Best commentry on gay marriage I've seen yet

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by wig

The problem with this "debate" is the pro-gay crowd hasn't listened to one thing the opposition has said.

You're only argument is "but we love eachother". I have yet to hear a real reason why it's ok for you to break the law and get married.

I doubt I will, either.

No good reason has ever been made for making it illegal. FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) is all that has ever been used to justify it.

[panerd]

Haven't been back to the site since I posted last night, but I have to say that some of you guys sure don't know how to read an entire post before ripping it apart. I specifically said that I don't equate gays with pedophiles, but I did say the original article (which was the point of the thread, right?) was written in such a poor way that one only needs to substitute 10-year old girl for gays and it reads as a poor argument of marrying kids and adults. So to sum up my point, it wasn't a good argument for gay marriage, but a very weak one.

The other issue I would like to address is how my comments somehow make me a right-wing zealot? I am very conservative when it comes to personal issues and very liberal when it comes to economic ones. (Me and Cam are definitely on different sides of the fence on educational issues) What I think is funny is that people feel the need to agree with every stance taken by their political affailtion and have no original thoughts of their own. At the present time I plan on voting for Kerry, but I agree with Bush and Cam Edwards 100% on this issue.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Delebar

So you actually support gay marriage and just feel passionately about voting for it?

I support the issue being decided by the legislative branch as opposed to the judicial branch.

Now, how about answering my question.

[pjstp20]

Originally Posted by Delebar

So you actually support gay marriage and just feel passionately about voting for it?

Exactly my thoughts. If this right is brought to the polls and gay marriage does become legal, are you then all for it?

[wig]

If there was a vote, and gay marriage was legalized, I'd be for it.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I support the issue being decided by the legislative branch as opposed to the judicial branch.

Well, that is always preferable, but sometimes the legislative branch passes unconstitutional laws, and the way our system of government is designed, the job of the courts is to strike them down.

[RendeR]

I need to comment on one thing CAM mentioned early on here:

His stance is that for the government, wether that be the states or federal, to SANCTION marriage by homosexuals must be voted on by the people.

The major flaw in this is that the government isn't SANCTIONING anything, it isn't deciding what is right or what is wrong. Marriage licensing was not created to denote good/bad or right/wrong situations, its a registry of citizens who wanted to be joined legally together. The local/state and probably federal governemnt get a piece of the fees collected and the states have a record of who is legally a family member. So please, take the whole "states are sanctioning it as right" arguement away as the rubbish it is. Another example of this would be hunting licenses. I can't stand hunting, when it comes right down to it. Killing something to survive on is one thing, but its not required. I think killing animals is wrong, but the state licenses it anyway. Do I think that means the state sanctions it as a right and good thing? no, I think it allows it and registers everyone who chooses to partake in it, thereby collecting income for use in other areas. When it comes to how the states/government handle marriage and hunting, the licenses equate to about the same definition.

and so, because of this real definition of licensing, I say no, the majority does not have a right to say they can or can't be married.

The society at large decides for themselves what is right and wrong, every individual has that choice. Laws are created to protect the citizens and their property. Laws are NOT created to maintain the citizens peace of mind.

When you can prove to me and everyone else that a homosexual couple is going to do irreperable harm to a person or their property, then I MIGHT begin to agree with denying them legal spousal rights under the law.

DOMA is a piece of trash legislation that got rammed through congress because of MANY other factors. it certainly didn't manage it on its own merits.

The very idea of writing discrimination for ANY reason, into this countries constitution is patently irresponsible.

[wig]

Then Jeremy Shockey can finally get married

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by panerd

Haven't been back to the site since I posted last night, but I have to say that some of you guys sure don't know how to read an entire post before ripping it apart. I specifically said that I don't equate gays with pedophiles, but I did say the original article (which was the point of the thread, right?) was written in such a poor way that one only needs to substitute 10-year old girl for gays and it reads as a poor argument of marrying kids and adults. So to sum up my point, it wasn't a good argument for gay marriage, but a very weak one.

The other issue I would like to address is how my comments somehow make me a right-wing zealot? I am very conservative when it comes to personal issues and very liberal when it comes to economic ones. (Me and Cam are definitely on different sides of the fence on educational issues) What I think is funny is that people feel the need to agree with every stance taken by their political affailtion and have no original thoughts of their own. At the present time I plan on voting for Kerry, but I agree with Bush and Cam Edwards 100% on this issue.

