Homosexual Marriage

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name If you can't see the connection, then you are truly blind.

I can't see the connection because it doesn't exist.

[Dirty Name]

So you are saying that case law from gay marriage cases won't be used in incest marriage and multipartner union lawsuits? Is that your claim? Be careful here... I'd hate to quote something that already exists to prove my point.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name So you are saying that case law from gay marriage cases won't be used in incest marriage and multipartner union lawsuits? Is that your claim? Be careful here... I'd hate to quote something that already exists to prove my point.

I'm intimately familiar with many of the legal opinions from both sides of these issues. Incest and multipartner union lawsuits will get no traction from the legalization of same sex marriage.

[Dirty Name]

I'm intimately familiar with many of the legal opinions from both sides of these issues. Incest and multipartner union lawsuits will get no traction from the legalization of same sex marriage.

Your claim is bogus. They are ALREADY using gay marriage rulings in various states in their latest legal briefs. You've got your head in the sand. To say they will get no traction ignores the fact that they had NOTHING before the last round of gay marriage rulings, and now they are hanging their hats on it. So they already HAVE traction that they didn't have before. Even some of your contemporaries acknowledge this argument. You're out of touch, or ignoring reality just to save face. I don't really care which you choose, the facts speak for themselves.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Your claim is bogus. They are ALREADY using gay marriage rulings in various states in their latest legal briefs. You've got your head in the sand. To say they will get no traction ignores the fact that they had NOTHING before the last round of gay marriage rulings, and now they are hanging their hats on it. So they already HAVE traction that they didn't have before. Even some of your contemporaries acknowledge this argument. You're out of touch, or ignoring reality just to save face. I don't really care which you choose, the facts speak for themselves.

You'd be right if any of the cases went anywhere on the basis of the far-reaching claim you keep hanging onto so dearly. But they've gone nowhere. That's because they STILL have NOTHING. They're grasping at straws to make connections.

If the cases you refer to want to get somewhere, they'll have to find a legitimate basis to do so. The Lawrence decison, nor legalizing same sex marriage, will be that stepping stone, regardless of how your hero Scalia opines.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: italiangm No. Those issues are distractions, wholly separate from same-sex marriage. Argue them as separate issues. Stop creating connections where none exist.

The thing you may not be picking up on is that the arguement Dirty Name, myself, and other opponents of SSM are making against same-sex marriage is the same as the ones against incestous marriages and polygamous marriages.

If they really were separate issues, you could point out some difference between the them that would allow the inclusion of one and justify the exclusion of the others. But you can't, any arguement for one of them is an arguement for all of them.

[italiangm]

Quote by: mr.perfecto The thing you may not be picking up on is that the arguement Dirty Name, myself, and other opponents of SSM are making against same-sex marriage is the same as the ones against incestous marriages and polygamous marriages. If they really were separate issues, you could point out some difference between the them that would allow the inclusion of one and justify the exclusion of the others. But you can't, any arguement for one of them is an arguement for all of them.

Nonsense. No challenge to overturn incestous or polygamous marriage laws to date has been successfully argued.

However, these laws may well be overturned at some point. If so, it'll be because the state had no compelling interest to restrict, not because homosexuality was decriminalized or same sex marriage was legalized.

However, incestous and polygamous marriage laws may very well be determined to be unfair restrictions to individual liberty. That remains to be seen.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name So you are saying that case law from gay marriage cases won't be used in incest marriage and multipartner union lawsuits? Is that your claim? Be careful here... I'd hate to quote something that already exists to prove my point.

Let's just agree that while the implications of same-sex marriage could be far-reaching, it would be foolish not to evaluate it by its own merit. Do you think we can do that?

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Part 2 Why in the hell should same-sex couples be excluded from any of these things? You can't tell me that these are privileges rightfully extended only to different-sex couples. All of these things would be available to gay couples if it weren't for the massive intertwining of the legal institution of marriage with the general legal structure of this country. It's just plain wrong that anyone, gay or straight, has to get married to be eligible any of these things. These are our rights to contract, being held hostage as it were, until we gain access to them by jumping through a legal hoop. A hoop that only some couples are allowed to jump through. So the government has taken away the right of same-sex couples to freely contract. And it's wrong. That's why I support same-sex marriage.

