Arguments against same sex marriage the same as arguments against interracial marriage

[Annie-Xmas]

@zamboniracer

Perhaps you recall a little incident several years ago called the Terry Schiavo case. The couple were hetero and married and still a hell of legal mess was created, which would have been easily resolved with a durable power of attorney for health care.

<snip>

Michael & Terri Schiavo did not have children, so some people would not consider it a “real” marriage.

A lesbian friend was pregnant by a brutal rape. After taking with her partner and a counselor at Planned Parenthood, they decided to have and raise the child. The anti-abortion people told them they should give the child to a “real” family.

[vivalostwages]

@Bricker

Correct.

Well, the “think of the children” argument is rather broadly characterized; in the case of same-sex marriage, it’s to encourage the creation of chidlren; with miscegenation, it was to NOT create mixed-race children.

What baffles me is how many people seem to think that gay marriages will mean an end to the human race since gay couples can’t procreate but can only adopt.

Umm…what about all the other people in the world who are reproducing?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@vivalostwages

What baffles me is how many people seem to think that gay marriages will mean an end to the human race since gay couples can’t procreate but can only adopt.

Nitpick:

Gay people can and do procreate.

If they were allowed to marry you would probably see even more of that happening so if marriage is to promote babies then the logical thing to do is permit SSM…there will be even more babies born.

[Bricker]

@Gagundathar

I am not a constitutional lawyer (nor do I play one on the Internet), but wouldn’t the 14th Amendment apply to same sex marriages? It seems to me that the phrase: “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” prohibits North Carolina from amending their Constitution to specifically abridge the privilege of same sex couples to be married and accorded the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Good question, but the answer is no.

The “privileges and immunities” clause was effectively erased shortly after it was adopted by a Supreme Court decision: Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (1873). The Court ruled that to take that language literally would mean that large portions of the plenary power that states have would be transferred to the federal government, and that Congress, nor the ratifying states, could not possibly have meant to do that. No, said the Court:

But when, as in the case before us, these consequences are so serious, so far-reaching and pervading, so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions; when the effect is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress, in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character; when in fact it radically changes the whole theory of the relations of the State and Federal governments to each other and of both these governments to the people; the argument has a force that is irresistible, in the absence of language which expresses such a purpose too clearly to admit of doubt.

We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.

They conclude that the sole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was simply to ensure the freedom of the “slave race.” There are privileges and immunities, but they are granted by states and not reviewable by the federal government.

[Voyager]

@zamboniracer

Perhaps you recall a little incident several years ago called the Terry Schiavo case. The couple were hetero and married and still a hell of legal mess was created, which would have been easily resolved with a durable power of attorney for health care. It is immaterial to the present discussion that most people don’t have one. Everyone should have one. If you don’t have one presently, do yourself a favor and have one prepared. Most states, I believe, provide statutory forms for free for download, meaning there is little to no effort or expense.

Actually what might have helped would have been an end of life directive. The issue wasn’t really if he had the right to make a decision, it was that his decision was going against what her parents claimed was her wishes. I don’t think the durable power of attorney would have prevented their suit.

Of course I, as an individual don’t get a lot out of a lot of things. I was speaking there as the general society though, the bulk of which don’t get anything out of gays marrying each other. It makes them happy, which is nice, but so what? What do they need society’s approval for, especially if society as a whole doesn’t give a hoot or get any benefit?

What benefit did I, as a white person, bet out of the ending of Jim Crow laws? There are definite benefits to all of living in a free and just society.

Not being allowed to marry doesn’t equal oppression. Being thrown in jail, as the couple in* Loving* were facing, is oppression. A person complaining when he isn’t allowed to get what he/she wants is more akin to cry-baby behavior than it is to oppression. “Help, help, I’m being oppressed”.

If person A of a SSM marriage is in the hospital, and person B tries to exercise her right of visitation as a married partner, and refuses to treated in any way than as a spouse, she might well wind up in jail.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@zamboniracer

Not being allowed to marry doesn’t equal oppression. Being thrown in jail, as the couple in* Loving* were facing, is oppression. A person complaining when he isn’t allowed to get what he/she wants is more akin to cry-baby behavior than it is to oppression. “Help, help, I’m being oppressed”.

There are all sorts of ways not being allowed to marry affects SS couples.

If you are married your spouse has the protection of divorce courts and an equitable distribution of assets. Not married one can kick the other to the curb and that’s that.

If you are married inheritance rights kick in. Not married and your partner dies his/her family get the inheritance…you can fuck off. A will might fix this but that means time and money a SS couple needs to expend to do what a married couple gets by saying “I do”.

If your partner is unable to make medical decisions for him or herself you can just piss off. You have no say in it.

If your partner is in the hospital you have no right to stay there beyond visiting hours where a spouse could be allowed to stay.

We can do this all day…

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

I found this video to be relevant in this thread.

Watch it until the shoe drops at the end…