So you agree with discriminating against a group of people, and not allowing them legal rights that the majority of people in this country take for granted?

The ONLY argument that carries any weight thus far is that the christianic background of this nation says marriage is one man, one woman. And if this country were based on christianity or any other religion, I would have no problem following along, however this country isn't based on religion, this country is based on every single persons right to believe as they so choose.

That basis alone, should be enough to make people realize that creating laws which deny rights to people based on a religious doctrine is wrong. Yes there are many non religious people who believe gay marriage is wrong, I understand that, what I am saying is that wether you LIKE gays and the idea of their getting married is IRRELEVENT. No single person or group of people has the right to deny anyone else the legal protections that the majority takes for granted. Religion and its dogmas, no matter how entrenched in our society are NOT a qualified basis for making discrimnating law.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

just to clear up a few things:

-Honolulu_Blue: I don't think this thread has focused on religion at all. Why bring it up?

-

Cam, you never brought it up, but it had been brought by others:

EagleFan:

On a more serious note. A marriage is a religious union and I don't know of one religion that does not frown upon a gay lifestyle. Therefore to allow gay marriages is by definition wrong.

SFL Cat:

Because in addition to all the "LOVE" stuff that the Religious Left likes to throw around, Christianity also teaches such foreign concepts (at least to the Religious Left) as obedience and right and wrong living. Christ himself said, "If you love me, keep my commandments."

Man's original sin was disobedience. "Look God, I know you said don't eat this thing, but look at it!!! Obviously you don't know what you're talking about, because boy this thing is mmmm mmmmm good!!! And after eating it, I'm so much smarter now!!!!"

It's still the same today, "Okay, look I know you said a guy should leave his mom and dad and become one flesh with a woman, but I just don't feel that way. So obviously, you screwed up somewhere. So I'm just gonna ignore what your Word teaches and do "what feels right for me."

Delebar raised this question:

Absent some religious conviction, how can someone feel so passionately about denying gays the right to marry? And if your opposition is based in religion, why should others' liberty be constrained by your religious beliefs


My response was basically aimed towards Delebar's question to point out that even an objection based on the Bible is intellectually dishonest, because those people are basically picking and choosing which Biblical "law" they want to adhere to.

-----

Never meant to imply your arguments were based on religion, but it was brought up and I felt the need to respond.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I need to comment on one thing CAM mentioned early on here:

His stance is that for the government, wether that be the states or federal, to SANCTION marriage by homosexuals must be voted on by the people.

The major flaw in this is that the government isn't SANCTIONING anything, it isn't deciding what is right or what is wrong. Marriage licensing was not created to denote good/bad or right/wrong situations, its a registry of citizens who wanted to be joined legally together. The local/state and probably federal governemnt get a piece of the fees collected and the states have a record of who is legally a family member. So please, take the whole "states are sanctioning it as right" arguement away as the rubbish it is. Another example of this would be hunting licenses. I can't stand hunting, when it comes right down to it. Killing something to survive on is one thing, but its not required. I think killing animals is wrong, but the state licenses it anyway. Do I think that means the state sanctions it as a right and good thing? no, I think it allows it and registers everyone who chooses to partake in it, thereby collecting income for use in other areas. When it comes to how the states/government handle marriage and hunting, the licenses equate to about the same definition.

and so, because of this real definition of licensing, I say no, the majority does not have a right to say they can or can't be married.

The society at large decides for themselves what is right and wrong, every individual has that choice. Laws are created to protect the citizens and their property. Laws are NOT created to maintain the citizens peace of mind.

When you can prove to me and everyone else that a homosexual couple is going to do irreperable harm to a person or their property, then I MIGHT begin to agree with denying them legal spousal rights under the law.

DOMA is a piece of trash legislation that got rammed through congress because of MANY other factors. it certainly didn't manage it on its own merits.

The very idea of writing discrimination for ANY reason, into this countries constitution is patently irresponsible.

Render,

DoMA's been passed, not only by Congress, but by 39 other states. President Clinton signed the bill into law. Can you elaborate on the other factors that allowed such a "piece of trash legislation" wide support, not only in Congress, but in places like California and Hawaii?

