Gay Marriage in America

[TMC]

First you have demonstrate that any rights are being denied.

Heterosexual and Homosexual oriented persons are given the same priveleges and held to the same restrictions. What SS union advocates want is special treatment that is neither fair, nor moral.

So now we are back to saying that denying gay couples the right to marriage is not denying a right (or even a privilege)? I don’t see how we can have a discussion about this if you insist on me accepting such an obvious fiction as a predicate fact.

 

[sedonaman]

… But I am certainly glad that our nation’s laws do not actually allow for groups to be denied rights and privileges based on the whims of the majority without providing any justification for doing so.

I see it differently. What I see is the will of the vast majority being overturned by a single, unaccountable judge who provides nothing more than his personal preference as a legal justification. I think it’s a crime a that freedom has been morphed into lack of responsibility and that democracy has been degraded to tyranny by dedicated minorities. In short, that evil has become good, and good has become evil.

---

"What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.”

 

[TMC]

I see it differently. What I see is the will of the vast majority being overturned by a single, unaccountable judge who provides nothing more than his personal preference as a legal justification. I think it’s a crime a that freedom has been morphed into lack of responsibility and that democracy has been degraded to tyranny by dedicated minorities. In short, that evil has become good, and good has become evil.

I agree that it is better for gay marriage to be instituted through the legislative process when possible, as has been done in some instances, but I otherwise disagree. There are many examples in our history of “unaccountable” judges enforcing the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority. It is how our system was designed to operate. If it makes you feel any better, it seems likely that the next few states to legalize gay marriage will do so through the legislature.

 

[sedonaman]

actually lots of people are denied the “right to marriage”…too young, incapable of consent, too closely related, wrong species. so, in essence, of all the classes of people who are denied the right to marriage, you want to pull out one small segment (only 1-3% of the population is homosexual; i’m sure a small percentage of that wants to get married), and make the rest of society answer to them.

The most compelling legal treatment of this issue would have to fall under the penumbra of the Equal Protection Clause.

…

However,

The law does not and cannot treat all persons – young and old, weak and strong, rich and poor, male and female, and so on – as equal in all regards. The very purpose of law is to classify (discriminate among) people for different treatment; for example, burglary statutes distinguish burglars from non-burglars. Aliens and felons do not have the right to vote; blacks, women, and 18-year-olds do, not because of any principle or requirement of equality (or “equal protection”), but because they were given the right by the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments, respectively.

There is no requirement of equality other than the tautology that all people must be treated in accordance with their legal rights.

When judges decide that some homosexual unions have the same legal status as marriage, they are not, as they invariably claim, enforcing a legal or constitutional requirement of equality – there is none. What they are doing instead is legislating for homosexuals’ rights other than those granted by the legislature.

“Single-Sex ‘Marriage’: The Role of the Courts”
by Lino A. Graglia
Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200101/ai_n8934944

 

[rossum]

I see it differently. What I see is the will of the vast majority being overturned by a single, unaccountable judge who provides nothing more than his personal preference as a legal justification.

I see it very differently. The Proposition 8 referendum failed by 52% to 48%. That is nowhere near a “vast majority”, that is a slim majority.

The judge is accountable to the appeals court, where the case is currently.

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

My position is that in a free society you have to justify denying one group of people a right or privilege that is accorded to the rest of society.

The state is justified in recognizing only real marriages as marriages. People who cannot enter marriages so understood for, say, psychological reasons are not wronged by the state, even when they did not choose and cannot control the factors that keep them single—which is true, after all, of many people who remain single despite their best efforts to find a mate. Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause, 12or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded. As a result, in deciding whether to recognize, say, polyamorous unions, revisionists would not have to figure out first whether the desire for such relationships is natural or unchanging; what the economic effects of not recognizing polyamory would be; whether nonrecognition stigmatizes polyamorous partners and their children; or whether nonrecognition violates their right to the equal protection of the law. With respect to the last question, it is exactly the other way around: Figuring out what marriage is would tell us whether equality requires generally treating polyamorous relationships just as we do monogamous ones—that is, as marriages. Third, there is no general right to marry the person you love, if this means a right to have any type of relationship that you desire recognized as marriage. There is only a presumptive right not to be prevented from forming a real marriage wherever one is possible. And, again, the state cannot choose or change the essence of real marriage; so in radically reinventing legal marriage, the state would obscure a moral reality.

