Another day, another judge unilaterally throws out a state's ban on same sex marriage

Three surprisingly well thought-out posts. I may disagree with portions of them, but it is encouraging to see the thought and effort that went into them.

It is clear that we disagree fundamentally on the identity and definition of marriage in human civilization; nothing I can say now will persuade any of you to see any validity in my viewpoint. Done.

I'll close, then, by surprising you, perhaps, by saying that, by far, my main agony over "gay marriage" is the way that it is being forced down our throats, by these demi-god Federal judges who take upon themselves the roles of interpreting the Constitution, overturning the overtly expressed will of the people in the sovereign states of the nation, and forcing behavioral and attitudinal changes on a population that doesn't WANT them. Oddly enough, personally, I don't care if two men "marry" each other... or two women... or a combination of men and women... or a commune of them, etc. I do believe in personal freedom, for that is perhaps THE central axiom of the U. S. Constitution -- but I am revolted and rebellious against anyone or any organization who deliberately moves like a Hitler-esque tyrant to subvert and destroy the will of the people. Gentlemen, we do a dangerous, contemptible thing when we allow anyone to rule against the will of the people! Now, I'll close on that statement. Good will to you all.

 

Who's to say gay parents can't do just as good a job as straight ones?

The perception is that having a parent of each gender is ideal, but does that hold up to reality? And I question studies comparing gay and straight parenting that include natural-born kids of the heterosexuals. The majority of kids being raised by same-sex couples are adopted, and adoptive children typically have more problems than those born and raised by their biological parents.

Question is, if we support the infertile heterosexual adoptive parents with marriage, why not do the same for the same-sex ones?

 

So it's all something I just came up with one day? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

I pronounce it a law because that's how many sociologists and observers have termed it (like the "law" of diminishing returns).
As far as no evidence goes I have already posted in another thread proof that polygamists are already taking their cause to court in Utah (spurred on by the gay rights cause the way the civil rights cause of the fifties and sixties spurred on the gay movement) http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/justice/utah-polygamy-law/

You were already wrong before your words ever entered the electronic ether. The process is already on going.

The fight to legalize gay marriage is going to legalize polygamy, eventually.

Stated like this it's hard to deny gay marriage.

Yet that word (marriage) is still a powerful one and I still contend that (A) if it's rights gays are after for their partners (over just owning that word) then domestic partnerships are perfectly viable and, (B), you cannot
open marriage up for gays only and then shut the door in the face of others.

Don't parrot phrases that have absolutely no meaning here. Society separates itself along gender lines all the time.

 

But if marriage is all about children, then why should sterile couple be allowed to marry?

 

They can, in theory and sometimes in practice. But society is a mix of male and female sensibilities and dynamics. A child reared in a house with a male and female in charge will get the best of both worlds. The ideal is a house with a mother and father.

I don't promise to be an expert on every one of these case studies that show a mother/father dynamic is the ideal. I only know what's been reported.

Well, that's the whole issue isn't it?

 

The world is bigger than just europe and north america... Most of the people on earth don't live in the west.

Beside many native tribes in north and south america also recognised same sex couples...

 

As more and more courts examine the issue, and issue identical findings of law, it becomes more and more difficult for SCOTUS to overrule them, even if they wanted to.

 

If it makes you feel better... They enjoy the same benefit in Canada (tax free).
But even though I'm not native I still enjoy stopping in Kanawahke for gas, which is about 35 cents less a litre than off resevation.

Oh and as a side note... They are flying the Five Nations flag and neither of the canadian or provincial flags. It's a Huron/Mohawk tribe, they are more nationalistic than the Algonquin which integrates better in my province, them and the innus.

 

This issue is not a matter of world law (which does not exist anyway). It is a matter of United States law and legal code.
Please stop dragging extraneous crud into this thread.

 

That's very pompous and circumstantial, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America.

If you think that the unnamed (and possibly non-existent) society which you refer to is something that the United States should model itself after, you're completely free to propose a Constitutional amendment. Of course you'd have to name the alleged "society" and explain why...

Obvious to whom?

There are many norms that might not be obvious outside of the confines of those who hold them dear. The most obvious marital norm that comes to my mind after the 2012 Presidential election is obviously the Mormon tradition of polygamy. One man, and as many women (or teenage girls) as he wants. Polygamy has been around for a lot longer than the Mormons of course...

Your point was???

So what you're saying is that this "issue" is just a false flag for those who are enemies of democracy, right? That's a problem because the basis of democracy is that the largest consensus wins. Not those who scream the loudest, or those who refuse to play nice with others; the majority makes the rules. If you hate this cornerstone of America, you're free to leave its protections.

Let me know if you ever come up with something that actually does "simplify".

