Explaining Same Sex Marriage

That doesn't seem to be true. Perriquine didn't change the focus: you did. Perriquine argued that the gender restriction was arbitrary, you changed the focus by questioning whether the restriction actually existed:

The goal post was moved by you. Perriquine simply responded to your new assertion by pointing out that offering "separate but equal" restrictions doesn't mean the law is free of sexual discrimination. This brings us back to the original point you were avoiding, that the sex based restriction you are proposing appears to be completely arbitrary.

 

No one want's a separate law to offer marriage rights to same sex couples, anymore than anyone wants a law that says black Americans can drive cars.

We simply have to apply strict scrutiny to any law that restricts driving based on race or any law that restricts marriage based on sex. The burden to demonstrate the need for either discrimination is upon the government.

We "wasted" a lot of money to protect civil rights in the 1960s. I feel we got our money's worth then. I'm willing to bet we will now.

 

Wow. Now we really begin to see how little understanding you have of how this works.

There would be no strict scrutiny test applied to such a law unless someone brought a suit challenging it with a claim that as a member of a suspect class the law unduly infringes upon their rights.

Who do you imagine would bring such a suit against a marriage law that allows consenting, competent adults to marry each other without regard for their genders? How do you imagine such a challenger would be able to qualify as a suspect class, requiring strict scrutiny?

What's more, this would not be a new law separate from existing marriage law, but a modification to the existing law to remove the gender restriction.

There would be no "gay marriage" law. There is marriage law, and the existing law would be modified to remove the gender restriction. There wouldn't be some new law enacting "gay marriages" as a separate legal institution. If you want a better example of that sort of thing, look no further than the creation of separate civil union laws that pretend to provide equality while maintaining a separation between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex unions.

As for wasting taxpayers money, that wouldn't be an act by the proponents of marriage quality, but by the person's bringing suit to challenge it.

 

really? You are twisting this. And it's laughable--because EVEN THE GAY MARRIAGE ACTIVISTS recognize this is the angle to go after current marriage laws. --DUH. Your repeated claims that I don't know what I'm talking about is obnoxious--because I don't say something unless I know what I'm talking about. Who the hell are you? Some law student with his head up his backside thinking he's Thurgood Marshall or something? Pshaw...

Strict Scrutiny is an analysis procedure--it's part of judicial review--it's not plaintiff or defendant. It concerns the law itself. Laws that ALREADY EXIST--ones that have been passed.

In California, Prop 8 actually was overturned with an argument that homosexuals were a class that should be considered a suspect class because they supposedly met the standard for a suspect class under strict scrutiny.

However--even the judge that wrote the finding knew that was a big stretch, so he tried to influence the appeals process claiming that it didn't pass the lest stringent "rational test."

Still further--he became ACTIVIST in his ruling by putting in "fact findings" to muddy up the appellate process even more.

So this AGAIN is the minority wasting public monies to manipulate the law to achieve an outcome that is contrary to the expressed will of the people. If that's not "Gay Marriage" causing harm to our society...

You're blathering. It's obvious it is YOU who don't know what you are talking about.

[E]quality?

No--it's a specific minority of people who don't like the legally expressed will of the people.

 

No--he was talking about whom males and females could marry--and that is not sex discrimination. Sex discrimination is based on the gender of the person being discriminated against--not another party's gender.

 

Joe want's to marry Jane, the law says he can. Sally want's to marry Jane, the law says she can't. The law has discriminated against Sally based on her sex.

A law that says I can only hire men would be a sexually discriminatory law. I would have standing to contest it.

 

No it really is you who have this upside down. If a law is challenged on the grounds that it discriminates against or excludes a whole class for no reason, it is the government that must prove there is a compelling and necessary reason to continue to allow the discrimination to occur. They don't need it proven to them why they should permit something, they have to prove why they should deny something if the class of people challenging the discrimination are substantially similarly situated to the class that is currently permitted.

For instance, if all black people were legally blind (ridiculous I know but I'm just trying to illustrate a point.) and a black person challenged a law that did not permit blacks, as a class, to drive; the government could easily provide compelling and necessary evidence as to why that ban should stay in place because if they license blind drivers, road accidents would increase hugely causing provable harm to other road users.

