Page 2 of 42 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 1238

Thread: Marriage Equality Thread

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    Sorry, I'm with LA on this. There is just no way to overturn Prop 8 under a rational basis review given the state of Supreme Court law on what constitutes a rational basis. The only way it gets overturned is if the SCOTUS gives orientation a higher standard of review.
    Interesting. I trust your opinion as a realtor.

    While rare, the Supremes have overturned laws based on rational basis analysis. Do you think that Prop 8's proferred justification is stronger than it was in those cases, or that the state of rational basis law has swung back over time?

  2. #32
    Both, but more than anything it's much, much easier to articulate a rational basis for Prop 8 than anything that has ever been tossed out under a rational basis review. All of the "bases" in those those cases are truly laughable.

    P.S. Any interest in seeing some of my latest listings?

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Ma'ake View Post
    My sister in law and her "partner" have been together longer than I've been married, 25+ years. They're exactly zero threat to my marriage, or anyone else's.

    If the LDS church was still nudging men who admitted same-sex attraction into getting married and having kids, you could make the case that same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, at least for that subset of bi-sexuals/homosexuals.

    But I think that practice has pretty much ceased, has it not? Too many of those marriage end badly, and the kids have serious hangups, as well.
    Last November the good people of the state of Washington created same sex marriage by referendum. I haven't noticed any change in our civilization or family institution.

    The Supreme Court can do whatever it wants. I've asked LA repeatedly to give me a rationale for Prop. 8 and he hasn't. I think it's irrational and the Supreme Court could reach the same conclusion, if it decided to do so was expedient, i.e., grant gays a marriage right without establishing homosexuality as a suspect classification. (When is Scalia going to realize he no longer sounds brilliant and contrarian but like a bitter old primitive cleric (if I ever start sounding like that I trust someone here will tell me)?)

    Marriage has been a religious ceremony only because until 1776 everything was a theocracy. The religious beliefs of an ever dwindling minority is not a rational reason to deny marriage to gay people. That is the rationale expressed by the LDS amicus brief. It's an established fact that same sex people fall in love and partner just like heterosexuals.

  4. #34
    We'll have to disagree about the strength of the rationales in Prop 8.

    As to the law, there are clearly rational basis with bite cases out there - even Justice Marshall acknowledged as much. Now, it is entirely unclear when we get bite and when we don't. I think Kenji Yoshino at NYU gives as good of a guess as any: when there is perceived animus against an unpopular group. http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/wh...-basis-review/ That is just idle law professor speculation at this point, but I think that is as good of an explanation as any for interpreting the court's law. If that is the case, Prop 8 is toast, even under rational basis.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    Last November the good people of the state of Washington created same sex marriage by referendum. I haven't noticed any change in our civilization or family institution.
    Because a civilization's decline usually happens over a weekend.

    Truth of the matter is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. A legal entity of a civil union should be all that they care about, and individuals can form those however they want to, and it would define rules for inheritances, visitation rights, insurance benefits, etc. So then if a husband and wife want to enter into that, or a same-sex couple, or even a mother and her son wanted a civil union (defining themselves as a legal entity who can act on each others behalf) they could. Then let churches and organizations marry whomever they feel like marrying. Also in theory, a married couple could also not be a civil union.

    The LDS church has supported laws in SLC and is supportive of laws currently being proposed to the Utah Legislature that would extend these rights (ie visitation rights, etc) to homosexual couples.

    Do that and I think the whole prop 8 thing goes away, in my humble opinion.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    We'll have to disagree about the strength of the rationales in Prop 8.

    As to the law, there are clearly rational basis with bite cases out there - even Justice Marshall acknowledged as much. Now, it is entirely unclear when we get bite and when we don't. I think Kenji Yoshino at NYU gives as good of a guess as any: when there is perceived animus against an unpopular group. http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/wh...-basis-review/ That is just idle law professor speculation at this point, but I think that is as good of an explanation as any for interpreting the court's law. If that is the case, Prop 8 is toast, even under rational basis.
    Kenji was my Con Law professor. He's absolutely brilliant, and you would be extremely hard-pressed to meet a nicer guy. He's also the best professor I ever had at fostering open and fair critiques and discussions in class even when he vehemently disagreed with the ideas he was presenting to the class. If you haven't read Covering you should read it.

