The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has asked attorneys on both sides to devote the first hour of the hearing to arguments on whether anyone has legal authority to appeal the August district court ruling that found the measure unconstitutional.
We know neither the current nor incoming Governor (who is the outgoing Attorney General) will appeal. The Attorney General's race, as of this writing, has not been determined but it is possible that supporters of Prop 19 (further legalization of pot), which failed but still brought out more voters likely to vote for Democrats, have made the difference and our next Attorney General won’t appeal, either.
However, the same people who were allowed to defend the marriage amendment in the lower court should be allowed to appeal. And how about every California voter who supported Prop 8? Our voting rights – you know, actual things mentioned in the Constitution – are being denied.
The second hour will be spent on questions of the measure's constitutionality.It is Constitutional to treat different behaviors and different kinds of associations differently. That is what Proposition 8 does.
California voters resurrected the state's ban on same-sex marriage in November 2008.
It... isn't... a... ban.
[A look at a reader comment after the jump.]
"steveMD2" at November 15, 2010 at 08:04 PM:Almost always it has been the courts that have ended evil discrimination against groups not in power.This is not evil discrimination, and sometimes, majority votes do win and are valid. Why would it be better to have a minority determine state licensing requirements?
And almost always it has been the "anything but" christians who want to keep their rights of discriminating against minorities and others they despise.Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.? There have been many more, inspired by their Christian faith, to fight for rights of all. But one need not invoke religion, Scripture, God, or whatever to see that there is a difference between the paring of a bride and groom and other kinds of pairings.
These are the same people who would turn this country into a saudia arabia - christian style. Where hands are lopped off for stealing, and heads are lopped off for gay activity.Name one popular American Christian teacher, speaker, writer, leader, or theologian who advocates that. I want a direct quote from the source.
How would getting state-issued marriage licenses without a bride or without a groom, especially given California's domestic partnership law, reduce or eliminate this?I've met hundreds of gay people, and am close friends with about 8 of them. They have enlightened our lives, and at the same time horrified us with the relevations of how they and their friends suffered horribly. And every last one of them knew gays who committed suicide, and most of these people were close to at the same time.
And understand that marriage is not just about legal benefits, but its about respect.If the majority of voters do not respect a brideless or groomless pairing as marriage, forcing them to issue a license that says otherwise does not really change their respect.
Something we were all supposed to learn from someone who commanded us to "love thy neighbor as thyself"Wait, are you trying to impose your religion on the electorate?
Its time for all of us to put this sad chapter of American history in the trash heap along with the other so similar crimes.Distinguishing and valuing the only kind of pairing that unites both sexes and can naturally create new citizens as a legal, financial, and social unit, providing children with legally obligated, present, and cooperating parents and role models of both sexes – that is a crime? This "sad chapter" has been going on in all of human history for all of human history.
And embrace our gay friends, family, etc as just another part of humanity.I do that. Okay, so that is why Steve would or did vote against Proposition 8. But that doesn't require the rest of us to vote like him, nor a court to overturn our vote.
“the same people who were allowed to defend the marriage amendment in the lower court should be allowed to appeal.”
ReplyDeleteBased on what? It’s not obvious to the Appeals Court that they should, and previous US Supreme Court rulings have limited appeal rights in cases of citizen initiatives.
“Our voting rights – you know, actual things mentioned in the Constitution – are being denied.”
Hardly. You got to vote on it, didn’t you? What can’t happen, though, is a law that violates the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that fundamental rights may not be voted on.
“It is Constitutional to treat different behaviors and different kinds of associations differently. That is what Proposition 8 does.”
It is not constitutional to treat citizens differently though. Gay citizens are being denied the right to marry, while straight citizens are not.
“This is not evil discrimination, and sometimes, majority votes do win and are valid. Why would it be better to have a minority determine state licensing requirements?”
Yes, it is evil. Any discrimination that harms children is evil. Since no other kind of licensing has been subject to a vote, why do it for marriage licenses?
“How would getting state-issued marriage licenses without a bride or without a groom, especially given California's domestic partnership law, reduce or eliminate this?”
It would reduce the element of homophobia that accompanies the notion that you and other Straight Supremacists promote: that gay people are worth less than straight people. Creating a “separate but equal” institution for gay couples is as insulting to them as separate water fountains were to blacks.
“If the majority of voters do not respect a brideless or groomless pairing as marriage, forcing them to issue a license that says otherwise does not really change their respect.”
Let’s try it and find out. I suspect a lot of people will have more respect for gay couples once they meet and know them as a married couple. Unless, of course, your fear is that being gay becomes respectable and you just can’t stand that idea!
“Distinguishing and valuing the only kind of pairing that unites both sexes and can naturally create new citizens as a legal, financial, and social unit, providing children with legally obligated, present, and cooperating parents and role models of both sexes – that is a crime?”
Yes, if it hurts gay people and their children. Straight marriage can be whatever you want it to be when same-sex marriage is legal. Nothing about straight marriage depends on gay people not getting married. Unless you’re a Straight Supremacist.
What can’t happen, though, is a law that violates the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that fundamental rights may not be voted on.
ReplyDeleteAgain, begging the question. Oaker, please see if you can tell me what begging the question actually means.
It is not constitutional to treat citizens differently though. Gay citizens are being denied the right to marry, while straight citizens are not.
More begging the question.
Yes, it is evil. Any discrimination that harms children is evil.
Oh, that same obvious question comes to mind here, but I won't ask any more questions of Oaker until he indicates he can debate honestly, for which admitting error, even small ones, is a first requirement.
Since no other kind of licensing has been subject to a vote...
False.
Creating a “separate but equal” institution for gay couples is as insulting to them as separate water fountains were to blacks.
Not if needs are different. Again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=1.
Let’s try it and find out.
I've actually given my conditions for doing just that. Will post link later.
I suspect a lot of people will have more respect for gay couples once they meet and know them as a married couple.
Sean "suspects", so that is supposed to prove the case, I guess.
Straight marriage can be whatever you want it to be when same-sex marriage is legal.
Okay, so perhaps you'd have no objection toward opposite-sex unions forming another word to describe them, one only applicable to them.
“Oaker, please see if you can tell me what begging the question actually means.”
ReplyDeleteWhy don’t you grow up and state the question you want answered, instead of hinting around at it.
“I won't ask any more questions of Oaker until he indicates he can debate honestly, for which admitting error, even small ones, is a first requirement.”
Fair enough.
What other licensing has the public voted on? Who gets a medical license? Who gets a driver’s license? Fishing license?
“Not if needs are different.”
There is no need to have separate institutions even if their “needs” are different. Infertile couples have different needs from fertile couples, yet both groups may marry.
“Sean "suspects", so that is supposed to prove the case, I guess.”
From the NY Times article you cited:
“as they [two men] recalled the day in June 2008 that they donned black suits and wed at City Hall, stunned by the outpouring of affection from complete strangers. “Even homeless people and bike messengers were congratulating us,” said Chris, 42.”
Marriage seems to bring out admiration in others, doesn’t it, even complete strangers! It would work wonders for full social acceptance for gay couples. A very strong point in making same-sex marriage legal.
