# I pit anti-gay-marriage rhetoric! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 25, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158 "2004-02-25T19:36:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/81 "2004-02-28T23:46:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The only sticking point I have is a strong conviction that the word ‘marriage’ means a union of opposite sexes. But I am willing to admit that this is grounded in religious practice, and I’d be willing to solve the problem by removing the state completely from the business of marriage. > > So the new Bricker amendment could certainly say, in clause 1, that discrimination based on sexual preference is illegal, and in clause 2 says that neither the United States nor any state shall purport to sanction ‘marriage’ - merely civil, contractual unions. > > So the state may simply sanction civil unions between any two adults. If those adults have a desire to be “married,” they need to see a priest, minister, rabbi, shaman, whatever. > > How’s that? As long as the “full faith and credit” clause applies, I have no particular problem with that. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/82 "2004-02-29T17:13:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The only sticking point I have is a strong conviction that the word ‘marriage’ means a union of opposite sexes. It’s absurd that your conception of the word should necessitate such a radical overhaul of the laws of the nation. Well over 1000 different statues would need changed to remove the word to accomodate your prejudice. Two men who make the same commitment as a man and woman should not be denied the term “married” because of your conviction. The term has many connotations that are important to gay people. We WANT the term as much as you. You can’t justify denying that without basing it on your prejudice. Period. ---
**Author:** ![alexandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e68b1a/32.png) [@alexandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alexandra)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/83 "2004-03-01T14:24:25Z")
> [@troub](#): > > On the local news the other night one of the reporters was interviewing some lady involved in a protest organization or something (against gay marriage). > > They asked her why she was protesting. > > “The definition of marriage should not be changed from the way it has been for centuries.” > > So you’re opposed to gay marriage? > > “I have to protect my family and my children.” > > Protect them from what? > > \ > “Protect them from having the definition of marriage changed!” > > :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: HAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh. I don’t get why Christians (or sometimes atheists) who claim not to be homophobic are so concerned with keeping the current meaning of a word, rather than equal civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/84 "2004-03-01T14:48:06Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > As long as the “full faith and credit” clause applies, I have no particular problem with that. The problem is that it _doesn’t_. See any of the extensive discussions on the topic of what it means (i.e., what the states choose to have it mean locally – “public policy” is a useful search term). (I have a few comments on the constitutionality of this concept – but the “strict constructionists” seem to favor a very loose construction here.) ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/85 "2004-03-01T17:35:10Z")
Quick question on the whole “public policy” aspect. When I was taking paralegal classes, a couple of my professors said that “public policy” was the _weakest_ defense that a state had in defending a law or action. But in this case it seems like it’s the firey sword which smites interstate recognition of SSM. So is “public policy” weak or strong? And does a state need to justify its public policy, either by statute or before a court? Were a state to set forth that it is against public policy for, say, Jews to walk on the public thorougfare unescorted by a Christian no court in the land would let them get away with it. Yet it seems all a state has to do is say “public policy” and legal marriages from other states are void. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/86 "2004-03-01T21:33:06Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Quick question on the whole “public policy” aspect. When I was taking paralegal classes, a couple of my professors said that “public policy” was the _weakest_ defense that a state had in defending a law or action. But in this case it seems like it’s the firey sword which smites interstate recognition of SSM. So is “public policy” weak or strong? Resorting to “public policy” as an argument _is_ weak – it’s one of those things that first year law students get called on the carpet for (at least by good professors). The difference here is that “public policy” as used here isn’t so much an argument as it is descriptive – it’s basically a short way of saying “every state is unique, and there are areas which they are allowed (even encouraged) to be different from one another, and these differences are Good Things ™ and the Full Faith and Credit Clause can’t be allowed to allow one state to whittle away the ability of another state to be different on certain public policy issues.” In short, this isn’t like a law student saying “the rule should be X because public policy demands it” – that is a weak and meaningless argument of the first-year law student type – but instead “the rule should be X because states are allowed to make differing judgments on their own internal public policy.” > [@Otto](#): > > And does a state need to justify its public policy, either by statute or before a court? Were a state to set forth that it is against public policy for, say, Jews to walk on the public thorougfare unescorted by a Christian no court in the land would let them get away with it. Yet it seems all a state has to do is say “public policy” and legal marriages from other states are void. You are conflating two different things. Your first example would trigger review under the first amendment’s religion clauses. No state’s public policy can conflict with the requirements of the federal constitution, period. It may, however, conflict with the laws of other states – which is the case with gay marriage. The issue at hand today is not “does the federal constitution mandate same-sex marriage” but rather “to what extent does one state have to recognize another state’s laws, assuming both states’ laws are in accord with the federal constitution?” That is a very different question. If we assume that the federal constitution is silent on the substantive issue of gay marriage – that California can recognize it and Alabama may not, and that both policies are constitutionally acceptable – we are left with a full faith and credit problem, and nothing more. And I don’t think the FFC clause would be allowed to destroy social differences between the states. That’s why the public policy exception exists. