With this constitutional amendment coming up for a vote, can those who oppose gay marriage, or at least those who understand those who oppose gay marriage answer this…
Do you believe that a gay marriage ban would not be considered discrimination?
For my opinion, I don’t see how saying “Shirley, you can marry Bob over there, but you Fred, you can’t” isn’t discriminatory.
Of course it is. The argument is over whether or not it is a fair discrimination. For example, a 10 year old can’t walk into a liquor store and buy a bottle of vodka, age discrimination. Most people would agree that is a fair/good discrimination, the SSM issue is less clear cut with a ~50% split.
I support gay marriage, but the thing you have to understand is that all forms of discrimination are not wrong, nor are they illegal. The 14th Amendment was never meant to be taken 100% literally. So even if they agree the ban is discriminatory it doesn’t follow that they have to oppose it.
(FTR, I’m pro-gay marriage).
The only thing that could possibly make it non-discriminatory is if you defined “marriage” as a union between two people of opposite genders. If, by it’s very definition, marriage couldn’t be anything but the union of a man and a woman then it wouldn’t be discrimination to prevent gay couples from marrying. I have seen no good arguments for why marriage should be defined in that way, and I think it’s pointless to play word games with the issue. Even if they weren’t allowed to “marry”, then it’s still discrimination to prevent them from having some sort of union ceremony that gives them the same rights and responsibilities as married heterosexual couples. As that would be a marriage in all respects, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be called such.
Quite so, cazzle. What bites us in the ass is that “marriage” doesn’t have a hard-and-fast definition, it is a cultural institution and with that culture comes what seems like a clear definition. But also, it comes with practices that surround the institution… penumbra, if you will. And these can be seen as what rights a person has that allows the instution of marriage. One right is the idea that a person can marry who they want. This cultural idea comes into conflict with the cultural “definition” of marriage as between members of the opposite sex. In the case of a certain state’s Supreme Court, the court felt that, given historical progression, the state’s stance on equal rights, and the justification for continuing discrimination, that one cultural tradition deserved to be broadened based on the cultural right rather than restricted based on the cultural definition. I found that argument compelling and a touch heartwarming, frankly.
It is obvious discrimination. To my knowledge, the state needs to present a compelling reason to discriminate. What is this compelling reason?
IIRC that’s only if the discrimination is based on race, religion or national origin.
The state only needs to present a compelling reason to discriminate in order to comply with the Constitution. If the Constitution specifically allows a particular discrimination, it’s not illegal or unConstitutional (by definition).
I think that depends on the wording of various state constitutions.
Well, I was just referring to the 14th Amendment’s protections. Some individual states may go further.
How exactly is marriage threatened? If it becomes legal for gays to be legally wed, are straights going to stop walking down the aisle completely in protest?
And why, ruadh, isn’t the 14th to be taken 100% literally? My knowledge of constituional law is admittedly weak, but not non-existant. Yes, amendments are re-interpreted as societal mores change and time goes by. Is that what you meant?
… first line edited by the Department of Redundancy Department. :smack:
The 14th Amendment was aimed at a specific type of discrimination. It was not meant to prevent any and every type of discrimination. It wasn’t meant to give children all the rights of adults, or women all the rights of men. Fortunately in the latter case it is now (by and large) interpreted to do so, but not in the former case. Until the SCOTUS interprets it to prevent discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation - which I sincerely hope they will do - that remains perfectly legal unless outlawed by state or local law.
If it were taken 100% literally, then voting age rules are unconstitutional, since the voting age of 18 discriminates against 17 year olds.
To take one example.
The argument is, more or less, that gays have the exact same right to marry as do straight people. A gay man can marry a woman, just like a straight guy, and a gay woman can marry a man, just like a straight woman. Both gay people and straight people have exactly the same right to marry (ie, to marry a person of the opposite sex), therefore there is no discrimination. Q.E.D.
That the gay man may not want to marry a woman is, for the purposes of this argument, irrelevant – the law doesn’t say that you get to marry whoever you want, it just provides that two people can get married if they are of the opposite sex.
The law does restrict who can marry in several ways: Both parties have to be unmarried, they can’t be related by blood to a certain degree, etc. These restrictions on the right to marry are constitutional; the restriction that both parties must be of the opposite sex, it is argued, is similar.
NOTE: I am NOT saying that I agree with this argument or that I think it is legally or morally valid; I am merely answering the question posed in the OP by summarizing the argument as it is made.
Incorrect, Bricker. The Constitution (the XXVI Amendment) cannot be unConstitutional (as you well know).
Maybe the OP could clarify why he thinks it would be an issue. Of course it would be discrimination. But the Courts can’t overturn an amendment, and legislation can’t (apart from another amendment), regardless of how egregious the discrimination is.
When it comes to discrimination, whether it’s acceptible or not depends on what criteria is based on. Discrimination based on academic merit or in many cases age can be legitimate, unlike on race or (usually) gender. I can’t think of a lot of situations where discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation could be legitimate.
As for the “definition of marriage”, you wonder if any conservatives are married or have even been to a wedding.
“Daddy, why are those people kissing in church and why are we all here watching?”
“I don’t know, Sweetie, but one thing I do know: It’s a man and a woman”.
Isn’t marriage a commitment? A supposedly lifelong commitment between two people who want to run a household together as partners and who supposedly love each other and want to have sex with each other because you’re not supposed to be in love with or have sex with anyone else while in that situation. It’s usually a man and a woman because it’s usually a man and a woman who are in love and want to have sex with each other. (It’s usually sealed in a religious ceremony to underscore the gravity of the situation and made in front of witnesses so one partner can’t later deny making it.)
These are some pretty basic facts about marriage, so why are conservatives so obtuse about the definition they “defend”?
This may be a silly question, but what’s to stop someone from starting the “First Church of Homosexuality” and stating that homosexual relationships are a tenant of the church? Then wouldn’t the ban on marriage then infringe on the 14th amendment?
How? What ban? A governmental ban on gay marriage wouldn’t apply to churches - it applies to the state’s recognition of that marriage. You could start up a “First Church of Marrying My Gym Rope” and conduct ceremony after ceremony, and no one is going to stop you. But good luck getting the state to recognize that as a legal marriage. Ever wonder why you need a marriage license to go along with your church wedding? Because there’s two things going on: (1) the church’s recognition of your marriage (or whatever religious body you want to be associated with) and (2) the government’s recognition of your marriage. One can exist without the other.
Not at all. I agree that an amendment cannot be unconstitutional, but all the 26th says is that the right of citizens who are eighteen years of age or older to vote cannot be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State. It doesn’t forbid younger citizens from having the vote. Indeed, if the 14th amendment were read 100% literally, there would have been no need for the 26th amendment in the first place, since it clearly would have removed any restrictions on voting age in the first place.
The 26th amendment doesn’t forbid 17 year olds from voting, it just says that states aren’t allowed to forbid 18 year olds from voting.