Political Crossfire Forums

[Wolverine]

Can anyone give me a viable "moral" argument against gay marriage?

[John Galt]

ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

Is "because the people of a given state do not want it and it is not Constitutionally protected so therefore it is up to the state to decide what to do with the marriage laws within it's own state," 'viable'?

[Korimyr the Rat]

ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

The purpose of the State's recognition of marriage, and the legal rights and benefits bestowed upon it, is to straighten out issues dealing primarily with families: inheritances, custodial arrangements, and financial and medical authority. Thus, it is primarily of concern to heterosexual couples.

Of course, with the increased tolerance of homosexual couples (and single parents) adopting, it's becoming rapidly immaterial.

All of the social benefits of marriage-- recognition, stability, respectability-- are primarily conferred by church marriages, and don't require the State's recognition.

Personally, I'm in favor of gay marriage because it's the first step towards liberalization of the marriage license, particularly polygamous and platonic arrangements. Since the marriage license is essentially a contract, I would like to allow the contractees more freedom to set the terms.

Hopefully, in the process, reducing the rate of divorce and the amount of disruption and trauma that it inflicts upon too goddamned many American children.

[Gryff1nd0r]

ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

There is no good argument for not granting the RIGHTS of marraige to gay couples, but there is an argument for why they shouldn't be MARRIED.

MARRAIGE is a religious thing. Marraige has a religious definition, and it has been around since before governments gave rights to married couples. YOU don't have the right to tell a religious group what "marraige" means, so if their religious definition says that marraige is between a man and a woman (which it does), then it is.

"Marraige" should not be recognized by the government at all, is my opinion. Couples, straight or gay, should be recognized by the government. Whether that couple actually walks into a church and says "I do" is up to them and the church. Whether they refer to themselves as "married" is up to them.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

Is "because the people of a given state do not want it and it is not Constitutionally protected so therefore it is up to the state to decide what to do with the marriage laws within it's own state," 'viable'?
Not necessarily. It may not be explicitly protected, but there is something called 'equal protection' by way of the 14th Amendment.

The question then is whether or not equal protection applies. I see two problems:

1) The marriage law as written creates a situation where the marriages of one group of people is protected while another group's is denied.

2) If a man wants to marry another man, he is denied under the law. If a woman wants to marry that same man, she is not. One could argue that the first man has been disadvantaged (i.e., not equally protected) because the law discriminates against him on the basis of gender.

[F'losrix]

thegriffinator13 wrote: YOU don't have the right to tell a religious group what "marraige" means, so if their religious definition says that marraige is between a man and a woman (which it does), then it is.
Not always. What this amounts to is some churches telling other churches who they can or can't marry, which they've no right to do.

Just because most churches define it as one man/one woman, that doesn't mean they all do - nor that those who don't should be forced to adopt the more popular definition.

Edit: Let me be clear - no church should be forced to marry a gay couple if that violates their religious doctrines. I'm just saying don't assume they all ascribe to the same doctrine when it comes to marriage.

[Wolverine]

John Galt wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

Is "because the people of a given state do not want it and it is not Constitutionally protected so therefore it is up to the state to decide what to do with the marriage laws within it's own state," 'viable'?
:? From a legal stand point yes. But I am talking about personal opinions. Because who you marry is none of anyones business.

[Wolverine]

thegriffinator13 wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

There is no good argument for not granting the RIGHTS of marraige to gay couples, but there is an argument for why they shouldn't be MARRIED.

MARRAIGE is a religious thing. Marraige has a religious definition, and it has been around since before governments gave rights to married couples. YOU don't have the right to tell a religious group what "marraige" means, so if their religious definition says that marraige is between a man and a woman (which it does), then it is.

"Marraige" should not be recognized by the government at all, is my opinion. Couples, straight or gay, should be recognized by the government. Whether that couple actually walks into a church and says "I do" is up to them and the church. Whether they refer to themselves as "married" is up to them.
Of course it is up to the church whehter or not they will marry them. No one should pressure a change of that, except maybe the mebers of that church. But in my opinion, it is not the states (governments) business.

