The whole issue being debated about what Warren said is much more narrow than that. I was asked if Warren pointed to procreation in Loving. The answer is Yes, and all this follows..mostly trolling it would appear to me, but a few posters have seemed sincere.
The question isn’t whether Skinner or Loving is right or wrong; the question is what did Warren mean.
As you can see, above, and I am the only one to produce a citation to authority of any kind on this matter, other than Hamlet throwing a phone book at us and saying “HERE,” with no explanation of what the cite is supposed to support or where, in 266 pages to look.
Apparently, these experts in the field still believe that Skinner is correct. Do you have another citation that expresses an opinion on what Warren meant?
The easier way to understand it is to start with the fundamental procreation, and see how that right flows into the right of marriage for the desired purpose of making procreation orderly instead of a burden on us. This means, if indeed procreation was somehow severed from marriage, that marriage is NOT a fundamental right.
To be fundamental, marriage must serve fundamental purposes.
It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a “civil right.” See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) (“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival”), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 56 (1810) (referring to “civil rights incident to marriages”). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 561 (1993) (identifying marriage as a “civil right”); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as “of fundamental importance for all individuals” and as “part of the fundamental ‘right of privacy’ implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra (“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”). Goodrich.
You mean the same pattern which follows if ANYONE vigorously disagrees with the ideas of progressives. It doesn’t have to be me; it happens when anyone disagrees.
And I think you are referring to two threads, which you shut down before ANYTHING could come to fruition.
This whole claim is erroneous. I do not believe it has the same cites.
Its not about me, it is not about multiple threads and it is not about the same old cites and arguments.
Its about intellectual cyberbullying, which runs rampant in any Straight Dope thread about gay issues, which is supported and condoned by moderators (not all, some do not play this game, but YOU DO, Marley.)
While you deny that you want to interfere with the free exchange of ideas, I have not felt bold enough to make comments in several threads–I have lurked for months–because you are a bully, Marley.
I shut up when you start directing irrelvancies at me personally in a negative way.
You gave me a permanent warning on my record Marley, and even when I pointed out I didn’t see your informal warning within the thread, you had no sympathy.
This is abusive horseshit, so once again, chilled because I do not want to see your abusive threats of banning me for disagreeing with gays, you have once again suceeded in NOT allowing the free exchange of ideas.
You should be talking to all those who are making this thread cluttered with inanities about sunspots and the like, because that would help it get somewhere legitimate.
The Straight Dope Message Board is NOT friendly to people or ideas that fail to agree with its gay ideology, and hardly deserving of the motto “Fighting Ignorance.”
Next time, if I ever feel like people might want to be reasonable this time around, I expect you to keep your comments about your dislike for me to yourself, Marley.
But I suspect you’ll get the bully stick out again and threaten to ban or ban me, instead, and all of you can pat yoruselves on the back about how smart you are since the thorn in your side is gone.
Debate that doesn’t allow competition is not much debate.
But I am shutting up for now, Marley, once again, due to your
antipathy (or hatred of) the free exchange of ideas and how you punish ME when I disagree with you.
Nice way to “win” the issue.
Yep, everyone, Marley’s RIGHT! I concede!:rolleyes:
Since Canada got gay marriage, television viewers in the U.S. have enjoyed Breaking Bad, Spartacus, The Walking Dead…
Clearly gay marriage brings about better programming in neighboring countries, so the U.S. should approve gay marriage so Canadians can, I dunno… bring back Night Heat or Corner Gas or something.
LOL! Great. Since gay marriage has been approved of in Massachusetts, the Straight Dope message board has become increasingly intolerant to bigoted ideas. Thanks homos!
Heck, David, it’s not just you. This is how threads go when magellan is arguing the anti-SSM postion, when mswas argued the anti-SSM position, when puddleglum is arguing the anti-SSM position…
It’s basically a losing position, like defending racism or something.
A little murkier than usual, I think. There is a lack of focus, a lack of clarity, that hasn’t (always) been evident before. The casual reader finds it difficult to discern what points are being made, or attempted.
I’m sure thirty years’ of careful study will clarify the matter somewhat, so I’ll bump this thread in April of 2043 and we can discuss what we’ve learned.
This is an odd day. (Okay, I don’t need lectures about the non-probative value of anecdotes).
Two proposals, and one of them is actually serious. One of my two casual girlfriends is bisexual and has been following the thread as I write and watching me work.
She says she is extremely impressed (after reading Bricker’s Jones thread) that the exact words I used arguing there were used by a Supreme Court majority in taking the law in a new direction.
She also says that she had previously never understood what marriage is about–and was not ever interested in being married. She says I illuminated the whole thing for her and made it actually interesting–marriage as the idea of iondividual rights didn’t seem to take her anywhere–but understanding it as a societal duty gives her a reason to want to do it.
She weeps over her abortion at 17 years old and says I have done what no man even gave her a hint needed doing before.
I am mindful that if I were addressing her instead of the board, this may not have happened.
One young person’s (she is 19) mind was greatly changed today.
For those of you who are sincere, see you next time if there is one. I’m bowing out. Wish me luck, for now I have to contemplate the first and only time a woman has proposed to me.
I do not like myself when I rail about the evils of specific others. Forgive me, Marley.
We already know it isn’t. Can *you *turn *yourself *gay?
ETA: Having said that, if sexual orientation were not immutable in some parallel universe, then yes, it’s likely that it would be taken into account in determining whether elevated scrutiny applies.
With all due respect, I do want to see you and the other moderators discourage it, in this thread at least. If you look back at the OP, the topic was what the SCOTUS will decide with regard to the two SSM cases before it.
Tp give Magellan credit, he stopped advocating his civil-unions-with-all-the-benefits-of-marriage-but-the-name solution after it was pointed out that it hijacked every SSM thread into a debate between him and the world. (For which I think he deserves thanks.)
This thread’s original purpose was not to discuss the putative connection of marriage with reproduction, except perhaps as an influence on certain justices (Scalia at least, but maybe others too?). If David wishes to debate his worldview, a new thread might be appropriate.
I formally request the Moderators to put an end to the hijack of the important and current-events-sensitive topic of this thread.
“Societal duty?” Cripes, now I’m glad I’ve only been skimming the thread.
Seconding Polycarp’s request.
I predict Prop 8 will be overturned narrowly, in a decision that affects only California, and DOMA will go down wrt the ability to obtain Federal benefits, but not necessarily imposing full faith and credit requirements on states that haven’t taken the jump to SSM.
There are a dozen others participating in the same discussion as I, including at least tomndebb from the moderators themselves, and seeing that I didn’t even start this “hijack” I wonder why I am singled out for an alleged wrongdoing…
and I do not agree it is even a highjack. The OP is a question concerning how the Supreme Court could rule.
Geez, do you think they will say, “Marriage is a fundamental right that flows from the right to procreation,” once again, or maybe they will overrule that idea in light of their opinions in Lawrence?
Of course such discussion is relevant to a question of how they might rule.
What needs to stop in the thread is the buffoonery.
You seem to have no problem with a dozen others interjecting their “worldviews,” but wish to belittle my argument which is logical, concise and well explained, as a “worldview” yet you chacterize your view as “the world” itself. That should give you pause in what you are saying, if you think that through. That’s arrogant stuff, sir.
David42, despite the rancor and sarcasm from both sides in this thread, you are the one in the last couple of pages resorting to outright name-calling, with accusations of trolling and references to “buffoonery.”
When you complain about “making a huge deal out of minor violence to break families up”, are you complaining about women getting divorced in response to getting beaten by their husbands or are you talking about something else?
