| Author |
Message |
    
maplescorp
Citizen
Username: Maplescorp
Post Number: 117
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 10:17 am: | 
|
Thank you, ANON.
Now we just need someone to dismiss whoever wrote that opinion as an "out-of-control activist judge" |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 646
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 10:48 am: |
|
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..
Maplescorp-
Judging by the first sentence (above), I think you are trying to fit round pegs into square holes here.
The last time I checked, a white man and black women can procreate. Two men./women cannot. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2580
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 1:13 pm: |
|
The last time I checked, a white man and black women can procreate.
SLK: I don't know how old you are but I remember a time when most people in this country considered that an anathema.
Can the State restrict or ban marraige between a man and woman too old to procreate, or unable to procreate for physical reasons? Would that be constitutional? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 647
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Anon-
Yes, but it is not anymore and hasn't been for a while so let's get over it and move on shall we? 
I do not create State laws, only read them.
Most state marriage laws imply that a man (groom) and women (bride) are eligible based on the verbiage used. I haven't come across any state law the explicitly designates the age of those parties to wed (except restrictions for minors/underaged). In other words I never saw a law stating when you are too old to marry.
Marriage was ORIGINALLY "created" to promote stronger bonds and create a more stable society through procreation.
As I have mentioned earlier, Gays cannot procreate so their idea of marriage does not jive with the tradtional view.
Yet their are glitches in the marriage system, one as you have pointed out, the elderly getting married (who also cannot procreate).
As I have said many times before, Gays SHOULD be allowed to get married but one of the main problems is that gay marriage proponents have picked the wrong ring to fight.
All the gay population is fighting is tradition, which can change within time and with effort.
Unfortunately, the idea of a "constitutional right" to be married just doesn't work for many, including me.
-SLK
Oh yeah, I am 37. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2583
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
SLK: I think you are avoiding the issue. In striking down anti-miscegenation laws the Supreme Court found a "fundamental right" to marraige in the 14th Amendment. You argue that it has to do with procreation, so I asked whether you would consider a law banning marraige between a man and a woman incapable of procreation to be unconstitutional. You answer by saying you don't make State laws, you only read them!
You say:
All the gay population is fighting is tradition, which can change within time and with effort.
Exactly! And all those inter-racial couples were fighting the same fight. And one of the ways they chose to fight was through the Courts. And no doubt there were those who argued that they picked the wrong ring to fight. But at some point, the Supreme Court decided to accept changing tradition and discover a "right to marraige" so as to strike down the laws against inter-racial marraige.
Therefore, can Gays not argue that since there is a constitutionally recognized right to marraige, and since no one argues that it is restricted to persons capable of procreation, do not they not have the same right?
Today the most "conservative" member of the Supreme Court is a Black man married to a White woman. Will there one day be a Gay married "conservative" justice?
(And I am a lot older than 37) |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 3:55 pm: |
|
This is funny. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 965
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 4:19 pm: |
|
anon,
IF there is a "fundamental right" to marry arising out of the fourteenth amendment, how does it apply to gays?
Its been a while since I've read Loving, but its my recollection that the case was decided not upon the principle that marriage is a fundamental right, but rather upon the principle that the Constitution specifically prohibits the racial discrimination discrimination then embodied in Virginia's anti-misigination (sp) laws.
The petitioner in Loving was not fighting the same fight as gay advocates now.
The phrase being tossed about here from the Loving decision, while worthy of debate, is no more than dicta, as evidenced by the fact that each Court system in the U.S. which has been called upon to address the issue, has rejected the Fourteenth Amendment argument as it pertains to gay marriage.
That rejection leans me to conclude that the attorneys and Judges involved were all inept, or corrupt; or that the quoted language does not offer the protection claimed.
If you can construct an argumment that the Constitution requires the allowance of gay marriage, or direct me to a source for such argument, I'd appreciate it.
I've been looking for a few years, and haven't found it yet.
Every time I think I have a novel construct, I run right into Fritz.
I think that Scrotis has this one right. The challenge is more effectively made at the State level.