    That said, I disagree with him here, especially with Kennedy as the presumed swing vote. This has significantly more of a rational basis than Cleburne, for example. This is obviously Kenji's pet issue and I think his analysis, while sound, makes some unjustifiable leaps.
    Last edited by Scratch; 02-26-2013 at 03:07 PM.

  7. #37
    As far as I can recall, the church kept its big fat mouth shut this time around. They certainly did not get into the fundraising fiasco that forced them to pay a fine to the state of California over Prop8 (where the LDS church and church member fund drives contributed ~$40M of the total $44M raised to support Prop8, and the church didn't reveal their own contributions until the state uncovered that fact).

    Perhaps they learned their lesson after the backlash and bitchslap of a judgement over Prop8. Or perhaps the local leadership just refused to urge the local members to vote the 'right way' with a wink and a nod. I do recall the Bishop reading some blathering letter from the FP mentioning 'voting to uphold your values', which many of us did by voting in support of gay marriage.

    As for the backlash being mostly of the religious type, let us not forget that Lot immediately celebrated his flight from the 'abominations' occuring in Sodom by knocking up both of his daughters. But the Bible is relavent to our laws today...

    As I recall from the judgement that overturned Prop8, the Rational Basis claim was irrelevant because the gay couples in California had become de facto Suspect Class and were thus allowed to be analyzed under strict scrutiny rules. Could this classification perhaps be overturned by the Supreme Court? Is this a stronger argument than hoping for a specially-tweaked version of rational basis?

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    Kenji was my Con Law professor. He's absolutely brilliant, and you would be extremely hard-pressed to meet a nicer guy. He's also the best professor I ever had at fostering open and fair critiques and discussions in class even when he vehemently disagreed with the ideas he was presenting to the class. If you haven't read Covering you should read it.

    That said, I disagree with him here. especially with Kennedy as the presumed swing vote. This has significantly more of a rational basis than Cleburne, for example. This is obviously Kenji's pet issue and I think his analysis, while sound, makes some unjustifiable leaps.
    So what is that more rational basis? I ask sincerely - to me most arguments against gay marriage are moral or religious in nature. Those are fine, but the court can't rely on those. I also think the true "conservative" answer is unlikely to sway the court ("That's the way it has always been - that is justification enough").

    I have a different read on Kennedy than you, I think. I think he wants to strike down this law - but these things are notoriously difficult to predict.

  9. #39
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    I'm not sure I agree with you (I certainly don't agree with Wikipedia - rational basis review with bite already exists). It doesn't matter whether Prop 8 is an illogical non-sequitur, it matters whether the proferred justifications for the law are illogical non-sequiters. To me, "threatening traditional marriage" looks an awful lot like a non-sequiter when it is near impossible to articulate what that threat is or how it will occur. Not to mention the lack of evidence supporting the claim. I understand that there are other proffered justifications than the one I mentioned, but it seems to me that they all lack any sort of cause and effect story.

    There are a host of reasons people support Prop 8: religious, moral, etc. I have no problem with people that support Prop 8 under those or any other justification. But those sorts of justifications, without more, don't provide a rational basis under the law.
    You're right, there are cases using rational basis with bite. I've forgotten their names, but I seem to recall that Justice Kennedy was the author of at least one of them. (Was it the Texas sodomy statute case?) So if Kennedy is the swing vote we may well be looking at a 5-4 decision overturning Prop 8. Roberts might join the majority so he can assign the opinion to himself, which would make a 6-3 decision. Who knows? If I had to predict I'd say Prop 8 will be overturned.

