Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[tigretigre 0]

Wowowowowow so much to say, and so little time before I'm completely debilitated from doing so by carpal tunnel syndrome!

Here's how laws that discriminate work: If the government passes a law that treats two classes of persons differently, or denies any civil rights to a particular class of persons, and someone challenges that law, the law has to pass a "test." How hard the test is depends on the class of persons and the right denied. By way of example only, laws that treat people of different races differently have to pass a really rigorous test in order to be allowed, because of the degree to which race has been a factor in discrimination historically. Laws that deny a certain group of people the right to vote also must pass a really rigorous test in order to be allowed, because of the fundamental nature of the right to vote in this country.

In order to pass any of the tests, the government has to advance an interest in keeping the law that outweighs the interests of the persons whose rights are affected by the law. Someone here mentioned polygamy--in the Reynolds case, the government was able to show that it had an interest in prohibiting polygamy that outweighed the right of the plaintiff to practice his religion in this way. Remember, by the way, that polygamy is one person being married to multiple people simultaneously. If I recall, the public charge issue was pretty central to this case--the government was concerned about the risk that parties to these polygamous marriages and their children would end up on government assistance because of problems associated with having one person be legally responsible for the support of multiple families. The court considered the government's interest in keeping large numbers of people off the welfare rolls to outweigh the interest in the plaintiff's being able to practice this aspect of his faith in this fashion.

What interests do folks think the government could advance that would override the interest same-sex couples have in equal access to the institution of marriage? Keep in mind that arguments like "the government has an interest in protecting the public morals" haven't impressed the courts as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals (Lawrence v. Texas).

And Gary, the fact that the gay marriage ban was approved in several states by popular vote doesn't matter squat in a civil rights context. In this country, we aren't supposed to be putting civil rights to the popular vote.

As for the validity of marriage issue--the general rule is that state governments and the federal government will recognize the validity of any marriage that was legal in the state or country in which it took place, unless there are compelling public policy reasons not to do so. This is what happened in Loving v. Virginia--an interracial couple married in a state that allowed interracial marriage, and then moved to Virginia where it was illegal. Virginia refused to recognize the marriage as valid. The court said they had to recognize it, which essentially struck down the interracial marriage ban in that state. In another case, an underage girl and an older man ran away, got married in a state that at the time didn't require parental consent for minors under 16 to marry, and then came back home. The court said that their home state did not have to recognize that marriage because it had a compelling policy interest in preventing adults from absconding with its minor residents. Right now, state governments (and the federal government) are not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid even though they may have occured in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal, and no compelling public policy reason is yet forthcoming, which is a bit of a head-scratcher.

Finally, the question about protecting churches from being compelled to perform gay marriages: this kind of legal protection for churches already exists. It's called the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It effectively prevents the government from acting to mandate or prohibit the practice of any religion. It's not ironclad--there is a balancing test of government interests and individual rights--so please nobody present scenarios of ritual decapitation of children as a "what-if" argument. However, it will offer pretty solid protection to churches that do not wish to recognize same-sex marriages, as a church's recognition or non-recognition of a marriage has no legal effect.

As for the NAMBLA case, if it was a wrongful death lawsuit, that's a tort suit and I'd have tossed it if I were the judge unless the argument for causation was pretty compelling. Of course the ACLU doesn't want an unpopular organization to get dragged into civil court and have to pay damages every one of their members hurts some one, simply because the organization's message is so unpopular that nobody really minds. A private tort action isn't the same as a criminal prosecution--I bet there could be a pretty good prosecutorial case against NAMBLA for conspiracy to commit child sex abuse, and the free speech issue would be a lot murkier.

Eat my post!

Tigre

[Carol&Marc 0]

Is there a point to this - why bring pedophiles into it via the civil rights movement?

He/she was saying gay groups have the same civil rights as a pedophile groups, the difference is obvious.

The gay rights group have a right to be heard, the pedophile GROUP should not have civil rights as a group their activities are Illegal!

