Same-sex marriage and Constitutional rights

[on_the_hill]

No sir. Insane people are not to be treated as if they are sane.

Huh? People are endowed with basic rights, regardless of their sanity.

This whole argument of sane vs. insane is…dare I? INSANE!

What’s sane? What’s insane? Who’s defining sanity? Clearly, you’re not using a medical definition of sanity, but a definition based on personal interpretation. I have a strong suspicion that the sane are those you like and the insane are those you don’t.

I can’t even believe I’m posting in this thread. I must be insane.

 

[Rhubarb]

Natural law - not human nature. The denial of same sex marriage is because it hurts the natural family which then hurts the structure of society. It was interesting to hear the defense of SSM when Scalia or Alito asked about what then (if this passed) would the precedent for denying polygamy, etc. The lawyer said that it wouldn’t come to that because then you have multiple people in divorces and that’s so messy. To which, my argument would be that you have the same problem with SS parenting. You have two fathers and a mother or two mothers and a father. Meanwhile the poor kid is used as a ping pong ball. It’s hard enough with no-fault divorce and cohabitation. Why do we need to add fuel to the fire.

Fine, let’s grant natural law (which just to be clear I do NOT grant on epistemic and ontological grounds) for the sake of argument. Where in the US codified law is natural law paid out, cited, or stated to be a requirement of our legal system? Smoking seems like it might be against the natural law - blatantly harming oneself. But it’s not forbidden. Except on cases the state deems it has compelling interest - for children.

Maybe human nature or natural law SHOULD be taken into account. But this is a normative claim that isn’t on the table. The debate is whether same-sex marriage IS or IS NOT protected as equally as other marriages between consenting non-related adults are.

 

[inocente]

Sane equals a course of thought or action that is consistent with our human nature.

Insanity equals a course of thought or action that defies our human nature.

What is sane and what is insane can only be determined by people who are acting and thinking in a sane manner. By the way, you don’t have to be clinically insane to think or act like a lunatic. Normally sane people often experience episodes of crazy actions or thoughts.

Insanity often masquerades as sanity, all the more so when sane people allow that to happen, as when American slaves were once counted as 3/5 human, or when men are legally authorized to marry men. Insane actions or thoughts can also appear to be sane when sane people are so completely controlled by the lunatic fringe that we are inclined to observe that the lunatics are running the asylum (society itself, or some institutions such as journalism or academia).

I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, so I make no pretense to having adequately described the difference except as a layman. Reasoning (if not always reasonable) people can disagree about what constitutes insane actions or thoughts, but generally speaking one party is right and the other is wrong, with individuals or societies suffering the consequences.

If “insanity” really meant one party is right and the other is wrong, then courts would have to rule that everyone who does wrong is insane.

Also, the word is no longer used by the medical profession. In law, it is defined as mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior. - dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=979

Dictatorships such as China and the Soviet Union suppressed political opponents by having them declared insane, and the Nazis even sterilized or “euthanized” those they decided to call insane.

That’s where your argument leads, so you might want to find a different word for people you don’t agree with, something not associated with political abuse (unless you really think your case is worth overthrowing democracy and the rule of law of course ).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s where your argument leads, so you might want to find a different word for people you don’t agree with, something not associated with political abuse (unless you really think your case is worth overthrowing democracy and the rule of law of course ).

I’ll stick with St. Iraneus’ definition of insane. It’s very useful, and the Courts still use the term insanity, so it’s definitely a legal concept whether or not the medical community prefers “mental illness.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Maybe human nature or natural law SHOULD be taken into account. But this is a normative claim that isn’t on the table. The debate is whether same-sex marriage IS or IS NOT protected as equally as other marriages between consenting non-related adults are.

This still begs the question. Why aren’t incestuous marriages between consenting adults legal?

Who is to decide that same-sex marriage is lawful but incestuous marriage is not?

Isn’t this discrimination against heterosexuals?

Why shouldn’t polygamy be lawful? Isn’t that discrimination against polygamists?

 

[Rhubarb]

This still begs the question. Why aren’t incestuous marriages between consenting adults legal?

Who is to decide that same-sex marriage is lawful but incestuous marriage is not?

Isn’t this discrimination against heterosexuals?

Why shouldn’t polygamy be lawful? Isn’t that discrimination against polygamists?

It’s not question-begging. Outlawing incestuous marriage would infringe on someone’s rights. But due to Strict Scrutiny there are arguments to allow such infringements. And I have no drum to beat against polygamy so I’m not even going to touch it. I’ve said this before.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Outlawing incestuous marriage would infringe on someone’s rights. But due to Strict Scrutiny there are arguments to allow such infringements.

The right of a man to marry another man was never even imagined in history before our time.

You seem to be putting same-sex marriage in the same class of rights as freedom from slavery.

I think not. The rights of unbalanced people exist, but they do not include the right to redefine ancient institutions that have long been defined by sane people universally and through all time until the present.

Same-sex marriage is just another inanity of political correctness that people addicted to political correctness cannot see through.

