Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

[Mr Skeptic]

I asked for a specific secular harm caused by homosexuals (or their marriage), since that has been the most recent argument against equal protections of our laws and the removal of discrimination in the privileges offered our citizens. Nobody has yet offered a relevant response with specific harms being caused, and I doubt that anyone will since (truth be told) there aren't any.

 

Truth be told ... you are blind to the answers because you have faith in your own personal truth. It occurs to me now that this is part of your "war on religion" that you have been waging in several threads. Amusingly, you act in all the same ways that you despise in religious people -- faith in your own beliefs in the face of opposing facts.

 

I think you are constantly reading into people's responses that they are in favor of a ban when they are simply disagreeing with your obviously untrue statements.

 

Nobody has answered with anything more substantial than "it makes some people feel yucky."

 

And that is something quite substantial -- we frequently ban things that make people feel yucky. It is hard to put a finger on aesthetic values, but they sometimes make themselves into law. Whether these and other reasons mentioned are sufficient to ban gay marriage is probably opinion. What is not opinion is that they are valid and secular reasons that gay marriage can cause harm.

 

Rather than looking at both sides of the argument and deciding which has a better case, you are trying to say that one side doesn't even exist. So you end up fighting with people who are in favor of same-sex marriage but just can't allow dishonesty to stand, in addition to the people who are against same-sex marriage.

[iNow]

Truth be told ... you are blind to the answers because you have faith in your own personal truth. It occurs to me now that this is part of your "war on religion" that you have been waging in several threads. Amusingly, you act in all the same ways that you despise in religious people -- faith in your own beliefs in the face of opposing facts.

 

I think you are constantly reading into people's responses that they are in favor of a ban when they are simply disagreeing with your obviously untrue statements.

 

 

 

And that is something quite substantial -- we frequently ban things that make people feel yucky. It is hard to put a finger on aesthetic values, but they sometimes make themselves into law. Whether these and other reasons mentioned are sufficient to ban gay marriage is probably opinion. What is not opinion is that they are valid and secular reasons that gay marriage can cause harm.

 

Rather than looking at both sides of the argument and deciding which has a better case, you are trying to say that one side doesn't even exist. So you end up fighting with people who are in favor of same-sex marriage but just can't allow dishonesty to stand, in addition to the people who are against same-sex marriage.

 

How about instead of throwing feces, you remind me what those arguments providing relevant secular reasons for the differential application of rights were, since I seemed to have missed them. Also, which of my statements have been untrue? There is a nice little quote feature here on SFN that will allow you to be precise with your substantiation.

 

Also, I'd like to remind you about my use of the descriptor "relevant" for these arguments, instead of the word "valid." If at all possible we should try to avoid another 4 pages of thead going toe to toe about validity versus relevance, something far too inane and specious to adequately address the root of the issue under discussion here.

[Sayonara]

Truth be told ... you are blind to the answers because you have faith in your own personal truth.

You already know this, but I'm going to point it out anyway. The above is not a very good counter-argument.

[Mr Skeptic]

You already know this, but I'm going to point it out anyway. The above is not a very good counter-argument.

 

I know. I was hoping it would be more effective than a good counter-argument, as I already tried with good counter-arguments and it very much didn't work out. The above is indicative of giving up, but I wanted to say why, and was hoping to save someone from going through the same stuff I already did.

 

---

iNow, if I do choose to again offer counter-arguments, is there any chance that you will ever admit that you are wrong? If not, why should I bother?

[iNow]

iNow, if I do choose to again offer counter-arguments, is there any chance that you will ever admit that you are wrong?

 

That would depend entirely on the relevance and effectiveness of your counter-arguments now, wouldn't it?

 

When I am proven wrong on an issue, I concede it quickly and openly, and have done so repeatedly since I joined this community.

 

 

I will await your counter-arguments, and if they are weak, you should expect them to be challenged.