But this thread isn't about whether NAMBLA has the right to exist; it is about gay marriage, which has nothing to do with NAMBLA. This is why everyone in here is like "What are you talking about, Carol&Mark? We aren't talking about NAMBLA."

Geez, It was about the civil rights part of it, I am not against gay people! NAMBLA was an example of the cut off point for civil rights! some of you are trying to connect what I am saying to gays! its strictly about how far civil rights should go!

Well if you don't clarify these things... In your interpretation then should civil rights extend as far as gay marriage?

My gut tells me it should be labeled something other than marriage, Thats the cruxt of the debate here. I think it really should be called something else just as protestant,jewish,catholic! are seperated in religion I dont hate any of them! all of the fore mentioned are proud of their label. Black,white,brit! What happened to gay pride?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is there a point to this - why bring pedophiles into it via the civil rights movement?

He/she was saying gay groups have the same civil rights as a pedophile groups, the difference is obvious.

The gay rights group have a right to be heard, the pedophile GROUP should not have civil rights as a group their activities are Illegal!

But this thread isn't about whether NAMBLA has the right to exist; it is about gay marriage, which has nothing to do with NAMBLA. This is why everyone in here is like "What are you talking about, Carol&Mark? We aren't talking about NAMBLA."

Geez, It was about the civil rights part of it, I am not against gay people! NAMBLA was an example of the cut off point for civil rights! some of you are trying to connect what I am saying to gays! its strictly about how far civil rights should go!

Well if you don't clarify these things... In your interpretation then should civil rights extend as far as gay marriage?

My gut tells me it should be labeled something other than marriage, Thats the cruxt of the debate here. I think it really should be called something else just as protestant,jewish,catholic! are seperated in religion I dont hate any of them! all of the fore mentioned are proud of their label. Black,white,brit! What happened to gay pride?

But other than calling it something different - what is the difference? If there is nothing substantive it seems hard to justify and becomes merely a point of pure semantics.

What seems questionable to me - is that if you give them the exact same legal rights pertaining to marriage and married couples, calling it something else is really moot - a way of pretending that the two are totally different.

[Carol&Marc 0]

okay we are all HMMMM lets say? catholic.........okay we are now all catholic,good to go? get my point? sorry but it wont work! Its just about biotchin and wanting attension. They got parades,their own week named after them! on and on and on!

[garya505 2]

Wowowowowow so much to say, and so little time before I'm completely debilitated from doing so by carpal tunnel syndrome!

Here's how laws that discriminate work: If the government passes a law that treats two classes of persons differently, or denies any civil rights to a particular class of persons, and someone challenges that law, the law has to pass a "test." How hard the test is depends on the class of persons and the right denied. By way of example only, laws that treat people of different races differently have to pass a really rigorous test in order to be allowed, because of the degree to which race has been a factor in discrimination historically. Laws that deny a certain group of people the right to vote also must pass a really rigorous test in order to be allowed, because of the fundamental nature of the right to vote in this country.

In order to pass any of the tests, the government has to advance an interest in keeping the law that outweighs the interests of the persons whose rights are affected by the law. Someone here mentioned polygamy--in the Reynolds case, the government was able to show that it had an interest in prohibiting polygamy that outweighed the right of the plaintiff to practice his religion in this way. Remember, by the way, that polygamy is one person being married to multiple people simultaneously. If I recall, the public charge issue was pretty central to this case--the government was concerned about the risk that parties to these polygamous marriages and their children would end up on government assistance because of problems associated with having one person be legally responsible for the support of multiple families. The court considered the government's interest in keeping large numbers of people off the welfare rolls to outweigh the interest in the plaintiff's being able to practice this aspect of his faith in this fashion.

What interests do folks think the government could advance that would override the interest same-sex couples have in equal access to the institution of marriage? Keep in mind that arguments like "the government has an interest in protecting the public morals" haven't impressed the courts as a reason to discriminate against homosexuals (Lawrence v. Texas).

