now for something completely different

[y0ssarian87]

While the process of your proof is correct. The error occurred when the criteria was changed to something that's not used for marriage.

Say we are trying to prove size of A and B are the different. One can prove that by measure the area/volume which are the criteria of size. But conclusively proving that A and B have different color, doesn't do anything for the proof since color is not a measure of size.

I know what you are trying to say though. But bear in mind it's not just the liberals asking to make the leap that benefits their cause, the conservatives are asking for similar leaps. One can't jump both ways.

Here's the thing: that criteria doesn't define marriage; it limits who can join in the civil contract of marriage. It doesn't define the purpose and benefits of marriage; that is determined by state interest. The state interest in marriage is, in part, to create a set of rules and regulation for taxation, inheritance, health decision benefits, etc. Fiscally, marriage as a social contract serves to identify primary beneficiaries and caretakers for individuals. Many responsibilities exist in the dissolution of marriage as well, protecting two parties who enter such a social contract. This, too, is part of state interest of protecting citizens. Marriage also ensures that parents who have a kid while married are fiscally responsible. This is part of state interest by protecting the kid and the abandoned parent. It's also argued that marriage serves a state interest by providing value to society as an intermediate institution. Socially, there are rights and obligations of spouses to each other (though under family privacy this cannot be enforced). Historically the state interest was to preserve the nuclear family -- to keep a man tied down to a wife and kids. But with same-sex marriage and adoption being much more widespread, the same issues exist in creating a family unit. This is a simple argument of inclusion of gay and lesbian couples into the institution that is marriage.

You can try to argue that marriage is only a family issue, and thus only a state issue. But really marriage comes to play in the national realm too. In citizenship, if a non-citizen marries a same-sex citizen, what then? Do you defer to state inclusion criteria? If so, it's inconsistent. If you define inclusion criteria to include only man and woman, you are ignoring the fact that there are the same state interests that exist for both types of couples and families.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Leaving definitions of sex and gender up to the state sounds nice and pretty when it comes to states rights, but it means that your solution of equality through different terms for marriage can never exist. You cannot create equality when the states are individually creating unequal, inconsistent solutions oftentimes through unequal judicial precedent. What is your solution? Do you think sexual orientation should fall under the 14th amendment under sex protection? If so, the 10th amendment can't apply anymore to this issue because the 10th amendment gives states power over everything that isn't in the constitution (i.e., the 14th amendment in this case).

While I get that marriage has in many instances been defined as between a man and a woman, I don't see why centrists can see that as an argument for marriage to stay between a man and a woman. To me that's saying, once it's been created into law, it must be correct and must stay as law. Can you explain this a bit more to me?

I'm curious: Do you think that Prop 8 should be struck down? California was a state where licenses were already issued to same-sex couples. Then Prop 8 came along and thus the only effect was to take away rights away from a group of people -- statistically a minority group. If we subject this case to the lowest level of scrutiny which is rational basis, can Prop 8 hold? What if we subject it to intermediate or strict scrutiny? Do you think the LGBTQI population falls under a suspect or quasi-suspect class? Why or why not?

You pointed out some very good points. But there are more questions than answers, hence why the debate is so wide spread and heated.

I agree that definition is very muddled. Such is to be expected when it is up to the states and their voters to decide. However, I think you see that in general most do use gender in one form or another as a criteria. This is likely because marriage has been so widespread and ancient that the basic nature of it is taken for granted. It does not mean nature of marriage can't change, but changing something so basic and deep rooted needs a very compelling reason, especially if it doesn't violate the constitution. This is probably what the supreme court justices are struggling with right now.

I can't prove any other solution is better than leaving it up to the state either. You can't move marriage up to the federal level, since 10th amendment doesn't allow that. You could move it further down to the city, county, local level, but that would create even more confusion. To the extreme, you could abolish marriage as a social institution all together and go back to cavemen days, but as long as we live in a society, we need governance by law since the complexity of society can't exist in a free for all. The best we can do is come up with something that everyone can work with.

I'm not from california, and don't know enough detail about proposition 8 to have a truly informed opinion. I'm just as curious as you to hear what the supreme court says whether it violates the constitution in anyway. I have no leaning on the preferred outcome on this issue.

