Another Tool For Smacking Down Anti-Gay Marriage Folk

[HemlockGrey]

I found this on Wikipedia, an excerpt from the case of Loving vs. Virginia:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Simply replace "race" with "gender" and you have a fairly decent argument. Also, the Wikipedia entry noted that SCOTUS dismissed Virginia's argument that because the law applied equally to both races, and they could always marry members of their own race, it was OK; this can be used against those morons who claim that since homosexuals can marry members of the opposite sex their rights are not being suppressed.

[Edi]

I also suggest using Article IV of the USC (paraphrased): All citizens of the US are entitled to the same immunities and privileges.

That's exactly what the 14th amendment says, just in slightly different words and explicitly prohibits states' rights bullfuckery on this kind of issues. It is also noteworthy that Article IV uses the word 'privilege', not 'right', so it cuts the legs right out from under the "Marriage is a privilege, not a right! Waaahhhh!" argument that most of the anti-gay marriage asshats love to use.

Edi

[General Zod]

it's an argument i've been using for months. alternatively whenever asshats bring up the whole 'marriage is defined as being between one man, one woman, etc'. i've simply taken their statement and swapped out man with white man, and woman with white woman. works wonders for turning their words back on them.

[Jalinth]

I also suggest using Article IV of the USC (paraphrased): All citizens of the US are entitled to the same immunities and privileges.

That's exactly what the 14th amendment says, just in slightly different words and explicitly prohibits states' rights bullfuckery on this kind of issues. It is also noteworthy that Article IV uses the word 'privilege', not 'right', so it cuts the legs right out from under the "Marriage is a privilege, not a right! Waaahhhh!" argument that most of the anti-gay marriage asshats love to use.

Edi

Unfortunately, Article IV didn't have legs to it when applied to minorities, so it was basically useless. The 14th amendment had to be produced to wipe out this type of legal argument, and then it took the better part of a century to wipe out the other legal rubble in this area (the whole "separate but equal" concept, voter qualification where they were applied purely on a racial basis, etc...).

[DPDarkPrimus]

It doesn't work. Morons still say "we're talking about gender, not race"!

[Edi]

I also suggest using Article IV of the USC (paraphrased): All citizens of the US are entitled to the same immunities and privileges.

That's exactly what the 14th amendment says, just in slightly different words and explicitly prohibits states' rights bullfuckery on this kind of issues. It is also noteworthy that Article IV uses the word 'privilege', not 'right', so it cuts the legs right out from under the "Marriage is a privilege, not a right! Waaahhhh!" argument that most of the anti-gay marriage asshats love to use.

Edi

Unfortunately, Article IV didn't have legs to it when applied to minorities, so it was basically useless. The 14th amendment had to be produced to wipe out this type of legal argument, and then it took the better part of a century to wipe out the other legal rubble in this area (the whole "separate but equal" concept, voter qualification where they were applied purely on a racial basis, etc...).

All of the arguments and precedents that I've seen of it are from the first six decades of the 19th century, and the SCOTUS judgments that do not grant it any kind of power use very questionable justifications at best. Outright ignoring the whole USC at worst. The only reason those verdicts turned out the way they did was that the states' rights bullshit was given entirely too much weight despite what e.g. Article VI says about the USC and its amendments being the supreme law of the land and anything contradictory (such as might appear in state legislation or constitutions) is overridden.

Yes, it took that long to get where things are now, but it does not affect the logical validity of the argument I've made. Citing precedent is just an appeal to authority, and if the authority's judgment can be shown to be of questionable logic, it can be discarded like so much rubbish.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

The Appeal to Authority has greater weight in legal debates than it does in pure ethical ones, where it has none. Nevertheless, it is interesting to point out that everyone agreed that marriage was a right until the gay-marriage issue came along, as that old ruling demonstrates and as our modern cultural attitudes toward legalizing interracial marriage also demonstrate. So you can show how dishonest they are being by pretending that it is not a right because that pretense happens to be convenient for them right now.

[Jalinth]

Yes, it took that long to get where things are now, but it does not affect the logical validity of the argument I've made. Citing precedent is just an appeal to authority, and if the authority's judgment can be shown to be of questionable logic, it can be discarded like so much rubbish.

Edi

The fact that the US Supreme Court pretty much ignored this clause at least relating to blacks and women would be a good reason that the argument doesn't carry enough legal weight. Logical weight is another matter (but we are talking about lawyers after all )

Unfortunately, precedent can't be set aside that easily. Precedent actually means something in legal circles - it is more than an appeal to authority.

If SCOTUS decides X, then a lower court has two choices assuming that the underlying law hasn't changed in the interim. 1) Follow the precedent or 2) find some way to argue that the current situation is different in a material respect from the SCOTUS case and therefore they can provide a different alternative. If they can't, then the case will be lost on appeal.