As to your state sanctioning argument... would the state allow an enterprise or activity it does not consider to be acceptable for society? Can you point me to an instance where a state allows and regulates an activity that it does not consider to be acceptable?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

So I'd say Loving v. Virginia pretty clearly spells out that it's dealing with a 14th amendment aimed at ending racial discrimination. In fact, I think it would be an interesting argument to interpret the line ""Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival" as it relates to gay marriage. I would think an argument could be made that gay marriage doesn't contribute one whit to our very existence or survival.

Hope that helps.

Cam, this was my point - Loving v. Virginia disproves your argument that a ban on gay marriage is facially neutral leaving you only with the argument that gays don't receive heightened scrutiny under the 14th Amendment (which is a legitimate argument). My point was that your line of argument in this thread was fundamentally flawed and that you should retreat to your normal stance that gays aren't protected under the 14th Amendment - arguing facial neutrality (as you were) is nonsense.

As to marriage being a basic right, that is true in the above passage whether or not it contributes to the survival of humankind (the court is saying it is a fundamental right that ALSO is important to survival).

And yes, you are a caveman lawyer, but try not to confuse your listeners by misconstruing the 14th Amendment. The real argument is that gays aren't a special/suspect class under Equal Protection, not this nonsense that a ban on gay marriage is facially neutral. At least speak the truth when you are spreading lies.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I need to comment on one thing CAM mentioned early on here:

His stance is that for the government, wether that be the states or federal, to SANCTION marriage by homosexuals must be voted on by the people.

The major flaw in this is that the government isn't SANCTIONING anything, it isn't deciding what is right or what is wrong. Marriage licensing was not created to denote good/bad or right/wrong situations, its a registry of citizens who wanted to be joined legally together. The local/state and probably federal governemnt get a piece of the fees collected and the states have a record of who is legally a family member. So please, take the whole "states are sanctioning it as right" arguement away as the rubbish it is. Another example of this would be hunting licenses. I can't stand hunting, when it comes right down to it. Killing something to survive on is one thing, but its not required. I think killing animals is wrong, but the state licenses it anyway. Do I think that means the state sanctions it as a right and good thing? no, I think it allows it and registers everyone who chooses to partake in it, thereby collecting income for use in other areas. When it comes to how the states/government handle marriage and hunting, the licenses equate to about the same definition.

and so, because of this real definition of licensing, I say no, the majority does not have a right to say they can or can't be married.

The society at large decides for themselves what is right and wrong, every individual has that choice. Laws are created to protect the citizens and their property. Laws are NOT created to maintain the citizens peace of mind.

When you can prove to me and everyone else that a homosexual couple is going to do irreperable harm to a person or their property, then I MIGHT begin to agree with denying them legal spousal rights under the law.

DOMA is a piece of trash legislation that got rammed through congress because of MANY other factors. it certainly didn't manage it on its own merits.

The very idea of writing discrimination for ANY reason, into this countries constitution is patently irresponsible.

Well, there will be two different parts to my answer.

1. I am opposed to the gay lifestlye as I persoanlly beleive it is a choice. I have a job where I see tons of research everyday and I have learned that you can gear research to say basically whatever you want. This is a personal belief (which I don't really like debating as I don't enjoy offending gays, I just don't agree with their lifestlye) and not really ever my original intents of entering the thread which was...

2. The thread starter said this was the best commentary they had seen on gay marriage yet. I don't. I think it is a very poorly written commentary and has a lot of holes in it. In my original post I explained how his argument was so weak that one could substitute 10-year old girl (or even animals) and will still be the same arguement. Not one part of the commentary was based on law or even homosexuality per se.

I am not a gay hater. I don't wish AIDS on the gay community. I don't think they are all going to hell for breaking God's law. I just think they are making a choice that I don't happen to agree with. And I don't think they should be protected by the law for making this choice.

[panerd]

Dola:

I do believe in protecting gays from hate speech. Just like other races, religions, and lifestlyes. But I think the fat guy better buy two tickets on the airplane and the kid praying better leave the other kids out of it if they don't feel comfortable. I think this gay marriage is pushing their beliefs on those who don't agree with them.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Render,

DoMA's been passed, not only by Congress, but by 39 other states. President Clinton signed the bill into law. Can you elaborate on the other factors that allowed such a "piece of trash legislation" wide support, not only in Congress, but in places like California and Hawaii?

As to your state sanctioning argument... would the state allow an enterprise or activity it does not consider to be acceptable for society? Can you point me to an instance where a state allows and regulates an activity that it does not consider to be acceptable?

