SCOTUS: Gay Marriage Case Update

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    43,520
    Likes Received:
    35,068
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And with that you are making an appeal to tradition... This can't be that far over your head.
    And marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. It has also existed as a marriage between a man and many women yet I do not see you arguing for polygamy, why is that? It is tradition after all.
     
  2. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Having reading comprehension problems, or just lying again? No, the relationships themselves are not being changed, only recognized for what they are. No new MEANING is being added to any marriage. If skydiving were defined in your dictionary as "an illegal practice", THEN would you agree the definition has changed, but skydiving itself has not?

    You know, if you should ever get acquainted with the truth, you wouldn't have nearly so many problems seeing the obvious.
     
  3. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You make a fool of yourself because its soooo far over your head. There is no appeal to tradition.

    Nope, the women dont marry each other, silly
     
  4. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The truth, (completely foreign to Dishonest Dixon) is that anytime you say "it's been this way for thousands of years" or any appeal to a long period of time, this is the essence of an appeal to tradition. There's a lot to be said for tradition, and there's a good reason for many long standing traditions. It's a valid and worthy appeal, which Dixon could admit except he'd be telling the truth and he can't seem to break THAT tradition.
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    62,113
    Likes Received:
    17,011
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not sure I am parsing what you are saying here correctly, but just to be sure I'll say:

    My point is that marriage and children are two separate choices.

    Same sex couples can have families just like opposite sex couples can have families. There is no way to find a justification for denying marriage to same sex couples based on children.
     
  6. CausalityBreakdown

    CausalityBreakdown Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,376
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Does that make my point less valid?
     
  7. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope, you claimed "what marriage IS isn't being redefined" when in fact that is exactly what is occuring. LITERALLY the dictionary definition has changed to match the redefinition carried ou by the courts and some states.

    The definition was

    1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

    and now theyve added a second version to he definition,

    (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage

    To quote a court using these definitions before they were "REDEFINED"

     
  8. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Marriage is a relationship, not a dictionary entry. The relationship is not being changed. Changing the legal status of a relationship does not change the relationship.

    Try being honest for once. Go ahead, make an effort. It really doesn't hurt.
     
  9. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    r
    This analogy is deeply flawed for this reason: if people were skydiving in spite of a law prohibiting skydiving, then they would be arrested and charged or at least fined, depending on the penal code. In the case of marriage, there is no law against same sex couples "cohabiting as man and wife." There is no law to challenge. There is only the definition that some states have codified as the only definition they recognize - which, again, was unnecessary until several years ago when state judges started redefining it for them.

    Well Justices Roberts and Kennedy acknowledged that the Court was being asked to redefine marriage, so if I'm wrong then I'm in good company. I don't think marriage is altered by same sex couples cohabiting any more than it's altered by a guy who keeps a harem of women as "wives" in his house. But the state isn't required to formally recognize or sanction any of it - not even traditionally defined marriage. But states did formally recognize and sanction marriage long ago, and offered incentives for people who entered into it. Why? Because that's what the state legislatures decided, on behalf of the people. Now should they further sanction another kind of relationship, that of same sex couples, or redefine the legal understanding of "marriage" to accommodate homosexuals? Some states say yes, some say no... who should decide? It makes sense for the state legislatures to decide. In some cases state courts have decided. But it's certainly not for the Supreme Court to decide.
     
  10. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If it's a relationship, then what are the bounds at all? Why only two people? Can a mother and a daughter enjoy the legal status of "marriage?" Why not? It must be bounded by definition somewhere.

    And that boundary is set by the states, and for the longest time the boundary was implicit because everyone knew what "marriage" meant. It meant a man and a woman. When homosexuals began seeking validation and normalization by way of public law, some states decided to make their definition of marriage explicit.
     
  11. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Would seem that neither you or the other poster understand what an appeal to tradition even is. Don't confuse your ignorance, for a lack of truth in my comments.
     
  12. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since you claim it "isn't being redefined", the dictionary definition is what is relevant here. ABSURD to argue that a change of the dictionary definition of marriage, isn't redefining marriage.
     
