SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by TheImmortal, Apr 28, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Our Constitutiona requires that all discrimination makes sense.
     
  2. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I suppose it does. You might as well tell me that elephants are mostly grey. It doesn't relate to my question... but that in itself strangely answers my question. :thumbsup:
     
  3. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was ignoring your stupid question. It doesnt effect me personally. I never claimed it did. I just prefer our government follow the requirements of the Constitution, even if it doesnt effect me personally.
     
  4. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That's fine, I know you never claimed it affected you, I simply asked if it did affect you. Got there in the end though.
     
  5. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Actually, I was there in the very beginning.
     
  6. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And again, Elephants are usually grey. Isn't this a beautiful thing we've got going here :)
     
  7. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like I said in the beginning

    And you and your gray elephants have demonstrated that last fact
     
  8. supaskip

    supaskip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,832
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You're getting a bit lost I think. You never answered my question in the beginning, as you asserted.
    But this is an exciting new dynamic to this debate.
     
  9. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Question-

    Aaaaaand the answer-

    What part of my answer are you unable to comprehend? Are you stuck on stupid?
     
  10. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,112
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ī
    No, marriage is open to those who have no intent to raise children. The same is true for religious marriage in most cases.

    Yes, states will not marry a parent to that person's child. Again, that is true for religious marriage in most cases.

    The state gives clear preference to mothers and fathers to raise their kids.

    If you have a problem with any of this, you should explain it.
     
  11. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sort of going off the reservation with that comment. If other people's behavior doesn't directly affect you, that may be reason enough not to outlaw it (but even then not necessarily). State-sanctioned marriage is about encouraging and endorsing certain behavior. Most of us do not want to encourage close relatives to produce offspring, even if it does not directly affect us.
     
  12. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But that's what this is all about: LEGAL marriage. Not whatever 'marital' relationships happen to have occurred throughout history. Jeez, that list would be endless, and revolting. But LEGALLY, when state laws refer to marriage, they refer to the same definition that has existed since antiquity, unless the definition is legally changed (like the Connecticut Supreme Court did for that state). I will agree with you that state recognition is not what makes a marriage work, or what makes it real. Which is why it is enough that same sex couples are free to live with each other as they please, take vows to one another, etc., but states are under no compulsion to formally recognize or sanction those relationships.
     
  13. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In 1964, Virginia declared a marriage that took place to be a violation of state law. There was no doubt that it was a marriage, just like the numerous interracial marriages that had taken place throughout human history. No one argued that what the Lovings had wasn't a 'marriage.'
     
  14. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one is suggesting close relatives engage in sexual relations, let alone procreate. Except for Rhode Island, sexual relations between such closely related couples is illegal. As well, the example Ive used 100 times is the single mother and grandmother down the street, joined together for over a decade to provide and care for their children/grandchildren, who don't have sex with each other and even if they did, procreation would be an impossibility, and yet they are excluded from marriage in all 50 states.

    And it was the old institution of marriage, the one limited to men and women because only men and women procreate, in which excluding closely related couples is easily justified. This new marriage declared by the courts to be completely unrelated to procreation, has no justification for excluding closely related couples. ESPECIALLY considering that their argument is that marriages limitation to men and women IS not intended to include those couples with the potential of procreation, and their evidence is the fact that not all opposite sex couples have the potential of procreation, and are still allowed to marry. And being unrelated to procreation, the court concludes that this must all instead be a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. So we cant extend marriage to ALL opposite sex couples, because its over inclusive, including couples that have no potential of procreation, but without batting an eye they would EXCLUDE ALL closely related couples because of the potential of procreation, EVEN when they are of the same sex and procreation is an impossibility, which is over exclusive, excluding couples that have no potential of procreation.
     
  15. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    While I disagree that equal protection under the law doesn't mean, you know, equal protection under the law, I see no reason why such relationships (which we agree are very real) should NOT be granted legal recognition by the state. We seem to be going around in little circles. Here is something (legal recognition) that would benefit many and harm nobody. EVEN IF the US Constitution didn't require it, it would still make no sense to prohibit it -- unless you're into being spiteful just for kicks.

