Gay Marriage

[InfiniteNow]

What I find perhaps the most interesting is that, despite the sheer number of times I have asked, you have still failed to supply an answer which was not based on false premises or logical fallacies.

 

I presume that you will just continue your silly hand waving and red herrings, so again... I'm done responding to you.

[lawcat]

Here is what I've posted:

 

Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction by the SCOTUS:

 

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 8 S.Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed. 654 (1888).

 

The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage.

 

Baker v. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.

 

Here is a 2006 decision of a federal appellate court:

 

In an opinion upholding Nebraska's Marriage Amendment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit mentioned Baker v Nelson and the authority of States on Marriage Law.

 

"In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States Constitution. Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed “for want of a substantial federal question.” (Emphasis added.) There is good reason for this restraint. As Judge Posner has observed: This is not to say that courts should refuse to recognize a constitutional right merely because to do so would make them unpopular. Constitutional rights are, after all, rights against the democratic majority. But public opinion is not irrelevant to the task of deciding whether a constitutional right exists. . . . If it is truly a new right, as a right to same-sex marriage would be . . . . [judges] will have to go beyond the technical legal materials of decision and consider moral, political, empirical, prudential, and institutional issues, including the public acceptability of a decision recognizing the new right. Richard A. Posner, Should There Be Homosexual Marriage? And If So, Who Should Decide?, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1578, 1585 (1997). As we have explained, Appellees’ attempt to isolate § 29 from laws prohibiting same-sex marriage because it is a state constitutional amendment fails. If there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage, that is, if a statutory prohibition satisfies rational-basis review, then § 29 likewise survives rational-basis review. We hold that § 29 and other laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests and therefore do not violate the Constitution of the United States." Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006)

 

LIST OF STATE STATUTES PROHIBITING SAME_SEX UNIONS

See Code of Ala. § 30-1-19 (same-sex prohibited, and rights void if entered into anywhere); Alaska Stat. § 25.05.013 (rights unenforceable if relationship seeks marriage rights); Ark. Rev.Stat. § 25-112 & § 25-101 (prohibiting same-sex marriage and evasions by traveling to other jurisdictions); Ariz.Code Ann. § 9-11-109 & § 9-11-208 (same-sex marriage is void and all rights granted by that license are void); 13 Del. C. § 101 & § 104 (marriage between persons of same gender prohibited and void and residents are penalized for evading state law by entering into marriage in outside states); Dean v. District of Columbia, App. D.C., 653 A.2d 307 (1995) (same-sex marriage void by judicial decree on the day of celebration, and when entered outside the state pursuant in D.C.); Fla. Stat. § 741.212 (prohibiting same-sex marriage and denying any claims arising thereof); O.C.G.A. § 19-3-3.1 (prohibiting same-sex marriage and denying claims arising thereof); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 572-1 (only one man and one woman are recognized in law); Idaho Code § 32-201 & § 32-209 (only one man and one woman, same-sex marriage is invalid); 750 Illinois CS 5/212 & 5/216 (same-sex marriage void even when entered into to avoid the laws of the state); Burns Ind. Code Ann. § 31-11-1-1 (same gender marriage void even if out of state); Iowa Code § 595.2 & § 595.20 (same-sex marriage invalid even if entered out of state); Kan.Stat. Ann. § 23-101 & § 23-115 (same-sex marriage not recognized even if entered out of state); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 402.020 & § 402.045 (same-sex marriage is prohibited and any rights arising thereof unenforceable); La. C.C. Art. 89 & Art. 3520 (same-sex marriage is prohibited and any rights arising thereof unenforceable); Ma. 19-A Ma. Rev. Stat. § 701 (same-sex marriage prohibited if entered into in any state); Md. FAMILY LAW Code Ann. § 2-201 (only one man and one woman can join); MCLS § 551.1 & § 551.271 (same-sex marriage invalid in Michigan and given no rights to any extent); Minn. Stat. § 517.03 (same-sex marriage void and rights arising thereof); Miss. Code Ann. § 93-1-1 (same-sex marriage void even if entered into in another state); § 451.022 R.S.Mo. (same-sex marriage not recognized even if valid where contracted); Mont. Code Anno., § 40-1-401 (Same-sex marriage is prohibited, as well as civil relationship); Neb. Const. Art. I, § 29 (same-sex union not valid or recognized); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 122.020 (only a man and a woman may be joined); In N.Y. same-sex marriage unauthorized by judicial decree. See Hernandez v Robles (2005, Sup) 7 Misc 3d 459, 794 NYS2d 579. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 51-1.2 (same-sex marriage not valid); N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-01 (marriage only between opposite sexes) N.D. Cent. Code, § 14-03-08 (same-sex marriage not recognized even out of state); ORC Ann. 3101.01 (any act or judicial proceeding in another state giving rights based on same-sex relationship is void); 43 Okl. St. § 3.1 (same-sex marriage prohibited); ORS § 106.010 (only a man and a woman can marry, see Li v. Sta te of Oregon, 338 Or 376, 110 P3d 91 (2005)); 23 Pa.C.S. § 1704 (same-sex marriage void); S.C. Code Ann. § 20-1-15 (same-sex marriage prohibited); S.D. Codified Laws § 25-1-38 (same-sex marriage contracted out-of-state is invalid); Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-3-113 (same-sex marriage void and unenforceable if contracted anywhere else); Tex. Fam. Code § 6.204 (no effects to rights or claims arising from same-sex unions elsewhere); Utah Code Ann. § 30-1-4.1 (same-sex marriage prohibited and void and no effect to rights and duties arising from it); Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) § 26.04.020 (same-sex marriage prohibited if entered into outside state); W. Va. Code § 48-2-603 (no effect given to acts/proceedings respecting same-sex marriage-like relationships); Wis. Stat. § 765.001 (marriage is union between a man and a woman by using husband and wife definition); Wyo. Stat. Tit. 20 Note (marriage is reserved for a husband and a wife);

