# Is there anyone here against gay marriage AND civil unions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470 "2004-11-07T06:08:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/141 "2004-11-10T04:36:40Z")
A resource for further argumentation: If y’all toddle over to [http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex\_marriage\_in\_Canada](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada), you’ll find a host of links to the various courts’ decisions recognizing our Charter rights to same-sex marriage. Obviously the situations aren’t the same, but you may find the arguments provocative nonetheless. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2004, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/142 "2004-11-10T06:11:10Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I didn’t know “wagering” was a valid form of proof. > Can we have some cites please? It’s your cite. I’m just pointing out that it doesn’t prove what you purported it to prove. Specfically, it does not prove that 18.2% of married women plan on being childless for the duration of the marriage, because some portion of that number will eventually elect to bear children. > [@Polerius](#): > > It is without merit. Why? Because you say so? > [@Polerius](#): > > Is calling an argument “silly” a formal debate tactic also? I explained why the argument was silly in the paragraphs preceding my noting its silliness. Odd that you simply ignore the substantive parts of my post in favor of focusing on the word “silly.” ---
**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:** [November 10, 2004, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/143 "2004-11-10T06:15:19Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > That doesn’t prove that the majority of the \*people \* wanted it to happen. What **John Mace** said. > [@Polerius](#): > > In fact, using your debate technique from above, I’d wager that a large percentage, if not the majority, of people in the South were against Civil Rights. Perhaps, but that’s irrelevant. For federal legislation, the only majority that matters is the majority of the body politic of the country as a whole. Otherwise, you could call any bit of legislation as “thwarting the will” of some majority by simply defining the universe of the majority to an overly narrow and discrete unit. Hey, I bet the majority of people who live on white supremacist compounds oppose civil rights; I guess we’re thwarting the will of that “majority.” :rolleyes: ---
**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:** [November 10, 2004, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/144 "2004-11-10T06:33:25Z")
**SolGrundy** : Let’s be clear: I’m just pointing out a flaw in one particular argument here (namely, that it ignores the very real issue of administrative ease). My pointing out that flaw does not transform me into an opponent of gay marriage. Indeed, it doesn’t even transform me into a proponent of the “marriage is for procreation” school of thought. And this little bit is just beyond the pale: > [@SolGrundy](#): > > It’s about trying to stamp out homosexuality by reinforcing the notion that it is not condoned. It’s all about that “gut-level reservation” that you talk about, disguised as something else. Step off, Sparky. My reservations are based more on my own conceptions of the importance of tradition and a desire not to muck about with longstanding social institutions. It isn’t about “stamping out homosexuality” or anything remotely approaching that. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/145 "2004-11-10T19:18:13Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > My reservations are based more on my own conceptions of the importance of tradition and a desire not to muck about with longstanding social institutions. It isn’t about “stamping out homosexuality” or anything remotely approaching that Just so I understand, you’re arguing that it is acceptable to deny same sex couples the fundamental right to a civil marriage because of “tradition” and your concern for the status quo? Those are the most compelling reasons you can come up with for denying same sex partners the same right to a civil marriage as hetereosexual couples? As the court in _Goodridge_ pointed out, prior to the decision in _Loving_, same race marriages had a long history of being illegal. Despite that “tradition” and the desire not to “muck about with longstanding social institutions”, the Supreme Court found anti-misegenation laws to be unconstitutional. What is the difference? From reading your other posts, I understand you’re distaste for Substantive Due Process, which, more than likely, includes some of the most important cases in the last century. Loving, Brown, etc. And while a part of the legal scholar in me can agree that there just may be point to it, I have a huge problem saying those decisions, even if “activist”, were not good, sound, decisions that helped change our country for the better. Of course, you also can use SDP for negative changes, and they have, but in rare cases, such as the unconscionable tyranny of the majority over the minority, it is a necessary and positive road to