The gay marriage debate in the US these days

Ah, but is this just a civil rights issue?

http://www.fypl.info/

Stock up on Optrex before venturing into the 'erotica' section.

THAT is scary. We can grow em strange, can't we?

judd

Which Amendment to “THE BILL OF RIGHTS” do you feel establishes the “right” to gay marriage?


Mitch

The same one that gave blacks the same rights as whites in the US (beyond voting) or that gives a man the right to marry a woman. That is, none of them. If I'm wrong I shall suffer greatly.

This is a civil rights issue on the state level anyway, isn't it? Given some states' inexcusably slow official blessing of interracial marriages via their constitutions, this one might take centuries. Afterall, Alabama didn't officially allow interracial marriages until 2000 IIRC.

I was hoping Judd would speak on it but maybe he'll come back and help me better understand all that surrounds the issue.

Civil Rights are rights based upon the Bill of Rights.

So you believe race and sexual preference are comparable?

Marriage is established as the union of a man and a woman. If the gay rights activists want to change it they should do so legally. The onus should be on them to redefine it.


Mitch

Mitch,

[EDIT: I just brushed up on the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment. Excellent.]

What federal government document defines marriage?

I haven't done my homework. My initial point was a gut response. My hope was to learn via responding posts.

<crawls back to my cave>

[This message was edited by Ludwig on MONDAY 16 February 2004 at 05:44.]

quote:

---

Marriage is established as the union of a man and a woman.

---

Very true.

A man shouldn't marry a man, a woman shouldn't marry a woman. I also wouldn't mind if the word 'gay' saw a return to it's real meaning.

Just my opinion.

Lots of people shouldn't do lots of things, that's what tolerance is for.

Ludwig,

The recent court case in Vermont said it very much was a civil right for same-sex marriages to be given equal status and the judges made a very obvious refernce to Brown Vs Board of Education in their ruling.

"Because the proposed law by its express terms forbids same-sex couples entry into civil marriage, it continues to relegate same-sex couples to a different status ... The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal"

Sheryl McCarthy sums up the argument neatly and you'll find more info at here

Matthew

PS The correct term is "same-sex marriage". Liza Minelli's recent marriage to David Gest was a "gay marriage" and that's something completely different.


The Gayest Wedding Ever

Straight Jackets are not the only dress order of the day on this forum, innit.


Fritz Von Berlinhasahistoryandahalf²

We've all seen Cabaret!

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The last clause, called the "equal protection" clause, requires that the laws (and therefor the privileges) of the states apply to all people on an equal basis. This is, for all intents and purposes, the quintessential civil rights provision of the US constitution. There's no question that recent (and generally proper) understandings of the 14th Amendment render some of the later amendments superfluous. For instance, Amendments 15 (no discrimination based on race) and 19 (women's right to vote) would be nicely guaranteed by the 14th Amendment alone.

Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (overturning Plessy v. Ferguson) relied heavily on the 14th Amendment. But, I would have a look at Loving v. Virginia if you want something more on point in my opinion.

Plaintiff was convicted in Virginia for violating its statute prohibiting the intermarriage between the white and "colored" races. The Supreme Court determined the statute violated the 14th Amendment because it included a classification (in that case, based on race) for which increased scrutiny (called "strict") is appropriate. Finding no "compelling state interest" in maintaining the classification, the court struck down the statute. Before Loving (and no doubt even today) it was thought by many that "marriage" in the eyes of god meant a union between a white person and another white person, and that so-called "mongrel" marriages diminished the dignity of a proper marriage. This same argument is pressed today - and it is just as tired.

Today, sexual preference catagories are "suspect" and are properly subject to strict scrutiny analysis. This means that a state (or other jurisdictional body) must have a "compelling state interest" to enforce the classification, AND show that the classification is "narrowly tailored" to address the compelling state interest.

