"Oh, crap, Toto, we're still in Kansas!" (anti-gay ammendment)

[Scott_Plaid]

@Bricker

How about a state that had a law in the 1980s that defined marriage as one man, one woman?

@me

A few states will most likely have laws that from the get go defined marriage as being between a het couple, but after a few decades of most states having marriage, without the sky falling down, I would hope to see a referendum.

@Bricker

Age of consent for sexual intercourse is 16 years old.

Yes, and when they become 16, they magically gain that knowledge. Also, they are 14 in some states. A hypothetical 18 year old musician might have sex with a 14 year old groupy who of the age of consent in her home state, but not in his. Due to recent changes in laws, it might be legal, then again, it might not. We are having a pretty lively discussion in the pit, where no one, not even the people opposing me, believes that the AOC laws are applied logically, or are internally consistent.

[Scott_Plaid]

Look, until relatively recently the idea that a women could vote in the US was virtually inconceivable. People didn’t say only men should vote, because the word “vote” was defined that way.

Now, civil unisons might be a easier way of gaining equal rights, but I have read quite a few books of civil/gay/women’s right’s history books, and I have seen what happens with polite, soft spoken groups like the Mqatachi (sp?) group. They were ignored.

[Bricker]

@Scott_plaid

Yes, and when they become 16, they magically gain that knowledge. Also, they are 14 in some states. A hypothetical 18 year old musician might have sex with a 14 year old groupy who of the age of consent in her home state, but not in his. Due to recent changes in laws, it might be legal, then again, it might not. We are having a pretty lively discussion in the pit, where no one, not even the people opposing me, believes that the AOC laws are applied logically, or are internally consistent.

So, under the system of review you are proposing, how is this law handled? Is it rolled back to 1990? To 1776? Does it have a “rational argument” supporting it?

What does the Scott_Plaid Test say to do in this circumstance?

[Scott_Plaid]

Study the philological effects of teens having sex. Find a median age in which it seems to not cause trauma, where the majority of teen’s minds are not blastified by a bad, but consensual experience, and make that the age. I believe former Surgeon General of the United States of America Joycelyn Elders made a report on the subject, and the results where not very well received. However, they were scientifically based. After her report was received, an attempt was made to de-bunk her. Not a very good attempt, but an attempt.

[John_Mace]

@Scott_plaid

Look, until relatively recently the idea that a women could vote in the US was virtually inconceivable. People didn’t say only men should vote, because the word “vote” was defined that way.

OK, now I know you’re just an idiot talking out of your ass. The laws DID explicitly give the right to vote only to men. For example, from the original CA state constitution:

Sec. 1. Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male citizen of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States, under the treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at Queretaro, on the 30th day of May, 1848 of the age of twenty-one years, who shall have been a resident of the State six months next preceding the election, and the county or district in which he claims his vote thirty days, shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may authorized by law: Provided, nothing herein contained, shall be construed to prevent the Legislature, by a two-thirds concurrent vote, from admitting to the right of suffrage, Indians or the descendants of Indians, in such special cases as such proportion of the legislative body may deem just and proper.

[Scott_Plaid]

I am too lazy, and have to many things to do tonight to pull up legal records but, from an unrelible source:

Women's suffrage

@first three paragraphs of U.S. section

In the United States it is notable that New Jersey, on becoming a member of the Federal family of States after the Revolution, placed only one restriction on the general suffrage, which was the possession of less than $250 in cash or property, the election laws referring to the voters as “he or she.” In 1790 the law was revised to specifically include women, but so obnoxious did they become to the professional politicians that in 1807 the law was again revised to exclude them, obviously an unconstitutional act, since the State constitution specifically made any such change dependent on the general suffrage.

During the early part of the century, however, agitation for equal suffrage was carried on by only a few individuals. The first of these was Frances Wright, a Scottish woman who came to the country in 1826 and advocated woman suffrage in an extensive series of lectures. In 1836 Ernestine Rose, a Polish woman, came to the country and carried on a similar campaign, so effectively that she obtained a personal hearing before the New York Legislature, though her petition bore only five signatures. She was shortly afterward joined in her propaganda by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Paulina Kellogg Wright Davis. At about the same time, in 1840, Lydia Mott and Mary Fuller became active in Boston, the latter being the author of the book The Great Lawsuit; Man vs. Woman.