[John Galt]

ProGunAmerican wrote: John Galt wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

Is "because the people of a given state do not want it and it is not Constitutionally protected so therefore it is up to the state to decide what to do with the marriage laws within it's own state," 'viable'?
:? From a legal stand point yes. But I am talking about personal opinions. Because who you marry is none of anyones business.

Well then it is a viable argument.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

Is "because the people of a given state do not want it and it is not Constitutionally protected so therefore it is up to the state to decide what to do with the marriage laws within it's own state," 'viable'?
Not necessarily. It may not be explicitly protected, but there is something called 'equal protection' by way of the 14th Amendment.

The question then is whether or not equal protection applies. I see two problems:

1) The marriage law as written creates a situation where the marriages of one group of people is protected while another group's is denied.

2) If a man wants to marry another man, he is denied under the law. If a woman wants to marry that same man, she is not. One could argue that the first man has been disadvantaged (i.e., not equally protected) because the law discriminates against him on the basis of gender.

Equal protection of the law applies because all men can marry all women. All laws are discriminatory. Laws agianst murder discriminate against killers. Laws against stealing discriminate against people who steal -- people that could very well have some sort of "condition" that makes them impulsive theives. My point is of course that all laws discriminate and the equal protection clause applies only to a few select situations. I do not see this as an equal protection clause as no man is being denied any ability to marry any women he pleases so long as she agrees and she fits several other criteria the state has mandated, such as the fact she is not his sister.

My point above is that this argument is a viable argument. I do not see the equal protection counterargument as being able to hold water for the reasons Scalia pointed out in his Lawrence dissent as well as his dissent in Romer v. Evans. Scalia is was by far the most intellegent mind on the Court during those two decisions and his opinions were correct, even if the majority went with their gut on what felt right and made specious 'arguments' to support them (only O'Connor, btw, embraswed the view that equial protection applies in any situatuon similar to this).

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

Is "because the people of a given state do not want it and it is not Constitutionally protected so therefore it is up to the state to decide what to do with the marriage laws within it's own state," 'viable'?
Not necessarily. It may not be explicitly protected, but there is something called 'equal protection' by way of the 14th Amendment.

The question then is whether or not equal protection applies. I see two problems:

1) The marriage law as written creates a situation where the marriages of one group of people is protected while another group's is denied.

2) If a man wants to marry another man, he is denied under the law. If a woman wants to marry that same man, she is not. One could argue that the first man has been disadvantaged (i.e., not equally protected) because the law discriminates against him on the basis of gender.

Equal protection of the law applies because all men can marry all women. All laws are discriminatory. Laws agianst murder discriminate against killers. Laws against stealing discriminate against people who steal -- people that could very well have some sort of "condition" that makes them impulsive theives. My point is of course that all laws discriminate and the equal protection clause applies only to a few select situations. I do not see this as an equal protection clause as no man is being denied any ability to marry any women he pleases so long as she agrees and she fits several other criteria the state has mandated, such as the fact she is not his sister.

My point above is that this argument is a viable argument. I do not see the equal protection counterargument as being able to hold water for the reasons Scalia pointed out in his Lawrence dissent as well as his dissent in Romer v. Evans. Scalia is was by far the most intellegent mind on the Court during those two decisions and his opinions were correct, even if the majority went with their gut on what felt right and made specious 'arguments' to support them (only O'Connor, btw, embraswed the view that equial protection applies in any situatuon similar to this).
In other words, the 'spirit' of the law doesn't matter one bit.

Did the court err in Loving v. Virginia? Under your reasoning, no equal protection violation existed there, either - white persons and black persons were equally prohibited from crossing racial lines with regard to marriage.

What you support isn't equal protection, it's equal discrimination, which is in truth never equal at all.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

Is "because the people of a given state do not want it and it is not Constitutionally protected so therefore it is up to the state to decide what to do with the marriage laws within it's own state," 'viable'?
Not necessarily. It may not be explicitly protected, but there is something called 'equal protection' by way of the 14th Amendment.