I do have more of an opinion on DOMA. While liberals and conservatives argue the civil rights nature of it. My understanding is that since marriage is judged to be state's domain, then the federal government issuing its definition is overstepping of it's authority. So I lean towards eliminating it. The conservatives probably won't like it, but I am basing it on my understanding of the constitution and the logical conclusion from that. Now, the supreme court may interpret the constitution different, and I will defer to their judgment.

If the rights are returned to the states, then it's really up to the people what they want to do. Liberals, conservatives and centrists may all have different ideas of how it should be. In this country, laws are made by the people and are usually somewhere in the middle of two extremes. Centrists have a slight advantage here.

 

[zelman]

While the process of your proof is correct. The error occurred when the criteria was changed to something that's not used for marriage.

Say we are trying to prove size of A and B are the different. One can prove that by measure the area/volume which are the criteria of size. But conclusively proving that A and B have different color, doesn't do anything for the proof since color is not a measure of size.

I know what you are trying to say though. But bear in mind it's not just the liberals asking to make the leap that benefits their cause, the conservatives are asking for similar leaps. One can't jump both ways.

While the process of your argument is correct. The error occurred when the criteria was changed to something that's not used for marriage without acknowledging that it once was.

Say we are trying to prove size of A and B are the different. One can prove that by measure the area/volume which are the criteria of size. But conclusively proving that A and B have different color, doesn't do anything for the proof since color is not a measure of size...unless we look at the fact that in many states prior to 1967 when the supreme court determined that interracial marriage could not be considered illegal. Size in Georgia was apparently color in Minnesota.

 

[zelman]

the fact that your solution is terrible is not negated by suggesting a worse one.

Example: Come on guys! It's either gay people can't get married, or we have to all become cannibals! You don't want to be cannibals, do you?

...to the extreme, you could abolish marriage as a social institution all together and go back to cavemen days...

qed

 

[npage148]

So once again xiphoid, is it ok for a transgendered man to marry a women? Both fit the correct definition to fit into your idea of marriage

 

[y0ssarian87]

You pointed out some very good points. But there are more questions than answers, hence why the debate is so wide spread and heated.

I agree that definition is very muddled. Such is to be expected when it is up to the states and their voters to decide. However, I think you see that in general most do use gender in one form or another as a criteria. This is likely because marriage has been so widespread and ancient that the basic nature of it is taken for granted. It does not mean nature of marriage can't change, but changing something so basic and deep rooted needs a very compelling reason, especially if it doesn't violate the constitution. This is probably what the supreme court justices are struggling with right now.

I can't prove any other solution is better than leaving it up to the state either. You can't move marriage up to the federal level, since 10th amendment doesn't allow that. You could move it further down to the city, county, local level, but that would create even more confusion. To the extreme, you could abolish marriage as a social institution all together and go back to cavemen days, but as long as we live in a society, we need governance by law since the complexity of society can't exist in a free for all. The best we can do is come up with something that everyone can work with.

I'm not from california, and don't know enough detail about proposition 8 to have a truly informed opinion. I'm just as curious as you to hear what the supreme court says whether it violates the constitution in anyway. I have no leaning on the preferred outcome on this issue.

I do have more of an opinion on DOMA. While liberals and conservatives argue the civil rights nature of it. My understanding is that since marriage is judged to be state's domain, then the federal government issuing its definition is overstepping of it's authority. So I lean towards eliminating it. The conservatives probably won't like it, but I am basing it on my understanding of the constitution and the logical conclusion from that. Now, the supreme court may interpret the constitution different, and I will defer to their judgment.

If the rights are returned to the states, then it's really up to the people what they want to do. Liberals, conservatives and centrists may all have different ideas of how it should be. In this country, laws are made by the people and are usually somewhere in the middle of two extremes. Centrists have a slight advantage here.

I don't think that states should have the right to define marriage. People incite the 10th amendment, but I don't believe it applies since marriage is at the core of federal tax laws and naturalization laws which are granted in the constitution as powers of Congress.

In addition, in 1966 in Loving v. Virginia, the VA Supreme Court said:

"[M]arriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation, without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive control by the 10th Amendment."

That's exactly your argument, and they upheld the ban on interracial marriage. When taken to the US Supreme Court the following year, the ruling was overturned. Justice Warren (the author of the unanimous decision) wrote:

"Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival...The 14th Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."

I'm asking in all honesty: do you think the states have the right to ban interracial marriage? You mentioned that you think it's a state's right to determine the terms of inclusion for marriage. What makes same-sex marriage different if you don't think race can be inclusion criteria?