By the way, what are the arguments “arguments to allow such infringements”?

 

[casey_cates]

Fine, let’s grant natural law (which just to be clear I do NOT grant on epistemic and ontological grounds) for the sake of argument. Where in the US codified law is natural law paid out, cited, or stated to be a requirement of our legal system? Smoking seems like it might be against the natural law - blatantly harming oneself. But it’s not forbidden. Except on cases the state deems it has compelling interest - for children.

Maybe human nature or natural law SHOULD be taken into account. But this is a normative claim that isn’t on the table. The debate is whether same-sex marriage IS or IS NOT protected as equally as other marriages between consenting non-related adults are.

Actually some would say smoking is more natural than gay marriage. You are using natural ingredients in a manner that has historically preceded the US Constitution. And as I have outlined in previous posts - a very compelling interest of the child is prominent in denial of gay marriage. Which no one ever wants to address!!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And as I have outlined in previous posts - a very compelling interest of the child is prominent in denial of gay marriage. Which no one ever wants to address!!

Very true. Little boys adopted by two gay men or two gay women are denied their natural growth into their natural heterosexuality. But of course it would be the view of gays that their rights to adopt trump the rights of children, just as it is the view of abortionists that the rights of a mother killing her child trump the rights of the child to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Very true. Little boys adopted by two gay men or two gay women are denied their natural growth into their natural heterosexuality. But of course it would be the view of gays that their right to adopt trump the rights of children, just as it is the view of abortionist that the right of a mother to her child trump the rights of the child to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Rhubarb]

The right of a man to marry another man was never even imagined in history before our time.

You seem to be putting same-sex marriage in the same class of rights as freedom from slavery.

I think not. The rights of unbalanced people exist, but they do not include the right to redefine ancient institutions that have long been defined by sane people universally and through all time until the present.

Same-sex marriage is just another inanity of political correctness that people addicted to political correctness cannot see through.

By the way, what are the arguments “arguments to allow such infringements”?

I don’t see what something not being imagined before our time matters. Planes, trains, automobiles, etc. had to be imagined at some point. And shoes, and Thai food, and CDs…

I’m not putting marriage up against anything. I’m saying that marriage has been stated as a fundamental right of citizens of the United States, and that equal protection under the law is a fundamental right of citizens of the United States. Marriage rights for various classes follows.

Rights, Constitutional or otherwise, can be infringed by the government depending on which right is in question and for what reason. There are different levels of judicial review that the courts consider when a rights case comes before them. An argument can be plausibly made that there is empirical evidence to support a compelling interest to the state to forbid incest on medical grounds. This doesn’t seem to be a justification to forbid same-sex marriage though.

Look up “rational basis”, “intermediate scrutiny” and “strict scrutiny”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

**Rights, Constitutional or otherwise, can be infringed by the government depending on which right is in question and for what reason. **There are different levels of judicial review that the courts consider when a rights case comes before them. An argument can be plausibly made that there is empirical evidence to support a compelling interest to the state to forbid incest on medical grounds. This doesn’t seem to be a justification to forbid same-sex marriage though.

There has never been a right for same-sex marriage until the right was invented by gays. There is no obligation for the state to kneel to the rights of people who are inventing irrational (or insane) rights. People invented the right to call slaves 3/5 of a person. This was an insane invention, and the state was wrong to dignify it with legal status for voting purposes. I hope you agree with this.

On what medical grounds could the state forbid incest but not same-sex marriages?

Be careful how you answer, because there is plenty of evidence of medical harm following anal sex between men.

And are you going to answer the charge that heterosexual children have a right not to be adopted by same-sex parents? As you know, once same-sex marriage is legal, it is inevitable and unstoppable that the adoption of same-sex children will follow on a massive scale. Do you have feeling or fear for the fate of those children? If you say the orphanage is worse than adoption by same-sex parents, you have not overcome the objection that heterosexual children have a right not to be groomed for a homosexual life.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t see what something not being imagined before our time matters. Planes, trains, automobiles, etc. had to be imagined at some point. And shoes, and Thai food, and CDs…

Why are you making this point?

None of the items you mention are rights, nor are they institutions such as marriage is. They are inventions, and we do not object to inventions so long as they have a reasonable purpose.

Nuclear weapons, for example, by their very nature serve an insane purpose.

And isn’t it interesting that all those bright people in the scientific community went along with the insanity?

Don’t mean to derail the discussion here.

 

[Rhubarb]

There has never been a right for same-sex marriage until the right was invented by gays. There is no obligation for the state to kneel to the rights of people who are inventing irrational (or insane) rights. People invented the right to call slaves 3/5 of a person. This was an insane invention, and the state was wrong to dignify it with legal status for voting purposes. I hope you agree with this.

On what medical grounds could the state forbid incest but not same-sex marriages?

Be careful how you answer, because there is plenty of evidence of medical harm following anal sex between men.

