A non-religious argument against same sex marriage?

[Jeremiah1278]

jeremiah, the constitution limits government power. getting into whats a “fundamental” isnt relevant to me. people would still marry n have kids without government. if the government is involved, then yes, it must treat citizens equally.

Well, I think whether or not a right is fundamental has important implications because non-fundamental rights don’t get Due Process treatment and lose some Equal Protection clause protection. And just to be clear—I’m sure you’re just being brief, which I’m terrible at—but the government is not obligated to always treat citizens equally. Many laws grant advantages to some classification of citizens over others. They do not treat all citizens equally. In Illinois, I can’t consume alcohol if I’m under 21. This discriminates against 20 year olds based on their age, but is not a violation of Equal Protection.

Run of the mill laws that discriminate must simply be rationally related to some legitimate end.

Laws that discriminate against a suspect class (race, national origin, etc.) are subject to more scrutiny. So are classifications that burden some fundamental rights. To get away with discriminating in this way, the state must show that the discrimination is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

Laws that discriminate based on gender are subject to a middle-ground scrutiny. The state need only show that the discrimination/classification is substantially related to an important state interest.

I bring up fundamental rights, because I feel it is important for people debating this topic to wrestle with what marriage right they are talking about when they say the right to marry is a fundamental right. I’m fine, if you are, with not worrying about whether or not same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. That eliminates two avenues for arguing against traditional marriage classifications and leaves you with convincing folks that the state can’t discriminate with their traditional marriage classifications because either: (1) same-sex couples are a suspect class and the state’s classification is not necessary to serve any compelling state interest; or (2) same-sex couples are being discriminated against based on their gender, and the state’s marriage classification isn’t substantially related to an important state interest; or (3) traditional marriage classifications are not rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

At least… that’s how I see things, but admittedly, it’s been about a decade since my Constitutional Law class Good chatting though. It’s bring back terrible memories of memorizing flash-cards at 3:00 a.m. Ha.

 

[exnihilo]

exnihilo, i covered multiple marriages earlier in this thread. its convenient to say you have no confidence in the courts when they tend to disagree with you. of course, something is wrong with them, and not you.

Yes you covered it in a short sentences where you said ‘no one currently has the right to marry multiple persons or animals however, so that wouldnt fall under civil rights’. Let me take your same sentence and modify it:

No one currently has the right to marry a person of the same gender.

Thus the law is not discriminatory as it applies to everyone. Your principle, that the law discriminates when it doesn’t allow anyone to do something, actually undermines the law itself. Global prohibitions are at the heart of the law.

Regarding the court it is rather inconvenient that they disagree with me. Worse is that they disagree with the painful lessons of history and abandon logic.

 

[hazmat]

jeremiah, if the state prevents all citizens under 21 from purchasing alcohol, then that is equal, and so, not a violation of equal protection. the overall discussion of marriage rights would be very different if all citizens that did not produce offspring were denied a civil marriage.

exnihilo, “same gender” is unqualified. once you qualify that with a specific sex, the statement becomes false. citizens marry women, and citizens marry men. your same approach could be used for bans on interracial marriage too, but it wont hold up in court.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

exnihilo, “same gender” is unqualified. once you qualify that with a specific sex, the statement becomes false. citizens marry women, and citizens marry men. your same approach could be used for bans on interracial marriage too, but it wont hold up in court.

“Same gender” is as qualified as it needs to be. That is, it unambiguously states who can marry whom. It just happens to be worded in a fashion that is inconvenient to you.

By the way, you never did explain adequately how same-sex marriage is a kind of marriage while marrying an avocado or marrying myself or a 3-way marriage is not also a kind of marriage. You just kept reiterating your version of what the right to marry is, i.e. “X may marry a man” and “X may marry a women”. Other then the meaningless “unqualified” comment to exnihilo, you never supported why the right needs to be worded the way to prefer rather than the way most people understand “marriage” to mean.

And finally, when you refer to the courts, talking about what will and what will not be decided by them, I think that is irrelevant to the discussion. As you pointed out, the courts at one time ruled that interracial marriage was illegal and that the law was not a violation of civil rights. Then later the courts realized their mistake and came around to allowing interracial marriage. Similarly it is entirely possible that the courts who have already ruled in favor of gay marriage will some day recognize their mistake and come around to the common sense understanding of what marriage means. Or maybe not. In any case this discussion should be about the truth, not about legal precedent.