The ban isn't in place because the class are black, it's in place because they have the impediment of being blind which is incompatible with driving a car (well at least until cars can drive themselves then maybe the case could be reviewed).

So what is the impediment that gay people possess that makes them incompatible with the current contract in any way which would substantially differ from opposite sex couples?

Some argue that because gays can't procreate naturally with each other they are impeded in a central function of marriage. The counter is that there is no requirement to procreate and that opposite sex couples who clearly cannot procreate are still permitted to marry.

What compelling and necessary government interest is served by permitting an opposite sex paraplegic couple to marry and reserving that right from a same sex paraplegic couple?

What compelling and necessary government interest is served by allowing opposite sex first cousins to marry as long as they can prove they are infertile and can't procreate and reserving that right from same sex first cousins who are infertile and can't procreate?

Some argue that maintaining the discrimination "furthers" procreation but same sex couples marrying does not in any provable way hamper heterosexuals from marrying or procreating and neither are gays any more or less likely to be gay and living in same sex households because they can or can't marry.

So far it seems that no-one has advanced a compelling and necessary rationale for continuing to deny gay couples access to the existing marriage contract.

 

​

 

Okay. I agree--but there is a definite PURPOSE as to why the discrimination is legal. Not all discrimination is illegal. All kinds of discrimination is legal--because there is an INTEREST in there being discrimination. Children can't marry--consanguineous people cannot marry...there is valid reason to discriminate.

Let just look at consanguineous.


A father and a daughter--both consenting adults--he 45, she 25.
They love each other and desire to marry one another. What interest does the govcernment have in prohibbiting by law THAT relationship?
http://marriage.about.com/od/marriagelaws/g/incest.htm



http://www.villagevoice.com/2006-09-26/news/daddy-s-girl/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347368,00.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086646/posts


Why not?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1607322,00.html

Why would it be illegal for consanguineous and consenting adults to marry?


Seriously, I'm asking the reasoning.

 

Helloooo! Prop 8 was a law restricting marriage to hetero-sex couples. It was challenged, and the strict scrutiny measure was applied. Lo and behold! an activist judge, seeing that in order for same sex marriage to ever become legal was dependent upon homosexuals to be deemed a suspect class, crafts his findings to force the issue so that it must go eventually to the US Supreme Court.

BTW--we are sooo timely in this discussion:

BREAKING: CA Supreme Court to issue opinion on Prop 8/standing tomorrow
By Adam Bink



Maybe there will be more to discuss TOMORROW!

 

Leaving aside the birth defects thing:

It's more complex with consanguineous couples "as a class". In some instances their relationship would probably be no more detrimental than a non related same/opposite sex couple. In fact in some instances they may not even know they are father and daughter.

However let's just say the father is divorced from the mother and decides to wed the daughter with the daughter's consent. The mother may not want this to happen but in granting the license the law actually "sides" with the father/daughter pair. This creates a conundrum of legal distance whereby the daughter is now more closely related to the father than she is to her mother whereas she was once both equal and the same.

The government could advance a compelling and necessary argument that it cannot be used as a tool to rearrange the structure of existing family units with potential detriment to unwilling and vested family members.

In that case there is a clear distinction in the way that family members can be perceived "as a class" versus non related consenting adults.

I suppose you could add a rider that such marriages could be permitted on the proviso that all family members stipulate to their willingness to allow it but that would be a different rather than similar situation.

 

Potential harm is not the standard in the case of whether marriage is discriminatory.

same-sex unions are incompatible with the purpose of legally endorsed marriage.

Procreation.

That's where the "least restrictive" part comes into the picture.

1st--it's the "least restrictive" and 2nd--the rational basis review is used in the case of disabled persons. Some mentally disabled persons are not allowed to marry because they do not meet the standard.

 

Not all discrimination is illegal. Discrimination against unprotected classes is even common. Religious, racial, and sexual discrimination is a different issue. For such a law to stand it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and meet other requirements. I don't believe there is any compelling government interest in denying a marriage license to a couple based on their sex.

Moving off topic again? If you strongly believe this discrimination is unfair, make your case for changing that law... (although that should probably be in another thread).

You're going to have a tough time. Unlike same sex marriage, the basis for this discrimination is not a protected class and there are many precedents for restricting or questioning transactions between family members. We often question or restrict a person's right to consent when family ties are involved... surgeons are often prohibited from operating on their children, jurors are prevented from sitting on a siblings case, sales and contracts between family members are examined with a different level of scrutiny by the IRS and SEC...

But as desperately as you seem to require me to provide you with a reason for this discrimination, I'm going to choose to decline. The simple fact is... I don't share your passion for allowing a 45 year old man to marry his own twenty something daughter.

Whether that act becomes legal or not has no more relevance to same sex marriage than the prohibition against allowing the blind to drive might have on a law restricting drivers licenses to white males. Perhaps we can get back to the actual topic now?

 

Well then what is?

That's just an "is because it is" statement.

Not a requirement, in some cases you have to prove you can't procreate in order to marry.

Least restrictive is too weak an argument to sustain as being compelling and necessary under challenge in this instance and you deliberately ignored the comparison which was central to the question. What's the difference between a same and opposite sex paraplegic couple?

 

Why are you getting into their private business? They are two consenting adults! What business does the government have dictating to people who they can consensually marry? You must be an incestiphobe!!!!!

(OBVIOUSLY I'm being sarcastic...)

 

Why? I thought procreation wasn't an issue with whether a marriage should be legal or not.

Okay--fine. Should Dad be able to marry his son? Why or why not?

As a consenting adult--whose business is it? Mom has no authority over the daughter.

They are adults--what "family unit" are you describing? What is your definition of family?

I don't see how. Once you're not claimed as a dependent--you're off the family hook.

Methinks you are making (*)(*)(*)(*) up to justify discriminating against something taboo in your mind and rationalizing how it isn't the exact thing you're condemning in people opposed to same sex marriage.

Why would there need to be "permission" granted?--they are consenting adults.

This view of yours is hypocrisy of the first order.

 

I have never advanced arguments which can be parsed in this manner (even in sarcastic fun). I actually pointed out some instances where their case may be arguable so I'm not sure what you're saying here?

I couldn't care less whether a father marries his daughter but I'm guessing her mother and probably her siblings wouldn't be so detached.

 

Don't want to touch it, eh? Too close for comfort. I'm not surprised.

homosexuals are not a protected class. It doesn't matter how often you say it--they simply are not.

There it is--hypocrisy.

 

It's the same reasoning. So, you would support a bill that would allow consanguineous marriages of any degree?

 

Leaving aside actually helps your position. I'm saying it's not even a necessary referral in order to analyze the case.

All things being equal if he can marry his daughter he should also be able to marry his son.

She is still related. In the absence of other kin and/or instructions she could still be potentially called upon to make important proxy decisions.

A kin relationship through blood or law.

You mistake me for someone who actually cares about this issue. I'm only theorising about possible arguments the government could make.

I couldn't care less If the couple living next door to me were a father married to his adult daughter, my finding something icky or not is no basis for denying them under law as long as their actions cause no harm. Taboos are your thing not mine.

You mistake me for someone who actually cares about this issue. I'm only theorising about possible arguments the government could make.

Their relationship potentially destroys an existing family bond though I would add:
you're mistaking me for someone who actually cares about this issue. I'm only theorising about possible arguments the government could make.

No, you're projecting what you think is my view and you're mistaking me for someone who actually cares about this issue. I'm only theorising about possible arguments the government could make.

 

I don't have every book relating to the complexities of family law to hand but if, as you say, persons become legal strangers to their existing family on reaching the age of majority then I can advance no compelling argument to prevent them from marrying.

 

So does ANY marriage. I don't see why you would attempt to make this argument.

A daughter leaves her mother and father when she marries ANY man.

If the "feelings" of a parent matter to the relationships their adult children contract, and that carried some sort of legal weight? What a mess! Your suggestion makes no sense.

If you say so...

 

'scuse me--i should have said, "potential PHYSICAL harm"....

Gotta be careful since Perriquine is such a darn stickler!



Among other considerations--societal harm is a consideration.

 

It's not sex discrimination that you don't get what you want. Jeesh--are male/female segregated bathrooms sex discrimination that should be taken to SCOTUS? Is a college fraternity/sorority illegal?

--should men be allowed to go to a gynecologist?! Aren't those doctors discriminating against MEN based on their sex?

 

I speak as I mean.