I don't know what RendeR will say about it, but I will say that DoMA is a blatant violation of Article IV, Section I of the Constitution. Not only that, it was written precisely because Article IV, Section I exists, with the hope of somehow getting around it. That's why it's a "piece of trash legislation."

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by panerd

Dola:

I do believe in protecting gays from hate speech. Just like other races, religions, and lifestlyes. But I think the fat guy better buy two tickets on the airplane and the kid praying better leave the other kids out of it if they don't feel comfortable. I think this gay marriage is pushing their beliefs on those who don't agree with them.

How? How is two people getting married pushing the couple's beliefs on anyone? Save the two people getting married?

[pjstp20]

Yeah really, that makes no sense. Youre not forced to watch them get married or have anything to do with their life. In fact you are the one who is pushing your beleifs on them.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by clintl

I don't know what RendeR will say about it, but I will say that DoMA is a blatant violation of Article IV, Section I of the Constitution. Not only that, it was written precisely because Article IV, Section I exists, with the hope of somehow getting around it. That's why it's a "piece of trash legislation."

ah. I think that's a legitimate claim, and in fact is the main reason why there are those who believe it is necessary to place DoMA within the constitution.

John,

My simple cavemen lawyer skills, combined with a lack of sleep, are unable to determine what you mean by "facially neutral". Is this still about clintl first saying that people who love one another should be allowed to marry, then stating that people who love one another should be allowed to marry unless the state can show a compelling reason why they shouldn't, and me saying that love has nothing to do with the state approval of a marriage contract?

Or does this go back to my argument that right now gays and straights have the same rights under the law?

[pjstp20]

No one has brought a good argument on why gay people should not be allowed to marry. We understand why you think judges should not be the ones to grant the right but lets get to the real issue. Why do you oppose two people of the same gender being able to marry?

Your belief system is good for you and your life, but not everyone should have to follow your morals.

[Butter]

You know who didn't like gay marriage?

Hitler.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Delebar

Well, I'll answer your question with an observation. I am an attorney practicing primarily appellate law in state and federal court. So I regularly appear before both elected and appointed appellate judges. The popular belief is that "liberal" judges are "activist" and "conservative" judges "just apply the law" and do not overstep the legislature. This is half true. Many liberal judges are indeed "activist" in the sense that their personal politics and beliefs influence their decisions. And sometimes these judges overcome statutes and precedent contrary to their position in ways that make their decisions look like what they are: results driven. The half that is not true is that "conservative" judges don't do exactly the same thing. Many "conservative" judges ignore statutes and precedent with astonishing vigor. And their decisions frequently look like what they are: results driven.

Now all that sounds bad. And in a way it is. But it also preserves our system of justice. Why? Because almost all judges are motivated, to one degree or another, by a desire to be fair and to do the right thing. And our laws, and their interpretation through appellate court decisions, are numerous and complex enough that almost any resolution of almost any conflict can be "legally" justified some way, somehow.

Your arguments in this forum ignore the real issue that will ultimately decide this question: what is the fair and right thing to do? I think the fair and right thing to do is to treat people who are born gay the same way we treat people who are born straight. You think we should treat them differently. I think my view will prevail in time and your "legal" arguments will sound increasingly hollow and misguided. Whether this happens through the legislature or the courts I don't know, although I suspect it will be a combination of the two. That the courts may once again help us do the fair and right thing troubles you far more than it does me.

Wow, three paragraphs of pure bullshit that doesn't answer a simple question. You must be an attorney.

I didn't ask you to elaborate on the subject of why you support the judiciary deciding gay marriage. I asked you the following: Would you oppose a few judges and politicians deciding that they're going to redefine when life begins in order to provide equal rights to all people, born or unborn?

That doesn't require three paragraphs to answer. I know it's hard for people who get billed by the hour to come up with a pithy and simple response, but even a "yes" or "no" would suffice.

By the way, your argument seems to be summed up with "people are born gay, so therefore we can't discriminate". I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that homosexuality as a genetic trait had been established medically. In fact, I kind of thought the science was trending the other way. Either way, I'm not sure we've resolved whether we're born straight or gay, so your argument for gay marriage appears to be on as shaky a ground as those who quote Leviticus.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

You know who didn't like gay marriage?

Hitler.

invoking Godwin's Law won't stop this thread, my friend.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

John,

My simple cavemen lawyer skills, combined with a lack of sleep, are unable to determine what you mean by "facially neutral". Is this still about clintl first saying that people who love one another should be allowed to marry, then stating that people who love one another should be allowed to marry unless the state can show a compelling reason why they shouldn't, and me saying that love has nothing to do with the state approval of a marriage contract?

