This is why the Constitution Might be Amended to ban Gay Marriage

[Lonewulf]

That was one of the most baffling arguments I've ever seen in defense of anything. Trying to watch him build a chain of logic to defend his position is almost physically painful.

Agreed.

 

[Meadmaker]

That was one of the most baffling arguments I've ever seen in defense of anything. Trying to watch him build a chain of logic to defend his position is almost physically painful.

He should have just said "It's obvious" and saved himself a lot of trouble.


***********************
Amusing article on National Review Online today. The columninst's daughter was assigned a co-ed room at Stanford. Not a co-ed suite. A co-ed room. It seems it was all a result of not paying close attention to the fine print in the new "gender neutral housing policy." The reason I found it amusing was that of course, the daughter was quite ok with it. The mother, though, was pretty outraged.

Not directly related to anything in this thread, but slightly related, and I think others might also find it amusing.
*******************************

Final thought for the moment. I've been talking a lot about incestuous marriage, and a lot of people miss the point. TB characterized it as a slippery slope argument, and it is, but the slippery slope doesn't lead to incestuous marriage. It leads to Norm Coleman. Hopefully, he won't succeed, but he will try.

 

[Lonewulf]

He should have just said "It's obvious" and saved himself a lot of trouble.

So is skin color/race. So the **** what?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Amusing article on National Review Online today. The columninst's daughter was assigned a co-ed room at Stanford. Not a co-ed suite. A co-ed room. It seems it was all a result of not paying close attention to the fine print in the new "gender neutral housing policy." The reason I found it amusing was that of course, the daughter was quite ok with it. The mother, though, was pretty outraged.

It makes it easier for those who have some issue with gender, like people who are transgendered. Big deal.

 

[Meadmaker]

It makes it easier for those who have some issue with gender,...

It makes a lot of things easier, which is why the mother was outraged.

(For those who didn't read the article, the girl didn't actually request a co-ed room, but she failed to fill out the proper form requesting a single sex room. At least, that's what she told her mother.)

 

[ponderingturtle]

It makes a lot of things easier, which is why the mother was outraged.

(For those who didn't read the article, the girl didn't actually request a co-ed room, but she failed to fill out the proper form requesting a single sex room. At least, that's what she told her mother.)

You didn't actually link to the article.

 

[volatile]

Agreed.

That made my brain hurt.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There is another exception, and it is a fundamental one: marriage creates kinship. It is designed to treat people who are not directly related as family. An incestuous couple is by definition already family and would gain little if anything from getting married.

You are not as amusing as you think you are.

For one thing, incest involves people from the same immediate family. Bear with me on the obvious here a second. Two people of the same sex who are not closely related are virtually indistinguishable from two people of different sex who are not closely related for all the intents of marriage except (possibly) old fashioned baby makin' and His And Hers bath sets.

However, two who are closely related who want to marry is the sort of situation so rife with the potential for abuse and the possible history of abuse that just mentioning it will make a therapist hiss through their teeth. If a mother wants to marry her own son there's some serious issues there to be italicized. That's not the same as my thinking it's icky (I do, for the record.) That's based on a lot of really dirty business involving child abuse.

But, here's where I get all liberal about it. What if it turns out I'm wrong and incestuous relationships can be as harmless and free of abuse as typical straight marriage (not a very high bar, really?) What if it turns out that incestuous unions are no more harmful than straight ones, or gay ones? In that case, down the slippery slope I'd go to advocating legalizing it. Don't forget that sentence starts with "But." Gay marriage is something I support because it turns out every single argument to make against it falls flat except possibly the slippery slope argument, which demonstrates how weak the anti position is, because not only does cleaving to this one fallacy prove you have no other left, it also shows that you're willing to use the specter of irrelevant things that still make us wince to frighten us away from a just society. The anti gay marriage position has been reduced to conjuring tricks.










P.S. In case I was too subtle, incest is not pertinent to a gay marriage discussion. Get your own ****ing thread.

Hey Meadmaker, sorry to interrupt your "It's obvious" fun, but there are posts here that you are ignoring about incest. and Earthborn's was before my post, and you still ignored it.

And if you actually read the decision and the legal arguments, you will realize how incredibly stupid it is to claim you can just copy and paste in incest.

