Prop. 8 gay marriage ban goes to Supreme Court

[jackson33]

iNow; A noteworthy fact is that the SC, has heard many social issues many times previous to making change. Said another way, when the legal actions come from another direction. If I were you or an attorney for the ACLU, I would start approaching this issue, from current State Law for adoption of children. The ACLU, recently won a case in Florida, via an activist Judge, saying a Gay Man with a partner should be allowed to adopt children. This case will be appealed and no doubt lost at the State Supreme Court, since State Law specifically makes that an illegal decision. However if taken to the US SC, if they HEAR the case (feel likely) there is a great deal of National Precedence for Gay's to adopt and from all 50 States, including Florida. This particular Florida case these two men were awarded custody, in the first place.

 

Although I would argue different or oppose, on my belief in choice over genetics, maybe questioning how genes enter our systems when being imprisoned or the changes made during and after confinement or some other IMO obvious examples, there is a definite inconsistence in our laws. If in all 50 States gay/lesbian have in some manner legal rights to legally adopt, much less foster care children and in many cases with partners...How can they be denied additional rights of hetero sexual people, married or not and then the actual civil act of marriage. Its very likely the US SC, would have to through out all adoption law (not likely) or establish other rights were indeed being infringed. If the question is consistency in law, or that rights are already beyond the accepted, into the 'said' purpose of marriage, on what grounds could they end at a particular point. Under the US Constitution and current laws, individual rights dependent on State Rights, must be consistent with other State Law or the loss of some right by the courts, such as 'conviction of a crime'.

[Realitycheck]

The ACLU, recently won a case in Florida, via an activist Judge, saying a Gay Man with a partner should be allowed to adopt children. This case will be appealed and no doubt lost at the State Supreme Court, since State Law specifically makes that an illegal decision. However if taken to the US SC, if they HEAR the case (feel likely) there is a great deal of National Precedence for Gay's to adopt and from all 50 States, including Florida. This particular Florida case these two men were awarded custody, in the first place.

 

Why would any right-minded court decide to allow gay parents to impose their warped perspectives on an innocent, impressionable child? They would match up a gay child with gay parents, right? Anything other than that is unthinkable.

Edited November 28, 2008 by agentchange

[iNow]

Why would any right-minded court decide to allow gay parents to impose their warped perspectives on an innocent, impressionable child? They would match up a gay child with gay parents, right? Anything other than that is unthinkable.

 

What's unthinkable is your ignorance and bias. What is so warped about homosexuality? What is it that they would do to harm children? Why would the sexuality of the child even begin to be relevant?

 

How does your ignorant post have anything whatsoever to do with the constitutionality of equal protection to our citizens?

 

 

It's almost 2009, people. It's not 1009.

 

 

Never mind, agentchange. I know you'll just respond with another ignorant post, and that won't help me in my attempts to understand how the ruling in Baker v. Nelson warrants overturning. You can walk away from this thread unless you have something meaningful to share.

[jackson33]

First a child (infant to 5-8) has no understanding what gay means or above that today to understand its right/wrong. I personally don't feel its wrong, having any sexual fantasy or preference.

 

Second; Nurturing children, has been found beneficial to a common end, whether by a single parent, or any combination of a couple or in fact with in polygamy communities.

 

Third; Courts and Juries are to rule on the law and the laws are established in some manner by the society. As Bruce mentioned, precedence holds some weight and the awarding of custody by the STATE, four years earlier in the Florida case set that precedence to State Policy and was not objected to (that I know of).

 

Warped views in general are subjective. In the US, we have many traditional couples with probably truly warped views of their country, their government, their laws or what sex should or should not be. Think Fox News reported over 20 cases of 'Mercy Killings' in the US by a parent of a daughter or woman over some religious concept. I personally don't think any gay person would encourage his/her life style, but am sure none would kill their child if the child didn't accept theirs...opinion.

 

Finally; I'll be the first to argue acceptance of 'same sex marriage' but under the law.