I think precedent in the Loving case should be enough legally, but for those who discount precedent should look at the fact that marriage is critical to many federal powers granted by the Constitution.

If you think gay couples should get the same rights, why do you think so? I'm curious as to what you think is the same and different about same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Do they serve the same state interest? Why or why not?

 

[xiphoid2010]

While the process of your argument is correct. The error occurred when the criteria was changed to something that's not used for marriage without acknowledging that it once was.

Say we are trying to prove size of A and B are the different. One can prove that by measure the area/volume which are the criteria of size. But conclusively proving that A and B have different color, doesn't do anything for the proof since color is not a measure of size...unless we look at the fact that in many states prior to 1967 when the supreme court determined that interracial marriage could not be considered illegal. Size in Georgia was apparently color in Minnesota.

Interracial marriage has been accepted (in general) in human civilization since the dawn of time. Hence race is not criteria for marriage, but gender was. Trying use exeptions to justify the majority is a fallacy.

 

[xiphoid2010]

So once again xiphoid, is it ok for a transgendered man to marry a women? Both fit the correct definition to fit into your idea of marriage

It depends on the legal definition of gender in that state. In some state under going gender change operations does change the legal genders, hence its legal. Some others, you are what you are were. Wether to allow gender change procedures to change legal gender is something that the people of each state has to decide. I personally has no strong stance on it, but largely due lack of controversy/debate where I've been.

 

[xiphoid2010]

I don't think that states should have the right to define marriage. People incite the 10th amendment, but I don't believe it applies since marriage is at the core of federal tax laws and naturalization laws which are granted in the constitution as powers of Congress.

In addition, in 1966 in Loving v. Virginia, the VA Supreme Court said:

"[M]arriage has traditionally been subject to state regulation, without federal intervention, and, consequently, the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive control by the 10th Amendment."

That's exactly your argument, and they upheld the ban on interracial marriage. When taken to the US Supreme Court the following year, the ruling was overturned. Justice Warren (the author of the unanimous decision) wrote:

"Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival...The 14th Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations."

I'm asking in all honesty: do you think the states have the right to ban interracial marriage? You mentioned that you think it's a state's right to determine the terms of inclusion for marriage. What makes same-sex marriage different if you don't think race can be inclusion criteria?

I think precedent in the Loving case should be enough legally, but for those who discount precedent should look at the fact that marriage is critical to many federal powers granted by the Constitution.

If you think gay couples should get the same rights, why do you think so? I'm curious as to what you think is the same and different about same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Do they serve the same state interest? Why or why not?

This is strictly my understanding. Federal government does have taxation authority, however it does not have the legal authority say what is marriage and what is not. (The feds don't marry people, the states do). Authority for taxation and marriage are mutually compatible, and its not reasonable to translation one authority to trump the other. For taxation purposes they should accept what the marriage status is for that state. So 10th amendment applies here. But please read on.

Now, the judiciary branch of the federal government is in charge of interpreting the constitution, and that does give it the authority to invalidate any laws that violates the constitution. In the case you cited, they ruled that racial requirement violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and hence the law is invalid. I agree with that. Those few states added racial criteria to the traditional definition of marriage for discriminatory reason.

The bottom line is that the supreme court does have the authority to overturn any laws depending on how it reads the constitution. And they don't have to defend their interpretation to anyone since there is no one that can overrule the supreme court. In that way, they are a bit of a wild card. And that is what's so interesting about waiting to hear the what they will say about this. Does civil union violates the constitution no matter what? Or it is legal if it meets the equal protection clause?

I am just as curious as you on how the Supreme Court reads it. You already know what me and many centrists' opinions on the matters are: (a) right to have equal protection and (b) different wording alone is not discriminatory. But of course, the final say rests with the Supreme Court. I think there are three possibilities, they can rule in favor of the liberal or conservative interpretation, or thirdly they drop it back to states rights. The first two possibility will upset a big section of the political spectrum, the third will create a lot of chaos. This makes me glad that I'm a moderate on this issue, be interested but not upset much by it.

 

[BenJammin]

I find it odd that all of these people on Facebook say "you should have the right to love each other equally". What the hell? You don't need marriage to love someone. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love. There is nothing in the law books that is preventing same sex love.

