Gay Marriage

[lawcat]

1. Man and Woman marry for family in absence of State--this is by nature and not by State (State does not force marriage)

2. States do not prohibit gay marriage, but recognize and validate only hetero marriage.

3. States by rule do this because of States' interest in civilization and procreation.

4. States say: we have no interest in validating gay marriage, because the bonds are not procreative.

 

You can attack this in three ways:

(A) Judicially, State has no interest in procreation and civilization. (the reason is irrational)

(B) Judicially, Homo bonds can procreate too, just like heteros. (the classification is irrational)

© Politicaly, in the legislative halls, the State should recognize this "_____" interest in homo marriage.

[enorbet2]

Lawcat: Isn't "promote domestic tranquility" in the US Constitution? Obviously it's hardly an hard, objective statement of purpose since it doesn't even specify over what time frame but doesn't it at the very least imply a dedication to insuring that "equal under the law" is a reality from it's citizens' pov, since isn't the citizens' pov why a State exists in the first place? to settle disputes based on merit to society as a whole while protecting individual freedom? If it cannot be shown that any combination of adults in a marriage is deleterious, shouldn't it be allowed, and the right to do so, protected?

[lawcat]

No. Domestic tranquility has nothing to do with marriage. Domestic tranquilty is an expression of purpose of the institution of federation, for the protection of several states. This is the problem with all arguments: poeple just keep piling up unrelated topics.

[Larv]

We either need to say that gay marriage is not an equal institution to heterosexual marriage or we need to say that they are one and the same—they are both marriage.

Out here in the Evergreen State where geoducks make love in the mud we are doing just fine by differentiating gay domestic partnerships from traditional marriage. And, modest, you will be especially pleased to learn that gay domestic partnerships out here are indeed “an equal institution to heterosexual marriage.”

[InfiniteNow]

And, modest, you will be especially pleased to learn that gay domestic partnerships out here are indeed “an equal institution to heterosexual marriage.”

B) :doh: :doh:

 

Post #407.

Post #409.

Post #412.

Post #421.

 

 

They are NOT equal, and repeating yourself does not suddenly add any validity to your invalid claim.

[modest]

And, modest, you will be especially pleased to learn that gay domestic partnerships out here are indeed “an equal institution to heterosexual marriage.”

 

You read Craig's most recent post? B)

 

~modest

[Larv]

I gather that local tax and other benefits are also not. Therefore Larv’s claim that:

 

…the one-sexers are getting everything the two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights.

appears to me simply wrong. One-sexers are getting some of, not everything, two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights.

Well, you’re making the claim that Washington’s one-sexers are not getting everything the two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights. So, please explain what the one-sexers are not getting. And please remember that all three branches of our state’s government—legislative, executive, and judicial—have determined that our “Everything But Marriage” law is justified and constitutional.

[Larv]

And, modest, you will be especially pleased to learn that gay domestic partnerships out here are indeed “an equal institution to heterosexual marriage.”

 

B) :doh: :doh:

 

Post #407.

Post #409.

Post #412.

Post #421.

 

 

They are NOT equal, and repeating yourself does not suddenly add any validity to your invalid claim.

Actually, “heterosexual marriage” is an unnecessary literary redundancy, like “tooth dentist,” "trouser pants," and “irregardless.”

[TheBigDog]

Well, you’re making the claim that Washington’s one-sexers are not getting everything the two-sexers are getting in the way of legal rights. So, please explain what the one-sexers are not getting. And please remember that all three branches of our state’s government—legislative, executive, and judicial—have determined that our “Everything But Marriage” law is justified and constitutional.

The point is that there is a limit to the legislative authority of the Washington State. Washington State cannot change Federal Tax regulations, not can it change the laws of the 200 plus countries that do not recognize same sex marriage, therefore the actions of Washington State are moot. This is the argument form the perspective that there is only one valid world view, and that the right to debate the issue is OK so long as the conclusion of the debate agrees with the position of the oppressed.

 

That of course is not my argument. All social change is a journey. There are many steps taken, and debate along the way. I would think that Washington State taking the step that it has would be applauded for its help in progressing a greater cause.

 

Larv, I interpret your statement as meaning this: from your perspective as an observant resident of Washington State, considering what is within the power of the state to change, the political question of rights for same sex couples has been adequately settled by the "Everything but Marriage" law. Would that be a correct understanding of your position?