A contract is just a sheet of paper with an agreement and signatures on it. That is a extreme over-simplification, but the essence should carry through. Two parties make an agreement. The issue with the list is that they are not agreements between the individuals that make up the couple, but between the couple and another party. There aren't any agreements within the couple that marital status prevents them from making. If you want some-one to handle your funeral arrangements, there is no law against.

Even if I'm gay?
Even then, there is still no law against it.

The problem, as it often is when confronting liberal/libertarian dogma, is equivocation. If a hospital makes an exception in its visitation rules for married couples, that is a separate agreement between the hospital and the patient/patient's spouse. Two people can not confer hospital visitation rights on each other without them having the authority to confer those rights. That authority has to be granted by an agreement with the hospital.

So, having established that there is no infringement of the right to contract, we can see the heart of the point you offered is not equality of the right to contract, but equality of status. Should the hospital have to treat an unmarried couple the same as a married couple? Perhaps, it depends on the reason for the exclusion and the reason for the exception. As long as all potential couples are accorded equal consideration, nothing wrong has taken place.

There's another reason it's wrong, though, too. In order to refuse to marry a same-sex couple, the government must first determine what gender the betrothed are, and then decided, based on their genders, whether to allow them to get married. ]The law should make no distinctions based on gender. ... any more than it should make distinctions based on hair color or any other arbitrary consideration. All citizens should be equal under the law. The institution of specifically heteosexual marriage requires that the law distinguish two different types of citizen. That's wrong.

So again we have a case of equivocation of the part of SSM advocates. The issue isn't the sex of either individual under consideration, or sexual preference of either individual in the couple, but the composition of the couple. There being only two sexes, and both having equal access to the institution of marriage, there is no instance of sex-based discrimination--at least not in any manner the term has been historically used to mean.

If you want people to take your case seriously, you should evaluate your own claims with the same scrutiny you would direct at opposing viewpoints. Even the most forgiving of us--who I am not--is likely to conclude such mistakes to be deliberate attempts to bolster a weak arguement. This claim has been dealt with repeatedly in this thread and, if I remember correctly, Belverron even admitted it didn't make any sense (If he hasn't he should).

And finally, is gender in this case an arbitrary consideration? You claim it is, but you must realize that this is the very point that is under debate right now. If it were an arbitrary consideration, you might have a case that the only purpose it serves is to exclude homosexuals. The issue, as I pointed out earlier in this post, is the purpose of the law. I'll leave it to Dirty Name to take up that issue with you as he argues that point more capably than I could (at the moment).

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: italiangm Nonsense. No challenge to overturn incestous or polygamous marriage laws to date has been successfully argued. <...> If so, it'll be because the state had no compelling interest to restrict, not because homosexuality was decriminalized or same sex marriage was legalized. <...>

No challenge has been successfully argued because of the compelling interest you are claiming is invalid. Again, is there any distinguishing characteristic between SSM, incestous marriages, or polygamous marriages that would allow the inclusion of one and not of the others?

[italiangm]

Quote by: mr.perfecto No challenge has been successfully argued because of the compelling interest you are claiming is invalid.

You better advise SCOTUS of this, since Lawrence says otherwise.

Quote by: mr.perfecto Again, is there any distinguishing characteristic between SSM, incestous marriages, or polygamous marriages that would allow the inclusion of one and not of the others?

Certainly possible. Each should be argued on their own merit.

[italiangm]

Quote by: mr.perfecto There aren't any agreements within the couple that marital status prevents them from making. If you want some-one to handle your funeral arrangements, there is no law against. Even if I'm gay? Even then, there is still no law against it.

Are you sure that's true in Nebraska? Texas too after Nov 8th.

There are other states. These two jumped out immediately.

[mr.perfecto]

You have to go into deeper detail because I don't have a clue what you mean.

What did the court say?
What happened on Nov 8th?

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: italiangm Certainly possible. Each should be argued on their own merit.

When has merit had anything to do with your arguement. Aside from belverron's STD arguement, this discussion has been about liberty and equality.

[belverron]

Quote by: mr.perfecto You have to go into deeper detail because I don't have a clue what you mean. What did the court say? What happened on Nov 8th?

On Nov. 8 Texas votes on Proposition 2, a definition of marriage amendment.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: mr.perfecto AThe issue with the list is that they are not agreements between the individuals that make up the couple, but between the couple and another party. There aren't any agreements within the couple that marital status prevents them from making.

