RanchHand,I and others have argued that the government should treat
people equally- BUT that "equal protection of the laws" only applies to
the law as written- that if a law defines marriage as man+woman, then as long as
all people are bound by that same law, then the clause is satisfied. As I am out
of room, I will also note that I have also argued here multiple times (which
anyone can read) on how Loving v Virginia does not set a precedent for gay
marriage arguments.The fact that my arguments ARE REGARDING the
Equal Protection Clause is objective proof that my argument at the VERY least is
relevant to this debate. Your 'red herring' accusation is therefore
not logical.Equal treatment does not equate to relativist
government. If "anything goes", then law cannot exist A Priori. Without
some form of 'moral version' there would be no law.Arguing
that equal moral recognition "is a right" is an "Invincible
Ignorance Fallacy" and a "conversation-stopper". It's an
attempt to circumvent any further consideration in favor of tyranny disguised as
legal relativism (aka: anarchy). Rather, you should be arguing WHY you consider
equal moral recognition a right.
toosmart: "Everyone has the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite
gender..."You discount the role of romantic love and physical
affection in marriage. In effect, you are endorsing arranged marriage, saying
the government has the right to fix up couples who have no affinity for each
other and reduce marriage to a business transaction (like the royals of yore).
Arranged marriages may be fine for some cultures, but western society has placed
a premium on love and affection as strengthening the pair pond for the last
couple centuries.To advocate domestic partnerships, as you suggest,
is to embrace "separate, but equal," which is never equal.
I'm disappointed that even the Deseret News used the phrase "gay
marriage ban" in the headline of this story, and that you left it in the
body of the wire service story. The purpose of Prop. 8 was not to ban "gay
marriage," but to preserve traditional marriage. Marriage is between a man
and a woman. That is what marriage is, and nothing else is marriage. Everyone
has the right to that kind of marriage, the only kind, but some just don't
@VoR;We're talking about human beings. You're attempting
to inject red-herrings into the discussion.I am talking about the US
Government treating Each and Every Citizen exactly the same. Providing the same
benefits to me as to you. That is what this is about. It isn't about
"intra-species" marriage. It isn't about pedophilia. It
isn't about people marrying trees. It isn't even about morality.It's about equal treatment by our government for all American
Citizens. Again, I know that this is a difficult concept for you to
grasp, but, unless I'm trying to force YOU to have a same-sex marriage,
accepting same-sex marriage as legitimate for same sex couples is NOT infringing
on YOUR morals in the least.
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the State
of California from defining "marriage" as the union of a man and a
woman?No it does not.The Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit the State of California, or any other
state, from (for example) defining "citizenship" as the status enjoyed
by a person who has been vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a
citizen, a citizen being a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who
owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection, having (in
the case of a naturalized citizen) renounced allegiance to all other foreign
potentates.Were Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California (or any
other state) each to print 500,000 fill-in-the-blank absentee ballots and mail
them to Mexico City and request the recipients to vote on them and mail them
back, would there be an uproar? Likely.Were Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona and California (or any other state) each to print 500,000 marriage
license applications, not distinguishing thereon the gender of the proposed
marital parties, would there be an uproar? In California there was.
RanchHand,Do you accept all three of the forms of marriage I
outlined in my initial post? What about self marriage and inter-species? Unless
you tolerate all actions as permissible, or are willing to extend
state-recognition to all ways of defining the word- then you are legislating a
morality as much as I am. The burden of proof is on you to show me how you
aren't legislating your own morality on others. Just because what you are
including my own form of marriage, doesn't mean you have included all
forms. In order to NOT be legislating your own morality on others, you would
have to be willing to accept all forms. This is basic relativism 101 and no
relativist has ever been able to explain their way out of this conflict.You are free to live your life according to the dictates of your own
conscience. Forcing society to accept your version of morality by mislabeling
"recognition" as a right- isn't only irrational, but it devastates
the foundation of law that we rely on. You may dictate laws and pervert the
constitution until it hangs by a thread, but we WILL defend our freedom.
Liberal John Roberts won't even hear the case -
The constitution is intended to protect everyone's rights. A smoker can
not smoke anywhere anymore because of the second hand smoke argument. In other
words, non-smokers have the right to smoke-free air because smoke causes health
issues. So, until the second hand smoke argument can be made regarding
homosexual acts, there will be no stopping the proliferation of the LGTB agenda
across every aspect of society including family, education, business,
government, sports, military, etc.What is it about homosexual acts
that infringes on the rights of others? This is the constitutional question
that remains unanswered.I happen to believe that homosexual acts are
perversions of God's intended use of our procreative gifts. I happen to
believe that the performance of those acts will never bring lasting happiness.
But, I also believe that God respects our agency. So, I try to respect the
agency of others. So, if anyone has a good second hand smoke
argument, I still waiting.
@VoR;You are wrong. I'm not trying to legislate morality at
all. Were I doing so, I would be attempting to force you to live by my
standards. You, on the other hand, are trying to force us to live by your
standards by legislating them.That, sir, isn't the freedom
intended by our founders. You're simply trying to justify your actions -
your attempts to deny other Americans the freedom you enjoy.@justamacguy;Separate isn't equal. What you're saying
is that we should accept a lesser status than you enjoy; lesser benefits from
the government than you enjoy; basically, we can sit at the back of the bus
because we'll all get to our destination but we aren't
"worthy" of equality.
Call gay companionship a civil union and let heterosexuals marry. This is any
interesting call for the judges. The vote of the majority is defined in the
constitution. Gay marriage isn't.
