quote:
Why? Give a legal argument for restricting marriage by gender. "I don't think it's right" is an opinion, and has no basis unless you can support it with a legal argument.
The 1000+ laws that mention the word marriage were written under the presumption that those marriages would be between one man and one woman. I don’t know all the laws and ramifications of undermining those laws with a simple definition change of the word marriage. This isn’t an argument for restricting marriage by gender, that is the default. This is a reason for not simply changing the definition without considering the ramifications at all.
So, the "traditional marriage" argument. We've gone over this already. Tradition is irrelevant when tradition violates the Constitution. Definitions change all the time. The definition of the word "mariage" had changed
very frequently.
quote:
Generally, marriage is state-defined. As far as I know, the federal government requires that marriages in one state be recognized in other stated, and recognizes marriage for tax purposes, but that's about it. DOMA is the only federal marriage law...and its Constitutionality is exactly what we're calling into question.
Not exactly. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman, even before DOMA. DOMA was a response to the challenge to that definition.
Right. Once again, DOMA is the only federal law that pertains to homosexual marriage, excepting of course the 14th Amendment that makes DOMA and similar gay marriage bans illegal.
Before the Racial Integrity Act, marriage was not defined as being between the same race. The RIA is different from DOMA in that it was redefining marriage, itself, but DOMA is maintaining the definition.
From the Wiki article on the Racial Integrity Act:
quote:
The first law banning all marriage between whites and blacks was enacted in the colony of Virginia in 1691, and this example was followed by Maryland (in 1692) and several of the other Thirteen Colonies.
Defining marriage on the basis of race predates the
United States. You'd have an awfully hard time convincing me that marriage was not defined as between the same race prior to the RIA.
The current definition of "marriage" is still the core of the issue. If the definition violates the Constitutional guarantee to equal treatment under the law, the law
must be changed or completely removed. There is no other course of action possible without violating the Constitution. Tradition is, as always
irrelevant in such matters. The Loving v. Virginia case overturned centuries of tradition, and was counter to the opinions of over 90% of the population, and the miscegenation laws were
still overturned becasue they violated the Constitution. The laws and acceptible practices regarding marriage were changed then exactly as they must be changed now.
quote:
You can’t identify race like you can gender. Having marriage defined by race has nothing to base the definition on. Its really not the same thing at all.
You most certainly can identify race exactly the same way as you can identify gender - they're both genetic and are for the most part easily observable visually.
They are not easily observable visually and genders can’t “blend” like races can. I’m not convinced that marriage defined by race has something to base the definition on.
The RIA defined race in a testable way. It segregated groups of individuals, and said "this group cannot marry that group." DOMA and other gay marriage bans similarly say "this group cannot marry this group."
Do you really want to propose that either racism or sexism do not exist? Because your argument that "marriage defined by race has nothing to base the definition on" rests on the idea that racism does not exist, and it plainly does. Defining marriage by gender is, by definition,
sexist because it marks a distinction between genders without any discernable, objective difference between same-sex and different-sex marriages. The only objective difference is that gay couples cannot have children alone, but we
already allow marriage between couples that cannot procreate alone.
What's the legal argument for differentiating between gay and straight marriage, CS, except to "keep them damned homos from tarnishing the good name of marriage?"
quote:
Both of these constitute what was traditionally defined as marriage. Of course, traditional marriage has changed many times over the years. The legalization of interracial marriage was a huge redefinition in "traditional" marriage at the time.
But marriage wasn’t defined as being between the same race before the RIA like it is defined as being between one man and one woman even before DOMA. DOMA had to be written because the law didn’t explicitly define marriage and the definition needed to be stated.
See above. The racial definition of marriage was in place long before the RIA was enacted - before the US even existed, as a matter of fact.
quote:
Give a specific law that would be significantly changed in its function by allowing gay marriage.
Some states require marriages to be consummated to be valid.
quote:
...this may startle you, CS, but homosexuals are perfectly capable of having sex. They might put different bits and pieces into different orifices,
So now you’ve redefined consummation.
I have? How? Are you saying that homosexual sex is not sexual intercourse? Is this the Bill Clinton "BJs don't count" argument?
And what about heterosexual couples who are incapable of "missionary-style" consummation due to disease or injury or deformity or even
religion? Obviously any law involving consummation would need to be struck down as well anyway, regardless of gay marriage.
quote:
So again, what changes?
The consummation one still stands.
No, it really doesn't. The functionality of the law does not alter because of same-gender couples. They are still able to have sex and consummate the marriage. The fact that the sex is not
heterosexual is immaterial. You know, heterosexual couples have sex the same way gays do
all the time. It's fun, you should try it sometime.
quote:
No, they don't. "Spouse" still works just fine. If a married couple are covered by health insurance, what is the functional difference in the gender of that married couple? Is there something fundamentally different regarding healthcare coverage if you have a man and a woman or two men or two women?
I have a question: After allowing gay marriage, will I be allowed to marry men that I am related to? Can I marry my brother or my cousin? Because it would be helpful to get my cousin on my insurance plan at work as he has none. Is that going to be legal? I honestly don’t know.
See this, right here? This is where you just jumped the shark. Just wanted to point that out to you.
Can you marry your
female sibling or cousin right now, smartass? Of course not - there
is a legal argument pertaining to the marriage of close relations ( > 90% of such relationships involve abuse of some sort, and any children run a significantly higher risk of birth defects). Why would removing the gender distinctions in marriage allow for close-relation marriage? This is nothing more than a typical "then we can marry toasters!" red herring argument, and if you have half a brain you know it.
quote:
You're saying "it's different," but you aren't providing any reason that it's different. Provide the reason or concede.
I don’t know all of the 1000+ laws that mention marriage. I’m assuming that some of them didn’t take into account that it might be two men instead of one man and one woman and that that failure of accounting could lead to these things your asking me to predict. I don’t know for sure either way, that’s why I think it should be taken into account before we simply change the definition. To not would be irresponsible, IMHO.
So, "I don't know what will be affected by allowing gay marriage, but it could be REALLY BAD so we shouldn't do it!"
That's not an argument, CS, it's a bare assertion. I'm not doing your homework for you. Either provide a law that is meaningfully changed in its functionality by allowing homosexual marriage or concede that
you know of no such law.
™ Version 4.2
