Gay marriage and the law

quote:

---

Subbie, explain to me how the Constitution applies to homosexual marriage.

---

You have injected morals in to it, which, really, is not a problem for me because that is the only reason the law exists to begin with. But when I go in to explaining my moral outlook, you then turn it in to an issue of invoking a religion. In effect, you make it so you can introduce any arbitrary moral while denuding everyone else of it.You can't deny the fact that you would all but have to introduce a moral outlook in to the interpretation of the Constitution on the grounds of it being so vague that the Framers intended people to intrinsically understand its value.If homosexual marriage is a basic right, what arbitrates that? What basis do you have to allow this, but not to allow something like incest? Don't dismiss it either. Its a perfectly valid question, because until you can explain to all of us why it is a basic right for homosexuals to marry, you can in no wise begin to explain why it is not a right for those engaged in incestuous relationships. Subbie, come on now... Think this through, please. The ONLY reason why the Constitution exists is on the basis of a moral framework. They aren't choosing arbitrary things to hold in such high regard. The Framers intended people to live out their God-given (choose any other source of absolute value if you'd like) inalienable rights.The Supreme Court exists to act as an interpreter of that Constitution. This panel of Justices then decides what is the, for lack of a better word, esprit de corp behind it -- the deeper meaning behind it. Except you have NOT even begun to offer a basis for why it is a fundamental right. You in fact can't, without injecting some moral in to it. Your position is completely indefensible until you offer one up. You can't just say over and over again that it is a right without explaining why it is a right. More to the point, you can't say over and over again that is a right, all the while excluding others without a reasonable basis for doing for so.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Hm. Didn't know that about Scalia. He just came out and said it, huh? Do you have a source? If what you say is true, why are the idjits in Congress pushing so hard to prevent DOMA from being heard in federal courts?You'd think they'd want DOMA upheld and Loving v. Virginia/Lawrence v. Texas overturned. They were in the minority and it was election eve.I believe that with a Democratic President and Congress, DOMA is toast.

Okay. Apparently we have to go back to grade school civics before you will understand anything in this thread.The governing document that created and defines the United States is the Constitution. It created three different branches of the federal government. One of those branches is the judiciary. The highest court in the federal judiciary is the Supreme Court. Among its duties is to tell litigants in cases before it what the Constitution says and what it means. In addition, it is charged with the duty to determine whether acts of the various governments that compose the United States are in accordance with the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on what the Constitution means. When the Supreme Court says that marriage is a fundamental right under the Constitution, it is a fundamental right under the Constitution. This has nothing to do with morality, religion, ethics, or little green men from Mars.Now, if by your repetitious blathering about morality, you mean to get at the question of whether there is a moral justification for what is in the Constitution, that could be a very interesting question. If you want to discuss that, please start a thread on that topic. This thread is about gay marriage and U.S. laws, the supreme law of the land being the Constitution. It is not about whether there is a moral basis for U.S. law. No idea what you're saying here, it's so badly written that it makes me wonder if English is really your first language. I gather that you seem to be suggesting that morality is somehow intrinsic in how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. Again, a potentially interesting topic, but not the topic of this thread.The law of the U.S. consists of the following:The Constitution
Decisions of the various courts of the United States.
The U.S. Code
The Constitutions of the various states
The laws of the various states
Decisions of the various state courtsIf you cannot restrict your logorrhea to the subject the law of the U.S. and gay marriage, keep the fuck out of this thread.I can't imagine how I could possibly make this any clearer.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Please don't act like the Constitution hasn't a thing to do with ethics. The very word "rights" should immediately send a bell off in your head that we are in fact dealing with ethics.Secondly, the Constitution has also outlined that the third branch of government, the Judiciary, shall be not exceed the Powers over the first and third.Thirdly, the Lawerence case that everyone keeps bringing up has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has everything to do with a sodomy law in Texas, where police happened upon a gay couple engaging in sodomy. The question then became which trumps the other -- they were engaging in unlawful acts, yes, but were in the privacy of their home. Since they are protected by unreasonable searches and seizures, which affords all people, regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, gender, etc, etc EQUAL protection.What is going on now is that you are saying we need equal protection for homosexuals. They already have it, and rightfully so! You are conflating the issue to where protection of the law means that people can get married. One has nothing to do with the other. So the Lawerence case people keep bringing up is irrelevant to gay marriage.The Loving case has nothing to do, whatsoever, with homosexual marriage. It has to do with interracial marriage. If you want to utilize this case to present bias, I'm all for it. Just don't say that I'm OT in the process when I mention pedophilia or incest or what have you. Because we are both establishing baselines for prejudices and preferences. And the law says that homosexual marriage will not be recognized. The United States Congress has said that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. You keep talking about the Constitution, not me. I then ask you to back up why ANY Amendment pertains to homosexual marriage. You have avoided answering it like the plague because surely you know that by doing so, you would in effect be making a moral judgment. If something is an inherent right, what else do you call that Subbie? What else do you call that? Where does it come from? Does nature provide you with inherent rights? If so, how, being that it does not have any cognizance? Brother, I'm right on topic. Substantiate your claim that homosexual marriage is a basic right. At least provide the legal justification for why it is so? You keep mentioning the Supreme Court. What case has legalized homosexual marriage, per the Constitution?If one does not exist, then aren't we going to end up discussing why it is either a good thing or a bad thing, per our understandings of the morals involved?You would have a better case, in my opinion, making the argument that the government has no business in the affairs of what should be delegated by either a state or a religion. Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : typo

