There is a very slight difference, one rapidly being eroded. In Federal jurisprudence, which is what is relevant to constitutionality discussions, discrimination on the basis of race (a) was made illegal by statute, and (b) had already amassed a significant body of case law at the time of Loving. There is no similar Federal statute as regards discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the body of case law is only now slowly being built up.
It is not a difference that I personally feel makes any difference to 14th Amendment constitutionality analysis. But it is a distinction at law that can be argued rationally.
One issue I feel is clouding these discussions is the tendency of Liberals to, in effect, imagine the Courts’ benches being populated by Vulcans. Saying a law has a rational basis means that the court found some reason legitimate at law why the legislature might have written the law as they did. It does not mean they made the right, the best, the most logical choice. It means that, with there being a presumption of constitutionality, the legislature is presumed to have had some rational grounds for having passed the law, and it is the court’s duty, in considering a challenge to its constitutionality, to find those grounds. If they cannot, then it fails the rational basis test. A county agricultural zoning law that requires dairy farmers to maintain a significantly larger acreage than soybean farmers will have a rational basis at law (cows need more room than soybean plants) – unless it is shown that the only three dairy farmers in the county are black, and it was done as a means ofcondemning their farms legally.
Well, I daresay it is stubborn to maintain an anti-SSM stance without reason, and it is stubborn to maintain that those who maintain an anti-SSM without reason are being reasonable. I don’t want to be obscure, so in more straightforward terms:
[ul][li]People who believe Principal A are irrational if there is no reason to believe Principal A. They are stubborn if they persist in believing Principal A even after being given evidence that Principal A is wrong and are unable to present any evidence the Principal A is right.[/li][li]People who sympathize with the believers of Principal A (even if they don’t personally believe Principal A), and say the believers are being rational are wrong if Principal A has no rationale, and stubborn if they persist in claiming believers are rational even in the face of evidence that they are not and in lieu of evidence that they are.[/ul][/li]
You say you’re not opposed to SSM, fine, I believe you. But you’re claiming that people who are opposed have reasons, and despite repeated requests for those reasons (whether or not you believe them yourself), I’ve never seen a good reason to oppose SSM, and I think I’ve been more than open to the idea that such reasons might exist. I’ve even suggested theories that could easily become reasons if supporting evidence was found.
I’m casually confident my arguments are light-years beyond “boooo”, but fine. Let’s assume that non-bigot reasons to oppose gay marriage exist. What might those reasons be? It’s simply not enough to say that reasons exist: what are they?
Well, the legal status carries certain privileges that are very clearly not covered by the casual arrangements you describe, and are available to one segment of the population while denied to another, and the reasons for the denial are not rational ones.
[ul][li]I want to vote ( - you can’t, because you’re a woman)[/li][li]I want to sit at the front of the bus ( - you can’t, because you’re black)[/li][li]I want to marry the person I love ( - you can’t, because he’s black and you’re white)[/li][li]I want to marry the person I love ( - you can’t, because he’s a man and so are you)[/ul][/li]
Which these denials, if any, were rational? Like it or not, the legal status of marriage carries some fairly significant weight to it, and must receive government recognition. The single biggest privilege I can think of that requires government support is the right to prevent a spouse from revealing confidential marital information in court. In your perfect world, what happens to this? If it’s a “neither here nor there” issue, you needn’t answer.
Does it really matter if the demand for SSM goes back centuries or only to last Thursday? How much history is needed? Suppose the first court case on this issue (obviously not decided in favour of SSM, but it shows an American court was willing to hear the issue, and there was a gay couple willing to pursue it) dated back, say… 40 years? Would that indicate a sufficient historical basis for the issue? If not, what would satisfy the “historical” standard?
Well, then, it shouldn’t be hard to explain their reasons, or so I would expect.
But by that argument, laws never change. If tradition alone is reason enough, then laws are and ever will be static. The real power will be not with citizens demanding changes from their courts and elected officials, but with whoever gets to define what is and is not traditional. Actually, that sounds a lot like Iran and its formal theocracy.
No, I don’t grant that the above statement is true. The law can correspond with social practice (or tradition or historical precedent or whatever), but I see no reason why it must be bound by it, nor why making this change represents an objective threat to anyone or anything. My own country has had gay marriage for over five years, now. I’m not aware of any negative effects, nor of any huge philosophical gulf between my country and the U.S. that suggests it would be a problem there, either.
Now, IF you could convince me otherwise, I’m sure I’d feel differently. And if I had wheels, I’d be a wagon.
I believe you when you say you want to change the law in favour of SSM. I just don’t understand your (I daresay stubborn) sympathy for those who feel otherwise when they have no reason (that I know of) beyond “tradition.”
You see, it certainly appears that you are either blind to the rationality and logic to the answer to that question, (a function of the greatest of faiths) or ignorant of the difference between what is compelling and what is rational. (and I mean no disrespect; and further it matters not whether that ignorance is “blissful” or willful, should it exist)
The difference between what is compelling and what is rational is not semantics. Once you remove rationality from the counter-argument it is standard protocol to ascribe much less altruistic motives. We quickly go to “homophobia”, “hatred” and other sundry nonsense.
The fact that there are many who actually are homophobic, and hate filled simply provides us with the widest paint brush from which to paint all who oppose SSM. Theres utility in ignorance and hatred.