[john5746]

However, to answer your question, I'd say sure. It doesn't effect me at all, and there won't be any mutant babies, so that takes the harm/injury to another party out of the equation. While it's not exactly a bright shining example of mental health, I see no relevant secular reason to prevent siblings from marrying if the chance of them copulating and producing offspring is taken off the table. Either way, though, this is about homosexual marriage, not incest, and there is no relevant secular purpose for restricting marriage rights which are allowed to heterosexual couples from applying equally to homosexual couples.

 

Well, I am not OK with incest even if it cannot result in children, so this example is somewhat relevent in opening my subjective lenses. I just don't think it is healthy for families to have sexual relations with one another, but that's just my biased opinion, I guess. So if some guy in Appalachia just has to have relations with his daughter or son, I guess they should be allowed to marry as long as he gets a vasectomy and they are of age? I don't think so.

 

In regards to comparing incest with homosexuality, it is just a matter of consistency, much as the topic of interracial marriage is brought up.

[iNow]

Again, though... It just makes you feel icky. That is neither a relevant nor secular reason to differentially apply rights and privileges which are afforded by the state to its citizens.

 

While I can see why some would be interested in the constitutionality of incestuous marriage, that is not what this thread is intended for, and it's equivocation to suggest that it's the same as homosexual marriage. If readers would like to have that discussion, it most certainly warrants its own thread, especially since there are so many unique instances and frameworks in incestuousness such as sibling/sibling, parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, nephew/aunt, niece/uncle, cousin/cousin, etc.

Edited December 1, 2008 by iNow

[john5746]

While I can see why some would be interested in the constitutionality of incestuous marriage, that is not what this thread is intended for, and it's equivocation to suggest that it's the same as homosexual marriage. If readers would like to have that discussion, it most certainly warrants its own thread, especially since there are so many unique instances and frameworks in incestuousness such as sibling/sibling, parent/child, grandparent/grandchild, nephew/aunt, niece/uncle, cousin/cousin, etc.

 

If you feel this way, you should not bring up interracial marriage, or any other examples.

[iNow]

If you feel this way, you should not bring up interracial marriage, or any other examples.

 

Okay, that's fair. The only relevant secular reasons for laws against incestuous marriage that I can conceive of are a) mutant babies and b) psychological trauma. It's plausible to mitigate against mutant babies via volutary sterilitiy, but the psychological trauma is much more difficult of an issue to avoid and protect against. Regardless, it's not at all my desire to argue in favor of incestuous marriage. I was simply answering a question posed to me qiuckly so we could keep the thread on track.

 

If you'll notice, Severian specifically referenced sibling marriage, which is why I answered in the affirmative. However, when you start discussing parent/child or uncle-aunt/niece-nephew pairings, the issue of psychological trauma becomes much more tantamount and presents a much greater potential for harm/injury to at least one of the involved parties.

 

Since psychological trauma is not an issue in homosexual marriage (unless it's perhaps a forced "shotgun" marriage, which I don't believe is being discussed here), I find the comparison moot.

 

That's just me, though. I've found a relevant secular reason for prohibiting incestuous marriage (in fact, I've found two, but proposed a way to mitigate the first). I have not found any such relevant secular reason for prohibing homosexual marriages, and I welcome examples.

[doG]

If you feel this way, you should not bring up interracial marriage, or any other examples.

 

False. Incest has genetic consequences. Interracial couples and other examples don't have the same problems.

[jackson33]

Well, I am not OK with incest even if it cannot result in children, so this example is somewhat relevent in opening my subjective lenses. I just don't think it is healthy for families to have sexual relations with one another, but that's just my biased opinion, I guess. So if some guy in Appalachia just has to have relations with his daughter or son, I guess they should be allowed to marry as long as he gets a vasectomy and they are of age? I don't think so.

 

In regards to comparing incest with homosexuality, it is just a matter of consistency, much as the topic of interracial marriage is brought up.

 

Incest is legal in 18 States, legal with restrictions in 7 others and illegal in the rest. Where illegal, its hard to believe any Court House Clerk, questions relationships in giving out licenses.