 

 

Your premise that constitution mandates equality is wrong; it has been proven wrong in the courts and many different constitutions when put under the scrutiny of arguments. The reason that you feel that constitution is wrong is based on "benefits and protections," which is what you posted in the first two pages of this thread.

Minority of States have equal benefits clause, and some of those high courts have ruled in favor of civil unions based on the "Benefits" clause, in that particular State. For example, Vermont did that in Baker v. State, in 1998. Here is an excerpt:

 

We conclude that under the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont

Constitution, which, in pertinent part, reads:

 

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons, who are a part only of that community,

 

Vt. Const., ch. I, art 7., plaintiffs may not be deprived of the statutory benefits and protections afforded persons of the opposite sex who choose to marry. We hold that the State is constitutionally required to extend to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law. Whether this ultimately takes the form of inclusion within the marriage laws themselves or a parallel "domestic partnership" system or some equivalent statutory alternative, rests with the Legislature. Whatever system is chosen, however, must conform with the constitutional imperative to afford all Vermonters the common benefit, protection, and security of the law.

 

http://vermont-archives.org/govhistory/governance/Impeach/pdf/98-032_op.pdf

 

Fed constitution, and the majority of States have no such provision, that the government ought to be ( an issue of where to assign greatest weight) instituted for the common benefits.

[lawcat]

THEN, when I simply restated your argument:

 

Your argument is a strawman's argument, because you invoke "benefits," and "love."

 

You called that a fallacy. Interesting. you also said that I misrepresented your argument. Wrong:

 

Further, you continue to misrepresent my point, and instead choose to argue against that misrepresentation and claims some sort of victory. Hence, my claim that you are engaging in the logical fallacy stands.

[InfiniteNow]

Fix your quote in post #190, lawcat... the first one. You've falsely attributed to me words which were typed by you.

[lawcat]

Post #187 proves that you have engaged in intimidation and interrogation without providing your particularized reasoning for the change that must be grounded in law. You have repeatedly asked why without deriving any analysis that ties your conclusions to the purpose of marriage, as stated in publications, and tying that to the State's interest.