There is a tension here. Some revisionists say that marriage is merely a social and legal construct, but their appeals to equality undermine this claim. The principle of equality requires treating like cases alike. So the judgment that same‐sex and opposite‐sex unions are alike with respect to marriage, and should therefore be treated alike by marriage law, presupposes one of two things: Either neither relationship is a real marriage
in the above sense, perhaps because there is no such thing, marriage being just a legal fiction (in which case, why not justify apparent inequities by social‐utility considerations?13), or both relationships are real marriages, whatever the law saysabout them. The latter presupposition entails the belief, which most revisionists seem to share with advocates of the conjugal view, that marriage has a nature independent of legal conventions.In this way, the crucial question—the only one that can settle this debate—remains for both sides: What is marriage?

(Read more from this incisive, logcal, legal mind, at):

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf

(Surely the 3rd or 4th time I have linked this on CAF.)

 

[TMC]

(Read more from this incisive, logcal, legal mind, at):

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf

(Surely the 3rd or 4th time I have linked this on CAF.)

I am familiar with that documnet, but I find it unpersuasive. Among many other flaws, it starts with the assumption that “real” marriage is defined as only marriage between members of the opposite sex - beginning with that as a predicate assumption, its no wonder where they end up. For good measure, the authors throw in a number of totally unsupported assumptions - such as the long discredited old saw that allowing gays to marry will somehow dissuade young heterosexuals from marrying. Its written well and uses lots o’ big words, but it is not saying anything new or particularly persuasive on the topic.

 

[sedonaman]

I see it very differently. The Proposition 8 referendum failed by 52% to 48%. That is nowhere near a “vast majority”, that is a slim majority.

If it failed, why did the gays go ape and file an appeal? You can call it slim if you want; the margin in the overall population of the country is “vast”.

The judge is accountable to the appeals court, where the case is currently.
rossum

Does he lose his job, get demoted, or lose pay if he is overturned? No. Therefore, he is not accountable. Judge Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit is one of, if not the most overturned Justice in the Country. Q: So if he is “accountable” to the next highest court, why is he still around? A: the premise is incorrect.

 

[sedonaman]

I am familiar with that documnet, but I find it unpersuasive. Among many other flaws, it starts with the assumption that “real” marriage is defined as only marriage between members of the opposite sex…

So what is a “real” marriage?

 

[TMC]

So what is a “real” marriage?

You would have to ask someone that has proposed using that term. I have not.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am familiar with that documnet, but I find it unpersuasive. Among many other flaws, it starts with the assumption that “real” marriage is defined as only marriage between members of the opposite sex - beginning with that as a predicate assumption, its no wonder where they end up.

It’s the exact same predicate assumption proclaimed as an essential aspect of the Roman Church’s teaching on man, woman, marriage, family, and creation that is the heart of all of the rest of the Church’s teaching on marriage, sexuality, reproduction – core teaching, not peripheral teaching – that we are bound as Catholics to support as members of that Church, and to bring that consciousness into the civic square.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So what is a “real” marriage?

I know you were asking that rhetoircally, sedonaman. Nevertheless, for the lurkers, I will answer factually.
Answer = explained in the subsequent section of the document linked in post 709. This position merely explicates and expands upon the Church’s essential position on marriage as it impacts all of society, not just Catholics.


In short, marriage is not how any individual couple merely chooses to privately define it, “feel it,” “experience it,” etc. The concept of marriage is not up to a popular vote.

