What motivates people to vote other people's rights away

[Bricker]

@tumbleddown

And yet, the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you, to wit:That’s a direct quote from the last time the SCOTUS ruled on the nature of marriage in this country. Which would be, for those playing the home game, Loving v. Virginia.

Now, Yorick73, you want to continue to say that marriage isn’t a right? And why your insistence of such trumps the highest court of the land?

That is a line form Loving v. Virginia, yes.

But it was a quote. Here is a complete rendition of the line:

@SCOTUS in Loving

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).

And what does Skinner v. Oklahoma say?

@SCOTUS in Skinner

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.

Skinner was a case about procreation – involuntary sterilization, in fact.

So when the Court in Loving used those words, they were talking about the fact that (in their view, anyway) marriage and procreation were inextricably intertwined.

Other courts that have had to reconcile Loving’s (really, Skinner’s) language with same-sex marriage have pointed out this precise fact.

There are excellent arguments for legal same-sex marriage. Those words from those court cases don’t qualify.

[Polycarp]

@Bricker

That is a line form Loving v. Virginia, yes.

But it was a quote. Here is a complete rendition of the line:

And what does Skinner v. Oklahoma say?

Skinner was a case about procreation – involuntary sterilization, in fact.

So when the Court in Loving used those words, they were talking about the fact that (in their view, anyway) marriage and procreation were inextricably intertwined.

Other courts that have had to reconcile Loving’s (really, Skinner’s) language with same-sex marriage have pointed out this precise fact.

There are excellent arguments for legal same-sex marriage. Those words from those court cases don’t qualify.

No. When the court in Skinner used those words, tey were talking about the right to marry and the right to procreate, and their interrelatedness. When the court in Loving used those words, they were abstracting from the precedent set in the previous case that marriage itself was a fundamental civil right. Mr. and Mrs. Loving were not discussing their putative desire for children, they were seeking the court’s defense of their right to contract marriage and live together in their home state as a married couple – irrespective of whether or not they chose to have children. (With your fondness for the phrase “oenumbra or emanation”, surely you’re familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut, the case from which that phrase, uh, emanated, which held that it is none of government’s damn business whether or not a couple chooses to prevent the conception of progeny?)

Bottom line: a person has the right to contract marriage to a willing potential spouse. That right can be restricted for a valid governmental purpose (such as the protection of the young, the orohibition of fraudulent bigamous unions, the need to reinforce defective genes through incest, etc.). The issue at hand is whether the prohibition of same-sex marriage has a valid governmental purpose.

[Polycarp]

Too late for edit. That sentence in the second paragraph of my post above should have read:

@Polycarp

That right can be restricted for a valid governmental purpose (such as the protection of the young, the prohibition of fraudulent bigamous unions, the need to prevent the reinforcement of defective genes through incest, etc.).

[raindog]

@cosmosdan

let me join in on this

Then please by all means, tell us the reasonable non homophobic reasons. I’d sincerely like to hear even one because to date I never have.

I suppose you could argue that an objection based on religious belief based on some persons interpretation of a few passages in the Bible is not the same as being homophobic. It could also be easily argued that cloaking homophobic feelings in religious doctrinal garb doesn’t really change them.

Why don’t we start all of our discussions by assuming you’re guilty until proven innocent because some fraction of the people who believe as you believe do so out of less than defensible positions?

See, that will allow me to characterize all homos as drag queen, SF gay parade prancing, Bette Midler listening, Judy Garland worshiping flaming queers.

And it’s not simply that they’re TIVO-ing Golden Girls, they’re using things like Tele-Tubbies and Barney to indoctrinate our children.

So, please, (and to make sure you aren’t missing the finer points) answer the charges of your heterophobia before we can proceed.

[Der_Trihs]

@raindog

Why don’t we start all of our discussions by assuming you’re guilty until proven innocent because some fraction of the people who believe as you believe do so out of less than defensible positions?

The “fraction” in this case being 100%.

Unless, of course you are willing to provide an example of “objections to homosexuals” that DON’T come from homophobia? The reasonable objections that you mentioned, yet for some odd reason are unwilling to actually specify.

[villa]

@Ninas_grandpa

Let me do that then.

‘There is not a government interest in encouraging procreation.’

It’s none of their goddamn business.

OK - I know where you are coming from, so to rephrase…

It’s generally considered that the government interest in encouraging procreation, whether a person agrees with it or not, is sufficient to allow legislation that treats different groups differently to pass muster under Equal Protection analysis. Hence tax breaks for having children are not seen as unfairly discriminatory against the infertile, for example.

[Bricker]

@Polycarp

No. When the court in Skinner used those words, tey were talking about the right to marry and the right to procreate, and their interrelatedness. When the court in Loving used those words, they were abstracting from the precedent set in the previous case that marriage itself was a fundamental civil right.