 

The exceprt below is particularly troubling because it is not only wrong but irrational and unsupported in law or fact, Yet mods allow this to go on and try to suppress legal precedents.

 

You do know, right, that SCOTUS cases are not the FINAL ruling on constitutionality issues, just the current one, and are often overturned as society evolves and becomes better educated? Oh... and Baker v. Nelson wasn't a ruling at all, . . .

[modest]

Moderation Note: Thread closed for 24 hours. It will be reopened 22:00 central time, Monday.

 

Opened

 

Please discuss the topic as constructively as possible.

 

~modest

[InfiniteNow]

Here is what I've posted:

 

Your post failed to meet the criteria of my request. I asked for the relevant secular reason to call it anything other than a "marriage," especially in light of the fact that the "traditional definition" position has been demonstrated false on multiple fronts, and also the obvious overlap, similarity, and parallels with the relationships of opposite sex couples which ARE called a marriage.

 

I am now hereby putting forth the claim that there are ZERO relevant secular reasons to call the state recognized union of two same sex partners anything other than a marriage, since that's what the state calls the union of two opposite sex partners.

Prove me wrong.

[lawcat]

Infinite,

 

this thread started on broken legs by dannieyankie. The title is "gay marriage" and the initial post starts with mostly arguments that attack or refute current marriage.

 

So, the title of the thread should be "Attack on hetero marriage," since no particularized argument has been advanced to change the law, other than dispersed points to refute the existing marriage. Existing marriage will not be overturned. It is that gay marriage must be instituted. And, to help you out, you must come up with a secular interest in gay marriage.

 

I have provided you with anwers but you fail to read. It would be helpfull if you reread all my posts; the secular interest is in: procreation and civilization. That is why hetero marraige is on books. Now, why must gay marriage be instituted? What is the secular interest in gay marriage?

 

If you want to have a discussion I suggest that you open another thread titled "Attack on hetero marriage," or if you want to exhibit your particularized theory you can do it here, finally.

 

If you chose to open a thread called "Attack on hetero marriage," I will be happy to answer all your questions. But, I ask that your questions be short and to the point, step by step. I refuse to asnwer single questions that combine: (1) rational, (2) secular, (3) legitimate, (4) genitals, (5) benefits, (6) protections, (7) religion, etc.

[InfiniteNow]

First, you've again evaded the actual question. You should really stop doing that, as it makes you look silly and as if you don't have a meritorious point to make.

 

Second, the argument you've put forth is really based on nothing more than fear... fear, and falsehoods, and fallacies.

 

My question remains, as does my challenge.

[lawcat]

I asked for the relevant secular reason.

The relevant secular reason is: procreation and civlization.

 

to call it anything other than a "marriage," .

 

I suppose you are saying: to call "gay marriage" anything other than marriage? The asnwer is there is no such thing as gay marriage. It must be instituted. You can call it marriage, but it must be instituted.

 

especially in light of the fact that the "traditional definition" position has been demonstrated false on multiple fronts,.

No it has not. traditional definition is valid everywhere i nthe world. heteros can marry.

 

and also the obvious overlap, similarity, and parallels with the relationships of opposite sex couples which ARE called a marriage.

 

You call it obvious, which is a matter of characterization, in your head. But, you fail to tie what is obvious to you to secular interest: procreation, civilization.

 

I am now hereby putting forth the claim that there are ZERO relevant secular reasons.

OK, You are defying civlization. OK. It is impossible to reason against unsubstantiated claims. You got me there.

 

to call the state recognized union of two same sex partners anything other than a marriage, since that's what the state calls the union of two opposite sex partners..

 

There is one in Wash and Vermont called Civil Union or Dom Partners. I never posited argument that there should be such union, so you should take that argument with someone else.

 

Prove me wrong.

 

You should not try to overturn hetero marriage. I do not have to prove you wrong, since you have not posited any theory that tells me:

 

1. What is the essence of homosexuals--what is the defining characteristic?

2. what is the essence then of gay marriage?