go. Now, to get back to same sex marriage, assuming the law as it is presently interpreted, I think the decision in _Loving_ clearly paves the way for same sex marriage, regardless of the “traditions”. If you feel that _Loving_ was wrongly decided, hey, I guess that’s your cross to bear. However, the right to a civil marriage is clearly implicated. Saying that: “well, marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman” is no better than saying "well, marriage is traditionally between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman, but never between the races. To go back to _Goodbridge_, the court laid out the three arguments advanced by the state, for denying civil marriage rights to same sex couples: > [@](#): > > The department posits three legislative rationales for prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying: (1) providing a “favorable setting for procreation”; (2) ensuring the optimal setting for child rearing, which the department defines as “a two-parent family with one parent of each sex”; and (3) preserving scarce State and private financial resources. As we all know, the court went on to hold that those arguments do not even meet the rational basis test. Which of these do you forward as a good enough reason to deny a fundamental right to same sex partners? Is there one the court did not consider? I’m not trying to sound aggressive, but I am really interested. If you put aside the arguments against the use of SDP, there really aren’t any good reasons for the state to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the realm of civil marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/146 "2004-11-10T19:43:25Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Just so I understand, you’re arguing that it is acceptable to deny same sex couples the fundamental right to a civil marriage because of “tradition” and your concern for the status quo? Those are the most compelling reasons you can come up with for denying same sex partners the same right to a civil marriage as hetereosexual couples? > > As the court in _Goodridge_ pointed out, prior to the decision in _Loving_, same race marriages had a long history of being illegal. Despite that “tradition” and the desire not to “muck about with longstanding social institutions”, the Supreme Court found anti-misegenation laws to be unconstitutional. What is the difference? > > From reading your other posts, I understand you’re distaste for Substantive Due Process, which, more than likely, includes some of the most important cases in the last century. Loving, Brown, etc. And while a part of the legal scholar in me can agree that there just may be point to it, I have a huge problem saying those decisions, even if “activist”, were not good, sound, decisions that helped change our country for the better. Of course, you also can use SDP for negative changes, and they have, but in rare cases, such as the unconscionable tyranny of the majority over the minority, it is a necessary and positive road to go. > > Now, to get back to same sex marriage, assuming the law as it is presently interpreted, I think the decision in _Loving_ clearly paves the way for same sex marriage, regardless of the “traditions”. If you feel that _Loving_ was wrongly decided, hey, I guess that’s your cross to bear. However, the right to a civil marriage is clearly implicated. Saying that: “well, marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman” is no better than saying "well, marriage is traditionally between a white man and a white woman, or a black man and a black woman, but never between the races. > > To go back to _Goodbridge_, the court laid out the three arguments advanced by the state, for denying civil marriage rights to same sex couples: > As we all know, the court went on to hold that those arguments do not even meet the rational basis test. Which of these do you forward as a good enough reason to deny a fundamental right to same sex partners? Is there one the court did not consider? > > I’m not trying to sound aggressive, but I am really interested. If you put aside the arguments against the use of SDP, there really aren’t any good reasons for the state to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the realm of civil marriage. Why does substantive due process (or is it procedural substance? I keep getting the two mixed up), if we accept it, not make it unfairly discriminatory to deny recognition to a marriage among three persons, or to one person’s right to marry two different persons simultaneously (with consent of all parties involved)? If your answer is that “marriage is fundamentally (i.e., traditionally) defined as between two persons, each not already married to someone else” – aren’t you subject to the same slippery-slope argumentum ad miscegenatum that you tossed at **DC&H** – “But you’re just enshrining the very discriminatory nature of the law into the definition by relying on ‘traditional’ views of marriage that subsisted only in the Bad Old Days – which is no different than banning miscegenation by invoking ‘traditional definitions’?” I honestly can’t understand which limits on the state’s ability to define