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/87 "2004-03-01T22:51:09Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > You are conflating two different things. Your first example would trigger review under the first amendment’s religion clauses. No state’s public policy can conflict with the requirements of the federal constitution, period. It may, however, conflict with the laws of other states – which is the case with gay marriage. The issue at hand today is not “does the federal constitution mandate same-sex marriage” but rather “to what extent does one state have to recognize another state’s laws, assuming both states’ laws are in accord with the federal constitution?” I picked this example because it struck me as falling under the 14th rather than the 1st since requiring an escort doesn’t on its face prevent Jews from exercising their religion. They can go to synagogue, just not unescorted. For a better example, how about not allowing women to walk unescorted by a man, or requiring everyone with herpes to wear a badge stating it? These seem more squarely under the 14th. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/88 "2004-03-02T04:18:35Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > For a better example, how about not allowing women to walk unescorted by a man, or requiring everyone with herpes to wear a badge stating it? These seem more squarely under the 14th. Not for Dewey. Under his brand of strict constructionalism, which incorporates “original intent” and mindreading, if they ain’t black, the 14th don’t mean nuthin’. ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/89 "2004-03-02T04:27:59Z")
I hate “me too!” posts, but I can’t help but agree. A few years ago, I would have been opposed to gay marriage, because it didn’t “seem right.” Now, I don’t see any reason to oppose it. It’s not a threat to me, a typical American family, children, or any other institution; it just goes against some people’s interpretation of a few words uttered by one of the Disciples. Seeing photos of happily married gay and lesbian couples the past few days just seems … well, it seems like they’re normal. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/90 "2004-03-02T13:33:55Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > I would _love_ to know where I claimed that Jesus ‘invented’ marriage. The early Christian church, however, _did_ begin the tradition of marriage as we know it. Sure, the cosmetic details have changed, but the core of marriage: One man and one woman, remains the same. It has served us well for around 2000 years, and I have yet to hear a reason I agree with as to why it should be so radically changed. You are amazingly stupid, aren’t you? I’ve met some ballscratching mouthbreathers in my day, but I do believe you win the prize. I can’t see one true premise in there, and even if they were true, your conclusion would be false. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/91 "2004-03-02T15:08:39Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > I picked this example because it struck me as falling under the 14th rather than the 1st since requiring an escort doesn’t on its face prevent Jews from exercising their religion. They can go to synagogue, just not unescorted. Your proposal would nonetheless fail under first amendment scrutiny because it amounts to governmental disfavor of a particular religious group. The 14th amendment doesn’t get pulled in at all (except to the extent that it incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states). > [@Otto](#): > > For a better example, how about not allowing women to walk unescorted by a man, or requiring everyone with herpes to wear a badge stating it? These seem more squarely under the 14th. The former would fail both under first amendment associative rights and under the high court’s gender-based equal protection jurisprudence. The latter would not be unconstitutional (it would certainly survive rational basis examination as a public health measure – it’s a dumb idea, but it ain’t _unconstitutional_). > [@Homebrew](#): > > Not for Dewey. Under his brand of strict constructionalism, which incorporates “original intent” and mindreading, if they ain’t black, the 14th don’t mean nuthin’. Kindly look up the meaning of the phrase “stare decisis” and get back to me on that. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/92 "2004-03-02T15:41:14Z")
OK, regardless of my apparent inability to choose examples that aren’t burdened by other constitutional considerations (and I still think herpes badges would run afoul of the 14th but until there’s case law I’ll move on), the question still stands unanswered as to when the state’s assertion of “public policy” crashes against the rocks of the Constitution, or if it doesn’t, what test does the state have to pass to allow for its assertion of “public policy” to override recognition of a marriage. Since public policy is really the only argument that the states will have in defending their mini-DOMAs and since the first case demanding recognition of an out-of-state SSM will be filed on or about May 21, I’d really like more information on this. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/93 "2004-03-02T16:40:00Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > OK, regardless of my apparent inability to choose examples that aren’t burdened by other constitutional considerations (and I still think herpes badges would run afoul of the 14th but until there’s case law I’ll move on), the question still stands unanswered as to when the state’s assertion of “public policy” crashes against the rocks of the Constitution, or if it doesn’t, what test does the state have to pass to allow for its assertion of “public policy” to override recognition of a marriage. Since public policy is really the only argument that the states will have in defending their mini-DOMAs and since the first case demanding recognition of an out-of-state SSM will be filed on or about May 21, I’d really like more information on this. If a state’s public policy crashes against the rocks of the Constitution, it gets smashed to bits – the Constitution trumps anything the states may have to say on these things. If we assume for the sake of argument that the federal constitution forbids the denial of marriage to homosexuals, then we never even reach the full faith and credit question or its public policy exception. In such a case, _no_ state could forbid gays to marry – Georgia couldn’t deny marital benefits to California gay couples _because Georgia would be unable to deny those same benefits to its own citizens_. The only way the full faith and credit clause can possibly be implicated here is if we assume that the federal constitution is itself silent on the issue of gay marriage – we have to posit that the states can constitutionally chart different courses on this issue in order for the FFC clause to come into play. Otherwise, the Constitution trumps the anti-gay marriage state laws and the FFC clause never becomes an issue. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/94 "2004-03-02T17:01:45Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Kindly look up the meaning of the phrase “stare decisis” and get back to me on that. That just proves my fucking point. You don’t think the 14th _should_ have applied to gender or other issues. You only accept them on _stare decisis_ grounds. You certainly don’t consider the 14th to protect gay people from discrimination. Or from making people wear Herpes badges. I understand your position; I just think it’s a crock full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/95 "2004-03-02T18:23:26Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > That just proves my fucking point. You don’t think the 14th _should_ have applied to gender or other issues. You only accept them on _stare decisis_ grounds. That isn’t what you wrote. You said I don’t believe the fourteenth amendment has any applicability to gender issues – note the present tense. That is false. I accept the gender cases on _stare decisis_ grounds. Quit misrepresenting my position and I’ll quite bitching at you for it. > [@Homebrew](#): > > You certainly don’t consider the 14th to protect gay people from discrimination. Or from making people wear Herpes badges. I understand your position; I just think it’s a crock full of shit. And yet you cannot provide any support for your position, or for the notion that my position is a “crock of shit,” outside of the rather weak basis of Homebrew Says So. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/96 "2004-03-02T19:33:40Z")
I didn’t misrepresent your position. You don’t think the 14th Amendment applies to gender issues. You only accept that the Supreme Court has ruled that it does. If you had your way, though, gender would have never come under protection of the 14th. So it is accurate to say exactly what I did. > [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > And yet you cannot provide any support for your position, or for the notion that my position is a “crock of shit,” outside of the rather weak basis of Homebrew Says So. Are you daft? The fact that Substantive Due Process is the law of the land and you are forced to “accept it” is proof that your position is a crock and supports mine. You and Scalia have lost. Due Process is here to stay and will continue to be used to defend minorities against the tyranny of the masses. I don’t know who will come under the protection of the 14th in the future. But I’ll guarantee that over time, Due Process rights will continue to expand despite the mewling of you, Scalia and Ashcroft. And that’s a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/97 "2004-03-02T19:59:48Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > I didn’t misrepresent your position. You don’t think the 14th Amendment applies to gender issues. You only accept that the Supreme Court has ruled that it does. If you had your way, though, gender would have never come under protection of the 14th. So it is accurate to say exactly what I did. No, it isn’t. I believe the 14th amendment should apply to gender situations in the here-and-now out of respect for _stare decisis_. What I would believe in a parallel universe where the gender cases don’t exist, or what I would believe had I access to a time machine, is irrelevant. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Are you daft? The fact that Substantive Due Process is the law of the land and you are forced to “accept it” is proof that your position is a crock and supports mine. You and Scalia have lost. Due Process is here to stay and will continue to be used to defend minorities against the tyranny of the masses. Oh, I agree that SDP forms part of the fabric of constitutional jurisprudence, even though I disagree with it. I’ll even agree that there are reasonable people who put forth thoughtful arguments in favor of SDP. All I’m saying is that I’ve never seen such an argument emanate from your particular keyboard. > [@Homebrew](#): > > I don’t know who will come under the protection of the 14th in the future. But I’ll guarantee that over time, Due Process rights will continue to expand despite the mewling of you, Scalia and Ashcroft. And that’s a good thing. One wonders if you’d be talking like Martha Stewart if the use of SDP in the economic sphere revived itself – or would you favor the courts aggregating to themselves the power to strike down minimum wage and maximum hour laws? ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/98 "2004-03-02T20:27:46Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > One wonders if you’d be talking like Martha Stewart if the use of SDP in the economic sphere revived itself – or would you favor the courts aggregating to themselves the power to strike down minimum wage and maximum hour laws? It’s sad that your only arguement is a Slippery Slope. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/99 "2004-03-02T21:31:03Z")
You know, for all the rancor and arguments on this board, I’m glad that we don’t have people here, for the most part, asserting foolish things like [this](http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_02_29_corner-archive.asp#026187) (referring to the quoted column, not the commentary), [this](http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_02_29_corner-archive.asp#026188), and [this](http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_02_29_corner-archive.asp#026195). It makes me feel good for this board, but really REALLY sad for many opponents of gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2004, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158/100 "2004-03-02T21:46:57Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > It’s sad that your only arguement is a Slippery Slope. Learn some history. What I posted is no mere hypothetical slippery slope – the Supreme Court of one era actually did strike down minimum wage and maximum hour laws; see _Lochner_, et al. It is hardly unthinkable that the Court in some future era might revive that jurisprudence. And that, of course, is why the constitutional process matters, and why ends can’t be the sole judge of means. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-anti-gay-marriage-rhetoric/231158.md?page=6)