Behind The Movement For Ssm - Is Acceptance Inevitable?

[Bikeemikey]

My comments were only in regards to marriage--which is a governmental institution and not a religious institution, though religious marriages may be legalized by the government, and it is also not a covenant between God and people, but a license granted by the government to qualified people, though the license may granted to people, some, though certainly not all of whom may then use their licenses to participate in religious ceremonies where covenants are made between God and man.

And, my arguments and observation have generally been secular, and not religious, and apply to the society as a whole, and not necessarily to religions in particular.

Furthermore, even though I am open to the debatable claim that there may be better ways for governments to incentivize certain results than legalized marriage, it is a separate issue from whether legal marriage should be extended to same-sex couples.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't see it as separate; the reason not to incentivize same sex couples would be because such couples can not yield the positive social outcomes resulting from heterosexual partnerships, currently incentivized via marriage.

This argument is also true of all marriages that do not yield the positive social outcomes one intended to be yielded from marriage.

One must assume that marriage in this context is purely an incentive and therefore can not be a positive social outcome in its own right.

To deny legal access to marriage to homosexual people the state must show that such partnerships would fail to yield the intended positive social good, and then furthermore demonstrate why they are still justified in providing marriage to those heterosexual partnerships that would/have also failed to provide the same social good.

The state has failed to clearly articulate the social good produced from marriage that justifies the preferential treatment.

Had the state completed the above they have failed to show how homosexuals would fail to produce the same outcome.

They have failed to withhold the incentive from heterosexual couples with a track record of failing in marriage (thereby failing to produce the social good).

Moreover, the whole idea of incentivizing an outcome from a tangential action is it self questionable... It is reward before outcome.

I still feel that directly incentivizing the "social goods" that marriage is supposed produce directly and after they are produced is better than tangentially doing so before they are produced via marriage.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

I don't see it as separate; the reason not to incentivize same sex couples would be because such couples can not yield the positive social outcomes resulting from heterosexual partnerships, currently incentivized via marriage.

This argument is also true of all marriages that do not yield the positive social outcomes one intended to be yielded from marriage.

One must assume that marriage in this context is purely an incentive and therefore can not be a positive social outcome in its own right.

To deny legal access to marriage to homosexual people the state must show that such partnerships would fail to yield the intended positive social good, and then furthermore demonstrate why they are still justified in providing marriage to those heterosexual partnerships that would/have also failed to provide the same social good.

The state has failed to clearly articulate the social good produced from marriage that justifies the preferential treatment.

Had the state completed the above they have failed to show how homosexuals would fail to produce the same outcome.

They have failed to withhold the incentive from heterosexual couples with a track record of failing in marriage (thereby failing to produce the social good).

Moreover, the whole idea of incentivizing an outcome from a tangential action is it self questionable... It is reward before outcome.

I still feel that directly incentivizing the "social goods" that marriage is supposed produce directly and after they are produced is better than tangentially doing so before they are produced via marriage.

I have intimated before that portions of your meandering argument has it exactly backwards. The burden of proof rests with those who advocate changing the longstanding legal tradition. They need to demonstrate that there is good reason for the government to change its marital laws and incur the sizable cost of incentivizing SSM. And, since you are leveling the claim that heterosexual marriages aren't producing the incentivized results intended when governments got into the marriage business to begin with, the burden rests with you to substantiate your claim. This would require demonstrating no difference in certain population and relevant social and political factors between societies where governments regulate and incentivize marriages and those where governments do not regulate marriages, or no difference in the same factors between unmarried heterosexual couples and married heterosexual couples. Good luck with that!

As a help in getting you started shouldering your burden of proof, may I suggest that you begin your research by looking at the possible causation/correlation between out-of-wedlock-births and poverty as compared with in-wedlock-births. You may discover what has been common sense to the rest of us for some time, and part of the reason we think it a good thing to incentivize marriage--incentives that don't, by and large, pertain to homosexual couples who, for all intents and purposes, are biologically incapable of procreating and giving birth to their biological child.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 13, 2012 by wenglund

[DavidB]

I have a question if it is offensive for homosexuals to compare their struggle to recieve equal treatment under the law to the Civil Rights movement (sits at white diners, sitting in front of the bus, marriage to white people, etc), is it equally offensive for the LDS to use prop 8 backlash and compare themselves to the Civil Rights movement?

[wenglund]

As a help in getting you started shouldering your burden of proof, may I suggest that you begin your research by looking at the possible causation/correlation between out-of-wedlock-births and poverty as compared with in-wedlock-births. You may discover what has been common sense to the rest of us for some time, and part of the reason we think it a good thing to incentivize marriage--incentives that don't pertain to homosexual couples who, for all intents and purposes, are biologically incapable of procreating and giving birth to their biological child.

Next, try examining the plausible causation/correlation between single parents and emotional problems, suicide rates, financial problems, social isolation, challenges disciplining and educating their children and providing them with adequate food, shelter, and health coverage, which results in children of single parents tending to have:

• lower levels of educational achievement
  
• twice as likely to drop out of school
  
• more likely to become teen parents
  
• more conflict with their parent(s)
  
• less supervised by adults
  
• more likely to become truants
  
• more frequently abuse drugs and alcohol
  
• more high-risk sexual behavior
  
• more likely to join a gang
  
• twice as likely to go to jail
  
• four times as likely to need help for emotional and behavioral problems
  
• more likely to participate in violent crime
  
• more likely to commit suicide
  
• twice as likely to get divorced in adulthood
  

Read more:

http://www.healthofc...l#ixzz2C7lq4AGv

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 13, 2012 by wenglund

[Deardorff]

Were you thinking that tossing around the pejorative of "bigot" is somehow a substitute for a reasoned response? If so, you would be mistaken. The people you are speaking to on this thread are skilled in critical thought and thus not persuaded by this kind of mindless appeals to emotion. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

mr englund, I use the term from experience in LDS wards, stakes and branches and unfortunately hearing "that nigger president' and 'damn homo's' in Priesthood meetings in the various settings and in both Bishipric and Stake High Council meetings.

Critical thinkers or idiots, this is bigotry and it exists in LDS culture from the top down. Listening to Boyd K. Packer and others who speak while discounting research for their myopic views only shows this to be correct.

No amount of same sex marriages harm mine. Giving legal protection to those who love each other and are willing to make the legal commitment(of legal age, no coercion) is the right thing to do. LDS arguments based on 'traditional marriage' are a farce given the Polygamous history and the teachings still contained in the Doctrine and Covenants.

You are out of the thread and if you use that language again you will be off the board.

[Kemara]

Giving legal protection to those who love each other and are willing to make the legal commitment(of legal age, no coercion) is the right thing to do.

I am fairly sure that homosexual couples in the USA already have that. If I am right, its case closed and you can go home feeling happy.

[wenglund]

mr englund, I use the term from experience in LDS wards, stakes and branches and unfortunately hearing "that nigger president' and 'damn homo's' in Priesthood meetings in the various settings and in both Bishipric and Stake High Council meetings.

Critical thinkers or idiots, this is bigotry and it exists in LDS culture from the top down. Listening to Boyd K. Packer and others who speak while discounting research for their myopic views only shows this to be correct.

No amount of same sex marriages harm mine. Giving legal protection to those who love each other and are willing to make the legal commitment(of legal age, no coercion) is the right thing to do. LDS arguments based on 'traditional marriage' are a farce given the Polygamous history and the teachings still contained in the Doctrine and Covenants.

You won't last here very long, and for good reason, if you can't move beyond spouting your relatively baseless prejudices while not engage in reasoned discourse. And, even were you to manage to stay, spouting your baseless prejudices and demagoguing will only serve to erode what little credibility you may have. In short, the kind of banal propaganda you have spun thus far will be a disservice to you and your pop cultural cause. The choice is yours.

Oh...and can I quote you in my signature line about "critical thinkers are idiots"? It inadvertently telling us much about you as an opponent.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 13, 2012 by wenglund

[Closet Doubter]

Just the fact that by recognizing same sex marriage, we can get rid of any legal benefits to domestic partnerships and civil unions, causes me to support same sex marriage. Marriage as an institution is IMHO damaged more by the fact that people can get most of the legal benefits of marriage without being married. When SSM becomes the law of the land, we need assure the law REQUIRES an actual marriage contract for any legal benefit related to marriage to be conferred.

[wenglund]

Just the fact that by recognizing same sex marriage, we can get rid of any legal benefits to domestic partnerships and civil unions, causes me to support same sex marriage. Marriage as an institution is IMHO damaged more by the fact that people can get most of the legal benefits of marriage without being married. When SSM becomes the law of the land, we need assure the law REQUIRES an actual marriage contract for any legal benefit related to marriage to be conferred.

I agree that if the same incentives for couples to get legally married also exist with legalized domestic partnerships and civil unions, then it unavoidably dilutes the incentive for people to get married, which may in turn result in less marriages. I have seen statistics that show where heterosexual marriages have declined in countries where and when domestic partnerships or civil unions were legalized.

However, there are at least two good reasons why I don't see this as a logical reason to legalize SSM. First, as previously explained, legalizing SSM unavoidably dilutes the meaning and value and significance of traditional marriage, and thus the number of marriages. It doesn't make sense, then, to trade one form of deleterious dilution for another. What makes sense to avoid the dilution all together.

Second, and most important, legalizing SSM as well as domestic partnerships and civil unions, completely ignores that rationale for the government offering incentives for marriage to begin with--which, as previously explained, essentially has to do with stabilizing procreative relationships (procreation is fundamental to marital laws--a point often lost on proponents of SSM), and thus has nothing to do with homosexual relationships. Governments do not have a rational basis to encourage the stability of homosexual relationships. So, it doesn't make sense for the government to legalize SSM when the rationale for governmental incentives for traditional marriage aren't relevant to homosexual couples and may even defy the rationale.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 13, 2012 by wenglund

[Brade]

...procreation is fundamental to marital laws--a point often lost on proponents of SSM...

Clearly, intention or even ability to procreate isn't a necessary condition to being permitted to marry under the law. So, what do you mean by this?

[Deardorff]

I am fairly sure that homosexual couples in the USA already have that. If I am right, its case closed and you can go home feeling happy.

Kemara, same sex couples in the US do not have the same benefits and protections as married couples do. Watch as a life long companion of one tries to visit in a hospital. Or tries to give input into life saving or ending decisions. Or when claiming survivors benefits and even being included in health insurance plans in many jurisdictions.

Recognizing a legal marriage for a same sex couple is simple. It is a Government license and actually has nothing to do with religion. Why not let Government regulate it and keep the religious rites to believers while leaving those not of your particular belief system alone?

[wenglund]

Clearly, intention or even ability to procreate isn't a necessary condition to being permitted to marry under the law. So, what do you mean by this?

For practical and manageable purposes, laws tend to pertain to general categories and don't usually get so detailed as to account for minor exceptions within the general categories. This is true of marital laws--which pertain generally to adult heterosexual relationships, and thus don't account for, or rather allows for the exceptions of adult infertile heterosexual relationships and fertile heterosexual couple who don't wish to have children. In other words, procreation is the general rule of consideration, and not a necessary condition.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Critical thinkers or idiots, this is bigotry and it exists in LDS culture from the top down. Listening to Boyd K. Packer and others who speak while discounting research for their myopic views only shows this to be correct.

[N]ational polling data for more than a decade have revealed that Mormons are actually less likely than other Americans, on average, to support racist ideas and policies.

http://www.fairlds.o...ced-apologetics Edited November 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Kemara, same sex couples in the US do not have the same benefits and protections as married couples do. Watch as a life long companion of one tries to visit in a hospital. Or tries to give input into life saving or ending decisions. Or when claiming survivors benefits and even being included in health insurance plans in many jurisdictions.

Yes and no. There are domestic partnership or civil union laws in multiple states where these benefits are afforded same-sex couples. And, whether one agrees or not that same-sex couples should be afforded some or all of these benefits, these benefits can be extended though changing insurance laws and not by inanely mangling the legal definition of marriage.

Recognizing a legal marriage for a same sex couple is simple. It is a Government license and actually has nothing to do with religion. Why not let Government regulate it and keep the religious rites to believers while leaving those not of your particular belief system alone?

As explained multiple times, even from a purely secular perspective, the cost of the government regulating so-called SSM is not off-set by the benefits of so regulating, and this because there is no established benefit to the state in regulating homosexual relationships, generally speaking. In other words, it doesn't make sense for the state to mangle the definition of marriage, and much sense not to.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 13, 2012 by wenglund

[sethpayne]

Oh...and can I quote you in my signature line about "critical thinkers are idiots"? It inadvertently telling us much about you as an opponent.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Didn't he say critical thinkers OR idiots?

Edited November 13, 2012 by sethpayne

[Ahab]

Ahab, genuine question here....

How can you state in one post that "We can each find out for ourselves whether or not it is revelation from God, regardless of what anyone else says," while stating in a previous post that ""one person has received revelation from God and the other person hasn't, although the one who hasn't may believe he actually has."

If we can "each find out for ourselves whether or not it is revelation from God, regardless of what anyone else says," then how does one discern whether or not that revelation is genuine, since someone may, according to you, have not received revelation, but "believe(s) he actually has."

First of all, what I said is not contradictory. I'm just trying to explain how it works to anyone who gets revelation from God.

Suppose for example that two people ask God the same question, like for example: Do you (God) consider homosexuality to be a sin? Do you seriously believe God would give conflicting answers? That he would tell one person what boils down to Yes and the other person what boils down to No? That's what all of this boils down to. In my experience with God he hasn't flip flopped around on the same exact issue or situation, and I don't believe he ever will. Who knows, though, maybe someday he'll really surprise me and totally change his answer.

I just find it odd that one's personal revelation must coincide with the personal revelations of others in order to be genuine ("we'll then see if others have received the same answer we received from God, and then we'll know that what they got was also revelation from God because they got the same answer we did.").....then again, what is the point of personal revelation?

Maybe you misunderstood me. I meant that once you get an answer from God you can know others did too by whether or not they agree with what God has told you. That's based on the idea that God doesn't flip flop around, though, so maybe someone who thinks he does flip flop would be totally fine with someone else getting a totally different answer from God.

Why not just skip the part where you need to seek personal revelation, just wait for the consensus opinion of those who believe as you do, and then just go with that?

Because the whole point is to find out what God says. I expect others to agree with what God has told me, and if they don't I don't believe they got their answer from God because I expect them to get the same answer I got from God.

[Walden]

Because the whole point is to find out what God says. I expect others to agree with what God has told me, and if they don't I don't believe they got their answer from God because I expect them to get the same answer I got from God.

Maybe this is the reason that there are so many different religions.

So, in short, if others seek an answer from God, believe that they have received an answer, and that answer doesn't jibe with the answer that you got from God, then they are the ones who must be incorrect/wrong in believing their answer came from God? Did you ever consider that maybe the answer that you received did not come from God, and maybe the answer that they received was actually the correct answer from God?

[Calm]

Please use the quote function rather than italics.

[california boy]

legalizing SSM as well as domestic partnerships and civil unions, completely ignores that rationale for the government offering incentives for marriage to begin with--which, as previously explained, essentially has to do with stabilizing procreative relationships (procreation is fundamental to marital laws--a point often lost on proponents of SSM), and thus has nothing to do with homosexual relationships. Governments do not have a rational basis to encourage the stability of homosexual relationships. So, it doesn't make sense for the government to legalize SSM when the rationale for governmental incentives for traditional marriage aren't relevant to homosexual couples and may even defy the rationale.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You keep going back to this argument as if it is true. You think that repeating it enough times, maybe you will believe it. Or maybe you think if you repeat this argument enough times, others will believe it. This concept of yours is not at all what the cases being brought before the Supreme Court are about. Gay marriage has always been about equal protection under the laws of this county. It simply asks the question, "Do we believe in equality for all citizens in this country or do we not.?" There are 7 cases being brought before the Supreme Court asking this simple question. IN ALL 7 CASES, STATE COURTS AND FEDERAL COURTS HAVE ANSWERED YES TO THIS QUESTION. ALL OF THEM. That is 14 judges from all over the country have ruled in their favor.

Here are the cases.

Arizona v. Joseph Diaz, Can Arizona deny equal employee benefits to LGBT families? Plaintiffs won the trial AND Federal appeals court. It is now before the Supreme Court

California V Kristin Perry, (prop 8 case) Is it constitutional for Californians to ban same-gender marriage after it was granted by the state supreme court. Plaintiffs won the trial AND Federal appeals court. It is now before the Supreme Court

U.S. Personnel Management Office V Karen Golinski, Can the federal government deny equal employee benefits to LGBT workers" Plaintiffs won the trial AND Federal appeals court. It is now before the Supreme Court

Massachusetts v. U.S. Department of health/Human Services, Is it constitutional to force a separate lesser class of marriage upon legally married LGBT people? Plaintiffs won the trial AND Federal appeals court. It is now before the Supreme Court

Nancy Gill v. U.S Personnel Management Office, Is it constitutional to force a separate lesser class of marriage upon legally married LGBT people? Plaintiffs won the trial AND Federal appeals court. It is now before the Supreme Court