Or does this go back to my argument that right now gays and straights have the same rights under the law?

A quick lesson in Equal Protection Law

A law is unconsitutional if it does not give citizens equal protection under the law.

If the case deals with race, strict scrutiny is applied. That means the law never survives as the government must prove there is a compelling state interest in the racial classification and that the classification is necessary for the interest to be achieved. Almost no cases survive this test (I know of only two - Korematsu - strangely where the rule was created in a horrible decision and - the recent affirmative action case - there may be others, but they are very few).

If the case is about a gender classification, heightened scrutiny is applied (the name on this is less clear and this test is becoming more and more like strict scrutiny). This test requires the law to meet essentially the same things as strict scrutiny and until it becomes clearer what the new test is, it is hard to explain any more (without writing for another page).

If the case is about a fundamental right, strict scrutiny is applied.

If it is about any thing else, rational basis scrutiny. This test requires that the government show any rational basis for the classification. This test means almost EVERY classification survives (hence you have things like tax incentives which target certain groups).



Now to the debate at hand,

In applying the above tests, the court has determined that if a law of any kind uses a "classification" that classification is not facially neutral if it makes a distinction based on race, gender, religion, etc. That means you can't argue (as in Loving) that interracial marriage bans are "neutral" and you can't argue gay marriage bans are "neutral." Think of another example - a law that said you could only marry christians is neutral under the "Cam rule" because everyone is allowed to only marry christians. However, the Supreme Court would laugh at this because it has the effect of limiting people based on a religion (a fundamental right). Similarly, arguing that gay marriage treats both genders equally is IRRELEVANT because it still limits people based on gender choices.

So what does that leave conservatives:

They must argue two things to survive an equal protection test:

1) This isn't a gender/sex issue - this is a hard argument to make, but one that the current Supreme Court would probably support.

2) Marriage isn't a fundamental right - this is even a tougher argument given the Loving decision, but conservatives can use their normal distinctions (arguing that gay marriage is still allowed, just not protected and rewarded by law) which may also work with today's Supreme Court.


Hope that helps. While I'd love to convince everyone about gay marriage, my first goal is still to make the debate honest and based on viable arguments. In other words, let's not rely on skippy-logic.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

You know who didn't like gay marriage?

Hitler.

Wasnt Hitler gay?

[pjstp20]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

By the way, your argument seems to be summed up with "people are born gay, so therefore we can't discriminate". I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that homosexuality as a genetic trait had been established medically. In fact, I kind of thought the science was trending the other way. Either way, I'm not sure we've resolved whether we're born straight or gay, so your argument for gay marriage appears to be on as shaky a ground as those who quote Leviticus.

All the scientific proof lies in the horses mouth. Ask any gay person wether they chose to be gay or not and you'll know the answer. Who would choose to be ridiculed and alienated and hated by certain members of society?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

A quick lesson in Equal Protection Law

A law is unconsitutional if it does not give citizens equal protection under the law.

If the case deals with race, strict scrutiny is applied. That means the law never survives as the government must prove there is a compelling state interest in the racial classification and that the classification is necessary for the interest to be achieved. Almost no cases survive this test (I know of only two - Korematsu - strangely where the rule was created in a horrible decision and - the recent affirmative action case - there may be others, but they are very few).

If the case is about a gender classification, heightened scrutiny is applied (the name on this is less clear and this test is becoming more and more like strict scrutiny). This test requires the law to meet essentially the same things as strict scrutiny and until it becomes clearer what the new test is, it is hard to explain any more (without writing for another page).

If the case is about a fundamental right, strict scrutiny is applied.

If it is about any thing else, rational basis scrutiny. This test requires that the government show any rational basis for the classification. This test means almost EVERY classification survives (hence you have things like tax incentives which target certain groups).



Now to the debate at hand,

In applying the above tests, the court has determined that if a law of any kind uses a "classification" that classification is not facially neutral if it makes a distinction based on race, gender, religion, etc. That means you can't argue (as in Loving) that interracial marriage bans are "neutral" and you can't argue gay marriage bans are "neutral." Think of another example - a law that said you could only marry christians is neutral under the "Cam rule" because everyone is allowed to only marry christians. However, the Supreme Court would laugh at this because it has the effect of limiting people based on a religion (a fundamental right). Similarly, arguing that gay marriage treats both genders equally is IRRELEVANT because it still limits people based on gender choices.

