In other words, marriage in this country has already been 95% destroyed, diluted down to a shadow of its former self; if that were not so, homosexual partners would not want it.That would strike far too much fear in the hearts of 95% of American heterosexuals. After all, I can look around my office and point out people with 3 or 4 marriages under their belts, with plenty of blatant office dalliances to accompany.
People who make moral claims without thinking are usually relying on feelings.
Thinking is not required to hold or express a view.
That’s pretty naieve. Constitutional lawyers argue on behalf of their clients to apply (and make) law through the power of the judiciary.
Then you have not been paying attention to the debate and to this attorney’s argument, the key part of which I quoted. He is claiming that a religiously based moral view is ipso facto unconstitutional. It is illustrative that the proponents of Prop 8 are not the ones dragging religion into the courtroom. They have the voters behind them. It is the opponents of Prop 8 who are advancing the argument that the votes don’t count because they are religiously motivated.
Boies is not making any such argument because that is not the case before the court. The advocates of Prop 8 have not, and will not, submit Leviticus in their brief. Either you are missing Boies’ point or, at best, Boies is attacking a strawman.
It is entirely possible that Boies will make a different argument in court. But I am reacting to the argument he put forward in the article.
Indeed, such are the narrow points on which law is argued. But, again, we are discussing the constitutional claim but foward by this constitutional attorney in the article. Assuming this is the argument that he will make in federal court he is indeed arguing that Prop 8 is invalid because it is based on religious moral view and, hence, unconstitutional.
I hope everyone is paying attention to this!
When you find yourself deep in a hole, stop digging!
I appreciate your comment. I will spend some time in the other threads.I’m not trying to be rude, but the OP may want to do a search about this topic on this very forum (& in Social Justice). There have been several threads about it even in the last 3-6 months. Also several threads in Political News, and possibly some in Moral Theology. After you read some of the arguments there, you may find some common ground with others.
Bottom line: Not all anti-gay-marriage argumentation is related to religious principles. Much of the opposition is social and biological; some of it is practical. Plenty of atheists are against gay marraige; plenty of gays are surprisingly against gay marriage. I’ve stated the reasons for my own opposition to it, as has benadam, as has Enchanted Eve, and at least 1 or 2 other people who similarly stick to non-religious arguments.
The religious argument will never hold in the broader, secular U.S. public, any more than religious arguments against abortion will. If you aim to win battles, let alone wars, and you do not share a common perspective with the opposition, you have to find a common perspective and common (non-theological) language in which to communicate. Otherwise (as with abortion) you will get this:
:banghead:
So I encourage the OP to search the threads and then return to seek further engagement about it.
The issue in court is not religious. Boies did comment on those who think religious views deserve legal support. However, there is no reason to think everything mentioned in the article is being presented in court. Religion has not been an issue in any Prop 8 case. It has not been an issue in any of the cases where the gays prevailed. In what case has religion been an issue?
So you are essentially defending Boies’ by arguing that he was merely attacking a straw man. I give him more credit than you do. And, as I noted in the OP, this is a consistent line of argument among those advocating “gay marriage”.
No jurist will be so transparent as that. I’m rather surprised to see an attorney being so honest.
I agree. I think we should start filling the hole back in, not making it deeper.
No, Boies wasn’t attacking a strawman. Many Christians do believe their beliefs deserve to be enshrined in law because of their religious nature. Boies can say many things in public, but that hardly means he presents those ideas in court.
Show me where Christians cite Leviticus in court briefs.
We’ll just have to wait and see, won’t we.
The grounds in federal court will not be the same as in the state court. It is entirely reasonable and prudent to assume Boies is asserting a legal theory in his article, albeit in a non-legal format.
I’ll leave the misinformation campaings to your side.
The arguments in the CA SC are not relevant to the arguments that will be made in federal court because each has their own constitution and case law.
Until they find out and loose all faith in the one passing on the misinformation.
They don’t cite Leviticus in court. Nobody does. That’s the point. Religin is not an issue in the court cases. Boies referred to people who think it is sufficient to be a religious belief to be a law. These are the people who think Leviticus is sufficient justification for outlawing gay marriage.
I don’t think this is what we see in advocate’s behavior. I think it’s more common for them to rationalize misinformation from their own side and excuse it because it was for the cause.
Sounds like reality is viewed through a sociological survey?
Boies is either attacking a straw man or setting up an anti-religious argument. You choose.
Uh, we can see that the CA SC decided not to double down on its idiotic legal invention after being slapped down by CA voters. The CA SC did not agree with the Catholic Church that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage is a lie.
It is reasonable to presume that an attorney is making legal arguments whatever the forum, particularly when he is making a legal argument, which he did. Reread the article and take particular not of the invocation of the first amendment and due process that I quoted.
We can agree that the CA SC chose not to commit political suicide by slapping down the CA voters a second time. The fact that the CA SC and the CC were coincident in this case is no cause for confidence on the issue at hand.
Boies may be setting up a strawman, and he may be setting up an anti-religious argument. But neither of these possibilities indicate he will use them in court.
A clarification,pease?