 

EVERY SINGLE Court that has ruled on the Facts has disagreed with you. Every single one. Are they all homosexual, leftist activist members of the LGBT Attack Squad? Where do I sign up?

 

You could try to stop moving the goal post or set arbitrary lines... Beside, it's only a question of time before non westerner lose majority status in the USA... Will you still advocate for majority rule then?

 

I didn't say unintended consequences don't exist period. I said a) it's far from "a law" despite what any sociologist may call it and b) you haven't demonstrated using real-world events that the alluded "intended consequences" will manifest. As it's based purely on your personal beliefs I fail to see why it should translate to a social policy that excludes same-sex couples from marriage.

That case had nothing to do with polygamy. It was about a law that barred cohabitation. You'll have to do better than that if you want to convince me.

Except it isn't. What you alleged to be an example of the slippery slope effect is anything but. I'd be inclined to acknowledge you have a point, only- not one SSM jurisdiction around the world has or is showing any signs of legalising polygamy. And while not necessarily indicative of anything, every country that allows polygamy criminalises homosexuality.

I think your belief is genuine but I don't think we're going to agree here.

It's not shutting the door on others. Polygamy doesn't simply fit into the existing marriage model like same-sex marriage does. All SSM calls for is removing the gender restriction - changing "one man and one woman" to "two people". Polygamy - assuming it isn't patriarchal as it is in every other jurisdiction that permits it - would require amending virtually every aspect of marriage law . While not impossible, it's certainly not something that could be simply "struck down" by a judge, as it presents a ton of legal issues. A legislature, perhaps, but that generally only happens when public support is there.

But saying it happens and we have polygamy, then what? Will marriage among heterosexual couples collapse?

Yeah, but only when there's a rational reason. What's the rational reason for a same-sex union having to be called something other than a marriage when it already exists across 5 continents and 17 US states?

 

That's very pompous and circumstantial, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America.

Frankly it reads like a bunch of doubletalk to me. Lots of words, but no discernible meaning.

Gay people who want to marry. Pretty obvious, that.

 

What does the "best of both worlds" mean? I know I'm stereotyping but gay people usually embody both feminine and masculine awareness. Not always, but relatively often. My partner is more in touch with his feminine side than me for example. And, usually, there are people such as grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins, teachers, ect present around same-sex families who fulfil the gender-specific roles you are alluding to.

 

I can't possibly comment on your out of context snippets but perhaps that's the idea. I see nothing of substance here by you.

Obvious to anyone who doesn't think the world began the day the drive for gay marriage began (approximately in the early seventies). You know, gay marriage is still illegal in 33 states....right?

What precisely is your point? I made mine already.

No. But that's what you say I say.

Really? In that case my earlier point about gay marriage still being illegal in 33 states seems more valid than ever. The consensus certainly didn't seem to matter for much when California voted three different times to turn down gay marriage in our state.
But I suppose now that you sense that you have a popular advantage you are willing to claim victory on that ground though when that certainly wasn't the case gay marriage defenders assured us all that did not matter.

Try making up your mind.

Again you are dishonestly changing my post or leaving all context out in order to "win". It doesn't say much for you and that sort of thing lands you on the ignore list.

 

The "people" have never had the right to vote away to rights of others. The constitution simply does not allow it. The judges are bound by the constitution.

 

So what are you saying? Because of the word "law" you disagree with the concept? It's very real whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

I rarely say this but, laugh out loud! The issue was polygamous cohabitation and the suit was brought by the "Sister Wives", stars of a reality program based on a polygamous household.
And the point is that polygamists, emboldened by same sex marriage, are starting to push back against the system that says they have no rights to marriage but homosexuals do. If you think laws against gay marriage are unjust I don't see how you cannot think the same of other people wishing to have their relationship recognized too.

You are simply plugging your ears to what you choose not to hear.

That's all irrelevant. Just as the civil rights movement laid the groundwork for the same sex movement, polygamy will piggy back on the gay movement. The legal principle is being argued right now that will eventually legalize polygamy (how does polygamy disadvantage same sex marriage).

Of course the popularity of polygamists, compared to gay marriage which has received a thirty year love letter from pop culture in this nation, is virtually nonexistent. But their rights still exist all the same. It's taken forty years for the same sex movement to bear fruit (excuse the term).
It will take all that and more for polygamists to go through that marriage door as well.

It's too bad your rights are conditional on how many people like you.
But considering the state of California voted three times to veto gay marriage I'd say having friendly judges that can conjure up "rights" is even more important than popular acclaim. Gay marriage is still illegal in 33 states.

Considering
the cultish nature of polygamists and how they are so isolated and few in numbers I doubt anyone will notice.

Because it (same sex marriage) doesn't exist in every nation and in every state. I appreciate your enthusiasm but you greatly inflate how well received and wide spread gay marriage really is.