That is the reason why the 14th amendment was important - it provided a new constitutional basis to ignore previous cases. Also, the Supreme Court post WWII eventually stated that certain previous precedents were essentially invalid (a court can overturn its own precedent while a lower court can't overturn a superior courts ones) so demolished the "separate but equal" concept. I believe (lawyers in the crowd please correct me)that one of the main reasons is that conditions weren't "equal" and that judges shouldn't close their eyes to these facts.

[Edi]

So what's your problem understandig what I'm saying, Jalinth? The fact that judges from an era where prejudice and bigotry was considered valid grounds for decision making without justification made judgments that would not stand even casual scrutiny today certainly does not make Article IV irrelevant today as you say it does. If that is the case, following your logic, any part of the USC could be dismissed without examination.

I'm not dismissing precedent out of hand, because it IS a valid source of law, but if it can be shown that a precedent is based on a bad judgment (meaning that there are logical flaws in it or that its justification violates principles that are expressly held up as the foundation of the law), then there are grounds for overturning the precedent.

That is the whole fucking reason why any precedents can be overturned at all in the first place! It's also the reason why I included a separate additional condition before an appeal to authority that is a higher court can be dismissed in a legal case, because practice of law relies heavily on appeals to authority and doing so in and of itself it is not immediate grounds for dismissal.

And following from these things, Article IV even on its own can be quite perfectly used as a basis for a pro-gay marriage argument. And when you combine it with the 14th amendment and Article VI, the only thing the opposition can do is cry like babies and make asshats out of themselves unless they are blatantly willing to rewrite the whole USC (most fundies are anyway, but that's a different topic).

Edi

[SPOOFE]

Nevertheless, it is interesting to point out that everyone agreed that marriage was a right until the gay-marriage issue came along

... When it became a "religious institution". Which confuses me, since I thought we had this whole silly "separation of Church 'n State" thing. But of course, if you bring THAT up, you get accused of trying to take God out of government, followed up by some ballzowzy about how we're a "Christian nation" and that our Forefathers were all Christian and such and such...

Sometimes I just don't understand my own country.

[Queeb Salaron]

Nevertheless, it is interesting to point out that everyone agreed that marriage was a right until the gay-marriage issue came along

... When it became a "religious institution". Which confuses me, since I thought we had this whole silly "separation of Church 'n State" thing. But of course, if you bring THAT up, you get accused of trying to take God out of government, followed up by some ballzowzy about how we're a "Christian nation" and that our Forefathers were all Christian and such and such...

I think it's funny that marriage is a "religious institution," and no one is protesting atheists getting married.

I also find it funny that no one really thought of marriage as a strictly religious institution before the gay marriage thing, as the only people who really have a problem with homosexuality in general are narrow-minded religious types.

And by that I mean certain politicians.

Sometimes I just don't understand my own country.

Neither does our president. You're in good company.

[Nick Lancaster]

In the end, it comes down to this:

How does a gay couple that I have never met, and who may even live in another state, being afforded the legal and social benefits of marriage, demean the sanctity of my marriage? Is there some limited amount of money being handed out? God's only got room for so many married couples in some cosmic sense, so we have to like, ration it out?

I understand my marriage to be a covenant between myself, my wife, and my God (substitute whatever deity or higher power you happen to believe in).

As Mrs. Patrick Campbell is alleged to have said, "My dear, I don't care what they do, as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses."

What are you really afraid of? That a gay couple might move in next door to you? Why does their being married or not make them a greater or lesser threat? Do you think that they're going to sprinkle Evil Faggot Dust on your kids and turn them into the next GLBT generation? Kidnap them and brainwash them into denying Jesus as their Personal Savior? Block the doors to the Big Rapture Bus when it comes tooling down your street?
That God is going to fault you or otherwise ship you off to Gehenna because you didn't denounce that gay couple with every last fiber in your sanctimonious body? Do you think Fred Phelps is gonna be there on Judgment Day with his God Hates Fags signs and acne-scarred face and piggy eyes, pointing out your failures to the Almighty?

Here's a tip. Notice that when God or angels appear to people in the Bible, they're always saying, 'Fear not ...'

Fear not. A world of wisdom in two simple words.

Why base this kind of decision, even at a personal, moral and spiritual level on fear? Are you good only because you fear the consequences? Why base your salvation on the condemnation of others? Is that really what Christ taught us?

[Frank Hipper]

I believe firmly that what it all boils down to is that legalising same sex marriage is legitimising homosexuality.
They can't say that in the mixed company of the media, so they'll grasp any and every straw they can.[/Captain Obvious]

[Nick Lancaster]

I believe firmly that what it all boils down to is that legalising same sex marriage is legitimising homosexuality.
They can't say that in the mixed company of the media, so they'll grasp any and every straw they can.[/Captain Obvious]

They say that in front of the media all the time.