    I don't know how to make it plainer. The State should recognize and sanction this relationships because:
    1) The US Constitution requires it
    2) It benefits many and harms nobody
    3) It's the right thing to do morally and rationally

    The State should NOT recognize and sanction this relationships because:
    1) You think queers are yucky and deserve to suffer legal penalties because it makes you FEEL good.
     
  16. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, it wasn't the Loving's DC marriage that was a violation of law. It was them then coming back and cohabitating in Virginia that broke Virginia law. A single man and woman who are unrelated and cohabitating without a marriage, violated Virginia law.
     
  17. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What? Of course they did! For once, Dixon is correct. Virginia found Loving in violation of the cohabitation law because what they had was not a marriage. According to Virginia.
     
  18. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    Many did.




     
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said otherwise, sooooo not sure what the "no" even refers to.

    Actually, that's whats being challenged here. Traditional Marriage is societies preference for mothers and fathers raising their own kids together. Because the most common alternative to being born into a home with both your mother and father, is being born to a single mother on her own with an absent or even unknown father. Children with higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult. It is this preference that courts are claiming is instead all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" homosexuals by limiting the "respect and dignity" of marriage to opposite sex couples. Under this new, novel legal reasoning, a preference for biological parents is discrimination against homosexuals who cant procreate.
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,112
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's backward logic with a smattering of hate tossed in.

    The children of same sex couples are in better circumstance if their parents are married - for all the reasons that the children of opposite sex parents are in better circumstance if their parents are married. You list a few of these issues, but fail to notice that the same goes regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.

    In short, denying marriage to parents does not help their children.


    And, yes, discriminating against individuals because of their innate sexual orientation is most certainly destructive of dignity and a serious form of disrespect.
     
  21. Taxpayer

    Taxpayer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Messages:
    16,728
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    63



    No, it's a union between two people. It's two people living as one.




     
  22. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was referring to TRADITIONAL marriage before these courts decided to dictate what marriage is.
     
  23. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,433
    Likes Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be the case for ANY two consenting adults with children who are excluded from marriage, not just the gays. And only in the case of a man and a woman does marriage establish paternity.

    Biological parents aren't preferred because they are heterosexual. They are preferred because they are the only two people in the world, obligated by the birth of their child, to provide and care for their children. Sexual orientation is irrelevant.
     
  24. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,112
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with your first sentence. It's just that same sex marriage was the topic.

    Second sentence. A birth within a marriage establishes legal paternity. But, that paternity can be challenged, as it isn't necessarily biological - which raises the point that paternity may be established through biological testing regardless of marital status. Also, both same sex and opposite sex couples have a variety of means of acquiring children. In fact, ALL those methods are available to those who are NOT married, too!

    Basically, this attempt to block same sex marriage on the grounds of ANYTHING related to children is nonsense. Children are not predicated on marriage. The decision to have children (regardless of how) is totally independent of the decision to marry.

    Many of us might LIKE the two to be connected. But, it just doesn't work that way. We have people getting pregnant by accident. We have inheritance of kids. We have couples getting married with no intent to have kids and then changing their minds. We have divorce.

    Your last paragraph misses that we have adoption, which transfers responsibility for children from one parent (alive or dead) to another. And, we have hetero couples who use IVF and may not both be biological parents. That can be part of inheritance, IVF, surrogacy, etc. The state needs some pretty darn strong reasons to counter the will of those involved, so suggesting the state has a "preference" is bogus. The state is extremely limited in expressing a "preference" in how you build your family.

    Ask yourself: What method of increasing your family would be blocked by the state?

    I agree with your last sentence. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. There is no justification for deciding issues related to marriage or issues related to acquiring kids on the grounds of sexual orientation.
     
  25. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I hate to be blunt, but you guys don't know what you're talking about. Let's read the ruling from the Virginia court in 1966:

    Now what did Code 20-58 and 20-59 say? Oh, here it is:

    I hate to break it to you both, but the Lovings were convicted for marrying each other. Even if you want to deny the plain English that's written there, the fact is that the word "marriage" was consistently used to refer to the union of a man and a woman. It needed no further definition.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page