    As for a rational basis, I think the voters can determine that the ideal family situation is for children to have both a mother and a father, and that the marriage laws should support that ideal. I recognize that many disagree with that ideal -- often vehemently-- but that doesn't matter for purposes of rational basis review. That determination alone is plenty to support a rational basis for Prop 8. If the SCOTUS wants to elevate sexual orientation to suspect class status (like race) then strict scrutiny applies and I think Prop 8 goes down in a New York minute. But it doesn't look like they want to go there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    But you're ok with court (or government) mandates against it? Or am I reading too much in to this?


    I don't care who people marry or who they don't. But I find the religious argument that a church shouldn't be told they have to marry someone a bit strange if that same church endorses the government telling churches they CANNOT marry someone.


    Who churches marry should be up to that church. Not the government and certainly not other churches. The government, IMO, should quit telling anyone who they can and can't marry.

    To me, it's a question of judicial modesty (to borrow Justice Roberts' term). We are talking about changing something -- the definition of marriage -- that has been understood a certain way for a long time. 35 states (or so) have passed state constitutional amendments by referendum, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. There are 5 states (maybe more) that have done the opposite. With all that discussion and dialogue (and evolution in thinking) under way, I don't like the idea of a Supreme Court changing the definition of marriage in one fell swoop, even though I think the country's headed that direction eventually.

    Deposit $.02.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    As far as I can recall, the church kept its big fat mouth shut this time around. They certainly did not get into the fundraising fiasco that forced them to pay a fine to the state of California over Prop8 (where the LDS church and church member fund drives contributed ~$40M of the total $44M raised to support Prop8, and the church didn't reveal their own contributions until the state uncovered that fact).

    Perhaps they learned their lesson after the backlash and bitchslap of a judgement over Prop8. Or perhaps the local leadership just refused to urge the local members to vote the 'right way' with a wink and a nod. I do recall the Bishop reading some blathering letter from the FP mentioning 'voting to uphold your values', which many of us did by voting in support of gay marriage.

    As for the backlash being mostly of the religious type, let us not forget that Lot immediately celebrated his flight from the 'abominations' occuring in Sodom by knocking up both of his daughters. But the Bible is relavent to our laws today...

    As I recall from the judgement that overturned Prop8, the Rational Basis claim was irrelevant because the gay couples in California had become de facto Suspect Class and were thus allowed to be analyzed under strict scrutiny rules. Could this classification perhaps be overturned by the Supreme Court? Is this a stronger argument than hoping for a specially-tweaked version of rational basis?
    I'm confused, what do you mean by "this time around" when talking about how the LDS Church handled it?

    I do think that if the SCOTUS wants to get rid of Prop 8, the cleanest (by far) way to do it as by upping the classification for sexual preference. I just don't see any way that they do so. Kennedy isn't going to tell every state in the country that they have to allow gay marriages. That said, it's inevitable and is going to happen eventually.

  11. #41
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post

    To me, it's a question of judicial modesty (to borrow Justice Roberts' term). We are talking about changing something -- the definition of marriage -- that has been understood a certain way for a long time. 35 states (or so) have passed state constitutional amendments by referendum, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. There are 5 states (maybe more) that have done the opposite. With all that discussion and dialogue (and evolution in thinking) under way, I don't like the idea of a Supreme Court changing the definition of marriage in one fell swoop, even though I think the country's headed that direction eventually.

    Deposit $.02.
    But that really doesn't answer the ultimate question. Why is the government in that business at all???

    And even further, how does who someone marries have any bearing on you? Frankly I've never heard an answer that really answered that question.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    I'm confused, what do you mean by "this time around" when talking about how the LDS Church handled it?
    I meant it to be a reply to SU. I referred to the pro-gay marriage voter initiative here in Washington last Nov.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Applejack View Post
    So what is that more rational basis? I ask sincerely - to me most arguments against gay marriage are moral or religious in nature. Those are fine, but the court can't rely on those. I also think the true "conservative" answer is unlikely to sway the court ("That's the way it has always been - that is justification enough").

    I have a different read on Kennedy than you, I think. I think he wants to strike down this law - but these things are notoriously difficult to predict.
    I think LA Ute nailed it. It's rational to argue that the best way for society to perpetuate itself is through families with a mother and a father who are married. There are lots of studies that back that up. You can disagree with that stance, but it clearly passes the requisite rationality tests.