The question then is whether or not equal protection applies. I see two problems:

1) The marriage law as written creates a situation where the marriages of one group of people is protected while another group's is denied.

2) If a man wants to marry another man, he is denied under the law. If a woman wants to marry that same man, she is not. One could argue that the first man has been disadvantaged (i.e., not equally protected) because the law discriminates against him on the basis of gender.

Equal protection of the law applies because all men can marry all women. All laws are discriminatory. Laws agianst murder discriminate against killers. Laws against stealing discriminate against people who steal -- people that could very well have some sort of "condition" that makes them impulsive theives. My point is of course that all laws discriminate and the equal protection clause applies only to a few select situations. I do not see this as an equal protection clause as no man is being denied any ability to marry any women he pleases so long as she agrees and she fits several other criteria the state has mandated, such as the fact she is not his sister.

My point above is that this argument is a viable argument. I do not see the equal protection counterargument as being able to hold water for the reasons Scalia pointed out in his Lawrence dissent as well as his dissent in Romer v. Evans. Scalia is was by far the most intellegent mind on the Court during those two decisions and his opinions were correct, even if the majority went with their gut on what felt right and made specious 'arguments' to support them (only O'Connor, btw, embraswed the view that equial protection applies in any situatuon similar to this).
In other words, the 'spirit' of the law doesn't matter one bit.

Did the court err in Loving v. Virginia? Under your reasoning, no equal protection violation existed there, either - white persons and black persons were equally prohibited from crossing racial lines with regard to marriage.

What you support isn't equal protection, it's equal discrimination, which is in truth never equal at all.

Laws that make mention of race in any way, on a state level, deny equal protection. But I must admit, I have not read Loving in years and could not recall the exact facts of the case. My gut may say they are right tbut the facts of the case my play out differently, so I will offer no opinion.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Laws that make mention of race in any way, on a state level, deny equal protection.
How is that different from 'laws that make mention of gender in any way, on a state level, deny equal protection'?

In either case some trait (race or gender) is used to deny access to the protections of the law.

Here was the state's argument:

...the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [388 U.S. 1, 8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.

The court had this to say in reply:

Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose.

And this:

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.

Consider: If a black man sought to marry a white woman, he was denied; but if a white man sought to marry the same woman, he could do so. The law unfairly places the first man at a disadvantage on the basis of race and violates equal protection.

Now, compare: If a person of male gender seeks to marry another man, he is denied; but if a person of female gender seeks to marry that same man, she can do so. The law unfairly places the first person at a disadvantage on the basis of gender and in my opinion, similarly violates equal protection.

Before Loving, the marriages of persons of differing races were not recognized and the participants subject to prosecution; under current statutes, the marriages of persons not differing in gender are not recognized and the participants have been threatened with litigation in Pennsylvania; and there was an attempt in New York to prosecute the ministers who performed such marriages.

[John Galt]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: John Galt wrote: Laws that make mention of race in any way, on a state level, deny equal protection.
How is that different from 'laws that make mention of gender in any way, on a state level, deny equal protection'?

In either case some trait (race or gender) is used to deny access to the protections of the law.

I don't see how. While on one hand certian males are denied the equal protection under a law that does not apply equally to blacks and whites, all men and all women are equally protected under a law that you presupposes denies equal protection.

Of course, one should be looking at it more like...

if a law saif you committed murder and whites got 4 years in jail while blacks got the death penalty... you would see how that isn't equally applied. Like I said I have not read Loving recently.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: While on one hand certian males are denied the equal protection under a law that does not apply equally to blacks and whites, all men and all women are equally protected under a law that you presupposes denies equal protection.
\/ You're mixing things up here on purpose. The law as written did apply equally to blacks and whites; both were denied interracial marriages equally. The equivalent situation exists within the law today with regard to gender; both men and women are denied same-sex marriages equally.

