[quote]forlife wrote:
True, but federal benefits (social security, taxes, etc.) cannot be granted contractually. And without those benefits, marriage loses some of the “carrot” which fosters social stability.[/quote]
So are we getting married for love or for benefits?
People ideally marry for love, but the carrots/sticks associated with the marriage contract help them ride out the rough spots and improve overall social stability.
gay, black, two different unrelated things find a new argument
Copy&Paste from the Gunning for Mormons thread:
I think this is a non issue. I support homosexual couples being afforded the same legal rights as married couples.
But marriage is a union between a man and a women. Its goals include the formation of a family unit and the bearing of children.
Its that simple. That is a brief but succint definition.
There is not question of ‘rights’ but a question of definition.
I fully support the legal reconginition of defacto couples (be they homosexual or hetrosexual). Loving couples are awesome and benefit society - Rock on!
But if you take this as a rights issue then why am I not allowed multiple wives? Why can’t I marry a wombat?
Look at what marriage is. It is the creation of a new family unit in our society. And I see no problem with declaring the standard family unit as a man, women and children.
What is desired here is the redefining of the family unit. I don’t think this should occur.
Its not that homosexuals are asking for any rights to be bestowed upon them.
They are asking hetrosexuals to redefine marriage.
And this is wrong.
You can have the all the legal status, the tax advantages and the ability to adopt children (after thinking about this I figure a loving family is better than none - I do consider both a father and mother neccessary in the raising of a child however).
But marriage is not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
You do not get to change the meaning of a word.
Notes:
I am agnostic - I do not follow any church but I can understand the importantance of the concept of a marriage and the family unit.
The referendum system is beyond fucked. California politics is terrible. No way should you be able to ‘revise’ the friggen Constitution with a simple bare majority. But that is the system and unless changed it must stand.
Well, in this case a couple years down the line, a simple bare majority will just repeal Prop 8.
[quote]Ouiser wrote:
The state has no business telling people who they can create a contract with. There should also be no state derived benefits from said contract. Churches should decide who can marry in their congregation. end of problem.
[/quote]
The state does not tell people who they can create a contract with. Contracts are legal and binding on the parties involved. And have no effect on outside parties. Without state law, hospital visitation, state tax benefits, and the whole host of other benefits that are associated with marriage (or domestic partnerships or whatever) are an impossibility. Churches DO decide who can marry in their congregation. NO one is saying or pushing for it to be otherwise.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The referendum system is beyond fucked. California politics is terrible. No way should you be able to ‘revise’ the friggen Constitution with a simple bare majority. But that is the system and unless changed it must stand.
[/quote]
In California, a Constitutional revision requires approval by the Legislature.
A simple amendment only requires majority approval. I agree this is a ridiculously low standard, but an amendment doesn’t carry the same weight as a revision.
The current challenge of Prop 8 states that since the proposition didn’t meet the legal standard for a formal Constitutional revision it is trumped by the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Incidentally, 8% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 have since changed their minds. By the current numbers, the majority would now oppose Prop 8.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
gay, black, two different unrelated things find a new argument[/quote]
Completely correct.
Only one question need be answered:
Is there a rational reason, a reason outside of merely punishing someone for being a certain way or having a certain characteristic, to keep the policy the way that it is?
For bans on interracial marriage, the answer is no - the only issue the policy is designed to address is to punish someone for being born black.
For bans on gay marriage, the answer is yes - traditional marriage policy has many rational pursuits that are not based in punishing someone for merely having a certain characteristic.
And remember - “rational” doesn’t mean “I agree with it”, it only means “rational”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
gay, black, two different unrelated things find a new argument
Completely correct.
Only one question need be answered:
Is there a rational reason, a reason outside of merely punishing someone for being a certain way or having a certain characteristic, to keep the policy the way that it is?
For bans on interracial marriage, the answer is no - the only issue the policy is designed to address is to punish someone for being born black.
For bans on gay marriage, the answer is yes - traditional marriage policy has many rational pursuits that are not based in punishing someone for merely having a certain characteristic.