There is a LONG and varied jurisprudence on this issue, all of which coming (perhaps has come) to one conclusion: there is NO compelling state interest in preventing same-sex marriage. That is why right-minded courts generally strike down laws designed to prohibit such marriages. The bar for compelling state interests is VERY high now. Even Korematsu v. US is widely understood today to have been an erroneous decision. If the needs of National Security no longer rise to a compelling state interest in interning people of Japanese ancestory in WWII, there's no way this "marriage is between a man and a woman" bullshit is going to do it.

And biggots across the country understand that the momentum of constitutional law is against them at every turn. That is why they must amend the constitution - to enshrine the deplorable discrimination we had hoped to relegate to our past in our most precious document forever.

Despite this, I am not worried. Without a constitutional amendment, the prohibitions will die under thier own weight. And I don't think there exists enough political will to amend the constitution. And even if thier were, I'm confident it would be amended back as opinion finally shifts.

Judd

But aren't you allowed to marry close relations in some states?

I think most states differ between marrying second cousins and marrying third cousins as the closest familial relationship allowed. The ones that permit even closer relations are very much in the minority.

And this is a good point anyway. Surely West Virginia's permissive first cousin marriage does more violence to traditional marriage than any gay marriage could.

In any event, there IS a compelling state interest in preventing even closer relation marriages. The increased incidence of recessive autosomal conditions mitigates against permitting such close familial relations.

I wonder how many polygomists in Utah think that same-sex marriage does violence to thier "traditional" marriage.


Judd

Talkin of close knit families "Happy President's Day Yawl"

Fritz Von Papawasarollinstone

Ps Maybe UK should have Queens Day ?

Basil

quote:

---

Lots of people shouldn't do lots of things, that's what tolerance is for.

---

Tolerating something doesn't make it acceptable.

Matthew, Judd- thank you.

I found a site (Cornell's LII) that explained what Judd stated about "compelling state interest". I also read that some religions wholly accept same-sex marriages (I'm now PC ) and banning these marriages would thus be unconstitutional (i.e., freedom of religion). Unfortunately it didn't list those religions. Still, that was interesting.

So, I agree with Judd and following my enlightenment I return to my unenlightened view- the far right is being silly.

BrianD said "Tolerating something doesn't make it acceptable"

Er, yes it does. Otherwise you are not tolerating it but sort of grudgingly allowing it and implying that ideally you wouldn't have to tolerate it and instead it will be banned.

Matthew

Matthew

Tolerating is grudgingly allowing something that shouldn't be allowed. For example, a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman.

I don't think I should have to tolerate it because I don't think it should be allowed.

Just my opinion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianD:
A man shouldn't marry a man, a woman shouldn't marry a woman.

---

You missed out hermaphrodites. Should they marry men, women, other hermaphrodites or any of these?

BrianD,

Tolerance (in this context at least) means the capacity to understand and respect the views and practices of others even if you don't agree with them.

Your definition appears closer to endure and seems, for want of a better word, intolerant.

That aside, on what basis do you believe same-sex marriage should not be allowed?

Matthew

Are we allowed to have attachments in this thread ?

Fritz Von Woti'monlyaskinheturnsmeonjohn

Jeremy

quote:

---

You missed out hermaphrodites. Should they marry men, women, other hermaphrodites or any of these?

---

What's a hermaphrodite? Is it a mackem?

Matthew

quote:

---

Your definition appears closer to endure and seems, for want of a better word, intolerant.

---

My definition is correct.The meaning of 'tolerate' is fairly clearly defined imo.

quote:

---

That aside, on what basis do you believe same-sex marriage should not be allowed?

---

Since marriage between men and women has been established for many years I believe you have this the wrong way around. It is for those who believe same-sex marriage should be allowed to state the case why, rather than me to state the case why not.

It seems that Marriage in the true & purely Godly/Creator sense of the word between two people is for love, and the other for the love of status ? (irrespective of Culture, religion, creed, gender or football club ?)

Fritz Von Preelectioncoveruptopicinnit