 

The point is, in that marriage they are then entitled to all the benefits of those 18 States, DC and the Federal Government and I would bet there is no application form in existence, for a benefit that ask relationships other than marriage. That is even where illegal, implied rights observed....and all rights of the Federal would be mandatory.

 

States 'currently' have the the final say in who is eligible or can be married or in fact who cannot, to the limits of Federal Law. Since US Law, does NOT forbid same sex marriage, implies 1/m-1/f for recognition of Federal Legal rights/benefits of any couple fitting the one/one formula, they afford all rights given by the States, but to that limit.

 

IMO; Both sides on this issue are taking an emotional path in expressing their opinions, disregarding the laws our social structure or laws are patterned for. This being any State can most certainly establish legality for any Union and to its certification. This then continues to follow with other States, who have the same right to deny specific rights of other States or to their own population. Technically with out popular vote or opinion, or at the discretion of their legal or legislature system. Prop 8, in California is NOT binding to legislative action or the Judicial and either could over ride that vote. In California, however, the people have a right to 'RECALL', State Officials including State Judges and have used that process to recall several Judges that actually did over road the 2000 referendum opposing this issue.

I do find it interesting such passion exist, to Gay Rights, when the only rights involved with any meaning are the social acceptance of the lifestyle itself, which is NOT denied.

 

False. Incest has genetic consequences. Interracial couples and other examples don't have the same problems.

 

 

Very true and any farmer or breeder of livestock would testify to just what all could happen. On races, there are differences in races to resistance or lack of to many medical problems and of course there is always AID's or the immune system 'said' caused by lifestyle. The trouble is predictability to future generations is fast becoming a reality; Are we going to terminate pregnancy in the future, because one of the thousands of traits do not fit some criteria for acceptance...

[iNow]

I do find it interesting such passion exist, to Gay Rights, when the only rights involved with any meaning are the social acceptance of the lifestyle itself, which is NOT denied.

Well, they are also denied marriage licenses and legal recognition of their union, a legal recognition which is afforded to heterosexual couples. I'm not sure if you missed the fact that this is what we have all been here discussing, but it negates your comments all the same.

 

 

IMO; Both sides on this issue are taking an emotional path in expressing their opinions, disregarding the laws our social structure or laws are patterned for.

I don't know if you've noticed this either, but every argument I've made has been precisely about laws and constitutionality.

[Severian]

False. Incest has genetic consequences.

 

Incest has no genetic consequences if one of the parties is sterilized.

 

I also don't see the problem with implicit bias in laws. We do that all the time. The example I gave earlier was public nudity, which is implictly biased against nudists.

[jackson33]

Well, they are also denied marriage licenses and legal recognition of their union, a legal recognition which is afforded to heterosexual couples. I'm not sure if you missed the fact that this is what we have all been here discussing, but it negates your comments all the same.

 

I don't know if you've noticed this either, but every argument I've made has been precisely about laws and constitutionality.

 

Actually, I have noticed your interpretation of law and then applying to an argument. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, gays hold all rights of Heterosexual Marriages today and no State can deny the lifestyle. I just went through 'Incest' laws and have mentioned 'Adoption Law' a couple times.

The inconsistence MENTIONED supports your arguments, but could equally support incest or polygamy or any number of lifestyle, including a couple you would never support in this country. Traditional (Fundamentalist) Islamic practices, for instance. Any forcing of lifestyle on others, for recognition or in law, where the dominate society rejects is at best a slippery slope and at worst the end of that society if not correctly persued..IMO.

[iNow]

Actually, I have noticed your interpretation of law and then applying to an argument. In Massachusetts and Connecticut, gays hold all rights of Heterosexual Marriages today,,,

 

Well then, this is irreconcilable and inconsistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, since other states won't recognize those unions presently being permitted in MA and CT. This was already covered in posts #4 and #5, this thread.

[Dak]

I also don't see the problem with implicit bias in laws. We do that all the time. The example I gave earlier was public nudity, which is implictly biased against nudists.

 

public gay sex is also dissallowed (as is public heterosexual sex)

 

minor acts of gay/straitness are allowed (kissing, holding hands, petting etc), but, then, its not as if you have to cover head-to-toe in public either.