And remember - “rational” doesn’t mean “I agree with it”, it only means “rational”.[/quote]
This is correct, for the most part. One of the main problems for gay rights advocates, at least in terms of how the Supreme Court might rule, is that the Supreme Court has not declared laws which discriminate or differentiate on the basis of sexual orientation to be “suspect”, like laws which differentiate on the basis of race are. They are “suspect” because a red flag pops up and should tell you that it’s probably unconstitutional. That is why the Court, in Loving v. Virginia, declared that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional - most any laws that differentiate on account of race are likely to fail.
However the Court has not gone so far as to declare differentiations on account of sexual orientaiton to be “suspect.” These, I believe, get the label of “quasi-suspect”. The whole point is that if the group is considered “suspect” then the most difficult burden applies, so difficult in fact that practically no law can overcome it. HOwever if it is not suspect then a lesser, easier burden applies.
If I remember correctly however, sexual orientaiton classifications are going to have to surmount a burden that’s a little higher than rational basis, i.e., intermediate scrutiny. That is, of course, unless the Court declares that sexual orientation laws are indeed suspect (which obviously IMO I believe they should).
One interesting point: the Court did refer to marriage in Loving v. Virginia as “one of the most basic civil rights of man, fundamnetal to our very existence and survival.”
[quote]Spry wrote:
Why can’t I marry a wombat? [/quote]
Because, fool, a fucking wombat doesn’t have legal standing and cannot sign a fucking marriage contract. Or any contract, for that matter. Shockingly, you can’t hire a wombat and a wombat can’t serve in the fucking military, either.
People really, still, are this fucking stupid.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
gay, black, two different unrelated things find a new argument
Completely correct.
Only one question need be answered:
Is there a rational reason, a reason outside of merely punishing someone for being a certain way or having a certain characteristic, to keep the policy the way that it is?
For bans on interracial marriage, the answer is no - the only issue the policy is designed to address is to punish someone for being born black.
[/quote]
How is it punishment for the black person to not be able to marry a white person, but not for the white person? The law was equal, because a black could only marry a black and a white could only marry a white. No one was ‘punished’ and I dont see the right to an interracial marriage specifically written anywhere.
Besides, it had nothing to do with anyone being of a particular race, it was just that they made the CHOICE to be with someone of another race. You cant choose your race, but you can CHOOSE who you want to marry, hence interracial marriage is just a CHOICE and, therefore, the government has no right to force the rest of society to accept a bunch of race mixers because of a CHOICE they make.
Furthermore, statistics show that most people in interracial partnerships have had same race partnerships in their lives (I guess any port in a storm will due, huh??), thus further proving that they have no need to get married. Interracial partnerships don’t last as long as same race partnerships (how many elderly mixed race couples do you know, compared to how many elderly same race couples?).
Interracial marriages are unnatural, anyway. Black couples have black babies and white couples have white babies. Ever seen how much kids who have mixed race parents get made fun of? That’s psychologically damaging for the kids. The best situation for children to be raised in is a same race marriage.
…is ANY of this sounding familiar?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
gay, black, two different unrelated things find a new argument
Completely correct.
Only one question need be answered:
Is there a rational reason, a reason outside of merely punishing someone for being a certain way or having a certain characteristic, to keep the policy the way that it is?
For bans on interracial marriage, the answer is no - the only issue the policy is designed to address is to punish someone for being born black.
How is it punishment for the black person to not be able to marry a white person, but not for the white person? The law was equal, because a black could only marry a black and a white could only marry a white. No one was ‘punished’ and I dont see the right to an interracial marriage specifically written anywhere.
Besides, it had nothing to do with anyone being of a particular race, it was just that they made the CHOICE to be with someone of another race. You cant choose your race, but you can CHOOSE who you want to marry, hence interracial marriage is just a CHOICE and, therefore, the government has no right to force the rest of society to accept a bunch of race mixers because of a CHOICE they make.
Furthermore, statistics show that most people in interracial partnerships have had same race partnerships in their lives (I guess any port in a storm will due, huh??), thus further proving that they have no need to get married. Interracial partnerships don’t last as long as same race partnerships (how many elderly mixed race couples do you know, compared to how many elderly same race couples?).