When a Superior Court judge in San Francisco issued a ruling that California's definition of marriage being 'between a man and a woman' was unconstitutional, out came the 'Family Defense' nutjob, who spewed hate, accused the judge of hating families, being an idiot, legislating from the bench ...

... and it turns out the judge is a Republican, appointed by a Republican.

When Michael Newdow filed his suit against the Pledge of Allegiance, it was 'God-fearing Christians' who clogged his answering machine and mailbox with profanity-laced invective and death threats.

What it may come down to is that faith, for many people, is a practice of rote memory - it's done because your parents did it that way before you, and there hasn't been any spiritual self-examination. Poking at things like Leviticus is not acceptable, because it requires the believer to make those examinations of thought and belief, with the attendant risk of ridicule or the discovery that it doesn't make sense, after all. Again, that's fear - fear of looking stupid, fear of being wrong, fear of having been fooled.

You have to remember, Peter was able to walk across the water, until he began to fear.

I'm not saying we all need to run out and buy into L. Ron Hubbard's idiocy, because that's not where I'm coming from. I'm not going to tell you that you can free-climb El Capitan if you conquer your fear; that's bullshit.

But when people scoff at the passage from Leviticus, the other reasons against 'gay marriage' all seem to stem from fear - fear that marriage is somehow lessened in importance or sanctity, fear that the 'traditional family' will be diminished (while ignoring all of the damage done by 'traditional' society) ... without any actual thought being given to the issue.

[Frank Hipper]

But it isn't fear so much as it's hatred and bigotry that's being marketed here.

While you may get more honesty out of a protestor in the street, you'll seldom if ever find someone in an interview situation espousing what they truly feel on the subject of "Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage".

[Nick Lancaster]

But it isn't fear so much as it's hatred and bigotry that's being marketed here.

Hatred and bigotry are essentially rooted in fear, if you think about it.

While you may get more honesty out of a protestor in the street, you'll seldom if ever find someone in an interview situation espousing what they truly feel on the subject of "Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage".

My views are precisely as I have stated; they are my true feelings. How the actions of a gay couple can impact (outside of physical assault) diminish the sanctity of my marriage is beyond me. If such is the case, then Britney Spears' Quest For The Big O has been equally, if not more damaging; the same with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey. We're so busy worrying about what 'the gays' might do, when it's so much bullshit.

Does it change how you regard your spouse? How you treat them? Your relationship with God? How?

[Frank Hipper]

While you may get more honesty out of a protestor in the street, you'll seldom if ever find someone in an interview situation espousing what they truly feel on the subject of "Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage".

My views are precisely as I have stated; they are my true feelings. How the actions of a gay couple can impact (outside of physical assault) diminish the sanctity of my marriage is beyond me. If such is the case, then Britney Spears' Quest For The Big O has been equally, if not more damaging; the same with Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey. We're so busy worrying about what 'the gays' might do, when it's so much bullshit.

Does it change how you regard your spouse? How you treat them? Your relationship with God? How?

I'm being a little too cryptic, perhaps, I most certainly wasn't accusing you of anything.
Let me state that differently:
I sincerely doubt that you'll ever see an elected official state in public that he's against same sex marriage because he, she, or God, hates fags.

Your views as you state them are perfectly in line with my own; further, I'm at a loss as to how adding a definition to marriage weakens it.

[Nick Lancaster]

I'm being a little too cryptic, perhaps, I most certainly wasn't accusing you of anything.

No offense taken; my reply was a direct answer to your example.

Let me state that differently:
I sincerely doubt that you'll ever see an elected official state in public that he's against same sex marriage because he, she, or God, hates fags.

Okay, I see where you were going with things. Thanks for the clarification.

[LadyTevar]

Nevertheless, it is interesting to point out that everyone agreed that marriage was a right until the gay-marriage issue came along

... When it became a "religious institution". Which confuses me, since I thought we had this whole silly "separation of Church 'n State" thing. But of course, if you bring THAT up, you get accused of trying to take God out of government, followed up by some ballzowzy about how we're a "Christian nation" and that our Forefathers were all Christian and such and such...

Sometimes I just don't understand my own country.

What I find amusing is the fact that Marriage *was not* a religious institution! Even in the Jewish community at the time of Christ, it was a business proposition, made between the parents often without the bride and groom even meeting. It continued to be a secular celebration, even in the Medieval Ages, where a townsperson's might take place *in front* of the church, but not on the church grounds itself. It was not until more modern times that emphasis was placed on the fact that Christ attended a marriage (or as heretics say was the Groom in the marriage at Cana), that marriage became a Church Institution.