You may want to read those posts over a few times yourself until you understand the position better, since he’s stated in this thread he’s male, so you don’t inadvertently ascribe characteristics or genetalia to him that don’t fit.
Have you any response to the application of the equal protection clause to marriage due to homosexuals being found to be a suspect class, warranting extension of rights granted other persons, absent any compelling reason to deny them, as established by the application of the codes of judicial review? And, regarding your slippery slope argument above, note the word “immutability” as the first of those criteria.
You don’t see any way to quantify a meaningful difference between incest or polygamy and homosexuality? I think you do, and could, as could the law. This is a disingenuous argument.
Well, heck, they drew a line not letting people of different race get married and then when they did allow it, that didn’t automatically open the floodgates. Now another incremental step is being taken, and the floodgates remain closed.
How long has gay rights been a serious issue in the United States? Since the Stonewall riots of 1969? Forty years, now? It’s clearly a gradual process. If serious organized rumbling about permitting polygamous or incestuous marriage starts today, maybe it’ll be an election issue in 2048. Of course, if the blacks are any example in how they voted in large numbers against gay marriage, the gays will likely vote down polygamy or incestuous marriage. Therefore, if poly/incest marriages are what you really fear (and that fear is motivating you to hold the line) then your best best is to admit gays, since you soon won’t have a choice anyway, and turn them into allies against your future enemy.
Well feminism certainly has had a demographic impact, that is demonstrable, so maybe you are right, women’s suffrage DID reduce breeding rights. As a child of the first generation where equal rights for women was considered normative, I can honestly say we are experiencing demographic decline. ;p
I don’t think it as much relates to their voting as their working.
I’m slightly confused on the breeding patterns comment. (I really haven’t followed this thread much) Why would there be any change at all, except perhaps a bit of an increase? It’s not like birth rates would suddenly plummet, those gay people marrying each other weren’t exactly out popping out kids all over the place anyway.
oops. I have made this mistake more than once. So, my apologies to Mr. mswas. I think it’s the “ms” in front, or something
You and I disagree as to what is a “compelling reason”. As far as the slippery slope, I’m just pointing out the reasoning one provides needs to be sound.
All except for my actual gender part, he made a good rebuttal. It’s helpful since I don’t have to respond myself to ElvisL1ves ignorant babbling, strawmen and innuendo.
As I’ve said, this is one of the more compelling arguments. ‘We already see them as a suspect class.’, is one of the best ones. So lets ask another question. Is it unconstitutional to have ANY gender-specific laws?
I think they can. The point is, as I made above, is that the if a reason is given for why we must/should allow gays to marry AND that reasoning applies just as well to other groups who we do not want to extend the right to, then that reasons fails as such.
Putting aside our individual opinions on the matter for a moment, can you sketch out the brief you would submit to a Court’s strict review in such a case, that couches and elucidates your compelling reasons for denial in some data, study or trend (re the dilution of marriage and lessening of childbirth) that supports a ruling continuing denial of equal rights?
Others here have posted statements and cites which could be shaped into such a brief supporting granting such equal rights that I think a court would find (and has found) compelling.
As I’ve stated, allowing people of different races to intermarry is not analogous to allowing gays to marry. This is, and will continue to be, I’m sure, trotted out as some great argument. It’s not. Think about it. The resistance to gay marriage is that the definition of the word is and should be and restricted to one man and one woman. Why? Both tradition and nature. The anti-miscagenation laws didn’t address sex, it addressed race. Race has nothing to do with the ability to procreate, which has been one of the underpinnings of marriage. Homosexuality renders it an impossibility. Also, the analogy would be better if blacks had been prevented from marrying people of their own race. Still not good, but better.
The laws were overturned simply because they didn’t comport with our founding principles. I don’t see that as an incremental step. I see it as rectification of a mistake. The removal of an artificial dam, barring a group of people who were able to fully participate in marriage from doing so.
Now, I’m not arguing our ability to not take further steps. Incremental in size or grand. But that is a an action we have to take, a privilege we consciously grant, or not. As we see fit. And I just don’t see it as either necessary or wise.
Wait. So, down the road you’d be willing to have the populace decide the issue—polygamy, for instance—by popular vote, assuming (probably correctly) that it will be voted down, and without concern with the moral and rational arguments. But the passage of Prop 8 is an abomination? A mistake created by people who are bigoted, irrational, hateful, ignorant, etc.
Wouldn’t you say that that position is a bit inconsistent? Or does that not bother you?
Good point but magellan01 (and you to a certain extent) seem to be ignoring the “immutability” criteria when looking at these groups - homosexuals, polygamist, incestors – under judicial review. When immutability is taken into account, which one of those things is not like the other one? Among genders, races and sexual orientation, which one is mutable?
Yes, others and your resistance is based on changing a word’s meaning, but legislative and judicial review has to be based on something larger, more compelling, and more encompassing of equality where possible.
I didn’t ignore it, I said it’s a good point, and one of the best arguments. I’ve said this several times. It just doesn’t address the DEFINITION of marriage argument.
This is why I am actually against state sponsored marriage as a whole. We are going to keep having these arguments until we just make civil union a part of contract law, and then allow anyone who wants to enter into it to do so, including in cases of incest and polygamy.
Yes, you did acknowldge it. I should have been more clear and said immutability when measured against the equal protection clause, not in defining marriage.
I know what you meant. But the thing is you are saying they are being denied something that is defined a certain way that excludes them. They want to change the definition of marriage so it includes them, so it’s not exactly the same as previous anti-miscegenation laws. Because in that case it was still a couple that could breed together.
Except that, for seemingly the ten billionth time, the definition of marriage is not and never has been immutable. As I’ve demonstrated with the story about my grandparents, it’s changed within living memory. What Magellan is defending as “always in existence” is scarcely twice as old as he it – that is, that states have the right to license marriages and restrict them to certain specific combos. True, bigamy, incest, adultery all were crimes known to the common law – but the idea that you may not be married without the permission of the state in the form of a marriage license is very much a 20th century phenomenon. The state has historically chosen what marriages it will recognize, yeah, but its arrogating to itself the privilege of deciding what marriages may exist, is a construct of roughly the last hundred years.
You may define marriage however you like. But you do not have the privilege of insisting on your definition as the one that always was, is now, and forever will be. That has changed time and again – and is changing again now.
The measurement of immutability is foremost part of a review to see if equal protection is being applied or upheld. The resulting potential to change the word marriage (and statistics about marriage and birth rates, if at all applicable) is by far secondary to achieving a fair, just and equitable application of constitutional protections under that review.
Polycarp, you have an excellent point (as always) but mswas’ and my discussion was about immutability as a criteria in judicial review of laws and statutes that are deemed potentially unconstitutional.
As a child of the first generation where equal rights for women was considered normative, I can honestly say we are experiencing demographic decline. ;p