“so perhaps you'd have no objection toward opposite-sex unions forming another word to describe them, one only applicable to them.”
No objection at all. Such a union would create a “separate but equal” accommodation, a situation most straight people would not accept. Straight people are free to create a separate institution and practice it, just not get legal recognition for it. I also remember reading an article where a gay man’s marriage made clear to his parents the nature of his relationship. His father told, “I get it, now that you’re married!” Marriage is social acceptance. Everybody knows what it means to be married to somebody. That’s why it matters to gay couples.
Why don’t you grow up and state the question you want answered, instead of hinting around at it.
ReplyDeleteYou should be able to figure out the question yourself, Sean. I shouldn't have to point it out to you.
Any discrimination that harms children is evil.
Just follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion regarding the redefinition of marriage.
What other licensing has the public voted on? Who gets a medical license? Who gets a driver’s license? Fishing license?
Sean, you can answer that one yourself as well. Just go down the Bill Of Rights.
There is no need to have separate institutions even if their “needs” are different.
Yes there is, if the expectations placed on them...legally or culturally....effect one differently or less fairly than the other.
Infertile couples have different needs from fertile couples
In respect to the matter the article discussed, in most cases they differ less from fertile couples than they do from same-sex homosexual couples. Think about it a bit.
Marriage seems to bring out admiration in others, doesn’t it, even complete strangers! It would work wonders for full social acceptance for gay couples. A very strong point in making same-sex marriage legal.
Utopian fantasy. Heterosexuals who support gay marriage are no less accepting of gay couples who are not married, and those who don't support it are unlikely to suddenly treat gay couples who get "married" any differently than they did before...they may even feel worse toward them, though they may keep it inside. Don't fall for the fantasy that anything proposed in the name of "egalitarianism" leads to a utopia or even semi-utopia of acceptance for all. It has NEVER happened. Sadly, people have a psychological need to form concepts of "the other" or "them" (including those who fancy themselves as tolerant egalitarians---for them the "other" is conservatives or Republicans or the "ignorant masses" that don't support SSM). And yes, I see it happening among students today with respect to gays, even (you may think paradoxically) among those who say they are tolerant of them and accept same-sex marriage. In short, NEVER underestimate how Murphy's Law can apply to cultural changes.
I'd be glad to elaborate later. But at the risk of sounding repetitive, Sean, you don't seem to understand. As I said, you're narcissistic unwillingness to acknowledge a minor mistake has no bearing on the arguments regarding SSM nationwide. It simply has a lot of bearing on your reliability as an honest debater.
Such a union would create a “separate but equal” accommodation, a situation most straight people would not accept.
ReplyDeleteDon't count on that. If there's a need to see it differently, there'll be a need to call and treat it differently.
Everybody knows what it means to be married to somebody.
No, obviously everybody doesn't.
"If there's a need to see it differently, there'll be a need to call and treat it differently."
ReplyDeleteExactly. There's no need to distinguish between a same-sex couple or an opposite-sex couple for the purposes of marriage. That's why Connecticut and Vermont got rid of their civil unions.
I would say the understanding of what it means to be married, that is, to be committed to one person in a hopefully long-term union, is rather universal.
“Just follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion regarding the redefinition of marriage.”
ReplyDeleteMarriage isn’t being redefined. What’s changing is who may participate. Marriage has never defined as a union that excludes same-sex couples. It has been defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that doesn’t change.
“Just go down the Bill Of Rights.”
Yep, like I said, we don’t vote on who gets a license or not.
“if the expectations placed on them...legally or culturally....effect one differently or less fairly than the other.”
Not really. Marriage covers the needs of both straight and gay couples. Want proof? Just look at Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and the nation’s capital. As well as any number of countries.
“Think about it a bit.”
I have and invite you to do the same. Actually think about it a lot, since there’s so much at stake: adherence to the nation’s constitution, the welfare of children, reducing violence against gay people, and the adult committed relationships of gays and lesbians.
“Heterosexuals who support gay marriage are no less accepting of gay couples who are not married, and those who don't support it are unlikely to suddenly treat gay couples who get "married" any differently than they did before…”
ReplyDeleteBut married couples ARE treated differently than unmarried couples. That was the point that eluded you. Marriage isn’t just about how the couple feels about each other, but how society feels about the couple. I suspect this is the troubling part for homophobes: that people will actually start looking at gay people with more respect once they are married.
“Don't fall for the fantasy that anything proposed in the name of "egalitarianism" leads to a utopia or even semi-utopia of acceptance for all.”
I’ll take that under advisement! But you’ve been so flawed in your other arguments I think I’ll seek advice and counsel somewhere else, if you please.
“In short, NEVER underestimate how Murphy's Law can apply to cultural changes.”
Again, maybe I’ll just get advice from more qualified sources. But it appears gays and lesbians are prepared to face Murphy’s Law and risk the disappointment of straight people seeing their Straight Supremacy slipping away. I just hope the straights don’t get violent about it!
“But at the risk of sounding repetitive, Sean, you don't seem to understand.”
I think I understand all too well. Lacking any rational reason to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, I can assume that animosity and/or religious fervor are at the heart of marriage discrimination.
“you're narcissistic unwillingness to acknowledge a minor mistake has no bearing on the arguments regarding SSM nationwide. It simply has a lot of bearing on your reliability as an honest debater.”
Is that all you have left? If you can’t counter the argument, attack the messenger? Your obsession with having me profess to some mistake you perceive is starting to rival your obsession to see same-sex marriage stopped.
I would say the understanding of what it means to be married, that is, to be committed to one person in a hopefully long-term union, is rather universal.
ReplyDeleteApparently you don't see the irony in your talk about what's "universal".
Marriage isn’t being redefined.
ReplyDeleteYou are redefining it as merely between two persons.
What’s changing is who may participate. Marriage has never defined as a union that excludes same-sex couples. It has been defined as a union of one man and one woman, and that doesn’t change.
Ah, yes, the "It'll now have one meaning, but it will have two meanings, one for heterosexuals, one for homosexuals" argument. The cultural understanding of institutions doesn't work that way
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/DJCLPP/index.php?action=downloadarticle&id=24
Yep, like I said, we don’t vote on who gets a license or not.
Keep thinking about that one, Sean.
No. I'm not going to tell you the obvious example of a license people have been voting on. It's been in the news enough over the years. I don't have to tell you. If you don't know, you are wearing blinders.
Not really. Marriage covers the needs of both straight and gay couples. Want proof? Just look at Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont and the nation’s capital. As well as any number of countries.
Thousands of years versus less than ten. Yes, that really tells us a lot. Oh, and check to see how much same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has reduced the attempted suicide rate among gay teenagers, especially relative to straight teenagers, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Youth Risk Behavior Survey.
Your next post makes no attempt whatever at refutation, only repeating your sloganeering and utopian fantasizing.
Your obsession with having me profess to some mistake you perceive is starting to rival your obsession to see same-sex marriage.
No, Sean, it was not merely a "perceived" mistake. It was a real mistake, and you keep showing you are not even mature enough to admit it. I very much would like to further argue with you, and there is a lot to say. But unless you can show that you can admit mistakes, I have no reason to believe that you will deal honestly with any arguments I make. You have already shown that you will not.
