Simply answering another poster’s question, I don’t know where they were going with it. So it’s irrelevant whether it was due process or EP.
That was not part of the argument I am making.
One thing I’ve wondered for a while…
A persons religion is a choice, more so than their sexual orientation. Yet I haven’t seen much attention drawn to that fact. Is this due to a fear on the part of SSM proponents? Or are there some other factors involved
Answering it wrongly. That’s the problem.
And that argument was so full of holes I could have used it as a doily.
I did not. I mentioned religion in direct response to your claim that religious protections “did not admit an exemption,” which claim (as near as it it can be parsed into regular English) is transparently false.
All of the protections in the Constitution were placed there by Congress. It’s up to the courts to interpret those protections and make sure other laws are not contradicting them. This includes religious protections, racial protections, and gender protections. Depending on how the court decides in the near future, that list may be expanded to include sexual orientation. In all cases, the courts will be finding protections based on laws passed by Congress.
Well, you had about five or six really bad arguments in the first post I responded to, and then you used a wholly new and unrelated argument to dismiss everything I’d just said in response to your original post, without actually addressing any of it. So, I’d say that’s right about where the switch happened.
Warren never made that point. And inferring he did is Unmitigated. Bull. Shit.
Just for laughs, consider the corporation.
The corporation is a useful legal construct through which (among other features) someone can seek investors to fund ideas in a well-defined framework through which those investors (typically) will be rewarded through dividends if the ideas, once implemented, prove profitable.
So a citizen looks this over and thinks: “I have lots of good ideas that could make money. Why don’t I form a corporation, get some investors, use their money to conduct research and build prototypes and then production lines, and if all goes well I’ll make lots of money, some of which I’ll return to the investors. I see other people doing this and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t, but I’m smart and confident and my ideas are sound.”
Sp the citizen, full of energy and drive and confidence, heads down to the local government office to register a corporation. The clerk on duty pauses for a moment in surprise and says “You can’t register a corporation - you’re a woman.” Cue record-screech sound effect and… scene.
So replace “corporation” with “legal marriage” and “woman” with “gay couple” and instead of the hypothetical society where women do not form corporations (and the very concept of a woman forming a corporation is bizarre and alien to most of society, like a circle with corners - something never thought to exist - certainly not something it has occurred to anybody to ban) assuming it has occurred to them at all), picture the U.S. in the early 1990s, when the very concept of gay marriage is alien to most of society, like a circle with corners - something never thought to exist - certainly not something it has occurred to anybody to ban.
Whatever the history of the corporation or the legal marriage, whatever they mean and whatever they accomplish, they exist as legal concepts in the U.S., and while all adult citizens can form corporations regardless of gender, gender (to some extent) is a barrier to legal marriage.
Just musing.
But not the sort of unmitigated bullshit you can explain, apparently.
What is it about marriage that makes it fundamental to our very existence, if not procreation? Which of the other purported purposes of marriage could we not survive without?
To what purpose would he cite Skinner, a case not about marriage but about the right to procreate? How then does Skinner have anything to do with interracial marriage?
Please make the connection for me. I really do not see it. I’m here to be convinced. Answer the questions and maybe you will succeed.
Jeez, I’m not sure. What explanation did Earl Warren give in that court decision that you say was all about this subject?
So, I have a general open question about Loving v. Virginia and Baker v. Nelson If anyone can explain please do.
Loving was decided in 1966 by a full unanaimous vote of 9-0. Five years later, six of those nine justices were still on the court when Baker was decided.
If, as some argue, Loving supports same sex marriage, why did not at least the minimum required four justices out of those six at least take the case? Why did not those six justices then, in Baker, recognize a fundamental right to same sex marriage when they had the chance in Baker?
You’re not Socrates and you’re doing nothing to convince me I am wrong by refusing to answer and asking another question instead. Fight my ignorance and answer the questions.
What about marriage makes it so that we cannot survive or exist without it, if not being intertwined with procreation?
What other connection could Warren have been drawing by citing Skinner?