 

Bill

[modest]

Larv, I interpret your statement as meaning this: from your perspective as an observant resident of Washington State, considering what is within the power of the state to change, the political question of rights for same sex couples has been adequately settled by the "Everything but Marriage" law. Would that be a correct understanding of your position?

 

I would still argue that such a classification is inherently unequal. Even if every state, local, and federal benefit were redundantly granted to both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships, the very act of segregating the two makes it unequal. Our history speaks to this so profoundly that it's hard to believe we're repeating the very same "separate but equal" argument.

 

It is, of course, good what Washington State has done for same sex couples. Civil unions are a step in the right direction. I support such legislation and would argue strongly against Referendum 71. But, the very fact that there is a referendum 71 speaks to the inequality inherent in the system. It's one thing to advocate civil unions and quite another to oppose gay marriage and say that civil unions can be equal to marriage. They cannot be, even in the most ideal circumstances, equal.

To see why a two-tier solution fails to address these arguments, we must consider what benefits marriage provides. There are tangible benefits such as eligibility for health insurance and pensions, privacy rights, immigration eligibility, and hospital visiting rights (see Mohr 2005, Chapter 3). Crucially, however, there is also an important benefit of legal, and indirectly social, recognition of a relationship as marriage. The status of marriage itself confers legitimacy and invokes social support. The two-tier system does not provide equal treatment because it does not confer on same-sex relationships the status associated with marriage.

 

In addition, some philosophers have argued that excluding gays and lesbians from marriage is central to gay and lesbian oppression, making them ‘second-class citizens’ and underlying social discrimination against them. Marriage is central to concepts of good citizenship, and so exclusion from it displaces gays and lesbians from full and equal citizenship: “being fit for marriage is intimately bound up with our cultural conception of what it means to be a citizen … because marriage is culturally conceived as playing a uniquely foundational role in sustaining civil society” (Calhoun 2000, 108). From this perspective, the ‘separate-but-equal’ category of civil unions retains the harmful legal symbol of inferiority (Card 2007, Mohr 2005, 89, Calhoun 2000, Chapter 5; cf. Bolte 1998, Stivers and Valls 2007).

Marriage and Domestic Partnership (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

~modest

[modest]

1. Man and Woman marry for family in absence of State--this is by nature and not by State (State does not force marriage)

2. States do not prohibit gay marriage, but recognize and validate only hetero marriage.

3. States by rule do this because of States' interest in civilization and procreation.

4. States say: we have no interest in validating gay marriage, because the bonds are not procreative.

 

You can attack this in three ways:

(A) Judicially, State has no interest in procreation and civilization. (the reason is irrational)

(B) Judicially, Homo bonds can procreate too, just like heteros. (the classification is irrational)

© Politicaly, in the legislative halls, the State should recognize this "_____" interest in homo marriage.

 

'C' can be a legal argument as well. The predicates 1-4 are all incomplete at best. For example, #1 can be said of same-sex marriage. #2 is untrue when marriage is defined as I have defined it: "...contract recognized by the state...". #3 and #4 exclude Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa.

 

If homosexuality were considered a suspect classification then #3 and #4 would be insufficient reason to uphold marriage laws which exclude same-sex couples. You can therefore attack your predicates with (D) Judicially, homosexuality is a suspect classification.

 

~modest

[Larv]

Larv, I interpret your statement as meaning this: from your perspective as an observant resident of Washington State, considering what is within the power of the state to change, the political question of rights for same sex couples has been adequately settled by the "Everything but Marriage" law. Would that be a correct understanding of your position?

Bill, if you would change the word “political” to “legal” I would agree with your statement.

 

I'm still waiting for CraigD to answer my challenge: So, please explain what the one-sexers are not getting.

[InfiniteNow]

Bill, if you would change the word “political” to “legal” I would agree with your statement.

 

I'm still waiting for CraigD to answer my challenge: So, please explain what the one-sexers are not getting.

 

I don't know whether you are forgetful, or just not paying attention. The easy answer to your question is "EVERY federal level benefit/privilege associated with marriage." The next answer is the ability to have the same rights and privileges from state to state. After that, I suggest we can find a few exceptions even within the state of Washington.

 

 

 

Perhaps what is most telling is how you are deflecting the question put to you about why same sex couples should be treated or named ANY differently than opposite sex couples, and you are instead choosing to attack those who see the Washington suggestion of "separate, but equal" to be entirely lacking, and (by definition) unequal.