I don't think anyone would be confused who met a same-sex couple who informed him or her that they're married.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, in my statement "you're narcissistic unwillingness to acknowledge a minor mistake has no bearing on the arguments regarding SSM nationwide. It simply has a lot of bearing on your reliability as an honest debater.", I made a mistake. I printed "you're" when I meant "your". I still make that mistake a lot.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone would be confused who met a same-sex couple who informed him or her that they're married.
ReplyDeletePerhaps "anybody" excludes 90 per cent of the world's population.
“You are redefining it as merely between two persons.”
ReplyDeleteMarriage isn’t being redefined as between two persons. It is being expanded to be include same-sex couples. It’s like voting: when women got the right to vote, it didn’t change voting at all, but rather expanded eligibility for who could vote. The institution of voting remained the same. Same with mixed-race marriage: it didn’t change marriage, just who could do it.
“Ah, yes, the "It'll now have one meaning, but it will have two meanings, one for heterosexuals, one for homosexuals" argument. The cultural understanding of institutions doesn't work that way”
But the legal understanding does. That’s how marriage in some places includes both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
“Keep thinking about that one, Sean.”
Translation: good point, Sean: we don’t vote on who may get a driver’s license or a medical license, do we?!
“Thousands of years versus less than ten.”
Ah, the “but this injustice has been practiced for so long that it gets a pass!” argument. It didn’t work for slavery, did it? It no longer works for wives-as-property, does it? Some traditions just aren’t worth keeping I guess.
“Oh, and check to see how much same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has reduced the attempted suicide rate among gay teenagers”
Non sequitor alert!
“Your next post makes no attempt whatever at refutation, only repeating your sloganeering and utopian fantasizing.”
I love to sloganeer and utopian fantasize!
“But unless you can show that you can admit mistakes, I have no reason to believe that you will deal honestly with any arguments I make.”
I can live with that.
The reason the Duke article fails legally is that it makes some false assumptions.
ReplyDelete1. The discussion today is not about legalizing either same-sex marriage OR opposite-sex marriage but rather both. Both can exist, and even serve different purposes if necessary, based on the outcomes of the marriage. For example, if “responsible procreation” is a fact of marriage, it remains so when same-sex couples marry: a couple that produces a child can employ beliefs about “responsible procreation.” The same is true of “presumption of paternity,” or other tenets of marriage. If a woman bears a child, the father can legally claim the child as his own if he wishes, even if he has reason to believe he did not sire the child. That doesn’t change when same-sex marriage is legal.
2. Marriage as an optimal setting for child-raising is in no way compromised when same-sex couples marry. Same-sex couples also raise children, and their children would benefit from the added security of seeing the two people he considers his parents be bound together legally, at least so long as he is a minor and requires their guidance. Marriage, same-sex or opposite-sex, is good for children.
3. Marriage can continue to be an effective “bridge” between men and women, if indeed this oddly-worded notion can be shown to have meaning.
4. Marriage can continue to confer the terms “husband” for a male, and “wife” for a female, when same-sex couples marry.
5. Society can continue to value heterosexual sexual activity even when same-sex couples marry. Lacking a sound public purpose to do so, the government cannot reward heterosexual sexual activity over homosexual sexual activity. Why, in your opinion, is straight sex (fertile or not) more useful to society than gay sex?
I’m stopping about a third the way through this article because it appears to be more of the same pearls-clutching, worry-injected rhetoric about how same-sex marriage will bring down civilization as we know it, blah, blah, blah, that has become so tiresome from the marriage discrimination crowd.
The mistake this article makes, as do arguments that mimic the ones made here, is to imply that opposite-sex marriage and its value to society depends on same-sex couples NOT being allowed to marry. This is not true, as Judge Walker carefully noted in the Prop 8 trial. Marriage isn’t useful to society because some group can’t do it, but rather because some group can: people with children, for example.
Marriage has never been defined as between “a man and a woman and not between two people of the same sex.” It has certainly been practiced until recently as a man-woman arrangement. But that’s all. Reliance on the “but you’re redefining marriage!” meme, as if that in itself is sacrilege, is basically a lie: marriage has never been defined in law as “between a man and a woman and not between two people of the same sex.” That’s why so many states rushed to incorporate language in their constitutions trying to define marriage somehow. To show that they have a sense of humor I guess, some states actually outlawed marriage itself with such clauses as, “the state will not recognize any union equal to or like marriage.” Well, what could be more equal to or like, marriage, than marriage?! The desperate attempts to keep marriage away from “the gays” has yielded some great moments, hasn’t it?
ReplyDeleteSame-sex couples getting married in no way compromises whatever value society gets when opposite-sex couples marry, nor does same-sex marriage compromise opposite-sex marriage in theory or in practice. The almost mystical rhetoric about man-woman relationships, or the needs of children (I can almost see Annie, raised by a same-sex couple, singing, “it’s a hard knock life”!) or the foundations of civilization crashing down upon us, is poetic but unconvincing.
It’s amusing to read various blogs on this topic and you can fairly measure the increased desperation, as more states and countries come on-stream with marriage equality. The worst fear of the marriage-for-straight-people-only crowd is that, in fact, there is no negative fallout from same-sex marriage, and much good (does ANYBODY care that children are being raised outside of wedlock when same-sex marriage is illegal?!).
I suspect each state will decide for itself whether to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples or not. I think the US Supreme Court is unlikely to rule constitutional equal protection guarantees require states to give marriage licenses to all citizens equally: three of the four Catholics won’t have it, Thomas will do as Scalia instructs him, and Kennedy will be too timid to do what he knows in his mind and heart to be right.
But in the not-too-distant future, there will probably be about 15 states where same-sex marriages are performed, and Massachusetts will hit the 10-year mark of legalized same-sex marriage. It will not have collapsed into Cape Cod, its citizens will be doing quite well (better than many other places, like they are now) and the arguments against treating gays and lesbians equally on this issue well seem quaintly out of touch.
Marriage isn’t being redefined as between two persons. It is being expanded to be include same-sex couples. It’s like voting: when women got the right to vote, it didn’t change voting at all, but rather expanded eligibility for who could vote. The institution of voting remained the same. Same with mixed-race marriage: it didn’t change marriage, just who could do it.
ReplyDeleteMixed-race marriage was still understood to be marriage even when it was outlawed...this is why it was actually outlawed. Besides, there was never a "racial nature" to the understanding of marriage itself, nor was there a "sexual nature" to voting, while you yourself (in a comment you now don't want to attempt to further clarify) said there was a "sexual nature" to marriage. If there's a sexual nature to marriage, sex and gender are relevant to it. Oh, and by the way, neither voting itself nor bans on interracial marriage were ever nearly as universal as the understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman.
But the legal understanding does. That’s how marriage in some places includes both opposite-sex and same-sex couples.
This is the typical game: escape the cultural argument by retreating to the legal arguments. It fails here, because under same-sex marriage the law doesn't recognize two different types of marriage. So any argument that there somehow will still be two de facto types of marriage has to be made culturally, not legally.
Translation: good point, Sean: we don’t vote on who may get a driver’s license or a medical license, do we?!