I can’t give answers I don’t possess. I just think that it’s odd you need to ask the question in the first place. If the decision was really all about how procreation relates to marriage, why do you need to ask us how it relates? Surely, you could answer your own question just by reading the decision, no? If you can’t do that, perhaps that’s because you have incorrectly identified the argument being made in that decision.
Right, I agree with you. I suppose you would then see the angle that a homosexual is a person, and a homosexual relationship is an event, however long-term, and also that the line drawn in Prop 8 is more to ban the formal relationship, and not the persons?
Would you agree that denial of same-sex marriage would impact you in not quite the same way that it impacts the strictly homosexual?
Do you feel that Prop 8 includes you in any suspect classification along with those who are strictly homosexual? Would you then agree that Prop 8 is aimed at more than just homosexuals for its target, does it distinguish in some way bisexuals from homosexuals in its impact?
Perhaps you can shed some light on this classification problem I am seeing that everyone else seems to be blind to?
But I DO just what you suggest and I DO see Warren drawing on Skinner for the propostion that marriage is fundamental due to procreation. No problem there.
You then say I am wrong, that is not the connection, but then are unable to say what instead Warren really meant. SInce you know I have got it wrong, I would presume, even if you don’t know exactly what is right, why it is that you feel I am wrong.
Or do you say I am wrong merely because you do not like the result?
The later seems more likely when you cannot explain, or admit your ignorance is fought.
Gay Marriage can still be accomplished even if what I see in Loving is true, you realize. It looks increasingly possible through the ordinary legislative process.
If procreation were a factor in Warren’s decision, do you think he would just skate around it or directly say his rationale was? This wasn’t Finnegan’s Wake and the onus is on you to prove that was his meaning since he sure didn’t say so.
How about we look at the entirety of what he said?
"These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
The very first thing Warren says about the right to marry is: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
So, unless you somehow think the “orderly pursuit of happiness” necessarily involved procreation (as the father of 3 children, I can tell you it most certainly isn’t), you are, once again, full of shit. Warren also draws no link between having children as a necessary part of the right to marry. Actually, what he does discuss is that the freedom to marry the person of your own choice, is what is important, not just having children.
Again, you’re wrong.
See previous page.
St.Pauler, Hamlet:
You each know how it works: You cite a case as precedent to support your position in the instant case. You both go on about other points in Loving but neither of you can explain HOW Skinner supports Loving.
Skinner is not a case about marriage; it does not describe any of the qualities of marriage except that it is fundamental because it is linked to procreation.
How is a case that involves striking down forced sterilization relevant to a marriage case?
To fight my ignorance you must address the issue, not avoid it.
Miller also claims not to know, please tell us wtf Skinner is doing cited in Loving.
I suspect like Miller you have nothing to offer, that I am correct, and you two resist fighting your ignorance because you do not like the result.
I’d like to address this bit more fully.
No-one, when they say the right to marriage flows from the right of procreation, suggest that you must have children to marry, as in it must be a listed requirement in the staute. This would wreck the entire purpose because it first requires children born-out-of-wedlock and that’s the main thing we try to prevent.
Even if an intention to have children was required in the statute, no-one has a crystal ball to peer into to know which will actually bear children. Attempts to find out ahead of time would be violations of privacy.
I hear instead that the purpose of marriage is primarily “love and commitment.” For this to be true, on the same standards that gay activists thrust on heterosexual marriage schemes, it would have to be written as a requirement in the statute, and they are not. And you’d have to prove you were in love and committed, which I do not see a way to effectively do.
A statute may create a substantive right, but nobody I know of has ever suggested that the right to marry is one that flows from a statute.
Follow the language from Skinner where marriage is mentioned all of once:
**Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. **
“Marriage and procreation” does not mean “marriage with procreation” nor does it say that one necessitates the other. Obviously one does not have to be married to procreate and one does not need to procreate to be married. Neither of those things have ever been found to be true at the Supreme Court level. Inferring Warren’s meaning that it does mean that is even more overarching than claiming that citing it does one way or another. In fact, look at his words where he just mentions where marriage can or cannot be defined:
You’re claiming a rope is connecting the two when there isn’t even a thread.
And it’s stpauler. Not St.Pauler.