Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: Prop 8, DOMA To Receive Hearings

[wdoall]

JaanaRuutu, you rock

 

[JaanaRuutu]

JaanaRuutu, you rock

I kno...er, thanks.

 

[PlumpRump]

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The primary flaw in using the 14th as a justification for same-sex marriage is that in a world of truly "equal protection," what would be the grounds for preventing the marriage a brother and a sister, or, say, if someone wanted to marry a 12-year-old? This is disallowed, and the 14th Amendment is not adequate to compel states to issue marriage licenses to these groups. Even in the states that have legalized same-sex marriage, two men will be denied a marriage license if they are first cousins or brothers, even though no state interest is served by the denial.

The 14th Amendment does not, contrary to popular belief, guarantee protection for everyone, in every single situation. Take Justice Scalia's comments about whether or not the Constitution protects homosexuals from discrimination:

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

 

[wdoall]

The primary flaw in using the 14th as a justification for same-sex marriage is that in a world of truly "equal protection," what would be the grounds for preventing the marriage a brother and a sister, or, say, if someone wanted to marry a 12-year-old? This is disallowed, and the 14th Amendment is not adequate to compel states to issue marriage licenses to these groups. Even in the states that have legalized same-sex marriage, two men will be denied a marriage license if they are first cousins or brothers, even though no state interest is served by the denial.

The 14th Amendment does not, contrary to popular belief, guarantee protection for everyone, in every single situation. Take Justice Scalia's comments about whether or not the Constitution protects homosexuals from discrimination:

Because incest and pedophilia are illegal and homosexuality is not. Get a clue

 

[PlumpRump]

Because incest and pedophilia are illegal and homosexuality is not. Get a clue

But why are pedophilia and incest illegal? Why are the protections of the 14th not afforded to relatives that want to get married, or grown-ups that wish to have intimate relationships with and even marriages to children? What if one's desire to marry their 1st cousin, or one's inclination towards pedophilia are, to quote Jeep!, "as naturally-ingrained and immutable" as the urges of individuals towards homosexuality, are we not, then, denying a group equal protection under the 14th arbitrarily, especially in the case of 1st cousins, or a brother and sister who are both consenting adults? No, we are not. We deny those individuals their "rights" because we, as a society, have created those laws according to our belief that siblings/1st cousins should not be married, and grown-ups should not have sexual/marital relations with children. Cultural norms dictate our laws within the purview of the Constitution, and cultural norms vary from state to state and city to city. The states, thusly, should be the ultimate arbiters over enacting laws that fit within the framework of their cultural norms on an individual basis.

its not there aren't good arguments in favor same-sex marriage legality, but the 14th Amendment is not one of them.

 

[wdoall]

In some states 1st cousins can marry but it do to birth defects and a child is not deemed to be able to consent do to immaturity. If you like I can pull those laws up as well but seems you're saying ban gay just as the Nazi did

 

[Jeep!]

But why are pedophilia and incest illegal? Why are the protections of the 14th not afforded to relatives that want to get married, or grown-ups that wish to have intimate relationships with and even marriages to children? What if one's desire to marry their 1st cousin, or one's inclination towards pedophilia are, to quote Jeep!, "as naturally-ingrained and immutable" as the urges of individuals towards homosexuality, are we not, then, denying a group equal protection under the 14th arbitrarily, especially in the case of 1st cousins, or a brother and sister who are both consenting adults? No, we are not. We deny those individuals their "rights" because we, as a society, have created those laws according to our belief that siblings/1st cousins should not be married, and grown-ups should not have sexual/marital relations with children. Cultural norms dictate our laws within the purview of the Constitution, and cultural norms vary from state to state and city to city. The states, thusly, should be the ultimate arbiters over enacting laws that fit within the framework of their cultural norms on an individual basis.

its not there aren't good arguments in favor same-sex marriage legality, but the 14th Amendment is not one of them.