OK. Then perhaps you would care to comment on:

In support of their argument, Appellees rely principally on Loving v. V irginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817, 18 L . Ed. 2d 1010 (1967) (holding th at the fund amental right to marriage encompasses the righ t marry the perso n of one’s choosing , even if that person is of a different ra ce); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 91 S. Ct. 780, 785, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1971); Zablocki v . Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S . Ct. 673, 54 L. Ed. 2d 6 18 (1978); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987); and, through reference to other cases that c ite it, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541-42, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 1113-14, 86 L. Ed. 1655 (1942).

We find that, while these cases certainly establish generally the fundamental nature of th e right to ma rry, they do not represent a compelling basis to extend the fundamental right to include same-sex marriage. All of the cases infer that the right to marry enjoys its fundamental status due to the male-female na ture of the relationship and/or the attendant link to fostering procreation of our species.
.
.
.

The basis for the Supreme Court’s decision as to the interracial couples’ due process challenge was that “[m]arriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Skinner, 316 U.S. at 541, 62 S. Ct. at 1113, 86 L. Ed . 1655 (“Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”)) (emphasis added). As our peers on other courts have stated, “[w]hether the Court [in Skinner] viewed marriage and procreation as a single indivisible right, the least that can be said is that it was obviously contemplating unions between men and women when it ruled that the right to marry was fundamental. This is hardly surprising inasmuch as none of the United States sanctioned an y other marriage configuration at the time.” Baehr, 852 P.2d at 56; Standhardt, 77 P.3d at 458 (stating that “*mplicit in Loving and predecessor opinions is the notion that marriage, often linked to procreation, is a union forged between one man and one woman,” and concluding that, “while Loving expanded the traditional scope of the fundamental right to marry by granting interracial couples unrestricted access to the state-sanctioned marriage institution, that decision was anchored to the concept of marriage as a union involving persons of the oppo site sex.”); Dean, 653 A.2d at 332-33 (holding that the right to marriage is deemed fundamental becau se of its link to procreation).

Language of similar import appears throughout the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence establishing as fundamental the right to marry. The Court commented in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 19 0, 211, 8 S. Ct. 723, 729, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888), that “[marriage] is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”

In Zablocki, the Supreme Court reasoned that “*t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed in the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . . *t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decisio n to enter the relationship th at is the foundation of family in our
society.” 434 U.S. at 386, 98 S. Ct. at 681, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618 (upholding the fundamental right to marry for tho se in non-compliance with child support obligations). In the course of doing so, the Court explained in detail the genesis of the fundamental status accorded marriage:

Long ago, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S. Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888), the Court characterized marriage as “the most important relation in life,” [125 U.S. at 205, 8 S. Ct. at 726, 31 L. Ed. 654], and as “the foundation of the fam ily and of society, without which the re would be neither civilization nor pro gress,” [125 U.S. at 2 11, 8 S. Ct. at 72 9, 31 L. Ed. 654] . In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S . Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 104 2 (1923), the Court recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, [262 U.S. at 399, 43 S. Ct. at 626, 67 L. Ed. 1042], and in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra, … marriage was described as “fundamental to the very
existence and survival of the race,” [316 U .S. at 541, 62 S. Ct. at 1113, 86 L. Ed . 1655].

Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 384, 98 S . Ct. at 680, 54 L. Ed. 2d 6 18; see also Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44, 56 (Haw. 1993). In Boddie, 401 U.S. at 376, 381-82, 91 S. Ct. at 785, 788, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113, the Supreme Court declared that “marriage involves interests of basic importance in our society.” 401 U.S. at 376 , 91 S. Ct. at 785, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113 (citin g generally Skinner, Loving, and Meyer). In light of that fundamental nature of marriage, the Court invalidated a statute that authorized the State of Connecticut to deny access to the courts to indigent citizens seeking to obtain a divorce, so lely because they were unab le to pay the requisite court fees. Boddie, 401 U.S. at 381-82, 91 S. Ct. at 788, 28 L. Ed. 2d 113. Thus, virtually every Supreme Court case recognizing as fundamental the right to marry indicates as the basis for the conclusion the institution’s inextricable link to procreation, which necessarily and biologically involves participation (in ways either intimate or remote) by a man and a woman. Andersen, 138 P.3d at 978 (“Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link m arriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing.”).

(emphasis in bold added).

[gonzomax]

I suppose we should prevent seniors from marrying after their spouse dies. They have no intention of having kids. That would be so wrong. Perhaps 2 age limits. One at 18 the other at 40.

[Polycarp]

@gonzomax

I suppose we should prevent seniors from marrying after their spouse dies. They have no intention of having kids. That would be so wrong. Perhaps 2 age limits. One at 18 the other at 40.

Oh, and forcible dissolution of marriages at menopause, too. You forgot that.

[Bricker]

@Miller

I don’t think that it is. I’m not rebutting his arguments against gay marriage by calling him a homophobe, I’m disputing his assertion that he hasn’t said anything homophobic.

