Marriage Equality

[Wakeforest22890]

Fostering happiness with people older than children isn't as important as child bearing and rearing children? As if we as a society don't protect the latter then in the face of all biological odds the human race will go extinct?

I don't see how any "reasonable" minds can disagree that marriage is marriage. If you have to compartmentalize something into constitutional test in order to find one of the sole reasons out there for opposing something that isn't rooted in an animus, then there might be something strange about the position you're taking don't you think?

 

[lbE08]

Law is always under/over inclusive. It's always a rough approximation. I can drive safely at 40 mph in the city, but speed limits don't take that into consideration. They address us all as a populous, even though that's under/over inclusive. I don't get a special dispensation. Think about how unworkable it would be otherwise. We'd have to all undergo a "driving abilities" test to determine, not just that we can drive safely generally, but at what speeds, under what conditions, etc. And that's just for speed limits. Now apply that to marriage--if child bearing were to be a requirement, we'd have to evaluate fertility, child bearing intent, etc. In addition to its unworkability, think about the governmental infringements on personal information that would entail.

Male/female is a rough--but good--approximation for child bearing. The state has an obvious interest in creating and fostering the young. Thus, male/female relations should be given special status. This really isn't that difficult to comprehend. Whether you think it is "unfair" to homosexuals is a different matter entirely. We've been ordering our societies around this principle for centuries.

And as for the "unfairness," I think that homosexual unions should also be given special status because, I think, the state also has an interest in generally fostering loving relationships even if, in the mine run of cases, those relationships can't produce offspring. This interest, however, isn't as important as child bearing/rearing, so it shouldn't be called "marriage." It's something lesser--good, nonetheless, but lesser.

Reasonable minds can disagree, but the reaction on this board to this point of view is mind-boggling to me.

what?? you just blew my mind with this. Seriously, i am sitting here - mouth agape - with no comprehensible reaction to this because it's crazy to me that in this year, someone really and truly have this belief. Your whole first paragraph is bunk because speed limits and the like are rules put upon people not only for their own safety, but the safety of others. Not the same as rules on relationships, which have NO bearing whatsoever on other people and could not in any way possibly physically harm a person outside of the relationship.
As to the first bolded statement, the idea that a person with boobs and a person with a penis together are INHERENTLY better role-models or whatever for youth is bogus. any two people (or one person) who provide a loving home for a child are good. for the second bolded statement, this is just absurd. you're going past 'separate but equal' and openly acknowledging you're for "separate AND not equal." yikes. YIKES.
I can only assume it comes down to the fact that you must have zero gay friends. I'm not saying you don't know gay people, or you don't dine with gay people like the well-connected Wrangor... but you can't have true gay friends. If you do and have ANY compassion/empathy/heart whatsoever, I don't see how you could POSSIBLY have this opinion. Not even a little bit.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

How is it that 60 years since Brown v. Board of Ed, people are still trying to introduce new "separate but equal" distinctions into law? Limiting homosexuals to civil unions is segregation, plain and simple. How about the government stop marrying people altogether and only grant civil unions, and designate marriage as a purely religious ceremony.

 

[dartsndeacs]

married to me is a word. im down with civil unions with the same benefits. I'm an atheist and likely have more gay friends/been around more gay people than 95% of the board. but I dont care passionately about my position.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

How is it that 60 years since Brown v. Board of Ed, people are still trying to introduce new "separate but equal" distinctions into law? Limiting homosexuals to civil unions is segregation, plain and simple. How about the government stop marrying people altogether and only grant civil unions, and designate marriage as a purely religious ceremony.

Because they're grossed out by the idea of a penis entering a man's butthole but search for a some way (ideally a sophisticated-sounding way) to avoid saying or writing that.

 

[Deacfreak07]

married to me is a word. im down with civil unions with the same benefits. I'm an atheist and likely have more gay friends/been around more gay people than 95% of the board. but I dont care passionately about my position.

My personal belief is the gub'ment should be out of the marriage business in general. My problem with the whole argument about protecting the word "marriage" vs. civil unions is that it's a move that seems to me to be wholly based on a religious context. The problem there is that it's limiting to religious communities that have no problem performing marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. That seems to me to be a First Amendment issue more so than the issue of gay marriage's existence infringing on the free exercise rights of my conservative faith communities.

 

[bym051d]

what?? you just blew my mind with this. Seriously, i am sitting here - mouth agape - with no comprehensible reaction to this because it's crazy to me that in this year, someone really and truly have this belief. Your whole first paragraph is bunk because speed limits and the like are rules put upon people not only for their own safety, but the safety of others. Not the same as rules on relationships, which have NO bearing whatsoever on other people and could not in any way possibly physically harm a person outside of the relationship.

See it for what it is, the ultimate contortion of logic and law to yield the outcome you want.

 

[Junebug]

How is it that 60 years since Brown v. Board of Ed, people are still trying to introduce new "separate but equal" distinctions into law? Limiting homosexuals to civil unions is segregation, plain and simple. How about the government stop marrying people altogether and only grant civil unions, and designate marriage as a purely religious ceremony.

Because separate but equal is a forbidden concept in race relations only. Have you ever been into a bathroom at a federal building? Was it a "men's" room? Was there also a "women's" room? Does this offend the constitution?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Because separate but equal is a forbidden concept in race relations only. Have you ever been into a bathroom at a federal building? Was it a "men's" room? Was there also a "women's" room? Does this offend the constitution?