What difference does it make if it's within or without? The state has mandated that I can not enter into these agreements unless I'm married:

-joint parenting;
-joint adoption;
-joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
-status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
-joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
-dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
-immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
-inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
-joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
-inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
-joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
-wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
-bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
-decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
-crime victims' recovery benefits;
-loss of consortium tort benefits;
-domestic violence protection orders;
-judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
-and more....

.

Why should the state be able to exercise discretion over whether I can or can't do any of these things?

It shouldn't. And this isn't just a gay issue. I, as a straight man, don't want to go through that legal hoop of getting married. I consider this a violation of my rights. But at least I have a way to get access, along with my girlfriend. Same-sex couples don't.

Quote by: mr.perfecto If you want some-one to handle your funeral arrangements, there is no law against.

Yes, there is. That's the point. The state is making these kind of decisions for us... unless we happen to be married.

Quote by: mr.perfecto The problem, as it often is when confronting liberal/libertarian dogma, is equivocation. If a hospital makes an exception in its visitation rules for married couples, that is a separate agreement between the hospital and the patient/patient's spouse. Two people can not confer hospital visitation rights on each other without them having the authority to confer those rights. That authority has to be granted by an agreement with the hospital.

Except that it's not the hospital making the rules. It's the state.

Quote by: mr.perfecto Should the hospital have to treat an unmarried couple the same as a married couple?

No, the hospital should be able to make the decision for itself. If it did, this would be a non-issue.

In the case of adoption, it differs state-by-state, but why should the state have any say in the matter? If a couple giving their child up for adoption wants to give it to a man/woman couple, or a man/man couple, or a single man, or two men and a woman, or any other combination they see fit, what right does the state have to stand in the way?

Quote by: mr.perfecto The issue isn't the sex of either individual under consideration, or sexual preference of either individual in the couple, but the composition of the couple. There being only two sexes, and both having equal access to the institution of marriage, there is no instance of sex-based discrimination--at least not in any manner the term has been historically used to mean.

You're missing the point. In order to deny marriage to a same-sex couple, the state must first determine what gender the betrothed are, and apply the concept of gender to the law. This is gender-based discrimination. The state is discriminating the gender of the betrothed.

We are all supposed to be citizens before the law. Not male citizens or female citizens, just citizens.

Quote by: mr.perfecto This claim has been dealt with repeatedly in this thread

This thread is also hundreds of pages long. I scoured it the best I could, and didn't find any mention of this argument. Please address it again.

Quote by: mr.perfecto And finally, is gender in this case an arbitrary consideration? You claim it is, but you must realize that this is the very point that is under debate right now.

So what's next? Race?

[Dirty Name]

Do you think we can do that?

Why would you want to act so blindly? Why would you want to stick your head in the sand? Any society that cannot look beyond the immediate horizon - any society that doesn't dare to imagine the consequences of altering an institution that has arguably been the key pillar to our society - is a society that is closing it's eyes and inviting disaster.

So, no. I don't think we can or should do that.

[Dirty Name]

re you sure that's true in Nebraska? Texas too after Nov 8th. There are other states. These two jumped out immediately.

Again I ask you to please provide the specific language from the Nebraska law or the new Texas proposition that makes private contracts, wills (living or otherwise), and beneficiary insurance arrangements illegal between any two people of the same sex.

The law you are citing only outlaws those arrangements if the parties involved are of the same sex and are attempting to claim spousal status. There is no law against me from naming my best friend as the executor or beneficiary of my will.

[Dirty Name]

So, having established that there is no infringement of the right to contract, we can see the heart of the point you offered is not equality of the right to contract, but equality of status. Should the hospital have to treat an unmarried couple the same as a married couple? Perhaps, it depends on the reason for the exclusion and the reason for the exception. As long as all potential couples are accorded equal consideration, nothing wrong has taken place.

A wise post this is.

[Dirty Name]

The law should make no distinctions based on gender.

LOL. I love how this statement is meant to sound so sinister. As though discrimination is occuring because the law does make distinctions based on gender. To accept this statement at face value, one would have to agree that men should be allowed to walk freely into the women's locker room at the local health club, and vice versa.

So no, I'm sorry, but the law MUST make some distinctions based on gender. A more accurate statement would be to say that the law should not discriminate illegally against one gender. In the case of same-sex marriage, neither gender is singled out.