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

False.The law does not exist to enforce morality. It exists to protect the rights of society as a whole and the individuals that make it up.The arguments brought forward in this thread are not arguments of morality (though I would agree that protecting the rights of individuals is a very moral thing to do, morality is subjective, and the law is supposed to be objective). hey are arguments of legality. The 14th Amendment, part of the document that establishes the highest law of the land, meaning it overrides any and all laws that contradict it, is the argument against barring gay marriage. It demands equal treatment under the law, which means, by all the precedents set in US law (allowing interracial marriage and anal sex, to name a few), gay marriage must be allowed.Barring the bias of an extremely right-wing Supreme Court (apparently judges are only activists if they support equal treatment for everyone, who knew?), any laws short of a Constitutional Amendment specifically banning gay marriage will be shot down if brought before the court.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Okay, time for a more advanced lesson in civics.The Supreme Court decides cases and controversies that litigants bring before it. In so doing, it usually issues an opinion that states what the Court's decision is and the rationale for the decision. Technically speaking, the Court's decision is binding only on the parties. However, as a practical matter, the rest of the country usually abides by the Court's ruling, anticipating that if they were to bring the same issue to the Court, it would decide the issue they same way again, based on a principle called stare decisis.There are an uncountable number of issues that the Supreme Court has not ruled on. However, many issues that the Court could potentially rule on can be resolved by appealing to rules of general application that the has Court pronounced in making its various rulings. What's more, when deciding a case before it, the Court tries to find rules of general application from past cases on which to base its decision.As an example, the the case I described above, Loving v. Virginia, concerned a white man married to a black woman. Based on the reasoning that the Court laid out in striking Virginia's miscegenation statutes, one can anticipate what the Court's ruling would be in a hypothetical case where Mississippi, say, was trying to prosecute a black man for marrying a white woman in violation of its miscegenation statute.You are correct (amazing as that sounds) when you say that in the Lawrence case and the Loving case the Court did not rule on gay marriage. However, it did lay out some principles of general application that are relevant in considering whether the Equal Protection Clause requires states to allow gays to marry, and whether it requires the U.S. to recognize those marriages for purposes of federal law. I assume you are talking about DOMA here. What DOMA says is that the federal government will not recognize gay marriage. It does not say that no state may recognize gay marriage. Congress doesn't have the authority to pass a law telling the states what it can and cannot recognize as marriage. All it can do is say what the federal government will recognize for purposes of federal law.DOMA also says that a state doesn't have to recognize a gay marriage from another state. There is a serious objection about whether Congress has the authority to say that, but since no state has to recognize a gay marriage from another state anyway, it's a rather moot point.What DOMA doesn't say is that the Constitution doesn't require states to recognize gay marriages. Congress could pass a law that says that, but that law would not be binding on the Supreme Court. I keep talking about the Constitution because it guarantees to people in this country certain rights. What that means is that even if a state or federal government says one thing, if the Constitution says the opposite, it's the Constitution that controls. I haven't avoided anything. I've explained in painstaking detail what the argument is that the Equal Protection Clause requires states and the federal government to recognize gay marriage. What's more, I did that without making any kind of moral judgment. All I'm talking about is what the Constitution says.I suppose I can understand your confusion. There are people who are intellectually incapable of understanding the difference between legal and moral. The two are not coterminous. There are many moral imperatives that are not included as legal imperatives, and there are legal imperatives that have nothing whatsoever to do with morality.For example, the Constitution does not say that it's moral for Hustler magazine to print a parody piece detailing Jerry Falwell's first sexual experience as consisting of a quickie behind the barn with his mother. But it does say that Hustler has a right to print it.If you are unable to understand the difference between legal and moral, you will continue to be reprimanded for being off topic on this thread.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

