The future of marriage

So it IS a matter of opinion then.”Hoot

Doesn't have to, Ralph. It says that all citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal treatment by the government. The fact that it says nothing about sexuality means that sexuality doesn't create an exception to this guarantee.So. In preventing gay marriage, how do you plan to circumvent the fact that all citizens are guaranteed equal treatment by the government? No... we've been all over this. You've posted non-sensical ramblings about polygamy, and your woodland friends.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.Edited by Dan Carroll, : oh, grammar.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Its highly irregular that an OP moderates their own thread, however, I see a need for moderation. I believe we need to take a step back, take a few deep breaths, calm down, and start over.For the past 2 or 3 pages, there has been quite a few expletives and gratuitous uses of ad hominem being slung around. I am not going to name names... yet.To all parties involved know that I understand this is a controversial topic that lends itself to heated arguments, but lets calm down of our own volition before it becomes mandatory.Thank you for your cooperation.

---

Thou shalt not have any other Mods before Me

I'll politely rephrase.Dearest Ralph,I know you are a staunch fellow of upright morality and unswerving honesty. Accordingly, I am sure your failure... no, too harsh... not-success... to address the fact of equal protection, as it relates to gay marriage, is a mere four-thread-long oversight on your part. The pleasant topic-diversions towards which you attempt to steer the thread are obviously mere fancies, and in no way bespeak a lack of candor or integrity, both of which are hallmarks of the man we have come to know and love as EvC's own Ralph Wiggum.Awaiting your reply,
Dan

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

quote:

---

So it IS a matter of opinion then.

---

Well, we are talking about right or wrong here. Morality and ethics, when you get down to it, are a matter of opinion. The main reason that we don't kill and eat our own children, for example, is that most of us have the opinion that it is wrong.Of course, it depends on whether these opinions form a consistent whole, or whether they stem from a self-consistent theory of morality. That is what the discussion of gay marriage comes about -- prohibiting gay marriage seems inconsistent with the Enlightenment ideals of liberal democracy that has developed over the last several centuries, and that we supposedly claim that we uphold.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

I actually wasn't referring to you. You're just prone to that sardonic/sarcastic attitude that we all know and love.But as much as I am a Simpson's fan, perhaps you can refer to Hoot Mon as such and not as "Ralph," and he can refer to you as Dan, rather than "Pud Pounder."

Fair enough, AdminNem.I sincerely wish to posit this opinion: If gay marriage is an issue about equality and the 14th amendment, which putatively upholds the rights of gays to get married, then, by the same reasoning, the 14th amendment should uphold the rights of polygamists to get married to more than one spouse. Why would the principle of equality be good for gays but not for polygamists? Equality = equality...who said that?”Hoot Mon

As long as all the members of the marriage can and did give legal consent I see no reason why poly-marriages should be outlawed.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

And, in fact, the 14th amendment, among other things, obligates the states to uphold the 1st amendment. There are many religious traditions that hold polygamy not only acceptable but desirable, so by not allowing polygamous marriages it would appear that a state is prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

---

But government...is not simply the way we express ourselves collectively but also often the only way we preserve our freedom from private power and its incursions. -- Bill Moyers (quoting John Schwarz)

I agree with your rationale. If we were to make such broad interpretations of the 14^th Amendment, we might just as well suppose that beastiality or pedophilia is just as protected by the same premise. In fact, a broad rendering could interpret just about anything.Since homosexuality was considered an aberration in the days of the Founding Fathers, there should be no ambiguity that it never intended to include the specious plea made by proponents of gay marriage. However, this is purely circumstancial because we have no real way of knowing the hearts and minds of the Founding Fathers. All we have to go by is popular opinion of the day. Secondly, the Amendments mean just what they say, as the word "amend" means, "to change." So all Amendments are quite literally subject to change-- something the Founding Fathers had the insight to institute. the reason why is because they understood that there will always be unforseen circumstances in the future that may not be applicable to them in their time, however, it leaves it open for the future citizens to identify and change at the behest of its constituents.In order to get to the bottom of it, we have to look at the 14^th Amendment itself to see what exactly it is referring to. We'll go over it by section:"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."Right in the opening line we see that this Amendment is only subject to US citizens and that it is to be under the provision and indemnity of the specific state that citizen resides. However, the Federal Government will not allow any State to sovereignly deprive citizens of their basic rights.In a nutshell, this is saying that the Government will never abridge the right to due process, which EVERYONE, gay or straight, is entitled to already. So far it isn't matching up that the government must somehow recognize gay marriage.Section 2. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.Section 2 describes how Representatives of each state will be appointed to the State's citizens on their behalf and to be a vehicle or voice for those constituents, however, it excludes Indians that live apart from the United States government on their own land, such as reservations. It then goes on to speak about the abridging of people's rights to vote for a representative of their choice, unless they are in the acts of sedition or rebellion, where their rights as a citizen can be unrecognized, or in the case of criminality.Nothing about marriage or homosexuality.Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."Again, this is saying that people in the action of sedition and insurrection, that previously swore to uphold the Constitution, may no longer partake of its ways. It says nothing at all about marriage or homosexuality, nor does it even remotely imply it.Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."Again, this is "legaleese" about the rights of people and how insurrection against the United States will nullify any legal indemnity of the US itself. Nothing about marriage or homosexuality.Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.Congress will approve how to legislate and enforce laws passed spoken herein the article above.So, we see that nowhere is the protection of homosexual marriage or any marriage, for that matter, discussed in the provisions of this article. At best, citing this as a source for gay marriage is specious, and at its worse, its a complete manipulation of the text and its meanings.Therefore, if people want gay marriage to be passed and protected under law, they are going to have to request that an "amendment" be made, because as of yet, there is no legal recognition or recourse for homosexual marriage on the law books.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Bestiality is weird, but commonly practiced (and it's no worse than how most people treat their pets - we're just talking about dumb animals), but I don't understand how you see pedophilia included under the 14th amendment. How does "equal protection under the law" form a basis for the protection of lawbreakers?Of course, pedophiles are entitled to equal protection under the law - equal to all other criminals, and shouldn't be subject to any worse conditions than those it's determined they should be sentenced to by a court of law, consistent with the protections against cruel and unusual punishment by our courts.The 14th amendment doesn't protect behaviors, it protects people. I don't see how any reasonable person could get the reading that you suggest, which makes me suspect you're being purposefully disingenuous. No, not just due process - all rights. Including the right of two adults to marry, as recognized as a right by the Supreme Court. Are you really finding it that hard to read that you see pedophilia where there is none but can't see the phrase "equal protection under the law"?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I notice that you did not comment on "equal protection of the laws."A state that allows one citizen an activity that it denies to another, in the absence of a compelling interest, is not providing "equal protection of the law." Yes, there is. See above.

---

Free Dr. Adequate! Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Swing and a miss. I'll give you another crack at it if you like, and even give you some direction. Try googling "substantive due process."The analysis of this question is difficult, and there is no clear answer. But it's considerably more involved than simply reading the text of the Amendment and telling us what you think it means.If you're ready to punt and have me explain the issues to you, just let me know.

---

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

Isn't it weird how you already said this, and despite having not responded to the criticism above, just went ahead and repeated it?As always, you can't possibly be dishonest or lacking in integrity. That's just crazy talk. I'm sure it's just yet another oversight.Either way, you're not still not explaining the legal basis for your opposition to gay marriage. Assume for a moment that you're right, despite the fact that you're incredibly wrong. There's still no legal reason to prevent gay marriage... just a consequence you don't like, but have no legal basis for preventing.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Not true. There are different levels of equal protection analysis, and only one of them requires that the state interest be "compelling."

---

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