    BTW, my good friend clerked for Kennedy about 6 years ago and she would be shocked if he overturns it.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthwestUteFan View Post
    As far as I can recall, the church kept its big fat mouth shut this time around. They certainly did not get into the fundraising fiasco that forced them to pay a fine to the state of California over Prop8 (where the LDS church and church member fund drives contributed ~$40M of the total $44M raised to support Prop8, and the church didn't reveal their own contributions until the state uncovered that fact).

    Perhaps they learned their lesson after the backlash and bitchslap of a judgement over Prop8. Or perhaps the local leadership just refused to urge the local members to vote the 'right way' with a wink and a nod. I do recall the Bishop reading some blathering letter from the FP mentioning 'voting to uphold your values', which many of us did by voting in support of gay marriage.

    As for the backlash being mostly of the religious type, let us not forget that Lot immediately celebrated his flight from the 'abominations' occuring in Sodom by knocking up both of his daughters. But the Bible is relavent to our laws today...

    As I recall from the judgement that overturned Prop8, the Rational Basis claim was irrelevant because the gay couples in California had become de facto Suspect Class and were thus allowed to be analyzed under strict scrutiny rules. Could this classification perhaps be overturned by the Supreme Court? Is this a stronger argument than hoping for a specially-tweaked version of rational basis?
    You and I mostly agree, but I want really badly for our discussions to stay civil here. If I can play nice, anyone can.
    “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
    Carl Sagan

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    I think LA Ute nailed it. It's rational to argue that the best way for society to perpetuate itself is through families with a mother and a father who are married. There are lots of studies that back that up. You can disagree with that stance, but it clearly passes the requisite rationality tests.

    BTW, my good friend clerked for Kennedy about 6 years ago and she would be shocked if he overturns it.
    I don't believe that is actually the case. Can you cite to some?
    “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
    Carl Sagan

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    But that really doesn't answer the ultimate question. Why is the government in that business at all???

    And even further, how does who someone marries have any bearing on you? Frankly I've never heard an answer that really answered that question.
    Here's a blurb from Orson Scott Card that I think addresses this question fairly well:

    And it isn't just the damage that divorce and out-of-wedlock births do to the children in those broken families: Your divorce hurts my kids, too.

    All American children grow up today in a society where they are keenly aware that marriages don't last. At the first sign of a quarrel even in a stable marriage that is in no danger, the children fear divorce. Is this how it begins? Will I now be like my friends at school, shunted from half-family to half-family?

    This is not trivial damage. Kids thrive best in an environment that teaches them how to be adults. They need the confidence and role models that come from a stable home with father and mother in their proper places.

    So long before the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to play Humpty Dumpty, the American people had plunged into a terrible experiment on ourselves, guided only by the slogan of immaturity and barbarism: "If it feels good, do it!"

    Civilization depends on people deliberately choosing not to do many things that feel good at the time, in order to accomplish more important, larger purposes. Having an affair; breaking up a marriage; oh, those can feel completely justified and the reasons very important at the time.

    But society has a vital stake in child-rearing; and children have a vital stake in society.

    Monogamous marriage is by far the most effective foundation for a civilization. It provides most males an opportunity to mate (polygamous systems always result in surplus males that have no reproductive stake in society); it provides most females an opportunity to have a mate who is exclusively devoted to her. Those who are successful in mating are the ones who will have the strongest loyalty to the social order; so the system that provides reproductive success to the largest number is the system that will be most likely to keep a civilization alive.

    Monogamy depends on the vast majority of society both openly and privately obeying the rules. Since the natural reproductive strategy for males is to mate with every likely female at every opportunity, males who are not restrained by social pressure and expectations will soon devolve into a sort of Clintonesque chaos, where every man takes what he can get.

    Civilization Is Rooted in Reproductive Security.


