• 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!

Marriage Equality

If gays shouldn't be able to get married because they can't procreate, should heterosexuals who are sterile? I know people who can't gave kids. Should they be able to get married? My mother-in-law had to get a hysterectomy in her mid 30s. Should she have been forced into divorce?
 
Didn't you read the article BYM, sterile people aren't that common so we shouldn't exclude them from marrying. Please try to follow along.
 
Here's another issue where I'd actually respect someone more for just straight up admitting that they're uncomfortable around gay people and don't want to see them as equals in their sphere rather than do a bunch of somersaults to justify an opposition to gay marriage.
 
Well these are the perils of having a rational basis test where you just need ANY rational basis to pass constitutional scrutiny.

Although admittedly that's not what the Court used in Romer or Windsor - or even Plyler for that matter, going beyond the bounds of the marriage context.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
Didn't you read the article BYM, sterile people aren't that common so we shouldn't exclude them from marrying. Please try to follow along.
Click to expand...

Nah, I ignored that treatise because of the length.

But, if it's a principle, it's a principle, no matter how common they are.

Compared to straight people, gay people aren't that common either.
 
If you're opposed to gay marriage, don't get gay-married and don't frequent a church that permits it. The end.
 
bym051d said:
If gays shouldn't be able to get married because they can't procreate, should heterosexuals who are sterile? I know people who can't gave kids. Should they be able to get married? My mother-in-law had to get a hysterectomy in her mid 30s. Should she have been forced into divorce?
Click to expand...

She'll be forced into a gay marriage if the lefties win!!!!
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Can you help me out here? How do we get from "marriage is for states to decide" to opposition to gay marriage? If we take it as a given that a state can determine whether or not to allow same sex marriages, why should a state decide to ban gay marriage?
Click to expand...

Not important. The point is that a state can do it, or should be able to. The reasons really aren't important since few people in this thread are going to agree to them, regardless of what they are. The point is that a state has the authority to dictate the rules of marriage, provided that they don't run into Constitutional conflicts (which, IMO, gay marriage doesn't but something like interracial marriage obviously does).

I am not of the mindset that "progressive thinking" should trump intent simply because something is viewed as archaic. We have seen historically that this has happened often. Roe v. Wade is the obvious example where a medical procedure was turned into a Constitutional guarantee (I highly recommend Abuse Of Discretion as required reading on the topic. Biased, but well sourced and completely fascinating. It also informs much of my thinking on how seemingly innocuous shit is cherry picked from prior decisions to justify current decisions). More recently and relevantly, we saw it with the Lawrence v. Texas decision. The states had stupid anti-sodomy laws that were completely archaic and impractical as enforcement tools, but within their right to create. SCOTUS said otherwise, and in the process opened the way for what happened with Windsor (which was the correct decision, but not for the reasons articulated by the majority). Windsor, with its poor reasoning and irrelevant (legally) touchy feelie jargon that echoes much of what is said in here, opens the way for shitting on the states yet again for bogus reasons.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Right, so if marital policy is within the purview of the state, then how is it not within the purview of the state to decide gay marriage?

My position has always hinged on the sole concept of consent. Are there consenting adults who agree to the relationship? If so, then it should be acceptable in the context of marriage.

I think consent is the right concept because it excludes: (1) people under the age of 18, who cannot legally consent, (2) coercive relationships where consent is forced, (3) anyone who is unable to make a decision for any number of reasons (i.e. disability, any other issue that precludes individual decision-making).

This isn't a way to force gay marriage or polygamy into a pigeonholed area, but rather I think a test which can be applied to any future type of relationship which people might be involved in in the future.
Click to expand...

It is within the state's purview to decide whether they want to permit it or forbid it. I have no problem with a state deciding they want to allow it.
 
Here let's try something else.

I am for gay marriage because I am convinced that a society with gay marriage will have more utils than one without it.

Why are you against it?
 
Also I thought Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the grounds that moral approbation was not a rational ground for legislation. I haven't read it in a while though so that might not be exactly the holding, but state laws as far as I know still have to pass constitutional muster. If the question is whether or not there is a right to privacy in the Constitution then it's a completely different question than the one you're posing about a state's ability to pass laws within a certain purview.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
It is within the state's purview to decide whether they want to permit it or forbid it. I have no problem with a state deciding they want to allow it.
Click to expand...

Ah sorry I thought you said it is not within the state's purview.

Either way, even if it is within the state's purview exclusively it still cannot infringe upon a constitutional guarantee. I reckon you would just argue that there's no constitutional guarantee to have a gay marriage.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Ah sorry I thought you said it is not within the state's purview.

Either way, even if it is within the state's purview exclusively it still cannot infringe upon a constitutional guarantee. I reckon you would just argue that there's no constitutional guarantee to have a gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Correct.
 
I don't really view time as a necessary ingredient for finding the truth, particularly when the facts haven't changed at all - just the time. Plessy was wrong when it was decided and it was jus as wrong when Brown was passed as the day it was written.

States have the right to legislate marriage for better or worse and I concede that point, but I'm also not a strict constructionist so I'm in favor of reading the phrase "equal protection" in a pretty liberal manner.
 
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.
 
bym051d said:
Nah, I ignored that treatise because of the length.

But, if it's a principle, it's a principle, no matter how common they are.

Compared to straight people, gay people aren't that common either.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
"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. "

So if a gay couple has children, their union should be called "marriage".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top