Maybe it’s just because I’ve known Sloth for a while, but it is crackin me up watchin this cooper clown NOT get what he is sayin LOL!!! Complete with the feigned outrage n all LOL!!! “Filthy bigot!!!”“Calm down man” LOL!!! Goodstuff.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What sort of discrimination against other forms of human relationships are you talking about?[/quote]
Are you serious? Polyamorous? Even non-intimate forms of arrangements. Any all possible forms of human relationships, regardless of gender, number of involved, or nature of relationship…Any form of state recognized marriage necessarily highlights/holds apart that relationship against all others. The only form of non-discriminatory marriage is the anarchist form…no state recognized marriages.[/quote]
This is kinda my question, if gays are given marital rights…would that precedent give polygamists every right to do what they want?
/curious
[/quote]
I don’t think so. No one has the right to marry multiple people at once. I think my response to Pushharder in this respect may have been a little off-base, although his scenario wasn’t really polygamy. More like communal marriage.
If some people could legally enter into a polygamous marriage and others couldn’t, extending the privilege/right of marriage to gays could set a precedent that would allow EVERYONE to marry polygamously. But since it isn’t a right afforded to ANYONE, it’s a moot point as far as this discussion goes.[/quote]
If you put it that way…I don’t see how it would be moot.
But carry on…
From a purely legal standpoint, what is the purpose of marriage?
I don’t want an opinion or an interpretation. What does the law actually say its purpose is?
Edit: Srsly I’m having trouble just finding the simple definition as written in the law using google. I’m finding a lot about gay marriage and how religion has influenced the definition and purpose of laws about marriage, but there is nothing with the exact, written wording in the law as to what the definition of the purpose of marriage is. Hopefully some will find it?
^^ Until we have an answer to that, we can’t really know whether DBcooper is right.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
From a purely legal standpoint, what is the purpose of marriage?
I don’t want an opinion or an interpretation. What does the law actually say its purpose is?
Edit: Srsly I’m having trouble just finding the simple definition as written in the law using google. I’m finding a lot about gay marriage and how religion has influenced the definition and purpose of laws about marriage, but there is nothing with the exact, written wording in the law as to what the definition of the purpose of marriage is. Hopefully some will find it?[/quote]
There is no Constitutionally-defined purpose to marriage aside from purely contractual purposes. In other words, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution WHY people should get married or why the institution exists.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What sort of discrimination against other forms of human relationships are you talking about?[/quote]
Are you serious? Polyamorous? Even non-intimate forms of arrangements. Any all possible forms of human relationships, regardless of gender, number of involved, or nature of relationship…Any form of state recognized marriage necessarily highlights/holds apart that relationship against all others. The only form of non-discriminatory marriage is the anarchist form…no state recognized marriages.[/quote]
This is kinda my question, if gays are given marital rights…would that precedent give polygamists every right to do what they want?
/curious
[/quote]
I don’t think so. No one has the right to marry multiple people at once. I think my response to Pushharder in this respect may have been a little off-base, although his scenario wasn’t really polygamy. More like communal marriage.
If some people could legally enter into a polygamous marriage and others couldn’t, extending the privilege/right of marriage to gays could set a precedent that would allow EVERYONE to marry polygamously. But since it isn’t a right afforded to ANYONE, it’s a moot point as far as this discussion goes.[/quote]
If you put it that way…I don’t see how it would be moot.
But carry on…[/quote]
The reason it’s moot is because the issue is only about two consenting adults. Polygamy is entirely different. The precedent set regarding two consenting adults will not apply to three or four or eight consenting adults. I would assume that if the Supreme Court ever delivered a majority opinion guaranteeing the rights of gays to marry one another, it will contain the caveat that the ruling does not apply to polygamy.
For instance, take a look at Cruzan v. Missouri Dept of Health and Washington v. Glucksberg. The issue in Cruzan was whether or not Cruzan had the right to refuse treatment when she was in a coma. Did she have the right to have the plug pulled on her? Rehnquist, who wrote the majority opinion, ruled that she DID have that right since unwanted medical treatment constituted battery against her. The fact that refusal of treatment effectively became suicide was immaterial and he clearly addressed this distinction in his opinion in Washington v. Glucksberg. This case dealt with the “right to die” from a state-assisted suicide standpoint.
After Rehnquist’s ruling in Cruzan it was assumed that this would lead to a legalization of suicide. But Rehnquist pointed out in his Washington opinion that “the two acts are widely and reasonably regarded as quite distinct.” He ruled against assisted suicide but for refusal of treatment which, like he pointed out, are two entirely different things. The distinction between refusal of treatment and suicide was made clear in Cruzan and reaffirmed in Washington.
In other words, the Supreme Court isn’t so stupid as to be unaware of the slippery slope nature of certain rulings, and they delineate between issues that may seem similar but are actually “quite distinct” specifically to avoid these slippery slopes.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Your argument holds no merit. If gays are a suspect class, they can get married to one another.
[/quote]
No. How can a man marry a man? That is not what marriage is.
But they DO have the same rights in relation to marriage as straight people. They can marry ANY woman of age that consents. So your argument doesn’t hold any water. Both straight men and gay men are being treated EXACTLY the same and have all the same rights…actually, gays have considerably more rights with all the anti-discrimination legislation; appropriately Orwellian name.
Your analogy is flawed too. A better analogy would be someone who demands to have their child David recognised as their daughter. After all what is gender? And what is a ‘mother?’ I demand maternity leave to look after my daughter David. After all, I’m the MOTHER you see.[/quote]
Look, if marriage is a fundamental right, then the definition of it as far as the govt goes has to be changed to being between two consenting adults. I don’t know how much clearer I can make this. To say, well, you can marry anyone you want except for the person you love is ridiculous and entirely discriminatory if other people CAN turn around and marry the one they love.