marriage (and the parties/combinations of parties who can enter it into) are, in your view, automatically suspect/unsustainable because “not any different in essence from those struck down in **Loving** ,” and which are “okay, because that’s just different from what was happening in **Loving** ” (not purporting to quote you, just trying to follow/anticipate your logic). In fact, why don’t I have a promising claim that denying me the incidents and benefits of marriage (which is what this debate is about) is unconstitutional because it is my preference to enter into a union with myself, i.e., not get married to another person. “But that’s not marriage!” Sez you and tradition, but I thought we’d discredited tradition as a legitimate source of limitations on what non-traditional forms marriage can be morphed into. Certainly I am suffering concrete “deprivation” vis a vis the financial benefits I’d receive if I were allowed the incidents of marriage (and, while we’re at it, parenthood) simply because I didn’t choose to go about my marriage and parenting the “traditional” way – hey, I’m married to myself, and all the lil’ chilluns of the world are my offspring; I think I’m entitled to 12 million personal tax exemptions in my State alone!). Which is more absurd, allowing “traditional definitions of marriage” to have a legitimate (and possibly decisive) role in defining rights, or to allow it to have no role? If the answer is some murky middle ground, where tradition is “legitimate,” well, fine, but then I find your statement that “If you put aside the arguments against the use of SDP, there really aren’t any good reasons for the state to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the realm of civil marriage” either overly glib and optimistic, or misleading as a characterization of **constitutional** principles because the constitutional analysis isn’t that easy unless the “good reasons” you’re saying don’t exist are required to be “good” on policy grounds (as defined from your subjective viewpoint," not just “good” based on the existing constitutional jurisprudence. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/147 "2004-11-10T20:50:14Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > Why does substantive due process (or is it procedural substance? I keep getting the two mixed up), if we accept it, not make it unfairly discriminatory to deny recognition to a marriage among three persons, or to one person’s right to marry two different persons simultaneously (with consent of all parties involved)? Just so I’m clear, the argument you fall back on against allowing for civil marriage between two same sex partners is the hysterical “if we let same sex partners marry… well then what about marrying 3 or 4 people, or a whole town… or cats… or patio furniture!!!” That about it for you? Since you seem to be a bit confused as to my point of view, and seem unwilling to answer my questions, I’ll beg your indulgence and ask you to read the [Goodridge decision](http://www.masslaw.com/signup/gtwFulltext.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm). That opinion is probably the best enunciation of my beliefs I can find so far. Most, if not all, of my arguments will be found in there, and if you take the time to read through it, you should have a good understanding of my point of view. I’ll go ahead and give you a few minutes to get through it… Done? Good. Here’s the bullet points: What I am talking about is the civil marriage. The one that the state recognizes, and blesses the people within the marriage with certain rights and responsibilities. NOTE TO ALL EVANGELICALS: I am not talking about religious marriages. I am not talking about forcing the Catholic Church to marry gays. I’m not talking about allowing 2 year old’s to marry. I’m talking about the governmentally created, wholly secular, program that recognizes certain rights among people, and grants benefits to the parties. When the government decides who it will allow to join into that program, it must do so without violating people’s the equal protection and due process rights. Not allowing two people of the same gender to enter into a civil marriage does just that. > [@Huerta](#): > > I honestly can’t understand which limits on the state’s ability to define marriage (and the parties/combinations of parties who can enter it into) are, in your view, automatically suspect/unsustainable because “not any different in essence from those struck down in Loving,” and which are “okay, because that’s just different from what was happening in Loving” (not purporting to quote you, just trying to follow/anticipate your logic). The state’s ability to define marriage must comply with equal protection and due process. To do so, those regulations must (once again blurring the lines and using the lesser standard here) have a rational basis and be reasonably related to the furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest. You rabid following of “tradition”, while one part of the determination, is not the end of the discussion. You must also consider the rationale behind the definition and the reasons for that definition. Shouting “tradition” is not