TomR |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 650
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 8:47 am: |
|
Anon-
Marriage is not a constitutional issue nor should it have to be.
-SLK |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12325
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 10:05 am: |
|
SLK, I think I agree.
TomR, I don't understand the difference between the things we have a right to do and the things we may do. Can you explain that a bit? Thanks.
|
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1731
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 1:33 pm: |
|
"If you can construct an argumment that the Constitution requires the allowance of gay marriage, or direct me to a source for such argument, I'd appreciate it."
Easy. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Marriage in this country is primarily an issue of legal status, not church doctrine. When you start attaching fundamental societal rights and legal standing to the "institution" of marriage, as we have done, it ceases to be merely a religious custom.
It has become an easy (and efficient) form of discrimination to attach basic rights to marital status, and then deny those rights to gay people because they aren't married. Really no different than telling everyone they're allowed to vote, then attaching a fee to voting that only the wealthy can afford to pay.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 966
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Noglider,
Use the example of smoking in places of public accommodation.
Until April 15, people MAY smoke in bars, if the proprietor permits.
If people had the right to smoke in bars, the proprietor wouldn't be able to stop a patron from smoking. After all, its a place of public accommodation.
If I misunderstood what information you were seeking, and the above is insufficient, let me know.
TomR |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 967
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 3:47 pm: |
|
cmonty,
Sometimes its so obvious, that I just can't see the nose on my face.
The Courts in Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey who addressed the Fourteenth Amendment issue were just, well..., I dunno.... Is wacked the correct word?
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
TomR |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1733
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Perhaps you could illuminate the less obvious, though I'm sure still entertaining, reasons why you don't believe gay people have a right to marry.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 653
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 4:19 pm: |
|
cmontyburns-
No one is arguing that gays cannot get married, or at least I am not. Marriage as a whole is not a constitutional issue, period.
Here we witness the trap the vague language of the 14th amendment creates.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12341
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 4:54 pm: |
|
SLK, so the constitution is neutral on marriage. I can deal with that. What, then, prevents gays from marrying?
TomR, thank you.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 969
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 6:20 pm: |
|
cmonty,
I thought I had already done so in my prior posts on this thread, including the post which compelled you to insinuate yourself in this particular discussion.
If I've misunderstood your query, please elaborate.
In any event, its good to have someone involved in the discussion who finds the delicate intricacies of Constitutional jurisprudence, entertaining.
TomR |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 10:03 pm: |
|
The right to marry emanates from the first amendment. The part about freedom of religion. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12344
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 11:20 pm: |
|
Interestingly, a Mexican friend of mine says that in Mexico, a very Catholic country, religious ceremonies have no legal standing. So it's traditional to have two ceremonies, one by the justice of the peace and one in the church.
|
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 6, 2006 - 11:35 pm: |
|
Tom, if we take that approach, then the semantic difference between marriage and domestic partnersip goes away.
Consider this paradigm:
o Religious institutions conduct weddings and sanctify marriages. The government has no business telling any religion who can and cannot get married. Likewise, no religious organization is required to marry any two persons they don't want.
o Civil authorities license domestic partnerships, which confer all of the rights that we currently think of as accruing to married folk, namely the right to file a joint return, inheritance rights, fifth amendment incrimination protection, power of attorney and similar stuff
You can be married, in a partnership, or both or neither.
"Gay Marriage" then becomes a religious issue, not a civil rights issue.
=====================================
Why have we not gravitated toward this? Simple answer is money. It costs society money to confer inheritance rights and joint filing rights to straights who marry, and society does not currently seem to want to spend money to confer those rights to gays. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12345
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 7:26 am: |
|
I don't like the distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships. I don't think it's necessary, and eventually, one has a danger of becoming more important or respectable.
I don't think society really resents the monetary costs. It's not as if they'll "feel" it. It's just that those who oppose gay marriage don't want gays to enjoy the same thing they (the opposers) enjoy. It's not as if something is going to come out of their pockets. If a gay man cannot receive his husband's property through inheritance, it goes to someone else in society, so the society is not richer or poorer, depending on where the property lands. In other words, it doesn't increase or decrease society's wealth.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 654
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 8:07 am: |
|
Tom Reingold says:
"SLK, so the constitution is neutral on marriage. I can deal with that. What, then, prevents gays from marrying?"