In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation.

Much of the text is dedicated to the question of scrutiny level for a class:

In this case, the County acknowledges sexual orientation is highly resistant to change. Additionally, “sexual orientation ‘forms a significan tpart of a person’s identity.’ ” Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 438 (quoting Able v.United States, 968 F. Supp. 850, 863 (E.D.N.Y. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998)). Sexual orientation influences the formation of personal relationships between all people—heterosexual, gay, or lesbian—to fulfill each person’s fundamental needs for love and attachment. Accordingly, because sexual orientation is central to personal identity and “ ‘may be altered [if at all] only at the expense of significant damage to the individual’s sense of self,’ ” classifications based on sexual orientation “are no less entitled to consideration as a suspect or quasi-suspect class than any other group that has been deemed to exhibit an immutable characteristic.” Id. at 438–39 (quoting Jantz v. Muci, 759 F. Supp. 1543, 1548 (D. Kan. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 976 F.2d 623 (10th Cir. 1992)). Sexual orientation is not the type of human trait that allows courts to relax their standard of review because the barrier is temporary or susceptible to self-help.

It is really effing obvious that this is specific to gays getting married and can't be transfered to incest.

 

[CORed]

Certainly anyone who wants to deprive their fellow-citizens of their civil rights would be best advised to start by changing the Constitution. Though I note that in this particular case it is the constitution of the state of Iowa that acts as a guarantor of civil liberties. Perhaps you could figure out some way to abolish it.

Relax. The courts are not going to "force" gay marriage on anyone.

Of course, the courts might permit it. But anyone who doesn't wish to avail him or her self of this liberty will of course be free not to do so.

Yes, but in the twisted logic of the "family values" crowd, the fact that anybody is allowed to do something that they believe to be sinful is an infringement of their rights.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hey Meadmaker, sorry to interrupt your "It's obvious" fun, but there are posts here that you are ignoring about incest. and Earthborn's was before my post, and you still ignored it.

I didn't want to be overly pedantic, but since you asked:

Earthborn's argument is easily disposed of. Marriage confers a variety of rights. Since they are already kin, they already have some of those rights. You can't give a person "some" of their rights, and then say they don't need the rest.

ImaginalDisc's argument is just as easy

What if it turns out that incestuous unions are no more harmful than straight ones, or gay ones? In that case, down the slippery slope I'd go to advocating legalizing it.

In the case of first cousin marriage, illegal in most states, I would challenge anyone to provide any evidence that those unions are any more harmful than regular marriages.

Now here it gets a bit trickier to proceed, because it is unclear if you, or ImaginalDisc, or anyone else on this thread* is distinguishing between whether they are advocating the legalization of certain types of marriages, or insisting that there is a constitutional right to certain types of marriages. It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't seem to think that distinction matters.

I'm going to proceed on the assumption that ImaginalDisc feels that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, and , if it could be shown that incestuous unions are no more dangerous than other marriages, then there is a constitutional right to incestuous marriages. He can correct me if I am wrong.

So, we already agree on first cousin marriages (unless someone can come up with some sort of evidence about the harm they produce.) It's tempting to stop right there and say that's enough, and for the moment, I will. However, rest assured that I will return to take on the rest.

*Except me, of course. I support gay marriage, but don't think there's a constitutional right to it.

 

[Prometheus]

<snip>
I support gay marriage, but don't think there's a constitutional right to it.

There isn't. There also isn't a Constitutional right to straight marriage, civil union, or any other sort of cohabitation agreement, except in the negative sense implied by the 10th Amendment. However, once any sort of marriage is instituted as a statutory right, the 14th Amendment kicks in as well.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I didn't want to be overly pedantic, but since you asked:

Earthborn's argument is easily disposed of. Marriage confers a variety of rights. Since they are already kin, they already have some of those rights. You can't give a person "some" of their rights, and then say they don't need the rest.

ImaginalDisc's argument is just as easy



In the case of first cousin marriage, illegal in most states, I would challenge anyone to provide any evidence that those unions are any more harmful than regular marriages.

Now here it gets a bit trickier to proceed, because it is unclear if you, or ImaginalDisc, or anyone else on this thread* is distinguishing between whether they are advocating the legalization of certain types of marriages, or insisting that there is a constitutional right to certain types of marriages. It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't seem to think that distinction matters.

