quote: Gay couples began exchanging marriage vows in Massachusetts on Monday, marking the first time a state has granted gays and lesbians the right to marry and making the United States one of at least five countries where homosexuals can legally wed.
posted
*sigh* I've commented on every other homosexuality thread. No comment here. *sick of the world* Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a fan of some of the cities not doing place of residence checks on couples; I know it isn't usually done on non-resident heterosexuals, but if the same-sex opponents can abide by the rule of law, so can the same-sex advocates.
I am, however, glad that this is happening though.
posted
"Same Sex Couples Sign Pieces Of Paper Allowing Them To Do Publicly What They've Been Doing Privately All Along" Posts: 165 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Same Sex Couples Finally Allowed to Make Their Loving Relationships a Productive Part of Society and the Community"
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's serious doubt that Massachuessets will be able to revoke these marriages if its amendment passes in 2006. However, any granted in violation of the 1913 law to non-residents are probably toast if that amendment is passed.
posted
Well, I think there isn't much to the legal aspects yet. Especially since I think the 1913 law has about a 50/50 chance of being overturned, at least, if it is applied to all couples uniformly. If it isn't overturned, then we essentially have civil unions in MA, and it's up to the state constitutional amendment(s) to decide things.
posted
Ryan, is that from the Goodrich opinion? If that quote is talking about the federal constitution, then it may not apply in this case (since this is a state issue currently). What applies to the federal government may not apply to some stays, in this regard.
quote:So they wouldn't have been productive or useful without being called married?
I'm in the "provide a social structure and you'll see homosexual promiscuity lessen" camp. Couples that don't have to hide their relationships, can work towards stronger personal and financial bonds because they don't have to worry about legalities, couples that don't have to take so many extra steps to be able to make hospital visits or deal with child custodies, those couples strengthen society much more than couples that hide, lie, or break up over social pressure and ostracization.
Edited to add: started writing this before the thread swung to the legal aspects, sorry.
[ May 17, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, except that marriage isn't ONLY a religiously significant event. Since the law is only applying to civil law, I think the religious aspect will be ignored and not factor into any opinion (in MA, at least).
quote: I'm in the "provide a social structure and you'll see homosexual promiscuity lessen" camp. Couples that don't have to hide their relationships, can work towards stronger personal and financial bonds because they don't have to worry about legalities, couples that don't have to take so many extra steps to be able to make hospital visits or deal with child custodies, those couples strengthen society much more than couples that hide, lie, or break up over social pressure and ostracization.
But we're talking about people who claim to love each other with a life-long love ANYWAY, and call each other life partners. Isn't it belittling the commitment they have for each other by saying it will fall apart if they can't sign the paper?
I truly believe that a person chooses to be or not to be promiscuous based on a worldview. Either they believe promiscuity is wrong, or they don't. Allowing them to get married won't change the fact that they don't see anything wrong with having many different partners. If they thought it was wrong, they wouldn't do it. (I'm not talking about all homosexuals here, but rather the ones that we're defining as promiscuous.)
Under the U.S. Constitution, there are two clauses that might be used to attack a ban on gay marriage.
The first is substantive due process under the 14th Amendment. Basically, some rights are so fundamental that denial of them with individual findings ("procedural due process") is unconstitutional. These include most rights under the first 8 amendments and some other "implied rights." Lawrence v. Texas was decided on these grounds in striking down anti-sodomy laws. The right to reproductive control (contraception, abortion) and interstate travel are two of the big ones. (This clause was used at the beginning of this century to strike down a host of social/economic welfare acts such as minimum wage/maximum hour laws on the theory they interfered with the right to contract. This trend was reversed during the New Deal.) Marriage has been found to be a fundamental right as well, but tradition and history are used when defining these rights. Given the makeup of the court, I doubt more than 2 would find a substantive due process right to homosexual marriage, since no state has ever authorized it and only 4 other countries do so now.
Even if they did find that a fundamental right is implicated, it's not clear what type of scrutiny the law would have to pass. Given the nature of child-bearing, even today, states could easily pass a "rational basis" test, since the well-being of children is a legitimate state interest, and fostering the relationships which lead to child birth is a legitimate means to that interest. The rational basis test is very deferential, so the under- and over-exclusiveness of heterosexual-only-marriage as a state policy would likely be allowed. Even intermediate scrutiny might be satisfied, since reproduction is very important to marriage. Again, though, it is doubtful there would be a majority in favor of this line of reasoning.
The other available clause is the equal protection clause. The closest case on point is Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage. However, the reasoning in that case was that race is ALWAYS a suspect classification, so any law that uses is must pass what is called "strict scrutiny." This requires a showing that the law serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is narrowly tailored to meet that state interest. Classification by gender requires "intermediate scrutiny," or an important government interest substantially related to the classification used. Other classifications only require a rational basis, which is very deferential.