 

so, slightly off comparison imo.

 

gayness, straitness, and nudism are allowed in the privacy of one's own home.

 

so... not really any bias as such?

[swansont]

Looking at the US Federal level here; I can't think of a single amendment that restricts the rights of only a subset of the population. (The original Constitution, of course, had such wording). Am I missing anything?

 

 

The one thing that surprises me about Prop 8 is realizing that you can amend the California constitution with a simple majority. Minorities can't really be secure in their rights if the majority can eliminate them on a whim.

[npts2020]

Looking at the US Federal level here; I can't think of a single amendment that restricts the rights of only a subset of the population. (The original Constitution, of course, had such wording). Am I missing anything?

 

 

The one thing that surprises me about Prop 8 is realizing that you can amend the California constitution with a simple majority. Minorities can't really be secure in their rights if the majority can eliminate them on a whim.

 

This is why it is going to court.

[doG]

The one thing that surprises me about Prop 8 is realizing that you can amend the California constitution with a simple majority. Minorities can't really be secure in their rights if the majority can eliminate them on a whim.

 

Why should that surprise you? It should be evident from reading this thread that there are plenty of people that could care less about any rights for a minority If only some of these people would realize that we're all members of one or more minorities....

[swansont]

Why should that surprise you? It should be evident from reading this thread that there are plenty of people that could care less about any rights for a minority If only some of these people would realize that we're all members of one or more minorities....

 

Because the founding fathers understood the issue of minority rights, but the concept apparently didn't make it in to the California constitution. Amending the constitution should be hard to do. The various opinions posted here only serve to underscore that.

[jackson33]

Well then, this is irreconcilable and inconsistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV, since other states won't recognize those unions presently being permitted in MA and CT. This was already covered in posts #4 and #5, this thread.

 

Since Article VI, is with in the Constitution, some will consider this meaning to US Laws as they developed. Others, and many do take your version but will say the motive was to enforcement of laws of States. That is if you commit a crime in one State, flee that State, then that State must apprehend and extradite that person on request. We have thousands of State Laws which counter other laws to degree of any other State, not only to rights but limit to rights.

 

Keep in mind on how the system works; Until 2003, sodomy laws existed in pockets throughout all States. This US SC 6-3 DECISION, made all law in all States with regards to sodomy illegal to enforce. Long before this, the potential for 'Same Sex Unions' was becoming an issue. The DOMA, you refer to was passed by Congress..Senate 85-14...House 342-67 and signed by then President Clinton in 1996. It clearly was intended for Federal Purpose and allowed States to make law to design law to their wishes. Hawaii had already done so and the rest have followed. At this point, MA. and CT. stand on legal grounds, as would California but no other State would be required to accept those unions, for purpose of legal or benefit rights, nor would the Federal.

[iNow]

Keep in mind on how the system works; Until 2003, sodomy laws existed in pockets throughout all States. This US SC 6-3 DECISION, made all law in all States with regards to sodomy illegal to enforce. Long before this, the potential for 'Same Sex Unions' was becoming an issue. The DOMA, you refer to was passed by Congress..Senate 85-14...House 342-67 and signed by then President Clinton in 1996. It clearly was intended for Federal Purpose and allowed States to make law to design law to their wishes.

 

 

 

Jackson - I think you may want to consider taking some ginko biloba or B12 vitamins or something. I already responded to you regarding DOMA in post #28.

 

 

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that you referenced could also be struck down by the Establishment Clause, which is why I mentionded

that.

 

There is no relevant secular reason for a law preventing homosexual unions from being equivalent to heterosexual unions in the United States, and no harm is being done to others, so such a law is not in place for reasons of protection or avoidance of harm to our citizens. With that said, the only remaining foundation for such a law is the invocation of morality. Since it is the invocation of morality, it has no place being viewed by due process, and is best analyzed under the Establishment Clause in the first amendment to our constitution.