If I was a dyed-in-the-wool atheist I would cringe at many of Der Tris’s posts, because while I might agree with his conclusions my fear would be that many of his posts are sufficiently irrational, and illogical that they might globally undermine my positions. Similarly, I am a theist and nothing Polycarp has ever said has made me cringe at being a Christian, although some others have; for the same reasons----that they seem irrational.
So I will reiterate ----ad nauseum------that you can’t see the real issue—either out of blindness or ignorance. (or some other reason) And so I will not be baited into the debate with questions about SSM vis a vis interracial marriage because anyone older than 30 knows that there are rational, logical, non-hate filled, non-homophobic reasons to reject the correlation between gay rights and the civil rights era/struggle. Those same people would be aware that many giants of the civil rights struggle are highly offended at the argument.
Are their arguments compelling? Thats a worthy discussion and one I have [little, and ironic] stake in.
For the sake of discussion lets say that they are not compelling. The standard SDMB meme follows than that the only possible motivation must be both irrational and illogical.
I’d just like you to describe whatever it is that apparently “anyone older than 30 knows”. These are apparently “rational, logical, non-hate filled, non-homophobic reasons”, so… what are they?
As someone who works as a college teacher of US history, who has taught courses on the civil rights era, and who is over 30, i can really think of no rational reason to reject such a correlation.
There are, as you say, people who were involved in the civil rights struggle who are offended at the comparison, but much as i respect the work those people have done in the struggle for civil rights, i’m actually somewhat disappointed at their stubbornness and their myopia on the gay rights issue.
While the two struggles might not be perfectly congruent, and while there might be important degrees of difference in particular areas, many of the basic principles hold true, and to reject any correlation is, in my view, irrational.
To be quite honest, i have more respect for someone who comes straight out and says, “For religious (or whatever) reasons, i believe that homosexuality is immoral, and i therefore think that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry,” than i do for some of the tortuous arguments whereby people attempt to pretend that this is not a civil rights issue.
Indeed. And related, I can imagine “I favour SSM myself, but I have friends and relatives who believe homosexuality is immoral and therefore think gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and even though I disagree with them, I know they’re not bad people and I love and respect them…” etc.
Yes, that was my point - thank you. For the record I do understand what you’re getting at Bricker, but I still think that denying rights solely on the basis of sexuality violates the spirit of the constitution. I’m no lawyer though, so I won’t argue the details.
And I know unconstitutional and wrong don’t mean the same thing - I just happen to think that the anti-SSM arguments are both wrong *and *unconstitutional.
Here’s your problem: you say you want reasons. But when you get reasons you put them through your filter to evaluate whether they are “good” ones. I’ve given you reasons before. Others have as well, mswas for one. You don’t think there good reasons, and that is completely fine. But that is not to say that reasons have not been supplied to you.
Now I’m sure you will continue with this untruth and move the goalposts, but I thought I’d just lay out the facts for any that might care.
Were they? I’m prepared to admit I may have forgotten or overlooked or unfairly dismissed a reason that was given to me. Off the top of my head, I recall the following:
[ul][li]Tradition:Marriage has always been between a man and woman and should remain so. I dismiss this one because “tradition” by itself is not compelling, and “tradition” by itself can be used to support bad principles (heh, I repeatedly write “Principal” a few posts back, for which I feel ashamed) like keeping women and blacks in their place.[/li][li]Procreation:Homosexuals can’t procreate and children are a major element of marriage. Dismissed because children are not a necessary element of marriage, that a heterosexual marriage does not need children or the possibility of children to be valid. Further, homosexual couples can raise children if they use various fertility methods (surrogacy, artificial insemination) or adopt.[/li][li]Majority Rule:This is a simplification of what I seem to recall was Bricker’s big argument, namely that someone could be opposed to SSM because the majority is, and not from any personal homophobia or bigotry. I dismiss this because the argument calls for neutrality rather than conformity, i.e. this person shouldn’t vote for Prop 8 or whatever, but abstain and let the vote go where it may. Even then… big deal. Civil rights issues aren’t decided by majority rule, and never have, and never should be.[/li][li]Unforeseen future negatives:Gay marriage will lead to some bad social effects down the road. I think this was one of your arguments, wasn’t it? I dismiss it because I can never find out what these effects were, or how they would come about, and now, with Canada having had gay marriage for over five years and no bad effects brewing I’m aware of…[/ul][/li]
There may be others. I invite you to point out my logical flaws in any of the above, or point out something I missed. I can, of course, only apply my own filter (I assume everyone does) but I think it’s a good filter, as filters go. Biased in favour of individual freedom and equal treatment and capitalism and such.
And I’m calm about it, too. This being a Pit thread, I’m free to heap profane scorn on someone who is suggesting I’m a liar, but I’m refraining because I take more pleasure in discussing the issue rationally, to the extent that I can, which I think is pretty far.
By the way, since the concept of “cringe” was earlier introduced (i.e. even his fellow atheists cringe when Der Trihs makes an argument because he’s such a bad irrational bigoted person or whatever), I cheerfully invite any and all fellow SSM supporters to let me know if anything I say gets them cringing or hurts the cause or whatever.
It occurs to me than when I say “[c]ivil rights issues aren’t decided by majority rule, and never have” that I’ve overlooked ballot initiatives like California’s Prop 8 and such. Lest my entire argument be dismissed because of this minor error, I’ll clarify that civil rights issues shouldn’t be decided by majority rule, and at the Federal level they are not, though it can vary by state to some degree.