The poor guy made the mistake of saying “reasonable” instead of “rational”. There certainly is no *reasonable * basis for discrimination, and I think even he agrees.
It took a lot of posting, a lot of patience, and more than a lot of evasion and derision from him before he finally answered the same question you’re now asking - to the effect that yes, “rational basis” does indeed mean ad hoc, post hoc, result-driven judicially-activist excuse-making, reasonability notwithstanding. The only such basis he could offer is the state’s (imagined, but there it is) interest in fostering procreation. If he has something else to offer, I’m as curious as you to find out what it is. If it’s yet another lecture on what the varying standards are with no mention of what it is we’re measuring against those standards, well, that’s a whole lot of keystrokes wasted already.
The persuasive argument is: no court has found it to be so.
I could say the same thing about the right to abortion: I have yet to hear a persuasive argument on the merits that the right to a first-trimester abortion is in the federal constitution… but the courts say it is, so it is.
Here, too: no court has ever found applying anything other than the rational basis test the right thing to do.
I, personally, considering the issue on a blank canvas, would probably have applied intermediate scrutiny. But I certainly would not do that in the face of existing precedent to the contrary.
Doubtful. The same thing was almost certainly said about seeing black men with white women when interracial marriage was illegal. Funny, that “biological repulsion” went away for a lot of people just when interracial marriage became legal and accepted… :dubious:
And Romeo and Juliet portrays the heterosexual main characters as valuing their lust for one another over their families, so heterosexuality must be deviant and immoral and turning kids against their parents. If we can judge homosexuality by one movie, why can’t we do the same thing for heterosexuality?
Marriage laws have changed. Here are some selected changes in Connecticut’s marriage laws since 1792. Loving v. Virginia struck down state laws forbidding interracial marriages. Marriage laws used to say that a married woman’s husband legally owned all of her property, now they don’t. The list of valid reasons for divorce has expanded. Blood tests for sexually transmitted diseases used to be required by many states as a precondition for marriage, now some of those states (such as California) don’t.
Ah, so mind reading is now acceptable in Great Debates. Take my advice, don’t try Vegas anytime soon.
Public assistance and charity help those who unfortunate people who need it. Gay Marriage doesn’t do that. Ergo, I can support public assistance and charity without wanting to pay so much as 5 cents of my hard earned money to extend the benefits of marriage to Steve and Bob who want to get married. Assuming Steve and Bob aren’t stranded on a roof in flood stricken Louisiana, Steve and Bob don’t need my help and have no call on me or my wallet.
If Steve and Bob want to set up joint bank accounts, they can do that. If they want to name each other as beneficiaries of their will and life insurance policies, nothing can stop them. If they want to name each other as their health care surrogate under a power of attorney for health care, they are free to do so. If they want to adopt a child, I would be in favor of allowing them to do so, due to the pressing need to adopt underprivileged American kids. If they want to prosecute someone who beats them up for being gay, well, assault and battery are already serious felonies and the perpetrator should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If Bob and Steve want to file a joint tax return and claim each other as dependents, I say no way. Supporting the innocent and the downtrodden does not extend so far as to requiring the support of gay marriage.
The issue isn’t whether there is a right to marry, there is. Loving and Zablocki have said so. The issue is defining the right so as to exclude people. Just as, prior to Loving, the right to marry excluded interracial marriage, so now does the right to marry exclude same sex couples. When you limit the right to only those who have enjoyed it, it’s not a right. Please explain how that logic works. Other than: “That’s just the way it is.”
]You sure?. Plus, that’s good enough for you? Me, I prefer debating the actual logic and reasons, but whatever.
So you say. The Goodridge case in Massachusetts was a 4-3 decision. Based on that you say that the three dissenters - who to my mind wrote the more persuasive opinion and the attorneys and public officials who argued against gay marriage- are not nice people. Any other silly conclusions you want to jump to?
Serious question, Serket: has this thread made you want to restate any of your reasons for opposing gay marriage?