Since the laws already accept adoption policies of all the States, I'll argue the acceptance of law with no less passion with regards to those adoptions, whether I agree or not....

[Realitycheck]

What's unthinkable is your ignorance and bias. What is so warped about homosexuality? What is it that they would do to harm children? Why would the sexuality of the child even begin to be relevant?

 

How does your ignorant post have anything whatsoever to do with the constitutionality of equal protection to our citizens?

 

 

It's almost 2009, people. It's not 1009.

 

 

Never mind, agentchange. I know you'll just respond with another ignorant post, and that won't help me in my attempts to understand how the ruling in Baker v. Nelson warrants overturning. You can walk away from this thread unless you have something meaningful to share.

 

Your incessant ignorance continues to make you blind. Just when will you begin to know the first thing about anything? Just what is your post-count going to do for you, you ignorant little ****? Huh? It seems all that you are ignorant is of the facts when it comes to homosexuality. Defending the rights of the few is all fine and good, but when you continue to be ignorant of what is affected and how it affects the morality and values of the majority, you continue to insist on being ignorant. Who cares if this particular morality and values is primarily espoused by the religious right, so what? I happen to find the idea of a man sticking his thing in another man absolutely disgusting. THOSE ARE MY VALUES, and that is supposed to be ignorant? HELLO! WE ARE THE MAJORITY AND WE DON'T WANT THEM AND THEIR VALUES AFFECTING US, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Now, do you understand you ignorant little ****, or do you want to continue starting **** with me by calling me ignorant when you have not considered 1 millionth of the facts?

[insane_alien]

agent, i also find the idea of sticking anything up anyones ass... distasteful but so what? just because you and i do not like the idea doesn't mean that nobody does.

 

and its not going to warp any morality. you seem to think that this act immediately turns someone into some kind of sicko. it is not the case.

 

your entire arguement stacks up to 'i don't like what they do so they should have no rights'.

 

grow up and show some maturity or gtfo.

[iNow]

Defending the rights of the few is all fine and good, but when you continue to be ignorant of what is affected and how it affects the morality and values of the majority, you continue to insist on being ignorant.

Funny. I always thought that the values of the majority were best represented by individual liberty and equal rights and protections for all citizens.

 

 

I happen to find the idea of a man sticking his thing in another man absolutely disgusting. THOSE ARE MY VALUES, and that is supposed to be ignorant? HELLO! WE ARE THE MAJORITY AND WE DON'T WANT THEM AND THEIR VALUES AFFECTING US, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Now, do you understand you ignorant little ****, or do you want to continue starting **** with me by calling me ignorant when you have not considered 1 millionth of the facts?

I think your post speaks for itself. I do not have to apply a label or description to you since it would not add anything to something which is already so plainly self-evident. I'd ask you what "facts" you think I'm missing or not considering, but I'm not optimistic that you have the ability to be objective in this.

 

I heard that it was really disgusting to let a black man stick "his thing" into a white woman, too. The people who said that were, in fact, rather ignorant. Same applies here. "Gays are yucky" is not a solid enough argument to change the principles of our constitution.

[Realitycheck]

First a child (infant to 5-8) has no understanding what gay means or above that today to understand its right/wrong. I personally don't feel its wrong, having any sexual fantasy or preference.

 

I am contemplating doing a thread on the rights of a child who rides to work every day in his mother's car seeing a billboard for a male personals site that says, "Be gay!" Of course, it's all the mother's fault on how it's handled, and since it's aaaaaalllllllllllllllllll genetic, there is no worries! Yeah right.

 

I am contemplating doing a thread on how homosexual parents adopting a straight child would handle these situations:

Any situation regarding a child's entry into sexuality,

Any situation regarding the nature of homosexuality,

Any situation regarding the child's relationship to his peers with respect to having gay parents (how cruel to put him in the position in the first place)

 

I would really love to do a thread on the supposed modernistic value of accepting homosexuality but the fact is that the more it gets out of the closet, the more it encroaches on our lifestyle, the louder that we get. Do the math. We are not in 1776 anymore. The Constitution does not mention homosexuality even once, as if it was even an issue.