    There is a very complex balance in maintaining a monogamous society, with plenty of lapses and exceptions and mechanisms to cope with the natural barbaric impulses of the male mating drive. There is always room to tolerate a small and covert number of exceptions to the rule.

    But the rule must be largely observed, and must be seen to be observed even more than it actually is. If trust between the sexes breaks down, then males who are able will revert to the broadcast strategy of reproduction, while females will begin to compete for males who already have female mates. It is a reproductive free-for-all.

    Civilization requires the suppression of natural impulses that would break down the social order. Civilization thrives only when most members can be persuaded to behave unnaturally, and when those who don't follow the rules are censured in a meaningful way.

    Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?

    Why would women submit to rules that keep them from trying to mate with the strongest (richest, most physically imposing, etc.) male, just because he already has a wife?

    Because civilization provides the best odds for their children to live to adulthood. So even though civilized individuals can't pursue the most obviously pleasurable and selfish (i.e., natural) strategies for reproduction, the fact is that they are far more likely to be successful at reproduction in a civilized society -- whether they personally like the rules or not.

    Civilizations that enforce rules of marriage that give most males and most females a chance to have children that live to reproduce in their turn are the civilizations that last the longest. It's such an obvious principle that few civilizations have even attempted to flout it.

    Even if the political system changes, as long as the marriage rules remain intact, the civilization can go on.

    Last edited by LA Ute; 02-26-2013 at 03:46 PM.

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahDan View Post
    You and I mostly agree, but I want really badly for our discussions to stay civil here. If I can play nice, anyone can.
    Ask LA. Prop 8 passed solely because the LDS church got involved with fundraising. This time around (in WA) they mostly kept quiet about it.

    But, point taken and I apologize for the 'big fat mouth' hyperbolic rhetoric.

  18. #48
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    I've asked LA repeatedly to give me a rationale for Prop. 8 and he hasn't.
    I must have missed those posts.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  19. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    And even further, how does who someone marries have any bearing on you? Frankly I've never heard an answer that really answered that question.
    Because there isn't a rational answer that exists. The most common that you see is that it would damage/cheapen/destroy the institution of marriage. With divorce rates the way they are, those that have enjoyed this benefit have done more to damage/cheapen/destroy the institution of marriage than allowing same-sex couples to do so would.

    I prefer to put the argument back on this point of view. The actions/inactions of a couple do more to damage/strengthen/cheapen/enrich/destroy/promote their marriage than the actions of anyone else. Your actions define the depths and strength of your marriage. The ability of someone else to enjoy the legal benefits that marriage provides does not.
    "You can do a lot in a lifetime, if you don't burn out too fast. You can make the most of the distance. First, you need endurance. First, you've got to last." - Neil Pert

  20. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Because a civilization's decline usually happens over a weekend.

    Truth of the matter is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. A legal entity of a civil union should be all that they care about, and individuals can form those however they want to, and it would define rules for inheritances, visitation rights, insurance benefits, etc. So then if a husband and wife want to enter into that, or a same-sex couple, or even a mother and her son wanted a civil union (defining themselves as a legal entity who can act on each others behalf) they could. Then let churches and organizations marry whomever they feel like marrying. Also in theory, a married couple could also not be a civil union.

    The LDS church has supported laws in SLC and is supportive of laws currently being proposed to the Utah Legislature that would extend these rights (ie visitation rights, etc) to homosexual couples.

    Do that and I think the whole prop 8 thing goes away, in my humble opinion.
    Actually, you've got it backwards. Religion should get out of marriage. It can perform whatever ordinance it wants and call it "marriage". But marriage with force of law should be government's affair. Render unto Caesar.

  21. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by LA Ute View Post
    I must have missed those posts.
    It's in the thread I linked. So tell me now.

  22. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by UtahDan View Post
    I don't believe that is actually the case. Can you cite to some?
    Here's the first thing google turned up. I haven't looked at it in any detail. I really should get some work done today, but I know there are plenty of others out there, although I admittedly can't speak to the studies underlying them (as you know, a study can say anything). I only mention these studies because of the low bar for rational review.

