Joined: Oct 17, 2009 Age: 45 Posts: 5754 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posted: Tue May 15, 2012 1:19 pm Post subject:
Ancalagon wrote:
I have seen that analogy made before, but I don't find it convincing. There isn't any way to make a definition of marriage that makes sense that excludes interracial marriage, but there is for gay marriage.
It isn't that I can't see how someone could see it that way, but that I can't see how they could say the other position can't make sense.
It isn't a question of whether there is a definition that makes sense--it's a question of whether you can make a definition that does not offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There are many things that legislatures attempt to legislate that make sense--but if they offend the Constitution, they are void, insofar as they do so. It is not a case of whether same sex marriage is better, worse or incomparable with heterosexual marriage. It is a case of the law creating a benefit for one class of people and denying it to another class of people, without being able to demonstrate a public policy interest of sufficient merit to justify the constitutional offence.
I am perfectly comfortable with a person who believes that the purpose of marriage is procreation. But I am not content that they would attempt to impose that belief on other people. _________________ --James
It isn't a question of whether there is a definition that makes sense--it's a question of whether you can make a definition that does not offend the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
There are many things that legislatures attempt to legislate that make sense--but if they offend the Constitution, they are void, insofar as they do so.
Um . . . not quite. Such laws would be void if and only if the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional. The 14th amendment became part of the U.S. constitution in 1868, but for nearly a century, we had segregated schools, grossly unequal justice, laws banning interracial marriage, & a rigid racial caste system in place across much of the country.
As it would relate to gay rights, in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold state sodomy laws, which criminalized consensual homosexual relations between adults, even in the privacy of the home. This decision was finally reversed in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 by a 6-3 vote, with the majority striking down the Texas sodomy law on privacy grounds (4th amendment) and a concurring opinion striking them down on equal protection grounds (14th amendment).
The point is that it all comes down to the politics of the judges appointed to the court. Rights granted at one point in time can be taken away at another. Ultimately, the constitution that we're all taught to view with reverence is just words on a piece of paper. Besides, we all know that the conservative majority on the court today will choose to cite or ignore precedent in order to get the result it wants.
Joined: Aug 13, 2009 Posts: 3341 Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:40 am Post subject:
The reasons against gay marriage make about as much sense as selling your prettiest daughter to a man in return for 6 yoke of oxen _________________ All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin
Joined: Jun 20, 2008 Age: 24 Posts: 12095 Location: La belle province
Posted: Fri May 18, 2012 4:09 am Post subject:
jojobean wrote:
The reasons against gay marriage make about as much sense as selling your prettiest daughter to a man in return for 6 yoke of oxen
That depends on where you are. The girl-to-yokes-of-oxen exchange rate varies geographically _________________ Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do
I am glad he did too.. He should denounce all laws that are created solely on religious doctrine and beliefs. which are even disputed by some members of said religions.
i wish all presidents were like that ,obama did the right thing