 

And I would love to do more and more threads on such relevant issues regarding homosexuality and its relatively minor place in all of existence, but the fact is that I don't have time to place in such an endeavor and the fact that so many of you all here at scienceforums.net are so pro-homosexuality causes really makes it not worth the energy. Is it because it is so steeped in the religious right's development and platform that you are all so against it, or do you all honestly believe in free market politics? That if we do nothing, have no laws supporting the backbone of our morality, then everything will turn out just fine in accordance to our wishes? Or is everybody here just polar opposites, infidels.com and everything? I like to be fair and I don't like to embark on witchhunts, but like I said, I always call it like I see it and I don't see the majority letting up to the extent that scienceforums would like to. After all California is just one state and there is no guarantee how the election would have turned out had Obama not run.

 

Once again, I will try to control myself and just refrain from the subject entirely, sorry for ruffling any feathers, but like I keep saying, I call it like I see it.

 

and its not going to warp any morality. you seem to think that this act immediately turns someone into some kind of sicko. it is not the case.

 

You honestly believe that someone's sexual preference, even just sexual habits, has no effect on their morality, on their behavior, etc.?

Edited November 28, 2008 by agentchange
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

Agentchange, keep calling it how you see it. I practice tolerance, and that includes tolerating the intolerant.

 

What you're arguing is pro-democracy. You're basically saying that because the majority doesn't agree with the morality code of homosexuals that they should not have to tolerate their morality code - or at least, that the majority's opinion should matter enough to trump any law to their contrary.

 

One dynamic that iNow is arguing is that you're ignoring that we're essentially a democracy with limits. It doesn't matter that most of you, even if 99.9% of you, are against the morality code of homosexuals and therefore reject their right to adopt children and etc. Because there is a limit to the power of your democracy, you really can't use that as a good argument - valid sure, but not even close to sound reasoning.

 

What if the child is gay? How fair is it to force the child to endure heterosexual behavior and morals that directly contradicts his/her sexual orientation? Can a heterosexual couple deal with that child and help with his/her issues better, or even equal to, a homosexual couple? (Personally, I think it's fine but then I've never been one for raising children in "perfect" environments - I believe it's good to have issues, struggles and etc.)

 

I think the heart of your issue is homosexuality being tolerated as perfectly normal - equal to heterosexuality. If I'm reading you correctly, I suspect you resent the notion that there's nothing abnormal about it in the least and your frustration comes from that sentiment proliferating generation after generation.

 

You have to wonder though, if it were really so abnormal, then why hasn't it been "selected" into extinction? How do you know this isn't the evolutionary beginning of something extraordinary? We, as in humans, are pretty far out in comparison to the rest of the creatures on this earth - how can we be sure we're not the next evolutionary leap into a new age of procreation that is unimaginable now, but leads to sexual irrelevance?

 

It just seems you have a bit of that conservative "this is nonsense gone too far" attitude going on here, which I can understand, but if you're going to make that case then you'd better make strong argument to support it. Personal preference isn't an argument for the rest of us. It isn't an argument to trump the constitution and equal rights.

[Pangloss]

Yeesh, walk away from the keyboard for a day to eat some turkey and look what happens. Thread closed pending moderator review and the issuing of infractions. Will reopen.

 

--

 

Thread reopened.

Edited November 29, 2008 by Pangloss

[jackson33]

I would really love to do a thread on the supposed modernistic value of accepting homosexuality but the fact is that the more it gets out of the closet, the more it encroaches on our lifestyle, the louder that we get. Do the math. We are not in 1776 anymore. The Constitution does not mention homosexuality even once, as if it was even an issue..

