The future of marriage

I never get tired of people who get all huffy about the intentions of the Founding Fathers, but need it explained to them that the Founding Fathers didn't write the fourteenth amendment.It's hysterically funny every single time. Great. Please point to the later amendment that reads, "except homosexuals." That's odd. The section to which you're referring is exactly what caused the courts to strike down bans on interracial marriage. You see, "equal protection", according to the Supreme Court, means equal rights. There's also nothing about seperate water fountains, school segregration, or interracial marriage. And yet the fourteenth amendment was responsible for striking down all those hideous assaults on human dignity.How strange. We should contact the Supreme Court, and inform them of their mistake.

---

"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

I'm trying really hard, just so you know. But it's just such a perfect name for him. That being said, I understand that the name "Hoot Mon" has an air of tragic dignity about it that I shouldn't mock.Oh, and I really don't care if he calls me "Pud Pounder". It makes him sound much more ridiculous than it does me.

---

"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

The commonality of a thing isn't the determining factor in the legality of something. Nonetheless, I take this admission of beastiality being protected by the Fourteenth Amendment? The argument that pedophiles themselves give is that the child enjoys it just as much as they do. They'll say, "So who are you to suppress the right of a child-- another human being?" Of course, as we all know-- hopefully-- is that children are very impressionable and don't know what the hell they actually want or need, which is why they need supervision. And we all know that pedophiles like to manipulate children just so they can fondle them. Certainly. And they are protected under that status by the 14^th Amendment. You disagreed with my interpretation of this article? What did I miss? This Amendment protects everyone, equally, unless in the action of sedition.

quote:

---

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.

---

Right, and there is no recognizable right for homosexual's to marry, or for pedophiles to fondle children, or for people to molest sheep. And even if and when they do commit a crime, they are afforded the right to defense in order to prove or disprove guilt of the alleged crime. I'm not the one broadly interpreting the law to mean something that it never cased. So, I said to Hoot Mon, that if we are going to interpret equal protection under the law by such a broad definition, then that would have to extend to virtually anything, including pedophilia and beastiality, or molesting a corpse, or whatever bizarre "right" some people are convinced they have under the Fourteenth Am.

---

"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

Dan, I laid out a proposal to save the future of marriage by changing its meaning, and you didn't like it. Earlier, NoseyNed laid out a propoal to change the meaning of marriage, and you didn't like that one either. I think it is high time for you to quit jerking around here and put your own proposal for the future of marriage on the table. Give me some specifics 1, 2, 3, and I'll respond 1, 2, 3.One other thing, please dispense with the soap operas: ”Hoot

Reading problems? I don't see the relevance. Legally children can't consent to intercourse, which makes intercourse with them rape.What's the relevance of whether or not they enjoy it? What's the relevance of a pedophile's justification? True, but I don't see the relevance. The 14th amendment guarantees equality under the law. What does that have to do with pedophiles grooming children for abuse? There's no right for anyone to commit a crime, and sex with a child is a crime whether your a pedophile or not. Sex with animals is a property crime.But marriage? Your assertion is that it's illegal for people to get married? I don't see how that's true. Marriage is a right, that's the determination of the Supreme Court based on the constitution. If it's a right, then it has to be extended to gay couples the same as it's extended to straight ones, so that they can enjoy equal protection under the law - as the 14th amendment mandates.What's so hard to understand about that? There is a right for homosexuals to marry; it's right there, included in the 14th amendment. Either gays have the right to marry, or straights don't. You can't have it both ways - says the 14th amendment. Now you're just repeating yourself. I already showed you how this isn't true.

I was pretty sure that my all caps, "EVERYONE" was going to speak the loudest. Everyone does have the equal protection of laws. And if that freedom is abridged, the people perpetrating the crime should fear legal recourse. Even the nastiest, most squalid human being on the planet has the right to a defense. Then by this rationale it is equally egregious for you not allow children to be married. Homosexual adults cannot marry per the law. But pedophiles not only can't marry their children lover (shudders), but they can't even be near the one they love. So why is this not viewed even more negatively by you under your broad interpretation of the 14th? Homosexuals can do anything else they want by the law as every other citizen. They can all the sex they want with as many partners as they want, they can be together in public if they want, they can buy permits to march on the streets to protest the fact that they are not legally recognized under the 14th Amendment, etc. Its not a crime to be a homosexual. But there is no legal recognition for their union. The 14th protects them against undue harassment for being gay. It protects their right to prance around in drag if that so fancies them. What it doesn't protect, is marriage.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, there isn't. There is no legal recourse for homosexual marriage. Lobbyists are, however, seeking to "amend" that. So, we'll just see what we see in the future.

---

"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

Much as you or I would like this to be true, it simply isn't. 14th Amendment jurispridence is complicated, and the analysis is quite different for different types of distinctions that a government may draw.

---

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

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure there's a vast history of jurisprudence that I'm ignorant of, but I can only interpret the text as it is written in front of me; with the understanding that that's the caveat that should be understood to appear anytime I talk about the law, that's what it looks like the 14th amendment means.Equal protection under the law. I can't speak for official legal understanding, or whatever, but plenty of the organizations who advocate for marriage equality invoke the 14th amendment as part of that reasoning.

