Given time and the right case, plus a few more states legalizing same sex marriage, I have every belief that they will strike down these laws.
Here's the real dilemma facing the Supreme Court regarding Gay Marriage:
Society is moving toward allowing it. But if the Supreme court makes it an issue of rights based on people loving each other being able to marry, then challenges for polygamy and incest will have something very solid to go on. If, on the other hand, legislatures define marriage based on what the people think is right, then eventually public opinion will result in the public's will being the law. There is no rationalization for gay marriage in terms of constitutional rights that wouldn't end up being support for other deviant relationship models as marriage, as well, so the Supreme Court rightfully recognizes that it's playing with fire on this issue and prefers, as much as possible, not to touch it.
Here's the real dilemma facing the Supreme Court regarding Homosexual Marriage:
Society is moving toward allowing it. But if the Supreme court makes it an issue of rights based on people loving each other being able to marry, then challenges for polygamy and incest will have something very solid to go on. If, on the other hand, legislatures define marriage based on what the people think is right, then eventually public opinion will result in the public's will being the law. There is no rationalization for gay marriage in terms of constitutional rights that wouldn't end up being support for other deviant relationship models as marriage, as well, so the Supreme Court rightfully recognizes that it's playing with fire on this issue and prefers, as much as possible, not to touch it.
I disagree totally. There is no connection between gay marriage and polygamy or incest. And there is no public outcry or support for those things either. You might as well say that since we allow murder in war soon people will want the right to murder anytime.
I think eventually society will change enough that the Supreme Court will do that. Given the tack taken by the Supreme Court in the past, that will happen 20-40 years from now.
If the legal argument for gay marriage is that the state can't deprive people of the right to marry someone they love based on merely societal standards, tradition and an arbitrary assignment of marriage definition, then you've opened up everything. You may not see it, but I guarantee you the Supreme Court Justices are all aware of this.
How so? Are you assuming that both marriages are heterosexual?
By the Gay rights argument what right does the government have to say that a wife can't also marry a woman? It would seem that these "marriage is between two people" laws are discriminating against bisexuals!
And your problem here is that it would not be an issue of rights based on people loving each other being able to marry, but rather on what is already established in the fact that restrictions in laws must be shown to further a state interest.
Who says there are no societal standards for marriage now? The standards have changed to include gays because it is the right thing to do. Do you think allowing incest and polygamy is the right thing to do?
Well, if refuting is the same as conceding in your world, I can see where you are having all these problems.
So not using the term means the term is in there. Well done!
Prove it. Bet you can't.
There is no known gay gene. There is possibly a gene or more likely a set of genes that impact orientation, but that is conjecture at this point. Saying there is no gay gene however is unsupportable with current science.
Why don't you have equal rights?
If the criteria is that a restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest, then what is the compelling state interest for restricting marriage to two people? Why not a man and two women? Why not father and daughter as long as the father has a vasectomy or the woman has her tubes tied? The argument of gay marriage is, IN FACT, that their right to marry the person they love is being denied because the relationship doesn't fit the accepted model. Well, plural marriage and incest marriages also don't fit the model and their rights to marry the people they love are being similarly restricted.
If the criteria is that a restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest, then what is the compelling state interest for restricting marriage to two people? Why not a man and two women? Why not father and daughter as long as the father has a vasectomy or the woman has her tubes tied? The argument of gay marriage is, IN FACT, that their right to marry the person they love is being denied because the relationship doesn't fit the accepted model. Well, plural marriage and incest marriages also don't fit the model and their rights to marry the people they love are being similarly restricted.
What gives me pause on this is they could have voted for a nationwide decision today, so I don't know why the same judges would do so down the road. Just need that pig Scalia off the bench.
Thank you. That's exactly what I'm trying to communicate here. If society changes their laws because they are compelled to decide they are the right thing to do, they may continue to exclude polygamy and incest and other deviant models. If the supreme court forces gay marriage based on some "right to marry" rationale; then the discretion of "the state" no longer applies and arguments about other relationships as marriage have legal support.
The arguments are not dependent on why a group deserves equal protection, but rather what state interest is being furthered in a restriction. The Constitution applies to the state, not the people, so the state has to justify their restrictions, the people do not have to justify their rights.
You are also failing in your evaluation of bisexuals. Bisexuals are absolutely no less likely to be monogamous than heterosexuals or homosexuals.
You didn't refute anything. You conceded the point.
Why didn't you quote what Kennedy said? Gay Marriage is not about "Marriage Equality" now? First you claim gays aren't really gay, now you're claiming that the SSM movement has never been about marriage equality :lol:
Prove that it was removed because of scientific reasons. Bet you can't.
The facts there is no gay gene IS current science. No gay gene has been found.
Well sure, but that is why there is no argument that applies to gay marriage that doesn't apply to polygamy.
Another point that can be argued now is whether laws banning gay relatives from marrying is unconstitutional. The laws that forbid family from marrying were grounded in the state's real concern of the high rate of genetic illness in children born of siblings or close relatives. But in a gay marriage that is no concern at all.
Well sure, but that is why there is no argument that applies to gay marriage that doesn't apply to polygamy.
Another point that can be argued now is whether laws banning gay relatives from marrying is unconstitutional. The laws that forbid family from marrying were grounded in the state's real concern of the high rate of genetic illness in children born of siblings or close relatives. But in a gay marriage that is no concern at all.
I'm not failing in my evaluation. I am assuming they are no less likely to engage in polygamy than gay or heterosexual couples.
Yeah, it's a good day for sure.
I also tend to think that since since Kennedy, and Sotomayor sided with the dissenters because they wanted a more broad ruling, and didn't want to turn the case away.
So you're saying that there hasn't been a hyper-liberalization of the country, usually to its detriment, in the past 40 years.
Sure, sure. Go ahead and get me a tinfoil hat.
If the criteria is that a restriction must be justified by a compelling state interest, then what is the compelling state interest for restricting marriage to two people? Why not a man and two women? Why not father and daughter as long as the father has a vasectomy or the woman has her tubes tied? The argument of gay marriage is, IN FACT, that their right to marry the person they love is being denied because the relationship doesn't fit the accepted model. Well, plural marriage and incest marriages also don't fit the model and their rights to marry the people they love are being similarly restricted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?