You missed the analogy by 180 degrees. No one has argued that it would be illegal or unconstitutional not to have separate men’s and women’s restrooms. Nor has (here’s the analogy part – eye on the ball!) anyone argued that it would be illegal or unconstitutional for states not to ban sodomy – which is where your mis-understanding of the analogy would take us.
Here’s the real analogy: I go into the women’s restroom under the steady conviction that the laws banning my presence there are discriminatory and unfair, because based “merely on genitalia differences.” I am arrested. I challenge the no-dudes-in-the-women’s-restroom law on grounds of the Diogenes Principle (any law treating any persons in any way differently based upon their genitalia or “gender” are facially unconsititional." I (and the Diogenes Principle) are promptly laughed out of court and into the pokey, as the Judge rules that of course nothing in the Constitution forbids states from extending (or requires them to extend) the courtesy of women-only restrooms to women.
So your principle (far broader than that of the Lawrence[ court degenerates into absurdity in that context. I suggest that it’s not much more sound, and would hardly defeat, a court’s finding that nothing in the Constitution forbids states from extending (or requires them to extend) the courtesy of recognizing marriage to heterosexuals.
There is no “status quo in theory but not in practice.”
There is no “existing body of laws recognizing a right to ‘gay marriage,’ – all except for the part about gay marriage.”
There is no recognized jurisprudential “status quo” as to the principle that “equal protection” requires “gay marriage” – absent a ruling to this effect, you cannot simply (a) assume the outcome you desire, and then (b) use it as a bootstrap for proving that this is the proper and necessary outcome and won’t change anything.
The polite thing to do would be not to waste people’s time arguing law, logic, or language absent any of the basic tools for any of these disciplines.
Dude, there is no such thing as “being saved” from homosexuality. It is an immutable orientation. It cannot be altered or “cured.” I don’t care what you “Christian” friends tell you, they’re still just as gay as dad’s old hatband. or they’re bisexual and forcing themselves only to express heterosexually or they were never gay to begin with. Any argument predicated on a belief that homosexuality can be “cured” is a non-starter.
I’m talking about a Goodridge-type case, in which two persons of the same sex are denied a marriage license by a state, and then sue on federal constitutional grounds. (Goodridge sued on state grounds only). The new case’s plaintiffs assert due process, equal protection, and whatever other federal arguments come to mind.
I can tell you that if I could wave a magic wand and place such a case on the docket to be heard NOW by the Supreme Court, I would. I think the chances of this current court finding a federal right to same-sex marriage are miniscule, and I’d love to see that precedent get set.
I’m asking you if you could wield the magic wand, would you also want such a case heard right now?
Since you have an 88 in yopu’re name, I’ll explain it very slowly. Sometimes the law in practice does not jibe with what the law is supposed to be in theory..
I’m saying that homosexuals have always had the theoritical right of civil contract under the constitution, regardless of what the laws are in practice, just like black people had a constitutional right to vote before they had a practical right to vote.
Great response – to some other thread God knows where! But still, probative, non-conclusory, completely-free-from-insane irrelevance, at least as to that other thread in which anyone made any argument about any of these subjects.
But much more importantly – you’re over 11,000 posts! Congrats, and because I believe in free will, I won’t even suggest quitting while you’re behind.
Not with this court. I’d rather wait until the bigots are gone and the case can be decided by a genuine reading of the constutution rather than a prism of personal prejudice.
I think we need a gay rights amendment. It would be redundant, IMO, but it would remove the issue of personal bias from judicial review.
What the law is supposed to be in theory – according to whom? You? God? Is there a difference?
Who’s to decide what the law means “in theory?”
Do you even understand what it means to live in a common law jurisdiction? Do you know what a common law jurisdiction is?
Do you know what Amendment granted blacks the right to vote, or what it explicitly said about race, or why the absence of any explicit mention of sexual orientation in that or any other provision of the Constitution makes analogies between race and homosexuality inapt?