I'm going to proceed on the assumption that ImaginalDisc feels that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, and , if it could be shown that incestuous unions are no more dangerous than other marriages, then there is a constitutional right to incestuous marriages. He can correct me if I am wrong.

So, we already agree on first cousin marriages (unless someone can come up with some sort of evidence about the harm they produce.) It's tempting to stop right there and say that's enough, and for the moment, I will. However, rest assured that I will return to take on the rest.

*Except me, of course. I support gay marriage, but don't think there's a constitutional right to it.

Surprisingly, you've selectively quoted and ignored your original argument, just like you did before. Very disappointing since you were making such a big deal about my post.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I didn't want to be overly pedantic, but since you asked:

Earthborn's argument is easily disposed of. Marriage confers a variety of rights. Since they are already kin, they already have some of those rights. You can't give a person "some" of their rights, and then say they don't need the rest.

ImaginalDisc's argument is just as easy



In the case of first cousin marriage, illegal in most states, I would challenge anyone to provide any evidence that those unions are any more harmful than regular marriages.

Now here it gets a bit trickier to proceed, because it is unclear if you, or ImaginalDisc, or anyone else on this thread* is distinguishing between whether they are advocating the legalization of certain types of marriages, or insisting that there is a constitutional right to certain types of marriages. It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't seem to think that distinction matters.

I'm going to proceed on the assumption that ImaginalDisc feels that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, and , if it could be shown that incestuous unions are no more dangerous than other marriages, then there is a constitutional right to incestuous marriages. He can correct me if I am wrong.

So, we already agree on first cousin marriages (unless someone can come up with some sort of evidence about the harm they produce.) It's tempting to stop right there and say that's enough, and for the moment, I will. However, rest assured that I will return to take on the rest.

*Except me, of course. I support gay marriage, but don't think there's a constitutional right to it.

Not only do I support it, I think there's already a constitutional right to it.

The 14th Ammendment, Section 1:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

While marriage is in the hands of the states, they can't just arbitrarily decide two people can't marry because they're of different races or the same sex. Gay marriage opponents agree with me about how the law reads, because why else would they push the DOMA and other efforts to specifically exclude gay marriage?

 

[Meadmaker]

OK. On to the rest of the post. (Patience, young one.)

And if you actually read the decision and the legal arguments, you will realize how incredibly stupid it is to claim you can just copy and paste in incest.

Much of the text is dedicated to the question of scrutiny level for a class:

Indeed it is. Here's a truncated version of the quote, to remind people about what we are talking.

In this case, the County acknowledges sexual orientation is highly resistant to change. ... classifications based on sexual orientation “are no less entitled to consideration as a suspect or quasi-suspect class than any other group that has been deemed to exhibit an immutable characteristic.”

It's true. You can't apply that portion of the ruling to incestuous people. So, that appears to defeat my argument, I guess. Except...there's one way to save it. This portion of the judicial opinion doesn't actually address the right of same sex marriage. It addresses the question of what level of scrutiny ought to be applied when determining if a law restricting such a right is Constitutional.

The court notes certain instances in which intermediate scrutiny ought to be applied, and in it we find illegitimacy (check it out. It's listed in the Iowa ruling.) Now, you might think that by illegitimacy, we are only talking about laws that target or discriminate against bastards, but that is not the case. More accurately, it applies to all statutes that discriminate, in the broadest sense, against children of unmarried parents. If a statute deprives a child of rights, benefits, or privileges that he would have had if his parents had been married, then it is a law that to which intermediate scrutiny must be applied. A law which prohibits a child's parents from getting married is one sort of law that falls into this category. The reasoning is described more thoroughly here:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/content/28-5/28.5_Ledsham.pdf

So, we have a law respecting illegitimacy, which is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. (There are other reasons why it might be subject to a level of scrutiny beyond the simple rational basis test, but I will leave others to investigate further.)

Having demonstrated that the proper test is intermediate scrutiny, you could go through the remainder of the opinion, strike out homosexual and its synonyms, replace it with incestuous, and the ruling would make just as much sense.

Back to ImaginalDisc.

