Gay Marriage

[modest]

Will you be content, too? Or will you claim superior knowledge to that of the courts if they rule against your opinion?

 

I follow every law as best as I am able, think you. I'm also free to argue against any of those laws—a right the first amendment guarantees me. In light of that your question is absolutely senseless. What matter is how "content" with any particular nonexistent hypothetical decision by the supreme court I am? There are many such hypothetical decisions I can envision which would leave me rather non-content. So what? Senseless.

 

This point has been brought up before, of course, and I truly cannot say if it applies to gay DPs vs. "gay marriage." I frankly do not know enough about the U. S. Constitution to make a call on your separate-but-equal objection.

By definition what you are asking for is "separate but equal". How can you not know if it applies? You are asking for two different institutions to be applied to two separate groups of people and asking that they be equal. The supreme court has ruled before that such a thing is inherently impossible. Separate is unequal. That doesn't mean that it's always bad as per the drivers license example I gave. But, it is always unequal. So, what you're asking for is an impossibility. You're asking for separate institutions to impart equal rights.

 

You ask for the impossible. Don't be surprised if some people object.

 

~modest

[Larv]

…There are many such hypothetical decisions I can envision which would leave me rather non-content. So what? Senseless.

All right, then, let me rephrase the question. Do you agree that in the United States—a constitutional republic—it is the SCOTUS which decides what is constitutional or what is not? Or do you hold your opinion to be higher that the of SCOTUS in matters of constitutional interpretation?

 

By definition what you are asking for is "separate but equal".

I don’t think so, but I’m neither an attorney nor a supreme-court judge. I don’t pretend to know what is constitutional or not without a supreme court decision on the matter. Do you? You seem to think this “separate-but-equal” issue has already been decided. It hasn’t. It's just your opinion.

[Larv]

Hmmm, seems rather limited, but a much better than nothing.

Upon some reading at Frequently Asked Questions, it seems that the state does not yet recognize a number of rights granted by marraige in their domestic partnerships. Although the law has passed and been signed, there is talk of a challenge to it so the most recent law won't go into affect until December.

Recently, Gov. Chris Gregoire ruled that all state employees who seek same-sex domestic partnerships will be granted every lawful right that is granted to traditionally married couples. She encouraged all local governments, businesses, and so on to do the same. From what I can make of it, the one-sexers are getting everything the two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights.

[InfiniteNow]

I don’t think so, but I’m neither an attorney nor a supreme-court judge. I don’t pretend to know what is constitutional or not without a supreme court decision on the matter. Do you? You seem to think this “separate-but-equal” issue has already been decided. It hasn’t. It's just your opinion.

 

If you're going to continue making comments like this, then I suggest you try studying the Constitution and the SCOTUS rulings about it. Separate, but equal HAS been decided, and it WAS deemed unconstitutional. This ruling was put forth by the SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education, a case where they overturned the previous SCOTUS ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson (the case which made the separate, but equal doctrine accepted and deemed it constitutional).

 

 

 

 

 

Recently, Gov. Chris Gregoire ruled that all state employees who seek same-sex domestic partnerships will be granted every lawful right that is granted to traditionally married couples. She encouraged all local governments, businesses, and so on to do the same. From what I can make of it, the one-sexers are getting everything the two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights.

 

Not federal level benefits and privileges, nor benefits and privileges in other states.

[Larv]

Ping Larv:

The problem with any wording other than "marriage" seems to me to be that no democratic government can rule that all insurance companies, banks, hospitals, etc. treat "domestic partnerships" (or any other spin doctoring) equally with marriage. AFAIK the only way to slide under the door is to call it what it is as far as The State is concerned, marriage, and let Churches continue to maintain, should they see fit, that Caesar's Law is not God's Law and that in their opinion God's Law is supreme. Render unto Caesar.....?

In the state of Washington we don’t get too worked up over differentiating Caesar’s Laws from God’s Laws. And our same-sex domestic-partnership laws seem to be working splendidly. We’ve moved beyond hypotheticals and into real life. It’s very refreshing.

[Larv]

If you're going to continue making comments like this, then I suggest you try studying the Constitution and the SCOTUS rulings about it. Separate, but equal HAS been decided, and it WAS deemed unconstitutional. This ruling was put forth by the SCOTUS in Brown v. Board of Education, a case where they overturned the previous SCOTUS ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson (the case which made the separate, but equal doctrine accepted and deemed it constitutional).

What does any of this have to do with “gay marriage”? Besides, who are you to be touting SCOTUS decisions? Does this mean that you’ll be touting the SCOTUS decision on DOMA when it is upheld?

[InfiniteNow]

What does any of this have to do with “gay marriage”?