enough. > [@Huerta](#): > > Which is more absurd, allowing “traditional definitions of marriage” to have a legitimate (and possibly decisive) role in defining rights, or to allow it to have no role? Legitimate, but not decisive. Just because tradition dictated that we deprive people of their rights, doesn’t mean we should. > [@Huerta](#): > > If the answer is some murky middle ground, where tradition is “legitimate,” well, fine, Glad we agree > [@Huerta](#): > > … but then I find your statement that “If you put aside the arguments against the use of SDP, there really aren’t any good reasons for the state to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the realm of civil marriage” either overly glib and optimistic, or misleading as a characterization of constitutional principles because the constitutional analysis isn’t that easy unless the “good reasons” you’re saying don’t exist are required to be “good” on policy grounds (as defined from your subjective viewpoint," not just “good” based on the existing constitutional jurisprudence. I thought my prior post was pretty clear, but I guess not. I gave you the reasons the state of Massachusettes had offered for why it denies the right to marry to same sex couples. In my view, and the view of the court, none of those reasons was “good” in that none of those reasons could meet the rational basis/reasonably related tests. In addition, none of those reasons were “good” in my subjective opinion. Sorry I confused you. Now, there are certainly restrictions on the right to marry that would most certainly pass the test. A restriction that would not allow someone to marry their dog, a minor, their son or daughter, or patio furniture would have concrete, rational, and reasonable reasons behind them. A restriction that does not allow a person to marry someone of their same gender does not. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/148 "2004-11-10T20:57:57Z")
[Applause post for **Hamlet**] ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/149 "2004-11-10T21:52:36Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > [Applause post for **Hamlet**] As well you should applaud. Unlike the arguments you have offered, **Hamlet** ’s post is well-reasoned, correctly identifies the controlling legal precedents, and argues cogently that we should draw new conclusions of law consonant with those precedents. As it happens, I disagree. But one of the main reasons I disagree is that unlike **Hamlet** , I cannot quite so cavalierly dismiss the substantive due process argument (" If you put aside the arguments against the use of SDP, there really aren’t any good reasons for the state to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the realm of civil marriage.") I don’t put aside SDP. While I recognize that an alarmingly large body of case law exists that was derived from the use of substantive due process, and I am not advocating wholesale repeal of the body of case law, neither do I advocate even more more case continuing the use of this flawed and dangerous doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/150 "2004-11-10T21:55:24Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Just so I’m clear, the argument you fall back on against allowing for civil marriage between two same sex partners is the hysterical “if we let same sex partners marry… well then what about marrying 3 or 4 people, or a whole town… or cats… or patio furniture!!!” That about it for you? It may be hysterical in your mind. You have not responded to the point, because you can’t. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Now, there are certainly restrictions on the right to marry that would most certainly pass the test. A restriction that would not allow someone to marry their dog, a minor, their son or daughter, or patio furniture would have concrete, rational, and reasonable reasons behind them. A restriction that does not allow a person to marry someone of their same gender does not. Why? You are begging the question. All you are arguing here is that homosexuality should be protected. You are not giving any particular reason why homosexuals should be allowed in, but 3 person marriages are not. And you can’t, because you’d be making the same the same policy/non-legal argument that Huerta88 said you are. I’m willing to bet that 50 years ago, more people would have agreed to marriage with a minor than homosexuality. Would you have made the same argument then, that _clearly_ marrying a minor is protected behavior, and any slippery slope arguments, such as it would lead to homosexual marriage, would be ridiculous because there were concrete, rational, and reasonable reasons behind the prohibitions against it. Your simply stating that X, Y, and Z are ridiculous, while homosexuality is not, does nothing. The only way you can back it up is to argue policy; that the people 50 years ago were wrong, that homosexual marriage should be allowed, and here’s why. That’s radically different than saying it is somehow magically protected under the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/151 "2004-11-10T22:18:05Z")