After all, what is marriage? It’s a union between two consenting adults who love each other. If it is also a fundamental right yet can only be between a man and a woman, gays are effectively banned from enjoying the same right that you or I can enjoy. If it isn’t a fundamental right then this whole argument is moot.
The Court, when deciding whether marriage is a fundamental right or not, will look at traditions and history to determine whether marriage is an integral part of western society. They’ll use English common law, previous case precedent in this country and so forth. I think that they will find that marriage is an integral part of society and has been for a long time. But they aren’t going to sit there and say, gee, nowhere have gays been allowed to marry before so it goes against tradition. Their job in this respect isn’t to determine whether discrimination has longstanding roots in this country and so forth. If the Court did look at things this way then blacks would still be segregated. Their aim will simply be to decide whether the ability to marry the person one loves is so deeply rooted in society that it must be a fundamental right. They aren’t looking to determine whether discrimination is the longstanding tradition but rather if the “right” being denied is a fundamental one.[/quote]
“Model 2” in full bloom.[/quote]
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the Model 2 approach. It’s that approach that led to Brown v. Board of Education and it’s also that approach that protects gun rights. After all, a purely Model One approach would say that while we have the right to bear arms, we don’t specifically have the right enumerated to us to bear ANY arms. The Model Two approach was employed in Bush v. Gore, and they got it right.
The funny thing about that ruling was that the Model One Justices (Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas, Kennedy and to a lesser extent O’Connor) invoked the Equal Protection Clause and the case precedent that expanded it in the biggest Model Two Court ever (the Warren Court) in coming to their conclusion. The Model Two Justices (Souter, Breyer partially dissented, Ginsburg and Stevens fully dissented) went against the application of the EPC in this instance. So both sides went against literally all of their previous opinions in EPC cases to arrive at their conclusions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What sort of discrimination against other forms of human relationships are you talking about?[/quote]
Are you serious? Polyamorous? Even non-intimate forms of arrangements. Any all possible forms of human relationships, regardless of gender, number of involved, or nature of relationship…Any form of state recognized marriage necessarily highlights/holds apart that relationship against all others. The only form of non-discriminatory marriage is the anarchist form…no state recognized marriages.[/quote]
This is kinda my question, if gays are given marital rights…would that precedent give polygamists every right to do what they want?
/curious
[/quote]
I don’t think so. No one has the right to marry multiple people at once. I think my response to Pushharder in this respect may have been a little off-base, although his scenario wasn’t really polygamy. More like communal marriage.
If some people could legally enter into a polygamous marriage and others couldn’t, extending the privilege/right of marriage to gays could set a precedent that would allow EVERYONE to marry polygamously. But since it isn’t a right afforded to ANYONE, it’s a moot point as far as this discussion goes.[/quote]
No, you didn’t give me much of an answer, really.
And if for the sake of discussion you want to limit the hypothetical marriages to two people, which by YOUR own logic, would be errant we get to discuss moms marrying their daughters and dads marrying their sons and all kinds of incestuous possibilities.
The bottom line is when you use YOUR logic (want me to go back and quote you?) you CANNOT just stop at a two person marriage. You could theoretically go up to where everyone in an entire county in say, northern Nevada, could decide to marry each other. Your reasoning is faulty; it opens the floodgates. Sorry.[/quote]
Please read my post regarding Rehnquist’s ruling in Cruzan and Washington as they relate to suicide.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Maybe it’s just because I’ve known Sloth for a while, but it is crackin me up watchin this cooper clown NOT get what he is sayin LOL!!! Complete with the feigned outrage n all LOL!!! “Filthy bigot!!!”“Calm down man” LOL!!! Goodstuff.[/quote]
I get it now. Sloth is Johnny Carson and you must be Ed McMahon.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
From a purely legal standpoint, what is the purpose of marriage?
I don’t want an opinion or an interpretation. What does the law actually say its purpose is?
Edit: Srsly I’m having trouble just finding the simple definition as written in the law using google. I’m finding a lot about gay marriage and how religion has influenced the definition and purpose of laws about marriage, but there is nothing with the exact, written wording in the law as to what the definition of the purpose of marriage is. Hopefully some will find it?[/quote]
There is no Constitutionally-defined purpose to marriage aside from purely contractual purposes. In other words, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution WHY people should get married or why the institution exists.[/quote]
Huh. Does it say anything about that anywhere else in the law?
Because this entire thread is completely useless, from both sides of the argument, if there is no actual definition of what the purpose of marriage is. Also, I don’t understand how there can be a contract without a purpose to the contract. Is there any other situations where a contract exists without a purpose?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
From a purely legal standpoint, what is the purpose of marriage?
I don’t want an opinion or an interpretation. What does the law actually say its purpose is?
Edit: Srsly I’m having trouble just finding the simple definition as written in the law using google. I’m finding a lot about gay marriage and how religion has influenced the definition and purpose of laws about marriage, but there is nothing with the exact, written wording in the law as to what the definition of the purpose of marriage is. Hopefully some will find it?[/quote]
There is no Constitutionally-defined purpose to marriage aside from purely contractual purposes. In other words, it doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution WHY people should get married or why the institution exists.[/quote]
Huh. Does it say anything about that anywhere else in the law?
Because this entire thread is completely useless, from both sides of the argument, if there is no actual definition of what the purpose of marriage is. Also, I don’t understand how there can be a contract without a purpose to the contract. Is there any other situations where a contract exists without a purpose?[/quote]
It’s not within the purview of the Court to determine the purpose of a contract, only to determine whether any alleged Constitutional violation within that contract (the only reason this would ever find its way in front of the Court in the first place) has merit.