We could vote on those things. I don't know of anywhere where it is said that the public could not vote, for instance, on the minimum age for driving, or on certain criteria for other licenses. But more to the point, don't flatter yourself. No, Sean, you are way off base, because there is a license people have indeed been voting on. Keep thinking about it. Sooner or later you'll figure out what I'm getting at. Yes, I'm testing to see whether your mind exceeds your ego.
It didn’t work for slavery, did it? It no longer works for wives-as-property, does it?
Neither was ever universal or even nearly so. Lots of cultural variance here.
Some traditions just aren’t worth keeping I guess.
Depends on whether or not they are based on experience, or whether we can really determine that they are not based on experience. (More on this later, if worthwhile, and that's up to you).
Non sequitor alert!
You raised the idea that the relationship existed, and should be more evident than it is.
I love to sloganeer and utopian fantasize!
Fine, but it indicates you are running out of arguments when you do so.
I can live with that.
Very well, live with it, because I'm going to keep asking you if you can admit to the mistake you made. Which may well include another soon.
The discussion today is not about legalizing either same-sex marriage OR opposite-sex marriage but rather both. Both can exist, and even serve different purposes if necessary, based on the outcomes of the marriage.
ReplyDeleteBut nobody's talking about restricting same-sex marriage to gays, or opposite-sex marriage to heteros, so the "two de facto types of marriage" argument you appear to be trying to make doesn't hold. You may have skimmed the first third of Stewart's article, but you're ignoring the main point. Cultures have a shared perception of what an institution means.
If a woman bears a child, the father can legally claim the child as his own if he wishes, even if he has reason to believe he did not sire the child. That doesn’t change when same-sex marriage is legal.
"If he wishes". Actually, you've just hit on what makes same-sex "marriage" very different from opposite-sex marriage, and why the needs are different, and why treating them as one institution as if the needs were the same is fair to neither straights nor gays.
Same-sex couples also raise children, and their children would benefit from the added security of seeing the two people he considers his parents be bound together legally, at least so long as he is a minor and requires their guidance. Marriage, same-sex or opposite-sex, is good for children.
Again, follow this through to its logical conclusion. If marriage is good for children, so then whoever is raising them should be married, what else follows?
marriage has never been defined in law as “between a man and a woman and not between two people of the same sex."
The law has felt no need to put this into law because it was assumed to be obvious. It was so outside of the cultural definition that the law felt no need to state it. Here is an example of a cultural institution that way preceded the legal one.
I've often asked pro-SSM people: What do you want the cultural understanding of marriage to be? Do you want it to be that marriage is between any two persons? Or do you want it to be that it is between a man and a woman unless..... I've indicated that I'd be willing to work with people who indicated they were in favor of the second. But so far, no one has. Always, the answer is the first, with of course the attempts at hamming and hawing as to how there really will somehow still be two de facto types of marriage anyway, or that there somehow won't be a definition for the culture as a whole.
So, have you figured out yet the license people have indeed been voting on in recent years? Or are you willing to concede your other mistake?
Why, in your opinion, is straight sex (fertile or not) more useful to society than gay sex?
ReplyDeleteFertile or not????
Again, Sean, zero does not equal any number less than 100.
From this question it is obvious Sean is not thinking beyond his own generation.
That's nice that zero does not equal any number less than 100, but the question is, why does society value straight sex over gay sex?
ReplyDelete“But nobody's talking about restricting same-sex marriage to gays, or opposite-sex marriage to heteros, so the "two de facto types of marriage" argument you appear to be trying to make doesn't hold.”
ReplyDeleteAnd no one appears to want to restrict same-sex marriage to gays. But some folks do want to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, which works great for straight people but not so good for gay people.
“Cultures have a shared perception of what an institution means.”
Of course and most Americans understand that marriage is a couple’s way of professing their commitment to each other and to notify the public of their relationship.
“you've just hit on what makes same-sex "marriage" very different from opposite-sex marriage”
They can be very different in your mind and still be called marriage. There’s more in common between couples than different.
“treating them as one institution as if the needs were the same is fair to neither straights nor gays.”
What’s unfair? Be specific please.
“If marriage is good for children, so then whoever is raising them should be married, what else follows?”
They live happily ever after?
“The law has felt no need to put this into law because it was assumed to be obvious.”
I guess it wasn’t.
“What do you want the cultural understanding of marriage to be?”
I don’t care what it is, so long as we don’t violate anyone’s constitutional right to equal treatment.
“Mixed-race marriage was still understood to be marriage even when it was outlawed”
ReplyDeleteAnd same-sex marriage is still marriage even if you don’t approve of it.
“there was a "sexual nature" to marriage”
Exactly. Was. Gender roles have been eliminated, which is probably the main reason gays and lesbians got interested in marriage in the first place. Women are no longer their husband’s property, nor are their legal rights subordinated (if not eliminated) to their husband’s. The equal nature of the relationship now, a relatively recent phenomenon, has redefined the institution to make it suitable for same-sex couples.
“escape the cultural argument by retreating to the legal arguments.”
Isn’t that how mixed-race marriage became legal? The US Supreme Court didn’t wait for everybody to agree that it was ok for mixed-race couples to get married. Nor should gay Americans. And culturally, we also have values of fair play, decency, equal opportunity for all, etc., that support legal marriage rights for gays and lesbians.
“So any argument that there somehow will still be two de facto types of marriage has to be made culturally, not legally.”
Straw grasping.
Royal Oaker..
ReplyDeleteYou are really not familiar with the law yet you talk as if you know. I am an attorney and from Michigan also...
Your "gender roles have been eliminated" has no real vbearing on marriage law and is historicaly inaccurate
You are misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: you are making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Judge Graffeo noted….
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2
Note this quick rebuke of same-sex “marriage” offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York, Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.
“[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.”
The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance…a difference of kind.
As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However – I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of things being compared.
Royal Oaker..
ReplyDeleteConcerning the Loving analogy as you have employed it. I would draw your attention to the
argument that was forewarded by nothing less than the deep blue very liberal and very influential New York Supreme Court in it's recent decision
Hernadez v Robles.
"Thus, because Perez and Loving refused to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them. In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy. That disanalogy is between the intention of Perez and Loving to protect marriage from appropriation for nonmarriage purposes and the intention of the present marriage project to make such an appropriation. Thus, those who deploy the Perez/Loving argument, whether advocates or judges, are misleading people, including perhaps themselves."
Hernandez, 805 N.Y.S.2d at 379–81, 381 n.3, 382
Here the court is saying that proponets of same-sex "marriage" are like the racists who crafted the anti-miscegenation laws that were the basis of Loving & Perez. Like the racists of old, same-sex "marriage" supporters are attempting to use the foundational constiutional right to marriage to advance gay identity politics. Just as the anti-miscegenationists were intrested more in promoting segregation than in the instiution of marriage, they sought to use marriage as a vehicle for that end. Likewise gay marriage supporters seek to use marriage law to advance their interersts to an end that is not marriage. Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.
