Gay Rights

[MechaPilot]

But his remarks can at some point down the road be used in an argument before the court calling for legalization of plural can it not?

How so?

The argument for marriage equality for gays is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry one other person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society. Marriage may not be a constitutional right, but consider how abhorrent it would be if that right were taken from the people who have traditionally enjoyed it. Would they not feel that a precious right had been stolen from them?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But his remarks can at some point down the road be used in an argument before the court calling for legalization of plural can it not?

Sure. But that doesn't make the argument a winner. Or a loser, for that matter.

As noted in the ENWorld thread about the ACA decision, Justice Roberts quoted the dissent in a 2012 ACA case while writing the majority opinion on the 2015 case. By doing so, he pointed out not just one of the main reasons he decided the way he did, but also that his fellow conservatives were not following their own logic. IOW, he called them ideologues & hypocrites on the record.

Jurists may consider all kinds of sources for guidance in their decision making processes- medical texts, the Magna Carta, Sharia law, Talmudic law, the opinions of other judges. But the only sources that have the actual force of law behind them are the laws and the actual decisions of courts of the USA.

Dissents are important. Sometimes, they're so well reasoned and expressed, they eventually carry the day in subsequent judicial decisions. But they're not law. Majority decisions are.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As I predicted, there are several "Rainbow Crow" options being contemplated already:

http://www.newsweek.com/following-s...sissippi-may-stop-issuing-any-marriage-347740

(FWIW, there is also a long post in the article's comments by "Juan Velez" that does a nice takedown of the contras position.)

 

[Umbran]

Sigh. No. Really, am I being this difficult to understand?

No. I understand you. I just think you're *wrong*.

If a group, any group, takes one day a year to celebrate themselves, their culture, their lifestyle, their biology, their "thing", whatever, to say, "Hey world! This is us! This is who we are!", and the main thing the world sees on that day, in that presentation, is mostly something over the top, something not only not-normal for the general world, but not even normal for that specific culture, then isn't that poorly representing the group?

I think the empirical evidence says, "No, it isn't."

Case in point - Massachusetts recognized gay marriage in 2004. Just over a decade ago. Today, the majority of Americans (the number I've seen is 60%) favor allowing gay marriage, including the majority of Republicans 30 and younger. Never in history has a shift in public opinion on a rights issue occurred so quickly. And that's with Gay Pride parades happening all over the darn place!

You have in your head what sounds like a plausible issue, but data beats plausible story every day of the week. I don't think the claim that these parades were hurting the gay position holds water. Folks generally know that parades are overblown - that's their *purpose*. Mardi Gras is not a representation of everyday New Orleans. The Thanksgiving Day Parade is not a representation of what we do at home with our family for the holiday. Wagging your finger at someone being flamboyant during a parade is *missing the point of a parade*.

Consider it this way - "old guard" types on the whole will not be swayed by anything the gay community does. Parading in proper conservative tweed would not sway them. Their opinions were never up for grabs, so there was no point in trying to get them. However, for anyone my generation and younger, seeing those things periodically all our lives means we are not shocked by them. We no longer register them as a meaningful indicator of what a person is like. Just one generation for a change like this is *fast*. Look how long Women's Suffrage took, and how long we had to go from Emancipation to the Civil Rights Act!

 

[Umbran]

I found an observation by someone more learned than I:

Antonin Scalia: When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so.

Thomas Jefferson: I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Bullgrit]

I understand you. I just think you're *wrong*.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?461865-Gay-Rights/page6#ixzz3eEaXVDFH

And I am completely open to being wrong. (After all, I was offering my view as a suggestion, not a statement of fact.) So long as I'm wrong about what I actually say and mean.

What I can't accept being wrong about is something I haven't said or meant And that is what seemed to happening -- some were interpreting my statements much broader and harsher than I was saying or meaning.

Bullgrit

 

[trappedslider]

The argument for marriage equality for gays is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry one other person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society. Marriage may not be a constitutional right, but consider how abhorrent it would be if that right were taken from the people who have traditionally enjoyed it. Would they not feel that a precious right had been stolen from them?

Watch this :

The argument for marriage equality for polygamist is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry more than one person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society.

see what I did there?

Jurists may consider all kinds of sources for guidance in their decision making processes- medical texts, the Magna Carta, Sharia law, Talmudic law.

I'd like to know if you know of any Jurist who has used Sharia law or Talmudic law. Cuz I think that whole it may be usless info..it would be kind of cool to know lol

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Watch this :

The argument for marriage equality for polygamist is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry more than one person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society.

see what I did there?

Yes- you used the same argument form without addressing the unique and very real issues raised by polyamory.

I'd like to know if you know of any Jurist who has used Sharia law or Talmudic law. Cuz I think that whole it may be usless info..it would be kind of cool to know lol

I had some exemplars- mostly focused on English law, like the Magna Carta- presented to me in law school to illustrate the principle, but none was so outstanding as to overshadow the importance of the lesson itself.

 

[Umbran]

Watch this :

The argument for marriage equality for polygamist is not that marriage has been redefined over time; it is that the ability to marry more than one person who is consenting, of legal age, and not too closely related is a fundamental right of society.

see what I did there?

Yes. Both of you used an argument that may tug at the moral heartstrings, but isn't legally relevant.

The argument for gay marriage equality isn't that marriage has been redefined over time. It is that there is no fundamental difference between a marriage between a man and a woman, and between two men (or two women). The argument for gay marriage is that legally speaking, you *don't* have to substantively redefine it to make it fit gay couples, and therefore the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment applies.

 

[Bullgrit]

I wonder how many people personally dislike gays/gay marriage and just use religion for their reason, vs. how many people would be ok with gays/gay marriage but feel they can't honestly because of their religion.

Bullgrit