Gay Marriage

[InfiniteNow]

Bill - With 510 posts to this thread, and the fact that I've used the word "secular" in pretty much every one of mine, if you really don't know what I mean and are only just now asking, you should start by reading this:

 

Secular state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

 

 

Also:

[secularism] refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.

 

~Kosmin, Barry A. "Contemporary Secularity and Secularism." Secularism & Secularity: Contemporary International Perspectives. Ed. Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar. Hartford, CT: Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC), 2007.

[InfiniteNow]

But the State also validates those unions that are not conductive to procreation. So why not validate unions between two men or two women?

 

Yes. Why not, indeed. ;)

[lawcat]

Modest,

I apologize for the delay. I will run through your objections and points quickly, and may revise later when my brain is less tired.

 

Moreover, it has the right to regulate and deny [marriage]. The question at hand is whether the State can properly prohibit gay marriage.

 

A minor clarification on your assertion: States have no rights; States have powers. Yes, the State traditionally and inherently has the power to regulate and prohibit marriage. Some justice of the supreme court, and judges across the nation, still feel that the State has the power to regulate and prohibit intimate relationships. But, I consider it settled that the State's power in this arena is limited by the fundamental rights of privacy as interpreted by the Superme Court. Thus, the power to prohibit is not there any longer--as long as we consider only the rights of privacy of two people--only the power to validate and recognize in accordance with policy is still valid.

 

The State's interest is a matter of debate as well as an evolving concern.

I agree. That is why I assserted that it is a matter of legislative policy. But in a court, once the State asserts the policy, the only question is whether that policy is within the power of the State; and it always is, unless trumped by the federal constitution, federal statute, or State's constitution.

 

I believe an individual has a fundamental right to marry. It is not a penumbra of procreation. It's a basic and natural liberty common to the human condition.

A couple has a fundamental right to marry; an individual does not--that would be absurd. And the State does not have to validate it. However, in our republic, the common law rights from England are preserved, and the State is without power to deny the rights existing in England prior to 1776. There, a man and a woman could marry. So, the State is forced to do it by the adoption of common law.

But, State validations aside, the fundamental right to marry is a part of rights of privacy, and the most basic human decency requires the original fundamental right to procreation, under the rights of privacy. From their follows everything, because procreation is basic; all else just follows.

Saying that the State's only interest in marriage is procreation is strained.

I gave you the Redhail decision, and others. State has interest in procreation beacuse it continues the generation; the State also has an interest in the best interest of children. Those are fundamental State's interest. The State could not care less about marriage for the sake of marriage, were it not for children.

But, to say that a person's right to marry exists only as a shadow to and is contingent on procreation is completely unreasonable.

Persons right to marry is not contingent on procreation, but the right to marry is a part of rights to privacy, and follows from the right to procreation. Rights to privacy are a group penumbra rights that unfold logically.

 

The fact that an individual is drawn to share their life with another, that they choose to do so and desire to do so—to love another, to be intimate, caring, protecting, serving, honoring, swearing to give the full dedication of everything they will ever have to another human being, is not peripheral to baby making.

True. The State can not prohibit you from living with whoever you want. But baby making is crucial to marriage, which requires man, woman, State.

 

Humans don't need to marry to have children, thus the State can not precondition the marriage on when families have children.

True. No, couples do not need to marry to have children, but if they do not, the State will enforce the family to the extent necessary to protect the child. The State will also incentivize marriage to those who are reluctant to marry.

In addition, States would like to control procreation and require to procreate, and would like to prohibit contraceptives; because that would make their validation of marriage most efficient, in accordance with State's interest. But, the decision making in procreation is fundamental right, embedded in the penumbra of rights of privacy. Thus, the State is without power to precondition marriage on procreation. See Griswold vs Connecticut

[

it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a "governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms." . Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.

 

The way lions do it would work fine. But, it is human nature to pair up for life. It's innate. It's necessary. It's essential—not for procreation, but (in the language of Meyer v. State of Nebraska) "essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men".

Orderly being the key word.