Earlier, I noted that he was willing to agree to support incestuous marriage if they could be shown not harmful. (This makes a lot of sense actually, because it parallels the test under the Equal Protection Clause about serving a legitimate government interest. I assume we all agree that protecting children, and even adults, is a legitimate government interest. ) I will submit that first cousin marriages are not harmful in the least, and laws outlawing them would not even survive a rational basis review if fairly applied.

As for the other categories of incest, I'm not so sure. I suspect it would be pretty easy to convince me that Father-daughter and mother-son relationships were injurious to mental health, although it's quite possible even that is culturally biased. If so, laws against them would survive even a strict scrutiny challenge. As for brother-sister relationships, I'm not so sure. It would certainly be controversial, and I doubt that scientific evidence would be conclusive either way. In such cases of controversy, where there is no, clear proof, I, personally, would defer to the legislature.

It is really effing obvious that this is specific to gays getting married and can't be transfered to incest.

"incredibly stupid"? "effing obvious"?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Back to ImaginalDisc.

Earlier, I noted that he was willing to agree to support incestuous marriage if they could be shown not harmful. (This makes a lot of sense actually, because it parallels the test under the Equal Protection Clause about serving a legitimate government interest. I assume we all agree that protecting children, and even adults, is a legitimate government interest. ) I will submit that first cousin marriages are not harmful in the least, and laws outlawing them would not even survive a rational basis review if fairly applied.

As for the other categories of incest, I'm not so sure. I suspect it would be pretty easy to convince me that Father-daughter and mother-son relationships were injurious to mental health, although it's quite possible even that is culturally biased. If so, laws against them would survive even a strict scrutiny challenge. As for brother-sister relationships, I'm not so sure. It would certainly be controversial, and I doubt that scientific evidence would be conclusive either way. In such cases of controversy, where there is no, clear proof, I, personally, would defer to the legislature.

Are you perhaps confusing me for someone else, becase I don't see how this relates to anything I have written.

 

[Meadmaker]

Are you perhaps confusing me for someone else, becase I don't see how this relates to anything I have written.

Earlier, I noted that he was willing to agree to support incestuous marriage if they could be shown not harmful.

What if it turns out that incestuous unions are no more harmful than straight ones, or gay ones? In that case, down the slippery slope I'd go to advocating legalizing it.

I don't think I was misrepresenting anything.


The rest of my discussion was about my own opinion on whether or not incestuous unions were harmful. I believe first cousin marriages are not harmful in the least, father daughter marriages probably are, and I'm not sure about brother-sister marriages. In such cases, I would defer to the legislature.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't think I was misrepresenting anything.


The rest of my discussion was about my own opinion on whether or not incestuous unions were harmful. I believe first cousin marriages are not harmful in the least, father daughter marriages probably are, and I'm not sure about brother-sister marriages. In such cases, I would defer to the legislature.

That's off topic. The topic is incestuous marriage as a slippery slope arguement against gay marriage. You claim to be for gay marriage, do not make an argument that it would lead to a slippery slope, and you fail to understand how the 14th ammendment protects it.

Why are you talking about yourself? How are you relevant to the OP?

We're attacking Skeptic's arguments, you're being a narcicist.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Skeptic: Thanks for revisiting the thread you started, yet more or less checked out of. (Hey, people get busy.) Would it be too much trouble for you to answer a question put forth some time back?

How are you, personally, affected by two people in Vermont getting married?

 

[marksman]

Maybe he issues marriage licenses and objects to the increased workload.

 

[Earthborn]

Earthborn's argument is easily disposed of.

I don't think you have disposed of it.

Marriage confers a variety of rights. Since they are already kin, they already have some of those rights.

Which shows that "incestuous marriage" really is a separate issue from non-gendered marriage, and perhaps explains why there aren't many "incestuous couples" trying to get married.

You can't give a person "some" of their rights, and then say they don't need the rest.

It does mean that they could be given equal rights without marriage and without an institution that copies marriage.

I suspect it would be pretty easy to convince me that Father-daughter and mother-son relationships were injurious to mental health

I assume you are referring to sexual relationships, because I don't think you would seriously argue that all interaction between parents and their children are necessarily injurious to mental health. However if I am right about my assumption, your argument is very weak as marriage law does not regulate sexual relationships.