Interracial marriages are unnatural, anyway. Black couples have black babies and white couples have white babies. Ever seen how much kids who have mixed race parents get made fun of? That’s psychologically damaging for the kids. The best situation for children to be raised in is a same race marriage.
…is ANY of this sounding familiar?[/quote]
well played.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
apbt55 wrote:
gay, black, two different unrelated things find a new argument
Completely correct.
Only one question need be answered:
Is there a rational reason, a reason outside of merely punishing someone for being a certain way or having a certain characteristic, to keep the policy the way that it is?
For bans on interracial marriage, the answer is no - the only issue the policy is designed to address is to punish someone for being born black.
How is it punishment for the black person to not be able to marry a white person, but not for the white person? The law was equal, because a black could only marry a black and a white could only marry a white. No one was ‘punished’ and I dont see the right to an interracial marriage specifically written anywhere.
Besides, it had nothing to do with anyone being of a particular race, it was just that they made the CHOICE to be with someone of another race. You cant choose your race, but you can CHOOSE who you want to marry, hence interracial marriage is just a CHOICE and, therefore, the government has no right to force the rest of society to accept a bunch of race mixers because of a CHOICE they make.
Furthermore, statistics show that most people in interracial partnerships have had same race partnerships in their lives (I guess any port in a storm will due, huh??), thus further proving that they have no need to get married.
Interracial partnerships don’t last as long as same race partnerships (how many elderly mixed race couples do you know, compared to how many elderly same race couples?).
Interracial marriages are unnatural, anyway. Black couples have black babies and white couples have white babies. Ever seen how much kids who have mixed race parents get made fun of? That’s psychologically damaging for the kids. The best situation for children to be raised in is a same race marriage.
…is ANY of this sounding familiar?[/quote]
But… but… it’s not the same! No, I won’t say why.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Spry wrote:
Why can’t I marry a wombat?
Because, fool, a fucking wombat doesn’t have legal standing and cannot sign a fucking marriage contract. Or any contract, for that matter. Shockingly, you can’t hire a wombat and a wombat can’t serve in the fucking military, either.
People really, still, are this fucking stupid.[/quote]
I also mentioned multiple wives in the same paragraph. My argument was rather good I think.
Go read it again.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Spry wrote:
Why can’t I marry a wombat?
Because, fool, a fucking wombat doesn’t have legal standing and cannot sign a fucking marriage contract. Or any contract, for that matter. Shockingly, you can’t hire a wombat and a wombat can’t serve in the fucking military, either.
People really, still, are this fucking stupid.[/quote]
The fact marriage is a contract is exactly why the state has the right to regulate who can and can’t get married, and why I think the gay community is going about this all wrong. The right to contract (as a procedural right) can be restricted if the state can show a compelling link to public health, safety or welfare. All labor laws, for instance, are restrictions on the right to contract and they are allowed because the state finds a compelling link between labor conditions and the public welfare.
If you notice, this is exactly the line of argument opponents of gay marriage take, and in my opinion, opponents of gay marriage don’t make a very good case on this point. Not only do I not see any evidence that gay marriage will be the downfall of society, but their motives are easily called into question. I mean, if they are really concerned about the integrity of marriage as an institution, about the protection of the family unit, about raising children, and all the other social benefits of marriage between men and women (which I acknowledge), then why not outlaw divorce outside specific acts of adultery or abuse? Why not make laws against adultery, for that matter? This is where advocates of gay marriage should focus, IMO.
[quote]Spry wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Spry wrote:
Why can’t I marry a wombat?
Because, fool, a fucking wombat doesn’t have legal standing and cannot sign a fucking marriage contract. Or any contract, for that matter. Shockingly, you can’t hire a wombat and a wombat can’t serve in the fucking military, either.
People really, still, are this fucking stupid.
I also mentioned multiple wives in the same paragraph. My argument was rather good I think.
Go read it again.
[/quote]
An argument is good when it doesn’t contain trash. The above quote of yours was trash.
