Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[bluethread]

Yes, that is an odd case. But in establishing legal status it is the odd cases that drive the legislation. So, you do believe that kidnappers should be legally recognized as the father and mother, if the child perceives them as such?

Obviously not, since their only relationship from the child derives from a crime that deprived the child's actual parents. Are you trying to equate same-sex parents with kidnappers? If not, why did you bring them up?

Good, just saying it is an odd case does not establish you position. Now, we can say that a person who obtains children through felonious act can not be granted marrage on the grounds of parenthood.

I have said nor suggested anything about you. You refering to yourself as "the mother of my children" prejudices any determination that one might make without providing any description of the relationship. Whether you are the mother of the children you refer to is dependant upon determining how parenthood is or should be legallyrecognized

. I don't need you to tell me whether or not I am my children's mother, and am frankly offended by your implication that the question is subject to your opinion in any way.

Of course you don't. However, it is by definition the case that a child's mother is it's parent. This is what biases the point. I never said anything about a mother not being her child's parent. In using yourself as an example, you failed to point out what it is that specifically is being challenged with regard to you being the parent of your children. At the time we were dicussing whether people who aquire children through felonius axcts should be allowed to be married. Unless that is the case with you, why would you presume that I was questioning whether you were the mother of your children? I honestly do not have enough information to determine that one way or the other at this point.

I have accepted autodidact's suggestion that all persons whom children consider to be parents should be granted government regulated marriage. . . .

I didn't say anything about what the child considers, let alone all. If you're going to falsely allege that I suggested this rabbit hole, at least quote me correctly. What I said is, people who are raising children are parents. By the way, Jaycee Dugard's kidnappers were married. Are you suggesting that they should not allowed to be married?

I did not quote you. I summarized what I perceived as your suggestion. Since the following quote, from the bottom of page 20, does not reject the idea of children aquired through felonious acts, I took your point as regarding them playing a parental role as including them in the definition of a parent for our purposes.

Well, that is an odd case. However, in the case of Jaycee Dugard, in fact she did regard her kidnapper as her father, and his accomplice as her mother. I don't think it's a positive example, but they were serving in a parental role, however negative, yes.

Emphasis Mine

Now, that you have agreed that people who aquire children through felonious acts should be exclude from those who should be granted legalized marrage, let's move on. What of two persons who have no interest in one another other than to live with and take care of a particular child and no familial relationship with that child. Should these persons be granted the right to legal marrage for the purpose of raising that child? I know this may seem a bit tedious, but unless you can suggest more well defined definition of where you would draw the line, I am left with determining that by process of elimination.

[Autodidact]

Obviously not, since their only relationship from the child derives from a crime that deprived the child's actual parents. Are you trying to equate same-sex parents with kidnappers? If not, why did you bring them up?

Good, just saying it is an odd case does not establish you position. Now, we can say that a person who obtains children through felonious act can not be granted marrage on the grounds of parenthood.

You skipped a few steps. No one needs to have or even want children to be married. Rather, providing a stable family base is one of the purposes or goals of marriage, and one of the reasons for that is as a setting for children to grow up.

The state does not have an interest in promoting kidnapping, however.

I have accepted autodidact's suggestion that all persons whom children consider to be parents should be granted government regulated marriage. . . .

I didn't say anything about what the child considers, let alone all. If you're going to falsely allege that I suggested this rabbit hole, at least quote me correctly. What I said is, people who are raising children are parents. By the way, Jaycee Dugard's kidnappers were married. Are you suggesting that they should not allowed to be married? [/quote]

I did not quote you. I summarized what I perceived as your suggestion. Since the following quote, from the bottom of page 20, does not reject the idea of children aquired through felonious acts, I took your point as regarding them playing a parental role as including them in the definition of a parent for our purposes.

Well, that is an odd case. However, in the case of Jaycee Dugard, in fact she did regard her kidnapper as her father, and his accomplice as her mother. I don't think it's a positive example, but they were serving in a parental role, however negative, yes.

Emphasis Mine

Well you perceived wrong. I have never suggested that there need be any relationship between having children and getting married.

