# Oppostion to gay marriage is legally, intellectualy & logically bankrupt - Powerful article **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 11, 2012, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494 "2012-02-11T02:45:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/21 "2012-02-13T16:09:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For whatever it’s worth, I was an opponent of same-sex marriage when I registered on this message board twelve years ago. Arguments presented here caused me to revise my opinion and realize that, as a matter of wise social policy, same-sex marriage should be legal. > > I don’t agree that there are zero arguments to be presented in the opposite direction, and I don’t think such hyperbole is particularly helpful, but I absolutely agree that on balance, the arguments in favor of SSM vastly outweigh the arguments against it. Just out of curiosity, **Bricker** , what are these “less than zero” arguments against SSM? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/22 "2012-02-13T17:19:48Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Just out of curiosity, **Bricker** , what are these “less than zero” arguments against SSM? We’ve been down this road before. I’m not really interested in doing it again, especially since I don’t believe the arguments are ultimately not compelling, and because some readers don’t seem to be capable of realizing that I’m defending the very narrow point that some arguments exist, NOT the wider point that they should carry the day. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/23 "2012-02-13T18:16:28Z")
The trouble is that I can’t see a rational justification for **any** marriage laws gay or straight. If you want to love, honor and cherish someone for the rest of your life, then go right ahead. You don’t need the governments permission to do that. The questions becomes why should we have any marriage laws and not leave the arrangements to private contracts between the parties involved. As it stands now marriage laws are just a way to screw over single people by giving married people special tax deductions ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/24 "2012-02-13T18:35:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > We’ve been down this road before. > > I’m not really interested in doing it again, especially since I don’t believe the arguments are ultimately not compelling, and because some readers don’t seem to be capable of realizing that I’m defending the very narrow point that some arguments exist, NOT the wider point that they should carry the day. Just noticed my double negative. Should read, “…especially since I don’t believe the arguments are ultimately compelling…” ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/25 "2012-02-13T18:53:26Z")
> [@SCSimmons](#): > > It would apply whenever a state legalized gay marriage or civil unions and then took it away. So conceivably, **Oregon** , Nevada, and Hawaii (and shortly Washington) could be impacted by the ruling were they to try to roll back those laws. The situation that could trigger a Supreme Court review would be if Iowa, New Jersey, or one of the various New England states rolled back one of their relevant statutes and survived a court challenge to the change in their federal courts of appeal. Then the S.C. would be pretty much forced to consider the question, to resolve the inconsistency in the lower court rulings. (my bolding) Do you think that all those states already have SSM? In Oregon, at least, we’ve got a Constitutional amendment specifically banning it, one that (if I recall) requires 66% of the population to overturn. We’d have to have two amendments for the recent court ruling to apply-- one amending the constitution to allow SSM, then another one specifically banning it. Never happen. ---
**Author:** ![sachertorte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sachertorte/32/3727_2.png) [@sachertorte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sachertorte)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/26 "2012-02-13T19:01:35Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > (my bolding) > > Do you think that all those states already have SSM? In Oregon, at least, we’ve got a Constitutional amendment specifically banning it, one that (if I recall) requires 66% of the population to overturn. We’d have to have two amendments for the recent court ruling to apply-- one amending the constitution to allow SSM, then another one specifically banning it. Never happen. I don’t know Oregon’s history, but I think the list listed is merely the 9th District. In the case of Hawaii, one could make the point that Hawaii did have SSM but removed it before anyone could act on that right. The Hawaii supreme court ruled in favor of SSM, then that right was removed by law (amendment I think). That kind of sort of fits the California mold since the right was there (at least deemed to have been there). ---
**Author:** ![SCSimmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e495f1/32.png) [@SCSimmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SCSimmons)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/27 "2012-02-13T20:11:42Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > (my bolding) > > Do you think that all those states already have SSM? In Oregon, at least, we’ve got a Constitutional amendment specifically banning it, one that (if I recall) requires 66% of the population to overturn. We’d have to have two amendments for the recent court ruling to apply-- one amending the constitution to allow SSM, then another one specifically banning it. Never happen. Oregon has a pretty strong domestic partnership law; I think this court ruling would apply to that just as well. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/28 "2012-02-13T20:28:29Z")
I support SSM and I think the arguments against legalization are utterly uncompelling, but I don’t think it’s unfair and ultimately counter-productive to say they don’t exist. How will you convince anyone that we should have SSM if you can’t agree on what points you disagree about? Sure, the major point is the being gay is wrong or icky or whatever, and that’s a difficult argument on its own, as some do believe laws should legislate morality, and others believe laws should only protect rights or provide freedoms or various other theories. The one that I have seen that is I think the least tainted is that we have an a state of laws and that rather than demanding a reason for maintaining them as they are, it is the onus of those demanding a change to provide the reason. Of course, it often devolves into a semantic argument from there that, technically we all have the same rights. This is, afterall, the same sort of bizarre reasoning that keeps pot illegal… pot is illegal because it’s wrong, it’s wrong because it’s illegal. I think SSM will get a lot more traction if the focus is shifted off of that. The question about whether it is immoral or not isn’t a winnable argument. Instead, what sort of social and economic benefits would we see? I know I’ve heard people argue that it would raise health insurance and social service costs and the like, but weren’t able to substantiate it. However, if it can be established that it’s ultimately a social and economic benefit, which I think most propoents agree it would be, then it can be taken out of the unwinnable moral context and into a winnable one. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/29 "2012-02-13T20:48:00Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > The trouble is that I can’t see a rational justification for **any** marriage laws gay or straight. If you want to love, honor and cherish someone for the rest of your life, then go right ahead. You don’t need the governments permission to do that. > > The questions becomes why should we have any marriage laws and not leave the arrangements to private contracts between the parties involved. As it stands now marriage laws are just a way to screw over single people by giving married people special tax deductions You are correct that marriage law doesn’t create marriage. Marriage predates government, and religion too, and almost certainly _Homo sapiens sapiens_. Marriage law doesn’t create marriages, marriage law recognizes that marriages exist. Therefore, my wife becomes my next of kin. I don’t have to hire a goddam attorney to create dozens of documents specifying that my wife is my life insurance beneficiary, my heir, a joint tenant of the property we own, co-parent of our children, medical power of attorney, and on and on and on and on. She’s my wife. The notion that such a relationship should have no legal significance is simply silly, as silly as the notion that there should be no legal status as “parent” and “child”. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/30 "2012-02-13T21:35:09Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > You are correct that marriage law doesn’t create marriage. Marriage predates government, and religion too, and almost certainly _Homo sapiens sapiens_. > > Marriage law doesn’t create marriages, marriage law recognizes that marriages exist. Therefore, my wife becomes my next of kin. I don’t have to hire a goddam attorney to create dozens of documents specifying that my wife is my life insurance beneficiary, my heir, a joint tenant of the property we own, co-parent of our children, medical power of attorney, and on and on and on and on. > > She’s my wife. The notion that such a relationship should have no legal significance is simply silly, as silly as the notion that there should be no legal status as “parent” and “child”. I already said that there are private contracts between people who get married. There should be a standard contract that doesn’t actually a lawyer to draft it. I wouldn’t be surprised if there would be software to draft a contract to your specifications. If you are actually planning on having children together, the terms of the contract should spell the responsibility to common offspring and also offspring that predate the marriage and also spell what happens if one partner actual has offspring with someone else during the marriage. We might also spell out if sexual fidelity is required during the marriage. You talk the complexity of using a private contract, but it seems to me that not having the terms spelled out up front creates a lot more complexity. When you think about, if we are going to permit SSM, then the old marriage rules aren’t going to work. If a SS couple wants to have children, then with our current technology, they both can’t be the biological parent of any offspring. We need to come up with a consistent set up rules for handling that. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/31 "2012-02-13T22:40:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > We’ve been down this road before. Could you point me to it? Not a challenge to you or your positions, but I’m curious what you find to be legitimate (if not compelling) arguments. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/32 "2012-02-14T02:28:26Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > I’m of the (perhaps cynical) opinion that the main _leaders_ of the movement to ban gay marriage do not, in fact, _care_ if they win or lose. > > Not one rat’s ass. > > The point of the effort is merely to excite certain segments of the populace whose voting patterns are predictable – to excite them sufficiently to guarantee a healthy turnout at the polls – and then to be visibly, not necessarily _successfully_, on the side of the issue those highly reliable voters support. That has the potential to backfire on them, as ballot measures opposing SSM tend to motivate both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/33 "2012-02-14T14:38:29Z")
> [@JSexton](#): > > Could you point me to it? Not a challenge to you or your positions, but I’m curious what you find to be legitimate (if not compelling) arguments. The problem with a search is there are a zillion threads and many of them run for many pages, so winnowing it down is not trivial. Briefly: (1) In this country, the federal government has limited, enumerated powers; the states have plenary power. If the federal Constitution doesn’t give the federal government power in an area, then it does not have that power, but states have power in every area unless the federal constitution limits or overrides it. (2) When a state forbids same-sex marriage, the typical legal complaint is that this violates the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution. (3) Equal Protection challenges are analyzed in three different ways, depending on the class created by the law in question. Laws that create racial classifications are analyzed under a “strict