Let me say for the millionth time that no one has to show why SSM _should_ be allowed, it is for those who would deprive citizens of this preexisting right to show why it should _not_ be allowed. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/152 "2004-11-10T22:39:12Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Let me say for the millionth time that no one has to show why SSM _should_ be allowed, it is for those who would deprive citizens of this preexisting right to show why it should _not_ be allowed. Why even post drivel like this? There’s plenty of NAMBLA members who would say the same thing regarding sex with children. Does that make it right? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/153 "2004-11-10T22:40:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As well you should applaud. Unlike the arguments you have offered, **Hamlet** ’s post is well-reasoned, correctly identifies the controlling legal precedents, and argues cogently that we should draw new conclusions of law consonant with those precedents. Awww. Now I’m blushing… Thanks. > [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t put aside SDP. While I recognize that an alarmingly large body of case law exists that was derived from the use of substantive due process, and I am not advocating wholesale repeal of the body of case law, neither do I advocate even more more case continuing the use of this flawed and dangerous doctrine. While you and I may differ on the use of Substantive Due Process (and I have my reservations about it also), it remains the law of the land. And, accordingly, I think that the argument that denying same sex partners the right to marry violates the Constitution is a valid argument. While my view may be tinted in an outcome-determinate fashion, I think the opinion in Goodbridge is solid legal reasoning. And while the last thing this thread needs is another devolution into the propreity of SDP, I would agree it is a dangerous doctrine, but one that, in extreme circumstances (which, of course, I advocate this is) it may be a necessity to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. > [@SlyFrog](#): > > It may be hysterical in your mind. You have not responded to the point, because you can’t. I’m not ashamed to admit that I completely miss your point, if you have one. > [@SlyFrog](#): > > Why? You are begging the question. All you are arguing here is that homosexuality should be protected. You are not giving any particular reason why homosexuals should be allowed in, but 3 person marriages are not. And you can’t, because you’d be making the same the same policy/non-legal argument that Huerta88 said you are. I’m willing to bet that 50 years ago, more people would have agreed to marriage with a minor than homosexuality. Would you have made the same argument then, that clearly marrying a minor is protected behavior, and any slippery slope arguments, such as it would lead to homosexual marriage, would be ridiculous because there were concrete, rational, and reasonable reasons behind the prohibitions against it. > > Your simply stating that X, Y, and Z are ridiculous, while homosexuality is not, does nothing. The only way you can back it up is to argue policy; that the people 50 years ago were wrong, that homosexual marriage should be allowed, and here’s why. That’s radically different than saying it is somehow magically protected under the Constitution. I thought going through it twice with **Huerta** was enough, but I guess I’ll try and restate my opinion again. And I’ll go slow this time, just for you. The argument I made was both a Constitutional and a policy one. Decrying my posts as simple policy arguments is a simpleminded misstatement. If you wish to educate yourself, [here](http://faculty.lls.edu/~manheimk/cl2/sdp4.htm) is a very simplified version of what we are discussing. In brief, legislation that adversely effects a person’s right (whether fundamental or not) must be determined to be Constitutional or not. To do so, the courts must decide which test to use to determine the legislation’s Constitutionality. Personally, I believe the absolute denial of a fundamental right (such as marriage) should be subjected to a higher level of judicial scrutiny, however, at the very least, the legislation must have legitimate ends and be rationally related to meeting those ends. Marriage legislation has, of course, met those burdens in many areas, and failed in others. For example, legislation that denys a person the right to marry outside their race, or legislation that denys a person the right to marry if they owe child support has been struck down. Legislation that has denys the right to mary to more than 2 people has been upheld. Nowhere am I advocating a change in that. However, legislation that denies the right to marry to same sex couples does not meet the rationale basis test, and is thus Unconstitutional. While my argument certainly has a policy side, to ignore the fact I’ve continuously laid out a Constitutional argument also makes you appear… let’s just say you may have read my post too quickly. Since I have neither the time right now, nor the inclination for you, I won’t go over the legitimate reasons (that would clearly meet the rational basis test) for denying the right to marry to 2 year olds, dogs, and patio furniture. I would think they would be pretty evident, but, for you, I guess not. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/154 "2004-11-10T22:56:39Z")