  13. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, your strawman is still a strawman. NO ONE has claimed incest is a sexual orientation. AND ALL discrimination on any basis must at a minimum be rationally related to serving SOME legitimate governmental interest. Not just discrimination you view to be on the basis of sexual orientation.
     
  14. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, OK. We know that across time and cultures, the concept of "marriage" has been quite broad. There have commonly been arranged marriages, political marriages, marriages of convenience, same-sex marriages, mixed race marriages, plural marriages, etc. Some forms of marriage have been accepted in some cultures and prohibited in others and simply ignored in yet others. Trying to come up with a single definition of marriage that would encompass every form of durable relationship people have lived within would be a serious challenge.

    The situation is even worse than that. Consider that under sharia law, the man is entitled to beat, cripple or even kill his wife. Would you say that this is the "same" as a Western traditional marriage because it's one man and one woman? What DOES make a marriage?

    What I think you are implying here, is that in the US, "marriage" is that relationship embodied within the sum total of the thousands of laws, regulations, precedents, and practices currently in force. And this means that "marriage" varies both from state to state, and from time to time, as these rules change. Change a rule, and you have to some extent "redefined" marriage. Reductio ad absurdum, we could say that the definition of marriage changes when the cost of a marriage licence is changed, because marriage is (at least partly) defined as something involving a $X marriage licence. Change X, you've changed the definition. And in that sense, the definition of marriage is in constant flux everywhere.

    So we're talking about what KINDS of definitional changes we've decided are acceptable. Even there, what we're willing to accept can change quite rapidly. In Western culture, the common denominator seems to be that the relationship should be loving, durable, emotionally committed. As I read it, Americans today are far more willing to accept a same-sex couple that exhibits these characteristics, than they'd be willing to accept an arranged marriage (often, between people not even born yet!).

    And I hope to live to see the day when our notion of marriage takes into account the costs and benefits, to the individuals and to society, of permitting or prohibiting any particular flavor of relationship. I admit I personally see no threat to either myself or my culture if those two folks down the street who have lived together for 30 years are finally allowed to marry. I see no such threats even if groups of people engage in legally sanctioned plural marriage, though I suspect such arrangements are less durable and stable, out of sheer complexity.

    Most of all, I am not personally threatened by the process of constantly twiddling with the definitions of marriage that goes on all the time.

    (Wait, let me take that back a bit. Here in Alabama, the definition of marriage entails that if one spouse of a childless couple dies, and there are any surviving parents of either spouse, then those parents inherit half the estate that used to belong to the couple. So if I should die, half of the life savings my wife and I have accumulated would automatically go to her mother! I regard this as unacceptable, but fortunately we've drawn up a legal will leaving everything to the other spouse. In this respect, I think the Alabama definition of marriage sucks.)
     
  15. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To quote the Supreme Court of the United States

    and other state courts


     
  16. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK then, as I said to Atsamattau, the definition of marriage is in constant flux. It varies from state to state, and from time to time. It changes every time any aspect of any of the thousands of laws, regulations, precedents and practices changes. After all, the definition of marriage isn't found in your dictionary, it's found in this entire large body of laws and regulations and other rules.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Did it ever occur to you that YOU might be making the error. Lying to yourself doesn't make your lies come true, hard as you try.
     
  17. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Overturned cased don't help you. And you don't seem to understand the two aren't linked. You can marry without procreating and procreate without marrying.
     
  18. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not a one of them has been overturned. On I quoted was Baker v Nelson that you claim has been overturned. Heres something from one of the cases currently before the Supreme Court.

    "Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected
    their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise &#8220;a substantial federal
    question.&#8221; Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true,
    does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later
    cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or
    will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own
    precedents
    , and we remain bound even by its summary decisions &#8220;until such time as the Court
    informs [us] that [we] are not.&#8221; Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation
    marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to
    engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively,
    to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves."

    Baker v Nelson hasn't been overturned. Neither have any of the cases I quoted. Instead of spouting your normal, baseless conclusions, why don't you present ANY published source claiming ANY one of these cases have been overturned. Your conclusions are meaningless.
     
