Arguing against; "The definition of 'Marriage' is between a man and a woman".

[Sinaijon]

@ElvisL1ves

That wasn’t the situation. You really, really need to go learn that bit of history.

Boy, talk about missing the point.

[Sinaijon]

@waterj2

If it’s the only thing that matters, why does it matter to you? As far as I’m concerned, the fact that some people insist on using a different term to describe the legal unions of homosexuals than they do to describe the legal union of heterosexuals is, in itself, is reason to prohibit the government from doing so.

It doesn’t really matter to me. But why get all pissy that we don’t call it marriage? No one seems to care that we call them ‘homosexual’ vs ‘heterosexual’? Why would giving them a specific word to denote their legal relationship be bad when using a specific word to denote their biological relationship be OK?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Sinaijon

But why get all pissy that we don’t call it marriage?

Well, who’s “we”? It doesn’t matter if some latter-day redneck can’t bring himself to say Bob and Steve are married, but it could matter quite a bit if the government and courts can’t.

[Bosstone]

@Sinaijon

It doesn’t really matter to me. But why get all pissy that we don’t call it marriage? No one seems to care that we call them ‘homosexual’ vs ‘heterosexual’? Why would giving them a specific word to denote their legal relationship be bad when using a specific word to denote their biological relationship be OK?

To bring up an old example from an earlier thread on the topic:

For the same reason we call all people capable of driving “drivers” despite the fact that some are biologically male and biologically female. Gender is irrelevant.

[Annie-Xmas]

The only part of marriage that gays and lesbians are not capable of is having children without assited reproduction. However, unless we only want to allow marriage between fertile couples who agree to have children within a limited time span, that reason is not valid.

So gay marriage should be valid.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Rumor_Watkins

I am saying I am in favor of completely ***REPLACING ***the term “marriage” with the word “civil union”.

What you are not saying is how that would be less disturbing than simply using an existing word that covers the situation. Could it be that your underlying motives are somewhat different?

I would explain to you that the Massachusetts supreme court did not render its opinion based on an interpretation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States constitution, but apparently you’re the constitutional scholar around here :rolleyes:.

You could certainly try that explanation, and I’d really like to see it. I would recommend a little more research on your part than your answers thus far have indicated you have done, though. And, to repeat, I would certainly like to see your explanation of how they got it wrong.

I’m involved with the Law

In what capacity?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@ElvisL1ves

You could certainly try that explanation, and I’d really like to see it. I would recommend a little more research on your part than your answers thus far have indicated you have done, though. And, to repeat, I would certainly like to see your explanation of how they got it wrong.

And I would reccommend you go to paralegal night school so you can learn the intricacies of a federal legal system and how state supreme courts deal with “constitutional” issues.

The Massachusetts Constitution is, if anything, more protective of individual liberty and equality than the Federal Constitution; it may demand broader protection for fundamental rights; and it is less tolerant of government intrusion into the protected spheres of private life.

Goodridge v. Dept. of Publ. Health, pg. 5

The plaintiffs’ claim that the marriage restriction violates the Massachusetts Constitution can be analyzed in two ways. Does it offend the Constitution’s guarantees of equality before the law? Or do the liberty and due process provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution secure the plaintiffs’ right to marry their chosen partner?

Id. at 16-17

The Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government incursion as zealously, and often more so, than does the Federal Constitution, even where both Constitutions employ essentially the same language.

Id. at 32

That the Massachusetts Constitution is in some instances more protective of individual liberty interests than is the Federal Constitution is not surprising. Fundamental to the vigor of our Federal system of government is that “state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution.” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 8 (1995).18

Id. at 32

“Absolute equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our own Constitution.”

Id. at 34

The Massachusetts Constitution requires, at a minimum, that the exercise of the State’s regulatory authority not be “arbitrary or capricious.” Commonwealth v. Henry’s Drywall Co., 366 Mass. 539, 542 (1974).19 Under both the equality and liberty guarantees, regulatory authority must, at very least, serve “a legitimate purpose in a rational way”; a statute must “bear a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective.” Rushworth v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 413 Mass. 265, 270 (1992). See, e.g., Massachusetts Fed’n of Teachers v. Board of Educ., 436 Mass. 763, 778 (2002) (equal protection); Coffee-Rich, Inc. v. Commissioner of Pub. Health, 348 Mass. 414, 422 (1965) (due process). Any law failing to satisfy the basic standards of rationality is void.
The plaintiffs challenge the marriage statute on both equal protection and due process grounds. With respect to each such claim, we must first determine the appropriate standard of review. Where a statute implicates a fundamental right or uses a suspect classification, we employ “strict judicial scrutiny.” Lowell v. Kowalski, 380 Mass. 663, 666 (1980). For all other statutes, we employ the “‘rational basis’ test.” English v. New England Med. Ctr., 405 Mass. 423, 428 (1989).

