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

Should we allow liars, murderers and cheats to call what they do something else... like maybe "sainthood" or something? I mean, they can't help how they are, and it's not fair that just really super-religious people get to claim sainthood, so why not let these misfits of society pervert the meaning of one tiny insignificant word, it won't hurt a thing to do that, will it? We should do this just to make the liars, murderers and cheats feel better about themselves, so they won't be sad! And if you don't agree with me you are an intolerant bigot, and I am going to go forth pretending that 'sainthood' includes what liars, murderers and cheats do anyway.
 
No, a contract is a contract. Marriage is a union of a man and woman. Gays are not disallowed.

nice try dixie. according to US law in every state, marriage is a contract. don't want to contract, some states recognize common law marriage.

and yes they are disallowed in many states.
 
nice try dixie. according to US law in every state, marriage is a contract. don't want to contract, some states recognize common law marriage.

and yes they are disallowed in many states.

No, marriage requires a license. To qualify, several criteria have to be met; You have to be legal age, not immediately related (varies), consenting, living, etc.

Oh.. and you also have to be a man and woman to qualify, because that constitutes marriage.

There is no question of sexuality involved, it doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, just as it doesn't matter about your race.

Once you have obtained the license to marry, and are in fact married, the license serves as the proof of marital contract.

What you are doing, is jumping the criteria which first has to be met in order to qualify for a license. It's akin to arguing a voodoo doctor should be able to get a medical license to practice medicine.
 
No, because if you let a liar marry then everybody will want to get married and there will be chaos. The entire world will implode as people who ride bikes want to marry people who don't ride bikes, cat people and dog people will mingle, and we'll be doomed for all eternity!

<insert evil laugh sound here>
 
No, marriage requires a license. To qualify, several criteria have to be met; You have to be legal age, not immediately related (varies), consenting, living, etc.

Oh.. and you also have to be a man and woman to qualify, because that constitutes marriage.

There is no question of sexuality involved, it doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, just as it doesn't matter about your race.

Once you have obtained the license to marry, and are in fact married, the license serves as the proof of marital contract.

What you are doing, is jumping the criteria which first has to be met in order to qualify for a license. It's akin to arguing a voodoo doctor should be able to get a medical license to practice medicine.

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.
 
marriage is a contract dixie. allowing gays to contract in marriage would not change the meaning.

Then why did Merriam Webstes change the definition of marriage to include marriages of the same sex, when previously it was limited to a man and a woman, if not to change the "meaning" of the word? OF COURSE it changes the meaning of the word. Removes the fundamental element of marriage. A man and a woman, becoming husband and wife with the potential to become fathers and mothers to the children they bring into the world. The formation of nuclear families.

The sections of Kentucky statutes relating to marriage do not include a definition of that term. It must therefore be defined according to common usage.

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."...
It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined.

A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of achieving is a nullity....

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\SAC\KY\1973\19731109_0040029.KY.htm/qx
 
who cares about MW. what about the states that had to change their constitution to exclude same sex marriage? i'm talking about the legal definition, which is the only definition that matters.
 
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.

No, because most states did not restrict marriage by race. Laws against interracial marriages werent an element of marriage but instead an element of the old racist south. The limitation to men an women was universal. An intrisic element of all marriages in the US until 2002.
And laws against interracial marriage were held to be unconstitutional because purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the wellbeing of children who are only born to homosexual couples, is a legitimate governmental interest.
 
who cares about MW. what about the states that had to change their constitution to exclude same sex marriage? i'm talking about the legal definition, which is the only definition that matters.

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.
 
Improving the well being of children is a legitimate, governmental interest. Purifying the white race is not.

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.
 
No, because most states did not restrict marriage by race. Laws against interracial marriages werent an element of marriage but instead an element of the old racist south.

Not really. The south held until the laws the longest, but the laws were fairly widespread even up until the 50's:

anti-miscegenation-laws-map.jpg



The limitation to men an women was universal. An intrisic element of all marriages in the US until 2002.

Good point. It really is odd how something so stupid can go on for so long. Just more testament to the fact that human society needs to constantly reevaluate things and not simply blindly hold onto old injustices simply because they're old.

And laws against interracial marriage were held to be unconstitutional because purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the wellbeing of children who are only born to homosexual couples, is a legitimate governmental interest.

Why isn't purifying the white race a legitimate government interest?
 
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.

Ridiculous. The anti gay marriage position is legally bankrupt. The only reason it's held on for so long is popular pressure against it, and judges inventing convulted logic in order to appease this popular pressure.
 