scrutiny” standard; laws that impact gender classifications are analyzed under an “intermediate standard;” all others are analyzed under a “rational basis” standard. All of these are terms of art, with defined meanings in caselaw. (4) A law that impacts sexual orientation is properly analyzed under the rational basis test. (5) The rational basis test is performed by the reviewing court asking if the law in question is rationally related to a legitimate state goal. It does NOT ask if the law is the best or most efficient way of furthering the goal. (6) A rational state goal is to encourage procreation through regulation. For example, tax breaks can be given for every child a couple has, or for married couples in general. (7) By the same token, marriage can be restricted to opposite-sex couples with the goal of furthering procreation. Now, the most common experience I had when point this out was people immediately launched into critiques like, “Well, then why does the state not limit marriage to fertile couples, then?” I can only assume they say that because they failed to understand the rational basis test. It does NOT ask if the law is the best or most efficient way of furthering the goal. It merely asks if the law is rationally related to a legitimate state goal. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/34 "2012-02-14T14:59:10Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > Here’s an awesome quote I saw on Facebook today that sums it up beautifully for me: Comics seem to talk about this a lot. Patton Oswalt recently put a track on his album that said: > [@](#): > > You know, if opponents of gay marriage would just come right out and say, “I oppose gay marriage because the thought of gay men having butt-sex, or lesbians having scissor-sex, kills my boner, dries out my vagina, so I’m against it,” if they just said that…_that would be a valid argument!_ And we’d actually have to debate them on that! But just saying, “Well, it says in the Bible that…” WHOA, hang on. I’m glad you like a book. But you can’t go to Congress and demand that they make the stuff you read in books true. That’s what crazy people do! If I go into the White House with a stack of Green Lantern comic books and demand a Green Lantern ring, I’d be justifiably tazed. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2012, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/35 "2012-02-14T16:39:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with a search is there are a zillion threads and many of them run for many pages, so winnowing it down is not trivial. > > Briefly: > > (1) In this country, the federal government has limited, enumerated powers; the states have plenary power. If the federal Constitution doesn’t give the federal government power in an area, then it does not have that power, but states have power in every area unless the federal constitution limits or overrides it. > > (2) When a state forbids same-sex marriage, the typical legal complaint is that this violates the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution. > > (3) Equal Protection challenges are analyzed in three different ways, depending on the class created by the law in question. Laws that create racial classifications are analyzed under a “strict scrutiny” standard; laws that impact gender classifications are analyzed under an “intermediate standard;” all others are analyzed under a “rational basis” standard. All of these are terms of art, with defined meanings in caselaw. > > (4) A law that impacts sexual orientation is properly analyzed under the rational basis test. > > (5) The rational basis test is performed by the reviewing court asking if the law in question is rationally related to a legitimate state goal. It does NOT ask if the law is the best or most efficient way of furthering the goal. > > (6) A rational state goal is to encourage procreation through regulation. For example, tax breaks can be given for every child a couple has, or for married couples in general. > > (7) By the same token, marriage can be restricted to opposite-sex couples with the goal of furthering procreation. > > Now, the most common experience I had when point this out was people immediately launched into critiques like, “Well, then why does the state not limit marriage to fertile couples, then?” > > I can only assume they say that because they failed to understand the rational basis test. It does NOT ask if the law is the best or most efficient way of furthering the goal. It merely asks if the law is rationally related to a legitimate state goal. This absolutely isn’t intended as snark - but when I read stuff like this it makes me despair of the American legal system. In the UK we discussed the idea of national civil partnerships, decided we wanted them, and we passed a law saying they existed. Now the debate is being had about marriage and whether it needs to continue to be restricted to hetero couples only, and should the debate be in favour of changing we’ll similarly just pass a law and it’ll be so. SSM for me is proving just how unable the US legal and constitutional system seems to be to respond to emerging social issues. ---
**Author:** ![JSexton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/96bed5/32.png) [@JSexton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JSexton)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/36 "2012-02-15T18:38:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem with a search is there are a zillion threads and many of them run for many pages, so winnowing it down is not trivial. > > Briefly: > > (1) In this country, the federal government has limited, enumerated powers; the states have plenary power. If the federal Constitution doesn’t give the federal government power in an area, then it does not have that power, but states have power in every area unless the federal constitution limits or overrides it. > > (2) When a state forbids same-sex marriage, the typical legal complaint is that this violates the Equal Protection Clause of the federal constitution. > > (3) Equal Protection challenges are analyzed in three different ways, depending on the class created by the law in question. Laws that create racial classifications are analyzed under a “strict scrutiny” standard; laws that impact gender classifications are analyzed under an “intermediate standard;” all others are analyzed under