Here, many of the side-benefits of marriage might come into play, such as taxation rights, next-of-kin laws, etc. The court might find that marriage may be restricted, but some of the rights associated with marriage should be available to non-married couples. I’m thinking tax benefits, probate law, etc. However, such a ruling might be so difficult to implement the court wouldn’t bother.
(Incidentally, this is why I think civil marriage should be equally available – because the legal conveniences of the marriage relationship are now mostly not directly related to child-rearing. Child-rearing legal benefits are largely available to unmarried couples now.)
I seriously doubt that this Supreme Court will rule to require gay marriage.
The Vermont and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have interpreted their STATE constitutions to require gay marriage, which means SCOTUS can’t affect their decision.
However, there are two additional issues: First, if Massachusetts subsequently amends their constitution to ban gay marriage, what happens to the existing marriages? This would involve interpretations of the state and federal Constitutions. In general, the government has a harder time revoking a benefit than it does in denying it under the due process clause.
Second, how must other states treat these gay marriages? That is answered by the Full Faith and Credit clause, which says states have to respect judgments and official decisions made in other states. However, Congress can define this to a large extent, and the DMA will probably be upheld if it is challenged. Even without the DMA, states would have a good shot at not recognizing gay marriages made in other states absent Congressional action mandating it.
posted
PSI, it's more than just signing a paper, it's greasing the bureaucratic and legal wheels to ease situations that create relationship friction. Unless you are in the "The State shouldn't give any privileges for civil marriage" camp. There are pragmatic concerns here. They may stay together regardless, but they'll never be able to provide for their partner in the same way that heterosexual life partners can, via civil marriage. ---
I think that in the MA constitution there was reasonable evidence that same-sex civil marriage ought to be legalized. In the federal government, perhaps less so.
posted
The paper's not the point. The place in society is.
Young homosexuals have no legal social structure available to them. Their only options are to deny it and have a straight marriage or stay single and have same-sex lovers without any legal incentive to stay together and quite a bit of social pressure to break up. Every argument you can offer as to why straight couples should marry rather than stay single also applies to gay couples.
I'd like kids growing up to know that the goal is commitment, and that being gay doesn't exempt you from that. I'd like kids who realize they're gay to still feel they're part of the community.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my major problem is with the use of the term marriage. I know, people wonder why a married couple would feel threatened by a homosexual marriage, but it's not that hard to understand. I think a doctor would be confused and upset to learn that the government was giving lawyers the right to practice medicine and go by "M.D." Not to mention that they'd fight like heck to stop it.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag- I thought about that. I think they can, it's not ex post facto if its an Ammendment. Remember "a law repugnatnt to the Constitution is void."
It's not a question of Ex Post Facto, it's a question of due process. And state constitutions have the exact same standing as state statutes when they come up against the federal constitution - they have to pass the same tests.
As for the amendment to the federal Constitution, that would possibly void the marriages. Yet another reason to oppose it, in my opinion. The last time a Constitutional amendment deprived people of a property right in a sweeping manner like that was the 14th, which denied the validity of debts owed by the Confederacy and claims by slaveholders who were suddenly deprived of their p"property" by emancipation."
The gay-marriage amendment wouldn't have quite the same moral force as that amendment.
posted
Theres been a recent move at the SCOTUS level towards whats being called "Rational basis-plus." Essentially, states have to show that their rational basis for having a law is really rational. Justice O'connor has used this reasoning in the last few years, for example, in Lawrence v Texaas.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know, people wonder why a married couple would feel threatened by a homosexual marriage, but it's not that hard to understand.
It is for me. Two people love each other, want to spend the rest of their days building a life with each other, want to raise children, want their finances and properties tied together, want courts and hospitals to consider them next-of-kin. That's not a marriage?
quote:I think a doctor would be confused and upset to learn that the government was giving lawyers the right to practice medicine and go by "M.D." Not to mention that they'd fight like heck to stop it.
And they should, since lawyers have not been shown to be proficient in medicine and could not pass the requirements for such a title. What are the requirements for a successful marriage? Are straight people required to be proficient?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Supreme Court's crazy anyway. I just wrote a paper on the Supreme Court's history of infringing on the powers of Congess.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, that's not surprising, you could also probably write an article about how Congress has been ceding it's powers to both branches, but particularly the executive branch.
posted
True - rational basis plus dates back to Cleburne, which struck down a denial of a group permit home under a rational basis determination.
It's still too new for me to predict how it'll be applied, though. Given the closeness of Lawrence, and O'Connor's refusal to use substantive due process to strike down the law, I stand by my prediction. I think she ruled that way specifically to allow her room to strike down gay marriage.
Of course, guessing how the Supreme Court will rule is iffy at best.
posted
CB- No, straight people are required for it to be a marriage, period. So it would be impossible for gay people to have a proficient marriage. Maybe they can have a proficient something else.