 

Well agent, it was an issue in the 18th century. In those days it was 'sodomy' and remained the primary issue well into the 20th century. Washington, Jefferson and many of the founders address the issue and nothing being mentioned even tolerated by those folks. However the Constitution, not only delegated this topic under moral issues, but many issues as which are also not mentioned in the Constitution, to the States. They also very plainly spelled out a process for change, as they knew (all of them) society would change. Even then 'women rights' 'slavery' 'suffrage- who allowed' were argued very much as was until the laws changes by that outline for change.

 

'apologeticspress.org' article 3769, for a reading on founders thoughts, this issue. Jefferson in 1781, actually proposed a bill to his Virginia Congress to dismember (body part) for any person found guilty of sodomy, all 13 colonies had laws forbidding and punishment in NY, VT, Conn and SC was death.

 

I would argue today, we as a society are as much to blame for the rise in this activity as anything, by our use of prisons for punishments, which IMO creates more bisexual to homosexuals than any genetic cause. Did you know at year end 2006, there were over 7 million people (men/women/kids) in some form of confinement or on parole.

[doG]

The Constitution does not mention homosexuality even once, as if it was even an issue.

 

It's mentioned right there in the first three words, "We the people.....". Doesn't that mean all of us?

[Mr Skeptic]

HELLO! WE ARE THE MAJORITY AND WE DON'T WANT THEM AND THEIR VALUES AFFECTING US, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

 

On the other hand, it could easily be argued that the majority is actually in favor of homosexual rights but they just don't know it. Many times people hold values that are conflicting, which can lead to confusion. For example, the majority is strongly in favor of individual freedom and equality, but that conflicts with the idea of restricting the rights of gays. Most people wouldn't think of that, so they wouldn't see the contradiction. But once they do, they need to resolve which of these is more important to them. I'm guessing most people would decide that individual liberty is more important to them.

 

I'm guessing that you are an example of one of the people who hasn't considered that conflict, since you never gave an example of any particular reason to restrict their rights, other than that you don't like them. You might not like it, but how does someone else's homosexuality affect you, or other people, in a negative way?

[Severian]

how does someone else's homosexuality affect you, or other people, in a negative way?

 

That should not be used as an argument to promote (or even condone) homosexuality (not saying you are though). It is a bad argument. We are all members of the same society, and no matter whether you like it or not, whatever I do effects you and whatever you do effects me.

 

If you want to argue for tolerance of homosexuality you should do it from a standpoint of love, tolerance and human liberty.

[iNow]

I'm guessing that you [agentchange] are an example of one of the people who hasn't considered that conflict, since you never gave an example of any particular reason to restrict their rights, other than that you don't like them. You might not like it, but how does someone else's homosexuality affect you, or other people, in a negative way?

 

That should not be used as an argument to promote (or even condone) homosexuality (not saying you are though). It is a bad argument. We are all members of the same society, and no matter whether you like it or not, whatever I do effects you and whatever you do effects me.

 

Would it be possible for you to give us all a few secular examples of harm that homosexuality causes others? I can't think of a single one, and I'd welcome the insight brought by such a response.

[Severian]

Would it be possible for you to give us all a few secular examples of harm that homosexuality causes others? I can't think of a single one, and I'd welcome the insight brought by such a response.

 

Well, harm is a point of view. Acceptance of homosexuality obviously alters our society, and if you live in that society and think it is the worse for it, then it is harm.

[iNow]

Well, harm is a point of view. Acceptance of homosexuality obviously alters our society, and if you live in that society and think it is the worse for it, then it is harm.

 

I'm going to take that to mean that you, too, are unable to cite a single secular harm caused to others by homosexuality. Feel free to correct my impression with actual examples if I am somehow mistaken.

 

Also, "society will be worse off" is a faulty argument since homosexuals are a part of said society.

 

 

Either way, I just want someone to put some specific details around this supposed harm that homosexuality causes, and I've asked that it be limited to the arena of the secular.

 

 

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/harm

INJURY. A wrong or tort. Injuries are divided into public and private; and they affect the. person, personal property, or real property.

