Fair enough, I suppose, and it is true that I believe the constitution compels same sex marriage recognition. Let’s backtrack and stick to the legal argument, then.
Would you accept the stated rationale in favor of a ban on same-sex marriages as sufficient under your preferred level of scrutiny (unless you agree that rational basis in the end is the appropriate level)? It’s hard to argue, practically, at least, that it isn’t rationally related to a legitimate interest. Would these bans meet intermediate scrutiny?
I see that in later posts you’re posing essentially the same question, at its core, to others - why is this a good thing? That’s what I’m concerned with. When a state passes a law that says it won’t recognize marriages that aren’t man/woman, I don’t believe that the state is trying to encourage procreation. I really don’t.
I think I prefer Marshall’s sliding scale standard of review anyway, by the way, so I’ll admit up front to a willingness to play fast and loose with rational basis.
magellan, “hero” is not a term used by the government to provide essential benefits. “Marriage” is. But even that is beside the point. Where does your concept of what a “true marriage” is really come from? You say the concept of marriage is the important thing, so what’s the history that you’re speaking of, precisely, and how far back does it date?
There are many laws that that have accumulated over time based on male-female marriage. I agree that the laws could not be easily transferred to polygamists but would also think that they cannot just be tranferred to a new type of union.
You simply refuse to see that I’m not. I don’t think race is a disqualifier. I think two people of the same gender is. We disagree. But only one of us feels the needs to call the other dishonest. Wonder why that is? Probably because it’s as close as you can come to disparaging your opponent without reverting to your usual ad hominems.
Good question. And the answer is that one group actively dilutes the word more than the other. As long as the word refers to man-woman pairings, the less dilution there is. Now, concerning those previous thirty-one words and only those previous thirty-one words, would you grant that that is true?
I believe homosexuality to be naturally occurring. And outside the norm. Those are facts, are they not.
See above. You might also want to glance up and see that we are in GD, not the pit. You might want to examine why you so often feel the need to disparage people you debate with. And if all you come up with is that you’re smarter, better educated, etc. than them, keep thinking. 'Cause that ain’t it.
That makes absolutely no sense. You don’t just get to change one part of the definition while claiming that the other part of the definition is immutable.
No, actually it is the pro SSM crowd that forced the comparison. If marriage can be redefined however YOU see fit then be prepared for many other groups to claim this “right”
I see SSM opponents continually bringing up what is natural, but the truth is that monogomy is NOT natural, but we put social constructs on our relationships for various reasons. Marriage is one of them. Marriage is NOT aboput procreation so much as it is about commitment to another person. Marriage is not necessary for procreation. MArriage is necessary for the creation of a comittment, in the church it is under God, to the state is legal. Allowing SSM affirms the states role in affriming the COMMITMENT and responsibility of being married, it has nothing to do with proecreation at all.
Maybe. But the difference between us is that in the absence of that solution, you are willing to enshrine discrimination against a significant group of the population on no grounds other than your own prejudice. And then dress it up as protecting the sanctity of your own exercise of those rights you would happily deny others.
But that’s not relevant to a rational basis review. “It is entirely irrelevant for constitutional purposes whether the conceived reason for the challenged distinction actually motivated the legislature.” FCC v. Beach Communications, 508 U.S. 307, (1993).
Not me. I think recognizing same-sex marriage is the dceent, right, and just thing to do. We should do it.
But the Constitution doesn’t compel us to take every step that is decent, right, and just. Using the Constitution to force SSM into being is using the judiciary as a super-legislature, a wrong that will have far-reaching and unpleasant consequences.
And how is it that “natural” is such a holy grail? Polio is natural. Influenza is natural. In fact, feet are natural; shoes and automobiles are not. Yet I suspect that those glorifying the natural are not (with perhaps a few exceptions) limping from place to place, barefoot and coughing.
You don’t think race is a dis-qualifier. You do think sexual orientation is. Both are naturally occurring yet you are choosing, based on your own preferences which one you’d like to enforce. This is about your personal desires and preferences, not logic and reason. The trouble is you keep throwing up the screen of this being something self-evident and rational. But it’s just you wanting to keep people you don’t like from joining your club.