My gosh, man, are you so obtuse that you don't realize you are saying the same thing? A "right" is morally dictated, Rahvin. Really, really think about that for a moment. Then what legally makes homosexual marriage permissible, whereas pedophilia, incest, beastiality, etc are not? On what grounds, since marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman? If you really want to fight for homosexual marriage, then you should fight to get the Federal government out of it. Something of this nature should be left for the states to decide for themselves.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

That's fine. I have no problem with you trying to establish a base line for equal protection. But where then does the line stop? When do we say that is an absurdity to allow sons to marry their mothers, for women to marry goats, for children to marry men or women, etc? Couldn't they make the same exact argument you are making for any number of those things?Where is the line of demarcation? If that's the case, then why do you want the Federal government involved with it? Why not just go to your state Representative and plead with him/her? And I have asked for you to define what "rights" entail. I could say that is my right to marry my sister. What legal objection would you make against it or for it? But it doesn't say anything like that. Who says that Equal Protection refers to whether or not someone can get married? Protection means that the government will legally protect you, not that it will ensure you marry whomever or whatever you want.Secondly, if marriage is specifically defined as being between a man and a woman, how then is it feasible for people of the same sex to ever be married? It seems to me that your first hurdle in seeing this come to fruition is to repeal the definition of marriage.In the event that they don't see it your way, would you be satisfied with a Civil Union? If homosexuals simply want to profess their love and affection for one another, nothing them prohibits them from doing so. If they want to have the same legal recognitions as married people, this would afford them the exact same thing, only it wouldn't be a marriage, it would be a civil union.It would be as arbitrary as trying to distinguish the meanings between men's basketball and women's basketball -- they are the same, in essence. Agreed, however, it seems that all laws derive first from a moral. If we have a right, it is because we believe in our heart of hearts that there is something intrinsically good about it.It may be morally good for me to save a drowning victim. However, I am not legally responsible to jump in the water to save that person. I could legally sit there and watch them drown. Morally repugnant? Yeah. Legally accountable. No. I understand the difference.But if something is a "right", then really what we are talking about is that it is moral obligation to protect that right. So it seems to me that unless you are able to distinguish the difference between the right to marry another man from marrying a specific man -- your brother -- I hardly see how we will be able to get from point A to point Z, let alone Point A to Point B.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

Yeah, and the federal government stayed out of the states' school systems more than 50 years ago, and that worked like a charm. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm not really sure what you are referencing, but I think state rights is slowly being swallowed up by the government.The Federalist Papers outline all the hopes of avoiding the pitfalls of what has befallen many nations.The beauty of this country is that if you don't like what is going on in Connecticut, you can move to Colorado. If you don't like what is going on in Kansas, you can move to Iowa, and so on. That is pretty unique.The only need for a centralized government is the protection of the People (i.e. military, critical infrastructure, economy) and a postal service. And hell, even the postal service is being outdone by private companies. I would ten times rather FedEx to handle my packages than USPS. Beyond that, I see no need for it.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis

For fuck's sake! This has been explained to you so goddamn many times, if you don't get it by now, you never will. And I'm done wasting my time trying to. Because it's a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. It's a right guaranteed to all people, not just the people who live where I do, everyone. At this point in time, I'd object to anything that might remotely result in the preservation of your genes in the human gene pool. It doesn't take much imagination to see how it would work. In fact, it doesn't take any at all. It's happening in Massachusetts. You wanna know how it will work? Look there. Ever heard of Plessy v. Ferguson? It only seems that way because you haven't thought much about it. What moral imperative makes us drive on the right side of the street? And it is intrinsically good for the government to treat all its citizens the same.The problem that you're having is that you're focusing on the wrong thing. I'm not saying that gay marriage is good. I'm saying it's good for the government to treat everyone the same under the law. There's no legitimate governmental reason to treat them differently. The only objection that people make is one based on religion or morality. The government isn't in the religion business, so those objections are irrelevant from the government's point of view.Again, my argument here isn't that gay marriage is good. It's that treating everybody the same unless there's a reason not to is good.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

In other words, you're against desegregating the south?

molbiogirl responds to me:

quote:

---

Didn't know that about Scalia. He just came out and said it, huh? Do you have a source?

---

It's in his dissent of Lawrence v. Texas. Didn't you read it? He directly states that Lawrence v. Texas was mistakenly decided using heightened scrutiny rather than rational-basis, that Loving v. Virginia was decided correctly using heightened scrutiny because miscegenation laws were "designed to maintain White Supremacy." He strictly denies that there is any similar attempt to maintain heterosexual supremacy in laws that prohibit gay people from engaging in sexual activity.In fact, if you read his section V, it is amazing to see the double-think. He actually brings up the "it applies equally to all" argument, comparing it to Loving v. Virginia. In that case, it was ridiculous to claim miscegenation laws "applied equally to all" since it affected blacks and whites the same. And yet, he immediately turns around and says that anti-sex laws apply "equally to all" since they affect both straights and gays.In doing so, he calls non-penis/vagina sex "deviate."Later on: And later on: You can practically feel the spittle landing on your cheek.

quote:

---

If what you say is true, why are the idjits in Congress pushing so hard to prevent DOMA from being heard in federal courts?

