Should liars, murderers, adulterers etc....be allowed to marry?

dixon76710 said:
Because we dont know which couples will have children. We do know that all who do will exclusively be heterosexual couples. As well, the majority of pregnancies are unplanned. Occuring among heterosexual couples who had no intention of procreating. Their marriages prior to procreation help increase the liklihood that the children will have the benefit of both their mother and father in the home to provide and care for them.
Click to expand...

A post-menopausal women is definitely not going to have to children. If you were to bet on that, it is a bet you would win every time, my friend. So, should post-menopausal women be allowed to marry, or re-marry?
 
Watermark said:
Ridiculous. The anti gay marriage position is legally bankrupt. .
Click to expand...

There is no anti gay narriage position in any of the Constitutional amendments or state statutes. Marriage isnt limited to couples of the opposite sex because they arent gay. It is so limited because they have the potential of procreation. Its a pro procreation view.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
 
Watermark said:
A post-menopausal women is definitely not going to have to children. If you were to bet on that, it is a bet you would win every time, my friend. So, should post-menopausal women be allowed to marry, or re-marry?
Click to expand...

Yes. Encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry increases the liklihood that those who do procreate, will be married when they do.
 
dixon76710 said:
Yes. Encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry increases the liklihood that those who do procreate, will be married when they do.
Click to expand...

seriously? what does one couple's marriage have to do with convincing another couple to procreate? that doesn't even make sense.
 
Watermark said:
A legitimate government interest is only required when a justified government interest seems to conflict in some way with an unlimited interpretation of a right, i.e. when rights come into conflict with other rights or some deeper issue of justice. If the status quo were equal because, as you said, all men are free to marry any woman they want, and vice versa, then a "legitimate government interest" is superfluous. When something isn't protected by a right, the government is free to act, within its power. As Thurgood Marshall once said, 'The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.' However, if that were the case, then racial miscegenation laws, which are able to use the same logic, don't need a "legitimate government interest" either, as they are not conflicting with the principle of equality, since, as a gay man is free to marry any woman he wants, a black man was also free to marry any black woman he wanted.

Are you attempting to back off of your earlier statements, to move the goalposts, and are now claiming that even though the situation isn't equality, and was not equality in the case of racial miscegenation laws either, a ban on gay marriage is still justified because there is a "legitimate government interest" here where there isn't in the case of racist marriage laws? After all, I suppose, sex-segregated bathrooms are one violation of equality that is nevertheless supported by a legitimate government interest. So is, for instance, the draft.

Or are you going to stop sidestepping my rebuttal of your argument by making a second argument that would be superfluous if the first one were true, and enlighten me as to how the first argument, as used in the justification of a ban on gay marriage, is significantly different in form from the argument used in justification of racial miscegenation laws? Or are you simply confused, and throwing out any random argument you can find with little comprehension of how they fit together?

If you really think about your argument, that everyone has equal rights because gays have just as much of a right under the law to marry women as any other man is, it's really nothing more than a claim that there is a law, and it applies to everyone, thusly making it "equal". You could really use this logic to justify just about anything. You may as well say that there's nothing unequal about a law that, for instance, made it legal to shoot any gay you saw, because, after all, gays have just as much of a right to shoot gays as anyone else does. Obviously, this is not equality in any meaningful sense. Women are given the right to marry men, but men do not have a similar right to marry men. The two are obviously not being treated equally. The existence of a vice versa when it comes to men marrying women does not suddenly produce a state of equal treatment. It's also important this argument is not the one used to justify the lack of equality by actual gay marriage opponents, as it's obviously garbage for the reasons I have explained. It's little more than an equivocation that gets far more credit that it deserves in popular arguments simply because most people are stupid, and confuse equivocation with cleverness. Now, this is not to say that everyone necessarily has to be treated exactly equally in all cases, but I will explain that further below.

Now that I've expressed my discontent on that issue, I will, for the sake of it, address your second argument (which, again, is relevant if gays aren't being treated equally, and irrelevant if they are). Your argument seems to be an application of the rationality test, which is the default test used in regards to issues of equal protection and due process. The rationality test essentially holds that there is a "legitimate government interest" when the view in question is rational. "Rational" here being used in a medical sense, i.e. not insane. Obviously, almost anything is considered a "legitimate government interest" under this test.

It may seem bizarre that there is such a broad test applied in regards to the 14th, as other rights, such as free speech, are typically judged much more strictly, but there are good reasons for it. An overly broad interpretation would oftentimes simply defy common sense (for instance, sex-selective bathrooms would be prohibited), and the due process clause as well can be abused by the judiciary to involve itself heavily in the legislative process. This was most infamously demonstrated in the case of the lochner era court of the 1900's-1930's, where a set of social darwinist judges seemingly made up a "right to contract" out of thin air and applied it zealously, striking down pretty much any law (federal or state) that sought to protect the safety and well-being of workers because it "violated" the "right" of workers to work for less than minimum wage, in unsafe conditions, etc..., as well as the "right" of children to work. Naturally, corporations were cartel-like in requiring workers to sign such contracts as a condition of employment, so workers had little choice in the matter. But that doesn't matter in the social darwinist worldview. And that was the rational viewpoint that these judges held, a rational viewpoint that they decided to substitute for the equally rational viewpoint of the legislature had in ensuring decent working standards. This era of jurisprudence is so widely looked down upon that a verb, to "lochnerize", has been created and come into usage as a synonym for "judicial activism".

If you applied the rationality test to racial miscegenation laws, they would easily pass muster, because the laws were supported by a large amount of people who were not, in fact, insane, and utilized logic that was perfectly acceptable to them. However, in regards to certain groups, "suspect classifications" that are especially susceptible to discrimination, a different level of scrutiny is used, strict scrutiny. Under this level of scrutiny, virtually nothing is considered a "legitimate government interest" when applied unequally to these groups. Race was first considered to be such a class, and later, religion and national origin were added. This was the logic under which racial miscegenation laws were first struck down. There are also quasi-suspect classes which are somewhat susceptible to discrimination, and an intermediate scrutiny is applied to them, under which the courts more carefully balance the state interest with the susceptibility of the class to discrimination. Currently, issues of gender and the marital status of ones parents at birth are considered with this level of scrutiny. However, I imagine that homosexuality is likely to be added in the near future, as a federal trials court in North Carolina recently held that it is part of this class, and the case will likely make its way to the supreme court.

So, on that basis alone, your arguments must be taken with a grain of salt. You cannot merely state that there is an "interest" and expect it to stand under this level of scrutiny. I don't think I'm insane in stating that, when it comes to gay marriage, a significant amount of opposition is merely due to bigotry, and the non-bigoted sounding arguments against it are often quite flimsy and desperate. Am I really to believe that gays shouldn't be afforded at least an intermediate scrutiny when the laws against gay marriage would typically be soundly defeated without the support of bigots? Should a massed swath of bigotry be allowed to dictate away the rights of minorities by picking out a veil of (claimed) non-bigots to represent them in the courts, who make bizarre and desperate arguments in the courtroom that do not at all resemble those used in the popular campaigns against gay marriage (arguments which are largely legally meaningless)? The government cannot merely claim that gays are bad parents and call it a day, as under rational basis review, it has to at least provide some good evidence. And such evidence is largely not to be found. The government interest in "furthering procreation" is also suspect. It would perhaps carry more weight if there were any other attempts to limit marriage to those who can reproduce, or more heavily subsidize procreation on the part of the couple. However, such measures are curiously lacking. It is incredibly convenient, is it not, that the only time this excuse, er, I mean, "interest", seems to come into play is in regards to gay attempts to limit gays to marry. I also seriously fail to see how it does further procreation, since unmarried gays don't procreate at any greater a rate than married ones.

It's also important to note that there are certain rights that stem from the due process clause which are considered fundamental, and issues involving these fundamental rights are also judged using strict scrutiny. Amongst these fundamental rights is the right to privacy, which includes within itself a set of rights, one of which, the courts have decided, is the right to marriage. Could you please enlighten how denying a man the right to marry a man whom he happens to be in love with does not violate this right to marriage? Especially when others (namely, women) are given that right, to the exclusion of him? And, obviously, vice versa for women who marry women. You really can't bring the typical argument of maritial anarchism, that the next step is to allow people to marry animals or somesuch, into this. As you gleefully point out, these people are those who have already been judged ready for a marriage of some sort. You would not be expanding the pool of those who can marry one bit. You would simply be granting men the right that women now claim exclusively, and unequally, the right to marry men, and granting women a right that men currently claim exclusively, the right to marry women.