So what does that leave conservatives:

They must argue two things to survive an equal protection test:

1) This isn't a gender/sex issue - this is a hard argument to make, but one that the current Supreme Court would probably support.

2) Marriage isn't a fundamental right - this is even a tougher argument given the Loving decision, but conservatives can use their normal distinctions (arguing that gay marriage is still allowed, just not protected and rewarded by law) which may also work with today's Supreme Court.


Hope that helps. While I'd love to convince everyone about gay marriage, my first goal is still to make the debate honest and based on viable arguments. In other words, let's not rely on skippy-logic.

first of all, if you really want to piss me off, you'll compare me to skippy. I've never called you a name... please respect me the same way.

Secondly, your example of the "Cam Rule" is ludicrous and isn't even close to the argument at hand. In essence what you're saying is that limiting peoples marriage based on "gender choices" is just as discriminatory as limiting peoples marriage based on "religious choices"?

I'm very confused. One one hand we have the argument from an attorney that gays are born that way and therefore have the right to marry because they're similar to a race-based minority. On the other hand we have an attorney arguing that gays choose to be gay and therefore have the right to marry because they're practicing something equal to religious freedom.

So regardless of whether or not homosexuality is chosen or pre-determined, not allowing gays to marry violates the constitution. And yet this argument doesn't open up the door to concept of marriage being changed by another group of people based on sexual preference?

I'll probably return to this thread tonight. I'm arguing on about four hours sleep and I'm sure a nap will help me be a little more concise in my points.

Anyway, thanks for making me think John.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by pjstp20

All the scientific proof lies in the horses mouth. Ask any gay person wether they chose to be gay or not and you'll know the answer. Who would choose to be ridiculed and alienated and hated by certain members of society?

Christians?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

first of all, if you really want to piss me off, you'll compare me to skippy. I've never called you a name... please respect me the same way.

Secondly, your example of the "Cam Rule" is ludicrous and isn't even close to the argument at hand. In essence what you're saying is that limiting peoples marriage based on "gender choices" is just as discriminatory as limiting peoples marriage based on "religious choices"?

I'm very confused. One one hand we have the argument from an attorney that gays are born that way and therefore have the right to marry because they're similar to a race-based minority. On the other hand we have an attorney arguing that gays choose to be gay and therefore have the right to marry because they're practicing something equal to religious freedom.

So regardless of whether or not homosexuality is chosen or pre-determined, not allowing gays to marry violates the constitution. And yet this argument doesn't open up the door to concept of marriage being changed by another group of people based on sexual preference?

I'll probably return to this thread tonight. I'm arguing on about four hours sleep and I'm sure a nap will help me be a little more concise in my points.

Anyway, thanks for making me think John.

Sorry about the skippy slam - he epitomizes the extreme of what I hate in these debates. You are not in skippy's ball park, zip code, or even planet. I'm just trying to help get the "facts" straight in this discussion so that the "real" arguments are the ones being debated.

The choice/genetic argument is probably irrelevant to the Equal Protection debate. I'm not arguing it is a choice, I just say IF it is a choice, then it should be compared to religion. Either way, it has a lot to do with the gay marriage debate, but the Equal Protection Clause doesn't make distinctions based on choice (although a different Supreme Court easily could).

As to whether an Equal Protection challenge would cause the slippery slope - it really shouldn't. Polygamists, beastialists (sp? - I kinda hope there really isn't a correct spelling for this), etc. can't argue that there discrimination is a "gender" issue so they will have rational basis scrutiny applied (which means the laws will be upheld). They could try the fundamental right argument, but the distinctions that could be used against gays are even stronger here.

I hope this makes more sense after a little rest. The Equal Protection argument will be VERY interesting if it is ever before the Supreme Court. I'm pretty sure the current court would go against gay marriage, but they would have to strain some precedents and really clear up the confusion regarding the "heightened scrutiny" gender test.

[Masked]

Originally Posted by stevew

Gays arent Black. Except for black gays. And they dont deserve special treatment.

That wasn't really my point. Cam had asked why should we allow gay marriages when public opinion was against them. I was just providing an example of marriage laws being changed that went against public opinion. In that case, nearly 40 years later we all agree that public opinion was morally wrong because the laws were discriminatory.