So am I really to believe that,

1. Gays should not be allowed to marry because they cannot procreate.

2. The purpose of marriage is not to incentivize procreation.

You truthfully hold both of these opinions?

Correct. What dont you understand. Marriage likely inhibits procreation. Look at the black population in the US. They have a much lower marriage rate than whites, but a higher birth rate than whites. Results being that 60 something % of all black children are born into single parent homes most frequently with the father absent or unknown.
Imagine you have a sexually active 18 yr old daughter. You might encourage her to pick one man to marry, not to incentivize procreation, but instead because of the potential of procreation. Not because you want her to procreate but instead because you are concerned she may procreate.
On the other hand, if its your 18 yr old son who is sexually active with other men, there is no potential of procreation. No concern that your son is going to come home knocked up, about to have a child he is responsible for providing and caring for.
 
Then why did Merriam Webstes change the definition of marriage to include marriages of the same sex, when previously it was limited to a man and a woman, if not to change the "meaning" of the word? OF COURSE it changes the meaning of the word. Removes the fundamental element of marriage. A man and a woman, becoming husband and wife with the potential to become fathers and mothers to the children they bring into the world. The formation of nuclear families.

Even if it did change in meaning, who gives a shit? Words change in meaning all the time. That's how language works. Back in Shakespeare's day, when you said the word "going", it only meant that you were "going" to some physical location. A few decades afterward, it acquired newer, more abstract meanings, such as its use in "I'm going to do it." Oh yeah?! Where is "do it" on the map, you idiot?! This is not some horrible, erroneous process of linguistic degradation. Without this sort of process, language wouldn't even exist. It enhances meaning, it doesn't detract from it. The reason society collectively chooses to adapt these new meanings onto words is precisely because it enhances our ability to express what we want to express. "Gay marriage" expresses a concept that is both obvious, even to those who hate it, and does so more succinctly than any other expression I can think of for this concept.

Language is here for the use of society, not the other way around. So, in previous times marriage had an exclusively heterosexual connotation, because homosexuality was thought to be immoral, at best a mental illness which could be cured. And, now that in modern times we've moved beyond this, and recognized gay relationships as legitimate, the word has slowly lost those specific connotations. I am confused as to how I could be expected to feel anything but proud of this development.
 
No, marriage requires a license. To qualify, several criteria have to be met; You have to be legal age, not immediately related (varies), consenting, living, etc.

Oh.. and you also have to be a man and woman to qualify, because that constitutes marriage.

There is no question of sexuality involved, it doesn't matter if you are straight or gay, just as it doesn't matter about your race.

Once you have obtained the license to marry, and are in fact married, the license serves as the proof of marital contract.

What you are doing, is jumping the criteria which first has to be met in order to qualify for a license. It's akin to arguing a voodoo doctor should be able to get a medical license to practice medicine.

It's more like when Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that if doctors washed their hands, it hugely reduced mortality in the women who's babies they delivered. He then collected and published fairly decisive evidence of this, and was largely ignored and ostracized by the medical community, who had been doing it this way for hundreds of years now, thank you very much, and didn't need any of that new nonsense. And, so, many thousands of women died preventable deaths.
 
Should we allow liars, murderers and cheats to call what they do something else... like maybe "sainthood" or something? I mean, they can't help how they are, and it's not fair that just really super-religious people get to claim sainthood, so why not let these misfits of society pervert the meaning of one tiny insignificant word, it won't hurt a thing to do that, will it? We should do this just to make the liars, murderers and cheats feel better about themselves, so they won't be sad! And if you don't agree with me you are an intolerant bigot, and I am going to go forth pretending that 'sainthood' includes what liars, murderers and cheats do anyway.

Liars, murderers, and cheats are allowed to call what they do sainthood, as far as I know. However, there are reasons that such a thing has not occurred, at least not succesfully, and probably wouldn't occur except in an ironic context. And, just as well, there are reasons why society at large has largely come to accept this usage of the word "marriage". Because society has come to accept the concept, as it makes sense in a way that calling murder sainthood does not. I'm sorry if you are offended by this, but you are not dictator of the English language, and it is not you who gets to decide what is what.
 
Unfortunately, some men wont want to marry after the woman becomes pregnant. Thats why its important to get the agreement and legal obligations in place before procreation occurs. As well, unfortunately, sometimes women dont know who the father is.

You have to pay child support whether, and you have obligations, whether or not you're married. If a man were going to walk out on the woman, I doubt a piece of paper is going to restrain him.
 
Back
Top