[quote]forlife wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The referendum system is beyond fucked. California politics is terrible. No way should you be able to ‘revise’ the friggen Constitution with a simple bare majority. But that is the system and unless changed it must stand.
In California, a Constitutional revision requires approval by the Legislature.
A simple amendment only requires majority approval. I agree this is a ridiculously low standard, but an amendment doesn’t carry the same weight as a revision.
The current challenge of Prop 8 states that since the proposition didn’t meet the legal standard for a formal Constitutional revision it is trumped by the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Incidentally, 8% of Californians who voted for Prop 8 have since changed their minds. By the current numbers, the majority would now oppose Prop 8.
[/quote]
Interesting. I didn’t know the legal grounds for the challenge. That makes some sense. Not sure if it will be a winning argument that carries the day, though.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it punishment for the black person to not be able to marry a white person, but not for the white person? The law was equal, because a black could only marry a black and a white could only marry a white. No one was ‘punished’ and I dont see the right to an interracial marriage specifically written anywhere.[/quote]
No one suggested a “right” to an interracial marriage, certainly not me - you made it up. The issue is whether or not someone is being “punished” by merely “being” of some classification.
As to the issue of interracial marriage, the legal “marriage” aspect is secondary - it could be a law that says blacks can only vote in one city in a given state. The question is: is there a reason for the law outside merely punishing a black person for being black - i.e., creating a designation where they are treated unequally for a rational reason?
As to your diatribe, it is mostly silly fluff, because we know that whatever the benefits of legal marriage, they apply to interracial coupling, because we know that interracial coupling will continue to occur whether we grant marriage privileges or not.
Marriage is designed as a means to produce certain social goals - primarily the ordering of child bearing and raising. Interracial couples are very much in the bailiwick of legal marriage - and as such, we are in need of the benefits that marriage provides for these relationships. We have a rational need for those benefits as they pertain to those couplings.
Any barrier to that on the basis of race is an invidious attempt to have a public policy determined solely on the basis of the race characteristic - and, as such, isn’t a rational basis except by race and racial purity by which to draw the distinction.
Race is different - and that is regardless as to whether you wish it weren’t so.
Fast forward to gay marriage and ask yourself: is there a rational reason not to extend marriage to a gay relationship? The easy and obvious answer is yes: marriage is designed to further many social goals that gay marriages simply have zero agency in. Even if you disagree that gay marriage should be excluded, you can’t possibly argue that the policy isn’t rational. Even with higher standards - “intermediate scrutiny” - denying gays a marriage arrangement sails over the bar with no problem.
You can’t - with a straight face - make an argument that traditional marriage exists to thumb its nose at poor, pitiful gays who would otherwise engage in relationships that marriage is designed to promote, while allowing privileged heterosexuals to “live it up” with marriage at others’ expense.
That is the argument would need to overcome an Equal Protection problem. Laughable.
Traditional marriage has been agnostic on the issue of gays, largely because anyone with any sense knows that the issue has been irrelevant to the debate over marriage over the course of civilization. Only recently has the myth that gays have been “left out in the cold” on marriage by an insensitive, prejudiced society been created as a Trojan Horse to get acceptance in society.
The entire project - as framed - is one big joke, but gay marriage advocates try to shoehorn their “plight” into the same narrative of race in hopes of tugging at the same heartstrings. But it falls short, because no one credibly believes that gays have been “oppressed” in the area of marriage.
Not particularly, because you insist that race and sexual orientation are equal in matters of law and society. They aren’t. See above.
Gays have a right to marriage to the same extent that a 16 year old has a right to vote - which is to say, they don’t.
[quote]MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
This is correct, for the most part. One of the main problems for gay rights advocates, at least in terms of how the Supreme Court might rule, is that the Supreme Court has not declared laws which discriminate or differentiate on the basis of sexual orientation to be “suspect”, like laws which differentiate on the basis of race are. They are “suspect” because a red flag pops up and should tell you that it’s probably unconstitutional. That is why the Court, in Loving v. Virginia, declared that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional - most any laws that differentiate on account of race are likely to fail.[/quote]
Correct. Race is and always be different.