Now, that you have agreed that people who aquire children through felonious acts should be exclude from those who should be granted legalized marrage,

I have never said anything of the kind.

let's move on. What of two persons who have no interest in one another other than to live with and take care of a particular child and no familial relationship with that child. Should these persons be granted the right to legal marrage for the purpose of raising that child? I know this may seem a bit tedious, but unless you can suggest more well defined definition of where you would draw the line, I am left with determining that by process of elimination.

Any two adults who wish to marry should be allowed to do so, regardless of whether they have, want, or plan to have any relationship with a child. You don't have to have or want children in order to marry, and I don't think you're advocating that you impose such a rule, are you?

You jumped from "Providing an environment in which to parent children" to "Only parents should be allowed to marry." There is no logical connection between those two.

I also have not observed a lot of couples such as you describe.

Here's where I draw the line:
1. They're adults.
2. They're not married to anyone else.
3. Both are acting of their own volition.
4. They want to marry each other.

That's all.

[Autodidact]

bluethread: You have been consistently distorting my responses. Do me a favor and quote them and respond to what I actually say, rather than making things up on my behalf. Thank you.

[bluethread]

I also have not observed a lot of couples such as you describe.

Here's where I draw the line:
1. They're adults.
2. They're not married to anyone else.
3. Both are acting of their own volition.
4. They want to marry each other.

That's all.

Ok, so that we can proceed, I will accept culpability for all things said prior to this point. I am just glad that there is an established frame of reference. I noticed that incest is not ruled out in your proposed criteria. Is this a misunderstanding on my part? Also, it appears that being married to more than one spouse is permissable as long as there is one marrage contract covering all previously unmarried participants. I know you did not say that, but you did not exclude it either. Is that acceptable? In additon, what of adults with diminished capacity? It isn't as simple as it may appear. There are many thing to consider.

[Autodidact]

I also have not observed a lot of couples such as you describe.

Here's where I draw the line:

1. They're adults.
2. They're not married to anyone else.
3. Both are acting of their own volition.
4. They want to marry each other.

That's all.

Ok, so that we can proceed, I will accept culpability for all things said prior to this point. I am just glad that there is an established frame of reference. I noticed that incest is not ruled out in your proposed criteria. Is this a misunderstanding on my part? Also, it appears that being married to more than one spouse is permissable as long as there is one marrage contract covering all previously unmarried participants. I know you did not say that, but you did not exclude it either. Is that acceptable? In additon, what of adults with diminished capacity? It isn't as simple as it may appear. There are many thing to consider.

Feel free to start a thread to discuss each of these situations, if they interest you.

If you think the government should permit incest, make an argument for why it should do so. Also organize a social movement to advance it.

If you think we should permit polygamy, make an argument for it.

If you think diminished capacity is an issue, present the issue.

For every example, it can be considered separately. Either it's the same as same-sex marriage, and should be treated the same, or it's not, and has nothing to do with it.

Society has certain interests in promoting marriage.
These interests are served by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

Society has certain interests in permitting marriage.
These interests are not frustrated by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

Our society has a strong interest in equality. Therefore, our laws should treat people equally, unless there is a countervailing reason not to.
There is no countervailing reason not to.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

[bluethread]

I also have not observed a lot of couples such as you describe.

Here's where I draw the line:

1. They're adults.
2. They're not married to anyone else.
3. Both are acting of their own volition.
4. They want to marry each other.

That's all.

Ok, so that we can proceed, I will accept culpability for all things said prior to this point. I am just glad that there is an established frame of reference. I noticed that incest is not ruled out in your proposed criteria. Is this a misunderstanding on my part? Also, it appears that being married to more than one spouse is permissable as long as there is one marrage contract covering all previously unmarried participants. I know you did not say that, but you did not exclude it either. Is that acceptable? In additon, what of adults with diminished capacity? It isn't as simple as it may appear. There are many thing to consider.

Feel free to start a thread to discuss each of these situations, if they interest you.

If you think the government should permit incest, make an argument for why it should do so. Also organize a social movement to advance it.

If you think we should permit polygamy, make an argument for it.

If you think diminished capacity is an issue, present the issue.

For every example, it can be considered separately. Either it's the same as same-sex marriage, and should be treated the same, or it's not, and has nothing to do with it.

I presented these considerations because you seemed to be insisting that we discuss this in light of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. If we are doing that, then we need to be sure that any change in the law does not also violate that clause. Otherwise, the change is just the expansion of a set of unconstitutional laws.