During the Civil War and immediately after little was heard of the movement, but in 1869 the National Woman Suffrage Association was formed, with the object of securing an amendment to the Constitution in favor of woman suffrage. Another organization, the American Woman Suffrage Association was also formed at this time by those who believed that suffrage should be brought about by constitutional amendments within the various States. In 1890 these two bodies united into one national organization, known as the National American Woman Suffrage Association.

Now then, when you said:

@John Mace

I fully support any legislative action to get us to a point where SSM is legal. And there is plenty that an activists can do on the legislative side of things to move this country in that direction.

were you “just an idiot talking out of your ass”? Anyone else care to post ways to get marriage for all people legalized?

[John_Mace]

@Scott_plaid

I am too lazy, and have to many things to do tonight to pull up legal records but, from an unrelible source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_suffrage

I hate to tell you this, but your cite is simply another example of how you are WRONG. NJ was the first and only state to allow female voting, but did rescind it shortly afterwards. In both instances, this was done explicitly. IIRC, Wyoming was the first state to allow women to vote after that.

Now then, when you said:were you “just an idiot talking out of your ass”? Anyone else care to post ways to get marriage for all people legalized?

I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

Someone, please take the shovel out of this guy’s hands. He’s likely to dig deep enough to hit a major fault and cause another tsunami…

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Polycarp

Dewey is hunting so hard for ghostly evidences of “substantive due process” that he seems to have completely forgotten the actual opinion written by Justice Kennedy. As well as the equal protection clause.

I assume you’re referring to Lawrence, in which case I’ve correctly noted the basis Kennedy used in writing the majority opinion as “substantive” due process (see my sentence beginning “And I’ll go one further…”). Only Justice O’Conner considered using the equal protection clause, and her opinion rests on even shakier logic. So tell me again how I’ve forgotten anything?

And do you have a point? At all?

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Miller

None of which is responsive to the claim that gays are second class citizens in the United States. We are.

No more so than, say, would-be polygamists.

Stave your hysteria. You still retain, as an individual, those core rights held by every American, including most importantly the right to freely agitate for social change. You are not a black man in the Jim Crow South. You are not an Indian in the lower tiers of the caste system. You are not a native under British colonialism.

@Miller

In most states, we don’t have the legal protections granted other minorities. The idea that we should be granted these protections is fiercely contested. When we try to get the same rights accorded everyone else in this country, we are accused of seeking “special treatment.” Politicians on both sides of the aisle make significant capital out of politicizing our private lives and publically insulting us in the most vile terms, and the voting public laps it up.

If you’re looking for a defense of these sorts of things, you’ve come to the wrong place. I favor gay marriage by legislative means.

@Miller

State after state pass laws specifically disenfranching us, out of no better reason than simple spite.

Cite? No state of which I am aware has attempted to curtail the ability of gays to vote.

@Miller

And the idea that there is absolutely no law against doing any of this only makes it that much more unjust. You will, I hope, excuse us for wanting to believe that we have some recourse in this country, some protection against this constant assault against our dignity, our privacy, and our lives.

You do have recourse. You can agitate for change. See, e.g., women’s suffrage. I’m not claiming it is an overnight or easy process, but American history teaches anything, it is that such things can and do happen.

@Miller

You’re the lawyer, you know more about this than I do, so if you say we’re wrong about that, I guess we’re wrong about that.

I find this beneath your dignity. On a board dedicated to fighting ignorance, my job title is less than important than my arguments. I have no desire to argue based on an appeal to my own authority.

@Miller

But you don’t have to be so fucking smug about it.

Neither does hysteria or hyperbole become you.

[Bricker]

@Scott_plaid

Study the philological effects of teens having sex. Find a median age in which it seems to not cause trauma, where the majority of teen’s minds are not blastified by a bad, but consensual experience, and make that the age. I believe former Surgeon General of the United States of America Joycelyn Elders made a report on the subject, and the results where not very well received. However, they were scientifically based. After her report was received, an attempt was made to de-bunk her. Not a very good attempt, but an attempt.

Please remember how we got here:

You said:

@Scott_plaid

I hope to see a legal argument made that these laws are based on no rational arguments, and are an unnecessary addendum to states laws. Thus, they should be removed.

I asked:

@Bricker

What is a “rational argument?” What is the test a reviewer should use to determine if a particular law has a rational argument in its favor? What if a law has a rational argument in its favor, and a rational argument against it?

You asked for an example. I gave you the age of consent law as an example.