The Court has never set the bar, and Lawrence v. Texas, while striking down sodomy prohibitions, did nothing to clarify any classification. That leaves it vague, but even with an “important government interest” at stake, the point of traditional marriage easily satisfies it, but most importantly, traditional marriage laws aren’t sexual orientation laws.
Marriage laws are older than the country, and not a single person can, with any intellectual integrity, suggest that they were passed with an eye to making life harder for gays or to reward straight relationships at the expense of gay relationships.
A sexual orientation law might be, for example, a law that says the state will provide free HIV tests to heterosexuals, but not gays. Marriage is not a sexual orientation law, and to suggest it is is pure invention.
I don’t doubt that for a second, but if that phrase means (in your mind) that gays have a right to get married, there isn’t a single relationship that doesn’t deserve that right, so long as the individuals are consenting.
If marriage means a right to state recognition of your preferences whatever they be, then the barn door is wide-open, and marriage would be defined out of existence.
I can get on board with the idea that marriage is a fundamental right - remembering all the while that marriage is very, very specific arrangement, not just whatever a set of individuals can come up with.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it punishment for the black person to not be able to marry a white person, but not for the white person? The law was equal, because a black could only marry a black and a white could only marry a white. No one was ‘punished’ and I dont see the right to an interracial marriage specifically written anywhere.
No one suggested a “right” to an interracial marriage, certainly not me - you made it up. The issue is whether or not someone is being “punished” by merely “being” of some classification.
As to the issue of interracial marriage, the legal “marriage” aspect is secondary - it could be a law that says blacks can only vote in one city in a given state. The question is: is there a reason for the law outside merely punishing a black person for being black - i.e., creating a designation where they are treated unequally for a rational reason?
As to your diatribe, it is mostly silly fluff, because we know that whatever the benefits of legal marriage, they apply to interracial coupling, because we know that interracial coupling will continue to occur whether we grant marriage privileges or not. [/quote]
And same sex coupling won’t?
[quote]
Marriage is designed as a means to produce certain social goals - primarily the ordering of child bearing and raising. Interracial couples are very much in the bailiwick of legal marriage - and as such, we are in need of the benefits that marriage provides for these relationships. We have a rational need for those benefits as they pertain to those couplings.[/quote]
Which social goals are gay marriages unable to produce? If a gay man or woman has kids from a previous relationship, what then?
[quote]
Any barrier to that on the basis of race is an invidious attempt to have a public policy determined solely on the basis of the race characteristic - and, as such, isn’t a rational basis except by race and racial purity by which to draw the distinction.
Race is different - and that is regardless as to whether you wish it weren’t so.[/quote]
What is the basis for this claim? Are you arguing that people are just making a “choice” and there is no “born gay”?
[quote]
Fast forward to gay marriage and ask yourself: is there a rational reason not to extend marriage to a gay relationship? The easy and obvious answer is yes: marriage is designed to further many social goals that gay marriages simply have zero agency in. Even if you disagree that gay marriage should be excluded, you can’t possibly argue that the policy isn’t rational. Even with higher standards - “intermediate scrutiny” - denying gays a marriage arrangement sails over the bar with no problem.[/quote]
Again, what are these social goals?
[quote]
You can’t - with a straight face - make an argument that traditional marriage exists to thumb its nose at poor, pitiful gays who would otherwise engage in relationships that marriage is designed to promote, while allowing privileged heterosexuals to “live it up” with marriage at others’ expense. [/quote] Don’t be silly
[quote]
That is the argument would need to overcome an Equal Protection problem. Laughable. [/quote] Why is this laughable?
[quote]
Traditional marriage has been agnostic on the issue of gays, largely because anyone with any sense knows that the issue has been irrelevant to the debate over marriage over the course of civilization. Only recently has the myth that gays have been “left out in the cold” on marriage by an insensitive, prejudiced society been created as a Trojan Horse to get acceptance in society. [/quote] “traditional marriage has been agnostic” …what is this supposed to mean?