 

 

 

Also, it doesn't matter how you or I interpret Article IV, what matters is how the SCOTUS interprets it, and the precendent set by them indicates that a marriage recognized in one state must also be recognized by others (much like a drivers license must be transportable in this manner), so essentially your post above is another moot point. Would you like to repeat at this time any other moot points which you've already shared in this thread and had debunked?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

line[/hr]

 

[The SCOTUS] dismissed the [baker v. Nelson] case "on the merits." This is:

 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/6005/Decision-on-Merits.html

An ultimate determination rendered by a court in an action that concludes the status of legal rights contested in a controversy and precludes a later lawsuit on the same CAUSE OF ACTION by the parties to the original lawsuit.

 

A decision on the merits is made by the application of SUBSTANTIVE LAW to the essential facts of the case, not solely upon technical or procedural grounds.

 

I'm struggling a bit, as it very much appears to me that they had their minds made up before the case was even tried. Like, "of course two people of the same gender cannot marry, that's what the rules say." That is, of course, my interpretation of the "substantive law" statement.

 

I'll need to keep chewing on this, but I think it's time to work on overturning Baker v. Nelson, as it was decided without trial 37 years ago, and should be revisited.

 

 

Overturning Baker v. Nelson is not out of the realm of possibility, as that is exactly what happened in similar cases such as Lawrence v. Texas when they overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, also in Loving v. Virginia when they overturned Pace v. Alabama, and Brown v. Board of Education when they overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

It turns out I was quite wrong above. The SCOTUS dismissed without review Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question."

Since the case was dismissed, there was no ruling, ergo there is no case to overturn.

 

This just gets curiouser and curiouser.

Edited December 5, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

Supporters of Proposition 8 counter that it merely amended the constitution by restoring a traditional definition of marriage.

 

iNow, you were wondering why I asked about "gay marriage" in the animal kingdom. This is why. The above is perhaps the best argument against gay marriage -- defining it as an oxymoron -- but if animals practice "gay marriage" then why not humans?

 

Found by iNow:

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

 

Let me paraphrase and anthropomophize. Geese and ducks practice "gay marriage" and the gay couples are given adoptive children to raise.

 

In fact, the above may be good enough to make it as an argument in the Supreme Court. I'll look up more of the details about ducks and geese later, but what do you folks think? Is the above good enough to make a dent in the Supreme Court case?

[swansont]

iNow, you were wondering why I asked about "gay marriage" in the animal kingdom. This is why. The above is perhaps the best argument against gay marriage -- defining it as an oxymoron -- but if animals practice "gay marriage" then why not humans?

 

Why not? The swath of the populace that insists that we're not animals. Who likely are pretty much the within the group who voted against gay marriage.

[ParanoiA]

But isn't gay marriage kind of like saying african american? Just because they're married doesn't mean they're gay and just because someone is black doesn't mean they're from Africa. It's not an accurate term.

 

And, if the word "marriage" doesn't deliniate same sex or opposite sex, then what word will then be generated to do that? There is a functional value for that distinction, but it seems if we insist on sharing the word "marriage" for some make believe notion of equality then we're just creating a reason to have to invent some more words.

 

And then when we come up with that word, will we be right back where we started? Insisting that same sex marriage also gets to use the opposite sex marriage label? And will the hetero marriage folks turn the tables and insist on sharing the same sex marriage label in some sort of lexicon revenge?

 

This just seems dumb, the more I think about it. Marriage should not be a basis of recognition for any right or privilege any more than declaring myself a Crip or Blood gang member.

 

I don't see how the state of california has any right to ban same sex couples from using the term "marriage" and performing some sort of exercise that society grants official reverence for such notion. I also don't see how they have any right to force any private citizen to have to recognize that couple as "married". Further, any government action or law that selects folks based on intimate unions for tax relief or etc, should have to scramble and deal with the fallout of such stupid ideas rather than forcing the citizenry to do it. It's not our fault that the government chose a shortsighted method of selection.

 

I just don't see how marriage qualifies as a concept able to be regulated by government. Anymore so than regulating the Crips' and Bloods' membership criteria.