 

[hazmat]

not in my opinion. as is written in the constitution, no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” i look at equal protections as they pertain to individuals, not pairs or groups. you can support any kind of marriage you want (self, avocado, etc.), but theyre not civil rights–i try to keep my arguments in a civil rights context. when i mention court, i mean the scotus. sorry for being unclear.

edit: actually, marrying yourself could be a civil right, as i alluded to before. but i dont know how you would distinguish someone who is married to themselves from someone who is not.

 

[exnihilo]

exnihilo, “same gender” is unqualified. once you qualify that with a specific sex, the statement becomes false. citizens marry women, and citizens marry men. your same approach could be used for bans on interracial marriage too, but it wont hold up in court.

I dont understand your qualification remark. That seems irrelevant. No one can marry a person of the same sex so the law is not discriminatory. The interracial laws were discriminatory in that it prohibited a class of people, Blacks, from marrying another class of people, Whites, within the boundaries of marriage established for everyone else.

 

[hazmat]

if someone made a law saying no one can marry a person outside of their race, and applied this law to everyone of all races, you could make the same case for its application being equal. i would disagree with that as well, considering it unconstitutional just the same.

 

[StevenFrancis]

As it boils down most who argue against same sex marriage argue on religious ground. But with a church state separation paradigm in mind what non religious argument can you make against this issue?

It is a religious issue. That’s why you hear it being argued from religious grounds. Marriage is a religious institution. It shouldn’t be necessary for the state to be involved in marriage, and they wouldn’t be if it weren’t for property rights which were sadly developed with divorce in mind. Not marriage. So…there is no specific “non-religious” argument against same sex marriage. I suppose you can argue from natural law. But like with everything else these days, we’re way off the point. I think what the Church would like, is for the state to simply recognize marriage between one man and one woman. It shouldn’t even be necessary. The same sex marriage supporters are actually trying to get the government involved. They wish to change the very definition of marriage. My question is why? Why let or make the government legislate marriage beyond what is already there? The answer to that seems to be so that eventually the government can dictate to the churches which reside in it’s geopolitical jurisdiction that they recognize marriage. Church is not trying to impose itself on the state. The state has a goal of imposing itself on the Church.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[razredge]

thats your opinion. pray the scotus agrees with it.

Ahem, it’s not an opinion - please show me how homosexual and heterosexual relationships are identical.

If they are not the same then there is a valid reason for not extending marriage to same-sex couples - just like you can’t reasonably extend the definition of cats to include dogs as well

 

[hazmat]

i was referring to your saying it was irrational for the state to do so; that theyre not the same is important to you, but not necessarily anyone else.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

not in my opinion. as is written in the constitution, no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” i look at equal protections as they pertain to individuals, not pairs or groups.

Well, it is pretty hard to support the right of an individual to get married without considering whether the other person in the marriage even wants to get married. So the right to marry cannot be thought of as an individual right. By its very nature it is a right belonging to a couple - a pair - who jointly decide they want to get married. You cannot talk about Jack’s right to marry Jill without considering Jill’s right to marry (or not to marry) Jack. It is the right of every individual to enter into a marriage, provided the other party is also willing. That is what the right is. And no one is suggesting that that right should not be equally applied to all persons. What we are suggesting is that the right you are supporting is a different right. It is the right to enter into something that is not a marriage, like a three-way marriage. Until you can prove that same-sex “marriage” really is a kind of marriage, then the equal protection clause you cited above does not apply. Would you say that the equal protection clause of the constitution implies that three-way marriages must also be allowed? It is very similar to same-sex marriage. What if I want to marry two people at once? Doesn’t denying me the right to do that also violate the equal protection clause of the constitution? I am being denied a right that everyone else has just because of my choice of who (and how many) I want to marry. That is just like being denied the right to marry because of the sex of the person I want to marry.

 

[timotheos]

…what non religious argument can you make against this issue?

Here’s one.

They are not the same thing.

It would only make sense to continue making a distinction when such a serious difference exists.