 

As the premise is incorrect, so too has the conclusion become.

I disagree, as explained previously.

I've argued no such thing. Ironically, it is the opposition position in this thread which bifurcates family rights into two groups which could be described as your 1 and 2 or marriage and civil unions.

I apologize. I was intentionally being facetious to emphasise the steps in the penumbras.

 

Really, if you just recognize that it's not a penumbra at all you don't run into any such troubles.

See Grisowld above, for a hint on penumbras.

 

Again, sorry for the delay.

[modest]

I'm sorry Lawcat. You have not shown that the right to marry is predicated on procreation yet you use that premise to form conclusions. The conclusions are then predictably incorrect.

 

Humans don't need to marry to have children, thus the State can not precondition the marriage on when families have children.

True. No, couples do not need to marry to have children, but...

 

I believe you've misquoted me. After "children", I don't think I wrote what comes after that.

 

But, the decision making in procreation is fundamental right, embedded in the penumbra of rights of privacy. Thus, the State is without power to precondition marriage on procreation. See Griswold vs Connecticut

 

Yeah, I was just reading Griswold the other day. It's true that the government cannot precondition marriage on procreation because of Griswold. This is a good point and I'm surprised you haven't used it to refute InfiniteNow's objection regarding infertile and elderly as is quasi-done here:

Baker v. Nelson -- Supreme Court of Minnesota

 

Text

 

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect.

Nonetheless, the reason you give for the Griswold rationale is backwards. Privacy is not predicated on procreation, but rather privacy of procreation is predicated on marriage. Marriage is the fundamental right here. Matters of procreation are protected because privacy is a penumbra of the bill of rights combined with the fundamental right of marriage.

 

Griswold does not support your claims that the right of marriage is a penumbra of procreation. I don't think you will be able to support that because I believe it is completely wrong.

 

Marriage is a fundamental right.

 

~modest

[lawcat]

I

Marriage is a fundamental right.

~modest

 

True. But why? In addition to tradition, ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), explains:

 

Marriage is . . . fundamental to our very existence and survival . . . . on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships"

 

and

it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society

 

So, while I agree that marriage is fundamental, it is fundamental for a reason which stems from other necessitities, basic needs, and rights of privacy. Procreation, child birth, child rearing being at the center of those rights of privacy.

 

Gay couples do not fit the right to marry, because they do not the foundations of the right to marry.

 

They do not fit the right to chose the partner, because there is no need for common child rearing, and procreation in gay realtionships.

They do not fit the right to decisional freedom in child rearing, because their decisional freedom is never a right, but always subject to State sanction due to the need for adoption.

They do not fit the right to adoption, because adoption is not a right but a privilege subject to State laws.

In the end, gay family is never a fundamental right, but always a matter of State policy.

 

Gay couples are inherently and fundamentally not equal to hetero couples. The only remedy is political fiat.

[InfiniteNow]

WARREN, C.J., Opinion of the Court

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

 

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

 

Substitute the word "race" with the word "gender." The implications, the clarity, and the relevance all remain the same.

 

 

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

"There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy."

Using the same logic, there is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious sexual discrimination which justifies this classification of marriage only being allowed to be defined as between a man and a woman.

 

 

 

http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf

The State's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional.

[REASON]

So, while I agree that marriage is fundamental, it is fundamental for a reason which stems from other necessitities, basic needs, and rights of privacy. Procreation, child birth, child rearing being at the center of those rights of privacy.

 

Gay couples do not fit the right to marry, because they do not the foundations of the right to marry.

 

They do not fit the right to chose the partner, because there is no need for common child rearing, and procreation in gay realtionships.

They do not fit the right to decisional freedom in child rearing, because their decisional freedom is never a right, but always subject to State sanction due to the need for adoption.

They do not fit the right to adoption, because adoption is not a right but a privilege subject to State laws.

In the end, gay family is never a fundamental right, but always a matter of State policy.

 

Gay couples are inherently and fundamentally not equal to hetero couples. The only remedy is political fiat.

