The problem is unplanned/accidental pregnancy, not people shirking their duty to get married. Getting married because of an ‘oopsie’ is likely a recipe for a failed marriage. All people, married or not, should be ‘responsibly procreating’ by planning their children. Children that are unplanned are born into less stable environments - no doubt. Since, same sex couples typically must take deliberate actions to procreate, their children will likely be born into emotionally and financially stable homes.
Reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy, rather than excluding same sex couples from marriage because their children are less likely to be accidental.
Goalposts weren’t moved, you’re just playing a different game than the rest of us. Please prove how Maynard could be irrelevant but Skinner is.
If you need me to be more specific, prove how the reference to Skinner=procreation. Even more directly, how Skinner=procreation in the confines of a marriage. As opposed to, say, chicken-stealin’. Keeping in mind, to do so, you’d not only have to infer a lot into what Warren was saying, but to say that only married inmates matters in Skinner as opposed to ALL inmates.
Heck, if you want to reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births, drop all barriers to abortion access, and I mean ditching all that waiting period and mandatory ultrasounds crap.
The connection to gay marriage is so tenuous, I’m not sure even 30 years would be enough to demonstrate such a link even exists. A better argument could be made that the music of Madonna has had a far greater influence.
Because Skinner referenced marriage on top of the right of chicken stealers to have their balls intact. Of course, you’ll have to explain how English being taught in Nebraska has to do with why Warren cited the case. Unless, you know, he was just citing cases where marriage was referenced as seems to be the obvious answer.
This is YOUR thought process that you’re injecting here. You do realize it’s up to you and ONLY you to prove your claims. “My post is my cite” doesn’t work here as you’re making arguments out of thin air.
Thx for the reasonable reply. Yes, it is far from clear what the long-term consequences will look like. Let’s not forget that even plaintiff’s experts at the Prop8 trial concede there will be changes in how our society works.
No need to conjure images of smoking nuclear bomb craters. Let’s just look for damage, ok?
It’s possible seven or eight years might give some indication in some criteria, but not all. As to larger social trends, I do note it is possible for you to say this with some reassurance knowing, as I assume you know, that sociological causes are usually so intertwined it is near impossible to ferret them out.
I would far more prefer to be revisiting the idea of single parenting. There was a time when elements of society were pushing for more liberal divorce and the questions were being asked about how good it would be for kids–and some short term studies were whipped out snd they reassured us that single parenting would be just fine.
The studies began, but by the time they would be useful, umm, “times had changed” i.e., everyone got used to the idea even though the far more conclusive evidence was now in hand.
So yeah, I think it would be wiser to revisit some of our 60’s and 70’s ideas now that we have the evidence. The same evidence which wasn’t entirely appropriate when the gay marriage/parenting debates started in earnest.
I get a sense of deja vu, there are some eery similarities-- and I wonder whether there will be some new progressive idea in twenty years (cause after all, other social factors are working toward it as well, eh?) that will shock our consciousness into fierce debate again–and we fail to seriously revisit gay marriage, if perchance, the evidence DOES come in negative, like it did in single parenting. We’ll be used to same sex marriage then, however, won’t care as much, and might have something seemingly more shocking yet then to distract us. While the whole liberal/progressive and conservative charades being played all over again.
No, that is the stpauler filtered and distorted speculative version of my thought process. Thus you have further branched out the debate to now include my thought process, which you will no doubt blame me for later with another “all over the place” sort of comment. I have never said “my post is my cite” you are really out in left field here…
My argument is about a citation to one sentence with two concepts in it that appear to be logically linked. Warren cites and quotes but modifies the sentence to leave “procreation” out. This is not because he wishes to divorce marriage and procreation as a matter of law, and thus issue a landmark that no-one even noticed. This is far more likely because he wants a NARROW RULING and PROCREATION is not a necessary issue to have to turn over in a case about RACE classification.