Tradition and the language and implication of state and local laws governing marriage.
I just saw in the paper this morning about (I think) Pataki passing more Gay friendly laws, one being that gays can have more involvement in their partner's funeral/burial processions. Something like that and I hope I didn't butcher it too much!
Give it time ladies and gentlemen, GM should be a reality sooner than you think. I just think the constitutional route was definitely the wrong way
to go in this matter. I wouldn't say that the constitution is neutral on marriage, rather that it is an unconstitutional issue....
|
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 10:48 am: |
|
"I don't like the distinction between marriage and domestic partnerships. I don't think it's necessary, and eventually, one has a danger of becoming more important or respectable."
They are and will be important in different ways...although my hope is that just as our government bestows tax and other benefits on my wife and me, who were married under a chuppah, that they award the same beenfits to our gay friends who were also married udner a chuppah.
If you are still worried about the words, let's get rid of the words altogether.
Get hitched by a justice of the peace? It's a Civil Union.
Get hitched by a Rabbipriestministerimam? It's a Religious Union.
Let's not get hung up on semantics. The point is that I have the right to marry in a manner consistent with the religious teachings of my choice. And whatever privileges are conferred to my wife and me by our laws, should be conferred to everyone so situated. |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
SLK wrote:
The last time I checked, a white man and black women can procreate. Two men./women cannot.
Is that your litmus test?
When the time comes, very soon, that a donor egg can be stripped of its chromosomes, the chromosomes from a sperm from one male can be expressed into that egg, and the sperm from a 2nd male can fertilize that egg, then you will have a child that is genetically the product of two males.
Be careful if you insist that marriage rights are predicated on ability to procreate. You may get what you wish for. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12349
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
|
Get hitched by a justice of the peace? It's a Civil Union.
Get hitched by a Rabbipriestministerimam? It's a Religious Union.
That distinction still troubles me. I like the way NY state does it. I remember, because I was married in 2003 in NY. We filled out a form stating who performed the marriage, which deemed it religious. You can be married either by civil service or married by religious service. And, as it turns out, the definition of a religious service is extremely loose. We were married by what could almost be called a fly-by-night ordination. Our friend got the ordination for $250 and a one-day course. I think the organization might be registered with the state as a religious one, but that might not have taken much.
|
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 1736
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
I'm not sure you can be married anywhere these days without a license from the secular government, can you?
A marriage ceremony can be religious, but the legal status of "married" really doesn't have much to do with the church. At least as far as the government is concerned. |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 214
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
|
CMonty, that's the problem--people have confused the two institutions.
People can--and do--get married within their church but without government recognition. Plenty of reasons one would do that, from not wanting to get penalized for Social Security benefits, to having the same sex as your mate.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 655
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Stuart0628-
Point taken ,but I am not claiming that procreation is the entire reason behind the marriage institution but it does bear considerable weight on the issue. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 972
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 7, 2006 - 8:53 pm: |
|
Stuart,
How does one get married without government recognition?
TomR |
Stuart0628
Citizen
Username: Stuart0628
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2006 - 10:01 am: |
|
How does one get married without government recognition?
You just do it.
You exchange vows according to whatever your religious tradition is. You are thus married in the eyes of your religious community. If you do not file the paperwork with the government, either by choice or because you can't because you are both the same sex, then your marriage is not recognized by the civil authorities. But you are absolutely married in the eyes of God or the deity of your choice.
There is an astounding misconception here that the right to marry emanates from government. The government does not marry you. The two participants marry each other. The govenment merely acknowledges the union, and (if you are lucky enough to fall in love with someone of the opposite sex) confers economic and legal benefits on you. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 999
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 9:30 pm: |
|
cmonty,
I had to opportunity to look over the appellants' briefs in Lewis -v- Harris, and curiously, there is no argument advanced pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.
I was reasonably certain that the issue had been adddressed by the Appellate Division.
I could be wrong.
TomR |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5050
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
The plaintiffs' argument in Lewis v. Harris deals specifically with NJ law, and is based on the NJ Constitution, not on the US Constitution. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 16, 2006 - 10:33 pm: |
|
DUH!
Now, can you tell me why?
TomR
|
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5051
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 6:19 am: |
|
Easy.
The NJ Supreme Court is the "last word" on the meaning of the NJ Constitution. The US Supreme Court is the last word on the US Constitution.
A right guaranteed by the NJ Constitution (for example, a non-discriminatory right to marry) could not be over-ruled by the US Supreme Court.
Many state constitutions afford greater protections of individual rights, than the US Constitution. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 740
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 7:50 am: |
|
Well, at leats some common sense still remains in NY on the subject....my emphasis on bold....
UPHOLDING MARRIAGE — AND THE LAW
February 17, 2006 -- A five-judge panel of the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division has wisely — and unanimously — struck down an attempt by gay activists to summarily overturn the state's marriage laws on constitutional grounds.
The judges in the Albany-based Third Department — headed by Justice John Lahtinen, who wrote the opinion — rejected each of the arguments raised in three separate cases brought by same-sex couples looking to officially marry in New York.
Most important, the panel ruled that marriage is so fundamental a cornerstone of society that any changes to its essential definition should come from the elected voices of the people — not a small group of robed justices.
"This case is not simply about the right to marry the person of one's choice," the judges ruled, "but represents a significant expansion into new territory, which is, in reality, a redefinition of marriage."
While recognizing the complex arguments for and against same-sex marriage, the judges nonetheless concluded that "the Legislature is the better forum for sorting through this type of conflicting data on an important social issue . . . [T]he Legislature is where changes to marriage of the nature urged by plaintiffs should be addressed."
While urging proponents of gay marriage to take their complaints to the Senate and Assembly, the judges also rejected assertions that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates New York's Constitution.
We believe marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples, which is not to say that domestic-partnership and similar rules and regulations regarding civil and social affairs aren't warranted.
But if change is to occur, it must come with the consent of the people — that is, legislatively.
Presumably, public opinion in the matter is reflected in the fact that Congress passed — and President Clinton signed into law — the Defense of Marriage Act, and 40 states have either enacted similar statutes or amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.
To be sure, this issue is best considered on a national level: Having different state laws, like the one in Massachusetts that allows such marriages, is confusing and — ultimately — socially corrosive.
But if individual states are going to tackle the issue, it must be done in a way that enlists public participation.
That could be in a statewide referendum, or by direct legislative action.
But not by a single judge, nor even by a handful.
Happily, even most judges are starting to understand this, as well.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1001
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Nohero,
While your analysis is correct, insofar as it goes. However, the absence of the Fourteenth Amendment claim leaves me wondering why it wasn't advanced at the trial Court.
TomR |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5058
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Okay, I'll try again. This is only my guess, mind you -
The complaint in Lewis v. Harris is based on Article I, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution. That's the "right to privacy" and "equal protection" provision of the NJ Constitution.
Including a count based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution would be superfluous. Not only that, but if the NJ Supreme Court did render a decision based on a provision of the U.S. Constitution, that could be reviewed (and therefore overturned) by the U.S. Supreme Court.
As I noted before, the New Jersey Supreme Court is the “last word” on the interpretation of the N.J. Constitution. So, if the N.J. Supreme Court decides that state law cannot prohibit same-sex marriage, then that decision will control in N.J. (at least, unless and until a U.S. Constitutional Amendment is passed to “define” marriage”). |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 17, 2006 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Nohero,
No argument on the point that the N.J. Supremes are the final arbiters of the meaning of the N.J. Constitution.
But having omitted the Fourteenth Amendment claims, if Mr. Lewis and company should lose before the N.J. Supremes, they have no further avenue of appeal.
And given the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court at the time the suit was filed, the chance of prevailing upon such appeal, while not great, was not out of the question.
Hence, I wonder why the claim was omitted.
TomR |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page