3.-1. They affect the person absolutely or relatively. The absolute injuries are, threats and menaces, assaults, batteries, wounding, mayhems; injuries to health, by nuisances or medical malpractices. Those affecting reputation are, verbal slander, libels, and malicious prosecutions; and those affecting personal liberty are, false imprisonment and malicious prosecutions. The relative injuries are those which affect the rights of a husband; these are, abduction of the wife, or harboring her, adultery and battery those which affect the rights of a parent, as, abduction, seduction, or battery of a child; and of a master, seduction, harboring and battery of his apprentice or servant. Those which conflict with the rights of the inferior relation, namely, the wife, child, apprentice, or servant, are, withholding conjugal rights, maintenance, wages, &c.

4.-2. Injuries to personal property, are, the unlawful taking and detention thereof from the owner; and other injuries are, some damage affecting the same while in the claimant's possession, or that of a third person, or injuries to his reversionary interests.

5.-3. Injuries to real property are, ousters, trespasses nuisances, waste, subtraction of rent, disturbance of right of way, and the like.

6. Injuries arise in three ways. 1. By nonfeasance, or the not doing what was a legal obligation, or. duty, or contract, to perform. 2. Misfeasance, or the performance, in an improper manner, of an act which it was either the party's duty, or his contract, to perform. 3. Malfeasance, or the unjust performance of some act which the party had no right, or which he had contracted not to do.

7. The remedies are different, as the injury affects private individuals, or the public. 1. When the injuries affect a private right and a private individual, although often also affecting the public, there are three descriptions of remedies: 1st. The preventive, such as defence, resistance, recaption, abatement of nuisance, surety of the peace, injunction, &c. 2d. Remedies for compensation, which may be by arbitration, suit, action, or summary proceedings before a justice of the peace. 3d. Proceedings for punishment, as by indictment, or summary Proceedings before a justice. 2. When the injury is such as to affect the public, it becomes a crime, misdemeanor, or offence, and the party may be punished by indictment or summary conviction, for the public injury; and by civil action at the suit of the party, for the private wrong. But in cases of felony, the remedy by action for the private injury is generally suspended until the party particularly injured has fulfilled his duty to the public by prosecuting the offender for the public crime; and in cases of homicide the remedy is merged in the felony. 1 Chit. Pr. 10; Ayl. Pand. 592. See 1 Miles' Rep. 316, 17; and article Civil Remedy.

8. There are many injuries for which the law affords no remedy. In general, it interferes only when there has been a visible bodily injury inflicted by force or poison, while it leaves almost totally unprotected the whole class of the most malignant mental injuries and sufferings unless in a few cases, where, by descending to a fiction, it sordidly supposes some pecuniary loss, and sometimes, under a mask, and contrary to its own legal principles, affords compensation to wounded feelings. A parent, for example, cannot sue, in that character, for an injury inflicted on his child and when his own domestic happiness has been destroyed, unless the fact will sustain the allegation that the daughter was the servant of her father, and that, by, reason of such seduction, he lost the benefit of her services. Another instance may be mentioned: A party cannot recover damages for verbal slander in many cases; as, when the facts published are true, for the defendant would justify and the party injured must fail. A case of this kind, remarkably bard, occurred in England. A young nobleman had seduced a young woman, who, after living with him some time, became sensible of the impropriety of her conduct. She left him secretly, and removed to an obscure place in the kingdom, where she obtained a situation, and became highly respected in consequence of her good conduct she was even promoted to a better and more public employment when she was unfortunately discovered by her seducer. He made proposals to her to renew their illicit intercourse, which were rejected; in order to, force her to accept them, he published the history of her early life, and she was discharged from her employment, and lost the good opinion of those on whom she depended for her livelihood. For this outrage the culprit could not be made answerable, civilly or criminally. Nor will the law punish criminally the author of verbal slander, imputing even the most infamous crimes, unless done with intent to extort a chattel, money, or valuable thing. The law presumes, perhaps unnaturally enough, that a man is incapable of being alarmed or affected by such injuries to his feelings. Vide 1 Chit. Med. Jur. 320. See, generally, Bouv. Inst. Index, h. t.