Now you’re giving me a process for MAKING the law. I’m asking you about the process of REVIEWING a law already made. If you meant to describe the process of review, then I have to ask… what difference do you see between the role of the judiciary and the role of the legislature? If what you said is the process the court should follow, then what is the job of the legislature? Are they the same?

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Freyr

I’m not asking that SSM law be created whole cloth from judicial action. I’m asking that the same laws that apply to heterosexuals be applied to homosexuals, including laws that govern marriage. Can you show me why such laws shouldn’t be applied equally?

Because you cannot do one without doing the other. “Marriage,” as historically understood, is not a gender-neutral term. Many states’ statutes refer to brides and grooms. You cannot alter those meanings without engaging in judicial legislation.

@Freyr

This is something of a strawman, since as I said above, I’m not asking for judges to create new laws based on their own moral code, I’m asking that the existing laws be equally applied to all people. Is that such a radical concept?

Ah, but you are asking judges to create new laws based on their own moral code, under the guise of equal protection. As I’ve noted, equal protection can be invoked whenever the government treats two or more classes of persons differently – and classification and disparate treatment is in no small part the business of government. Simply saying “treat everyone equally” is too simplistic – the real issue is, what is the reach of constitutional guarantees of equality?

@Freyr

Yet heterosexuals don’t have any problem moving from state to state, their marriage is recognized in all 50 states. Their inheritance, powers of attorney, etc. are carried with them, no questions asked. Why can’t homosexuals have those same rights and priviledges?

I agree that they should. That is the preferable public policy. But the constitution doesn’t say anything about it.

But you miss my overall point, which is that federalism embraces different policies among the states. For example, moving from, say, a community property state to a non-community property state will entail a significant realignment of property rights for a married couple. Sometimes those differences are hairy when divorces cross state lines. That complexity, however, isn’t a sign of something wrong – it’s a byproduct of healthy federalism.

@Freyr

This is the crux of my argument. Can the government give one good reason why homosexuals should be treated different than heterosexuals other than “because we’ve always done it this way!” or “because God says so!” I really want to know the legal justification for discriminating against homosexuals. They pose no threat to society so why the discrimination?

I can think of any number of reasons which, while not particularly persuasive, would be sufficient for purposes of rational basis analysis under the equal protection clause. Like I said, I favor gay marriage, but don’t think the case against it is comprised exclusively of unthinking religious dogma. I think this article presents some interesting points, for example.

@Freyr

I think it’s perfectly acceptable analogy here. The problem is you’re part of the ruling heterosexual elite, the ones who want to reserve their special privlidges for themselves and continue to discriminate against the GLBT community. Oh, not you, personally, but your compatriots in power.

What Bricker said. If you’re gonna quote Orwell, at least have some passing familiarity with the particular work you quote.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Scott_plaid

Oh, shut up! What was the reason why the mass. decision was that the state constion supported marriage? Oh yeah! The fact that the consitution said the words “people”, instead of a man and a women." Now, what is the working legal definition in the last while? A legal contract binding together two people. The fact that the lawmakers never thought that a man and a man would want to be marriede never enters into it. For a judge to say othwise would require " judges to craft a law independent of the actual constitution – to essentially make his own policy preferences into constitutional mandates."

I can only conclude after reading this somewhat-fragmented post that you haven’t actually read the Massachusetts decision.

Here: Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health. Go forth and learn.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Freyr

I’ll chime in with a me, too! here. I’d love to see this debated politely but vigoursly.

Rights? What’s a Right?

[Scott_Plaid]

To Bricker:I am not making a comprehensive way to change the law, I am putting up possible reasons why the law should change, should the case be brought up. It would appear, looking over your post again, that I am ignoring your request for how a reviewer should handle things. I know nothing about revewers of laws, or the process, so see the first sentence of this post, again. As for the legislator, the question has fuck all to do with my anwers. You are looking for a comprehensive plan for a better govrnment, where none exists. That would take me at least a whole twenty minutes, and I don’t have the time right now. Instead, I am simply posting responces to

@Freyr

I’m not asking that SSM law be created whole cloth from judicial action. I’m asking that the same laws that apply to heterosexuals be applied to homosexuals, including laws that govern marriage. Can you show me why such laws shouldn’t be applied equally?

,

@John Mace

I fully support any legislative action to get us to a point where SSM is legal.

, and

@plnnr

I am an advocate for same sex marriage, but I would ask those who are decryinb injustice of the system what exactly and specifically they would like to see happen to bring about the end they desire.

