Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

[DrTaffy]

I was responding to another post. Do keep up.

Stay polite, please.

Also, how does that invalidate anything I said? What did I say that you think is false?

 

[frobert]

It is broader than that. Heterosexuals will also beable to marry someone of the same sex as well. Friends who want to could take advantage of the benefits and advantageous inheritance laws.

Think of the advantages for poor single moms. They could “marry” themselves off to rich single women who want a nanny and maid. The rich woman would get free labor and the poor single mom gets to stay at home with her kids and get paid without all those yucky tax deductions. A win-win for both of them.

So for you it makes makes sense to deny civil rights to one minority because some immoral people will cheat the system. Anyway thanks for clarifying it is not about sex.

 

[frobert]

I doubt that. I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to get a single state to repeal their bigamy laws. Maybe Utah would like a little payback for not allowing it when they first wanted to join the Union.

The US federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and made polygamy illegal through the enforcement of Acts of Congress such as the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. The LDS Church formally abolished the practice in 1890, in a document labeled ‘The Manifesto’.

Source…

Gay marriage, not withstanding, Utah would not be able to legalize polygamy without Congress repealing repealing several Acts of Congress. Like I said if you want to promote promote polygamy go right ahead but you you have a high bar to clear.

 

[frobert]

The only thing that distinguishes homosexuals from others is with whom and the manner in which they engage in sex.

You are conveniently denying the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice.

Regardless, the Supreme Court case is about civil rights for same sex oriented people. I could not find one legitimate expert legal opinion, source or legal brief claiming it is about sex. Can you?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Correcting Six Mistakes from the Same-Sex Marriage Oral Arguments Last Week

Error Number One: Massachusetts Marriage Rates Have Stayed the Same

Error Number Two: Because Some Men Leave Their Wives and Children, Marriage Does Not Help Keep Fathers Around

Error Number Three: The Purpose of States’ Recognizing and Regulating Marriage is to Bestow Dignity on Couples

Error Number Four: The Only Harm to Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Is Making Marriage More Adult-Centered

Error Number Five: There Is a Parallel between Brown/Loving and Lawrence/Obergefell

Error Number Six: Age Restrictions on Marriage Are Equivalent to the Definitional Element of One Man and One Woman

 

[DrTaffy]

So don’t make a second evil true when the first one is already.

The second evil is presumably SSM - on which we disagree but I have expressed my arguments several times already.

But do I understand that the ‘first evil’ is two opposite sex people marrying even if they are not in a sexual relationship? You think that is actually evil?

 

[Suudy]

You are conveniently denying the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice.

You are conveniently denying the fact that sexual acts are a choice.

Regardless, the Supreme Court case is about civil rights for same sex oriented people. I could not find one legitimate expert legal opinion, source or legal brief claiming it is about sex. Can you?

Sure, how about this one:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

And in that paper at least some semblance of creation of the next generation is a key component of marriage. And that cannot happen without sex. To talk about marriage without talking about sex is exactly one of the reasons we are having this debate. In our minds they are inseparable.

There were also posts on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=958034

And many of them reference the next generation, which again, is only possible through sex.

First it was separating sex from procreation through contraception. And now with procreation separated from sex, I can understand the dangerous leap to separating sex from marriage.

 

[Suudy]

Gay marriage, not withstanding, Utah would not be able to legalize polygamy without Congress repealing repealing several Acts of Congress. Like I said if you want to promote promote polygamy go right ahead but you you have a high bar to clear.

No, Congress doesn’t have to act. Only the courts do. California Prop 8 was a (state) constitutional amendment, and all it took was the court to strike it down. No need to wait for Congress, just find a friendly judge.

Oh, wait, it’s already been done:

ibtimes.com/utah-polygamy-law-partially-struck-down-federal-judge-following-sister-wives-lawsuit-1671822

 

[frobert]

No, Congress doesn’t have to act. Only the courts do. California Prop 8 was a (state) constitutional amendment, and all it took was the court to strike it down. No need to wait for Congress, just find a friendly judge.

Oh, wait, it’s already been done:

ibtimes.com/utah-polygamy-law-partially-struck-down-federal-judge-following-sister-wives-lawsuit-1671822

Are saying that a US state can overrule an Act of Congress?

Is polygamy legal in Utah? If you don’t read and understand what the court ruling struck down you can not knowledgeably comment on it.

Emphasis added

The ruling strikes down a provision of Utah’s anti-bigamy statute, that can be applied when someone “cohabits with another person” to whom they are not legally married. Utah law made such a union a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, according to the Salt Lake Tribune.

The judge found that the statute violated the family’s freedom of religion.

Emphasis added

This is about Utah’s anti-bigamy statute not an Act of Congress.

If you want to promote polygamy in the US you have a high bar to reach.

 

[frobert]

You are conveniently denying the fact that sexual acts are a choice.

Please comment on what I write not what you think I wrote. I did not deny that sexual acts are a choice. Chastity is a choice also.

Sure, how about this one:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

And in that paper at least some semblance of creation of the next generation is a key component of marriage. And that cannot happen without sex. To talk about marriage without talking about sex is exactly one of the reasons we are having this debate. In our minds they are inseparable.

There were also posts on this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=958034

And many of them reference the next generation, which again, is only possible through sex.