 

In all of this legal mumbo-jumbo which you are contiually attempting to use to justify an overtly discriminatory policy - one in which there is no clear precedence under the law - What is overtly missing, and has not been clearly addressed, are the ways in which any of the implied qualifications of marriage that you repeatedly list above, are diminished for typical heterosexual couples by the state choosing to recognize same sex marriage.

 

After continually racking my brain, I can't think of any. State recognition of same sex marriage can have absolutley zero impact on heterosexual marriages and the success of all the implied legal qualifications you keep referring to, that in my estimation, amount to nothing more than a fancy sounding way of justifying bigotry. It has to be done this way because just comming out and saying "I hate fags" isn't a good argument and won't stand up in court. But at it's core, that is exactly what drives the need to create the argument you are making above.

 

Note: I'm not suggesting that is how you feel. I'm suggesting that is what your argument implies.

[lawcat]

In all of this legal mumbo-jumbo

Legal mumbo-jumbo? That is funny. I suggest that you go and live elsewhere, where there is no legal mumbo-jumbo.

overtly discriminatory policy

The only allegedly discriminatory policy is: States do not validate gay marriage, and the federal government defers to States and tradition.

 

one in which there is no clear precedence under the law

OK. In your own words: "It seems to me that people tend to prefer to believe what they want to be real or true, despite evidence to the contrary," and "When what you believe is refuted by evidence, you are faced with a choice." That choice is a matter of policy.

What is overtly missing, and has not been clearly addressed, are the ways in which any of the implied qualifications of marriage that you repeatedly list above, are diminished for typical heterosexual couples by the state choosing to recognize same sex marriage.

That is a matter of each State's policy. Indiana does not have to do something that Montana deems appropriate to them by policy.

 

State recognition of same sex marriage can have absolutley zero impact on heterosexual marriages and the success of all the implied legal qualifications you keep referring to,

It has impact on State's policy, and the way hetero couples relate to that policy; if the current policy is changed.

that in my estimation, amount to nothing more than a fancy sounding way of justifying bigotry.

The State has a paramount interest in children. Those decisions are based on policy and optimal environment for a child which naturally is a mother and a father. No bigotry. Just facts of life.

It has to be done this way because just comming out and saying "I hate fags" isn't a good argument and won't stand up in court.

The question is whether the policy is fair. It is fair. Gays have no reasonable expectations of child bearing.

But at it's core, that is exactly what drives the need to create the argument you are making above.

 

No. The argument is about what is fair. As a matter of fundamental right, gays have no reasonable expectations of family. AS a matter of State policy they may have reasonable expectations of both partners rearing one or the other's child. But this is not a matter of fundamental right. It is a matter of policy. This is not legal mumbo-jumbo, but a mattter of constitutional allocation of powers.

[modest]

I

Marriage is a fundamental right.

~modest

 

True. But why?

 

Because it's fundamental to humanity. That's what fundamental means. You can't predicate it on procreation.

 

~modest

[Zythryn]

Marriage is . . . fundamental to our very existence and survival . . . . on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships"

Marriage is . . . fundamental to our very existence and survival . . . . on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships"

and

it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society

So, while I agree that marriage is fundamental, it is fundamental for a reason which stems from other necessitities, basic needs, and rights of privacy. Procreation, child birth, child rearing being at the center of those rights of privacy.

 

While I am no lawyer, the very quotes you list seem to both say that the marriage and procreation, child rearing, etc and are as important as each other, i.e. SAME LEVEL not dependant upon. This does not seem to support your case that it "stems from".

 

Gay couples do not fit the right to marry, because they do not the foundations of the right to marry.

Again, if by foundations you mean ability to procreate, then neither do my wife and I, so why can we get married?

 

They do not fit the right to chose the partner, because there is no need for common child rearing, and procreation in gay realtionships.

Neither is there that need in my relationship with my wife...

 

Gay couples are inherently and fundamentally not equal to hetero couples. The only remedy is political fiat.

Again, I disagree. Sure, gay couples are not the SAME as hetero couples, but why are they not equal?

