Prop 8 Nov. 15 Protest

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Thanks for clarifying. The legal standpoint is what I meant by the abstract "what constitutes 'rights'" level.

I need to clarify a little more. I've been reading some of the reports on the cases in California, and it seems that the argument is being made, in the equal protection context, that gays and lesbians are a group that has historically faced discrimination (that is, it appears, members of a "suspect class" or something similar) and that, as I understand it, the voters cannot keep the courts from protecting the equal rights of this group that has historically faced discrimination.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

So, for gay marriage, the argument goes like this: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of heterosexual couples. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples and requires the state to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples.

If a state court agrees with that argument, it is not a long trip to the next lawsuit: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of two people. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to only couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to couples and requires the state to recognize marriages between three (or more) people.

The last argument might not win. But I have no doubt it will be brought in a court somewhere.

Meh, it seems like the argument is a non-starter from any aspect other than the technical (i.e. "the only one that matters" but hey - message board!) . . . I'd run it something like this:

The state's interest in limiting marriage to two people can be proven "sufficiently important" for any number of qualifying reasons, including the difficulty of parsing out or setting up multi-party contracts for the layperson, and the amount of work it would take to integrate such contracts (or the resultant work for public administration in dealing with the aftermath - for instance, do you have a primary wife and a secondary for legal purposes, like estates? If so, that's not really one "communal" marriage, it's essentially two separate, and precedent shows that the state has an interest in not allowing two separate marriages where the secondary parties are not interactive). This is in addition to the historical precedent for polygamy's connection with detrimental acts (such as underage marriage or forced marriages). The change of an institution to support the desires of a non-protected class of people would require support through an inordinate amount of work, oversight and negative historical precedent - and the end result likely would violate already-upheld rules.

Probably enough of a hijack, but I think one could adequately reverse "no compelling reason to do so" to meet a "sufficiently important" burden . . .

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

If a state court agrees with that argument, it is not a long trip to the next lawsuit: the state issues marriage licenses and recognizes the marriages of two people. The state does not have a sufficiently important interest in limiting marriage to only couples. Because the state does not have a sufficiently important reason for so doing, the equal protection provision of the state constitution forbids the state from limiting marriage to couples and requires the state to recognize marriages between three (or more) people.

The last argument might not win. But I have no doubt it will be brought in a court somewhere.

Yes, there is always going to be a line in the sand... but I think the key difference that strikes it apart is monogamy.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Meh, it seems like the argument is a non-starter from any aspect other than the technical (i.e. "the only one that matters" but hey - message board!) . . . I'd run it something like this:

The state's interest in limiting marriage to two people can be proven "sufficiently important" for any number of qualifying reasons, including . . .

Oh, I'd counter it that way, too. I think those are the sorts of arguments that would be made. But just because those arguments would be made doesn't mean that the suit wouldn't be brought, and that was my point: a suit along those lines will be brought. Whether it will be successful is a whole 'nother question. Typically, good judges have thought about the cases that could follow and have carefully tailored their opinions to the issues before them accordingly. (But judges have been known to do surprising things.)

And for what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised if such a suit included a free exercise of religion aspect. Again, not saying it would carry the day, but I won't be surprised to see someone try it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Oh, I'd counter it that way, too. I think those are the sorts of arguments that would be made. But just because those arguments would be made doesn't mean that the suit wouldn't be brought, and that was my point: a suit along those lines will be brought. Whether it will be successful is a whole 'nother question. Typically, good judges have thought about the cases that could follow and have carefully tailored their opinions to the issues before them accordingly. (But judges have been known to do surprising things.)

And for what it's worth, I wouldn't be surprised if such a suit included a free exercise of religion aspect. Again, not saying it would carry the day, but I won't be surprised to see someone try it.

All good points . . . which plays right back to the "CA is bizarre" issue, too.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I need to clarify a little more. I've been reading some of the reports on the cases in California, and it seems that the argument is being made, in the equal protection context, that gays and lesbians are a group that has historically faced discrimination (that is, it appears, members of a "suspect class" or something similar) and that, as I understand it, the voters cannot keep the courts from protecting the equal rights of this group that has historically faced discrimination.

So being discriminated against is a factor, afterall.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

So being discriminated against is a factor, afterall.

Apparently, at least in the sense of arguing that gays are a protected class under the California Constitution.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

. . . which plays right back to the "CA is bizarre" issue, too.

Res ipsa loquitur.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

A general comment...I often imagine what would happen if the Apostle Paul showed up (with his bad temper and all) and saw what the "church" has done with the gospel. He'd be sending some pretty nasty letters...or e-mails.

Oh no!!!! He'd be texting you on his BlackBerry Curve!!!

Of course, since I don't usually text, I'd never get the message!

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Can someone explain to me why heterosexual couples have the right to be married?

Originally Posted by Kevin

Because our states allow it.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Kevin gave one answer. The other is that the Bible supports a heterosexual marriage.

The United States is not a theocracy. Rights should not be recognized based on morality teachings of one religion.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by LightBulb

The United States is not a theocracy. Rights should not be recognized based on morality teachings of one religion.

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

And...regardless of what America is supposed to theoretically be, it is a theocracy with rights that are based on the morality teachings of the dominant religion and of the sensibilities of the majority. Most societies are. The difference is that our country is supposed to be this capitalist democracy melting pot.

If people have a problem with that reality, we would have to take a critical look at almost all of our laws and practices. Starting...now....

[LightBulb]

America is defined by its Constitution. It is not designed to be a theocracy. However, people do take advantage of power to push religious (or allegedly religious) agendas.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by LightBulb

America is defined by its Constitution. It is not designed to be a theocracy.

However, people do take advantage of power to push religious (or allegedly religious) agendas.

@1st line: Maybe. Maybe not. I argue that it isn't overtly designed to be a theocracy, since the founding fathers were allegedly deists. But it covertly may have been designed to be a theocracy or at least a dominant ideologracy () to be applied wherever possible. And the full intent of the framers of the Constitution is always up for discussion.

ETA: The Constitution was written within an historical context so it definitely was influenced by some of the dominant ideologies of that time, just as it contributed to a dominant ideology after it was written. Religious or not. Amendments such as the Thirteenth Amendment represented a shift in a particular dominant ideology (arguably for economic purposes rather than moral purposes).

@2nd line: Definitely.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by LightBulb

The United States is not a theocracy. Rights should not be recognized based on morality teachings of one religion.

A nation needn't be a theocracy in order to base its legal framework on the moral teachings of a relgion -- many if not most nations have done the latter without being theocracies.

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

A nation needn't be a theocracy in order to base its legal framework on the moral teachings of a relgion -- many if not most nations have done the latter without being theocracies.

A nation needn't disfranchise citizens for the sake of the "morals" of one (or more) constituency(ies).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by LightBulb

A nation needn't disfranchise citizens for the sake of the "morals" of one (or more) constituency(ies).

MysticCat and I agree.

We are just responding to your assertions about what the United States is and what it was designed to be. That's a different discussion.