Very valid point. For that purpose, it’s not ad hominem. My bad.

[Bricker]

@gonzomax

I suppose we should prevent seniors from marrying after their spouse dies. They have no intention of having kids. That would be so wrong. Perhaps 2 age limits. One at 18 the other at 40.

Well, just for women. Men can obviously father children later in life.

Of course, comments like these go to the wisdom of the law. If you’re suggesting they go to the constitutionality of the law, then remember that the rational basis test does not ask whether the law at issue is the best way to implement the government goal, or if it’s narrowly tailored to implement the government goal. The test is if the law bears a rational relationship to the goal.

[Lightnin]

@raindog

You’ve been around a long while.

What makes you think that people read their own links? :dubious:

Strange, 'cause I saw where it quite clearly said:

In February 1966, the newly elected leaders of the Young Democrats of Washington State (State YD) were looking for a campaign issue that would attract Democratic voters to the polls in that year’s congressional, state legislative, and county elections.

Yes, the Republicans got on board as well, making it bipartisan… but the impetus started with the Dems.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@raindog

Why don’t we start all of our discussions by assuming you’re guilty until proven innocent because some fraction of the people who believe as you believe do so out of less than defensible positions?

Well, here’s your shining glorious chance to distinguish yourself by completing this sentence:

“My well-reasoned objection to gay marriage is…”

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

remember that the rational basis test does not ask whether the law at issue is the best way to implement the government goal, or if it’s narrowly tailored to implement the government goal. The test is if the law bears a rational relationship to the goal.

But first there has to BE a government goal.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Bricker

Well, just for women. Men can obviously father children later in life.

But men who want to marry after 40 ought to have to undergo some sort of means or social fitness test, to make sure that they really do intend to start a family and aren’t just looking for a ticket out of loser bachelorhood.

[raindog]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, here’s your shining glorious chance to distinguish yourself by completing this sentence:

“My well-reasoned objection to gay marriage is…”

I think you’re missing the point.

There are well-reasoned arguments on both sides of this issue. For those who are against SSM (and ftr, I have never taken that position) there are reasons----for many to be sure----that aren’t borne of an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” (the definition that dictionary.com uses for “homophobia”)

For those for SSM, the separation of Church/State is a compelling argument as well. (assuming that religious grounds make up the bulk of the anti-SSM argument)

But I think only a fool allows himself to be drawn into the “when did you stop beating your wife” as the starting point of the discussion.

So I’m not making an argument for either side, but pointing out that demonizing, or caricaturing your opponent as means of discussing this issue is either ignorant* or disingenuous.

(* From time to time we see a real live “homophobe”’ a small minded, abusive, ignorant, bigot. More often then not, however, we simply use the term to diminish someone we disagree with.)

[villa]

@raindog

I think you’re missing the point.

There are well-reasoned arguments on both sides of this issue. For those who are against SSM (and ftr, I have never taken that position) there are reasons----for many to be sure----that aren’t borne of an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” (the definition that dictionary.com uses for “homophobia”)

I think you’re missing the point. I haven’t seen a single argument against gay marriage that doesn’t reduce to an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality.”

The so-tolerant, not homophobic yorick73 has simply said it will degrade opposite sex marriage. But without any attempt at explaining why. I just don’t see how that can be reasoned, unless based upon an antipathy towards gays.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@raindog

For those for SSM, the separation of Church/State is a compelling argument as well. (assuming that religious grounds make up the bulk of the anti-SSM argument)

There is a separation between church and state on this.

The pro-SSM crowd is in no way demanding that a given church or mosque or whatever must perform a SSM. It is entirely up to an individual church/whatever to make their own decision on that. If a SS-couple’s church does not perform SSM they can work to change their church’s policy, find another church or go see a judge.

SSM is all about how the government treats SS-couples to make them on par with hetero-couples in a legal sense and all the benefits and responsibilities that entails. Period.

Religion has nothing to do with it.

Indeed it is the separation of church and state that argues most strongly for SSM and to not let religious dogma decide the issue.

[raindog]

@villa

I think you’re missing the point. I haven’t seen a single argument against gay marriage that doesn’t reduce to an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy towards homosexuals and homosexuality.”

The so-tolerant, not homophobic yorick73 has simply said it will degrade opposite sex marriage. But without any attempt at explaining why. I just don’t see how that can be reasoned, unless based upon an antipathy towards gays.

Actually, I do get the point.

You feel so strongly about this issue that you’re unable to see a differing view in anything but demonic terms.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@raindog

Actually, I do get the point.

You feel so strongly about this issue that you’re unable to see a differing view in anything but demonic terms.

I cannot speak for villa but I think the problem is people like you keep saying there are rational reasons to oppose SSM yet provide nothing in the way of actual reasonable arguments you assert exist to back this up.