It's hard to say that, because people get so offended that I'd be willing to say that one requirement of marriage is a man and a woman. But that's what it IS. You can call a square a circle, but it still has four corners. You can say, "My what a great job he's doing being a four-cornered circle." But it remains that you have to change the definition of circle in order to include squares. Now, the definition of circle no longer means circle, but two-dimensional object having either equal distance from a radius, or four equal sides and four 90 degree angles, or whatever else we decide to call it in the future.
posted
Yes, but there are those of us who remember the people who changed the rules, remember what it was before semantics took over, remember what it was before making everybody blissfully happy became more important than anything else, and still remember that a square is not a circle.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"No, straight people are required for it to be a marriage, period."
Except that this is not a given. I -- and many others -- am not willing to concede this.
As you and many others have abysmally failed to prove this point over DOZENS of gay rights conversations, why don't you just give this one up and move to an argument with a shred of validity to it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, the problem you're having is that the definition you're insisting is absolutely authoritative is NOT considered authoritative by many of the people here.
So you're not being persuasive.
As far as I'm concerned, you're standing on a soapbox yelling, "Apples are not fruit! Apples are not fruit!" And while I can't hope to persuade you that they ARE, I certainly hope you understand that those of us who disagree aren't swayed by your premises.
-----
Ryan, if I were to ask a hundred people what they would call a "legal union between two adults who love each other and seek social sanction of their lifelong commitment," I GUARANTEE you that they'd answer "marriage" in a heartbeat. The essential definition of "marriage" is the "love" and "social sanction" and "lifelong" bits, NOT any "man and woman" bit.
posted
No, you have it backward. You are yelling that cucumbers are fruit, when 99% percent of the people in history would have argued that they weren't. For me to stand on the side of the majority of every human being that's ever lived, it puts YOU in the position of explaining why I should accept a cucumber as a fruit.
Maybe I should have picked a safer veggie. I'm even tempted to put MYSELF in OOC. Oh well.
The redefinition aspect was the final hurdle I had to overcome to arrive at my position. There's a lot of power in it, but the power is only evident to one side of the debate.
I really think addressing this issue is what's needed to tip the scales. People who are truly anti-homosexual aren't going to change their mind and support equal gay civil marriage rights, just as people who don't subscribe to more "traditional" sexual mores can understand what the big fuss is about.
It's fairly traditional, religious people shifting their view on civil marriage who will make up the bulk of the converts on this issue. PSI's argument isn't intended to change YOUR mind - it's an attempt to explain her position.
Simply dismissing it as invalid will not change her mind. If you want to change hearts on this issue, you HAVE to attempt to understand the underlying beliefs on the traditional family and show how they are not threatened by civil gay marriage.
Because you're not going to get them (or me, for that matter) to change those underlying beliefs.
posted
Well, I suppose I could set aside everything I've ever believed in and put on a big happy smile. I'm well aware that making everyone happy IS the ultimate goal here, so I'll go along. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is between one man and as many women as he can support. Marriage is between one man and his dead brother's wife, as required by God. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and her female slave. Marriage is between one man, a few wives, and an assortment of concubines. Marriage is between one man and a woman captured in war. Marriage is between one man and the woman he raped, if he doesn't want to be executed. Marriage is between one male slav and the female slave his master gives him. Marriage is a communal organism made up of a group of people who voluntarily agree to raise children and support each other. Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race.
Marriage has changed even in the last century. While it was still one man, one woman, it was expected to be an extended family with older relatives being supported by younger ones. The exodus of families from the country to urban areas helped change this over time to the nuclear family of one man, one woman, and kids.
I challenge you to find anywhere, on this site or any other, where I have supported gay marriage because people deserved to be "blissfully happy." If anything I have advocated more commitment, not less.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dragon, PSI basically summed it up correctly, but the failure to recognize legitimate concerns by and on both sides does nothing to achieve consensus. Especially when the normal debate process is not only short-circuited but absolutely circumvented by a Court decision that can't be overturned for 2 years.
quote: Marriage is a communal organism made up of a group of people who voluntarily agree to raise children and support each other.
Which group was this? I'll have to research it. I wonder if the men had sex with the women, or each other. In every other instance you named, you still have the basic, fundamental union of man and woman.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee- The debate process WASN"T circumvented. That case was in the courts for a WHILE, and the issue had been brought up in legislative bodies in MA several times prior to the decision.
I love this whole argument that courts circumvent the debate process. Its so uterly untrue as to be hilarious, but it seems to work...
Cases are brought before courts because either a law was broken, or someone believes a law was broken, or someone believes their rights are being violated by a law or the implementation of a law. The court system is supposed to provide a remedy if any of these happen to be true.
But cases don't just appear in front of Supreme courts overnight. They percolate through the court system. In this case, the SC found that MA state law violates the constitution, and therefore teh debate process had FAILED, in terms of the structure of the legal system within the united states.
The debate had been happening in MA, and the courts found that the debate didn't matter, under the framework of the constitution, one side didn't have any legs to stand on.
This isn't circumventing debate, anymore then it would be circumventing debate if a law were passed stating that torture were legal, a prisoner had his arms cut off, and brought his case to the courts, and the SC found that the law violated the principle of "no cruel or unusual punishment."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