[lawcat]

You can therefore attack your predicates with (D) Judicially, homosexuality is a suspect classification.

 

~modest

 

D is possible but not true; but even if true, you still have to prove (B). It is not enough that something is suspect, but must be irrational--not rationally related to the purpose. Or, stated differently, heteros and gays myst be the same for the stated interest. So, you still have to prove (A) or (:doh:.

[Larv]

It is, of course, good what Washington State has done for same sex couples. Civil unions are a step in the right direction. I support such legislation and would argue strongly against Referendum 71. But, the very fact that there is a referendum 71 speaks to the inequality inherent in the system. It's one thing to advocate civil unions and quite another to oppose gay marriage and say that civil unions can be equal to marriage. They cannot be, even in the most ideal circumstances, equal.

Well, out here in the Evergreen State and Octopus Garden the laws governing same-sex domestic partnerships are entirely equal to those governing marriage (you know, “heterosexual marriage”?). Sure, there are some cranks who act like Neanderthals. Always gotta have a few of those. But there’s a large homosexual contingency out here—they call themselves the “Queer Nation.” They’ve gotten pretty much what they were asking for. Not all of them want to call their DPs “marriage,” either. Lot of wiccans out here, too.

 

Oh, btw, we have Indian reservations out here. How does that settle with your anti-separate-but-equal agenda?

[modest]

D is possible but not true; but even if true, you still have to prove (:smilingsun:. It is not enough that something is suspect, but must be irrational--not rationally related to the purpose. Or, stated differently, heteros and gays myst be the same for the stated interest. So, you still have to prove (A) or (:hyper:.

 

No. Under strict scrutiny the law needs to be more than rationally related—otherwise, what would be the point of strict scrutiny? You certainly don't have to prove A or B. The law needs to be shown to fulfill a compelling governmental interest such that no other (less disenfranchising) method could accomplish. That's quite a different thing altogether.

 

Also, I don't see how you can say a suspect class for homosexuality is "not true" as if by definition it is not. It's a judgment. One state supreme court that I know of has already given the group the classification. It's obviously a valid approach or what you called a method of attack. It is, in fact, an attack which has already worked once. That you disregard it, mistake rational basis for strict scrutiny, and say "not true" for the classification all come off as disingenuous.

 

~modest

[TheBigDog]

Logical fallacies are wonderful to understand and to study when engaging in discussions such as this one. They provide examples of conclusions being drawn from evidence that is not sound enough to guarantee truth. The problem lies in complicated issues where there are layers of issues at play. I would stake that it is almost impossible to draw a conclusion without resorting to some amount of fallacy in logic, it becomes a matter of choosing the ones that you prefer.

 

The arguments against tradition point out that "There have been bad traditions, therefore traditions are bad." Arguing From Tradition is a fallacy, but you cannot claim it as such by resorting to another fallacy. When arguing against the position of tradition you must argue against the specific tradition in question.

 

Equivocating is another fallacy that may appear to have interfered with this discussion. I think that it is actually at the very heart of the debate. Equivocating means mistaking the meaning of a word for another word that sounds the same. At the heart of this debate is the equivocation of the word marriage itself with a meaning it has not had in any country in the world before 2001. (Telling me that there were same sex marriages in ancient time is an argument from tradition, so don't go there. We are talking about modern times.) There had been same sex civil unions since 1989, but the first country to have "same sex marriage" was the Netherlands beginning in 2001. This hardly qualifies the rest of the world backward stupid bigots for not jumping right in at the same time. Beside, the argument that "they are doing it, therefore we should be doing it" is a fallacy.

 

I am saying this because we must use care in how we present our arguments and challenge those of others, and we must most certainly keep this information in mind before we degenerate the conversation into accusations of hate and bigotry, name calling, or coming to conclusions about a person's motives because of fallacious interpretations of their argument.

 

I initially jumped into this thread because in my opinion there were battle line being drawn and characterizations being made that would prevent open discussion on the matter at hand, and there is plenty to be discussed on this topic. I was actually concerned that it would degrade into a mob, and I am glad that it has not. I also hope that in the past week that even if I may have not proven conclusively an argument against same sex marriage, that I have helped to show that those who oppose same sex marriage are not a caricature of intolerance.

 

And with that, back to the debate...

 

Bill