Men and women who seek to marry someone of the same gender are denied equal protection, just as men and women who sought to marry someone of a different race were denied it.

Consider: A black person wasn't denied marriage entirely, he/she could still marry another person, so long as they're also black. Similarly: A man is not denied marriage entirely; he can still marry another person, so long as that person isn't also a man.

[John Galt]

Like I said, all laws are "discriminatory."

Scalia, in Lawrence:

The objection is made, however, that the antimiscegenation laws invalidated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 8 (1967), similarly were applicable to whites and blacks alike, and only distinguished between the races insofar as the partner was concerned. In Loving, however, we correctly applied heightened scrutiny, rather than the usual rational-basis review, because the Virginia statute was "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id., at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 241-242 (1976). No purpose to discriminate against men or women as a class can be gleaned from the Texas law, so rational-basis review applies. That review is readily satisfied here by the same rational basis that satisfied it in Bowers--society's belief that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," 478 U. S., at 196. This is the same justification that supports many other laws regulating sexual behavior that make a distinction based upon the identity of the partner--
for example, laws against adultery, fornication, and adult incest, and laws refusing to recognize homosexual marriage.
...

Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to "homosexuals as a class," that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.

The fourteenth Amendment specifically grants the power to the states that they can abridge or deny people life liberty or property.

[F'losrix]

John Galt wrote: Like I said, all laws are "discriminatory."

Scalia, in Lawrence:

The objection is made, however, that the antimiscegenation laws invalidated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 8 (1967), similarly were applicable to whites and blacks alike, and only distinguished between the races insofar as the partner was concerned. In Loving, however, we correctly applied heightened scrutiny, rather than the usual rational-basis review, because the Virginia statute was "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id., at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 241-242 (1976). No purpose to discriminate against men or women as a class can be gleaned from the Texas law, so rational-basis review applies. That review is readily satisfied here by the same rational basis that satisfied it in Bowers--society's belief that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," 478 U. S., at 196. This is the same justification that supports many other laws regulating sexual behavior that make a distinction based upon the identity of the partner--
for example, laws against adultery, fornication, and adult incest, and laws refusing to recognize homosexual marriage.
...

Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to "homosexuals as a class," that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.

The fourteenth Amendment specifically grants the power to the states that they can abridge or deny people life liberty or property.
A couple of points:

1) The equal protection argument as I've presented it here doesn't rely on the recognition of homosexuals as a 'suspect class'. (Though the court has recognized them as being targeted as such before, in Romer v. Evans).

2) Scalia was a dissenter in both Lawrence and Romer. In other words, his side lost the argument.

3) Gender is a suspect class, so strict scrutiny may apply here regardless of Scalia's arguments to the contrary in Lawrence

4) I find it telling that rather than try to refute my actual arguments with your own, the bulk of your resopnse is a copy & paste of Scalia's dissent in Lawrence. I am still waiting for a valid refutation coming from YOU of the arguments claiming an equal protection violation based on gender discrimination. Quoting us Scalia's losing arguments from a case that didn't directly examine marriage doesn't qualify.

As for the states' rights issue, consider this - also from Loving:

While the state court is no doubt correct in asserting that marriage is a social relation subject to the State's police power, Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888), the State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), and Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

States certainly may abridge or deny people life liberty or property; but they may not do so as an open defiance of the 14th Amendment's requirements of equal protection and due process.

[George W Bush]

ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

50% of marriages end in divorce.
dont do this to yourselves. :shock:

[Jaxian]

John Galt wrote: Like I said, all laws are "discriminatory."