If I am wrong, it will take showing me how marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival in some other way than procreation, i.e., what Warren “really” meant, since he meant something other than how I take it.
You’ll note, for a guy all over the place, I keep consistently repeating that a lot, and it never gets addressed.
And completely abandoned as soon as it was pointed out to you that you were wrong about all three criteria, switching instead to this convenient nonsense about what Warren meant when he referenced Skinner.
Maynard does not have the connection in it that Skinner does. Maynard and Skinner are both relevant to the Loving decision, but in slightly different ways,but that does not mean they are both relevant to the subject of my answer "Yes. Warren did make that point of Skinner. I HAVE ALREADY explained
that “marriage” is not a necessary right for a forced sterilization case to consider unless it is intertwined with procreation (being in the same sentence quoted) thus rendering, according to you, “marriage” language in Skinner mere dicta. If it is dicta, there is no relevant point in Skinner to support Loving with, because Skinner’s NARROWLY DECIDED issue is about PROCREATION, and NOT a denial of marriage.
Warren quotes one single sentence from Skinner, which, in Skinner, intertwines marriage and procreation as fundamental for a reason of our existence. I’m not drawing relationships between various ideas found all over cases, but sticking to one sentence to meld the two concepts together because that’s exactly what Warren’s sentence does. What you call “thin air” (or someone does anyways) I call “Warren’s use of the conjunction known as ‘AND,’ used to make us think of two or more things together,” which you insist could not be.
There is an utter lack of any plausible alternative to what Warren meant. What about marriage makes it fundamental to our survival and existence if it is not procreation?
You could answer number three forthrightly and this issue could be at an end, but I doubt I will repeat this too much further and consider it conceded, if no-one can answer.
Okay, what damage are you expecting, or hypothesizing, or concerned about, or whatever? Truth be told, I’m not eager to limit the concept of equal treatment under the law out of concern for something as yet (to be generous) ill-defined.
How do you expect to demonstrate, let alone prove, that damage has occurred due to gay marriage, by such a tenuous standard?
I’m not sure no-fault divorce (first signed into law by then Governor of California Ronald Reagan, by the way) was ever pushed as something to benefit children - rather, to benefit adults who were in marriages they didn’t want to continue. I’m not familiar with the studies you’re describing, so I’ll have to ask for some cites, but in all honesty, I don’t see how this line of argument will eventually lead to opposing gay marriage. It might argue for the abolition of no-fault divorce (or divorce entirely), when there are minor children involved.
In general, I’m unconvinced by an anti-SSM argument that depends on factors that were established decades before SSM was legalized, even on the limited scale it currently enjoys in the U.S., and remains unclear how SSM will (or even could) aggravate these factors.
The rest of your post is an attempt at poetry, when I’m asking about reality. If you don’t know that gay marriage will have any negative effect, you may as well just admit it, or at least admit that your concerns are tenuous, and pale beside the concerns of someone whose longtime life-partner is facing a medical crisis and cannot make crucial decisions on their behalf because the state will not allow a couple with similar genitalia to have such an arrangement while couples with dissimilar genitalia can do so with ease.
I wasn’t shown wrong. My claim that the SUPREME COURT has not made such a classification is true.
Religion was held up to show I was wrong, but I rebutted by showing that The Supreme Court hadn’t used EP to create a suspect clasification, but had gone the first amendment held applicable to the states route, meaning that Congress, who drafted and passed the first amendment, had drawn the classification.
We’re talking about what the Supreme Court might do in this thread, which is exactly what I meant–the SUpreme COurt has never created a class like it sometimes has, but not in religion–with these three criteria. Such a claim is not proven wrong by showing something Congress did. Congress is not the Court.
After this rebuttal was given, the issue was “abandoned,” as I recall. Did I miss another comment?
If you have something further to add about that issue?
Even if I abandoned it because I could not contend, why would you paint such a negative light? Is your objective to prove I am utterly always wrong, along the lines of personal animosity, or to fight ignorance in as best an impartial way you can muster?