And Gary, the fact that the gay marriage ban was approved in several states by popular vote doesn't matter squat in a civil rights context. In this country, we aren't supposed to be putting civil rights to the popular vote.

As for the validity of marriage issue--the general rule is that state governments and the federal government will recognize the validity of any marriage that was legal in the state or country in which it took place, unless there are compelling public policy reasons not to do so. This is what happened in Loving v. Virginia--an interracial couple married in a state that allowed interracial marriage, and then moved to Virginia where it was illegal. Virginia refused to recognize the marriage as valid. The court said they had to recognize it, which essentially struck down the interracial marriage ban in that state. In another case, an underage girl and an older man ran away, got married in a state that at the time didn't require parental consent for minors under 16 to marry, and then came back home. The court said that their home state did not have to recognize that marriage because it had a compelling policy interest in preventing adults from absconding with its minor residents. Right now, state governments (and the federal government) are not recognizing same-sex marriages as valid even though they may have occured in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal, and no compelling public policy reason is yet forthcoming, which is a bit of a head-scratcher.

Finally, the question about protecting churches from being compelled to perform gay marriages: this kind of legal protection for churches already exists. It's called the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It effectively prevents the government from acting to mandate or prohibit the practice of any religion. It's not ironclad--there is a balancing test of government interests and individual rights--so please nobody present scenarios of ritual decapitation of children as a "what-if" argument. However, it will offer pretty solid protection to churches that do not wish to recognize same-sex marriages, as a church's recognition or non-recognition of a marriage has no legal effect.

As for the NAMBLA case, if it was a wrongful death lawsuit, that's a tort suit and I'd have tossed it if I were the judge unless the argument for causation was pretty compelling. Of course the ACLU doesn't want an unpopular organization to get dragged into civil court and have to pay damages every one of their members hurts some one, simply because the organization's message is so unpopular that nobody really minds. A private tort action isn't the same as a criminal prosecution--I bet there could be a pretty good prosecutorial case against NAMBLA for conspiracy to commit child sex abuse, and the free speech issue would be a lot murkier.

Eat my post!

Tigre

Well, I'm sure you're right and the Supreme Court will soon rule against DOMA all the states that have passed laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. So, there's no need for this discussion.

I suspect that if the laws prohibiting polygamy were tested again (not likely), the government's argument that "the risk that parties to these polygamous marriages and their children would end up on government assistance because of problems associated with having one person be legally responsible for the support of multiple families" would not fly today. It's a weak argument, and very speculative.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

okay we are all HMMMM lets say? catholic.........okay we are now all catholic,good to go? get my point? sorry but it wont work! Its just about biotchin and wanting attension. They got parades,their own week named after them! on and on and on!

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean here.

My point was that if you're totally fine with granting the exact same legal rights for homosexual couples as are enjoyed by heterosexual married couples, what is wrong with calling it marriage?

I mean, if you are legally attached to another person - with all the protections pertaining to it under the law, for all practical purposes how is it different? If the only difference lies in what you choose call it, that argument seems rather weak to me.

What is obvious is that religious types are trying to copyright marriage as a religious institution, which of course it is, to some degree. The problem with that of course is how the law pertains to heterosexual marriages that are entirely secular in nature - people who get married in registry offices, who's vows are specifically non-religious. Does that mean that those marriages are somehow 'phoney' because the couple chooses to omit religion from the ceremony?

Another difficult question I think.

[vocalize 0]

I suspect that if the laws prohibiting polygamy were tested again (not likely),

Why is it not likely? There are many advocacy groups pushing for this cause today. It is likely that it will be challenged and found to be unconstitutional in the near future. AZ voted down this marriage ban, I suspect because there are a large number of polygamists here.