 

Note that it's your idea, and that there are no "out of context snippets" from me as the basis of a baseless personal attack.

The important thing is that you have no argument; you lost. Personal attacks lose. 'Nuff said.

 

I acknowledge that sometimes we do things that result in unintended consequences. However, not EVERY action produces unintended consequences, hence why it's no-where near a "law", despite the saying. Law implies it's inevitable, every time. Anyone can allege 'B' will happen if 'A' does - it doesn't prove anything until it actually happens. And it hasn't happened.

LOL indeed if you can't see how this does absolutely nothing for polygamy. Utah had a law that banned polyamorous cohabitation, the only state to do so. It was blatantly unconstitutional to say that a married couple cannot share their own home with others they are romantically involved with.

A ruling saying a Utah polyamorous family may do what every other polyamorous family in every other state can isn't evidence of the SS effect, sorry.

Different kettle of fish. I'm not personally against polyamory, but I don't like the fact that it's usually patriarchal and often tainted with abuse. And, polygamy ITSELF presents "unintended consequences" such as immigration issues (abuse of the system), the potential for endless litigation and issues relating to the division of property and inheritance. What they propose, if it is to be non-patriarchal, has never been done before. That's not to say we shouldn't at least look into it, but I think overall it presents too many negatives, and as such the limitation to two people is rational.

By extension, then, civil rights leads to polygamy. What you're saying in essence is we shouldn't allow SSM because of the potential of polygamy being legalised. So would it have been a valid argument in your eyes for people who oppose gay rights to oppose civil equality for blacks on the basis of the latter leading to the former?

No one is arguing that polygamy disadvantages or devalues marriage as it stands. No one is arguing anything because there's not a single case challenging polygamy laws. Funny that.

Laws against polygamy are rational for the simple fact there are many logistical and legal issues surrounding it, to the point an entire overhaul of marriage law would be needed. No judge could overhaul and rewrite marriage to address those fundamental issues, so it would be a matter for the legislature. And I doubt there will be enough public acceptance of polygamy for a majority of lawmakers to pass legislation to do that for the foreseeable future.

Don't get me wrong, it's POSSIBLE. Of course. Just not likely... you're trying in vain to convince me it's inevitable.

Perhaps, but if the public wills it then why not? Rights shouldn't depend on the majority, but sadly that's usually the way it works.

That didn't answer my question. I said "What's the rational reason for a same-sex union needing to be called something other than a marriage?"

 

I brought up God as a rebuttal.

My argument is not about giving or not giving consenting adults the right to marry other consenting adults; my argument is the method of trying to exact a meaning and intent out of the Constitution that does not exist. The ensuing destruction will be myriad, as it always has, when meanings that did not exist are suddenly created by a court to serve the purpose of a single agenda.

My other issue, and this was the reason DOMA was ruled unconstitutional, is DOMA defined marriage for the states, and the majority of the court ruled under the federalism doctrine that the federal government cannot interfere with a state’s right to define marriage. Now that a two federal courts have ruled that contrary to the DOMA ruling, the federal government, within months of the ruling, suddenly have the right to define marriage for the states.

The Constitution does not talk about equal rights, but rather the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment are the same laws of protection.

The equal protection cause is based on Chapter 40 of the Magna Carta: "We will sell to no man, we will not deny or delay to any man right or Justice." This was incorporated into the oath of the Supreme Court under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment:

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.​

During the congressional debate of the 14th Amendment, it was distinguished that the equal protection clause prevented states from denying, “not of its laws, but of the laws.” This distinguished the due process mechanism of the equal protection clause.

This was affirmed in People v. Brady in 1870, and the Slaughterhouse cases in 1872 as only a violation of the equal protection clause through “denial of equal justice in its courts.”

 

Technically, the Hammurabi Code duplicates the Noachide Laws (except the Hammurabi Code is consequential law, is void of positive obligations, and protects nobility), that preceded it by 1000 years, and the Noachide Laws were the basis for the Ten Commandments:

1. Idolatry
2. Murder
3. Theft
4. Sexual Promiscuity
5. Blasphemy
6. Cruelty to Animals

 

Actually that's not true in, what, 15 states now? 18? I forget the exact number. Plus a whole bunch of other countries.

But I guarantee you, by the end of 2015, it'll be 50. No matter how loudly you whine about it. And I am SO looking forward to the wailing and gnashing of teeth that I'm gonna see on this board the day the SCOTUS decision is announced.

 

I don't have links because it does not come from the internet. But I can supply you with a few laws.

The Massachusetts Body of Laws and Liberties," Section 8:

If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death.​

Leviticus 20:13:

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.​

 

And some people say the Bible shouldn't be considered hate speech. Lol.