Now that type of language used by a State Supreme Court is so powerfull and blunt that (If people knew anything of the law) Its very existance in such a prominent and indeed direct case on the merits for same-sex "marriage" would (or should) give even the most ardent same-sex "marriage" enthusiast real cause for concern. The fact is that it shows the ideological nature of such claims for re-difineing marriage.
R.K.: “there was a "sexual nature" to marriage”
ReplyDeleteRoyal Oaker: Exactly. Was.
Contradiction alert!
From the post by Royal Oaker on 10/27/2010. 3:26 PM in the "False Claims Of Equality Thread":
R.K., given the intimate and sexual nature of marriage, it is unreasonable to argue that gay people have the same right to marry as straight people so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
No "was" about it, Sean. That was present tense. Your words.
That's nice that zero does not equal any number less than 100, but the question is, why does society value straight sex over gay sex?
ReplyDeleteSean, was that "fertile or not" statement a misprint?
“Your "gender roles have been eliminated" has no real vbearing on marriage law and is historicaly inaccurate”
ReplyDeleteWell then enlighten me. Women no longer lose their legal rights when they get married. We eliminated “coverture.” Wives are no longer property. Marital rape is a crime now. Any benefits to married persons, such as immunity from spousal testimony, have nothing to do with gender or gender roles. Marriage no longer has to be consummated with sexual intercourse. Parental rights have become more gender neutral upon divorce: we used to automatically give minor-aged children to the mother, while fathers now are often primary custodians. We have neutered marriage, in the sense that nothing about marriage any more relates to a male or a female role. These developments are one reason that marriage has become an ideal vessel for same-sex as well as opposite-sex relationships.
“It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn’t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of things being compared.”
Other courts have found differently that the New York Court: the Iowa and Connecticut courts, for example, as well as courts in Hawaii, Missouri and New Jersey. Are they are misinformed?
On what legal basis must same-sex marriage be prohibited? Because some straight people don’t like it? What rational state interest is advanced when same-sex couples are specifically prevented from marrying? Marriage can be traditionally one thing (as was voting or property ownership) but when someone claims it as a right because others have the right, the state must defend itself for excluding some, but not other, citizens. So far, states haven’t been doing a very good job of this, although courts have been highly deferential, which is not a bad thing.
“to allow the marriage institution to be appropriated for nonmarriage ends, to use those two cases to advance just such an appropriative project is to betray them.”
ReplyDeleteThis is circular logic: marriage is what I think it is, therefore it can’t be changed. It requires:
1. A definition of marriage as only one man and one woman, when in fact that’s the point being discussed and disputed: does marriage have to be limited to one man, one woman couples, and if so, why?
2. That because marriage is one thing, it can’t be something else, a falsehood. Marriage has never been defined as “one man and one woman and not two people of the same sex”. It has never excluded same-sex couples until same-sex couples started demanding equal rights. Not that we don’t “redefine” things all the time but even the “but you’re trying to redefine marriage!” argument is pretty weak. You must also believe that because barns are traditionally painted red that they can’t be painted blue.
3. The practice of marriage has veered far from its historical purpose of orderly transfer of property to eligible children, involving the wife as a possession. Because of this, new possibilities present themselves, that is, same-sex marriage. Marriage as a theoretical construct may very well be unsuitable for same-sex couples. Marriage as a practical marriage is very much applicable to same-sex couples, especially those couples raising children. I suspect gay couples want a practical marriage, not a theoretical one
Can that be the compromise? Let’s make practical, civil marriage available to all eligible couples, and let straight people have theoretical marriage (civil or religious)!
“In other words, the Perez/Loving argument advances a superficial analogy that masks a deep disanalogy.”
ReplyDeleteI think the analogy is made to show that beliefs about marriage have changed over time. There was a time when an overwhelming majority of Americans believed marriage could not occur between a black woman and a white man. In fact, given the racist nature of our society, the government could have used procreation to perpetuate this segregation: a biracial child faces unusual difficulties and because marriage includes social permission to reproduce, mixed-race couples must not be allowed to marry. A magistrate in Louisiana actually used this reason to refuse a marriage license to a mixed-race couple last year!
Such a purpose is more rational than prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. At least with mixed-race marriage, and the inevitable biracial children, society could reasonably say it’s looking out for the welfare of children. When same-sex couples with children are prohibited from marrying, they are less secure than they otherwise would be. For no valid public purpose.
“Marriage is seen primarily as a vehicle to advance gay "rights" and concern for the foundational constitutional; right of marriage as but so much grist for the mill.”
Well, don’t gay people get to have the same rights as other people? Are they “bad” for pursuing avenues to ensure their rights? If you don’t want gay people acting “uppity,” don’t deny them their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Royal Oaker
ReplyDelete#1. Your arguments about the historical development of marriage are bqased not in fact but on warmed over feminist dogma. Its "historical purpose" is not now and never has been the "orderly transfer of property to eligible children, involving the wife as a possession"...
This is obvious to anyone who does any research into marriage law and is outlined in legal codes as old as those of Lip Ishtar - there and throughout the western cannon is the obvious public purpose of joining the husband and wife to one another and each to their children they sire.
The fact that you have bought into so many innacurate feminist tropes about marriage says alot about why you dont understand current marriage law.
I already listed the U.S. Supreme Court precedent on marriage, perhaps you should read them and you will realize why courts have ruled against you. A full half of those cases that envoke the right to marriage deal specifically with procreation.
As for the courts that have ruled in your favor - you need to remember that gay activists are the ones that brought those cases, they chose courts specifically that were freindly to their cause and yet a full half rejected their arguments and many of those who accepted did so on split decisions.
“I already listed the U.S. Supreme Court precedent on marriage, perhaps you should read them and you will realize why courts have ruled against you.”
ReplyDeleteWhy dismiss all the courts that have ruled against YOU? Let me guess, the courts that agree with you are the “right” decisions? What a joke.
“you need to remember that gay activists are the ones that brought those cases, they chose courts specifically that were freindly to their cause and yet a full half rejected their arguments and many of those who accepted did so on split decisions.”
Except for the Minnesota “Baker” decision, not one state court has ruled unanimously that it is constitutional to deny marriage rights to gay couples. Some state courts have ruled unanimously that it violates equal protection guarantees to deny marriage rights to gay couples: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Hawaii. In response to these UNANIMOUS rulings, Missouri and Hawaii quickly put constitutional amendments in place, New Jersey legalized civil unions with identical rights as marriage (since the court said the only wiggle room was in whether it was called marriage or something else), and we all know the Iowa story.
Yeah, Iowa is a real gay-friendly place. A great place for gay couples to demand their civil rights. Another joke.
You’re so certain that no constitutional rights are violated yet you can’t get one court in the last 40 years to rule unanimously in this regard, when four courts have ruled unanimously that it is unconstitutional?!
I have a thought: if there is so little consensus on whether it’s a violation of gay people’s constitutional right to equal protection, why risk it? Why not grant them marriage rights, and then we can all breathe a little easier at night knowing we aren’t in danger of violating our nation’s key legal document? Why is it necessary to come up with all sorts of cockamamie arguments to keep “the gays” away from marriage?
October 10, 1972: The United States Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Baker v. Nelson "for want of a substantial federal question."
