Supreme Court delivers wins for gay marriage movement

[firstdown]

^^^ I know now the left wants to be the moral cops.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

incest = gay marriage?

really Joe?

Did I say they were equivalent? I think it is very different. Just as many think that a homosexual marriage is very different from that of the historical definition of marriage. At the same time, however, I simply assert that the ability for any State to legally prohibit such a union is highly questionable in light of the SC's rationale for invalidating DOMA.

The legal basis for homosexual marriage is that we cannot deny two consenting adults the right to enter into the contract of marriage. Even if a legislative body properly enacts such a denial through the appropriate legal process, the denial of the right to marry between two consenting adults is an unconstitutional denial of their equal protection under the law and due process rights. How is such a contract between two consenting siblings any less a denial of the same?

Based on the DOMA ruling, incestous, polygamous and other contractual unions between consenting adults cannot rely on the "b/c the majority of us don't like it" or even, I would suggest, "b/c we think it unhealthy". One of the arguments for traditional marriage was the "health and well being" of the American family structure. In striking down the argument - rather than recognizes an overriding societal concern held by the majority as a legitimate and appropriate legislative goal - the Court said such arguments do not outweigh the right of consenting individuals to enter into contracts, and gain the benefits of such a contract, that are granted under a marriage contract.

To be clear (1) I do not oppose homosexual marriage; and (2) I think incestous marriages are in no way equivalent of homosexual marriages. I am only highlighting the effects of judicial activism in the DOMA ruling. IMHO,by removing the definition of "marriage" from the appropriate policy making body, the SC has created a situation in which, only through base hypocrisy, can it legally uphold a State's prohibition agains incestous marriages.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

See the right has been making this point but the left has told us we were narrow minded. So your bias to a brother and sister who may love each other in a way that does not fit your morals. Now that's narrow minded. If a bro/sis, bro/bro or sis/sis want to get married why should I pass judgment on them?

I am seriously upset that you aren't ashamed of this remark !

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Giantone

I am seriously upset that you aren't ashamed of this remark !

The left has taught us not to judge and when we don't we are now being told to be ashamed. Wow, such double standards.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The left has taught us not to judge and when we don't we are now being told to be ashamed. Wow, such double standards.

You think mighty highly of yourself , you say we a lot like others agree with you ,....yet no one has ,at least not on the remark in question.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Did I say they were equivalent? I think it is very different. Just as many think that a homosexual marriage is very different from that of the historical definition of marriage. At the same time, however, I simply assert that the ability for any State to legally prohibit such a union is highly questionable in light of the SC's rationale for invalidating DOMA.

The legal basis for homosexual marriage is that we cannot deny two consenting adults the right to enter into the contract of marriage. Even if a legislative body properly enacts such a denial through the appropriate legal process, the denial of the right to marry between two consenting adults is an unconstitutional denial of their equal protection under the law and due process rights. How is such a contract between two consenting siblings any less a denial of the same?

Based on the DOMA ruling, incestous, polygamous and other contractual unions between consenting adults cannot rely on the "b/c the majority of us don't like it" or even, I would suggest, "b/c we think it unhealthy". One of the arguments for traditional marriage was the "health and well being" of the American family structure. In striking down the argument - rather than recognizes an overriding societal concern held by the majority as a legitimate and appropriate legislative goal - the Court said such arguments do not outweigh the right of consenting individuals to enter into contracts, and gain the benefits of such a contract, that are granted under a marriage contract.

To be clear (1) I do not oppose homosexual marriage; and (2) I think incestous marriages are in no way equivalent of homosexual marriages. I am only highlighting the effects of judicial activism in the DOMA ruling. IMHO,by removing the definition of "marriage" from the appropriate policy making body, the SC has created a situation in which, only through base hypocrisy, can it legally uphold a State's prohibition agains incestous marriages.

I understand what you're saying from the legal perspective.

It can just be unsettling when incest is mentioned along with gay marriage.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I understand what you're saying from the legal perspective.

It can just be unsettling when incest is mentioned along with gay marriage.

I agree - it is unsettling. It should be.

I think it should be equally unsettling that, by ignoring Constitutional precedent and overturning DOMA simply b/c they thought it a "bad" law, the SC has rendered the two legally equivalent.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I agree - it is unsettling. It should be.

I think it should be equally unsettling that, by ignoring Constitutional precedent and overturning DOMA simply b/c they thought it a "bad" law, the SC has rendered the two legally equivalent.

No , not in anyone's mind.

I will admit someone else said this but I do agree with it .


"
Equal civil rights and gay marriage help to promote a stable community whereas polygamy and incest do not.

The short answer:
No. To promote stability in a community, defending a stabilizing factor such as gay marriage does not require one to also defend the unstable practices of polygamy and incest.

[JoeRedskin]

So sorry wrong answer. Pursuant to the DOMA ruling, the rights one is entitled to under a marriage contract are Constitutionally guaranteed - if granted to one class they must be guaranteed to all. Regardless of whether you or a majority of people think it societally destructive, the rights are individually guaranteed and trump any societal policy concerns.

[JoeRedskin]

To be fair, given the provable and immediate health risks to offspring, the argument that incestuous marriage should be prohibited has some traction even under the DOMA. The same simply cannot be said about polygamy.

[firstdown]

Ok, I realize some here think I'm actually serious.LOL

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

No , not in anyone's mind.

I will admit someone else said this but I do agree with it .


"
Equal civil rights and gay marriage help to promote a stable community whereas polygamy and incest do not.

The short answer:
No. To promote stability in a community, defending a stabilizing factor such as gay marriage does not require one to also defend the unstable practices of polygamy and incest.

I think that what JR is saying is that your argument would be the same that those opposing gay marriage would have used successfully 15-25 years ago. And his point is that, based on the text of the Supreme Court ruling, you can't use the same logic now. Hence it opens up an area, that most people even in this day and age, say is unacceptable.

[firstdown]

What if the sister looked like this. LOL

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Ok, I realize some here think I'm actually serious.LOL

Looks have nothing to do with the statement you made ,how would anyone know that you weren't serous ?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I think that what JR is saying is that your argument would be the same that those opposing gay marriage would have used successfully 15-25 years ago. And his point is that, based on the text of the Supreme Court ruling, you can't use the same logic now. Hence it opens up an area, that most people even in this day and age, say is unacceptable.

Ding ding ding - We have a winner.

You must be related to someone brilliant. Probably an older brother.