Gay Marriage

[lawcat]

No. You are misunderstanding the decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman. Lemon decision strictly, singularly, applies to court's review of governmental actions that touch upon religions; such as governmental sponsorship, tax exemeptions, religious displays etc. In essence, it is a court proscribed rule designed to inform lower courts of the rule to follow when impermissible governmental sponsorship of religious institutions is alleged. Lemon has no legal bearing on anything else, including marriage.

 

Nevertheless, even if we were to apply the religious-freedom law to marriages, the ban on same sex marriage does not violate the "legitimate" purpose prong. States have inherent power to regulate in this arena, and therefore their regulation serves a legitimate purpose. Again, you must know what the purpose of marriage law is before you can consider the relevancy.

[Moontanman]

Again, you must know what the purpose of marriage law is before you can consider the relevancy.

 

Well lawcat, possibly you should inform us of the purpose of marriage law?

[lawcat]

Well lawcat, possibly you should inform us of the purpose of marriage law?

 

No man. I'm not going to inform you. You have to think about it: Why would a State allow marriages; in other words, why won't or can't a State prohibit all marriages? Why is it that a State regulates marriage, and requires you to file document with the State?

[Moontanman]

No man. I'm not going to inform you. You have to think about it: Why would a State allow marriages; in other words, why won't or can't a State prohibit all marriages? Why is it that a State regulates marriage, and requires you to file document with the State?

 

The only reasons i can think of is to collect fees, record keeping and control of the population. Now I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I see no reason the state can't do the same thing to or for (depending on your point of view) same sex couples.

[InfiniteNow]

Lemon decision strictly, singularly, applies to court's review of governmental actions that touch upon religions; such as governmental sponsorship, tax exemeptions, religious displays etc.

 

Which, my friend, is precisely why it's applicable here in this discussion of marriage, the state recognition of which touches directly on your first two examples, as well as countless others.

 

 

Supplementing this point, your opening premise is simply false, as directly mentioned within my previous reference:

Some courts apply Lemon in all or most cases

Note closely that not all of those cases "touch upon religions."

 

 

Nevertheless, even if we were to apply the religious-freedom law to marriages, the ban on same sex marriage does not violate the "legitimate" purpose prong. States have inherent power to regulate in this arena, and therefore their regulation serves a legitimate purpose.

You see... it is YOU who is misinterpreting.

 

It is NOT the "concept" of regulation by the state which is relevant here when discussing "legitimate purpose," so you AGAIN put forth a red herring. That's a logical fallacy. You should teach yourself to stop using it.

 

Instead, the question of "legitimate purpose" applies solely and completely to the "content" of the regulation, as well as its outcome/impact on society (NOT to the abstract concept of state regulations in general).

 

So, nobody here is arguing that state regulations don't have legitimate purposes. The argument is that this specific regulation does not. Further, since this state regulation is resulting in the differential conferment of benefits and privileges, it MUST have a relevant secular reason for doing so, otherwise, it is unconstitutional as per the first amendment.

 

 

Finally, even if you disagree with my use of the Lemon Test, the Equal Protections clause of the 14th is still there in my back pocket supporting my argument, and deflating yours.

[lawcat]

The only reasons i can think of is to collect fees, record keeping and control of the population. Now I know I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer but I see no reason the state can't do the same thing to or for (depending on your point of view) same sex couples.

 

The purpose of document filing is always to provide a NOTICE, to the State, to the world, and to all interested parties. The fee is merely an administrative expense and not a profit making business. Now why would a State need you to provide a notice?

The answer is so that other people will know that you are already married. So that the health, safety, and welfare of others is protected. Some State have common law marriage in which it is enough to live together and hold yourself out to the community that you are married; this , in the eyes of those minority States, provides a sufficient notice to the world. In most States this is not enough to appraise the whole Statewide communnity of that marriage.

Now this notice requirement creates an administrative base for your marriage. From this inherent notice springs the administrative power of the State over your marriage, and then the jurisdictional power of the courts and so on and so forth, and the multitude of things to follow: such as presumption of parentage in a marriage, laws of succession--wills and trusts, laws of separation and child custody etc. Everything goes back to the origin of State's inherent power to protect the safety of its people by requiring a notice of marital relationship.