 

INJURY, civil law, In the technical sense of the term it is a delict committed in contempt, or outrage of any one, whereby his body, his dignity, or his reputation, is. maliciously injured. Voet, Com. ad Pand. lib. 47, t. 10, n. 1.

2. Injuries may be divided into two classes, With reference to the means used by the wrong doer, namely, by words and by acts. The first are called verbal injuries, the latter real.

3. A verbal injury, when directed against a private person, consists in the uttering contumelious words, which tend to expose his character, by making him little or ridiculous. Where the offensive words are uttered in the beat of a dispute, and spoken to the person's face, the law does not presume any malicious intention in the utterer, whose resentment generally subsides with his passion;, and yet, even in that case, the truth of the injurious words seldom absolves entirely from punishment. Where the injurious expressions have a tendency to blacken one's moral character, or fix some particular guilt upon him, and are deliberately repeated in different companies, or banded about in whispers to confidants, it then grows up to the crime of slander, agreeably to the distinction of the Roman law, 1. 15, Sec. 12, de injur.

4. A reat injury is inflicted by any fact by which a person's honor or dignity is affected; as striking one with a cane, or even aiming a blow without striking; spitting in one's face; assuming a coat of arms, or any other mark of distinction proper to another, &c. The composing and publish in defamatory libels maybe reckoned of this kind. Ersk. Pr. L. Scot. 4, 4, 45.

Edited November 30, 2008 by iNow

[Severian]

I am not interested in the legal definition of harm, since it has nothing to do with this discussion (it is a straw man).

 

Look at it this way. Legalizing gay marriage changes society. Now either you think that change is a good thing or you think it is a bad thing. If you think it is a bad thing then society (the world you live it) has been "harmed". This is so self evident that we shouldn't even be discussing it. The only question is, should the "harm" of a bigoted intolerant individual be preferred over the "harm" of a gay couple?

[iNow]

I am not interested in the legal definition of harm, since it has nothing to do with this discussion (it is a straw man).

Excuse me? This thread is entirely about the constitutionality of homosexual marriage. You're trying to tell us all that "legal definitions" have no place?

 

I disagree. The Establishment Clause of the first amendment states that laws must have a valid secular reason for existing, such as preventing harm to others... injury as defined by one of the bullets in my previous post.

 

There is no strawman here, as I was not misrepresenting your position, then arguing instead against that weaker misrepresentation, then claiming some sort of victory. That's not what I did.

 

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.

 

 

Look at it this way. Legalizing gay marriage changes society. Now either you think that change is a good thing or you think it is a bad thing. If you think it is a bad thing then society (the world you live it) has been "harmed".

Yes, I completely follow your argument. Society gets changed, people perceive said change as beneficial or harmful. I'm not missing what you're saying. However, you are missing what I'm saying.

 

In order for a law to be made, it must be to protect others from specific harms or injuries, or have an alternative secular purpose. The fact that somebody perceives societal change in a negative way hardly addresses this criterion.

 

Again, this thread is explicitly about law and constitutionality, so this discussion is entirely relevant. Murder is illegal because it harms others. Rape is illegal becaue it harms others. Stealing is illegal because it harms others. Why is homosexual marriage illegal?

 

 

The only question is, should the "harm" of a bigoted intolerant individual be preferred over the "harm" of a gay couple?

I think you and I agree mostly, and may be getting caught up in semantics (however, I do think there is a lot of merit in my being pedantic on these points). However, with that said, the bigoted intolerant individual has not been stripped of any rights that the homosexual couple has been afforded/allowed. That's the difference which makes the comparison invalid. One is about perception, the other is about rights and privileges offered to the majority, but restricted to the minority for no relevant secular reason.

 

Hence, I keep asking, what secular harm is being prevented by keeping homosexual marriage illegal? What relevant purpose does this restriction of rights based on sexuality serve? Nobody has answered with anything more substantial than "it makes some people feel yucky."