Id. at 35

We also reject the argument suggested by the department, and elaborated by some amici, that expanding the institution of civil marriage in Massachusetts to include same-sex couples will lead to interstate conflict. We would not presume to dictate how another State should respond to today’s decision. But neither should considerations of comity prevent us from according Massachusetts residents the full measure of protection available under the Massachusetts Constitution. The genius of our Federal system is that each State’s Constitution has vitality specific to its own traditions, and that, subject to the minimum requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, each State is free to address difficult issues of individual liberty in the manner its own Constitution demands.

Id. at 56-57

[ElvisL1ves]

So you’re NOT going to tell us what makes the US Constitutional protections so fundamentally different as to be nonexistent by comparison, or HOW the MA SJC got it wrong?

Pity.

All the other questions asked of you, in an attempt to draw out your increasingly-dubious “reasoning”, are still out there, too.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@ElvisL1ves

So you’re NOT going to tell us what makes the US Constitutional protections fundamentally different, or HOW the MA SJC got it wrong?

Pity. I was looking forward to finding out, for the first time.

I won’t tell you that because absolutely no state supreme court will ever say that. The fundamental differences lie in the fact that many state constitutions have different wordings regarding equality, and most states have different human beings who interpret ambiguity in constitutional verbiage in light of different sets of precedent.

And I never said that the Mass supreme court got it wrong. I have absolutely no idea why you want to credit to me things I have never said or why you think I have ulterior motives, but, whatever floats your boat, guy.

I don’t care if they’re called marriages - I was merely supplying an opinion that I think would be met with more popular appeal. You are the one who is hallucinating this into thinking I’m some crypto prejudiced actor who really wants gays to have separate-but-equal status so they can shut up and then we can take their rights away.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Rumor_Watkins

I won’t tell you that because absolutely no state supreme court will ever say that.

I was asking why YOU think they got it wrong, that separate but equal is acceptable in the case of terminology for same-sex marriages.

The fundamental differences lie in the fact that many state constitutions have different wordings regarding equality, and most states have different human beings who interpret ambiguity in constitutional verbiage in light of different sets of precedent.

And yet you still won’t tell us what the fundamental difference is, or why it matters. Do you wonder why you’re being doubted?

And I never said that the Mass supreme court got it wrong.

If you didn’t think so, you wouldn’t be pushing this “civil unions” separate-but-equal stuff.

I don’t care if they’re called marriages

You’ve filled up most of 3 pages with your “apathy”.

I was merely supplying an opinion that I think would be met with more popular appeal.

Apparently your “involvement with the Law”, whatever that may be, has not yet extended to the reasons we even have a Constitution. One of them is to *defend *rights *against *popular appeal, not to pander to it.

You are the one who is hallucinating this into thinking I’m some crypto prejudiced actor who really wants gays to have separate-but-equal status so they can shut up and then we can take their rights away.

I’m not the one proposing and vociferously defending exactly that here. :shrug: Maybe you can explain that position a little better. Maybe you can start by acknowledging the reasons not to, something you have not done.

[Polycarp]

There is one outstanding reason why “let’s replace the term ‘marriage’ with ‘civil union’” falls flat – there has since the time of Bede been in English the word to describe the concept: “two people cohabiting as spouses with the intent of starting a family”. That term is marriage. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, legislative bodies arrogated to themselves the power to decide who might properly contract such marriages, establishing the concept of ‘civil marriage’ as distinct from ‘common-law marriage’ and ‘marriage sanctioned by a religious sect’. Inventing a new term is like saying that, because we now have electric guitars as well as acoustic ones, the term ‘guitar’ shall be the exclusive property of the Spanish Academy of Music and the Grand Ol’ Opry, and everybody else will play either an electric or an acoustic whangdoodle. Regardless of the fact that Joan Baez, Richie Sambora, and some Doper’s teenage son think that what they own and play are ‘guitars’.

I married my wife in 1975. The gay couple in Toronto who vowed to be life partners are married. Will and Ariel Durant were married for 60+ years. Stop trying to, instead of changing a flat tire, trying to reinvent the wheel.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@ElvisL1ves

And yet you still won’t tell us what the fundamental difference is, or why it matters. Do you wonder why you’re being doubted?

the fundamental difference is that the Mass supreme court justices did not find a rational basis for the state to deny equal protection under Massachusetts constitution. I have no way of saying with any degree of certainty how the supreme court justices would analyze a claim of a rational basis (it would probably be intermediate scrutiny, even) in a federal constitutional suit. And that’s how constitutional law is written - the application of specific people’s learned opinions on which argument is more correct.

If you didn’t think so, you wouldn’t be pushing this “civil unions” separate-but-equal stuff.

except that I’m not. and i would really appreciate you not deliberately mischaracterizing my posts. thanks.

Apparently your “involvement with the Law”, whatever that may be, has not yet extended to the reasons we even have a Constitution. One of them is to *defend *rights *against *popular appeal, not to pander to it.

And it is an unsettled question of law whether gays have a right to get married under the federal constitutional guarantees of the 14th amendment.

I’m not the one proposing and vociferously defending exactly that here. :shrug: Maybe you can explain that position a little better. Maybe you can start by acknowledging the reasons not to, something you have not done.