> [@SlyFrog](#): > > Why even post drivel like this? There’s plenty of NAMBLA members who would say the same thing regarding sex with children. Does that make it right? No, because there is no right for _anyone_ top marry children. There is no equal protection argument there. No rights are being stripped from a specific group which are accorded to others. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/155 "2004-11-10T23:00:15Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And I’ll go slow this time, just for you. It’s good to go with the personal insult. Because I don’t believe you have really addressed the issue, I am stupid. Right. > [@Hamlet](#): > > The argument I made was both a Constitutional and a policy one. No, it was a policy one. Substantive due process is, at its heart, a policy argument. The original point was that there was somehow a constitutional eual protection right. You set out the basic outline of substantive due process, and then simply tried to ignore the fact that the entire point of substantive due process is policy; is the basis for abridgement of rights done with appropriate government justification. Whether the justification is sufficient is, like it or not, policy. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Decrying my posts as simple policy arguments is a simpleminded misstatement. If you wish to educate yourself, [here](http://faculty.lls.edu/~manheimk/cl2/sdp4.htm) is a very simplified version of what we are discussing. Thanks, I’ve already studied substantive due process in detail. But I appreciate the insult. I can only assume that what’s coming next will be an ever clever “Gee, I guess you didn’t learn very much.” > [@Hamlet](#): > > Since I have neither the time right now, nor the inclination for you, I won’t go over the legitimate reasons (that would clearly meet the rational basis test) for denying the right to marry to 2 year olds, dogs, and patio furniture. I would think they would be pretty evident, but, for you, I guess not. No, why don’t you give me the reason why we can deny the right to marry to a consenting 17 year old who can have a children without harm, or to first cousins (who have now shown to have a fairly small increased chance of birth defects among children compared to any other randomly matched couple), but not to homosexuals? Because that is what you need to do; that is why your argument is policy. Otherwise you are simply sniggeringly setting out constitutional tests and then saying that prohibitions on homosexual marriage are clearly not justified. The test is easy to regurgitate from law school; the analysis isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/156 "2004-11-10T23:03:07Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > No, because there is no right for _anyone_ top marry children. There is no equal protection argument there. No rights are being stripped from a specific group which are accorded to others. Seriously. Are you aware of the concept of “begging the question?” ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/157 "2004-11-10T23:08:58Z")
Gotta disagree – but wait before you jump me! Yes, pedophiles and the children they desire **are** being denied a right which is extended heterosexual couples, and which it’s proposed be extended same-sex couples. But the term “discrimination” is in and of itself morally neutral – it’s only modern usage that delimits it to **unjust** discrimination. The children whose “right to marry” is being deprived are being **justly** excluded from the class of those-who-may-marry, because they are not old or experienced enough to form a mature judgment on an intensely personal and long-lasting issue. It’s a rather nitpicky point – but one worth making, for the very good reason that it disarms the pedophilia/Santorum dog-marriage/toaster-marriage slippery slope clowns. Discrimination **is** good when there is a just reason to impose it. There was a case some time ago, which hopefully someone more expert in law than I will be able to cite and discuss at more length, in which one of the qualifications for a job involving significant-but-relatively-safe exposure to a substance with toxic fumes was that the applicant not be a woman of childbearing age, since the toxic substances would disproportionately affect fetuses. I’m not certain what the outcome was, but the case established that there **are** valid grounds to discriminate when the discrimination is founded in some actual ground. Forbidding a child under age to marry, and an adult interested in marrying said child from doing so, is within the **just discrimination** area. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/158 "2004-11-10T23:18:02Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Gotta disagree – but wait before you jump me! Yes, pedophiles and the children they desire **are** being denied a right which is extended heterosexual couples, and which it’s proposed be extended same-sex couples. But the term “discrimination” is in and of itself morally neutral – it’s only modern usage that delimits it to **unjust** discrimination. The children whose “right to marry” is being deprived are being **justly** excluded from the class of those-who-may-marry, because they are not old or experienced enough to form a mature judgment on an intensely personal and long-lasting issue. > > It’s a rather nitpicky point – but one worth making, for the very good reason that it disarms the pedophilia/Santorum dog-marriage/toaster-marriage slippery slope clowns. Discrimination **is** good when there is a just reason to impose it. There was a case some time ago, which hopefully someone more expert in law than I will be able to cite and discuss at more length, in which one of the qualifications for a job involving significant-but-relatively-safe exposure to a substance with toxic fumes was that the applicant not be a woman of childbearing age, since the toxic substances would disproportionately affect fetuses. I’m not certain what the outcome was, but the case established that there **are** valid grounds to discriminate when the discrimination is founded in some actual ground. Forbidding a child under age to marry, and an adult interested in marrying said child from doing so, is within the **just discrimination** area. Two things; first, what Huerta was originally arguing was an equal protection question. This now swings it into substantive due process, which is fine, but different. The above is fine, but the ability to point out justifications for not allowing people to marry a dog (although I think people underestimate the number of reasons that would also apply to gay marriage, bearing in mind that the dog does not really have rights in our society and that saying, “The dog doesn’t consent” doesn’t cut it; the dog doesn’t consent to being a pet, either) does not disarm justifications given for disallowing gay marriage. My point is that if the general ability to have children and/or be part of a solid family unit with direct issue children is not seen as a justication for not allowing gay marriage, then there is really no justification for marriage. If it’s not having children, if it really is just two people who want to say I’m getting married, what are we classifying it at all for? Why not simply do away with government recognition of marriage? It becomes a recognized relationship without reason. Of course that was my point about 3 pages ago. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/159 "2004-11-10T23:58:23Z")
Well, civilly recognized marriage is a means for conveying legal standing onto a relationship, legal or not, which two people choose to contract. The question of children often **is** a significant part of that picture – but my wife and I went into our marriage knowing that, while children were not completely ruled out of the picture, the likelihood of having any by the normal process was, as they say, between slim and none, and Slim just left town. And I have a violent distaste for any theoreticians who advance either the argument that (a) marriage is not an issue which governments should recognize – are you going to extend the injustices presently worked on gay couples through failure to recognize their obvious intent to straight couples as well? – or (b) a childless marriage is a pointless one. I have some words stronger than appropriate in GD for people who advance the latter argument – one of the two Pittings I’ve ever done of a board member was a supercilious ass who decided to argue that inanity. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2004, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/160 "2004-11-11T00:02:25Z")
> [@SlyFrog](#): > > Two things; first, what Huerta was originally arguing was an equal protection question. This now swings it into substantive due process, which is fine, but different. > > The above is fine, but the ability to point out justifications for not allowing people to marry a dog (although I think people underestimate the number of reasons that would also apply to gay marriage, bearing in mind that the dog does not really have rights in our society and that saying, “The dog doesn’t consent” doesn’t cut it; the dog doesn’t consent to being a pet, either) does not disarm justifications given for disallowing gay marriage. > > My point is that if the general ability to have children and/or be part of a solid family unit with direct issue children is not seen as a justication for not allowing gay marriage, then there is really no justification for marriage. If it’s not having children, if it really is just two people who want to say I’m getting married, what are we classifying it at all for? Why not simply do away with government recognition of marriage? It becomes a recognized relationship without reason. > > Of course that was my point about 3 pages ago. People can’t marry dogs because a dog does not have the ability to enter into a legal contract. It’s the same reason you can’t own a business with a dog or sell insurance top a dog. Marriage has nothing to do with having children, btw. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470.md?page=9)