RanchHand,What I'm really saying is that ALL of us, including
yourself, are trying to legislate a morality. Yes, mine are in line with the
principles this nation was founded with in mind and the freedoms that the
founding fathers designed this country to protect- but the real logical conflict
between my arguments and your own is that I am admitting that I'm
legislating a morality and you are not.Unless you accept every
action as legal, moral, or permissible- then you are support a system that has a
moral consequence or impact in some form or another. There is no such thing as
100% tolerance, unless you allow for everything (including murder, theft,
etc).The entire concept of such relativism is rejected by anyone
with a reasonable amount of intelligence and an education on the subject. It is
a dangerous concept, not because of the tolerance of anything and everything as
moral or permissible for justice- but because relativists never ACTUALLY argue
for 100% tolerance of everything. The premise of relativism is tolerance, but
always concludes with your own ruling as a dictator over all others. Your VIEWS
on rights aren't entitled to govern us.
2nd try:@VoR;What you're really saying is that you
hope the SCOTUS upholds your "moral version" and rejects all others.
Yours isn't necessarily the correct one, no matter how much you feel it is.
Sorry.I also hope that the SCOTUS upholds the American
Constitutional Ideal of equal treatment of ALL Citizens by our government.You said: "I believe in treating others as equals. That does not
extend to their actions. I support protecting everyone's God-given rights.
I do not recognize or support certain actions as moral."Again, I
agree with you - certain actions are not moral - like voting away the Civil
Rights of your fellow Citizens. I don't recognize your religious actions
as "moral". Where does that leave us?@toosmartforyou;You've misnamed yourself. Everybody is able to believe in god too,
it's just that the ONLY recognized god is Thor. You can worship him just
like everyone else. BTW; The dissenting 9th circuit judge was a
Mormon - what else would he do besides put his religious beliefs over the
Of course if SCOTUS accepts the case, and then if the court follows the standard
set by Chief Justice in the Affordable Care Act decision, then the rulings of
the District and Appeals court would be reject due to interference in the policy
powers specifically reserved for the legislature and the people and the need for
the court to find a way to uphold under whatever means necessary the
constitutionality of such policies.
Darrel, " I say remove government from it all together, strip all the
legally recongnized benefits and allow churches to solemnize any relationship
they choose."And there we have the end result of the slippery
slope traditionalists have been trying to avoid. Businesses can have contracts,
but family marriage contracts will be no longer recognized by the courts. No
rights left to families. No right to sue for divorce. Come and go as you
please. Empty your partners bank account and have lots of affairs.
I'll bet Roberts blows this one too...
"The Constitution doesn't say you can marry just anyone, anytime---for
example bigamy and poligamy are against the law, too, and someone you want to
marry just might already be married so you can't just up and marry them.
"Actually the constitution doesn't even say marriage. So
should the government even be in it? I say remove government from it all
together, strip all the legally recongnized benefits and allow churches to
solemnize any relationship they choose. Business can like wise do the same.
Free market solution right there.
from article--"Lawyers for two same-sex couples who first challenged
Proposition 8 in 2009 said they would urge the Supreme Court to reject the
case." I was very surprised to read this. I thought
if they feel allowing same-sex marriage is a morally superior position to not
allowing it, they would be ALL FOR the case to be taken by the Supreme Court.
@ Ranch HandEveryone has the opportunity to marry someone of the
opposite gender----that's what "marriage" is----so we already have
equality regarding marriage. The exception is close family members, such as
siblings, because of the genetic issues involved. Race, color, religion,
economic status, education, etc don't matter so everyone is on the same
legal ground for marrying a person of the opposite gender. In fact, millions
don't even see the need to get married at all but choose to live together.
What's to be gained by changing centuries old defenitions of countless
societies in defining marriage? If you want domestic partner rights, go for
it......most people would gladly support that concept. The
Constitution doesn't say you can marry just anyone, anytime---for example
bigamy and poligamy are against the law, too, and someone you want to marry just
might already be married so you can't just up and marry them. I suggest you review the Constitution again because it doesn't state what
you infer it says.@ GeorgeIt wasn't a unamimous
ruling of the 9th Circuit, or even a unamimous decision of the 3-judge panel,
It is my hope that the court will hear this case and uphold the principles our
constitution was designed according to. If our politicians today were asked to
write a new constitution, our country would be more divided than ever before and
the new constitution would put shackles on its citizens instead of protect our
freedoms. It is more apparent now than at any other time that John Adams
understood how the moral character of the people determines the ability of our
constitution to effect justice and protect peace. Our constitution was not
designed to govern an immoral and irreligious people.I believe in
treating others as equals. That does not extend to their actions. I support
protecting everyone's God-given rights. I do not recognize or support
certain actions as moral.Some people wouldn't recognize two
members of the same family...Some people wouldn't recognize two
members of the same gender...Some people wouldn't recognize a 50 year
old and a teenager...We all are legislating a morality of some form
or another. I support human rights, I don't support morals contrary to my
beliefs and the freedoms America was designed to protect.
the lawyers defending prop 8 stated "The 9th Circuit's sweeping
dismissal of the important societal interests served by the traditional
definition of marriage is tantamount to a judicial death sentence for
traditional marriage laws throughout the Circuit." actually their inability
to present one credible piece of evidence to support their claims is what did
them in not the judges. The lawyers need to stop blaming the courts for the fact
they have no passes for their arguments.
If the government isn't going to treat all Americans equally, as guaranteed
by The Constitution, then we really aren't the country we think we are.