 

[Ackj]

I find it odd that all of these people on Facebook say "you should have the right to love each other equally". What the hell? You don't need marriage to love someone. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with love. There is nothing in the law books that is preventing same sex love.

That's the entire problem really. We don't need to add laws to include same sex marriage. We need to remove laws that regard marriage. Marriage is a religious celebration, not a legal status. Imagine if you couldn't progress to high school without your bar mitzvah, or if you couldn't see a pediatrician until your baptism. Why have we been placing restrictions on someone based on whether or not they have been married? That is the real question, not "who is allowed to marry?"

 

[owlegrad]

That's the entire problem really. We don't need to add laws to include same sex marriage. We need to remove laws that regard marriage. Marriage is a religious celebration, not a legal status. Imagine if you couldn't progress to high school without your bar mitzvah, or if you couldn't see a pediatrician until your baptism. Why have we been placing restrictions on someone based on whether or not they have been married? That is the real question, not "who is allowed to marry?"

That is some outside the box thinking. I like it.

 

[BenJammin]

That's the entire problem really. We don't need to add laws to include same sex marriage. We need to remove laws that regard marriage. Marriage is a religious celebration, not a legal status. Imagine if you couldn't progress to high school without your bar mitzvah, or if you couldn't see a pediatrician until your baptism. Why have we been placing restrictions on someone based on whether or not they have been married? That is the real question, not "who is allowed to marry?"

I would be fine with that.

 

[xiphoid2010]

That is some outside the box thinking. I like it.

Actually I don't think that argument is sound. Marriage is not just a religious celebration, although it frequently takes on one. If it was only religious then atheist societies wouldn't have it, nor would it be in societies that doesn't link marriage and religion.

Ultimately, I think the main reason why marriage exist since the dawn of human history is to stabilize the society, to set up the frame work to allow rule by law possible. Imagine, if it was a free for all system like the cavemen days, how do you determine who has the right to whom? Who has hereditary rights and property? The human civilization require a set framework that allows rule by law, which allows the complexity of the society to work.

Some say there is nothing gray about civil rights, but it always has been grey. We live in a society, and we have been trading rights to live in its rules since day one.

 

[Thebrainina]

After reading this debate xiphoid2010 made the most sense and was the most consistent with his posts. We need a centrist solution to satisfy the majority. You hard core liberals got owned by this moderate.

 

[Pharmavixen]

But marriage IS a legal status. It changes how you're taxed and what benefits to which you are entitled. And all people in a democratic society should have the same rights under the law.

Besides, look at the people on each side. If you favour SSM, you're with this guy:

If you're against SSM, you're with this guy:

Don't like SSM? Don't marry somebody of the same gender.

 

[Unchained]

Society has evolved actually. The majority of Americans support same sex marriage.

This is not evolution. It's brainwashing of the youth by the liberal media. If you put something on TV enough then young minds consider it the norm. They just love to advocate what they consider a noble cause.

The majority of the US is Christian. Christians follow the Bible. The Bible clearly does not approve of this lifestyle. Your friends who consider themselves Christians cannot just practice religion a'la carte.

 

[rxlea]

This is not evolution. It's brainwashing of the youth by the liberal media. If you put something on TV enough then young minds consider it the norm. They just love to advocate what they consider a noble cause.

The majority of the US is Christian. Christians follow the Bible. The Bible clearly does not approve of this lifestyle. Your friends who consider themselves Christians cannot just practice religion a'la carte.

The bible says a lot of things that people choose to ignore. But, our society is not required nor supposed to make laws in favor of a specific religion.

I'll continue to eat my shellfish, thank you

 

[owlegrad]

The bible says a lot of things that people choose to ignore. But, our society is not required nor supposed to make laws in favor of a specific religion.

I'll continue to eat my shellfish, thank you

Oh I don't know about that. Decent people don't wear clothes of mixed fibers or eat animals that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, now do they?

 

[CYP3A4]

I'm gay. I currently have no plans to get married but I am hoping that if one day that changes I can simply go to the court house with no hassle and have all of the federal rights, protections and benefits that straight people have.

Also, I don't sit here losing sleep about all the straight people getting divorced or committing adultery. It's none of my business quite frankly. I find it odd that straight people get so worked up whether or not the federal government allows gays to get married.