Scalia, in Lawrence:

The objection is made, however, that the antimiscegenation laws invalidated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 8 (1967), similarly were applicable to whites and blacks alike, and only distinguished between the races insofar as the partner was concerned. In Loving, however, we correctly applied heightened scrutiny, rather than the usual rational-basis review, because the Virginia statute was "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id., at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U. S. 229, 241-242 (1976). No purpose to discriminate against men or women as a class can be gleaned from the Texas law, so rational-basis review applies. That review is readily satisfied here by the same rational basis that satisfied it in Bowers--society's belief that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," 478 U. S., at 196. This is the same justification that supports many other laws regulating sexual behavior that make a distinction based upon the identity of the partner--
for example, laws against adultery, fornication, and adult incest, and laws refusing to recognize homosexual marriage.
...

Even if the Texas law does deny equal protection to "homosexuals as a class," that denial still does not need to be justified by anything more than a rational basis, which our cases show is satisfied by the enforcement of traditional notions of sexual morality.

The fourteenth Amendment specifically grants the power to the states that they can abridge or deny people life liberty or property.

Like Skeptical Mystic, it is my opinion that Scalia was in the minority for good reason.

Scalia stated that the purpose of the anti-sodomy law is not to discriminate against a group of people, yet there is no mention of accounting for purpose in the Fourteenth Amendment. And I think it clear that anti-sodomy laws actually do discriminate against homosexuals, whether purposefully or not.

As easy as it is to see that homosexuals are being discriminated against with anti-sodomy laws, it is even easier to see that a ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination. We all know who would use same-sex marriage. We all know that homosexuals want to use it, while heterosexuals do not.

A same-sex marriage opponent might say that everyone has the same marriage rights under our current laws. However, we would be mistaken to believe that everyone having the "same" rights is the same thing as everyone having "equal" rights. In the case of same-sex marriage, homosexuals are unable to marry the person they would like to marry, while heterosexuals are not. That is not equal, even though the rights are technically "the same."

Allow me to use an analogy. Let us imagine that everyone is denied the right to worship the Christian God, but everyone is allowed the right to worship Buddha. Surely everyone has the same rights, in this case. However, could this truly be considered equal treatment of Christians? I believe that it could not. Although everyone has the right to worship Buddha, that right will only be used by people who wish to worship Buddha. The equivalent right for Christians is denied. That is not equal, and neither is denying an equivalent right for homosexuals.

You mentioned that laws against murderers discriminate against murderers. I argue that this is not true because non-murderers are not granted any right equivalent to murder. One might say that non-murderers are granted the "right not to murder", but what does that even mean? That they are allowed to not exercise a freedom? Equivalent logic rules out discrimination against thieves: no one is allowed a right equivalent to stealing.

Another way to look at this is to understand that any law which grants privledges for entering into an agreement with one person, yet which denies those same privledges when entering into an agreement with a different person is inherently unequal. This is especially true if the difference between those people is nothing more than gender.

I should point out that there may be some times in our laws where we do deny equality. For example, a law which requires that special parking spots for handicapped people be placed in parking lots is a clear violation of equality and the 14th Amendment. For that reason I am glad that some activist judges would be willing to look to the spirit of the amendment to understand that sometimes it might be okay for laws to be unequal if they are designed to accomodate a certain need held by one group of people.

Scalia's understanding of this was almost there. He wrote that if there were some good reason to deny equality, then perhaps he would be justified in allowing that denial of equality. But his good reason was tradition, and that is not a good reason at all. The tradition of sexual morality is no better a reason to allow a sodomy ban than the tradition of white superiority is to allow segregation.

[F'losrix]

George W Bush wrote: ProGunAmerican wrote: Can anyone give me a viable argument against gay marriage?

50% of marriages end in divorce.
dont do this to yourselves. :shock:
My parents have been married for 60 years. One sister (who married late) has been married for 20 years. My other sister has been married for 35 years. While both of my brothers have been divorced, their current marriages are at 6 years and 16 years.

None of us are what you would call 'easy to get along with' (including my parents). That makes the longevity of our relationships a bit surprising.

I've been with my partner for 5 years. I'd like to think we have a fighting chance. We understand that it's up to the two of us to make that chance for ourselves by constantly working at our relationship.

When all is said and done, I'd at least like to have the chance to get married and fail at it, than to be given no chance at all.