a “rational basis” standard. All of these are terms of art, with defined meanings in caselaw. > > (4) A law that impacts sexual orientation is properly analyzed under the rational basis test. > > (5) The rational basis test is performed by the reviewing court asking if the law in question is rationally related to a legitimate state goal. It does NOT ask if the law is the best or most efficient way of furthering the goal. > > (6) A rational state goal is to encourage procreation through regulation. For example, tax breaks can be given for every child a couple has, or for married couples in general. > > (7) By the same token, marriage can be restricted to opposite-sex couples with the goal of furthering procreation. > > Now, the most common experience I had when point this out was people immediately launched into critiques like, “Well, then why does the state not limit marriage to fertile couples, then?” > > I can only assume they say that because they failed to understand the rational basis test. It does NOT ask if the law is the best or most efficient way of furthering the goal. It merely asks if the law is rationally related to a legitimate state goal. Thank you. The obvious counter, to me, is the question “What is the effect of SSM on procreation?” I would argue that allowing SSM would have the net effect of increasing procreation, not reducing it. Those in same-sex relationships are more likely to seek methods of reproduction if they are in a legal marriage with its commensurate rights than if they are not. And if SSM is not legal, the majority of homosexuals are not going to enter into heterosexual marriages solely for the purposes of procreation. And therefore if one is testing whether it is related to that state goal, one must conclude that legalizing SSM furthers the state goal, while disallowing it hurts the state goal. I recognize what you are saying (and I’m not trying to start that argument all over again) but I do not think it holds water. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/37 "2012-02-15T18:44:51Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > This absolutely isn’t intended as snark - but when I read stuff like this it makes me despair of the American legal system. In the UK we discussed the idea of national civil partnerships, decided we wanted them, and we passed a law saying they existed. Now the debate is being had about marriage and whether it needs to continue to be restricted to hetero couples only, and should the debate be in favour of changing we’ll similarly just pass a law and it’ll be so. SSM for me is proving just how unable the US legal and constitutional system seems to be to respond to emerging social issues. But nothing prevents us from doing the same thing. My list isn’t actually opposition to same-sex marriage itself, but to court-mandated introduction of same-sex marriage. If a state legislature adopts it, my analysis above is inapplicable. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/38 "2012-02-15T18:49:03Z")
> [@JSexton](#): > > Thank you. The obvious counter, to me, is the question “What is the effect of SSM on procreation?” I would argue that allowing SSM would have the net effect of increasing procreation, not reducing it. Those in same-sex relationships are more likely to seek methods of reproduction if they are in a legal marriage with its commensurate rights than if they are not. And if SSM is not legal, the majority of homosexuals are not going to enter into heterosexual marriages solely for the purposes of procreation. > > And therefore if one is testing whether it is related to that state goal, one must conclude that legalizing SSM furthers the state goal, while disallowing it hurts the state goal. > > I recognize what you are saying (and I’m not trying to start that argument all over again) but I do not think it holds water. You’re not contending that your conclusion is inescapably true, though, right? You say, “I would argue that…” and then you present a possible scenario. but the whole point of rational basis analysis is that the courts do not substitute their own reasoning for the legislature. The legislature believes differently. That belief is not obviously and self-evidently in error. Even if you conclude another outcome is possible or even more likely than the legislature’s, the point of having a legislature is that the courts don’t act as a second, super-legislature. ---
**Author:** ![Illuminatiprimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/illuminatiprimus/32/11520_2.png) [@Illuminatiprimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illuminatiprimus)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/39 "2012-02-15T19:10:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But nothing prevents us from doing the same thing. My list isn’t actually opposition to same-sex marriage itself, but to court-mandated introduction of same-sex marriage. If a state legislature adopts it, my analysis above is inapplicable. Except that this all started when a state attempted to allow SSM under its powers. Pretending that the judiciary being involved is some kind of aberation is a bit pointless, it’s also (as I understand it) how anti-miscegenation laws were struck down and abortion was made legal. Hence my point about having some kind of tortuously convoluted process for deciding which court can decide what, when, how and when not is quite pertinent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494/40 "2012-02-15T19:43:08Z")
> [@Illuminatiprimus](#): > > Except that this all started when a state attempted to allow SSM under its powers. Pretending that the judiciary being involved is some kind of aberation is a bit pointless, it’s also (as I understand it) how anti-miscegenation laws were struck down and abortion was made legal. Hence my point about having some kind of tortuously convoluted process for deciding which court can decide what, when, how and when not is quite pertinent. No. It started when the Supreme Court of California ruled that same-sex marriage was required by the generic words of the California constitution. The voters of California responded by adopted a state constitutional amendment with specific language forbidding same-sex marriage. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oppostion-to-gay-marriage-is-legally-intellectualy-logically-bankrupt-powerful-article/612494.md?page=3)