Anyhoo, gay marriage will happen eventually. As a previous poster stated, we have always been here and aren't going anywhere. Nor will gays just "give up". Take a look at history. There hasn't been a single disenfranchised minority group in the country that has simply said "ok nevermind, you can treat us like ****. we will just be quiet".

 

[Unchained]

The bible says a lot of things that people choose to ignore. But, our society is not required nor supposed to make laws in favor of a specific religion.

I'll continue to eat my shellfish, thank you

The Founders of our country were Christian people. We were founded on Christian principles to which we owe a large part of our success as a nation. The stable family unit is the backbone to this success. The increase in the divorce rate, illegitimacy, and sexual abuse has resulted in a myriad of societal issues. The further attack on the traditional family unit will serve the country no purpose. Our courts, politicians and the media waste an inordinate amount of time on an issue which has no bearing on the future success of our Nation.

 

[Old Timer]

The Founders of our country were Christian people.

This is not true. Many were deists and some were atheists.

We were founded on Christian principles to which we owe a large part of our success as a nation.

If you wish to claim the good that has come from our Christian background, you have to accept the bad as well. Slavery, anti-semitism just to name a few.

The stable family unit is the backbone to this success.

This is about the only statement you make that has any credence.

The increase in the divorce rate, illegitimacy, and sexual abuse has resulted in a myriad of societal issues.

You make a valid point here. You can pretty much draw a clear parallel to the fall of religious beliefs in the 1960's and the inverse increase in the rise of narcissism. But based on your views, we should all become Jews of the 1950's. Before assimilation reared it's ugly head, Jews had:

• Lower divorce rates
• Lower rates of alcolism
• Lower rates of drug abuse
• Lower rates of child abuse
• Lower rates if spousal abuse.

Now that Jews live amongst the rest of society as opposed to in "Jewish" neighborhoods, the rates match the rest of society.

The further attack on the traditional family unit will serve the country no purpose. Our courts, politicians and the media waste an inordinate amount of time on an issue which has no bearing on the future success of our Nation.

You seem to conflate the idea of gay marriage and the demise of the family when in fact there is no correlation at all. I think you can see the collapse of marriage well before gays decided they were endowed by their creator with the same unalienable rights as straight people, namely the right to life with the person they love, the liberty to marry them and the pursuit of happiness together.

Gay marriage has ZERO effect on straight marriage. Until straight people take their heads out of their asses and get their own marital house in order,, they should leave gay people alone. By the way, gay men are the majority (in wanting to get married), it's straight christian guys who want to screw the women but not marry them.....

 

[WVUPharm2007]

This is not evolution. It's brainwashing of the youth by the liberal media. If you put something on TV enough then young minds consider it the norm. They just love to advocate what they consider a noble cause.

The majority of the US is Christian. Christians follow the Bible. The Bible clearly does not approve of this lifestyle. Your friends who consider themselves Christians cannot just practice religion a'la carte.

Yeah, but the bible is all make believe.

 

[rxlea]

The Founders of our country were Christian people. We were founded on Christian principles to which we owe a large part of our success as a nation. The stable family unit is the backbone to this success. The increase in the divorce rate, illegitimacy, and sexual abuse has resulted in a myriad of societal issues. The further attack on the traditional family unit will serve the country no purpose. Our courts, politicians and the media waste an inordinate amount of time on an issue which has no bearing on the future success of our Nation.

Its very Christian to slaughter millions of natives to pursue their Manifest Destiny and subsequently trick the Mexican people into selling their land for pennies on the dollar. Its even more Christian like to transport slaves here and "build the country" on the backs of the cotton and tobacco leaf pickers. Its absolutely Christian to subjugate women, too. And yes, it was Christian to burn women at the stake.

People seem to romanticize these supposed "Christian values" when, in fact, our country has a very ugly past because of them.

You extract a few statements from a book written in a completely different time and context and use that to discriminate, ostensibly to counteract society's declension of morals. You see, gay people also want a family unit-- a happy home, stable marriage, children, all of it. I just don't see how acknowledging those strong family units is a bad thing.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Being against gay marriage is not the default Christian position. There are plenty of Christian denominations that are open and welcoming. They just don't shout as loud as Westboro Baptist Church. Furthermore, there are actually 0 instances of Jesus (isn't Christianity sort of based on his teachings) mentioning homosexuality or gay marriage. So I'm not sure any of us can actually lay claim to knowing the universal Christian belief on this issue.