays have just as much access to marriage as straight people do, and straight people are just as restricted as gays are from marrying people of the same sex. Your sexual orientation is irrelevant to the law, and therefore no unequal protection exists.

Is that unfair? Maybe. But the distinction between being unfair and lacking "equal protection" is not trivial, it matters quite a lot. "Equal protection" has a very precise constitutional meaning, and diluting its meaning, even for causes you believe in, is not a good idea. And I say that as someone who thinks we should have gay marriages. But it's simply not a constitutional right, and the harder it gets pushed as a constitutional right, the more likely it's going to get constitutionally denied. The only way to make it stick is if people accept it happening, and that means it's got to be enacted by legislative action, NOT by judicial decree.

Oh really? What is your response to this -- The amendment to the Iowa Constitution is on the topic "Homosexuals". (link)

 

[Ziggurat]

If that's true, then much of marriage law is unconstitutional, because it comes with a lot of rights, benefits and regulations that are only relevant to couples or families.

No.
The constitution does not cover everything. It's really that simple.

Even treating companies and organisations as 'legal persons' would be unconstitutional.

Not so. It's merely non-constitutional, and there IS a difference. And I hope you can understand why creating rights for such "legal persons" which individuals do not have would be, to put it mildly, a mistake.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh really? What is your response to this -- The amendment to the Iowa Constitution is on the topic "Homosexuals". (link)

Which of the three bills are you referring to? Do you mean SJR 2? I'll assume so, if not you'll have to specify.

This is actually exactly the sort of thing I mean. Gay marriage advocates have been trying to do an end run around the electorate by getting gay marriage declared as a constitutional right by the courts. And in at least one state, it's worked. I don't know enough about every state's constitution to have much say on the legal basis for such arguments, but there is essentially no case to be made on the grounds of the US constitution (my point). This kind of end run pisses off a lot of the electorate, and constitutional amendments are pretty much the results you can expect. The general population has been moving pretty steadily towards accepting gays, but when you try to push them to fast, there's going to be a backlash, and that's what this amendment represents. Like I said: the only way to get it to stick is for the electorate as a whole to accept it, which means passing it through the legislature where they have a say, not through the courts where (except through such amendments) they don't. When people lose on an issue through a popular vote (direct OR through their elected representatives), they accept the results a hell of a lot easier than when some judge they know nothing about decrees some major change from the bench.

 

[morningstar2651]

Which of the three bills are you referring to? Do you mean SJR 2? I'll assume so, if not you'll have to specify.

This is actually exactly the sort of thing I mean. Gay marriage advocates have been trying to do an end run around the electorate by getting gay marriage declared as a constitutional right by the courts. And in at least one state, it's worked. I don't know enough about every state's constitution to have much say on the legal basis for such arguments, but there is essentially no case to be made on the grounds of the US constitution (my point). This kind of end run pisses off a lot of the electorate, and constitutional amendments are pretty much the results you can expect. The general population has been moving pretty steadily towards accepting gays, but when you try to push them to fast, there's going to be a backlash, and that's what this amendment represents. Like I said: the only way to get it to stick is for the electorate as a whole to accept it, which means passing it through the legislature where they have a say, not through the courts where (except through such amendments) they don't. When people lose on an issue through a popular vote (direct OR through their elected representatives), they accept the results a hell of a lot easier than when some judge they know nothing about decrees some major change from the bench.

Yes, I did mean SJR 2. I apologize if "constitutional amendment" was not clear enough.

However, having lived in Iowa, I fail to see how anyone was "pushing too hard" for equal rights. Could you please show me this?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I did mean SJR 2. I apologize if "constitutional amendment" was not clear enough.

However, having lived in Iowa, I fail to see how anyone was "pushing too hard" for equal rights. Could you please show me this?

These state laws and amendments don't happen in a vacuum. They happen in the context of what's going on in other states. Since the basis on which it was made legal was by a state court, the only way to make sure the same thing doesn't happen in your own state (that is, the courts overturning existing legislative definitions of marriage) is with a constitutional amendment. Had gay marriage been approved of by a state legislature, people in Iowa wouldn't worry about it, because they'd know that their own legislature wouldn't do the same thing any time soon. And so people would slowly get used to the idea, they wouldn't panic, they'd see over time that it's no big deal, and most states would slowly adopt gay marriages over time.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Had gay marriage been approved of by a state legislature, people in Iowa wouldn't worry about it, because they'd know that their own legislature wouldn't do the same thing any time soon.