If you had to lay out a list of steps that need to happen, what would they be? I’m just honestly curious what mechanism should be used?

Frankly, answering your questions regarding “What does the Scott_Plaid Test say to do in this circumstance?” is getting very tiring. I suppose I should admit that Republican Are Always Right! as others who are tired of you have done.

To:Dewey Cheatem Undhow

I have read that decission already, a while ago, and my recall of it was faulty. The decission was baised on the fact the state’s constitution garented good stuff for people, etc. Sorry, for that. It still does not stop the fact that in many places, marriage is simply written down as being between two people. As for your article you linked to, I think it assumes too much about the causes of social ills and preaches to the choir too much. As for you, well, this is the pit, so: You are such a fucking asshole. Oh noes, my posting style is “somewhat-fragmented” “Go forth and learn.” Well, you might be entirely correct that my arguements are not are arguements that a lawyer is going to pick anytime soon, but guess what? I am not a lawyer. Boo-fucking-hoo. Now, I have answered several questions correctly today on General Questions, but see if I will ever answer any questions of yours there, you condescending smeghead.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Scott_plaid

As for you, well, this is the pit, so: You are such a fucking asshole. Oh noes, my posting style is “somewhat-fragmented” “Go forth and learn.”

If something that mild offends you, you should stay out of the Pit. Good Lord, I’m virtually Mister Rogers compared to some of the vitriol that gets tosses around in this forum.

@Scott_plaid

Well, you might be entirely correct that my arguements are not are arguements that a lawyer is going to pick anytime soon, but guess what? I am not a lawyer. Boo-fucking-hoo.

I don’t criticize your arguments because you aren’t a lawyer. I criticize them because they’re stupid fucking arguments. They are stupid regardless of whether or not you hold a law license.

@Scott_plaid

Now, I have answered several questions correctly today on General Questions,

What do you want, a cookie?

@Scott_plaid

but see if I will ever answer any questions of yours there, you condescending smeghead.

Somehow, I shall have to summon the strength to carry on.

[Scott_Plaid]

Somehow, I shall have to summon the strength to carry on.

[Lilairen]

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

@Miller

None of which is responsive to the claim that gays are second class citizens in the United States. We are.

No more so than, say, would-be polygamists.

Flatly false.

For the most directly relevant point to the argument being had: I am married to one of my partners; in most of the country, no gay person can get married to their partner. I can at least partially protect my family and myself.

I do not have to deal with the spectre of violence against my person because of my private life. There are no commonly used slurs in popular parlance that describe that part of my life. I do not have to deal with the pawns of religious leaders attempting to browbeat me into a belief that my love is evil on a regular basis, or indeed at all. I have never heard of someone claiming that the possibility that a polygamist might be attracted to them is a justification for murder.

I do have to deal with the fact that my family is apparently so horrible that merely pointing to the possibility that it might gain legal protection needs no justification. Like many gay folks, I have to deal with the fact that the first assumption many people make is that I am either sexually available to them or some sort of sexual predator. I cannot be both out of the closet and serve in the U.S. military. I will have to deal with the risk of things like custody threats to my eventual children on the basis of my family structure; I therefore have to take actions to minimize those risks. I have to deal with a metric fuckton of ignorance and risk inflicted on me and mine by the judgemental, but in this I think my problems are roughly comparable to the problems of many gay folk with similar desires.

But nonetheless I am married, and pretty much left alone except when some wingnut wants to go boogety-boogety about what horrible things lurk in the wings if those queers ever get social acceptance.

[Scott_Plaid]

Dewey Cheatem Undhow, looking back on this thread, you claim my arguements are “stupid fucking arguments.” Huh.

You know, looking back on the past posts here, you seem to be saying that it is just to much work to pick up a pen and create some gender neutral terms to replace bridegrooms and brides, and criticizing other peoples posts. In otherwords, your arguments are weak sauce, to borrow a term from the 90s.

I will look around and instead of post rational reason why I think that it is only right to say that equals right should really be equal, I will look around for arguments used for gay marriages, and post again later. When I am done, I will be better informed. However, you will still be an attorney, and all the enlightenment in the world won’t fix that.

[matt_mcl]

For the nth time in as many days, I’m getting down on my knees and thanking Og for the Charter of Rights and Egan v. Canada.

[Bricker]

@Scott_plaid

I know nothing about revewers of laws, or the process, so see the first sentence of this post, again.

Well, THAT’S a shock.