ReplyDeleteIf you know the law you would know what a serious smackdown this is. Gay rights activists have been intentionally avoiding federal court because they know that their arguments have no basis in law. You avoided the point about how all those courts you cite are cherrypicked by gay activists preciseley because they were the most likley to be sympathetic to your cause. They do not represent a true cross section of legal opinion but rather were chosen specifically for their activism.
I dont "dismiss these courts" (as you say) rather I embrace & refute there reasoning.
You seem to be under the misaprehention that just because a court rules your way that its the "law".It is precisley our point and has been for years that these judges are not following the law but rather imposing their own policy proscriptions on the people.
The Supreme court has ruled specifically on this question and the merits of your argument. Its not like this is your first bite at the apple.
You dont seem to be very aware of the kind of back room dealing that takes place in judicial politics. Statements like this denote a real naivete on your part.
"Yeah, Iowa is a real gay-friendly place. A great place for gay couples to demand their civil rights. Another joke."
The joke here is that you think the cultural make up of the state is somehow reflected in it's Supreme Court. You will want to look into Iowa's one of a kind judicial selection process to answer you question.
“If you know the law you would know what a serious smackdown this is. Gay rights activists have been intentionally avoiding federal court because they know that their arguments have no basis in law.”
ReplyDeleteBaker isn’t taken seriously anymore: when it was decided homosexuality was illegal, was considered a mental illness and no state allowed same-sex couples to marry. A lot has changed since 1972! With federal courts smacking down DADT, too, that just adds to the momentum of equal rights for gay Americans, doesn’t it?!
Marriage equality activists have avoided federal courts because they know that any decision in their favor will be appealed by the homophobes/Straight Supremacists, all the was to SCOTUS, if necessary. The current makeup of the court is, shall we say, not very favorable to gay citizen rights. Scalia has already fretted that, after Lawrence v. Texas, it be impossible to prohibit same-sex marriage. I’m sure he’ll recuse himself from any future cases involving gay Americans’ rights, now that he’s shown his disdain for them.
“You avoided the point about how all those courts you cite are cherrypicked by gay activists preciseley because they were the most likley to be sympathetic to your cause.”
You make it sound like a measured approach to litigation is some sort of sinister plot! If there weren’t so much opposition from Straight Supremacists and homophobes, this whole issue could have been decided at the federal level from the start!
“It is precisley our point and has been for years that these judges are not following the law but rather imposing their own policy proscriptions on the people.”
That’s your opinion, based on an outcome you don’t favor. The decisions of courts in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, et al., have made entirely sound decisions. The courts that have rejected marriage equality have made entirely sound decisions. So who’s “right”? I dunno. Time will tell.
“The Supreme court has ruled specifically on this question and the merits of your argument. Its not like this is your first bite at the apple.”
No it hasn’t. They issued a summary judgment in 1972 based on conditions in 1972. A lot has changed since then. The Supreme Court once ruled that blacks weren’t citizens and that the government could criminalize private consensual adult behavior, that is, sodomy. Their 1986 sodomy ruling was undone in 2003, only 17 years later. The Prop 8 trial ruling was issued in 2010, 38 years after Baker! More than enough time has passed to “fix” the prior decision.
“The joke here is that you think the cultural make up of the state is somehow reflected in it's Supreme Court. You will want to look into Iowa's one of a kind judicial selection process to answer you question.”
The cultural make up of Iowa is irrelevant. What matters is what its constitution says. And that constitution says that all citizens must be treated equally under the law. If you don’t like the system, change it, but don’t blame the judges who are just doing their jobs.
Baker isn’t taken seriously anymore:
ReplyDeleteThere is a thing called "precedent" that reputable judges honor, and disreputable judges don't take "seriously anymore".
when it was decided homosexuality was illegal
False. Homosexuality was not illegal in the state or federal law that it was decided in.
Another of Sean's documented errors.
considered a mental illness and no state allowed same-sex couples to marry
Is that even relevant? That could be answered affirmatively only with quote where that was fundamental to the reasoning in Baker.
“There is a thing called "precedent" that reputable judges honor, and disreputable judges don't take "seriously anymore".”
ReplyDeleteWell that’s a neat way for you to say that when a judge renders a decision you don’t like, the judge is “disreputable.” For someone who doesn’t understand “separate but equal” prohibitions, I doubt you understand legal precedent either.
“False. Homosexuality was not illegal in the state or federal law that it was decided in.”
Homosexual behavior was illegal in at least some states until 2003,when the US Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that sodomy could no longer be criminalized.
Sean:> Well that’s a neat way for you to say that when a judge renders a decision you don’t like, the judge is “disreputable.” [...] I doubt you understand legal precedent [...]
ReplyDeleteThere is a thing called "precedent" that reputable judges honor, and disreputable judges don't take "seriously anymore", True or False?
Me: >> “Homosexuality was not illegal in the state or federal law that it was decided in.”
Sean: > Homosexual behavior was illegal in at least some states [...]
Homosexuality was not illegal in the state or federal law that the Baker case (cf: Fitz's post) was decided in, True or False?
“There is a thing called "precedent" that reputable judges honor, and disreputable judges don't take "seriously anymore", True or False?”
ReplyDeleteFalse. Being “reputable” or not has nothing to do with it. Whether a previous decision is relevant or not does.
Sean: > Being “reputable” or not has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteNothing to do with what, exactly?
Sean: > Whether a previous decision is relevant or not does.
Again, matters to what exactly?
Sean, let me bump this up because I think that your comments about legal precedent are important.
ReplyDeleteDid you say that a judge "being reputable" (quotes omitted) has nothing to do with precedent or were you referring to something else as having nothing to do with "being reputable"?
Don't reputable judges follow precedent?
And if a previous decision made by a higher court is relevant, doesn't its decision take precedent?
And since that is so important, then please answer the following about your reasoning behind whether or not Baker is precedent or not in deciding 14th amendment cases about same-sex marriage.
Was homosexuality illegal in the state or federal law that the Baker case (cf: Fitz's post) was decided in, True or False?
“Did you say that a judge "being reputable" (quotes omitted) has nothing to do with precedent or were you referring to something else as having nothing to do with "being reputable"?”
ReplyDeleteI said that a judge will rely on legal precedent when it’s appropriate to do so. Whether they are “reputable” or not is beside the point.
“And if a previous decision made by a higher court is relevant, doesn't its decision take precedent?”
Yes, it does.
“Was homosexuality illegal in the state or federal law that the Baker case (cf: Fitz's post) was decided in, True or False?”
Homosexual behavior has been widely criminalized across the country, including police surveillance and arrests in private places, such as gay bars and bedrooms, and loss of federal government employment in “sensitive” areas, and the US military. Such criminalization has been struck down by the US Supreme Court in a landmark 2003 decision, Lawrence v. Texas, with the exception of the US military. Private organizations can still choose to discriminate against gays and lesbians if they wish.
If you wish to see Baker continue as federal precedent, make a case for it.
Sean: If you wish to see Baker continue as federal precedent, make a case for it.