But let’s get to the reality of the problem, and why reasoned argument does not work. Trying to overturn legitimate marriage, like support for contraception, or abortion, or masturbation, or pornography, is nothing but a symptom of the greater disease that afflicts us. This disease has a twisted nature that, deep inside, we know all too well. It does not care about reason or truth. Anyone who denies its existence is lying, and likely firmly in its clutches. It is a dark place to be, and one that threatens our very souls – whether we choose to believe it or not.

 

[exnihilo]

if someone made a law saying no one can marry a person outside of their race, and applied this law to everyone of all races, you could make the same case for its application being equal. i would disagree with that as well, considering it unconstitutional just the same.

Prohibitory race based laws are considered unconstitutional. But prohibitory gender based laws are not considered unconstitutional. There are rules that say you cant be strip searched by someone outside of your gender. The TSA has a policy that says you will be searched by a member of the same sex. So laws that limit based on gender are simply not ipso facto unconstitutional.

 

[hazmat]

razredge, i was talking about your calling the states decision irrational, not about your saying they werent the same thing.

leaf, i get where youre coming from, but i disagree. i dont believe its constitutionally defensible to qualify an individual for rights based on a trait that is relative to another person. just because something is applied to all persons doesnt mean it constitutes equal protection. that type of qualification could be used for equal application of laws preventing interracial marriage. i do not think equal protection applies to three way marriages because no citizen is allowed to enter a three way marriage–i do not oppose polygamy however, and would support its legalization. but i do think equal protection applies to marriage between blood relatives.

exnihilo, i dont think thats accurate. and a case could be made against tsa sex discrimination as well. just because something is generally accepted doesnt mean its constitutional.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

i do not think equal protection applies to three way marriages because no citizen is allowed to enter a three way marriage-

You say equal protection does not apply to three way marriage because no citizen is allowed to enter a three way marriage. Similarly, no citizen is allowed to enter a same sex marriage - at least they were not 100 years ago. If some people were allowed to enter same sex marriage and others were not allowed then you would have a point. But as it is, or as it could be, no one is allowed to enter a same sex marriage. Everyone is being treated equally. Other than the fact that three way marriages have not been legalized yet, how is three way marriage any different than same sex marriage? Why is one covered under the equal protection clause and the other is not?

 

[hazmat]

in this context, you can say no citizen has the right to marry 2 people. you cannot say no citizen has the right to marry a man. for a similar statement to be true and prevent gay marriage, you have to be ambiguous: no citizen has the right to marry someone of the same sex. same sex = what? well, that depends on what kind of citizen you are. and thats where equal protection for every citizen is lost. this leaves the door open for things like: no citizen has the right the right to marry someone of a different race, or of a different religion, or of a different class.

if the state need only concern itself with the equal application of laws, and not with whether these laws protect everyone equally, then they can do all sorts of things. and again, i do think marriage between blood relatives falls under equal protection. and while i dont think the same of “three way” marriages, i would support the legalization of polygamy.

 

[hazmat]

in this context, you can say no citizen has the right to marry 2 people. you cannot say no citizen has the right to marry a man. for a similar statement to be true and prevent gay marriage, you have to be ambiguous: no citizen has the right to marry someone of the same sex. same sex = what? well, that depends on what kind of citizen you are. and thats where equal protection for every citizen is lost. this leaves the door open for things like: no citizen has the right to marry someone of a different race, or of a different religion, or of a different class.

if the state need only concern itself with the equal application of laws, and not with whether these laws protect everyone equally, then they can do all sorts of things. and again, i do think marriage between blood relatives falls under equal protection. and while i dont think the same of “three way” marriages, i would support the legalization of polygamy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…and again, i do think marriage between blood relatives falls under equal protection. and while i dont think the same of “three way” marriages, i would support the legalization of polygamy.

If the equal protection clause of the constitution applies to marrying blood relatives, then that means any law that says I can’t marry my sister, or my widowed mother, or my 4 year old daughter is unconstitutional. I know of no sane person who holds that view. Are you sure you want to go there?

 

[hazmat]

marrying a 4 yr old is not legal for anyone that i know of. that would not fall under equal protections. but yes, under equal protection, you should be able to marry your sister, or widowed mother–assuming theyre legal to marry. i went there several pages ago.

 

[razredge]

The law is males can marry females and females can marry males. Unless a male is prohibited from marry a female or vice versa, no one is being discriminated against.

As the male marry male or female marry female case is not identical to male marry female or female marry male - if you can show it is though, then please go ahead