 

[TMC]

It’s the exact same predicate assumption proclaimed as an essential aspect of the Roman Church’s teaching on man, woman, marriage, family, and creation that is the heart of all of the rest of the Church’s teaching on marriage, sexuality, reproduction – core teaching, not peripheral teaching – that we are bound as Catholics to support as members of that Church, and to bring that consciousness into the civic square.

Yes, I agree that is what the Church teaches. If it is agreed that the only basis for denying marriage to gay couples is that the Church forbids it then folks should just say that and be done. (They should then also be fighting equally hard for the laws to reflect the Church’s other teachings on marriage and divorce, but that may be a topic for another thread.) But most anti-marriage posters here seem to be saying that there are other, non-religious reasons for denying marriage to homosexuals.

 

[FormerWarrior]

No it isn’t hard to deny it. You don’t think a child has a right to be raised by a mother and father, so I deny homosexuals have any kind of “right” or “privilege” to “marry”.

But when it comes to the rights of others, where do you get the right to deny rights to others, and who has the right to deny you your rights? That is the thing about rights. You do not have any authority whatsoever to make such a statement.

You and I, as individuals, are only qualified and empowered to govern our own behaviors. Our government my only proscribe the rights of the individual if it has a compelling reason to do so. That issue has already been decided, and remains unchallenged.

 

[rossum]

If it failed, why did the gays go ape and file an appeal? You can call it slim if you want; the margin in the overall population of the country is “vast”.

Your evidence please. The 2006 referendum in Arizona had a majority against banning gay marriage: Proposition 107 - Yes 49%, No 51%

I think you may be indulging in wishful thinking here. The numbers seem to be pretty close, not your “vast”.

rossum

 

[LittleSoldier]

Just because something has not been declared “infallible” ex cathedra doesn’t mean Catholics can choose to reject it.

That’s why I stated (in the same post with the part you quoted) the following:

However, we are still required to bow to the authority of the Magisterium. The Magisterium has made it clear that homosexual activity is sinful.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, I agree that is what the Church teaches. If it is agreed that the only basis for denying marriage to gay couples is that the Church forbids it then folks should just say that and be done. (They should then also be fighting equally hard for the laws to reflect the Church’s other teachings on marriage and divorce, but that may be a topic for another thread.) But most anti-marriage posters here seem to be saying that there are other, non-religious reasons for denying marriage to homosexuals.

I get a different impression; my impression is that most posters here are saying that the Church says it is wrong; therefore, it is wrong.

That is what I have been saying. I know there are bishops who are much more knowledgeable than me (and a heck of a lot smarter). I don’t question the authority of the Magisterium. I accept it without reservation.

But I believe the OP has indicated that he/she wants secular reasons as to why SSM is wrong. Perhaps people have been trying to answer his/her question with that parameter in mind.

 

[LittleSoldier]

But when it comes to the rights of others, where do you get the right to deny rights to others, and who has the right to deny you your rights? That is the thing about rights.

Is that right? I’m getting dizzy. :whacky:

 

[Elizabeth502]

But when it comes to the rights of others, where do you get the right to deny rights to others, ? That is the thing about rights. You do not have any authority whatsoever to make such a statement.

And you have zero authority to manufacture rights out of whole cloth.

That issue has already been decided

Not exactly, but nice try.

Also, you have no social authority to use a bullying tone toward LittleSoldier. As a forum user, I do not appreciate your aggressive manner when not necessary. (As in this case.)

 

[FormerWarrior]

And you have zero authority to manufacture rights out of whole cloth.

Not exactly, but nice try.

Also, you have no social authority to use a bullying tone toward LittleSoldier. As a forum user, I do not appreciate your aggressive manner when not necessary. (As in this case.)

I have manufactured no rights. I have only pointed out that people like you cannot do so either. Get off your wooden pony. You sound like a bully. Are you one?