ReplyDeleteMore proof that Sean hasn't the foggiest notion what he is talking about. In our legal system, one doesn't make a case to continue a federal precedent but vice-versa. Precedent, federal or otherwise, continues until a case is made against it and only at or above the level where the precedent was set to begin with. This is obvious from just the meaning of the word "precedent." It says much that Sean doesn't understand it.
And yet previous legal rulings are routinely ignored if deemed by a judge to be irrelevant to the case at hand.
ReplyDeleteIf the US Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, and California couples were legally capable of being married in California, how do you envision that there is no constitutional violation at work when gay and lesbian couples are deprived of this right?
In addition, the Baker decision did not involve a popular vote to deprive a minority of a fundamental right, but rather a legislative act. The US Supreme Court has ruled that fundamental rights may not be put to a vote (West Virginia v. Barnette, 1943).
ReplyDeleteDo you still believe that Baker is precedent?
Sean: The US Supreme Court has ruled that fundamental rights may not be put to a vote
ReplyDeleteBut in Sean's loopy world, "legislative acts" can. Just when one thinks Sean cannot discredit himself further, he demonstrates even less understanding.
"But in Sean's loopy world, "legislative acts" can. Just when one thinks Sean cannot discredit himself further, he demonstrates even less understanding."
ReplyDeleteI don't think fundamental rights can be taken away by legislative acts either. But in Baker, no same-sex couples were currently allowed to marry (whereas in California, they were, thus definitively establishing the right) and homosexuality was defined as behavior not identity. The world has changed, making Baker irrelevant. Please consult your attorney for further explanation.
Sean: The world has changed, making Baker irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteMore proof Sean hasn't a clue how the legal system works. Only the controlling court can make the determination that "the world has changed," not some random low-level judge and certainly not someone without any legal qualifications whatsoever.
Well, only Judge Walker knows why he ignored Baker. But the state of California, unlike the state of Minnesota, extended the right to marry to same-sex couples. There are 18,000 married same-sex couples in California as proof. The US Supreme Court has said that the right to marry is a "fundamental" right. If a state grants the right to a group previously denied it, it sure seems like a different set of circumstances to me.
ReplyDeleteSean: I don't think fundamental rights can be taken away by legislative acts either.
ReplyDeleteAnother example of Sean saying things he doesn't believe just because he has to. Earlier Sean had claimed the difference between a "popular vote" and a "legislative act" was significant. He needed the difference to be significant because he yearned to reach the conclusion that Baker was not relevant precedent. Now he admits there is no significant difference. He either disbelieves what he said the first time or he disbelieves what he is saying now. In either case, to Sean, not believing what he was saying was no reason not to say it.
Well, what is it you know about the law and the role of legal precedent that two of the nation's top attorneys, David Boies and Ted Olsen, don't? Do you think that they'd go into a trial knowing that Baker was obviously precedential and that they'd lose based on that? Why doesn't Judge Walker realize that Baker is precedential?
ReplyDeleteWhy did the Prop 8 defense devote so little time to the Baker summary judgment?
Sean: The US Supreme Court has said that the right to marry is a "fundamental" right.
ReplyDeleteThat does not mean that any redefinition of marriage also qualifies as a "fundamental" right.
If a state grants the right to a group previously denied it, it sure seems like a different set of circumstances to me.
The definition of marriage in any state does not redefine the term federally. Further, even if it did, what the redefinition of the word marriage would change would be precedents about whether it was still a "'fundamental' right," to begin with, particularly when those precedents were specifically linked to marriage's link to procreation.
Sean: Well, what is it you know about the law and the role of legal precedent that two of the nation's top attorneys, David Boies and Ted Olsen, don't?... Why doesn't Judge Walker realize that Baker is precedential? [sic]
ReplyDeleteThat lawyers bring a case doesn't mean it has merit. Cases brought by attorneys are rejected regularly, as are rulings by lower courts that violate precedent.
Why did the Prop 8 defense devote so little time to the Baker summary judgment?
Sean again shows how little he understands law. Lawyers don't stand there and argue with a judge against a ruling already issued by that judge. Improper rulings become part of the trial record and are then appealed to a higher court. This is exactly what defendants are doing.
“That does not mean that any redefinition of marriage also qualifies as a "fundamental" right.”
ReplyDeleteWell, if states get to determine who may marry, and the state says both opposite-sex and same-sex couples have the right to marry, is marriage any less of a fundamental right for same-sex couples than for opposite-sex couples?
“The definition of marriage in any state does not redefine the term federally.”
I’d say legal challenges to DOMA, and the rulings that follow, will disagree with you. States get to determine who is married and who is not. In fact, the federal government has never disputed that same-sex couples in Massachusetts and elsewhere are married, it has merely said for federal purposes, we don’t recognize their marriages.
“That lawyers bring a case doesn't mean it has merit. Cases brought by attorneys are rejected regularly, as are rulings by lower courts that violate precedent.”
“That lawyers bring a case doesn't mean it has merit.”
I don’t think two attorneys as prominent as Boies and Olson put their reputations on the line so they can lose a case.
“Sean again shows how little he understands law.”
You’re awfully arrogant, arguing that a federal judge “goofed” by not adhering to a 38-year-old ruling as binding precedent. It seems like a rookie mistake and Judge Walker is anything but a rookie. Likewise Boies and Olsen.
Sean: Well, if states get to determine who may marry...
ReplyDeleteIf the states get to determine who may marry then there is no federal case at all as only the states may say. Sean shows again even he doesn't believe what he writes.
I don’t think two attorneys as prominent as Boies and Olson...
This is what is truly humorous about reading Sean. When he thinks different than what happens in reality, in Sean's mind it is reality that is supposed to change. The fact is, cases brought by attorneys, even "prominent" ones, are rejected all the time... no matter what Sean thinks on the subject.
“If the states get to determine who may marry then there is no federal case at all as only the states may say. Sean shows again even he doesn't believe what he writes.”
ReplyDeleteDid OnLawn give you one of her stupid pills? This is a federal case because of 14th Amendment violations: equal protection. A state can’t give some groups marriage licenses, but not others, without a rational public purpose.
“When he thinks different than what happens in reality, in Sean's mind it is reality that is supposed to change.”
Excuse me, but the reality is prominent attorneys with reputations at stake don’t take on cases that they don’t think they can win. That’s reality. If the Baker decision were a non-starter, as some people think, Boies and Olsen would have steered clear of this case.
Sean: A state can’t give some groups marriage licenses, but not others...
ReplyDeleteLike siblings? Fail.
This is a federal case because of 14th Amendment violations: equal protection.
This one failed earlier. When Sean admitted a single dollar amounts to a significant difference under the 14th Amendment there's no way to say that a potential person doesn't.
...the reality is prominent attorneys with reputations at stake don’t take on cases that they don’t think they can win.
Note how Sean tries to bend reality to his own will rather than recognizing the actual facts. In the real world, the actual facts are that prominent attorneys take on losing cases all the time.
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWas homosexuality illegal in the state or federal law that the Baker case (cf: Fitz's post) was decided in, True or False?
“Like siblings? Fail.”
ReplyDeleteOr the underage. Why? Because they can advance a public interest in so doing. There is no rational public interest advanced by denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses. But gosh, you can help your cause a great deal if you can think of one!