I feel like you’d criticize me for shutting up after being convinced I was wrong, just to further say I am wrong again elsewhere.
Shall I just accept now that you will say everything I say is wrong, even though, the best reason you have for it is, at least in one exchange we’ve had, that you don’t know the answer?
C’mon Miller. I’m a real person with real feelings and sensibilities too.
Marriage provides a unit of society that confers upon its participants both rights and obligations without the requirement of further separate legal contracts. It provides for inheritance of survivorship and provides legal defenses to the parties engaged. These rights and obligations are fundamental to the survival of society, regardless whether children are involved, or not. He does not say anything about survival of the species–something that was well under way before any society to define marriage existed–but refers to civil rights–a point that bears on the survival of society as a group of people organized under laws.
Procreation is not the point.
You never explained why this was a relevant distinction, but what I think is more interesting is the fact that you only introduced it after your claims that sexuality as a protected class had no similarities with any other protected class, including, specifically, religion.
You also straight out ignored the points of similarity between sexual orientation and sex, and sexual orientation and race. All of your claims were shot down, not just the ones in connection to religion.
Yeah, I got a real good look at those feelings and sensibilities the last time we talked about this issue.
Prime indicator is the aforementioned out-of-wedlock birth, not because it is necessarily the worst sort of damage that could be done, (although it probably is) but because it is the one that impacts us all the most. All taxpayers are picking up the $115 billion and rising out-of-wedlock cost. So while it doesn’t weigh s heavily, yet another right becomes mingled in this debate–our right to our property. Not that it is the most significant right involved.
Actually I expect the sociologists to do it and I assume that they will use the same standards they use for similarly intertwined issues. I’ve been accused of going all over the place, and to be more narrow, the OP is about what the Suprem,e Court will do. They are relying on information that is largely briefed to them, and they aren’t going to be going into the details of exactly what the standards are going to be in studies that may not have started yet. Suffice to say they know and I presume the board knows sociology is not and cannot be a mathematically precise science. Most correlation vs cause and effect will always be somewhat debatable in enarly every sociological issue.
For sure, adult, and mostly women’s rights were held up as the reasons for no-fault divorce. (The first big shift in marriage concept that I see in the modern American trend was for reasons of judicial economy “too many cases” and that was anti-heartbalms.) “what about the kids” was one of the better rebuttals from the foes of women’s Lib, the pro-traditional marriage bunch of the day.
I agree the evidence we now have in hand concerning single parenting from a long term perspective warrant revisiting divorce laws more than using them it for the gay marriage debate. That, after all, was their purpose.
I’m talking about two sets of studies, the “quick bunch” done in the sixties or seventies, and then the long term bunch started in the seventies and getting first results about the early nineites. The long term bunch were the ones held up when the gay marriage debate began, you probably have discussed them. The “quick bunch” (my euphemism) I will address in a moment.
No it was DAMN GOOD poetry–
Gonna cut you short. Your concerns are valid. However, in California, which this thread is largely about, they are irrelevant because that problem is solved by the same-sex union laws. It is just the label of marriage that matters in this case–and whether it has dignity left to give gays any.
In a thread with an OP of what will the Supreme Court do, I opined that it would be unprecedented, if THEY, the Supreme Court CREATED a class that…x,y, and z. That is why it is distinct. The thread is not about what classifications CONGRESS might create.
Start such a thread if you feel it necessary to talk about the COngress creating a class of “religion” all you want, but it’s not relevant to WHAT THE SUPREME COURT DOES. “your claims that sexuality as a protected class had no similarities with any other protected class, including, specifically, religion,” is a strawman–that is how you rephrased my claim so that the existence of religion as a class will prove me wrong. I suggested the Court had never created such a classification.
But I am going over stuff again I have already explained.