Edited November 30, 2008 by iNow

[Severian]

What relevant purpose does this restriction of rights based on sexuality serve? Nobody has answered with anything more substantial than "it makes some people feel yucky."

 

I don't see how that is any different to many illegal acts, such as public nudity. How does public nudity cause harm? Or for that matter, incest. Why can't a man marry his sister? (The argument that the union may create a child with genetic disorders is invalid since a yet-to-be-conceived child has no rights.) Or polygamy?

 

I also don't think marriage is a right at all. How I consider your relationship is my business, not yours. Consequently, I consider it a violation for the state to recognize any relationship on my behalf. (That of course includes heterosexual marriage too though.)

[Pangloss]

It does seem to be difficult to find a reasonable, objectively logical argument in favor of injury in same-sex marriage. The Wikipedia article on the subject lists the following arguments:

 

- Opens the door to polygamy (slippery slope)

- Erosion of religious freedoms (why are they protected by law anyway?)

- Depriving children of important male/female developmental influence

 

The last point, of course, assumes that a child is present in the family, which is obviously not always the case and actually seems to step over into a different (adoption) argument. But obviously the two go hand in hand, so why don't we work on that last point a bit, since we've pretty much covered the first two previously?

 

Incidentally, that was a big story here in Florida this past week, with a judge ruling that a gay couple that had been fostering two boys from an extremely at-risk background could adopt them, calling the state's ban on such adoptions unconstitutional. It will go to the state supreme court next.

[doG]

But obviously the two go hand in hand, so why don't we work on that last point a bit, since we've pretty much covered the first two previously?

 

Why should that last point be pertinent to ALL gay marriages? Prop. 8 was about blocking all gay marriage, not just the ones that might involve children.

 

BTW, aren't children that only have one parent also deprived of the same male/female developmental influence? Should they be removed from such homes?

[iNow]

I don't see how that is any different to many illegal acts, such as public nudity. How does public nudity cause harm?

 

This is yet another invalid comparison, unless you can show me that the majority of members in society are being allowed public nudity and the minority is not.

 

Also, incest does cause harm/injury to third parties, namely, the offspring. Whlie an unborn may not yet be afforded rights (at least not in the same way that a fully developed adult human is), there is in this case demostrable secular harm. So again a failed comparison.

 

 

I also don't think marriage is a right at all.

 

 

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. They stated explicitly:

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

...also:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

See:

• Skinner v. Oklahoma
  
• Maynard v. Hill
  
• Loving v. Virginia

...among others.

 

 

How I consider your relationship is my business, not yours. Consequently, I consider it a violation for the state to recognize any relationship on my behalf. (That of course includes heterosexual marriage too though.)

But the state is not recognizing it on YOUR behalf, they are recognizing it on behalf of the state, and THAT is the point. You are free to be as biased or egalitarian as you wish, but the state, and the laws of the state are not allowed that same choice. Rights afforded to the people by the state must apply equally to all citizens, unless the differential application of these laws can be shown to mitigate against some harm or injury to others, or unless their differential application has some demonstrable and relevant secular purpose.

 

Here, states are recognizing some marriages as legal, but not others, for no relevant secular purpose. You are free to regard same sex or opposite sex unions in any way you want, but the state must offer rights to its citizens without discrimination, and when disallowing members of its populace rights and privileges which others enjoy it must have a relevant secular reason for doing so.

Edited December 1, 2008 by iNow

[Severian]

This is yet another invalid comparison, unless you can show me that the majority of members in society are being allowed public nudity and the minority is not.

 

It is directly analogous to same sex marriages. Notice that there is no ban on gay marriages - just same sex marriages. The entire population is being denied the right to have a same sex marriage, not just gay people. Two straight men can't get married either.

 

In fact, you are being implicitly prejudiced in your viewpoint, because you are assuming that same sex marriages would only be taken up by homosexuals.