Beyond the obvious offensiveness of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia or incest, how about this one. A, many states already allow for incestuous marriages as close as first cousins, so that's not the "where will it end" scenario you seem to think it is. B, let alone the obvious issue that child abuse is not something you can call a natural desire--I might really want a kill a dude, but desire to murder isn't protected either, nor is the desire to rape, rob, commit treason...-- a child doesn't have the legal standing to consent to a contract such as a marriage license anyway, which removes it from the argument altogether (and before you get to it, neither does an animal). So rather than trying to paint homosexuality as a criminal perversion, why not accept the fact that it's no longer the middle ages?

 

[wdoall]

Words of wisdom Jeep!

 

[Rattrap]

Beyond the obvious offensiveness of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia or incest, how about this one. A, many states already allow for incestuous marriages as close as first cousins, so that's not the "where will it end" scenario you seem to think it is. B, let alone the obvious issue that child abuse is not something you can call a natural desire--I might really want a kill a dude, but desire to murder isn't protected either, nor is the desire to rape, rob, commit treason...-- a child doesn't have the legal standing to consent to a contract such as a marriage license anyway, which removes it from the argument altogether (and before you get to it, neither does an animal). So rather than trying to paint homosexuality as a criminal perversion, why not accept the fact that it's no longer the middle ages?

This was pretty much what I wanted to say. :clap: So I'll just repeat it for prosperity.

 

[PlumpRump]

Beyond the obvious offensiveness of comparing homosexuality to paedophilia or incest, how about this one. A, many states already allow for incestuous marriages as close as first cousins, so that's not the "where will it end" scenario you seem to think it is. B, let alone the obvious issue that child abuse is not something you can call a natural desire--I might really want a kill a dude, but desire to murder isn't protected either, nor is the desire to rape, rob, commit treason...-- a child doesn't have the legal standing to consent to a contract such as a marriage license anyway, which removes it from the argument altogether (and before you get to it, neither does an animal). So rather than trying to paint homosexuality as a criminal perversion, why not accept the fact that it's no longer the middle ages?

I'm not trying to paint it as a criminal perversion, I'm simply stating that social taboos exist based on cultural standards and norms. Its not a "slippery slope" argument either, its a state's rights issue to determine for themselves. A la your "many states already allow for incestuous marriages as close as first cousins" example. There are 25 states that do not allow for this, (meaning the states themselves have the right to decide) but there are not 14th protections available for people who disagree with the states' conclusions regarding this issue.

Further, who are you to say "that child abuse is not something you can call a natural desire?" There are people who would argue that homosexuality is not a natural desire, and that it can be changed, and there are those who argue to the contrary. For you to judge a pedophile's desires as unnatural seems pretty akin to the argument that homosexuality is unnatural and could be viewed by some as a discriminatory stance towards an individual's true nature. The way that you feel with regards to intergenerational intimacy is the very same way a lot of people feel with regards to homosexuality. You call pedophilia a criminal perversion, there are people that feel that homosexuality is a criminal perversion, cultural and geographical variance is at play here. Now, do I think that pedophiles should be a protected class? No. But again, I reiterate, culture dictates right and wrong in our society, and with such a diverse culture spread across a very large country, this very clearly, to me, is a state's rights issue, not a federal government issue. Murder, rape, robbery, as you mentioned, are all crimes, yes. But not as dictated by the Constitution, and each state has different sets of rules and punishments regarding these offenses. State's rights is my point.

 

[Jagger69]

Decades from now we'll look back and shake our heads in amazement that this issue was ever an issue at all in much the same manner that we now regard the debates over slavery or women's suffrage. Just another example of leftovers from draconian and puritanical attitudes that should have become part of our distant past a long time ago. Good riddance once this is gone forever....can't occur soon enough.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Decades from now we'll look back and shake our heads in amazement that this issue was ever an issue at all in much the same manner that we now regard the debates over slavery or women's suffrage. Just another example of leftovers from draconian and puritanical attitudes that should have become part of our distant past a long time ago. Good riddance once this is gone forever....can't occur soon enough.

Decades from now, the gay community will look back on their fight for marriage and say, why in the fuck did we do that...divorce is a pain in the ass, and I had to give up half of my stuff!!

 

[D-rock]

Marriage is not defined, nor guaranteed in the Constitution.

Irrelevant, baring us getting rid of the 14th Amendment

If people are to be provided equal protection under the law it doesn't matter if the Constitution specifically allows them to have something or not. Considering the existence of the 14th Amendment if you give one group the benefit of the law you then can't turn around the deny another one that protection or privilege, especially on the basis of something that is as dumb ass as an excuse of what amounts to “it's tradition“.

Also the thinking of things like (with the exception of underage people who don't have and have never had the same rights as adults) polygamy, two brother or cousins or whatever not being able to marry is justification for gays not being able to marry is very faulty logic. Multiple wrongs don't make a right or justify something else that is wrong. It would be better to think that those things are also a violation of the Constitution and should be reversed than using those mistakes as a justification for something that also shouldn't be banned.

As far as Scalia is concerned, what he said makes no sense logically. "Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant"...ummm yeah well except for the gigantic number of people who do think that is exactly what it means, not to mention, you know, the actual wording of the Constitution itself. Hypocrisy, lack of conviction, and religious or moral favoritism now or even by contemporaries of the people that created the Amendment who then didn't live up to what they created doesn't somehow neutralize or change that Amendment. What he said has about as much relevance of banning some new religion or the things wrote on the internet or created using a modern printing press on the basis that nothing like it was around when the first amendment came up, and that's "not what they meant" or thinking that the Second Amendment shouldn’t apply to anything more advanced than a muzzle loaded flintlock rifle because "that's not what they meant".

If Scalia is really such a strict constructionist and is big on that founder's intent stuff why isn't he arguing that if society wants to ban the rights of gays they have to change the Constitution? He strikes me more as a person that will often use those things until to comes up to a subject he is sorely apposed to and then will abandon it. (Just about the only time he didn't was with flag burning.) Where was that philosophy of his when it states wanted to legalize non interstate marijuana, for example, because the excuse he came up with sure as hell didn't mesh with the " they didn't mean that" way of thinking of the people who created the interstate commerce clause.

Really since marriage seems to be a religious concept the government should have never had anything to do with it, but since they did it's not just a religious thing anymore. It's an institutionalized construct under the law. Once that unfairly privileges certain groups of people over others. Something that isn't constitutional.

 

[Jagger69]

Decades from now, the gay community will look back on their fight for marriage and say, why in the fuck did we do that...divorce is a pain in the ass, and I had to give up half of my stuff!!

Yeah well I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. Welcome to the institution! A classic case of "be careful what you wish for...." :1orglaugh

 

[wdoall]

And D-Rock wins the debate!!!

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Yeah well I believe they have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us. Welcome to the institution! A classic case of "be careful what you wish for...." :1orglaugh

Exactly! It amazes me, how many people really don't get, that they are essentially signing a legally binding contract. It's more amazing to me, how many people get screwed over in divorces, and how many otherwise nice people, become vindictive and hateful, when they get put in that situation.

I worked for a guy, owned his own dump trucks. Worked a lot, had to , to stay competitive. His first wife cheated on him, and in the divorce got HIS company, and the rights to the name, and the logo that he designed...he lost it all, and she was the cheater. Of course I only had one side, but a couple of people told me the same thing, so I tend to believe it.

 

[Will E Worm]

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, so fuck you and the Biblical anti-gay states-rights horse you rode in on.

That's not what it means at all.

 

[xfire]

That's not what it means at all.

Explain what you think it means, douchebag.

 

[Will E Worm]

Exactly who is enforcing morality. One can say that about the homosexuals too.
And it does have an effect, it has an effect on our whole society.
i just wish each state would hold a vote on it and be done with it.
Too much focus on this issue and not nearly enough on the things that directly involve all of us in very meaningful ways.

"Anti-bullying" crusader Dan Savage (Sodomite):

I Wish [Republicans] Were All F**king Dead


Liberals with their compassion, open mindedness, and tolerance.

Unless you disagree with them.

 

[xfire]

"Anti-bullying" crusader Dan Savage I Wish [Republicans] Were All F**king Dead Liberals with their compassion, open mindedness, and tolerance. Unless you disagree with them.

A rabid right-winger like you just hopes for mass murder and crime.