[Ivanovo 0]

I suspect that if the laws prohibiting polygamy were tested again (not likely),

Why is it not likely? There are many advocacy groups pushing for this cause today. It is likely that it will be challenged and found to be unconstitutional in the near future. AZ voted down this marriage ban, I suspect because there are a large number of polygamists here.

do you want to be a polygamist?

[Carol&Marc 0]

okay we are all HMMMM lets say? catholic.........okay we are now all catholic,good to go? get my point? sorry but it wont work! Its just about biotchin and wanting attension. They got parades,their own week named after them! on and on and on!

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean here.

My point was that if you're totally fine with granting the exact same legal rights for homosexual couples as are enjoyed by heterosexual married couples, what is wrong with calling it marriage?

I mean, if you are legally attached to another person - with all the protections pertaining to it under the law, for all practical purposes how is it different? If the only difference lies in what you choose call it, that argument seems rather weak to me.

What is obvious is that religious types are trying to copyright marriage as a religious institution, which of course it is, to some degree. The problem with that of course is how the law pertains to heterosexual marriages that are entirely secular in nature - people who get married in registry offices, who's vows are specifically non-religious. Does that mean that those marriages are somehow 'phoney' because the couple chooses to omit religion from the ceremony?

Another difficult question I think.

I guess it just depends on what way your looking at it! I myself tend to come at it from the stand point that labels have been, and always will be part of distinguishing slight differeces in society. Man and woman own marriage? so be it. Gay unions,they already use the word partner. In agay relationship between two women who is the wife? both of them? it gets kind of confusing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

okay we are all HMMMM lets say? catholic.........okay we are now all catholic,good to go? get my point? sorry but it wont work! Its just about biotchin and wanting attension. They got parades,their own week named after them! on and on and on!

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean here.

My point was that if you're totally fine with granting the exact same legal rights for homosexual couples as are enjoyed by heterosexual married couples, what is wrong with calling it marriage?

I mean, if you are legally attached to another person - with all the protections pertaining to it under the law, for all practical purposes how is it different? If the only difference lies in what you choose call it, that argument seems rather weak to me.

What is obvious is that religious types are trying to copyright marriage as a religious institution, which of course it is, to some degree. The problem with that of course is how the law pertains to heterosexual marriages that are entirely secular in nature - people who get married in registry offices, who's vows are specifically non-religious. Does that mean that those marriages are somehow 'phoney' because the couple chooses to omit religion from the ceremony?

Another difficult question I think.

I guess it just depends on what way your looking at it! I myself tend to come at it from the stand point that labels have been, and always will be part of distinguishing slight differeces in society. Man and woman own marriage? so be it. Gay unions,they already use the word partner. In agay relationship between two women who is the wife? both of them? it gets kind of confusing.

I'm not sure that's particularly important - in terms of legal entities is there really any difference between the husband and wife, or are they both equal under the law?

Clearly its not as simple as that - take child custody for example, the mother almost always has the upper hand in the courts. If anything a gay marriage would be less legally ambiguous than a heterosexual one. I'm not a lawyer - just speculating here. Be interesting to hear a lawyers perspective on this.

[mybackpages 0]

Speaking just ays before the 30th anniversary of her husband's death, Coretta Scott King quoted the following from her husband's writings

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny . . . I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy,"

And yes I think Mrs, King has the voice of authority on what her husband would have believed on this issue.

King understood the civil rights movement was not about being black. There was a larger ideology here about justice and equality.

[Cristy 4]

Why does this thread keep going to polygamy and pedophilia? We are talking about the rights of 2 consenting adults to make their relationship legal.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I keep wondering the same thing

[ceriserose 1]

Why does this thread keep going to polygamy and pedophilia? We are talking about the rights of 2 consenting adults to make their relationship legal.

Aw, c'mon Cristy, you've been here long enough to know that most threads go off topic from the original subject...

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

Posting in a legendary thread.

Or am I?

Can someone give me a quick recap, I'm too lazy to read through all of this. >.>