 

Also, incest does cause harm/injury to third parties, namely, the offspring. Whlie an unborn may not yet be afforded rights (at least not in the same way that a fully developed adult human is), there is in this case demostrable secular harm. So again a failed comparison.

 

So would you be OK with brother-sister marriages if they opted for voluntary sterilization first?

 

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees. They stated explicitly:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man,"

 

Well, I am not American (and I realise this is a discussion about US law), so maybe my opinion doesn't count, but, in my opinion, that is just bullshit. Marriage is a completely artificial societal construct. Fair enough to enshire the right of association and possibly long term monogamous relationships, but marriage and all its associated cultural baggage is going too far.

[iNow]

It is directly analogous to same sex marriages. Notice that there is no ban on gay marriages - just same sex marriages. The entire population is being denied the right to have a same sex marriage, not just gay people. Two straight men can't get married either.

As explicitly stated in the OP, this argument is not about biased application of the law, it is about whether the law itself is implicitly biased. These are two very different things, and I've made abundantly clear all along which argument was being made.

 

Discussion about application of the law is completely moot if the law itself is implicitly discriminatory and/or irreconcilable with our federal constitution, its articles, amendments, and its clauses.

 

 

In fact, you are being implicitly prejudiced in your viewpoint, because you are assuming that same sex marriages would only be taken up by homosexuals.

I have assumed no such thing. I only state that, as a matter of rights and privileges granted to the populace by the state, that differential application and allowance of these rights based only upon sexuality has no relevant secular purpose. I have also repeatedly welcomed relevant examples to the contrary, and none have been provided.

 

Within the first amendment, in the Establishment Clause, it explicitly states that laws respecting or recognizing one religion over another, or giving preference to the views of a certain religion, are prohibited. In addition to this, the Establishment Clause (as well as the subsequent interpretations of it) makes clear that all laws must have a valid and relevant secular purpose for existing, or otherwise are unconstitutional (purposes such as protecting others from harm or injury).

 

Again, there is no relevant secular reason why two people of the same gender should not be allowed the same rights and privileges that two people of opposite gender are allowed, whether they are gay, straight, bisexual, suffering from XYY (Klinefelters) or XO (Turner) syndrome, are infertile, hyperfertile, or otherwise.

 

Marriage, a basic civil right as defined by the Supreme Court of the United states, is being offered as a right by the state, and recognized as legal to some segment of the populace. If they wish to prevent this right from applying, and legal recognition from being allowed, to all citizens equally, then they must demonstrate a relevant secular reason for this differential and discriminatory behavior, as expressly indicated in the Establishment Clause in the first amendment, and reinforced by the Equal Protections Clause in the fourteenth amendment.

 

 

So would you be OK with brother-sister marriages if they opted for voluntary sterilization first?

The discussion here is about homosexual marriage, not incest. I find it curious and disheartening that you would make this huge mental leap and equivocate the two.

 

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.

 

This is not an appeal to incredulity (I see no relevant secular purpose) as I've welcomed examples to the contrary and have not received any (any of those thus far offered have been, in terms of the law and our constitution, wholly irrelevant).

 

 

Well, I am not American (and I realise this is a discussion about US law), so maybe my opinion doesn't count, but, in my opinion, that is just bullshit. Marriage is a completely artificial societal construct. Fair enough to enshire the right of association and possibly long term monogamous relationships, but marriage and all its associated cultural baggage is going too far.

 

And you and I may be able to find alignment here on this part. Many of the participants at this site do, in fact, agree that the interconnectedness of marriage and state rights has gotten far too messy.

 

However, the issue is that marriage IS currently a basic civil right in the United States being offered to heterosexuals (the majority), and it is being restricted from homosexuals (the minority) for no relevant secular purpose.

 

If the decision is made to restrict it, then it must be restricted for everyone. If the decision is made to recognize it legally and allow it, then it must take the religiously motivated discrimination based on sexuality alone out of it. This is an extreme oversimplification, of course, but I feel summarizes the basic issues at play here.