So I guess YOU fail, huh?
“When Sean admitted a single dollar amounts to a significant difference under the 14th Amendment there's no way to say that a potential person doesn't.”
You’ll have to refresh Sean’s memory on this one. What does a dollar have to do with the 14th Amendment?
“Note how Sean tries to bend reality to his own will”
Note how stupid you are. There is no bending of reality: famous lawyers don’t like to lose. It hurts their reputations and their incomes.
“In the real world, the actual facts are that prominent attorneys take on losing cases all the time.”
You probably have a fistful of examples. Why not give us some? I’m sure, for example, that Johnny Cochran took on the OJ Simpson trial because he thought he’d lose but at least would make a bunch of money. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Well, if states get to determine who may marry, and the state says both opposite-sex and same-sex couples have the right to marry, is marriage any less of a fundamental right for same-sex couples than for opposite-sex couples?
ReplyDeleteWell, some states allow marriage for first cousins, and some don't. Some allow marriage at lower ages than others.
Based on your criteria, is marriage a "fundamental right" for first cousins nationally?
Is marriage at age 13, when given with parental consent and a waiver, a "fundamental right" nationally because New Hampshire allows it?
Has anyone ever said that New Hampshire voters could not vote to raise that age?
Has anyone ever said that the 20 states that allow first cousin marriages could not vote to disallow them?
If so, show me where.
Oh, and what's the "rational reason" why people should be allowed to vote to deny marriages to first cousins in the states where they are presently legal, as well as the states where they are not?
What's the "rational reason" why people should be allowed to vote to take away the "fundamental right" for 13-year old girls to marry with parental permission in New Hampshire, or deny it in the other states?
Can you prove to me that allowing first cousin marriages in the states that do has been harmful? Can you that New Hampshire has been harmed by allowing 13-year-olds to marry with parental permission?
If not, why are first-cousin marriage and 13-year-old marriage not "fundamental rights" nationwide? Indeed, if no harm can be proved, why are not marriage at even closer degrees of relationship and even lower ages not "fundamental"?
Above: "Can you that New Hampshire has been harmed by allowing 13-year-olds to marry with parental permission?" should read "Can you prove that New Hampshire has been harmed by allowing 13-year-olds to marry with parental permission?"
ReplyDeleteYes, I am able to admit my own mistakes, unlike Sean, who can't stand to because his inflated sense of his own "intelligence" can't take it. That has been demonstrated here repeatedly. He is what is colloquially called a "smart-aleck"
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteSorry, just had to get that in.
Sean needs to answer your question first.
“Based on your criteria, is marriage a "fundamental right" for first cousins nationally?”
ReplyDeleteNo, I don’t think so, since excluding cousin couples doesn’t violate anybody’s constitutional rights. Saying something is a fundamental right means the state has a heavy burden to explain why it is excluding any groups it is excluding. It doesn’t mean it can’t exclude people. Because marriage is a fundamental right, cousins or even siblings could make a reasonable case that they should be allowed to marry. I don’t much care either way.
“Has anyone ever said that the 20 states that allow first cousin marriages could not vote to disallow them?”
Not that I know of.
“Oh, and what's the "rational reason" why people should be allowed to vote to deny marriages to first cousins in the states where they are presently legal, as well as the states where they are not?”
I don’t know of any.
“Can you prove to me that allowing first cousin marriages in the states that do has been harmful? Can you that New Hampshire has been harmed by allowing 13-year-olds to marry with parental permission?”
No. No.
“Yes, I am able to admit my own mistakes, unlike Sean, who can't stand to because his inflated sense of his own "intelligence" can't take it. That has been demonstrated here repeatedly. He is what is colloquially called a "smart-aleck"”
I think you’re just mad that your arguments to stop same-sex marriage are ineffective.
Sean: Because they can advance a public interest in so doing.
ReplyDeleteThat valid "public interest" is in maintaining marriage as a presumptively procreative institution.
There is no rational public interest advanced by denying gay and lesbian couples marriage licenses. But gosh, you can help your cause a great deal if you can think of one!
That valid "public interest" is in maintaining marriage as a presumptively procreative institution.
You’ll have to refresh Sean’s memory on this one.
I'll have to refresh Sean's memory on how to follow links, apparently, since the link was provided. Another example of Sean distancing himself from his own statements. He made the statement at the time because he needed it to be true. He hides from it now because he needs it not to be true.
Note how stupid you are.
This is really funny because not only is it another example of what Sean thinks is rational debate, but it is also an example of Sean trying to change reality by repeating himself.
You probably have a fistful of examples. Why not give us some?
Just off the top of my head, Gloria Allred, Miller v. Schwarzenegger, case dismissed.
Johnny Cochran took on the OJ Simpson trial because he thought he’d lose but at least would make a bunch of money.
Whether money, a flagging career, or political aspirations, attorneys are motivated by many things. The fact remains, prominent attorneys file losing cases all the time and none of Sean's wishful thinking or naivete changes that fact.
So Sean has asked for two different examples, three if you count the failed refresh-my-memory attempt. All examples were provided. Now just to prove how closed-minded he is, he is going to write back saying essentially that he is not going to let FACTS change his mind.
Also note that Sean has not answered OnLawn's excellent question.
ReplyDelete(Sean will just have to ask a trusted adult how to follow that link.)
“I'll have to refresh Sean's memory on how to follow links, apparently, since the link was provided.”
ReplyDeleteI see we’ve reached the point where it’s more appealing to find fault with Sean, than to discuss the topic at hand.
“He made the statement at the time because he needed it to be true. He hides from it now because he needs it not to be true.”
If we don’t know what the statement is, it’s not very persuasive to refer to it.
“The fact remains, prominent attorneys file losing cases all the time and none of Sean's wishful thinking or naivete changes that fact.”
Why do you think David Boies and Ted Olsen wanted to lose Perry v. California?
“Now just to prove how closed-minded he is, he is going to write back saying essentially that he is not going to let FACTS change his mind.”
Present some facts and I’ll consider changing my mind. Not anecdotal instances or irrelevant examples.
“Also note that Sean has not answered OnLawn's excellent question.”
Oh well.
Sean: > Oh well.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you say that Sean?
Lets put some continuity back into the discussion.
Fitz: >.. "October 10, 1972: The United States Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Baker v. Nelson 'for want of a substantial federal question.'
"If you know the law you would know what a serious smackdown this is. Gay rights activists have been intentionally avoiding federal court because they know that their arguments have no basis in law."
Sean:> .. Baker isn’t taken seriously anymore [because] when it was decided homosexuality was illegal [...]
And since it is so critical to your dismisal of Baker, I asked you to verify the relevant facts...
Me: > "Was homosexuality illegal in the state or federal law that the Baker case (cf: Fitz's post) was decided in, True or False?"
Op-Ed has also expressed that you have not substantiated your claim with relevant facts...
Op-Ed: > “Also note that Sean has not answered OnLawn's excellent question.”
So... Sean, you are invited to answer the question. If "true" then you show you have a relevant claim. If "false" you publically acknowledge that it is not a relevant claim to counter Fitz's refrence to Baker.
I'm only interested in true or false at this point. No more side shows until you can do at least that.