I doubt your claim. I think it's more likely that, if same-sex marriage was approved by state legislature, the neighboring states would want to ammend their constitutions so that such laws can't be passed in their state. I believe that same-sex marriage being legalized by any form would've produced the same knee-jerk reaction we've seen.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Please inform me which American states "only allow marriage if procreation cannot take place".

I can just cut and paste that one Darat .

What was provided was just a few of the states positions on the marriage of first cousins. Almost all states have such regulations/laws. That is a specific circumstance, and those states do not "only allow marriage if procreation cannot take place".

 

[Ziggurat]

I doubt your claim. I think it's more likely that, if same-sex marriage was approved by state legislature, the neighboring states would want to ammend their constitutions so that such laws can't be passed in their state.

But the motivation simply isn't there in such a case. Amendments (as opposed to simple legislation) are there in order to force the courts to do things the way the legislature wants them to. If the courts don't have a role in making gay marriage legal, then there's really no point in passing such an amendment. In order to pass such an amendment, you need the legislature to be firmly against gay marriage, and if they are firmly against it, then there's no risk that they're going to pass legislation legalizing it (that doesn't exactly happen by accident), so it's just a waste of time to put it in amendment form.

I believe that same-sex marriage being legalized by any form would've produced the same knee-jerk reaction we've seen.

But it's NOT just knee-jerk reaction, and you do yourself no service by assuming that your opponents must all just be idiots. The reaction is very deliberate and very rational: they see the threat of gay marriages being legalized as coming primarily from the courts, and they're RIGHT about that. So they take the very logical step of checking the power of the court by amending their state constitutions, thereby preventing the court from doing what they don't want it to do. You don't LIKE this course of action (and neither do I, really), but that's a different complaint.

 

[morningstar2651]

What is this "Threat of gay marriage being legalized" that you speak of? Last I checked, the Defense of Marriage Act did the opposite.

 

[Darat]

What was provided was just a few of the states positions on the marriage of first cousins. Almost all states have such regulations/laws. That is a specific circumstance, and those states do not "only allow marriage if procreation cannot take place".

Sorry if how I put it was slightly confusing.

I'll go back over the sequence of posts that lead to my original comment and reword it to make it clearer.

You had posted:

...I'm not sure of their exact usage of the term "procreate" but seeing as a large number of single celled organisms and most plants use asexual reproduction i'm not sure if its even an accurate statement....

Perhaps not. I'd love to see you "split cells", andy.

Need help?

...if it's meant in the human sense....well of course it's only possible to procreate through sexual intercourse or artificial insemination and not through muff munching or back alley banditary......but i don't see what that's got to do with marriage....

Nor would we expect you to "see what that's got to do with marriage".

...are "marriage" and "having children" one and the same? I never realised....

Apparently you didn't realize.

You apparently failed to realize a whole bunch of realities.

When I responded I didn't quote your complete post which is where I think your confusion arose.

My response

"Several states in the USA only allow marriage if procreation cannot take place."

Was pointing out that being able to reproduce is not only not part of what some states consider marriage to be all about but they won't allow some marriages to take place if reproduction can happen. Therefore it is you that "Apparently you didn't realize." that marriage is about much more then the ability to reproduce or have children so your criticism of andyandy comments was incorrect since it contradicts the facts that some states will only allow marriage if the couple cannot reproduce.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But the motivation simply isn't there in such a case. Amendments (as opposed to simple legislation) are there in order to force the courts to do things the way the legislature wants them to.

Amendments also make it very hard for legislature to change the laws.

But it's NOT just knee-jerk reaction, and you do yourself no service by assuming that your opponents must all just be idiots.

On this particular issue, they are not utilizing rationality. It is a knee-jerk reaction based in hate.

 

[andyandy]

In reply to my post,

...are "marriage" and "having children" one and the same? I never realised....

Huntster you replied.....

Apparently you didn't realize.

You apparently failed to realize a whole bunch of realities.

but where is your argument?