My... How quickly you forget. My post was in response to this exchange which took place a mere four hours ago:

 

 

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

You seem to think this “separate-but-equal” issue has already been decided. It hasn’t. It's just your opinion.

 

 

Hence, my post discussing how SCOTUS, in Brown v. Board of Education struck down the existing SCOTUS precedent of Plessy v. Fergusson, a case which put forth that "separate, but equal" is constitutional. That ruling was overturned, and in the more recent case of Brown v. Board of Education, SCOTUS clearly stated that "separate, but equal" is unconstitutional.

[Larv]

My... How quickly you forget. My post was in response to this exchange which took place a mere four hours ago:..

 

Hence, my post discussing how SCOTUS, in Brown v. Board of Education struck down the existing SCOTUS precedent of Plessy v. Fergusson, a case which put forth that "separate, but equal" is constitutional. That ruling was overturned, and in the more recent case of Brown v. Board of Education, SCOTUS clearly stated that "separate, but equal" is unconstitutional.

I don't recall the SCOTUS ever ruling that "separate-but-equal" applies to "gay marriage." But I could be wrong. Please refresh my memory.

[TheBigDog]

I don't recall the SCOTUS ever ruling that "separate-but-equal" applies to "gay marriage." But I could be wrong. Please refresh my memory.

Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

 

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.

The language is very specific. It applies to education. He goes on...

We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Very specific.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

The language is very specific. It applies to education. He goes on...

<snip>

Very specific.

 

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the scores of cases which cited Brown v. Board of Education after that decision was written... cases which expanded on the application of Chief Justice Warren's words... cases which confirmed that "separate, but equal" was unconstitutional even beyond just the realm of education.

 

 

So, yeah... Care to try again?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=us&CiRestriction=347+u.s.+483&

[TheBigDog]

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the scores of cases which cited Brown v. Board of Education after that decision was written... cases which expanded on the application of Chief Justice Warren's words... cases which confirmed that "separate, but equal" was unconstitutional even beyond just the realm of education.

 

 

So, yeah... Care to try again?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/casesearch.pl?court=us&CiRestriction=347+u.s.+483&

You sited Brown v Board saying it stated separate but equal was unconstitutional. I pointed out, in answering Larv's question, that Brown v Board is specific about education. If you have case law that extends Brown v Board to same sex marriage, then provide it. I don't know if it exists or not, but seeing it would certainly strengthen your argument.

 

What I see are mentions of Brown, sometimes in the supporting argument, other times in the dissenting argument. Sometimes as support of the argument, sometimes just in passing. That is why your search shows 160 hits for citation of '347 u.s. 483' by the Supreme Court. I did a search for 'separate but equal' and find 37 cases after Brown v Board. I am looking through those now. The first one is about segregated lunch counters... more like that... more school segregation... more lunch counters... public parks... a "revenge" suite in Virgina vs NAACP... it is still a matter of race that is being addressed.

 

I found this interesting snippit...

The Fourteenth Amendment was surely not intended to make every discrimination between groups of people a constitutional denial of equal protection. Nor was the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to permit Congress to prohibit every discrimination between groups of people. On the other hand, the Civil War Amendments were unquestionably designed to condemn and forbid every distinction, however trifling, on account of race.

 

I found nothing in case rulings after several searches and reading through many cases that remotely addresses same sex marriage under the Brown v Board or in rulings that included the term "separate but equal". From my examination I am satisfied that there is none, but I am open to seeing that I am wrong on that point.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

So, if I'm reading you correctly, your argument is thus:

 

"Separate, but equal" was deemed unconstitutional as pertains to schools in relation to skin color.

Rights for same sex couples should be extended, but they should be treated "separate, but equal" by not calling their union a marriage, and all for no relevant secular reason.

 

Since the court deemed "separate, but equal" unconstitutional when dealing with skin color and education, it cannot be applied to the issue of same sex marriage where "separate, but equal" is again being propositioned as a valid measure to treat homosexuals differently than heterosexuals (for no relevant secular purpose).

 

Is that an accurate reading of your posts, Bill? ... That "separate, but equal" is only unconstitutional in the context of skin color and education, but not unconstitutional in other circumstances?

[CraigD]

I can't speak for God's Law or that of Caesar, but I can tell you that in the state of Washington gay domestic partnerships now enjoy every single legal right that married couples enjoy.

Unless one considers married couples paying a lower federal income tax than they would if they were not married not to be a “legal right”, Larv’s claim isn’t true. Not registered domestic partners in the state of Washington, married people of the same sex in US states that perform same-sex marriage (currently Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa) , nor people of the same sex married in non-US countries that perform same-sex marriage (currently the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, and Sweden) required to file US federal tax returns, are allowed to claim the married filing jointly tax status. Although I’m unfamiliar with details of Washington state’s domestic partnership laws and regulations, from the FAQ page Zythryn gave in post #408, and from Larv’s statement (italics mine) that

Recently, Gov. Chris Gregoire ruled that all state employees who seek same-sex domestic partnerships will be granted every lawful right that is granted to traditionally married couples. She encouraged all local governments, businesses, and so on to do the same.