  23. #53
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeromy in SLC View Post
    Because there isn't a rational answer that exists. The most common that you see is that it would damage/cheapen/destroy the institution of marriage. With divorce rates the way they are, those that have enjoyed this benefit have done more to damage/cheapen/destroy the institution of marriage than allowing same-sex couples to do so would.

    I prefer to put the argument back on this point of view. The actions/inactions of a couple do more to damage/strengthen/cheapen/enrich/destroy/promote their marriage than the actions of anyone else. Your actions define the depths and strength of your marriage. The ability of someone else to enjoy the legal benefits that marriage provides does not.
    I agree. And there's no data to suggest same sex marriage has any relation to divorce rates, in fact in some studies it may be lower.

    Personally let's quit rewarding people for marriage. No more tax breaks for being married.

    Those claiming this is about keeping civilization alive apparently haven't noticed the overpopulation of the planet, and that doesn't even touch on the fact that not allowing someone to marry who they want doesn't magically change their sexual orientation, unless you are one of those people who supports the notion that sexual orientation is a choice.

  24. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Diehard Ute View Post
    I agree. And there's no data to suggest same sex marriage has any relation to divorce rates, in fact in some studies it may be lower.

    Personally let's quit rewarding people for marriage. No more tax breaks for being married.

    Those claiming this is about keeping civilization alive apparently haven't noticed the overpopulation of the planet, and that doesn't even touch on the fact that not allowing someone to marry who they want doesn't magically change their sexual orientation, unless you are one of those people who supports the notion that sexual orientation is a choice.
    I don't want to get into an argument regarding the merits of gay marriage, I jumped into this thread to address the highly interesting question of how the SCOTUS is going to deal with this issue, particularly given the underlying case law. That said, as to your post, I want to point out that the issue isn't society's ability to generate more people (that is, you mention overpopulation and changes in sexual orientation). Rather, the issue is what does society do with those people once they are here, and how can those people be raised to have the most benefit to society going forward.

  25. #55
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    It's in the thread I linked. So tell me now.
    I never even saw that thread until today. Believe it or not, I stopped following that discussion on CUF a long time ago because I am pretty tired of it. But look for my answer a few posts up (or down) in this thread. Or go here.

    I'm not interested in debating gay marriage or the role the church played in Prop 8. No one should draw any conclusions from that about my views on either issue. I'm just talking about what the Supreme Court might do. In that context, I do think the argument that anti-gay hatred or animus is the only basis for supporting a continued traditional definition of marriage as one man - one woman simply doesn't hold water. It's a polemical, not legal argument. If you insist on playing that tune, I'll take that as a sign that you are not really interested in discussing this SCOTUS issue, but simply bashing those who disagree with you. Not a very rational approach.
    Last edited by LA Ute; 02-26-2013 at 03:53 PM.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

  26. #56
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    I don't want to get into an argument regarding the merits of gay marriage, I jumped into this thread to address the highly interesting question of how the SCOTUS is going to deal with this issue, particularly given the underlying case law. That said, as to your post, I want to point out that the issue isn't society's ability to generate more people (that is, you mention overpopulation and changes in sexual orientation). Rather, the issue is what does society do with those people once they are here, and how can those people be raised to have the most benefit to society going forward.
    Well if that was your intent you've strayed, as this post leads me to wonder what you're trying to imply. I'm guessing you and I see this from entirely different points of view, not only on what is ideal, but what role the government should play in forcing what you believe is ideal on people. Perhaps I'm wrong in that assessment.

  27. #57
    Of course the Ninth Circuit and the N.D. Cal. agree that Prop. 8 lacks rational basis. So does the conservative think tank Cato Institute.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/californias...rational-basis

    Cato’s chairman Bob Levy was co-chair of the advisory board to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the suit. The author says government should get out of doing marriages, but if it is going to do marriages, everyone should be able to get married.

    You know, getting government completely out of the "marriage" business may not be so bad. The upshot would be that those of us who don't go to church would have civil unions, and this would accomplish the mainstreaming purpose of homosexuals' struggle for marriage rights. Homosexuals and heterosexuals would be treated the same by government. Of course the civil union is what would count most in a court of law.