 

But why even recognize the concept of marital relationship to heterosexuals?

[InfiniteNow]

BTW - In further support of my previous points, there's always Abington Township v. Schempp. In this case, the Supreme Court introduced the "secular purpose" and "primary effect" tests, which were to be used to determine compatibility with the establishment clause. Essentially, the law in question must have a valid secular purpose.

 

 

 

EDIT: Also, Martin v. Ziherl and Kentucky v. Wasson lend support to the point regarding how our courts treat bigotry and discrimination, as does Lawrence v. Texas, Pace v. Alabama, and (of course) Plessy v. Ferguson. If you want something more specific to their views on discrimination in marriage law, review Perez v. Sharp and Loving v. Virginia.

[lawcat]

Infinite,

 

No. You are wrong about Lemon. Again it has no relevance to marriage.

But more on point, you are alleging that a law must have rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.

There are two separate inquiries: (1) whether there is a legitimate purpose for the law, (2) whether the law is rationally related to that purpose.

 

Now, read Wilson v. Ake: http://www.alliancealert.org/2005/20050119.pdf

 

page 10, Due Process

page 13, Equal Protection

page 14, Rational Basis Review

 

Also, Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services, page 27, Equal Protection,

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723.pdf

[InfiniteNow]

Nope. Strawman.

 

I'm saying our laws must be secular, as evidenced by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our federal constitution, as well as the countless rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States reinforcing exactly that. The SCOTUS has taken a very consistent and broad view of the Establishment Clause, and you are the one who will find himself on the wrong side of history if you fail to change your mind on this issue.

 

 

There are two separate inquiries: (1) whether there is a legitimate purpose for the law, (2) whether the law is rationally related to that purpose.

How about you take a swing at making your case for Number 1. What legitimate secular purpose is there for the differential conferment of state benefits and privileges, allowing them to opposite sex couples, but disallowing them from same sex couples. This should be fun to watch.

 

 

Bigotry always gets defeated. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

[Moontanman]

The purpose of document filing is always to provide a NOTICE, to the State, to the world, and to all interested parties. The fee is merely an administrative expense and not a profit making business. Now why would a State need you to provide a notice?

The answer is so that other people will know that you are already married. So that the health, safety, and welfare of others is protected. Some State have common law marriage in which it is enough to live together and hold yourself out to the community that you are married; this , in the eyes of those minority States, provides a sufficient notice to the world. In most States this is not enough to appraise the whole Statewide communnity of that marriage.

Now this notice requirement creates an administrative base for your marriage. From this inherent notice springs the administrative power of the State over your marriage, and then the jurisdictional power of the courts and so on and so forth, and the multitude of things to follow: such as presumption of parentage in a marriage, laws of succession--wills and trusts, laws of separation and child custody etc. Everything goes back to the origin of State's inherent power to protect the safety of its people by requiring a notice of marital relationship.

 

But why even recognize the concept of marital relationship to heterosexuals?

 

I have a better question, why is it in the interest of the state to deny marriage to same sex couples or even group marriages for that matter. If I have two women (or more) who want to be my wives or if two men (or more) who want to marry one woman or any number of men and women for that matter. How is it good for the state to deny these things from anyone? Why would the state have an interest in denying these things from any one? Other than to please a bunch of religious despots who want to control human behavior?

[lawcat]

Nope. Strawman.

 

I'm saying our laws must be secular, as evidenced by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our federal constitution, as well as the countless rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States reinforcing exactly that. The SCOTUS has taken a very consistent and broad view of the Establishment Clause, and you are the one who will find himself on the wrong side of history if you fail to change your mind on this issue.