That is a crazy and stupid comparison, and the Brown v Board of Ed decision was in no way limited to racial segregation. The Supreme Court has already ruled that sexual orientation is a protected class, due equal protection under federal law.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

That is a crazy and stupid comparison, and the Brown v Board of Ed decision was in no way limited to racial segregation. The Supreme Court has already ruled that sexual orientation is a protected class, due equal protection under federal law.

I don't think they have. They've ruled that you can't use a bare animus as the grounds for a "rational basis" test, which even gave that test more bite than the Court had originally intended.

Brown is somewhat limited to racial segregation.

I think the better argument is a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, i.e. the Court SHOULD hold that sexual orientation is a protected class, but they haven't already. If it was already a protected class, all these state laws and state constitutional amendments would have likely already been challenged and struck down as a 14th Amendment violation.

This interpretation is just opposed because people hold a strong constructionist leaning originalist interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

I can see the argument for states banning gay marriage under rational basis since states can be over/under inclusive in their passage of laws that fall under this ridiculously low bar of scrutiny. For instance, under a true rational basis test, JuneBug's earlier point about citing fertility as a state interest would have the bans pass muster. The Court has decided on something somewhere in between rational basis and even perhaps intermediate scrutiny for analyzing these bans and admittedly the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher for states to be able to pass these bans.

It seems now that the Court is actually looking at the reasons provided by the state for passing the laws rather than giving liberal interpretation to "any" reason why the law was passed. The briefs for the Windsor case somewhat inform this area and are very interesting to read. It seems that Kennedy has really shaped this whole area with his decisions on the topic dating back to Romer. I think Kennedy is a stud.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

Meh. Kennedy sucks

 

[Junebug]

This interpretation is just opposed because people hold a strong constructionist leaning originalist interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments.

That's a broad stroke, don't you think? One doesn't have to be an originalist to oppose designating homosexuals as a protected class. I mean, if you take footnote 4 of Carolene Products seriously, homosexuals have, through their many legislative victories in this realm, demonstrated that they don't need the aegis of the courts. Theirs really isn't anything at all like the plight of blacks in the Jim Crow south, or even women's in the first half of last century.

 

[Junebug]

Meh. Kennedy sucks

Common ground, though we're facing opposite directions.

 

[Junebug]

I can see the argument for states banning gay marriage under rational basis since states can be over/under inclusive in their passage of laws that fall under this ridiculously low bar of scrutiny. For instance, under a true rational basis test, JuneBug's earlier point about citing fertility as a state interest would have the bans pass muster. The Court has decided on something somewhere in between rational basis and even perhaps intermediate scrutiny for analyzing these bans and admittedly the bar keeps getting raised higher and higher for states to be able to pass these bans.

It seems now that the Court is actually looking at the reasons provided by the state for passing the laws rather than giving liberal interpretation to "any" reason why the law was passed. The briefs for the Windsor case somewhat inform this area and are very interesting to read. It seems that Kennedy has really shaped this whole area with his decisions on the topic dating back to Romer. I think Kennedy is a stud.

No question about it.

 

[RJKarl]

In two dozen states you can be fired for being gay. You can't be fired for being black, a woman or a Christian.

In a similar number of states you be denied a place to live because you are gay. You can't be denied a place to live because you are black, a woman or a Christian.

If you say being a woman or black isn't a choice and being gay is, then you can't say being a Christian isn't a choice.

 

[Deadbolt]

That's a broad stroke, don't you think? One doesn't have to be an originalist to oppose designating homosexuals as a protected class. I mean, if you take footnote 4 of Carolene Products seriously, homosexuals have, through their many legislative victories in this realm, demonstrated that they don't need the aegis of the courts. Theirs really isn't anything at all like the plight of blacks in the Jim Crow south, or even women's in the first half of last century.

Gays have been abused, bullied, and killed just for being gay. That sounds awfully similar to the plight of blacks in pre-civil rights southern states.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

I think you still have the Romer animus problem though when defending state statutes:

""f the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean that a bare ... desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate governmental interest."

At least assuming you accept that Romer is on point in these matters.

Would have to read Romer again, but what you quoted is unnecessarily broad. Technically, it could be applied to any group feeling oppressed. And of course, what Junebug considers a "legitimate government interest" and what lbE08 does seem far apart.

 

[EatLeadCommie]

Gays have been abused, bullied, and killed just for being gay. That sounds awfully similar to the plight of blacks in pre-civil rights southern states.

Oh please. So have the Micks and Wops. Gimme a break.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I don't think they have. They've ruled that you can't use a bare animus as the grounds for a "rational basis" test, which even gave that test more bite than the Court had originally intended.

Brown is somewhat limited to racial segregation.

I think the better argument is a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, i.e. the Court SHOULD hold that sexual orientation is a protected class, but they haven't already. If it was already a protected class, all these state laws and state constitutional amendments would have likely already been challenged and struck down as a 14th Amendment violation.

This interpretation is just opposed because people hold a strong constructionist leaning originalist interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments.

You're right, it isn't a protected class. The state laws are being struck down now though, on the grounds of the 14th amendment. I don't see how one state ban can be struck down based on the 14th amendment, and another hold up. The Windsor ruling - as DOMA being a violation of the 5th amendment (fucking Kennedy) is supposed to be even further reaching than being specified to the 14th amendment, at least in my understanding, much like Bolling v Sharp, "the concepts of equal protection and due process, both stemming from our American ideal of fairness, are not mutually exclusive".