Yes, that is what organizations that advocate for gay marriage usually cite to. It's probably the most compelling argument. Often analogy is made to miscegenation laws. Those laws were struck down on an equal protection basis under the reasoning that they prevent a black person from marrying a white person, but a white person can marry a white person. The flip side of the argument is that the laws prevented everyone from marrying anyone of a different race, so there was no unequal application between the races. Obviously, one could substitute gender for race and simply assume that the same rationale would apply. But the analysis is not the same.Laws analysed under the Equal Protection Clause have to pass a certain level of scrutiny. The highest level, "strict scrutiny," applies where a governmental distinction impinges on a right clearly defined and protected by the Constitution, freedom of speech, say, or where the distinction involves the use of a "suspect classification," race for example. In those instances, the governmental action must relate to a compelling state interest, be narrowly tailored to meet that interest and be the least restrictive way to meet the interest.The problem with applying a racial classification case to a gender classification case is that gender is not viewed as a purely suspect classification. Instead, when a governmental action involves the use of a classification based on gender, the courts usually use an intermediate level of scrutiny. In that case, the government must be working toward an important state interest and be using a classification that is substantially related to the purpose.As you guessed, there is a vast history of jurisprudence that examines these distinctions. It's certainly far beyond my capacity to even begin such an analysis in this space.Ultimately, if courts end up striking down laws against gay marriage, it will likely be under an Equal Protection analysis. A state is free to provide more protection to its citizens than the federal Constitution provides, and IIRC, that's what the court in Massachusettes did. My guess is that most or all of these cases will come on the state level. To be honest, although I am 100% in favor of gay marriage, I don't know how I would rule on the matter if some knucklehead were stupid enough to put me on the U.S. Supreme Court. It is a very, very complicated question, from a legal standpoint. Anyone who thinks it's simple either is trying to fool you or doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

---

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

Actually, you laid out a rant about how nobody should be allowed to get married if they fail to meet some vague, undefined goal of "properness". There's a bit of a difference.Isn't it weird how, when I point out that you're just repeating yourself, you just refer to stuff you already said? Nope. Gave some pretty specific reasons why, too. 1) You two guys? You two girls? You can go ahead and get married.2) There's actually no 2 or 3. It's a staggeringly simple idea. It's call sarcasm, fella. Not soap opera.

---

"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

Sure. But over the course of four threads, we have yet to hear anyone give us a compelling state interest for discriminating against homosexuals. If one is going to try and work around equal protection, they need to explain what that compelling interest is.

---

"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

You keep addressing this question as if it's a foregone conclusion that the government will have to prove a compelling state interest.It's not.If the analysis proceeds along the lines of a gender discrimination issue, by analogy with the miscegenation cases, the test will not be whether there is a compelling state interest. Instead, it will focus on whether there is an important state interest.On the other hand, it's quite possible that a court will not analyse it in terms of a gender discrimination matter, but instead use the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis. In that event, the question will be whether the ban on gay marriages is a rational means to a legitimate end. If courts look at it from that perspective, it's very unlikely that the ban would be struck.The most likely way that the question of a compelling state interest would even come up would be if the courts decide that homosexuality is a suspect classification. I'm not aware that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever held that homosexuality is a suspect classification.

---

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

Okay. That end being?Don't get me wrong... I'm not naive enough to think that, in practice, it will be a foregone conclusion for many years. But the fact of a minority being fucked over by the government for no discernable reason, when they're not supposed to be doing that, really is simple.

---

"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

Ah, now we're getting down to the tricky part.There are actually two different flavors, if you will, of rational basis analysis. Under the first, and easiest to get around, all that the government has to do is come up with some reason for the law. It doesn't even have to be the actual reason the law was enacted in the first place. Any reason will do.Under the second, commonly called "rational basis with bite," the government has to establish and defend the actual reason the law was enacted.If you are asking me to provide you with a legimate end that the government may be pursuing in banning gay marriage, that's not something I care to spend much time pursuing right now. I'm not here trying to defend the ban. As I mentioned above, I'm in favor of allowing gay marriages. I'm just explaining that, regardless of how open and shut the case seems to us personally as far as what should happen, it's far from clear how the legal analysis will go.

---

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

Didn't I specifically mention that the intentions of the Founding Fathers is subject to conjecture other than what they actually wrote? Yes, yes I did. Yeah, I usually laugh so hard over it that my face hurts. Only after you point out the excerpt that reads, "except pedophiles." Hint: You won't find either because the Amendment isn't about marriage or the rights of married people. Its about the civil rights of people-- something already protected for hetero and homosexuals. And to think they don't offer that same kind of protection to necrophiliacs. What kind of crazy world do we live in? Lets try this again. Homosexuals have the same rights as you. They aren't segregated, they can drink from the same water fountain, eat next to a straight person, apply for the same jobs any one else can, have the right to due process, be protected by the law, etc... The 14^th Amendment was finally used appropriately and the US finally meant equality, not just separate but equal.

---

"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