I gather that local tax and other benefits are also not. Therefore Larv’s claim that

… the one-sexers are getting everything the two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights.

Appears to me simply wrong. One-sexers are getting some of, not everything, two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights.

 

(sources: wikipedia article “status of same-sex marriage”; The Gay CPA: Domestic Partner Tax Issues)

 

The argument that separate but equal rights are valid with regards to domestic partnerships vs. marriage would be more compelling if the rights granted by each were actually equal.

[lemit]

BigDog,

 

I think you're correct about how the constitution and its court interpretations work in respect to individual rights. I don't think it's right, but apparently people are given the right to petition and the 14th amendment gives Congress the responsibility to pass laws to guarantee the rights already guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. The more I read about that the more confused I am.

 

I think the opposing lawyers from Gore v. Bush are preparing a federal lawsuit to test the California law prohibiting gay marriage. That should settle things.

 

According to Separate but Equal legal definition of Separate but Equal. Separate but Equal synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary. the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" has been rejected in all public accomodations. Wiki and Answers claim to be quoting West's in saying that the public accomodations law is being applied to gay marriage, but their supposed quotes don't look like they come from West's. I think society, and somewhere behind it the law, are moving in that direction.

 

I suspect we'll survive. We've survived a lot. It's instructive to read contemporary literature and law from eras before changes we now think are perfectly normal. Before those other changes, people thought the world was going to hell in a handbasket. The changes were made, but the world is still just on its way to hell. Maybe that road is longer and more strewn with impediments than we can imagine with our limited experience.

 

--lemit

[modest]

All right, then, let me rephrase the question. Do you agree that in the United States—a constitutional republic—it is the SCOTUS which decides what is constitutional or what is not? Or do you hold your opinion to be higher that the of SCOTUS in matters of constitutional interpretation?

 

Do you press alt-0151 to make those hyphens? :D

 

Yes. As the highest court of the land, it is the supreme court's job to decide if a law violates the federal constitution. That's their job. My job, as a voting member of this republic, is to elect people who will make good laws. As a resident of Kansas I take this responsibility rather seriously because our laws keep getting overturned for being unconstitutional and, frankly, stupid.

 

I will now wake you up to the American ideal (I refer here to the US, for anyone who doesn't live on this particular patch of ground... sorry DannieYankee :shrug: I know this particular apology has been going around a lot lately). Ok... I suddenly realize that I should stipulate the following post on the fact that I've just got back from a party and maybe had a couple too many, so I apologize beforehand for the rant that I feel coming on. Nonetheless, the American ideal....

 

We don't like arguments from authority. We don't like being told that tea gets taxed because the King says so. You tell me I can't argue for "no taxation without representation" because of some decision by English parliament... well, them's fightin' words.

 

We wage civil war to support our own good judgment on equality rather than accepting the way things are.

 

A little black girl tried to go to a white school in Little Rock some years back. The Arkansas national guard and hundreds of protesters were there to stop her. She barely escaped with her life. She came back a few days later with her eight fellow black students and the full force of the 101st airborne and you had better believe they got in.

 

For decades earlier there was Plessy v. Ferguson. "Separate but equal" was the law of the land certified by the Supreme Court, and there was no chance in hell that black kids were ever going to an all white school in Arkansas. But, they did. They did because some folks at Harverd said: "the supreme court is wrong". Some black parents said that the Governor was wrong and the school board was wrong, and the National guard was wrong, and the protesters were wrong, and, damn it, if it's going to take the most powerful army on the planet, I'm going to get my kid in that school.

 

That's the American ideal.

 

What is an argument from authority supposed to mean to me? It means nothing. It shocks me how many people have claimed in this thread: "well, that's the way it's always been, and tradition is a good argument". No! It's not! It's the worst argument ever. Tradition? We traditionally burn witches. We traditionally whip slaves into bloody submission. Who sacrifices their own good judgment about morality based on tradition... let alone what the supreme court might do tomorrow? No. I don't like your argument, Larv. As an American (sorry DannieYankee :rant:) I find it rather offputting... off-putting... off putting... whatever: it's just off.

 

By definition what you are asking for is "separate but equal".

I don’t think so, but I’m neither an attorney nor a supreme-court judge...

 

I don't recall the SCOTUS ever ruling that "separate-but-equal" applies to "gay marriage." But I could be wrong. Please refresh my memory.