First it was separating sex from procreation through contraception. And now with procreation separated from sex, I can understand the dangerous leap to separating sex from marriage.

The paper is on morality from a particular philosophic perspective, not a legal perspective from a legitimate legal resource. I did not read the paper, my views may differ, but I have no objection to others’ moral beliefs.

 

[estesbob]

Please comment on what I write not what you think I wrote. I did not deny that sexual acts are a choice. Chastity is a choice also.

The paper is on morality from a particular philosophic perspective, not a legal perspective from a legitimate legal resource. I did not read the paper, my views may differ, but I have no objection to others’ moral beliefs.

I guess it comes down to whether one believes morality is determined by the courts. I don’t. I could not care less what “legal” sources define as morality. I prefer the one true Curch to sort these things out. And Catholics have just as much right to see their views on morality reflected ion the law as does anyone else

 

[Suudy]

Are saying that a US state can overrule an Act of Congress?

You’ll note it was a federal court that struck down the law, not a US state. There is a difference…

Is polygamy legal in Utah? If you don’t read and understand what the court ruling struck down you can not knowledgeably comment on it.

I didn’t say it was. I only stated a friendly court can toss out laws all day. It has done so in both gay “marriage” and in polygamy cases.

This is about Utah’s anti-bigamy statute not an Act of Congress.

Same concept. A federal court is just as happy to strike down federal laws as state laws.

If you want to promote polygamy in the US you have a high bar to reach.

Not really. Look at the popularity of Sister Wives, and similar programming. Look at their success in court. And it’ll be come a lot easier if gay “marriage” becomes the law of the land.

 

[Suudy]

I guess it comes down to whether one believes morality is determined by the courts. I don’t. I could not care less what “legal” sources define as morality.

Exactly. After all, the legal consensus after Dred Scott was that black people were not citizens. What the USSC said then was recognized as erroneous then. People put far too much stock in the words of 9 individuals, and think it somehow speaks to the Truth of the world.

 

[Suudy]

Please comment on what I write not what you think I wrote. I did not deny that sexual acts are a choice. Chastity is a choice also.

Fair enough. In the context of your quote, I see what you meant. But with regards to gay “marriage,” it isn’t about orientation, but about acts. Which (I think) is estesbob’s point, and certainly my point.

The paper is on morality from a particular philosophic perspective, not a legal perspective from a legitimate legal resource. I did not read the paper, my views may differ, but I have no objection to others’ moral beliefs.

And philosophical perspectives are just as valid as legal perspectives. Law is built on philosophy. Also, there were plenty of other links on the other thread I posted that are legal arguments.

 

[SavannahGal]

Fair enough. In the context of your quote, I see what you meant. But with regards to gay “marriage,” it isn’t about orientation, but about acts. Which (I think) is estesbob’s point, and certainly my point.

And philosophical perspectives are just as valid as legal perspectives. Law is built on philosophy. Also, there were plenty of other links on the other thread I posted that are legal arguments.

As it relates to this thread though, keep in mind that oral arguments in these consolidated cases before the Supreme Court are not an opportunity for an open-ended philosophical debate of marriage. It was the responsibility of the Justices to address the two very specific Constitutional questions they deemed necessary to reach a determination on the cases before them.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I guess it comes down to whether one believes morality is determined by the courts. I don’t. I could not care less what “legal” sources define as morality. I prefer the one true Curch to sort these things out. And Catholics have just as much right to see their views on morality reflected ion the law as does anyone else

Sure Catholics have as much right as anyone else to voice their views as the process of public policy is formed and transformed. But you confuse what civil law and civil rights should be in a secular nation of people of many faiths, beliefs, and non beliefs with what faithful Catholics believe is moral truth.

 

[JimG]

Actually, the question as to whether the 14th Amendment protects a right to same sex marriage ought to be an easy one to answer. It was never there–in the intent, in the drafting, in the ratification, or in the understanding of it. It’s just not in there. The only reason that it’s not an easy question is that the Court has already arrogated to itself the power to change or add to the meaning of words that others have written for specific purposes. It’s no longer a question of what the Amendment means; it’s a question of what the justices would like for it to mean now.

 

[Suudy]

As it relates to this thread though, keep in mind that oral arguments in these consolidated cases before the Supreme Court are not an opportunity for an open-ended philosophical debate of marriage. It was the responsibility of the Justices to address the two very specific Constitutional questions they deemed necessary to reach a determination on the cases before them.

Which (as JimG has touched on in his response) is the problem. It seems the courts are not interested in finding truth. They are limiting their sources of information. Rather than conforming the law to reality, they are conforming it to their own will.

 

[estesbob]

Sure Catholics have as much right as anyone else to voice their views as the process of public policy is formed and transformed. But you confuse what civil law and civil rights should be in a secular nation of people of many faiths, beliefs, and non beliefs with what faithful Catholics believe is moral truth.

There are not different version of moral truths. Just because a court says something is so carries no weight whatsoever when discussing morality. The idea constitutional rights accrue from engaging in sodomy is absolutely specious

 

[Thorolfr]

There are not different version of moral truths. Just because a court says something is so carries no weight whatsoever when discussing morality. The idea constitutional rights accrue from engaging in sodomy is absolutely specious

So how do we know whose “moral truths” are correct and how should we make decisions about this in a pluralist democracy with many different competing claims to moral truth?