• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

RChildress107 said:
i have not made any comments on bestiality.

There may be other arguments not based on morality against two brothers getting married, if so they have not been presented on this thread.
Click to expand...

They have been presented. you simply reject them.
 
RChildress107 said:
i have not made any comments on bestiality.

There may be other arguments not based on morality against two brothers getting married, if so they have not been presented on this thread.
Click to expand...

Emotional health and exogamy for social purposes have been presented already.
 
RChildress107 said:
Both of those arguments are with regards to reproduction. Two brothers can clearly not reproduce.
Click to expand...

Not true. My point was that people who PARTICIPATE in incestuous relationships are likely to engage in other risky behavior and to be a higher mental health risk.
 
RChildress107 said:
Two people who love each other should be able to get married. Brothers are people. Two brothers who love each other should be able to get married.
Click to expand...

Ok, here is the crux of the issue -- most examples brought up by those who oppose gay marriage are legally invalid for a number of reasons. States have the right to exercise their police power in the name of general health and wellness to block a brother and sister from marrying because of the health concerns as they relate to the offspring. They have the right to block 40 and 13 year olds marrying for reasons along similar lines, bestiality, etc. All of these examples are blocked for various police power reasons.

When it comes to two brothers marrying, you're absolutely correct that it turns on accepted morality, but that doesn't get you much farther. The reason why the SCOTUS is going to eventually find that homosexuals have the right to marry is because they're a discrete insular minority worthy of judicial protection per the court. Laws impacting homosexuals aren't afforded the same degree of scrutiny as ones impacting race/religion/national origin/gender, but they are afforded higher scrutiny than anything else. I actually find O'Connor's opinion in Lawrence v Texas more appropriate than the majority's opinion, and think you should just look at it from an equal protection standpoint, but the court in Lawrence did it from a substantive due process perspective.

In order to have a substantive due process challenge when it's not strict scrutiny etc, the right you're abridging has to be fundamental in the anglo-american tradition. I think Scalia rightly pointed out that sodomy (in Lawrence) is not a fundamental right in our country's history. However, the majority essentially stated that the state laws reneging sodomy bans were so pervasive that the court abandoned what was normally the "tradition" test and looked at the more recent tradition in our country moving away from sodomy laws.

I think you are going to see a similar thing when they take a gay marriage case. I think before they do, more states will have to outlaw gay marriage bans. When you get a majority of states allowing gay couples to marry, I think you'll see the court deploy a similar analysis. Why? Because it'll be accepted on a moral basis throughout the states and they can use that to have a 14th amendment challenge. When you use your brothers example, you're right in that it comes to morality.

Unfortunately, that example doesn't hold water because courts don't recognize incestuous brothers as a discrete insular minority, and states don't permit them to marry. If the country woke up tomorrow and suddenly everyone was fine with it, the court would be too. But until you get to a point where there's another group who the court applies heightened scrutiny to, all of these comparisons are void because the legal analysis isn't the same.
 
Last edited:
Great post, I do think though that O'Connor's opinion in Lawrence was the best one and that it should be looked at from an equal protection standpoint. I am definitely curious to see at what point the court allows cert and how broad the scope is on the issue they decide to offer a final opinion on will be. I doubt the current court make-up will ever grant cert to a case though since the more conservative judges probably won't and the liberal judges would never offer up cert if they knew what the final decision would be. I could see them reaching the four number through a Kennedy/conservative grouping.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Great post, I do think though that O'Connor's opinion in Lawrence was the best one and that it should be looked at from an equal protection standpoint. I am definitely curious to see at what point the court allows cert and how broad the scope is on the issue they decide to offer a final opinion on will be. I doubt the current court make-up will ever grant cert to a case though since the more conservative judges probably won't and the liberal judges would never offer up cert if they knew what the final decision would be. I could see them reaching the four number through a Kennedy/conservative grouping.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think if you look at Lawrence, the first question that comes to mind is why doesn't the majority just apply strict scrutiny to homosexuals? Kennedy seems to jump through hoops not to do it. I am fairly certain there are 4 votes to say that homosexual classifications should receive strict scrutiny, but Kennedy wouldn't sign on. I think it's because he didn't want to deal with whether gay marriage bans are unconstitutional. If you flat out say that all homosexual classification requires strict scrutiny, gay marriage bans fall right after that. So I think you're right that if Kennedy planned on hearing a case regarding gay marriage, he would have written Lawrence differently. I don't see this being settled for another 15 years or so, by which point I expect a large chunk of states to permit gay marriage, and then the court will grant cert and declare all bans unconstitutional.
 