Society has certain interests in promoting marriage.
These interests are served by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

Society has certain interests in permitting marriage.
These interests are not frustrated by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

That does not follow, because we were unable to complete our examination of the nature of those interests.

Our society has a strong interest in equality. Therefore, our laws should treat people equally, unless there is a countervailing reason not to.
There is no countervailing reason not to.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

No that is a communist political tenent, not a constitutional governmental interest. The 14th amendment refers to the rights of the citizenry not a governmental interest. It restricts the enactment of laws by the government that do not provide equal protection and restricts the enforcement of those laws where there is no equal protection. The judiciary can not enact law. It is my understanding that it can strike down a law, interpret a law where the legislation is unclear and/or return a case for ajudication in accordance with the law as interpreted. The decision regarding which should be done is subject to inquiry with regard to the nature of the law and areas that are effected by that law. That is the approach that I was taking in the quote at the beginning of this post.

[Autodidact]

Feel free to start a thread to discuss each of these situations, if they interest you.

If you think the government should permit incest, make an argument for why it should do so. Also organize a social movement to advance it.

If you think we should permit polygamy, make an argument for it.

If you think diminished capacity is an issue, present the issue.

For every example, it can be considered separately. Either it's the same as same-sex marriage, and should be treated the same, or it's not, and has nothing to do with it.

I presented these considerations because you seemed to be insisting that we discuss this in light of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. If we are doing that, then we need to be sure that any change in the law does not also violate that clause. Otherwise, the change is just the expansion of a set of unconstitutional laws.

That's not how equal protection works. All that needs to be considered is whether the existing discrimination is justifiable. It is not necessary to wonder what other kinds of discrimination might be contemplated. Since this discrimination has no rational basis, it is not justifiable. I note that today the California Supreme Court agrees with me on this.

Society has certain interests in promoting marriage.
These interests are served by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

Society has certain interests in permitting marriage.
These interests are not frustrated by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

That does not follow, because we were unable to complete our examination of the nature of those interests.

Whether you finished whatever you want to do has no bearing on the above arguments.

If you think recognizing same-sex marriage violates a legitimate governmental purpose, then it is incumbent on you to say what and why.

Our society has a strong interest in equality. Therefore, our laws should treat people equally, unless there is a countervailing reason not to.
There is no countervailing reason not to.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

No that is a communist political tenent, not a constitutional governmental interest.

So in your world, the right to marry is a restriction on civil liberty, and equality is communist. In the real world, granting rights expands liberty, and equality is a legitimate state interest.

The 14th amendment refers to the rights of the citizenry not a governmental interest. It restricts the enactment of laws by the government that do not provide equal protection and restricts the enforcement of those laws where there is no equal protection. The judiciary can not enact law. It is my understanding that it can strike down a law, interpret a law where the legislation is unclear and/or return a case for ajudication in accordance with the law as interpreted. The decision regarding which should be done is subject to inquiry with regard to the nature of the law and areas that are effected by that law. That is the approach that I was taking in the quote at the beginning of this post.

Yes, that is why every state court that has considered it has struck down these bans. However, the constitution is not sole concern of the courts. The legislatures and the people should also not pass laws that discriminate with regard to a fundamental right (marriage) without a compelling state interest. There is not such interest, therefore the legislature should not enact such laws.

[bluethread]

I presented these considerations because you seemed to be insisting that we discuss this in light of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. If we are doing that, then we need to be sure that any change in the law does not also violate that clause. Otherwise, the change is just the expansion of a set of unconstitutional laws.

That's not how equal protection works. All that needs to be considered is whether the existing discrimination is justifiable. It is not necessary to wonder what other kinds of discrimination might be contemplated. Since this discrimination has no rational basis, it is not justifiable. I note that today the California Supreme Court agrees with me on this.

No, the court did not create or change a law. It struck down a law that prohibited certain legislation.

Society has certain interests in promoting marriage.
These interests are served by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

Society has certain interests in permitting marriage.
These interests are not frustrated by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

That does not follow, because we were unable to complete our examination of the nature of those interests.

Whether you finished whatever you want to do has no bearing on the above arguments.

If you think recognizing same-sex marriage violates a legitimate governmental purpose, then it is incumbent on you to say what and why.