Anyway, there are clearly two very strong attacks on gay marriage bans, one from intermediate scrutiny, and the other from strict scrutiny. This is obviously a very strong position. Yes, previous challenges have failed, but that was only because the position was kind of shockingly new just a couple of decades ago. But society has readjusted surprisingly quick. Gay marriage has gained an incredible amount of grount, going from a position almost no one held to a position the majority hold. As time goes on, it simply seems increasingly obvious. I imagine the reasoning that judges used previously was heavily influenced by the amount of political and social pressure put on them to rule the way they did, so they had to construct some rather convulted logic to rebut it (judges aren't typically elected, sure, but public pressure does have an effect on their position). Now that the pressure has been lifted, and even started going in the reverse direction, I imagine that there will be little time until the judges choose to make the correction.
Click to expand...

holy shite

lol

i didn't read it...but so far so good. i can't believe you wrote all that. awesome.
 
dixon76710 said:
I believe California was the only state that did that. All the others did it so judges wouldnt change the definition to their liking. Most states that did it, probably didnt even need to. Some judges still carry out their duty to uphold the law and avoid re writing the law to their personal preferences.
Click to expand...

it wasn't just CA. funny how your next sentence states that there were in fact other states to do so. do you realize what you're saying?

your issue is: well, they can't change the definition. yet...you support the change to specifically exclude same sex partners. you can't have it both ways.
 
Watermark said:
Oh, that is the reason, now? Who made you dictator for today? There are a lot of people who have different views on marriage. It means a lot of things. You do not get to decide this.
Click to expand...

Its historical fact, not something I made up. From BC Roman law

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her"

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
pater semper incertus est“ ("The father is always uncertain").
pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant“ ("father is to whom marriage points")

Just as it is today.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;
 
Yurt said:
it wasn't just CA. funny how your next sentence states that there were in fact other states to do so. do you realize what you're saying?
Click to expand...

Not saying that at all. YOU SAID they "had to change their constitution to exclude same sex marriage", "HAD" being the determinative word. There are states that have no such constitutional amendments, and yet still, same sex marriages are excluded. The states didnt have to enact any such amendment because use of the word "marriage" in the statute was all that was necessary to exclude same sex couples. California is the only state that had same sex marriage and they "had to change their constitution to exclude same sex marriage". Had they not done so, California would have gay marriage today, they do not. We have a constitutional amendment in Texas. We didnt have to do it to exclude same sex marriage. Our marriage statutes have done that quite nicely since the creation of the state of Texas

Yurt said:
your issue is: well, they can't change the definition. yet...you support the change to specifically exclude same sex partners. you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Nope, the word marriage is all that is neccessary to exclude same sex marriage until judges come along and try to change the definition by judicial fiat
 
dixon76710 said:
Two completely different issues. Why individuals choose to marry and why government licenses and regulates marriage.
Click to expand...

It helps when you are specific. When you write, "Those are effects of marriage, not the reasons for them" it's logical to conclude the people getting married decide on the reason or reasons. In any case it exemplifies why anything less than calling a "partnership" a marriage can and would pose problems. There will always be people trying to sneak in some benefit for marriage or trying to remove a benefit from "partnerships".
 
Watermark said:
A legitimate government interest is only required when a justified government interest seems to conflict in some way with an unlimited interpretation of a right, i.e. when rights come into conflict with other rights or some deeper issue of justice.
Click to expand...

You dont have a clue. ANY AND ALL discrimination, must at a minimum serve a legitimate governmental interest.