 

Yes, and Bill recalls that Brown vs. the Board of Education applies only to schools. You're both right and we've all lost the forest for the trees. Plessy v. Ferguson didn't mention schools, but who could argue that it wasn't so applied? Who could argue that Brown vs. the Board of Education wasn't applied to water fountains and movie theaters and public transportation? We hopefully all know what a president is. I think INow pointed this out... if so, he's absolutely correct. If not, he absolutely should have

 

But, even recognizing that Brown v. the Board of Education might apply to facilities other than schools (which can't be denied), we've still not found the forest. I worked with a gay woman who asked the visiting health care representative if her partner of 12 years could be part of the plan? The answer was "I don't know. I'll have to look into that". Later, by phone, the answer was most definitely "no". Now, that's not equal. We all understand that, don't we?

 

Your arrangement, Larv, is that such a thing can be made equal. I don't think it ever can be. We either need to say that gay marriage is not an equal institution to heterosexual marriage or we need to say that they are one and the same—they are both marriage. But, you can't go around the country pointing a gun at every health care provider in the country (sorry DannieYankee ) and tell them to treat domestic partnerships equal to marriage. You can't do that for a very specific reason which the Supreme Court understood long before now. There are prejudiced people who make decisions regarding who gets a new kidney, or liver, or who is even covered in these companies. Not to mention tax laws and all the rest.

 

Separate never turns out to be equal. It's understood in US law. It's a universal truth which can't be abridged with the good intentions of the few.

 

~modest

 

EDIT: My apologies to Lemit for mistakenly writing that handle rather than "Larv". I was honestly quite out of my mind

[freeztar]

I find it strange that there is such an objection to tradition.

 

The word tradition comes from the Latin traditionem, acc. of traditio which means "handing over, passing on", and is used in a number of ways in the English language:

 

1. Beliefs or customs taught by one generation to the next, often orally. For example, we can speak of the tradition of sending birth announcements.

2. A set of customs or practices. For example, we can speak of Christmas traditions.

3. A broad religious movement made up of religious denominations or church bodies that have a common history, customs, culture, and, to some extent, body of teachings. For example, one can speak of Islam's Sufi tradition or Christianity's Lutheran tradition.

 

However, on a more basic theoretical level, tradition(s) can be seen as information or composed of information. For that which is brought into the present from the past, in a particular societal context, is information. This is even more fundamental than particular acts or practices even if repeated over a long sequence of time.

Tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Tradition is essentially a passing on of information.

 

This tradition of marriage (between a male and a female) would be extremely advantageous from a biological standpoint. A primitive human could have a son and pass down the information of how he got there. If he is to grow up and mate and continue on the species, then he must follow tradition.

 

Of course the lines are much more skewed today. I think an argument against tradition is a valid one, but I've yet to see a convincing argument.

 

An argument from legality might say: At a fed level, all homosexual couples have full legal rights, the same as married heterosexual couples. I look forward to the day.

 

But then we still have that conundrum. Why can't we call "same-sex unions" the same as "marriage"?

 

I really don't hold a personal view of Marriage as this sacred thing that shall not allow gays. If gays get married and they call it marriage, it has absolutely ZERO effect on my marriage.

 

My gay friends agree, they just want equality. They would love to get married, but it doesn't have to be called Marriage. They could call it whatever (x union) and it would not matter. They would be happily married and receiving the same benefits of married heterosexuals. But others disagree...

[enorbet2]

I disagree that tradition is "merely passing on of information", Freeztar. It is more and often worse than that since it comes as a package deal including judgments, just one more instance of how individuals should subvert and subject Reason to some authoritative group think.

 

As it is personified in this thread regarding minority rights vis a vis so-called same sex (whatever that is) marriage, it is just one more vestige of people who shout "There oughta be a law!" usually seen to protecting some sacred belief that has no bearing on society other than holding back true equality under the Law, and the subjugation of that law to some religious moral authority (oxymoron?). This in itself has massive ramifications since so much unnecessary and self-destructive strife in the world is caused/licensed by viewing others as less deserving of anything remotely like equality, as different. Different so easily morphs into "less than". Just insert any politically incorrect but nonetheless common hate term for black, brown, red, native, Hebrew, Christian, Buddhist, Aborigine, Vietnamese, Japanese, Pakistani, Chinese, American, woman, man,... whatever. Once they are rendered less than you, it is easier on such people's "conscience" to imprison, enslave, lynch, shoot or bomb them, with no other justification.

 

Things are not automatically righteous because they are new or because they are old (read: traditional). They are only good or bad on their own merits and should be entirely subject to justification through the rules of evidence, especially when it comes to civil law. The primary concern of all citizens, IMHO, should be that our laws are at the very least fair and justly enforced and supported and focused especially on that lowest common denominator, the minority of one, the individual. Collectivization seems inherently dangerous to all individuals.