Until those purposes can be defined an analized properly, one can not make a determination on whether marrage is a governmental concern at all, let alone certain kinds of marrage.

Our society has a strong interest in equality. Therefore, our laws should treat people equally, unless there is a countervailing reason not to.
There is no countervailing reason not to.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

No that is a communist political tenent, not a constitutional governmental interest.

So in your world, the right to marry is a restriction on civil liberty, and equality is communist. In the real world, granting rights expands liberty, and equality is a legitimate state interest.

I did not say that the right to marry is a restriction on civil liberty. Didn't someone rather forcefully protest the misstating of the positions of others. What I said was that governmental acknowledgement and thus the regulation of marrage restricts civil liberties. Are you saying that equality as a governmental interest is not a communist tenent? Also, can you point to the place in the constitution where equality is a principle governmental interest. Equal protection, yes, equality, no.

The 14th amendment refers to the rights of the citizenry not a governmental interest. It restricts the enactment of laws by the government that do not provide equal protection and restricts the enforcement of those laws where there is no equal protection. The judiciary can not enact law. It is my understanding that it can strike down a law, interpret a law where the legislation is unclear and/or return a case for ajudication in accordance with the law as interpreted. The decision regarding which should be done is subject to inquiry with regard to the nature of the law and areas that are effected by that law. That is the approach that I was taking in the quote at the beginning of this post.

Yes, that is why every state court that has considered it has struck down these bans. However, the constitution is not sole concern of the courts. The legislatures and the people should also not pass laws that discriminate with regard to a fundamental right (marriage) without a compelling state interest. There is not such interest, therefore the legislature should not enact such laws.

Emphasis Mine

With regard to the federal courts, all laws must conform to the constitution and be enacted and enforced according to it's dictates, otherwise we do not have constitutional government. As the 10th amendment points out, the various states are free to enact any legislation as they please, any way they please, as long it does not violate the federal constitution and federal laws enacted in accordance with that constitution.

[Autodidact]

I presented these considerations because you seemed to be insisting that we discuss this in light of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. If we are doing that, then we need to be sure that any change in the law does not also violate that clause. Otherwise, the change is just the expansion of a set of unconstitutional laws.

That's not how equal protection works. All that needs to be considered is whether the existing discrimination is justifiable. It is not necessary to wonder what other kinds of discrimination might be contemplated. Since this discrimination has no rational basis, it is not justifiable. I note that today the California Supreme Court agrees with me on this.

No, the court did not create or change a law. It struck down a law that prohibited certain legislation.

I never said it did. Courts don't make laws.

Society has certain interests in promoting marriage.
These interests are served by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

Society has certain interests in permitting marriage.
These interests are not frustrated by permitting same-sex marriage.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

That does not follow, because we were unable to complete our examination of the nature of those interests.

Whether you finished whatever you want to do has no bearing on the above arguments.

If you think recognizing same-sex marriage violates a legitimate governmental purpose, then it is incumbent on you to say what and why.

Until those purposes can be defined an analized properly, one can not make a determination on whether marrage is a governmental concern at all, let alone certain kinds of marrage.

Well don't let us stop you. Any time you like, go for it. After all, we're only on page 22.

Our society has a strong interest in equality. Therefore, our laws should treat people equally, unless there is a countervailing reason not to.
There is no countervailing reason not to.
Therefore we should recognize same-sex marriage.

No that is a communist political tenent, not a constitutional governmental interest.

So in your world, the right to marry is a restriction on civil liberty, and equality is communist. In the real world, granting rights expands liberty, and equality is a legitimate state interest. [/quote]

I did not say that the right to marry is a restriction on civil liberty. Didn't someone rather forcefully protest the misstating of the positions of others. What I said was that governmental acknowledgement and thus the regulation of marrage restricts civil liberties. Are you saying that equality as a governmental interest is not a communist tenent? Also, can you point to the place in the constitution where equality is a principle governmental interest. Equal protection, yes, equality, no.

There is nothing communist about it. If you're not talking about the right to marry, which is the subject at hand, then why bring the subject up? Equal protection is all about equality. You can tell because of that word equality in there.