---

Because it's an election issue. Because they can't trust the Court. Sure, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are going to vote against it, but what about Kennedy, Bryer, and Souter? O'Conner filed an opinion in favor of Lawrence v. Texas, but tried to claim that it didn't lead to same-sex marriage: So since O'Conner couldn't bring herself to agree that there was no legitimate interest in denying the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples and she signed onto Lawrence, what makes anybody think that any of the others would?

quote:

---

They were in the minority and it was election eve.

---

What does that have to do with anything? It is always an election eve and even though they are in the majority, they still can't seem to figure out how to do anything. Now, part of the problem is that their majority in the Senate is a single vote. Therefore, in order to get anything done in the Senate, it is not enough that all the Democrats line up: Because of Republican obstructionism, it requires 60 votes to get anything done. And since there are quite a few Democrats in the Senate that are Democrats in name only (for example, Lieberman), they don't even have the 50 votes they need to get anything passed.So why didn't the Democrats do then what the Republicans are doing now? There was no reason for DOMA to make it past the Senate, even though they were in the minority.And yet, it did.The idea that Democrats, as a party, pay anything more than lip service to gays is to show one to be a naif in the extreme.

quote:

---

I believe that with a Democratic President and Congress, DOMA is toast.

---

They said that about gays in the military when Clinton was elected: A Democratic Congress and a Democrat in the White House. And what did we get?Discharges for being gay actually INCREASED. People started dying.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

DOMA was signed into law 8 weeks before Clinton's re-election. Signing DOMA was political CYA. This is relevant now. It won't be after the 2008 election. Of the Senate seats up for election in 2008, 23 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. The balance is going to shift again -- the dems are going to pick up more seats. There have been plenty of times in the past year and a half when all the dems voted the party line. Political pandering again. 8 weeks before 100 Senate seats are up for grabs? You bet they voted for DOMA. Gay marriage is higher profile. Much higher. And DOMA challenges have continued unabated since 1996.After the next election, the Republicans will be unable to block access to the federal courts.The President won't have anything to do with it.

Aside from saying "consent" in gigantic letters, you haven't explained it. Nor have you given a reason why consent is the be-all, end-all qualifier. I'm waiting for the punchline. Suit yourself. If you can't define what a right is or how it becomes a right, how is any of that supposed to make sense? Do you not understand that you have neglected to explain why homosexual marriage is a right? You just keep referring to the Constitution, all the while neglecting to explain why you believe it is Constitutionally protected.But I digress since I've said this 18 times now with no real answer from you.

quote:

---

And I have asked for you to define what "rights" entail. I could say that is my right to marry my sister. What legal objection would you make against it or for it?

---

See? You can't even climb on to a curb four inches high. Why would I presume to think you have a rational basis for this subject?

quote:

---

Secondly, if marriage is specifically defined as being between a man and a woman, how then is it feasible for people of the same sex to ever be married? It seems to me that your first hurdle in seeing this come to fruition is to repeal the definition of marriage.

---

That doesn't answer the question. You are changing the definition of a word to suit an agenda. Why not then just extrapolate it even further to mean that we all can marry oranges?

quote:

---

In the event that they don't see it your way, would you be satisfied with a Civil Union?

---

That's not what I asked you. I asked for your personal opinion on the matter. Safety and cohesion. It is bad to unnecessarily hurt someone else when it can be avoided. Designing a system in the interest of cohesion means that less people will be hurt as a result. Agreed. What makes it so?Everyone has the right to marry within the confines of what defines a marriage. Context is important whenever we want to understand other people and to have them understand us. The context of marriage, by all definitional rights, is a union between an adult male, and an adult female. That's what it is within those parameters. If we were to go by your loose definition, we could marry cars, and boats, and kids, and cats. Women's tennis will never be men's tennis for the sole fact that a woman is not a man, and man is not a woman. You are asking the world to change its definition in order to suit an agenda. Why not have civil unions that offer the same protections and benefits of marriage? Then the government should get out of marriage altogether since it is a religious institution. I'm all for that. Nobody seems to be outraged over that little incursion which is unconstitutional. If you want to fight for the Constitution, fight for that. It would be easier to marry homosexuals that way anyhow. Who could stop them? Doesn't mean God will honor it, but they would at least be able to do it if a minister allowed it.

---

“There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis