Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That would be the liberty to marry those who we chose, and the equal protection which is not being afforded to homosexual relationships and marriages.
And for reference, a snippet of the court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia.
There is no liberty to receive a government blessing of who we choose to form a relationship with. There are numerous restrictions on the relational arrangements the government will favor.
Government favors certain activities all the time. That doesn't equal a deprivation of liberty for those whose activities don't fall within the favored category. You can still marry whoever you want if you can find a church or whoever to bless your marriage. Doesn't mean the government is required to bless it as well.
There is no liberty to receive a government blessing of who we choose to form a relationship with.
The SCOTUS disagreed with that argument in Loving v. Virginia. They will likely disagree with it if/when they take up the gay marriage issue as well.
Quote:
There are numerous restrictions on the relational arrangements the government will favor. Government favors certain activities all the time. That doesn't equal a deprivation of liberty for those whose activities don't fall within the favored category.
This is true, however you must remember that there must be some form of rationale for this decision. Since this case involves classifications, the SCOTUS is likely to apply the strict scrutiny model (which is the same standard applied in most of the DOMA cases in lower courts) the state will have have to show a substantial interest in continuing to prevent gay marriage.
Just curious, but what argument could you make that would satisfy that standard? IMO, it doesn't against, and the anti-gay marriage side has had spectacular failures in this department, especially in the Prop 8 case.
Quote:
You can still marry whoever you want if you can find a church or whoever to bless your marriage. Doesn't mean the government is required to bless it as well.
That's not the issue being decided here.
Last edited by McBain II; 12-02-2012 at 02:28 AM..
Reason: clarification/correction
The SCOTUS disagreed with that argument in Loving v. Virginia. They will likely disagree with it if/when they take up the gay marriage issue as well.
This is true, however you must remember that there must be some form of rationale for this decision. Since this case involves classifications, the SCOTUS is likely to apply the strict scrutiny model (which is the same standard applied in most of the DOMA cases in lower courts) the state will have have to show a substantial interest in continuing to prevent gay marriage.
Just curious, but what argument could you make that would satisfy that standard? IMO, it doesn't against, and the anti-gay marriage side has had spectacular failures in this department, especially in the Prop 8 case.
That's not the issue being decided here.
The rational basis for favoring a relationship between a man and a woman is that it is the type of relationship that naturally produces offspring and the government wants to strengthen that relationship because a man and a woman raising a family together provides better outcomes for the children and for society. The fact that interracial relationships produce the same results (namely, offspring) while being denied the same favored treatment is why SCOTUS decided the way it did in Loving. Same-sex relationships don't produce offspring and giving them the same treatment is not necessary to support the government goals behind favoring opposite-sex relationships.
There may be other rational bases for extending marriage recognition to same-sex couples, but it's hardly obvious that government is constitutionally required to do so like activists make it out to be.
The rational basis for favoring a relationship between a man and a woman is that it is the type of relationship that naturally produces offspring and the government wants to strengthen that relationship because a man and a woman raising a family together provides better outcomes for the children and for society. The fact that interracial relationships produce the same results (namely, offspring) while being denied the same favored treatment is why SCOTUS decided the way it did in Loving. Same-sex relationships don't produce offspring and giving them the same treatment is not necessary to support the government goals behind favoring opposite-sex relationships.
There may be other rational bases for extending marriage recognition to same-sex couples, but it's hardly obvious that government is constitutionally required to do so like activists make it out to be.
You just made a case for infertile couples not being allowed to marry.
I didn't ask about rational basis. I asked about intermediate scrutiny. Rational basis is the lowest form of scrutiny and as most legal scholars think it is the intermediate scrutiny basis that would (and for the most part, has been) applied by the courts, that is the standard I pose to you.
Quote:
for favoring a relationship between a man and a woman is that it is the type of relationship that naturally produces offspring and the government wants to strengthen that relationship because a man and a woman raising a family together provides better outcomes for the children and for society.
This argument has no legal merit, IMO. Not only do you have a situation where single parent families are increasingly common, it's also become increasingly accepted. Beyond that, gay couples can and do have children so your logic can be applied there as well.
The next problem you run into is that legalizing same sex marriage does nothing with regards to your opinion (it's validity notwithstanding) of the benefits of traditional marriage. Legalizing same sex marriage in no way, shape or form, takes away from traditional marriage in that regard.
Quote:
The fact that interracial relationships produce the same results (namely, offspring) while being denied the same favored treatment is why SCOTUS decided the way it did in Loving. Same-sex relationships don't produce offspring and giving them the same treatment is not necessary to support the government goals behind favoring opposite-sex relationships.
No, that's not what the ruling was based on. Here's the two paragraphs immediately proceeding the one I posted above.
Quote:
There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. [n11] We have consistently denied [p12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. II
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Quote:
There may be other rational bases for extending marriage recognition to same-sex couples, but it's hardly obvious that government is constitutionally required to do so like activists make it out to be.
What you seem to fail to understand is that when these cases are presented for intermediate and strict scrutiny, the burden is on the state to show they have reasons to stop same sex marriage. As I said before, I do not believe that argument exists and you have failed to make the case as well.
I didn't ask about rational basis. I asked about intermediate scrutiny. Rational basis is the lowest form of scrutiny and as most legal scholars think it is the intermediate scrutiny basis that would (and for the most part, has been) applied by the courts, that is the standard I pose to you. [snip].
This last August, the U.S. District Court for Hawaii used 'rational basis' review in deciding that Hawaii's ban against ssm is constitutional.
The Supreme Court ruled (Loving v. Virginia) that states with marriage laws can't ban interracial couples from accessing that law. Where is interracial marriage in the Constitution? Do you disagree with the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia?
Conservatives quote the Constitution, liberals case law.
But no, I don't think a federal law should have been needed for interracial marriage. I guess that the SCOTUS was involved based on the 14th.
DOMA is unconstitutional in my opinion.
Same sex marriage should be up to the citizens of the states.
That would be the liberty to marry those who we chose, and the equal protection which is not being afforded to homosexual relationships and marriages.
And for reference, a snippet of the court's opinion in Loving v. Virginia.
No one is stopping gay marriage. Same sex marriage is up to the states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
