Perhaps it is time someone defined what this class of sexual orientation is.
You’re not sure how CA became the state in question for prop 8, a CA initiative being considered by the SCOTUS and is 50% of the basis for this thread? Really?
Anyway, it is. And I know how many states voted for SSM, which is still far fewer than have voted against.
Your other points are mere assertions without anything backing them up, so there is nothing to address.
An important consideration in Turner v. Safely was that someday the prisoners would be released.
Is homosexual sex an exercise of the fundamental right to procreate? Does this right also exist for those who are absolutely incapable of procreation? Is masturbation an exercise of the fundamental right to procreate?
How do you know that they asked for the license as a result of sexual orientation as opposed to wanting it for financial reasons or other benefits of marriage not related to sex?
Was procreation a point in Warren’s decision in Loving v Virginia?
The same way they know any other prospective marriers do: not at all.
John, I didn’t mention California in my original post, to which you replied to regarding California. I see what you mean regarding the topic so I concede.
Yes, it is fewer but it’s still more than it used to be which suggests progression towards acceptance of SSM.
It is discriminatory to not allow two people to get married based on gender. I don’t know what more is required for qualification. That would be no different than not allowing two black people to marry or two Catholic people to marry. The discriminatory aspect is rather obvious and hasn’t stood up to legal test in countries with similar constitutional and human rights laws as the US.
Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone any more than straight marriage does.
If you would like to present a countering argument to these “assertions”, I am all eyes.
David42: I went through your post and found myself commenting the same thing over and over. That comment was, in effect: “what the fuck are you talking about”? From using debate cliches that have no meaning (what is a false premise from concluding a law has its intended effect?), to non sequiters (yes, race is a suspect class. And?) to nonsense (religion requires inclusion of an exception? What does that even mean?) to completely wrong legal statements (the due process clause incorporated the establishment of religion clause into the 14th amendment? Wha, huh?) not much of what you posted makes any sense at all. I don’t recall the Supreme Court in Loving ask: “Perhaps it is time someone defined what this class of “colored people” is”. And I certainly don’t understand how masturbation came up (snicker) in this converstaion. I don’t think I can continue to respond to you without a better idea of what the hell you’re trying to communicate.
Finally, as a side note, I’ll point out the case you did cite to includes this statement: “To begin with, we note that the statutory scheme is significantly different from the provisions confronted in cases in which the Court has invalidated legislative discriminations among children on the basis of legitimacy.”
So? At best, you might argue that when the time comes that most states have SSM, then it’s time to make it the federal norm. Otherwise, we can’t just extrapolate from the current data.
I don’t have a personal argument against SSM. I’m perfectly OK with it. The question before the court, and before the posters here, is whether or not the US constitution requires it. But to pretend that this is just so obvious that there is no question about the result is to ignore the very controversy the court is facing.
There is no general consensus among legal scholars on the matter, and me adding my non-legal scholar voice to the fray isn’t really much of anything. I’ll just recognize that it’s not cut and dried, and I’m OK living with what the courts decide. When it comes to voting, I’m happy to vote in favor, as I did when I voted against prop 8. My own personal preference, as a non-legal scholar, is to leave such changes in public policy up to the legislature. But that is just a personal preference.
Yes.
I think the point you are missing here is that the SUpreme Court did not write the First Amendment. That was a legislative action, and we’re talking about classes created by the Supreme Court in EP analysis.
When the Supreme Court rules on possibly unconstitutional religious discrimination, it holds the 1st Amendment applicable to the states via the 14th amendment’s due process clause. Ultimately Congress, and not the courts, established Religion as fundamental.
I have asked for a Supreme Court Strict scrutiny EP case on religious discrimination, but no-one produces one.
Which is an entirely different argument than the one you’ve presented up to this point.
I’m fine with that.
It is so obvious when you pare it down to the base argument. It is discrimination based on sexuality - plain and simple. To deny societal convention or acceptance doesn’t play a part in law creation, making or upholding would be naive at best. The issue is whether or not the US is ready or willing to accept SSM, not whether it is discriminatory to not allow it (because it is.)
Being a legal scholar, (although not in the US), it is legally cut and dry, which is why anti-SSM hasn’t stood up in legal tests in other countries.
The argument I am making is that the Supreme Court has never recognized such a classification before with certain characteristics.
You brought up religion, but I pointed out that Congress did that, not the court, even though I agree that religion is the most similar
I don’t see how I switched arguments.
Perhaps I can’t say it any better.
But the cite you’re claiming is mine was offered to disprove my claim by someone else. I wonder too how rational basis over illegitimacy has much to do with what I said.
Based on where?
Of all the inane, incorrect, and invalid things you’ve said in this thread (and they are legion), this one takes the cake. Here is Warren’s majority opinion in Loving.And here are a list of words that are nowhere in the opinion: Procreation. Children. Fertile. Fertility. Infertile. Infertility. Child Bearing. Child rearing. Pregnant. Offspring. The only thing that even possibly comes close is Justice Warren’s reference that “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival”, and that occurs only in the section discussing Due Process Clause and not Equal Protection.
From the totality of your posts in this thread, I have reached the same conclusion. But likely not for the same reason.
Right. In short, we know no such fact that all same sex marriages will be engaged in by homosexuals. And the fact remains that the one-man one-woman restriction creates a classification that would include such non-homosexuals in the suspect group as well. Remember, the prime question is what classification the law itself draws.
HEterosexuals have abused marriage in many ways, whatever restrictions it has had, for many purposes other than sex, sometimes for illegal fraudulent purposes.
I see no reason to believe some heterosexuals will not also abuse same-sex marriage.
So if considerations over sexual orientation are impermissible in a marriage scheme–I can’t find a way to reason myself into prohibiting straights from same sex marriage.
I still say the classification has to be homosexuals+bisexuals+straights (who would engage in same sex marriage) as all those who would naturally be deprived of the right to same sex marriage in a one-man-one-woman scheme. I further see no reason to think the law is aimed at any one of those three specifically over the others seems ridiculous.
“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival” CITING Skinner v. Oklahoma, “Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Which makes the point. You can’t just read one case itself and understand its points without a thorough understanding of the supporting cases. Skinner of course had nothing to do with marriage except how important the two are linked together–it was about forced sterilization for criminals.
Perhaps you would like to explain how marriage is fundamental to our survival and existence if not procreative?
I’m not seeing how any of the other purported purposes of marriage have anything to do with our very existence. Improved conditions of our lives, yes, but that’s not quite the same, now is it?
So YES, Warren had a point in Loving that procreation and marriage are intricately and fundamentally linked.