And are you going to answer the charge that heterosexual children have a right not to be adopted by same-sex parents? As you know, once same-sex marriage is legal, it is inevitable and unstoppable that the adoption of same-sex children will follow on a massive scale. Do you have feeling or fear for the fate of those children? If you say the orphanage is worse than adoption by same-sex parents, you have not overcome the objection that heterosexual children have a right not to be groomed for a homosexual life.

The 3/5ths Compromise wasn’t a right. It was a law. I think you’re not distinguishing from the two. Personal and civil rights have been innovated before. The rights in the Bill of Rights were innovative. The right to privacy is an innovated AND derived right. The right to marriage was innovated too by the courts. The fact that it’s ‘never been thought of before’ does absolutely nothing for the argument and if the fallacy can’t be recognized then I can’t help. I keep having to make the point because you do. You could make the argument that these sorts of rights aren’t actually rights at all. But that argument is irrelevant hand-waving. We’re not talking about the ontology of rights - we’re talking about a specific behavior within a specific legal context. You can argue ‘insane things cannot be made law’ but that has nothing to do with the facts in play with the US legal code.

As for incestuous marriage - I’m not a doctor. I’ve only heard anecdote. I’m told that incestuous children lead to serious medical problems. This is something the state could plausibly have a compelling interest to prevent. This is a DIFFERENT matter than the health risks of perfectly consenting adults (possibly) damaging their own health.

And no, I’m not going to make the argument that being raised by homosexuals harms a child. The studies I’ve read doesn’t suggest that they can be ‘groomed’. Moreover, if sexuality could be groomed like that, how is it that heterosexual couples end up with homosexual children? On the face of it, this seems to refute that worry. I’m not a psychologist so I can’t say. And let’s just for the sake of argument say that they can be groomed, and are groomed. In THAT, I don’t consider homosexual-becoming to be a harm.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The 3/5ths Compromise wasn’t a right. It was a law. I think you’re not distinguishing from the two. Personal and civil rights have been innovated before. The rights in the Bill of Rights were innovative. The right to privacy is an innovated AND derived right. The right to marriage was innovated too by the courts. The fact that it’s ‘never been thought of before’ does absolutely nothing for the argument and if the fallacy can’t be recognized then I can’t help. I keep having to make the point because you do. You could make the argument that these sorts of rights aren’t actually rights at all. But that argument is irrelevant hand-waving. We’re not talking about the ontology of rights - we’re talking about a specific behavior within a specific legal context. You can argue ‘insane things cannot be made law’ but that has nothing to do with the facts in play with the US legal code.

As for incestuous marriage - I’m not a doctor. I’ve only heard anecdote. I’m told that incestuous children lead to serious medical problems. This is something the state could plausibly have a compelling interest to prevent. This is a DIFFERENT matter than the health risks of perfectly consenting adults (possibly) damaging their own health.

And no, I’m not going to make the argument that being raised by homosexuals harms a child. The studies I’ve read doesn’t suggest that they can be ‘groomed’. Moreover, if sexuality could be groomed like that, how is it that heterosexual couples end up with homosexual children? On the face of it, this seems to refute that worry. I’m not a psychologist so I can’t say. And let’s just for the sake of argument say that they can be groomed, and are groomed. In THAT, I don’t consider homosexual-becoming to be a harm.

There are too many fallacies to even begin answering here.

I will pray that you will overcome your agnosticism and be enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Rhubarb]

Do you mean ‘fallacy’ or ‘things you don’t agree with’? If there are formal or informal fallacies, please let me know which ones and where they are.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There is no constitutional right to SSM. At the time the Constitution was written homosexuality was universally condemned and SSM had not even been thought of. So the only way there could be a constitutional right is if there were to be a constitutional amendment allowing it. And since such a right would be against the teaching of Jesus Christ, it would have to be rejected by the faithful.

Linus2nd

 

[Rhubarb]

Like the 14th amendment? Derivative rights can follow from foundational rights. It’s my personal belief that the 14th amendment is obliged to protect same-sex marriage. I don’t know if the court will agree with me - I hope they do - but the fact that this is an issue means that the argument is at least plausable.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Like the 14th amendment? Derivative rights can follow from foundational rights. It’s my personal belief that the 14th amendment is obliged to protect same-sex marriage. I don’t know if the court will agree with me - I hope they do - but the fact that this is an issue means that the argument is at least plausable.

We all know that the courts have not always defended the constitution, that it has often made new law, an act outside of its pervue. We earnestly hope it will not do this in this case.

Linus2nd

 

[JButky]

Like the 14th amendment? Derivative rights can follow from foundational rights. It’s my personal belief that the 14th amendment is obliged to protect same-sex marriage. I don’t know if the court will agree with me - I hope they do - but the fact that this is an issue means that the argument is at least plausable.

The 14th amendment is obliged to provide equal protection under the law for marriage. For it to be equal protection that means any man, gay or straight can marry a women; and any woman, gay or straight, can marry a man. That’s equal. A man marrying a man or woman marrying a woman is not equal under the law. It’s different and why civil unions were set up, because it cannot and never can ever be marriage between same sex couples.