Are you saying that "marriage" and "having children" are one and the same?
I can assure you that their definitions are quite different. Not all married couples have children - either through choice or inability....are these couples not really married? Some children are born out of wedlock - did their mothers not really have them?
there is nowhere in the marriage vows that states that marriage must result in the birth of a child.....procreation is not a necessity of conventional marriage, so why should those campaigning against gay marriage be concerned about the ability of those couples to procreate?

 

[thaiboxerken]

People also procreate without being married or even having long-term relationships. Perhaps he wants to make sex outside of marriage illegal as well.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

"Discrimination" is a vague word. Is it illegal to discriminate? In general, no (nor would you want to make it so), though there are specific forms of discrimination which are outlawed. But "no discrimination" and "equal protection" are not the same thing. Marriage law discriminates on a lot of different grounds, such as age and blood relationship, and very few people want to do away with those forms of discrimination (which are intended to prevent pedophilia and incest, for example). So the fact that the law discriminates against homosexuals may make it unfair, as I stated, and it may be bad law because of that, as I also stated. But it does not violate equal protection, because individual rights ARE the basis for all rights under the constitution. Group rights, even a group as small as two people, have no basis in the constitution, nor should they. The constitution is not designed to prevent the passage of bad laws, and the fact that you and I agree that this isn't a good law doesn't make it unconstitutional.

I can’t see where you addressed point on limiting a person’s rights based on their sex.

This is about the individual’s rights. Aren’t men given equal protection, the protections women have, and vice versa, in the constitution? If it was not in the Ma constitution that men and women have the same rights, there’d be no legal marriage for gays in the US.

The only thing keeping me from all these protections is my anatomy. Then there are the rights of my kids, and their homemaker that, again, are limited by the state because of an individual’s sex alone.

I mean, say we passed a law that you could only work for a boss of your same sex for a government job. Would that not be discrimination and a violation of equal protection on the basis of sex? Would it still seem to you that everyone had ”the same rights”?

I agree with you that the courts are a poor and infuriating route; when the 1st legal marriage happen in Ma, I wasn’t celebrating, I was bracing for the backlash. But the constitution, to me, says I should have the same rights as my fellow citizens, even the female citizens. I can’t blame those couples for asking for those rights, even if I’d rather they first asked their legislature (have to wonder though if that would have gotten anywhere or if people would even be debating the problems of disallowing gay marriage today).

 

[andyandy]

Ultimately if

1) we accept that there is a percentage of the populace that is homosexual
2) we accept that there is nothing "wrong" or amoral about homosexuality

then there is no reason to deny homosexuals the ability to commit to their partner - thus affording them the same rights and securities that are enjoyed by other married couples.

Now, whether or not this union is called a "marriage" is something of a semantic distraction. The key point is that society accepts that homosexuals in long term relationships should have the same legal and financial protections afforded to hetrosexual married couples. If this is called a "civil union" a "civil partnership" a "gay marriage" or incorporated into the definition of "marriage" itself is beside the point.

The only reason that i can see for people to disagree with homosexual couples being afforded these rights and securities is if they don't accept (2). In this case, to claim to be against gay marriage is somewhat disingenuous....because the debate really should be "why i think homosexulity is amoral...." and not "why I'm against homosexuals getting married."

 

[Huntster]

..."Several states in the USA only allow marriage if procreation cannot take place."

Was pointing out that being able to reproduce is not only not part of what some states consider marriage to be all about but they won't allow some marriages to take place if reproduction can happen. Therefore it is you that "Apparently you didn't realize." that marriage is about much more then the ability to reproduce or have children so your criticism of andyandy comments was incorrect since it contradicts the facts that some states will only allow marriage if the couple cannot reproduce.

In the case of "kissing cousins", the obvious reason why states regulate it so that procreation isn't likely is to reduce the number of inbreeding disabilities. However, even in these cases, the recognition of procreation in marriage is recognized by the measure to reduce it.

Those advocating homosexual marriage are expected to use this fact to bolster their demand for marriage rights, but procreation isn't a factor at all in homosexual marriage (although adoption clearly is, even now, though HS marriage isn't a legal reality).

Thus, I admit that the homosexual marriage issue to pro-HS marriage proponents has little to do with procreation. It has everything to do with the rest of society being legally forced to recognize and legitimize their lifestyle and sexual desires, as well as for individual economic purposes.

That does nothing to diminish the viewpoint of the heterosexual community's viewpoint that marriage is primarily the means of procreating responsibly, whereby children are raised with both a father and mother.