There are tons of studies about the negative mental health aspects of incest. To act like this doesn't exist is nonsensical and totally dishonest.

It's amazing the lengths you'll you'll go to in order to justify your bigotry.
 
Saw a billboard on hwy 52 just outside Winston this morning in support of the amendment. Also seeing some support signs in front of churches. No signs yet in opposition.
 
Eagles_Legendz said:
Ok, here is the crux of the issue -- most examples brought up by those who oppose gay marriage are legally invalid for a number of reasons. States have the right to exercise their police power in the name of general health and wellness to block a brother and sister from marrying because of the health concerns as they relate to the offspring. They have the right to block 40 and 13 year olds marrying for reasons along similar lines, bestiality, etc. All of these examples are blocked for various police power reasons.

When it comes to two brothers marrying, you're absolutely correct that it turns on accepted morality, but that doesn't get you much farther. The reason why the SCOTUS is going to eventually find that homosexuals have the right to marry is because they're a discrete insular minority worthy of judicial protection per the court. Laws impacting homosexuals aren't afforded the same degree of scrutiny as ones impacting race/religion/national origin/gender, but they are afforded higher scrutiny than anything else. I actually find O'Connor's opinion in Lawrence v Texas more appropriate than the majority's opinion, and think you should just look at it from an equal protection standpoint, but the court in Lawrence did it from a substantive due process perspective.

In order to have a substantive due process challenge when it's not strict scrutiny etc, the right you're abridging has to be fundamental in the anglo-american tradition. I think Scalia rightly pointed out that sodomy (in Lawrence) is not a fundamental right in our country's history. However, the majority essentially stated that the state laws reneging sodomy bans were so pervasive that the court abandoned what was normally the "tradition" test and looked at the more recent tradition in our country moving away from sodomy laws.

I think you are going to see a similar thing when they take a gay marriage case. I think before they do, more states will have to outlaw gay marriage bans. When you get a majority of states allowing gay couples to marry, I think you'll see the court deploy a similar analysis. Why? Because it'll be accepted on a moral basis throughout the states and they can use that to have a 14th amendment challenge. When you use your brothers example, you're right in that it comes to morality.

Unfortunately, that example doesn't hold water because courts don't recognize incestuous brothers as a discrete insular minority, and states don't permit them to marry. If the country woke up tomorrow and suddenly everyone was fine with it, the court would be too. But until you get to a point where there's another group who the court applies heightened scrutiny to, all of these comparisons are void because the legal analysis isn't the same.
Click to expand...

You could have summed up the crux a whole lot quicker-- all that matters is who is on the Supreme Court. When it comes to finding new rights covered by SDP Lawrence was a watershed case. There is no guarantee that line of expansive reasoning to find less textually explicit rights will continue to be used. The three ways of "finding" rights all have their precedent to support them-- history and tradition, reasoned judgment, or evolving social consensus (Lawrence-- new approach). What matters is which the court adopts and that hinges completely on the ideology of who is on the Court. I wouldn't place my bets on SDP. EPC is certainly a better bet.
 
MBDeac08 said:
Saw a billboard on hwy 52 just outside Winston this morning in support of the amendment. Also seeing some support signs in front of churches. No signs yet in opposition.
Click to expand...

Almost the opposite in Raleigh. I've seen one support billboard over near Capital Blvd, but tons of yard signs, especially near downtown, opposing it.
 
The evolving consensus/national consensus theory is definitely a fun one to have watched evolve over the past few years. IIRC it was also used in the Roper decision which held it was unconstitutional to execute juveniles because of "national consensus", even though it's important to note that there was no true national consensus on that issue. I'm hoping the court may try to apply the same logic on the "evolving" aspect more so than actual "national consensus". Another thing I think is interesting to keep an eye on is Kennedy's tendency to use international law and comparative law as reasoning and rationale for our own system. It can certainly be criticized, but at the same time if you're looking at this issue comparatively I would certainly have to believe that America is behind more socially progressive European countries in gay rights.

As a side note a great book to read on the topic of judicial procedure and background on the Supreme Court judges is The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin, it's extremely fascinating.
 