3. what is the historical essence of gays in the wild?

4. Should it have same characteristics of the existing marriage

5. What is the States interest in allowing and incentivizing such marriage.

 

 

This post exemplifies the difficulty of reasoning with you. You post so many ideas on pile, and expect people to answer with particularity, and under the gun.

[Turtle]

yada yada yada, bleh, bleh, bleh

 

all this hiding behind talk of law is dissembling. the idea of gay sticks in your craw like a chicken bone in a windpipe and you bring nothing to the op but hatefulness, intolerance, and mockery. the topic here is legitimate, your participation, not so much.

[modest]

especially in light of the fact that the "traditional definition" position has been demonstrated false on multiple fronts,.

No it has not. traditional definition is valid everywhere i nthe world. heteros can marry.

 

Can you please define "traditional definition [of marriage]".

 

Thank you,

 

~modest

[lawcat]

And another difficulty is that you are mixing terms:

 

For example, you ask for "relevant reason." Those are two separate terms of analysis. One is "relevancy," and the second is "reason."

 

First, "reason" is also legally called interest, or more commonly compelling, or important, or legitimate interest in the order of what modest calls "vesting"--the quality of the reason or vested interest (in philosophical terms--not legal terms). This interest is a matter of law and policy. It is a rule.

 

So the State's interest is, the rule lies, in: procreation, civlization, order.

 

The relevancy is a factual matter. Whether some set of facts meets the rule.

 

Here, first, the hetero couple, by nature--male-famle bonds--are procreative. This is where the infertility objections fit. The objection is that not all hetero bonds are fertile, therefore all prima facie infertile bonds fit this relevancy inquiry.

 

Second, when two heteros procreate, there arise expectations and obligations between the members and to the children. This is, by history and tradition, the basic unit of society, and it is relevant--in absence of State--to civilization, order and structure. This is where love and companionship obejction fits. The objection is, if heters love and nurture, then all two pairs bonds should be allowed to love and nurture.

 

But, the dificulty with my answering of your questions is not in my answers; it is in your questions. You are mixing terms, and piling unrelated concepts.

[lawcat]

all this hiding behind talk of law is dissembling. the idea of gay sticks in your craw like a chicken bone in a windpipe and you bring nothing to the op but hatefulness, intolerance, and mockery. the topic here is legitimate, your participation, not so much.

 

I do not appreciate misquoting.

[lawcat]

Can you please define "traditional definition [of marriage]".

 

Thank you,

 

~modest

 

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Marriage+(traditional)

 

You know what traditional marriage is. You had parents I suppose, or your neghbor had parents who were married. You grew up before in the society. Why do you want to engage in irrational discusion and ask me a question like this? What is the point? To be rude? To be hostile?

[modest]

especially in light of the fact that the "traditional definition" position has been demonstrated false on multiple fronts,.

No it has not. traditional definition is valid everywhere i nthe world. heteros can marry.

 

Can you please define "traditional definition [of marriage]".

 

Thank you,

 

~modest

 

Marriage (traditional - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about Marriage (traditional)

 

You know what traditional marriage is. You had parents I suppose, or your neghbor had parents who were married. You grew up before in the society. Why do you want to engage in irrational discusion and ask me a question like this? What is the point? To be rude? To be hostile?

 

Your link is broken—it is missing the right parentheses.

 

I do not believe my request is rude, hostile, or irrational. I do believe defining the terms used in rational discussion is very important, especially when there is significant disagreement or confusion.

 

Can you please define "traditional definition [of marriage]".

 

Thank you,

 

~modest

[lawcat]

Man and women have been allowed to marry for centuries. A comunity recognized union between man and woman is traditional, and marriage, because it is common to majority of societies throughout the history. I do not have to provide a link. (although i think i fixed it) This is common fact. Oranges are orange. Yes, some are redish or yellow, but traditional oranges are orange. You should get to the point, because you have to provide what the traditional marriage is if not man and woman, because this is likely not related to what the state's interest is, and it is likely attenuated.