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually the defining feature, a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, has remained consistent, from the dawn of civilization through the 20th century. And Nero and Elagabalus, who as emperors could disregard the law, marrying men, doesn't change that fact any more than I witnessing a man marry his horse changes that fact.
     
  20. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually

    from the Minnesota supreme court, appealed to the US Supreme court and now a S Ct precedent.
     
  21. AtsamattaU

    AtsamattaU Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Messages:
    5,123
    Likes Received:
    1,569
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When the courts and I refer to the traditional definition of marriage, it's very simple: union of a man and a woman, joined together as a new family, serving as a core building block of society. Some of your examples meet that definition: Arranged marriage? Check. Marriage where a man beats his wife? Check. Marriage where a man weds a woman while he's already married to another woman? Check (that would be two concurrent marriages). Are they all legal here in the U.S.? No. Do they qualify as marriages? Yes. Does a man joined to another man qualify as a marriage? No, unless they live somewhere that has legally redefined marriage to include that.

    The concept of marriage has not been broad at all. The way marriages happen changes, the dynamic within them changes, the purpose changes... but the underlying concept, the meaning of the word, has always referred to a man/woman relationship. And more to the point, the only marriages recognized in the U.S. were between a man and a woman until 2004. Did it change because two guys finally wanted to commit to one another? No. It changed because in a 4-3 ruling, an activist court in Massachusetts redefined marriage for that state. In the court's own ruling, you can read:

    So what you must at least acknowledge is that states are redefining marriage to accommodate homosexual relationships. In some cases the courts are doing it, in other cases the legislature is doing it, but in all cases they are quite open and honest that they are changing the definition. No court has ever referred to the Loving decision as redefining marriage, because it wasn't. But SSM advocates have adopted this tactic of framing the argument to their advantage, claiming that "marriage" is whatever we want it to be (meaning whatever they want it to be). But legal marriage is in fact whatever the state wants it to be, and every state that recognizes SSM has done so by changing the legal meaning.The bottom line is that the Supreme Court should not, and likely will not, assume the authority to redefine a state institution for the entire nation.

    Good thing you got it done before she had you whacked!
     
  22. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    60,564
    Likes Received:
    5,258
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not Flintc. No amount of evidence alters views based upon ideology. The real world is irrelevant to the ideology.
     
  23. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ah, here is where you're already lying. There are MANY defininig features of marriage, as many as there are marriages. You are selecting one of them, and not a universal one at that. Try being honest. Next...
     
  24. Flintc

    Flintc New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    Messages:
    11,879
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At this point, we are playing semantic games and I'm kinda tired of that. Yes, marriage as an institution is being expanded to include cases not included previously. Existing marriages are not being redefined at all. Personally, I think this is important. If marriage were being truly redefined in some substantive way, then my own marriage would be substantively impacted. In reality, the impact on my (and all existing) marriages is ZERO.

    But here, we're playing games with whether making a larger pie changes the definition of a pie.

    So let's say you're right, and my own marriage is somehow being redefined in some way absolutely and utterly indetectible to me. Now, so what? I defy you to specify how MY marriage is being redefined. You can't do it, because my marriage is NOT being redefined. Not by anyone.

    So again, what IS your problem?

    As an analogy, let's say the law is being modified to permit women to own property. Does this change in the "definition" of ownership, affect any current property owner? Well, no. So why would any current property owner object? I'm curious.
     
  25. CausalityBreakdown

    CausalityBreakdown Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2014
    Messages:
    3,376
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm aware that nobody has claimed incest to be a sexual orientation. I was making a point. I was pointing out that they're separate conversations. One revolves around the concept of a mostly static category of people one is attracted to, and the other is a much more boring conversation that doesn't have such psychological and philosophical interest.

    I agree that all government discrimination must serve a rational interest.

    Really though, you don't have a single argument against gay marriage. You just claim that people who advocate for gay marriage but want to continue banning incestuous marriage are partially wrong. I don't see how the valid conclusion from this is that one should oppose same sex marriage. Do you think that being completely wrong is better than being slightly wrong?

    You aren't arguing against gay marriage at all. You just deeply desire the legalization of intrasanguinal marriage.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page