I mean seriouly: you do understand that advocating limited civil rights for millions of Americans based on what you think is “gross” is pretty dang unconstitutional, not to say un-American? I’m sure there are things you do that some individual American somewhere thinks is gross, but you wouldn’t think it was right to base a system of law on that, would you? Isn’t that kind of like limiting the civil rights of broccoli farmers if you think broccoli is gross? Would you want someone else’s standards of what’s “gross” imposed on you, and what you can do with your life? Is that kind of interference in others’ freedom the kind of governmental system you want to live under?
And limiting the civil rights of millions of Americans because they have a certain thing in common with a few individuals that you think are “radical”? Isn’t that kind of like supporting Apartheid because you don’t like Al Sharpton as an individual? What about the blacks who AREN’T Al Sharpton. Statistics show that most African Americans are not Al Sharpton.
Most of your reasons are very personal, emotional reactions. Is that really the best approach to making laws that govern other people’s lives?
But why support the innocent and downtrodden at all? It doesn’t gain you anything, and it costs you money, which was the sum total of the reasons you listed for opposing gay marriage. If that’s reason enough to not help gays, why isn’t it reason enough to not help anyone else?
You are comparing apples to battleships. Criminal statutes are to protect the innocent and thereby serve society at large, even if they do not protect me directly. Statutes that prohibit rape or child endangering protect our children and benefit me as a member of society, even if they do not benefit me directly right now.
You are correct that in an ideal world the legislature asks what is wise as a matter of public policy. I would contend that gay marriage fails public policy because it confers benefits on a minority at the cost to the majority which receives no reciprocal benefit.
JFK said (paraphrasing Hitler, but never mind that) “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?” To me, gays asking for the right to marry is just asking what the country can do for them. I don’t see being able to marry someone of the same sex as a basic civil right. If it doesn’t help me, and doesn’t help the downtrodden, and doesn’t protect innocent victims, I oppose it on the general principle that it costs me too much money. And by too much money, I mean “any money.”
I don’t know what the filing fee for divorces is where you live Bricker, but in this part of Ohio the filing fee is already pretty stiff, $200 for people without kids and $250 for couples with kids. Making divorce courts self-sustaining would price poor people out the ability to get divorced.
Bob, I’m sorry, but I just couldn’t be arsed right now to get into a Philosophy 101 debate about whether or not there is truly a selfless act.
If it must be discussed, start a new thread as this is totally off topic anyways.
So at the extreme, you’re saying if I choose to spend my money (broadly speaking, on both charity and public assistance ) on people who need it in order to survive, I must therefore also spend it on people that don’t need it in order to survive, but who only want my money (that would otherwise go to charity, public assistance, national defense, or into my own pocket) so they can go to the movies. If I’m willing to pay money to help someone who’s house was leveled by Katrina, I must also be willing to pay money so gays can file jointly on their tax return. Sorry, but no. Gays don’t need economic help from the country and I am unwilling to extend any ecomonic assistance to them.
Why not, though? Why should you give money to anyone or anything that doesn’t directly benefit you personally? That’s your metric for not supporting gay marriage (which is highly suspect, btw) so why do you not apply it to charitable causes?
For a story I invented a world in which there was no marriage, and in which whichever partner stayed home with kids (if any) got paid a state mandated wage. Writing the dialog in which the character from this planet explained it to a human made me think this could be a good idea. However eliminating marriage, or making it into a contract like a pre-nup, ain’t going to happen soon. So, in the interim, do you support SSM?
Fascinating. You can see that protecting our children benefits you as a member of society, but you can’t see that the same is true for same-sex marriage?
Apart from protection of offspring, are there any benefits to marriage as it exists now that you agree innure to society?
So at worst, it cost you nothing if they marry and file jointly. If the marriage penalty kicks back in, it actually creates revenue for the government.
Making a decision about the law is not the same as expressing a philospohical conclusion. A judge might not think there’s anything wrong with smoking pot but he would still have to follow the law in sentencing pot smokers.
Anyone who philosophically thinks it’s ok to deprive people of their basic civil rights is not a nice person…or at least, not a very thoughtful one.