The 14th amendment refers to the rights of the citizenry not a governmental interest. It restricts the enactment of laws by the government that do not provide equal protection and restricts the enforcement of those laws where there is no equal protection. The judiciary can not enact law. It is my understanding that it can strike down a law, interpret a law where the legislation is unclear and/or return a case for ajudication in accordance with the law as interpreted. The decision regarding which should be done is subject to inquiry with regard to the nature of the law and areas that are effected by that law. That is the approach that I was taking in the quote at the beginning of this post.

Yes, that is why every state court that has considered it has struck down these bans. However, the constitution is not sole concern of the courts. The legislatures and the people should also not pass laws that discriminate with regard to a fundamental right (marriage) without a compelling state interest. There is not such interest, therefore the legislature should not enact such laws.

Emphasis Mine

With regard to the federal courts, all laws must conform to the constitution and be enacted and enforced according to it's dictates, otherwise we do not have constitutional government. As the 10th amendment points out, the various states are free to enact any legislation as they please, any way they please, as long it does not violate the federal constitution and federal laws enacted in accordance with that constitution.

Yup. Did you have any point relevant to our discussion or are we done?

[bluethread]

No, the court did not create or change a law. It struck down a law that prohibited certain legislation.

I never said it did. Courts don't make laws.

That is why legally recognized of homosexual marrage ceremonies have been stopped pending appeal, or at least that is what I heardon the Rachel Maddow show. If anyone were to question whether that is true, it would no doubt have been her.

If you think recognizing same-sex marriage violates a legitimate governmental purpose, then it is incumbent on you to say what and why.

Until those purposes can be defined an analized properly, one can not make a determination on whether marrage is a governmental concern at all, let alone certain kinds of marrage.

Well don't let us stop you. Any time you like, go for it. After all, we're only on page 22.

I have attempted that. However, all attempts to find working definitions have been rejected because they are semantics, even though that is the very defintion of the term. I have even permitted you to establish the definitions. Yet, when I ask for clarification, I am dismissed as having gone off topic. If you do not wish your words to communicate anything other than your personal viewpoint without question, then your statements are simply dogma and of no more value than the social bias you appear to oppose. Mind you, I do not question your sincerity or integrity as an individual. I just find it difficult to find a basis for accepting your proposed overturning of precident without a willingness on your part to acknowledge the scope of behaviors that are effected by such a proposal.

There is nothing communist about it. If you're not talking about the right to marry, which is the subject at hand, then why bring the subject up? Equal protection is all about equality. You can tell because of that word equality in there.

Well, if I recall correctly, you said, "Our society has a strong interest in equality." I was merely pointing out that is not a constitutional principle, but a political tenent. Equal protection is all about equality, with regard to government protections. However, the converse is not true. Equality is about more than just the equal protection concept found in the 14th amendment. There are certain aspects of equality that are not supported by the constitution, therefore, one should not mistake equality as a strong interest of our society. In fact, many on the left propound diversity as a strong interest of our society. How can one hold both equality and diversity as strong interests without subjegating one to the other?

Yes, that is why every state court that has considered it has struck down these bans. However, the constitution is not sole concern of the courts. The legislatures and the people should also not pass laws that discriminate with regard to a fundamental right (marriage) without a compelling state interest. There is not such interest, therefore the legislature should not enact such laws.

Emphasis Mine

With regard to the federal courts, all laws must conform to the constitution and be enacted and enforced according to it's dictates, otherwise we do not have constitutional government. As the 10th amendment points out, the various states are free to enact any legislation as they please, any way they please, as long it does not violate the federal constitution and federal laws enacted in accordance with that constitution.

Yup. Did you have any point relevant to our discussion or are we done?

You just said that the constitution "is not sole concern of the courts", but you also agree that any decisions made, ie regarding marrage, must conform to the constitution and be enacted and enforced according to it's dictates. Even if something is considered a "fundamental right", the federal courts can not rightly act on it without a constitutional mandate. Therefore, to determine the extent of the recognition by the federal government of a "fundamental right" one must look to the constitution. You have presented the equal protection clause as a justification for an expanded recognition of marrage. This begs the question, how broad should this recognition be? If we adopt your proposed parameters, incest and simultanious polygamy or polyandry would be included. Do you find this to be acceptable? If not would you care to amend those parameters and what would be your justfications for doing so?