Maybe you can actually read my posts. Until then, I’m done with you and your soapbox.

[Polycarp]

I would also not necessarily rule out even the current SCOTUS, much less a future one, ruling in favor of the equal protection argument. Many of the Court’s present conservatives hold fast to stare decisis and respect Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. It would not be “We recognize a new ‘right to gay marriage’” but rather “A state has the right to recognize and make legal provisions for the marital state, or not; if they choose to do so for anyone, they must have compelling reasons related to a significant governmental purpose for not extending such right to all citizens desiring to contract marriages.” Just like Mr. Loving and Mildred Jeter claimed, 40 years back.

[ElvisL1ves]

Segregation of schools was supported by the fiction that “those people” had it just as good as “we” do, since they had just the same legal rights, didn’t they? See, “we” aren’t prejudiced at all! “They” have schools too! But segregation of schools was still based on a desire to *avoid *thinking of “them” as being “just as good as us”, or rightfully completely equal participants in “our society” and to make damn sure “they” knew it too.

Now replace the word *schools *with the word marriage.

[MyFootsZZZ]

I always said I wanted to learn to play the whangdoodle… that dream’s been put to rest.

Rumor, I don’t think you’re dumb, but I’m agreeing with the majority here. And I will never know what it’s like to have, what should be a human right, denied. It’s not that I didn’t listen to what your saying, but my ignorance to how hurt and isolated something like that could make me feel is what’s making me think that we should go through all this trouble just for two people in love to want to get married. I think I would be very sad.

Are there any specific examples where the definition of something had changed or had been broadened in the eyes of the law that I could site?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Rumor_Watkins

the fundamental difference is that the Mass supreme court justices did not find a rational basis for the state to deny equal protection under Massachusetts constitution.

And the difference vs. an analysis under the US Constitution would be … ?

I have no way of saying with any degree of certainty how the supreme court justices would analyze a claim of a rational basis (it would probably be intermediate scrutiny, even) in a federal constitutional suit. And that’s how constitutional law is written - the application of specific people’s learned opinions on which argument is more correct.

And the “rational basis” claimed might be … ?

And it is an unsettled question of law whether gays have a right to get married under the federal constitutional guarantees of the 14th amendment.

True enough, but only right now. It is also “unsettled” that they don’t, you know.

Once again, can you offer any basis for how SCOTUS could rationally rule otherwise?

Maybe you can actually read my posts. Until then, I’m done with you and your soapbox.

Your problem stems from the fact that I HAVE read your posts, and shown them to you for what they are. If you can’t defend your position against somebody like me, then perhaps you should reconsider.

[Der_Trihs]

@MyFootsZZZ

Are there any specific examples where the definition of something had changed or had been broadened in the eyes of the law that I could site?

Marriage. Voters. Responsible adults. Interracial marriages; poor people, blacks and women voting; women being allowed to own their own property and make their own decisions are all just as much “redefinitions”. If not more so.

The basic problem with this whole argument as I see it though is that making SSM legal isn’t a redefinition in the first place. It’s just slightly extending an already existing legal institution.

[Rumor_Watkins]

@MyFootsZZZ

Rumor, I don’t think you’re dumb, but I’m agreeing with the majority here. And I will never know what it’s like to have, what should be a human right, denied. It’s not that I didn’t listen to what your saying, but my ignorance to how hurt and isolated something like that could make me feel is what’s making me think that we should go through all this trouble just for two people in love to want to get married. I think I would be very sad.

And I have never said that they shouldn’t have the same set of rights. I was merely suggesting that renaming them all civil unions in the law may be more palatable to others. There would be no regulation over the use of the term married, and people could use the term freely. As such, there would be no hand wringing over giving certain groups of people the rights to enter into this status for the law’s purpose. Others disagree with me on whether that would play out as I think it would, and they certainly are free to do so.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Polycarp

Will and Ariel Durant were married for 60+ years.

And Britney Spears was once married for 55 hours. Just as legally. Jennifer Lopez has been married twice (and engaged a third time), but has never had an an anniversary. Those were legal marriages, too. Perhaps there should be a different name for such uncommitted relationships?

[Rumor_Watkins]

@ElvisL1ves

And the difference vs. an analysis under the US Constitution would be … ?

That there are different sets of justices rendering their opinion on a different constitutional document with different sets of precedents?

And the “rational basis” claimed might be … ?

I don’t know. I’m not the one arguing in front of the supreme court. I don’t personally think it could be, but apparently certain courts have been persuaded. And I’m not about to cook up some argument just so you can go on thinking that that’s what I “actually” believe.

True enough, but only right now. It is also “unsettled” that they don’t, you know.

No, it’s actually quite settled. The DOMA makes this an unequivocal point of law until it is successfully challenged. I believe it has been in a few extremely select cases in certain district and circuit courts.

Your problem stems from the fact that I HAVE read your posts, and shown them to you for what they are. If you can’t defend your position against somebody like me, then perhaps you should reconsider.

Buddy, you haven’t shown shit. I won’t defend phantom, fictitious arguments that haven’t been made by me.