Joanne Pederson v U.S. Personnel Management Office Is it constitutional to force a separate lesser class of marriage upon legally married LGBT people? Plaintiffs won the trial AND Federal appeals court. It is now before the Supreme Court

Edith Windsor v U.S. Internal Revenue Service Is it constitutional to tax legally married LGBT citizens more than everyone else? Plaintiffs won the trial AND Federal appeals court. It is now before the Supreme Court

These are the issues that are before the court. There is none of the nonsense that you have been spouting. Nothing about whether you have to have children in order to marry and nothing about benefits of only straight marriages to the country. Now, do you believe that the gay population should be treated equally in this country or not. Do you wish that they should be taxed at a higher level? Do you think they should be denied the same government benefits as the rest of the entire United States? Now do you understand why the majority of this country believes in equality for all Americans including gay Americans?

[Ahab]

So, in short, if others seek an answer from God, believe that they have received an answer, and that answer doesn't jibe with the answer that you got from God, then they are the ones who must be incorrect/wrong in believing their answer came from God?

My point is that at least one of us would have to be wrong if we're contradicting each other.

Either my answer came from God, or theirs did. To find out, I rely on what God tells me, not on what they say God told them.

Did you ever consider that maybe the answer that you received did not come from God, and maybe the answer that they received was actually the correct answer from God?

If there's ever any doubt in my mind, I simply ask God to tell me what is true. The fact that others don't agree with what God tells me doesn't mean I'm going to stop relying on what God has told me, and tells me.

[wenglund]

You keep going back to this argument as if it is true. You think that repeating it enough times, maybe you will believe it. Or maybe you think if you repeat this argument enough times, others will believe it.

This is demonstrably false, and it surprises me that you would mistakenly project in this way when it is so easily documented as false. I keep coming back to this argument because it truly has been successfully argued before state and federal courts since as early as 1971 in Baker V. Nelson:

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation....

In 2006, in the case of Citizens v. Bruning, this argument was applied by the Federal Appeals Court to uphold Nebraska's ban on SSM (note the various other state and federal cases cited as using the same logic):

The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage." By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples, such laws "encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry. But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. See Hernandez v. Robles, No. 86, 2006 NY Slip Op 5239 at 5-6 (N.Y. Ct. App. Jul. 6, 2006); Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15, 24-26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests." Romer, 517 U.S. at 632.³

I could go on and on, including the latest case heard before the federal district court in Hawaii (which may also be brought before the SCOTUS in the next session), Jackson v. Ambercrombie, which states in part:

The “rational basis” for Hawaii’s ban can be found in a legislature’s belief that confining marriage to opposite-sex couples would encourage those couples to wed, thus promising that more children will be raised in “a stable, long-term relationship.” Opposite-sex couples can have children naturally, but gay couples cannot, so reserving marriage for the former serves this social goal.

The “rational basis” also can be found in a legislature’s belief that it is generally “best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex.” While that is debatable, the mere fact that it is debatable satisfies “rational basis.”

If you would like, I can also provide quotes from state and federal legislative records that use this argument to enact DOMA and other traditional marriage legislation.

In short, I have a wealth of documented evidence for the undeniable reality that my argument has been a controlling factor in both enacting and upholding a host of legislation denying SSM. I have shared this documentation with you and others in past thread. You can, ironically, pretend it doesn't exist, and repeat the falsehood enough times hoping you and others will believe it, and pretend I am the one in denial, but demonstrable historical facts say otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[california boy]

This is demonstrably false, and it surprises me that you would mistakenly project in this way when it is so easily documented as false. I keep coming back to this argument because it truly has been successfully argued before state and federal courts since as early as 1971 in Baker V. Nelson:

In 2006, in the case of Citizens v. Bruning, this argument was applied by the Federal Appeals Court to uphold Nebraska's ban on SSM (note the various other state and federal cases cited as using the same logic):

I could go on and on, including the latest case heard before the federal district court in Hawaii (which may also be brought before the SCOTUS in the next session), Jackson v. Ambercrombie, which states in part:

If you would like, I can also provide quotes from state and federal legislative records that use this argument to enact DOMA and other traditional marriage legislation.

In short, I have a wealth of documented evidence for the undeniable reality that my argument has been a controlling factor in both enacting and upholding a host of legislation denying SSM. I have shared this documentation with you and others in past thread. You can, ironically, pretend it doesn't exist, and repeat the falsehood enough times hoping you and others will believe it, and pretend I am the one in denial, but demonstrable historical facts say otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Cling on to it as long as you can, because your argument did not win a single case that are currently before the Supreme Court. If you want to be honest about your idea you keep spinning, why don't you tell us why those arguments have not stood up in state and federal court in each and every one of the cases that are currently before the Supreme Court?

You think that it is demonstratively false that these gay marriage cases are not about equality??

Would you think it was unfair if the state of Arizona decided that because Mormons choose to have a different "view" on marriage than other religions that they should be denied the exact same benefits offered to all the other married couples in the state government? Maybe because Mormons think that marriage for eternity is "different" from other Christian marriages, they should be denied benefits offered to every other married couple. Maybe because Mormons "choose" to perform their marriages secretly behind close doors that the public is not allowed to witness, they should be denied the same benefits as every other married couple in the state. Do you need me to continue to point out the inequality of every single one of these cases? Mormons shoud be the LAST group to be fighting against marriage discrimination given their history. They were the first Americans to practice "alternative marriage" in this country. The discrimination and court rulings that were against them will forever be a black spot on this country and I think went against our constitution. The oppressed become the oppressors. History repeats itself. Nothing new here.

If your argument is so strong, why hasn't it worked in a single one of these cases that have won in both state and federal courts? You point to what. three cases. one being a case in Nebraska that happened over 40 YEARS AGO your hope to continue discriminating against gays. The odds are not looking particularly good for your argument. Yet you present your argument as if it is a strong argument that will continue this inequality and discrimination against gay people.

Every time discrimination has been defended in this country, a few legislatures and courts have ruled against it. But in the end, discrimination has always failed. Always. Too many Americans believe in equality in this country for this discrimination to continue. It will end. It is only a matter of time. Because it is the right thing to do. In answer to op, yes, it is inevitable that ssm will be accepted. Equality is always the right thing for America.

[wenglund]

Cling on to it as long as you can, because your argument did not win a single case that are currently before the Supreme Court. If you want to be honest about your idea you keep spinning, why don't you tell us why those arguments have not stood up in state and federal court in each and every one of the cases that are currently before the Supreme Court?

I am glad you finally decided to be honest and acknowledge that my argument(or rather the argument in question that I have been using here) does exist and has been argued in passing DOMA and other traditional marriage legislation and upholding that legislation in a number of courts, both on a state level and federally. And, we aren't just talking about 3 cases. For practicality purposes, I provided simply but a small sample--including one case in which there was listed several other cases (I explicitly noted this in my post so I am not sure how you missed it).

I also appreciate you finally being honest and tacitly acknowledging that the argument in question was actually considered in the cases you listed, but failed to control the ruling. It is good of you to have stopped pretending that I was pretending, when I clearly was not.

However, before responding to your request, I am issuing a CFR for your claim that the cases you listed are currently before the Supreme Court. A number of same-sex cases have been suggested for consideration, but it is my understanding that the decision won't be made until Nov. 20th as to which cases, if any, will be heard by the SCOTUS.

Be that as it may, I haven't read all the cases you listed, but if they are anything like Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown, which you misnamed California v. Perry), then I can give you at least one reason why the argument I have been using here didn't bear sway. It was because Walker committed the fallacy of equivocation in designating "marriage" as a fundamental right, which then required strict scrutiny rather than a rational basis review. He idiosyncratically used the re-definition of "marriage" in his claim of "fundamental right," when logically the basis for marriage being a fundamental right only applied to the traditional definition of "marriage"--i.e. marriage is "a basic civil right fundamental to our existence and survival," (Loving v. Virginia) and because it is "older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system." (Griswold v. Connecticut." Neither of these qualifiers applies to SSM. In short, the argument didn't bear sway because Walker inanely ignored the rational basis for marriage being a fundamental right, in an illogical attempt to require a stricter judicial test than rational basis.

The 9th Curcuit Court of appeal wisely ignored Walker's inane reasoning, and in a 2-1 vote (along idealogical lines) struck down Prop 8 on the "narrowest grounds"--i.e. "'Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry, a 'distinct constitutional violation' in that it subjected a minority group to 'the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason." (see HERE) In other words, the circuit court ruling wasn't whether SSM was a fundamental right (it isn't--and state and federal courts have suggested as much) that shouldn't be denied to same-sex couples, but rather whether or not the new right of SSM could be taken away once it was conferred.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2012 by wenglund

[california boy]

I am glad you finally decided to be honest and acknowledge that my argument(or rather the argument in question that I have been using here) does exist and has been argued in passing DOMA and other traditional marriage legislation and upholding that legislation in a number of courts, both on a state level and federally. And, we aren't just talking about 3 cases. For practicality purposes, I provided simply but a small sample--including one case in which there was listed several other cases (I explicitly noted this in my post so I am not sure how you missed it).

I also appreciate you finally being honest and tacitly acknowledging that the argument in question was actually considered in the cases you listed, but failed to control the ruling. It is good of you to have stopped pretending that I was pretending, when I clearly was not.

However, before responding to your request, I am issuing a CFR for your claim that the cases you listed are currently before the Supreme Court. A number of same-sex cases have been suggested for consideration, but it is my understanding that the decision won't be made until Nov. 20th as to which cases, if any, will be heard by the SCOTUS.

Be that as it may, I haven't read all the cases you listed, but if they are anything like Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (now Perry v. Brown, which you misnamed California v. Perry), then I can give you at least one reason why the argument I have been using here didn't bear sway. It was because Walker committed the fallacy of equivocation in designating "marriage" as a fundamental right, which then required strict scrutiny rather than a rational basis review. He idiosyncratically used the re-definition of "marriage" in his claim of "fundamental right," when logically the basis for marriage being a fundamental right only applied to the traditional definition of "marriage"--i.e. marriage is "a basic civil right fundamental to our existence and survival," (Loving v. Virginia) and because it is "older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system." (Griswold v. Connecticut." Neither of these qualifiers applies to SSM. In short, the argument didn't bear sway because Walker inanely ignored the rational basis for marriage being a fundamental right, in an illogical attempt to require a stricter judicial test than rational basis.

The 9th Curcuit Court of appeal wisely ignored Walker's inane reasoning, and in a 2-1 vote (along idealogical lines) struck down Prop 8 on the "narrowest grounds"--i.e. "'Proposition 8 singles out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry, a 'distinct constitutional violation' in that it subjected a minority group to 'the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason." (see HERE) In other words, the circuit court ruling wasn't whether SSM was a fundamental right (it isn't--and state and federal courts have suggested as much) that shouldn't be denied to same-sex couples, but rather whether or not the new right of SSM could be taken away once it was conferred.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know whether your pet argument has been used to sway legislatures through emotions to vote against gay marriage or not. I haven't read any of the legal briefs you mentioned. But I do know that if your emotionally charged argument was used, it has failed in each of the 7 cases before the Supreme Court. If it was only Judge Walkers decision that you like to vilify, then you might have a case. But it is not just Judge Walkers ruling that has rejected your argument. Even though the 9th circuit took a different aspect of the case to base their ruling, they still ruled against prop 8 and against your argument as has every other state and federal court that have heard these 7 cases.

All of these cases are currently before the Supreme Court. They have yet to make a decision on which cases they will hear. That decision will be made on December 3rd. IF however they choose to not hear these cases, then the Federal Court rulings against DOMA will stand and DOMA will be ruled unconstitutional.. The same applies to prop 8 case. If the Supreme Court decides to not take it up, gay marriage will become legal again in California by mid December.

Sorry to hear your Google is broken. Here is a link to the cases that are currently before the Supreme Court. Of particular interest to you might be the Windsor v. U.S.case.

The majority opinion in Windsor v. United States, written by Judge Dennis Jacobs, ruled that DOMA violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. The conservative jurist appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1992 even adopted the view of the Obama administration in declaring that laws singling out gay men and lesbians deserve “heightened scrutiny” by the courts.

In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

As you can see, these are not flaming liberal judges that are deciding these cases. These are conservative judges that have completely rejected your emotionally charged argument that was used to sway legislatures. Courts of law are an entirely different playing field. There you have to rely on facts not emotions to win.

Edited November 14, 2012 by california boy

[Ahab]

Courts of law are an entirely different playing field. There you have to rely on facts not emotions to win.

Seems to me that the people pro ssm are those who are relying on emotions to win, with emotional pleas based on letting people do whatever they want to do.

Judging between good and evil would be a much better way, and there is nothing good about ssm in itself.