I was not trying to equate being black with being gay but merely refute Cam's argument that the will of the majority should always guide our laws by using an example of these very same laws being changed.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Masked

That wasn't really my point. Cam had asked why should we allow gay marriages when public opinion was against them. I was just providing an example of marriage laws being changed that went against public opinion. In that case, nearly 40 years later we all agree that public opinion was morally wrong because the laws were discriminatory.

I was not trying to equate being black with being gay but merely refute Cam's argument that the will of the majority should always guide our laws by using an example of these very same laws being changed.

one more before I go to sleep. The interracial marriage law that was referred to earlier: at the time of the court decision there were 16 states (I believe... it might have been twelve) that had laws banning interracial marriage on the books. Hardly the opinion of the majority of people in the United States. Compare that with 39 states with DoMA laws currently on the books.

[GMO]

If the majority does not decide on issues, then who does decide? A minority? Then who chooses this minority? Is it self-appointed? What if two minorities have opposite points of view? Who decides which one to choose to enforce?

[RendeR]

You know, after re-reading this thread and seeing how Cam's comments are being manhandled, no pun intended, I have to begin to wonder...

Maybe Cam really supports gay marriage and his constant arguments and denials are simply his way to bring forth the honest and complete reasonings for same sex marriages? Sort of using reverse psychology to help people get the whole story?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Christians?

Must...refrain...from...using...fist-of-death.

Every time something comes up that Cam doesn't like, he starts waiving the "this is anti-Christian" banner. What a bunch of bullshit from a flat-earther.

Oh, the Ten Commandments HUGE monument had to be removed. Anti-Christian. Never mind that no one else could drop a 10-ton statue in the middle of a Government building in the middle of the night and not go to jail.

No organized prayer in schools. "Anti-Christian." But we have to let the "community" choose the people who lead the prayer, making it majority rule.

Everything else that Cam doesn't like - "anti-Christian".

Really, Cam, I've come to pitty you. You're so dogmatic and closed-minded that I imagine you really must miss the diversity that the world has to offer. One day, one can only hope that you really do find God and he helps you to see the world through different eyes.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Must...refrain...from...using...fist-of-death.

Every time something comes up that Cam doesn't like, he starts waiving the "this is anti-Christian" banner. What a bunch of bullshit from a flat-earther.

Oh, the Ten Commandments HUGE monument had to be removed. Anti-Christian. Never mind that no one else could drop a 10-ton statue in the middle of a Government building in the middle of the night and not go to jail.

No organized prayer in schools. "Anti-Christian." But we have to let the "community" choose the people who lead the prayer, making it majority rule.

Everything else that Cam doesn't like - "anti-Christian".

Really, Cam, I've come to pitty you. You're so dogmatic and closed-minded that I imagine you really must miss the diversity that the world has to offer. One day, one can only hope that you really do find God and he helps you to see the world through different eyes.

Blackie,

Did I say Christians in America? Did I say 20th century Christians? Nope. I specifically left it vague because I was hoping for a reaction like yours. This is as much about intolerance towards those of a religious faith as it is intolerance of those of a different lifestyle.

The question was asked: "Who would choose to be ridiculed and alienated and hated by certain members of society?"

Would early Christians qualify? They faced death for their religious beliefs. Would present day Christians in China, North Korea, Cuba, and other countries qualify? They face daily persecution for a choice they make.

Would you prefer I say Shi'a Muslims? After all, about 200 of them were killed yesterday in Iraq, all because of their faith.

I find it interesting that you assume so much about me. I've specifically NOT argued my position from a religious perspective because I don't believe it's relevant. Besides, I'm hardly what you'd call "dogmatic and closeminded". I haven't been to church in three years. I was raised Unitarian, have gone to Methodist Churches, went to a Catholic High School, flirted with neo-paganism, married an atheist, and have yet to find a denomination I would consider consistent with my spiritual beliefs.

I think your comments say far more about you than they do about me. Then again, I've learned that those who lecture me about tolerance could usually stand to look in the mirror while speaking.

[ISiddiqui]

John Galt has done a nice Equal Protection Analysis. I also believe that this violates heightened scrutiny against gender and the right to marry is considered a fundamental right. Is there a good reason for banning gay marriage? I don't see one (we don't have to get to if it is closely tailored to that interest). 'Protecting traditional marriage' doesn't count. This would be based on Loving, even though strict scrutiny doesn't apply here.