[InfiniteNow]

InfiniteNow, just for clarification, and to avoid any misinterpretations, can you provide your preferred definition of secular so that I can make an attempt to answer the most recent revision of your standing question?

I've provided a response to your request, and am still awaiting your response. I will take a failure to respond as a concession that you have been bested in this debate, so please note that.

 

 

 

Also, for what it's worth, you were wrong on this issue 3 years ago, too, Bill.

 

At its root "gay" is a choice. It is a behavior that can be engaged in or avoided. Many of our laws are about the behaviors that are accepted as social norms. This issue is about the definition of social norms. As a society we come to concensus about where the boudaries of those social norms exist. In this case we are talking about people who have made a choice. They have chosen a person of the same gender as opposed to picking a person of the opposite gender. Society has a consensus that thiss is not encouraged. As that concensus changes the laws will follow. But (repeating myself) this is not the same as race. Race is not a person's choice. Sexual partner is a person's choice. And the definition of gay implies sexual relations. What the people of this bill want is that ANY two people can be married. We need to be caucious of the precedent that such legislation could put forward. Next in line will be the pedophiles and the incestuous.

 

All societies need boundaries to maintain civility. These are enforced in the guise of laws. With the broad range of people within a society you will always have a healthy debate about where the lines need to be drawn. It is unfortunate when the debate turns into accusations of predjudice from one side, or resorts to comparison's that are not congruent to the issue at hand.

 

Comparison's to race are not congruent - race is not a chosen behavior.

Gay's have the same rights as heterosexuals. Both both groups can only marry the opposite gender.

The attraction and the impulse are not the choice. The action is the choice. And the label of "gay" comes from the action, not the impulse. The way people are define as gay is by having engaged in homosexual sex, not by who they find attractive.

What really disappoints me is the the gay community didn't come up with something original and fun as their alternative to marriage. And get everyone else clamoring to do what the gay people are doing. It is a testament to the power of tradition that seems to be such a scoffed at argument that so many who are bucking tradition still need it to make themselves feel accepted.

A marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what it has meant, and that is what it should continue to mean. To say that I am married carries with it information. It means that I as huband am a man married to a woman as wife. And that we as husband and wife are mother and father to our children. Just as a gay person can have pride in themselves and their life, and choose to publicly be recognized as gay without fear of abuse - I too am allowed to have pride. When I say I am married it tells people who I am. It is inherently traditional and heterosexual.

<...>

Is it fair? I don't care.

 

 

That says it all, really... doesn't it? :)

[modest]

While I am no lawyer, the very quotes you list seem to both say that the marriage and procreation, child rearing, etc and are as important as each other, i.e. SAME LEVEL not dependant upon. This does not seem to support your case that it "stems from".

 

I'd like to agree with this strongly

 

~modest

[jackson33]

This post and responses to it were moved to 20427, because they are only slightly related to this thread’s topic.

 

Infinite post 511;

Bill - With 510 posts to this thread, and the fact that I've used the word "secular" in pretty much every one of mine, if you really don't know what I mean and are only just now asking, you should start by reading this:

 

Infinite; I wish I had more time to discuss this issue, even though it's not new to any forum you participate on. The Founders or Framers of the Confederation, US Declaration of Independence, the Constitution where not only religious in nature, but Christian.

...

[InfiniteNow]

If I oppose “gay marriage,” for example, does that automatically make me a bigot, even if I support full-on domestic partnerships for gays?

If you don't have any legitimate or practical reason for your opposition, then yes... this makes you a bigot.

 

 

Or if someone seeks to change the traditional meaning of the word “marriage”—a change that flies in the face of some traditional people—does that make him a bigot?

If no such definition actually exists, then yes... this makes you a bigot.

 

 

I hate NASCAR, and I opposed all efforts to build a NASCAR track near my town. Does that make me a bigot?

No, because there are legitimate and practical purposes underlying your opposition. Maybe you're worried about the noise it will create, or the pollution, or how it will shift economics and cause the natural land in your area to be diminished. Maybe you're concerned that people are spending their money on incredibly fuel inefficient cars instead of spending it on more useful things for our society. Regardless of why, you have legitimate and practical motivations underlying your opposition.

 

 

Tell us all again what legitimate practical purpose motivates your opposition to gay marriage if it's not just the fact that you see "them" as "different."

[Larv]

If you don't have any legitimate or practical reason for your opposition, then yes... this makes you a bigot.

Does the fact that my definition of the word “marriage” is different from a gay person’s definition of the word count for anything? Am I a bigot because I resist being told by a minority group that my definition of the word “marriage” is wrong? Why aren’t they bigots for being intolerant of my traditional definition?

 

Tell us all again what legitimate practical purpose motivates your opposition to gay marriage if it's not just the fact that you see "them" as "different."

Mr. Now, I’ve tried to explain this to you before before, but you won’t accept it. I don’t oppose full-on gay domestic partnerships in any way; I only oppose being told that I have to change my understanding of the term “marriage.” Everything the homosexuals need to get fully legal domestic partnerships in the state of Washington are now in place. I support that. I also support the principle of “everything-but-marriage.” Please tell me why that makes me a bigot. Because if you can make me understand your point of view than we are on our way to inventing a fair test for bigotry.

 

Am I a bigot if I am unwilling to call margarine “butter”? Am I a bigot if I am unwilling to call a tricycle a “bicycle”? Please bear in mind that I am quibbling only about the word "marriage," not about whether or not gays and lesbians should have legal domestic partnerships.

 

There are essential differences in life, IN, and you need to take off your blinders. Give me a fair test for bigotry that proves I'm a bigot because of my understanding of the term "marriage."

[InfiniteNow]

Does the fact that my definition of the word “marriage” is different from a gay person’s definition of the word count for anything?

Would it count for anything... Like what? Nobody is challenging you to change your definition. The challenge is for you to provide relevant secular reasons if you wish to impose your definition on others. What legitimate practical purpose does it serve to maintain YOUR definition at the expense of the one the rest of us hold?

 

 

Am I a bigot because I resist being told by a minority group that my definition of the word “marriage” is wrong?

You can resist a change in your personal definitions all you want. Nobody is saying otherwise. What is being said is that people disagree with your defintion, and ask whether or not you can provide a legitmate and practical purpose for holding such a defintion... a definition which excludes same sex couples.

 

 

Why aren’t they bigots for being intolerant of my traditional definition?

Why are you unable to answer such a clear and direct question regarding what legitimate and practical purpose your definition has?

 

 

Mr. Now, I’ve tried to explain this to you before before, but you won’t accept it. I don’t oppose full-on gay domestic partnerships in any way; I only oppose being told that I have to change my understanding of the term “marriage.”

And Mr. Larv, this is yet another blatant strawman. Nobody has told you that you must change your understanding of the term marriage. You can understand that term in any way you choose. However, you don't get the impose your personal defintion on to others without a legitimate and practical purpose. Further, if you are trying to do so through law and legislation here in the US, your purpose must also be relevant, secular, and inline with the constitution.

 

Really.... Do we need to go through this all again? There are about 7 threads here each with over 1,000 posts on the issues of marriage and homosexuality. Despite the abundance of contributions, none of those posts from you have cited legitimate or practical reasons for your opposition.

 

 

Am I a bigot if I am unwilling to call margarine “butter”? Am I a bigot if I am unwilling to call a tricycle a “bicycle”?

I must say, this is probably your strongest argument yet. You like logical fallacies, don't you? You are conflating terms, equivocating, strawmanning, using prolific red herrings and personal attacks, and you still can't make your case. Good job.

[Larv]

The challenge is for you to provide relevant secular reasons if you wish to impose your definition on others.

I offer you Exhibit A: Washington’s newly enacted “everything-but-marriage” law. You know about that law, don’t you? It’s the law that differentiates between a two-sex marriage and one-sex domestic partnership. It’s secular, it has legal reasons and justification, and it has received endorsement by all three branches of the state of Washington’s government. What more secular reasons do you need, Mr. Now?