WFFaithful said:
Here is some of the counter argument in favor of the amendment. Much of it is weak in my opinion.

http://ncvalues.org/marriage/common-myths-about-the-marriage-amendment/
Click to expand...

Interesting that it's all public health arguments (kids need a mother and father in the household, etc.), and there's nothing about religion or morality, even though the latter is clearly driving this. I wonder if the supporters of bans on interracial marriage used the same non-religious tactics.
 
I think that making these claims now that this is what the amendment is about helps them later on with any challenges on grounds of it being about the relationship between religion and state. Obviously when this goes to the Supreme Court at some point (the topic at large that is) the anti-gay rights side can't cite religious objections to override the 14th Amendment.
 
Yo RChildress. Clearly this thread has gotten terribly side-tracked regarding marriage, but what about the rest of the amendment? Will you be voting against, if nothing else to support the domestic partnerships that already exist in the state between a man and a woman?
I know you are against state-supported benefits for marriages, but they aren't going away... so how about voting against to make sure all unions have these benefits?
 
ProfessorDeac said:
Interesting that it's all public health arguments (kids need a mother and father in the household, etc.), and there's nothing about religion or morality, even though the latter is clearly driving this. I wonder if the supporters of bans on interracial marriage used the same non-religious tactics.
Click to expand...

Here's another one. http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF11B30.pdf

#1 is contradicted by #4
#3 is worried about religious liberty as they impose on other's liberty
#4-6 all state that everyone will act more like gays if gay marriage is legalized
 
"One thinks that homosexuality is immoral and blasts anyone who thinks otherwise and the other thinks its completely fine and blasts anyone who thinks otherwise. I have no tolerance for the first group but I am specifically addressing the second group which I believe RJ and others fall into.

As you pointed out laws against two brothers getting married are strictly based on popular morality. The supreme court has seperated out the nuanced differences invovling tradition, extent of public feeling, history and size of the group in question, etc. Most people putting forth arguments on this thread have chosen not to deal in those nuances"


If you say this 1000 or a 1M times it will never make it any more true.

There are serious mental health issues regarding incest. there is no doubt about this. Just because they don't fit your needs to make incest something it isn't.
 
THis morning at 10, I went down to early vote. As I was exiting, front and center sat the Yes on Ammendment 1 people. As one of the people approached me about voting YES, my loud response was "Oh Hell NO!" (for obvious reasons). I was so irritated that these people were front and center, where they are allowed to be, I got a NO ON 1 sign from a co-worker, picked up Lil'DHD from day care and returned to set up camp at the front of the group. We need more people to just stop by and be seen for a half hour or more. If you have the time and availability, please go down and show support!
 
This pretty much all boils down to one thing, and one thing only, and that is whether or not society accepts that people are born homosexual (the position that is supported by all recent science). Once this basic principle is established, there is no way, in the long term, that state-sponsored or sanctioned discrimination against homosexual people can stand. The folks who have strong feelings against homosexuality on their own moral grounds are going to fight this to the end, because they know that if this principle is established, they and their institutions are going to be held to the same non-discrimination standards with regard to homosexual persons as they with regard to race, religion, disability, and country of origin.

In short, individuals and institutions who have religious objections to homosexuality (and, to be frank, a lot of people who aren't that religious but just think homosexuality is strange and gross) want to be able to discriminate in hiring or firing against someone who is in a same-sex relationship and want to avoid providing same-sex health and retirement benefits on par with married employees. If orientation is elevated to the level of race as a protected class, as I believe it eventually will be as the science continues to prove that homosexuality is an inherent, born trait, they will not be able to discriminate in this way. And that is going to be really, really painful for them.

You can clearly see this fear in the links posted to the sites supporting the amendment. They are clearly identifying this issue as one of the major "harms" that they think will come from allowing same sex marriage. In fact, it is not same sex marriage per se that is going to cause this to come to pass, but rather the societal recognition of what is already pretty established scientific fact - just as society recognized, over the course of the past 150 years, that there is no rational basis for the notion that some "races" of people are inherently inferior to other "races".

Plenty of devout religious people who thought they had strong moral compasses pointed to the Bible 75 years ago to uphold their claims that integration and interracial marriage were evil, and that women were inferior to men and shouldn't be able to vote (St. Paul is very clear on this latter point, I believe in Timothy). Eventually, their "moral code" had to give way to new facts, or rather, facts that had theretofore been unrecognized or denied.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top