 

Bigotry always gets defeated. The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

 

You backed off of "rationally related to legitimate purpose" language. Yet that language is correct. Then, you went on to argue incorrectly that a law must have "secular" purpose which although true at first sight is more ambiguous then the legitimate purpose. See Zorach v. Clauson:

 

We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses. We make room for as wide a variety of beliefs and creeds as the spiritual needs of man deem necessary. We sponsor an attitude on the part of government that shows no partiality to any one group and that lets each flourish according to the zeal of its adherents and the appeal of its dogma. When the state encourages religious instruction or cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs. To hold that it may not would be to find in the Constitution a requirement that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups. That would be preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe. Government may not finance religious groups nor undertake religious instruction nor blend secular and sectarian education nor use secular institutions to force one or some religion on any person. But we find no constitutional requirement which makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against efforts to widen the effective scope of religious influence. The government must be neutral when it comes to competition between sects. It may not thrust any sect on any person. It may not make a religious observance compulsory. It may not coerce anyone to attend church, to observe a religious holiday, or to take religious instruction. But it can close its doors or suspend its operations as to those who want to repair to their religious sanctuary for worship or

instruction. No more than that is undertaken here.

 

http://www.wneclaw.com/religion/zorachvclauson.pdf

 

To what extent a law must be secular is really questionable.

[lawcat]

I have a better question, why is it in the interest of the state to deny marriage to same sex couples or even group marriages for that matter. If I have two women (or more) who want to be my wives or if two men (or more) who want to marry one woman or any number of men and women for that matter. How is it good for the state to deny these things from anyone? Why would the state have an interest in denying these things from any one? Other than to please a bunch of religious despots who want to control human behavior?

 

That question goes to the meat of the matter. Unless you understand that, you can not understand anything about marriage laws.

[Moontanman]

That question goes to the meat of the matter. Unless you understand that, you can not understand anything about marriage laws.

 

Lawcat, don't toy with me, I'm being completely honest, I have no idea why the state has a vested interest in who does and who doesn't get married.... If you have the knowledge give it up.

[InfiniteNow]

To what extent a law must be secular is really questionable.

The fact that you are simply closing your eyes and plugging your ears does not make my points invalid. Also, it is precisely this sentiment you've expressed above which shows how misguided your understanding of our nations founding principles truly are.

 

 

I'm still waiting for that legitimate secular reason for the state conferring benefits and privileges to opposite sex partners, but not same sex partners.

 

 

Oh... and by the way... I've still got the Equal Protections clause in support of my case, so please... do keep waffling and hand waving on this other point.

[Moontanman]

I'm still waiting for that legitimate secular reason for the state conferring benefits and privileges to opposite sex partners, but not same sex partners.

 

 

I don't think he has one Inow, I think he is attempting to make himself look more knowledgeable than he is by inflating his appearance much like a blow fish pumps it's self full of water to make him look bigger and more dangerous than he actually is.....

[lawcat]

Lawcat, don't toy with me, I'm being completely honest, I have no idea why the state has a vested interest in who does and who doesn't get married.... If you have the knowledge give it up.

 

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).

 

Heterosexual bonds are fundamental to survivial of the species, and to the order of our society. People will have sex and form bonds, and have children--it is imperative and natural. Without heterosexual familial unit there is complete structural disorder in society. State has a compelling interest in survival of the species and the order of the society. This is basic fundamental concept of our species. None of the considerations apply to gay marriages. If you export same-sex community to a lush island rich with resources, they will die out. It is an antisurvival culture. It is a culture that does not promote order and survival. If gay marriage is allowed, there is no rational logical familial reason why polygamy should be prohibited for gays. The concept of gay marriage defeats the purpose of marriage.

[InfiniteNow]

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

 

That is not a ruling on a case, it is a dismissal of one. Precedent is set by rulings, not dismissals.

 

As for the "survival of species" argument, that's already been flatly refuted in this very thread. Heterosexual couples are not required to be willing nor able to produce children before being allowed to wed. The reproduction issue is completely nonsequitur, and does not in any way, shape, or form impact the allowance of a couple to marry.

 

What else do you got? You pretty much whiffed on that first swing.

 

 

Oh... I'm still waiting for that legitimate secular reason for the state conferring benefits and privileges to opposite sex partners, but not same sex partners.