Your view of me as a person is formed a great deal by your insistence that any negative experience suffered by gays can only have one possible cause: that gays are hated. Life isn’t fair, Miller, and it selects US ALL for unfairness, and some of it JUST HAPPENS. A negative incidental about gays is not always proof that you are hated–but you translate it that way, and impute it to me. Please do not, just for your own sake. I genuinely feel sorry for someone who thinks the world is out to get them–you make me weep. I don’t hate you, I just do not always agree with the gay viewpoint. Why aren’t the things I agree with you on about gay rights proof of my love instead?
WHY does everything always have be so absolutist in the gay marriage deabte?
Thanks for a reasonable answer. I agree with you that marriage has some aspects which have bearing on the survival of the society, true indeed. It’s plausible that Warren could have meant this. But I run into a bit of trouble because Warren didn’t use the word “society” either. If I briefed a court with this claim I might get told that I’d read more into Loving than is there because that word is not there, and we can make Supreme Court opinions drastically change by the casual insertion of a stray word here and there, something any legal scholar or worker should shy from.
I’m going to give your idea a little less weight because Skinner DOES say:
“We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.” Warren left “race” out of the quote, it is true. But nothing he did say can be taken to disagree with what SKinner said. He didn’t give us a hint he disagreed with Skinner, he supported his position with Skinner.
And Please Note the Quote’s first sentence–where the Skinner court refers to “ONE RIGHT” and then elaborates in the second sentence–“Marriage and Procreation” to describe that “One Right.” As I have pointed out before, if marriage and procreation aren’t intertwined, the mention of marriage here is mere dicta–not necessary to decide the case, as narrow reliance upon a separate fundamental right of procreation is sufficient–and then there is no precedential connection between Loving and Skinner. Just as there is no reason to refer to procreation in a race case.
If you have another suggestion which is fundamental to the survival and existence of the race, I am eager to see it.
One can look at it this way. I don’t find it helpful because of practical application–wish all you want, pie-in-the-sky no more irresponsible procreation just isn’t going to happen.
Don’t know til you try. At least the attempt makes a stable home a possible outcome, unlike giving up and not marrying from the beginning because of what you think “likely.” Maybe a little social disapproval of “single moms” rather than throwing them a parade for their “courage” and “empowering” them (to damage their children) is in order and it would be less likely. Whatever the cause, the out-of-wedlock problem is worsening.
Like I said, ain’t gonna happen, despite all our attempts at responsible sex education and billions of free condoms.
ESPECIALLY when people see no reason to marry when they have a sexual relationship, because this is not nearly as much true if the “unplanned” children are born in a pre-existing marriage. If you get the idea, marriage itself is a “plan” for “children,” in the genral sense.
Sometimes. A lot of kids in gay/bi families come from previous marriages or relationships.
Marry when you find someone you can’t help having sex with. Reducing the rate of OUT-OF-WEDLOCK (yes I caught your switch to unintended) births by reducing all births period is going to cause the United States huge economic problems if we keep our current Social Security scheme and other entitlement programs. Our system is premised, in reality, on a slowly increasing population.
I’m not getting anything for my trouble - no clarifications, no explanations - just repeated variations on “well, maybe gay marriage will hurt children, somehow”, with the “somehow” being so tenuous, a cobweb is adamantite by comparison. David’s vagueness in supporting his premise is matched only by his thorough confidence that his premise will be proved, somehow, in some distant future, by somebody.
Meantime, countries that have gay marriage and have suffered no ill effects have just not suffered them yet, I guess. The solution is to treat adults like sheep, apparently, because trying to recapture some never-was golden age of marriage is better than letting them decide how to run their own lives in a framework of equal treatment under the law.
I expect (or at least hope) SCOTUS is made of sterner stuff than the people on whose behalf David is supposedly arguing. Scalia, Alito and Thomas will likely dissent, but I’d be quite surprised if they managed to discover a line of reasoning that has so far escaped all SSM opponents.
But if in 30 years, the U.S. still does not have SSM, that’ll just put them 40 years behind the times.