Under the rational basis test, the courts will uphold a law if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rational_basis_test
Click to expand...
 
dixon76710 said:
Not saying that at all. YOU SAID they "had to change their constitution to exclude same sex marriage", "HAD" being the determinative word. There are states that have no such constitutional amendments, and yet still, same sex marriages are excluded. The states didnt have to enact any such amendment because use of the word "marriage" in the statute was all that was necessary to exclude same sex couples. California is the only state that had same sex marriage and they "had to change their constitution to exclude same sex marriage". Had they not done so, California would have gay marriage today, they do not. We have a constitutional amendment in Texas. We didnt have to do it to exclude same sex marriage. Our marriage statutes have done that quite nicely since the creation of the state of Texas



Nope, the word marriage is all that is neccessary to exclude same sex marriage until judges come along and try to change the definition by judicial fiat
Click to expand...

sorry bud. judges are charged with INTERPRETING the constitution. if they interpret the constitution or law to not exclude gays, then guess what, that is their job. not yours.

further, you ignore states like CO that amended their constitution to specifically exclude gays from marriage. and why did texas have to change the definition? oh yeah....because gays were not exclude prior to that.

all your whining about it will be for naught, because scotus will rule that states cannot exclude homosexuals from marriage.

CA said it best:

The majority opinion in February's 2-1 decision by the 9th Circuit held that California's Prop 8 ban did not further the goal of "responsible procreation," which was at the heart of the argument made by supporters of the measure.

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," the court ruled.
 
Yurt said:
funny how when the courts decided that blacks and whites could marry...the issue wasn't about procreation.
Click to expand...


???? uuuuuh YEAH! Because interracial couples procreate just like same race couples do. SINCE the legitimate governmental interest is more children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them, racial marriage laws were banned because race has no rational relation to serving that governmental interest.
 
groan....back to the lame procreate argument that has been thoroughly debunked by numerous posters here. you clearly are not willing to listen to reason and will simply keep repeating, ad nauseum, the same garbage.
 
Yurt said:
not according to several states. at time racists used the same logic by stating that marriage could only be marriage as long a white person did not marry a black person. your analogy to voodoo doctor wanting his license is a fallacy, as he could get a medical license if he completed all the requirements. in a marriage, the only requirements are consent and the relationship type must of course be legal. homosexuality meets that criteria.

and marriage is a legal contract. that is a fact. pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Marriage is a license in all states, as far as I am aware. People who once opposed interracial marriage were not necessarily racist. They still didn't support same-sex marriage, even the people who supported interracial marriage. My analogy with the voodoo doctor is spot on, homosexuals can still obtain a marriage licence if they meet the criteria, which includes being a man and woman.

Yes, marriage is a legal contract, too bad two people of the same sex can't be married. That is a fact. Pure and simple.
 
Yurt said:
groan....back to the lame procreate argument that has been thoroughly debunked by numerous posters here. you clearly are not willing to listen to reason and will simply keep repeating, ad nauseum, the same garbage.
Click to expand...

You've not "debunked" a thing here, Yurt. Stubbornly refused to accept a fact of life? Sure... but debunked? No way!
 
Yurt said:
sorry bud. judges are charged with INTERPRETING the constitution. if they interpret the constitution or law to not exclude gays, then guess what, that is their job. not yours.
Click to expand...

All which has nothing to do with the post of mine, YOU chose to quote and respond to. But thats probably why you went there.

Yurt said:
further, you ignore states like CO that amended their constitution to specifically exclude gays from marriage.
Click to expand...

What about colorado? They didnt have to amend their constitution to exclude same sex marriages. Their ordinary statutes did that already.

Yurt said:
and why did texas have to change the definition?
Click to expand...

They didnt have to. And they didnt do so. Same definition already present in state statutes, was put into the constitution.
 
Yurt said:
sorry bud. judges are charged with INTERPRETING the constitution. if they interpret the constitution or law to not exclude gays, then guess what, that is their job. not yours.

further, you ignore states like CO that amended their constitution to specifically exclude gays from marriage. and why did texas have to change the definition? oh yeah....because gays were not exclude prior to that.

all your whining about it will be for naught, because scotus will rule that states cannot exclude homosexuals from marriage.
Click to expand...

Again... Homosexuals are not excluded from marriage. Where is that happening? Homosexuals can't have same-sex partnerships and call those "marriage." But as far as I am aware, they can obtain a marriage license the same as any other American, following the exact same criteria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top