If course not. Because what you said is simply a statement of your likes and desires. Dilution is the adulteration of something valuable with something cheap. Obviously you find homosexuality distasteful or it couldn’t dilute marriage. You are the one with the hangup that creates the sensation of dilution in your mind. It is a result of your personal feelings. Don’t pretend it’s cold, rational logic.
Elderly people marrying is outside the norm. A man marrying his brother’s widow is outside the norm. A Jew marrying a Muslim is outside the norm. A nerd marrying a supermodel is outside the norm. Who are you to say that because you don’t think those things are normal enough those people should go suck eggs. “Wanna get married? Well fuck off Magellan thinks your union isn’t normal enough.”
For what it’s worth, I highly doubt I’m more educated than you. I just don’t want to go through mental gymnastics to rationalize my dislikes into law.
Large swaths of the laws concerning marriage deal with the asymmetrical relationship between men and woman. First and foremost is the asymmetry produced by only one of the two being able to carry a child. Other laws such as alimony are basically dealing with asymmetry in earning power and the ability to find another partner as women grow older…things that men do not normally have to deal with.
As I’ve stated this is not discrimination. Gay people have every right to engage in the exact same acts as straight people. This is the equivalent of saying that drug laws discriminate against the addicted. The laws apply equally to everyone.
But to engage in a bit of anti-SSM type sophistry, there is no reason that a gay man should not have the right to discuss the results of his partner’s pap smear with his partner’s doctor. The law can transfer perfectly well. Not the most useful of rights, I would admit, but what the hell.
Irrelevant, unless there is a “conceived reason” at all, much less one arrived at rationally. And there isn’t one. As you know.
Was Brown an “unpleasant consequence”? Or Korematsu? :dubious:
You know damn well that leaving the enforcement of Constitutional rights, such as the one to equal protection (that you keep ignoring for some reason you won’t explain), up to legislative vote can effectively deny those rights. Fortunately the Supremes have generally understood that better than you.
I do enjoy, sort of, the argument from certain persons that an institution that has constantly developed over human history, and the definitions of words that have also constantly developed, miraculously reached their final, true states, with no further development needed or allowable, just as those certain persons were gaining some awareness of the world. What sophistry! What arrogance! What ignorance.
At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I suspect you’re conflating different standards. You want rational basis review to mean something different than it does. This is an injustice, it’s wrong, and the courts can and should fix it, regardless of any pesky barriers like the actual language of the Constitution and the standing precedent regarding same. You say that you’re really concerned with why (actually, if) it’s a good thing, which suggests you want to talk social policy wisdom, but then you keep dragging it back to the role the courts might have.
I don’t mean to needle you on the issue, and I’ll let it drop here if that’s what you want.
That is one hell of a stretch. You’re talking about laws regarding divorce, not marriage. There is no law regarding marriage that says word one about who squirts the babies out, earning power or the ability to get laid past the age of 50.
Tell you what … if two guys get married, and then get divorced, then we’ll listen to you about the problems plaguing alimony.
What makes you think marriage is in any way immutable? Three hundred years from now I’m sure it’ll be different. Why does changing one thing mean everything have to change?
Marriage is mutable. As little as 50 years ago it was illegal for different races to marry. Think about that. Was repealing anti-miscegenation laws bad? You’re outright saying they were. Why is that a logical argument?
We are talking about consenting adults. Just because you don’t think they’re special enough doesn’t mean they should be prevented from marrying, any more than a southern judge thinking blacks and whites shouldn’t wed is justified.
Doesn’t it bug you to be on the same side as anti-miscegenation racists? Doesn’t it bother you that your arguments are exactly the same as theirs? Don’t you think that you should pause and examine your beliefs after noticing the company you’re keeping?
Divorce laws stem from marriage. The laws do not have to point out the obvious in order for us to see the intended effect.
SSM proponents…create your own set of unique laws that deal with the unique relationship that SSM creates and give the union another name. What’s so hard about that?