    Does anyone actually believe that religions would support this? I don't.
    Last edited by SeattleUte; 02-26-2013 at 03:58 PM.

  28. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocker Ute View Post
    Because a civilization's decline usually happens over a weekend.
    In this case would you argue that the decline of civilization happened on a Tuesday in November?

    Quote Originally Posted by RockerUte
    Truth of the matter is that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. A legal entity of a civil union should be all that they care about, and individuals can form those however they want to, and it would define rules for inheritances, visitation rights, insurance benefits, etc. So then if a husband and wife want to enter into that, or a same-sex couple, or even a mother and her son wanted a civil union (defining themselves as a legal entity who can act on each others behalf) they could. Then let churches and organizations marry whomever they feel like marrying. Also in theory, a married couple could also not be a civil union.

    The LDS church has supported laws in SLC and is supportive of laws currently being proposed to the Utah Legislature that would extend these rights (ie visitation rights, etc) to homosexual couples.

    Do that and I think the whole prop 8 thing goes away, in my humble opinion.
    'Seperate but Equal' has a long history of failure. It sounds perfectly reasonable in theory, but in practice it falls far short.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch View Post
    Here's a blurb from Orson Scott Card that I think addresses this question fairly well:
    OSC is known to be a very outspoken anti-gay marriage activist. He is supposed to be involved with writing the new Superman series for DC Comics and also the new movie scripts, and there is a big push to boycott the new Superman comics, movies, and DC Comics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scratch
    Rather, the issue is what does society do with those people once they are here, and how can those people be raised to have the most benefit to society going forward.
    In California at least, the rights of gay couples to adopt children was not at issue and has not been affected. Gay couples can still adopt and raise children. The entire Prop 22/Prop 8 was silent on adoption and on the rights to parenthood, even those without biological relation.

    And as for my earlier statement about Strict Scrutiny for a Suspect Class: this applies in California with relation to the Prop 8 case because the state laws already allowed gay marriage prior to Prop 8 amending the state constitution. Because a class of people already had the right to marry, and an amendment to the constitution was going to remove the right, they became a Suspect Class requiring strict scrutiny under the law rather than the simple rational basis argument.

    THis same situation obviously is not present in most other states. Therefore it would be harder to press for strict scrutiny from the SC.

  29. #59
    Five-O Diehard Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Salt Lake City
    Posts
    4,894
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    Of course the Ninth Circuit and the N.D. Cal. agree that Prop. 8 lacks rational basis. So does the conservative think tank Cato Institute.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/californias...rational-basis

    Cato’s chairman Bob Levy was co-chair of the advisory board to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the suit. The author says government should get out of doing marriages, but if it is going to do so, everyone should be able to get married.

    You know, getting government completely out of the "marriage" business may not be so bad. The upshot would be that those of us who don't go to church would have civil unions, and this would accomplish the mainstreaming purpose of homosexuals' struggle for marriage rights. Homosexuals and heterosexuals would be treated the same by government. Of course the civil union is what would count most in a court of law.

    Does anyone actually believe that religions would support this? I don't.
    Depends on the religion. Many probably would, much like politics, religions run the conservative liberal spectrum as well

  30. #60
    Sam the Sheepdog LA Ute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    17,726
    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    Of course the Ninth Circuit and the N.D. Cal. agree that Prop. 8 lacks rational basis. So does the conservative think tank Cato Institute.

    http://www.cato.org/blog/californias...rational-basis

    Cato’s chairman Bob Levy was co-chair of the advisory board to the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the suit. The author says government should get out of doing marriages, but if it is going to do so, everyone should be able to get married.
    Now you're going to appeal to authority? SU, I am surprised at you.

    You know, getting government completely out of the "marriage" business may not be so bad.

    It is an intriguing idea. I haven't made my mind up on it yet, but you may well be right.

    "It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
    --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

    "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
    --Yeats

    “True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”

    --John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •