Gay Marriage and the Limits of 'Tradition'-

I'm also a bit dubious that Hoosier gives the same moral "gravitas" to Muslims....as he gives Catholic and Jews as he seems to claim in his Signature Line.

 

Of course there are conflicting court decisions, and dissenting opinions on appeal. That’s how things work. The vast majority of courts and individual judges have tossed out bans on same sex marriage. I thought that you were all for majority rule? Apparently that only applies when voters vote for bans on same sex marriage but not when it goes against you

As far as same sex marriage being a civil right goes, I will say this. Marriage in general has been well established as a right.

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

In addition to establishing marriage as a right, these cases also make it clear that the states do not always have the final word on who can marry who. Regardless of whether you call it a civil right, a human right or a fundamental right, it is a right that opposite sex couples can take for granted.

Having said that, the fact is that we are talking about one group of people who are essentially the same as another group of people except for one, albeit, salient characteristic is being treated differently under the law and that amounts to discrimination. Add to that, the fact that no one has been able to show how anyone one else-or society at large- is harmed by same sex marriage, while the harm done to gays is well documented. Time and again, courts have ruled that there is no rational basis-let alone a compelling state interest- for the denial of marriage to gays.

It is also not useful to debate whether marriage is a contract or something more. The fact is that it is being denied to one group for no rational reason.

The SCOTUS will soon establish same sex marriage as a right equivalent to “traditional” marriage. This is what will happen:
U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts, when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification" such as race or, sometimes, national origin\
.
In either case, when the SCOTUS decides to apply strict scrutiny to the right to same sex marriage, the marriage debate, at least in the courts is over.

Be prepared. Maybe Uganda will give you asylum-if they will take a heathen-they are Christian you know.

 

And describes himself as a Heathen. I'm waiting to hers back from him regarding what Gods and Goddesses he worships

 

Civil rights and contract rights are not the same thing.? OK, lets say they're not. BUT, if one group is arbitrarily banned from entering into a contract for no reason other than the fact that they are disapproved of by others, then it becomes a civil rights issue. You seem to be struggling to justify discrimination. You're turning what is really a simple and straightforward matter into convoluted nonsense

 

Because the contract does not include them. Simple as that. BTW, law treats single people and married people differently in tax law which should be a civil rights violation by your own definition of civil rights..

 

The fact that the "contract" if you want to call it that, does not include them is discrimination. I explained it to you in the simplest possible terms and you either can't or refuse to understand. Yes , it's THAT SIMPLE. Have you nothing to say about my assessment of why strict scrutiny is likely to be applied to bans on same sex marriage by SCOTUS? Do you have a handle on the concept of strict scrutiny and the need for states to articulate a compelling state interest in denying marriage to same sex couples? I think not.

Single people? that is a pathetic stretch. Single people have the option to marry. Gays do not in many cases. That s a moronic argument. I would like to see that attempted in a court. There would probably be a contempt citation. It's that stupid. You seem to have no basic understanding of the law whatsoever, do you? You just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go while denying reality and logic.

 

Nothing like an angry reply. Single people are being discriminated against by tax law.

 

Yes I am angry because you are infuriating with your bovine excrement . To say that single people are being discriminated against by the tax code is like saying that people without drivers licenses should be allowed to drive cars- or they are being discriminated against. I stated why that s idiotic and your only response is to repeat it without further comment.

Meanwhile, you are not able to actually discuss anything of substance such as the concepts of strict scrutiny or compelling state interest. You ignore the polls on public opinion and keep complaining about courts going against the will of the people. In short , you have no interest in having a productive and rational discussion, or in being open to learning anything. You have become nothing more than a waste of my time.

 

If parties have a right to contract, then they have a right contract. Saying "the contract does not include them" is pure nonsense. The contract is between the parties, and the state recognizes the contract. The problem is that some states won't recognize the contract, and that refusal is a civil rights issue. Using a phony distinction between contract rights and civil rights in order to pretend this discrimination is constitutional is not going to fly.

 

Well, then natural question then is, what next? Polygamy, of course. Then marriages between related people, because clearly disease-prevention is just old fashioned (they don't care about gays spreading HIV). Then probably peadophilia and finally zoophilia and necrophilia. Some might argue that we could just stop at some point. But that's intellectually dishonest and against the core nature of liberalism, which is change for the sake of change and always pushing the limit of what is acceptable.

 

Equine excrement! Where the hell did you come from? What we don't need here is another troll. Intellectually dishonest? Look at your self. You are extremely offensive! Can you possibly understand that you are talking about real people, human beings, that that want the same life that others enjoy? You come off as being very ignorant.

 

Yes. Or do you perhaps support polygamy and at least relative same-sex marriage (no chance of retarded offspring)?

 

I meant on the Federal level. The Edmunds act made polygamy a felony and it was directed against Mormons who supported and practiced plural marriage.

 

The Federal law merely duplicated what was already in place in the states. AND would apply equally to muslims or ANYONE who woul marry more than one person. The Mormans desire for multiple marriages doesnt create an intent to discriminate against Mormons on behalf of those who think marriages should be limited to two people.

 

Of course it was discrimination. The Mormons were out of the states at this point and in the territory of Utah. The people in the states could have just left them alone, but know, they pushed for federal laws against polygamy. This includes hypocritical southerns who had earlier screamed about "states rights" on the issue of slavery and race.

 

Of course it was. Nobody denies this. It IS NOT discrimination against Mormons as it apples equally to Baptist, Jews, Muslims or any variety of identities.

 

Of course it was intentional discrimination against Mormons- and specifically Mormons.

1856

Mormons wrote another “state” constitution. But by then, people in the East were very upset about polygamy. The Republicans said it was barbaric, and a “twin” of slavery. Utah’s representatives decided not to ask for statehood right then.

1857-58

President Buchanan removed Brigham Young as governor of Utah Territory. He sent a 2,500-man army and the new governor, Alfred Cumming, to Utah.

1862

Another constitutional convention met. They formed a constitution for a state to be named Deseret. Congress rejected the petition for statehood. And then it passed the Morrill Anti-bigamy Act. This Act prohibited polygamy in the territories and disincorporated the LDS church.

1867

In January 1867 the Utah legislature petitioned Congress to repeal the Morrill Act and asked again to be let into the Union as a state. Congress did neither.

1887

Congress passed the Edmunds-Tucker bill. This would confiscate LDS church property and take away the right of Utah women to vote.

Utahns came up with another constitution. This one made polygamy a misdemeanor (a minor offense). People around the country didn’t believe the Mormons really meant to abandon polygamy. Congress did not grant Utah statehood.

1890

LDS President Wilford Woodruff made an announcement that he advised against illegal marriages. This announcement has been called the “Manifesto.” It signaled a beginning of major shift of direction by the LDS church and cleared the path toward statehood.

1891

Utahns established national political parties (Democratic and Republican) in Utah. Mormons disbanded the People’s party and leaders advised the members to join one of the two national parties.

1894

photo of gold pen
The pen Grover Cleveland used to sign the Enabling Act, permitting Utahns to "form a Constitution and be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the other States."

Congress passed the Enabling Act, which set forth the steps Utah must take to achieve statehood. One of these requirements was to ban polygamy in the state constitution

The history of Utah makes it very clear that the Federal government was indeed intentionally discriminating against Mormons with the plural marriage laws.

HOWEVER- that does not necessarily mean that this is unconstitutional.

IF the state can provide a compelling state reason why a person should be denied their religious demand for plural marriages, then the State can indeed restrict such freedoms.

 

What's intellectually dishonest is your slippery slope argument, and your attempt to associate same-sex marriage with HIV. Gay people aren't required to refrain from pursuing their civil rights just because you're afraid of a bunch of unrelated stuff. What you're doing is essentially fearmongering.

How does preventing same-sex couples from having their marriages legally recognized spread disease? You do realize that only a small minority of gay people are infected with HIV, right?

 

Read again. I wasn't associating same-sex marriage with HIV, just same-sex sex. It's a documented fact that HIV spreads better through anal intercourse compared to vaginal. Let me ask you too: do you support the rights of polygamists to marry? Also, I trust that you don't oppose relatives getting married, if they are homosexual?

 

Tradition.

When the guru sat down to worship each evening, the ashram cat would get in the way and distract the worshipers. So he ordered that the cat be tied during evening worship.
After the guru died the cat continued to be tied during evening worship. And when the cat died, another cat was brought to the ashram so that it could be duly tied during evening worship.
Centuries later learned treatises were written by the guru’s disciples on the religious and liturgical significance of tying up a cat while worship is performed.

From Anthony De Mello, The Song of the Bird

 

Red herrings. AIDS, polygamy and incest have nothing to do with the issue of same sex marriage.

 

All that you're doing is throwing as much bovine excrement at the wall as you can, hoping that something will stick. You're just poisoning the well in an attempt to cast aspersions and derail the topic which you have had nothing of intelligence to add.

 

Only the gays are in need of more respect and dignity so they only support extending marriage to the gays. If just any two people could marry it would cease to be a special preference for gays.

 

I know that being hip and cool are the main reason for many, maybe even most progressives to support gay marriage. However, I thought that at a forum dedicated to politics there would at least be some principles behind their stances. Apparently not.

Clearly this isn't about extending marriage rights to more people, otherwise you would support polygamous and incestious marriage. And of course polygamists and sister-(*)(*)(*)(*)ers are icky, unlike those fabulous homosexuals.

 

More horse(*)(*)(*)(*)! It's about equality. Equality between same sex and opposite sex couples. That's all. If you want to get into a group marriage, marry your sister-or brother-or a corps file a *******ned law suit.

The question of other alternatives to traditional marriage is an interesting one but irrelevant to the current discussion of marriage equality for gays. This question obfuscates the real issue of marriage equality and stokes fears of what might come next, when gay couples want nothing more than to have the same rights as hetero couples. I submit to you that these discussions of other alternative sexual lifestyles is a logical fallacy, an argumentative slight of hand know as Tu quoque /tuːˈkwoʊkwiː/ (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. It is also a false analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations which is another favorite trick of people trying to win an argument when there argument is inherently weak. If the two things that are being compared aren’t really alike in the relevant respects, the analogy is a weak one.