It’s clear now you haven’t read the Constitution, ever. And you’re back to the Farrakhan numerology harping on my user name and posting bizarre irrelevance about “curing homosexuality.” I’d say that’s pretty good testimony to your own confidence in your ability to deal head-on with any substantive form of legal or policy analysis of American law. Is my mom fat, too? Damn, there goes my search and seizure arguments.
Good question - I’ve never come across any proposed legal definition that wasn’t identical to marriage except without the name. Any takers out there?
[/quote]
Have you come across any so far? I haven’t.
[/quote]
This is, perhaps, the first time I’ve heard an advocate of unfettered judicial activism complain that the main problem we’ve got today is . . . inadequate respect by the Supreme Court for a strict, genuine reading of the Constitution, uninfluenced by all the personal results-driven penumbra-hunting of . . . the right wing moron bigots.
Diogenes, pay no mind, as you’ll not understand why people like Bricker or I, or regular readers of any printed material, or graduates of middle school, would find the concept of runaway right-wing judical activism revoking otherwise universally-acknowledged and “genuine” (but never-codified) “rights” du jour such a howl. Yeah, that’s been the real debate over the course of the S.C. lo these past forty years.
I know that many of you say that. That’s why I put “sin” in quotes and stated that it might be religious dogma and let’s not argue about it in this discussion. Oh, and HEY! I’ll have you know my Dad’s old hatband was quite straight. You did see Clockwork Orange, right? (Yeah, I know it’s not a very christian movie, but I do love the way they talk.)
I haven’t, but I think it’s because very few people have given much thought to the details of what constitutes a civil union. Polls consistently show the majority of Americans favor (or at least don’t oppose) civil unions, but one has to wonder what the response would be if the poll question were: “Do you favor civil unions that are identical in every aspect to marriage, except that they aren’t called marriage?”
I think you kind of countered your own argument here. I think that a couple adopting is a great way to assist our society and would consider it far more beneficial to society in general than a heterosexual couple who never plans on bearing children.
That considered, how is that gay couples don’t help society?
That was my original rationale, responding to the OP, for why those disfavoring “gay marriage” logically may/should disfavor civil unions to the same extent.
Civil unions are either: (a) currently hard to distinguish from “marriage;” or (b) (my belief) have been outlined in a way that currently appears to make them substantially different from or “short of” currently-unpassable “gay marriage” but could and likely would, intentionally or simply through continued pressure or blurring of the distinctions, likely in part through litigation, be used as a Trojan Horse to claim, eventually, marriage-in-all-but-name (closely followed, in all likelihood, by marriage-in-name too).
YMMV obviously as to whether this is (a) a desirable end result, and (b) a sufficiently open/honest and desirable way of obtaining such result in a democracy.
I can see why you would think that I countered my argument, but if you read all of my comments I explained very clearly that I believe that to be truly healthy each of us needs a female mother and a male father. Maybe it’s possible to raise healthy people otherwise, but strong loving father and loving doting mother is the easiest. And as I stated earlier, just because a married couple doesn’t plan on having children doesn’t mean they won’t.
I am pretty sure I covered my opinions on that very well, thank you very much.
The benefits provided to married couples, they get for a reason. Raising a family is difficult and costly. Why do gay couples feel that they deserve the same benefits? What do they return to society?
Cite that heterosexual couples are better parents than homosexual couples?
Cite that heterosexual couples are any more benefifical to society?
You are aware that not all heterosexual couples raise families, are you not? Should elderly or infertile couples be ineligible for benefits? What do they return to society? What about couple’s that just don’t want kids?
You are also aware that many gay couple do raise families?
By your own logic, shouldn’t a gay couple with kids be more entitled to benefits than a hetero couple without them?
And what about single parents having kids out of wedlock. Shouldn’t they get some benefits?
Could you also offer a cite that having children benefits society? How so?
Oh…and how do gay couples benefit society? You mean besides by working and paying their taxes, which is more than can be said for a lot of heterosexuals?
SSM is a stabalizing influence on society which leads to more consumerism, to home buying, monogamy, and it provides safe households for children.
Why? Because of an absurd reductionist argument? A fairly small number of married people don’t have children, so that means that it’s just a ruse to say that the marriage bonus our society gives has nothing to do with having children?