Washington State set to become 7th state to legalise SSM

Noooo, Im the one that favors marriage for heterosexual couples, because heterosexual couples are the only type of couple who can procreate. YOU are the one who wants special treatment for homosexuals, for no other reason than the fact that they are homosexuals. ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS can form stable households. Nothing special about those who happen to be homosexuals

 

It has the affect of awarding thousands of civil rights to couples who are identically situated as far as procreation is concerned to other couples who are denied said rights - and all because of their genders.

A couple of lesser court opinions are exactly that - opinions. With court opinions in other cases saying the precise opposite of those opinions. Let's see what the Supreme Court says shall we?

I've already addressed this; you're obviously not paying a great deal of attention.

It is overinclusive ONLY by the reasoning put forward by the courts justifying the current limitation on marriage. I believe, given the fact that marriage is regularly awarded to those who between them have no potential of producing offspring (elderly couples), that this reasoning fails flat on its face. In reality it's not over inclusive at all, but it does apply a double standard.

 

Revealing isnt it, that not a single court case or state has done that and have instead merely extended marriage limited to heterosexual couples by extending it to include homosexual couples. You want to remedy overinclusiveness by making it even more overinclusive. And by creating a new governmental purpose, the formation of stable households, you make marriage even more underinclusive than heterosexual marriages were overinclusive. ANY TWO consenting adults can form a stable households. Nothing special about those who happen to have sex.

 

"Only"???? Who are you quoting? Or just creating another strawman for you to scamper off to?

 

Bans on interracial marriage were not held to be racial discrimination for a good century, untill Loving. Loving contradicted previous court precedent stating that the limitation and punishment are equal for all and as such no violation of the equal protection clause was anywhere to be found.(*)

The equal protection clause was as you said intended to eliminate racial discrimination, but it has since been held to apply to, among other things, gender. Another inescapable example of the evolution of court opinion and how the Constitution takes on new meaning as society changes.

It applied to all people, as you claim bans on SSM do.

Nearly every state who ratified it has anti-miscegenation laws and all of its original applications would have taken effect immediately. Just because the Supreme Court contradicted its own precedent 71 years after Plessy doesn't mean the original intention changes. It's a new interpretation. An example of court evolution.

 

Couples who can procreate are the only couples who can procreate. Elderly couples are exempt from this but oddly not exempt from the thousands of civil rights that same-sex couples are denied in 44 states.

The purpose of bringing this up is not to show it's actually overinclusive in its current form, but to prove the reasoning that would make it so is faulty. Currently there is a double standard that gives certain heterosexual couples thousands of rights for no other reason than the fact they happen to be the same genders as those who reproduce.

 

no court case or state has extended marriage to homosexuals only. they simply removed the gender restrictions. two heterosexual women are now allowed to marry.

 

Makes much more sense than extending marriage to all couples who have sex, for no other reason than they happen to have sex, like those who reproduce.
And if marriage is instead to be about the formation of households, the fact that they have sex is irrelevant to the formation of houdeholds.

 

Every single one of them. Each case has held that only discrimination against homosexuals in marriage was found to violate the constitution.

 

Noooooo, it was only marriages involving a white person and someone of a different race that was made illegal. They had no problem with non whites mixing races. .

 

Wrong, dixon. There are people TODAY who still have problems with mixed marriages. If you started a thread on the same, the racist views would pop-up there, most likely. The existing laws (in that sense) do not necessarily reflect the views of all on marriage, and likely never have.

I think that justice for homosexual people cannot and should not regard too heavily the type of sentiment you express in your opinions; actually the Constitution won't afford America such arbitrary and blatant discrimination for all time.

Laws again homosexual people being legally married to the person most compatible with them, will be struck down (one-by-one) or made of non-effect; it is simply a matter of time.

 

Such strong opinions regarding topics you know nothing about.

 

Some states also banned marriage between black people and Native Americans/"Mayalans", Dixon. The laws addressed the main racial groups of the time but were gradually altered to incorporate other racial groups. To claim that these laws were against the 14th when an "equal" application was in force is certainly a revision of it's original intention, and a reflection of changing attitudes.

The prime example however would be it being interpreted to incorporate gender discrimination. That you can't deny.

 

Why would I deny it? I see your still arguing against Osiris' strawman that the 14th was "only" intended to eliminate racial discrimination. Its a strawman. A claim nobody has made. No doubt why you choose it. And as to the original "intention" of the 14th

In contrast to your interpretation

 

No it doesn't make sense. Thousands of rights for no other reason than, in your words, "they happen to have sex like people who reproduce". It is NOT equal protection to give them that and simultaneously deny it identically situated couples.

Can I ask you what possible reason marriage would be extended to heterosexual couples over say, 70, if we are to believe it is solely about regulating procreation? Think carefully about your answer.

 

Well it was central to my point on evolving interpretations of the Constitution. And the point that the 14th was in no way intended to strike down anti-miscegenation laws, but was later held to mean that still stands. And later held to protect against gender discrimination. In the scope of my point it is therefore conceivable that in the near future it will explicitly apply to sexual orientation, which has already been given a markedly higher level of scrutiny by SCOTUS.

 

Thats what I said.

 

And my point that the Supreme Court of the United States directly contradicts your point, still stands.

 

The Supreme Court also ruled then by your logic the original intention of the 14th Amendment was to create a suspect class for gender, since that's basically the meaning of the ruling that established it. Directly contradicts your earlier point that it was intended to eliminate racial discrimination.

 

Glad you agree, it's a glaring double standard that won't stand the scrutiny, as we're hopefully going to hear from the Ninth Circuit tomorrow.

 

???? No

No it doesnt. An intent to stop racial discrimination doesnt imply an intent to ONLY stop racial discrimination.

 

You are confused.

 

No, you are. Read my post again, the one you quoted claiming we agree and ponder for a second what you think I was referring to.

 

Equal rights for women weren't part of the Reconstruction effort, as anyone who knows even a little about the origins of the 14th would know. When I say "original intention", I mean the historical context - obviously any US Supreme Court decision establishing a "new" interpretation would claim this as being an unrecognised part of the original intention. That's just procedural. But the historical evidence, at least with respect to gender being addressed, is entirely non-existent.

There are also those, even in the Supreme Court, who view the Constitution as a living document and believe the words in it take on new meaning as time progresses and society evolves, as well as language itself. A strict Constitutionalist would look fairly narrowly at the historical context and what the states who ratified the Amendments actually believed they were ratifying.

The point of all this being that, in time (and perhaps a lot sooner than you think), it is highly likely that sexual orientation will join gender in 'suspect class' status by a SCOTUS ruling, as lower federal courts have already ruled.