• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

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



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.
Click to expand...

From your own source:

Legitimacy reframing does not make arguments for same-sex marriage any more vulnerable to slippery-slope arguments invoking incest or polygamy126 than sex-discrimination framing does, to the extent such arguments have any currency.127 Doctrinally, as with the sex-discrimination frame, the legitimacy frame merely shifts the burden onto the state of proposing an important governmental interest justifying such discrimination. In the case of same-sex marriage, it is a very difficult burden to bear, but it is comparatively less difficult to find an important governmental interest in denying access to marriage to incestuous or polygamous unions.128
Click to expand...
Which goes back to the quote which you conveniently ignored, which you seem to have a habit of doing.

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.
Click to expand...
Incestuous marriage is inherently destructive to the order of legal relationships.

There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the "incest taboo." Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as "among the essential mechanisms of human society."
According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years."
Levi-Strauss focused on the benefits of the incest taboo to society at large. The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function.
Click to expand...
Linky.

The best policy argument against incest has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with the protection of minor children. The protection of children from sexual exploitation is among the most compelling of state interests and overrides any constitutional rights. 74 Many incidents of sexual abuse of children, especially girls, are incestuous, occur at a shockingly high rate, 75 and result in trauma that is likely to be severe. 76 Society has an extremely compelling interest in doing everything it can to prevent fathers and brothers from viewing their daughters and sisters in a sexual manner. As Karst points out, "incest laws forbidding parent-child marriage are arguably sustainable even when the child is mature, on the theory that parental authority established during one's childhood may have a lasting impact, dominating what would otherwise be the child's freedom of choice." 77
Click to expand...
Linky.

Yes, you can copy and paste in incest into the decision, but then what you have left doesn't make any sense.

"incredibly stupid"? "effing obvious"?
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I find your slippery sophistry equally offensive.
 
Earthborn said:
It does mean that they could be given equal rights without marriage and without an institution that copies marriage.
Click to expand...

True, although, perhaps not completely. I would argue that the same is very nearly true for gays. If we had the "civil union equivalent to marriage", they would have equal rights, except for one thing. Such solutions are met with howls of protest, usually in America using the phrase "separate but equal", and complaints that by calling it something else you are inherently demeaning it, and so nothing short of an absolutely identical institution is acceptable.

So, if you were to decide that the Constitution required equal protection for any particular sort of couple, or the children of that couple, very few people demanding it would be satisfied with anything less than marriage, specifically.

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.
Click to expand...

Well, sort of. Laws about marriage and sex are very closely intertwined, even today, and much more so historically, as I am sure you understand.
 
Meadmaker said:
True, although, perhaps not completely. I would argue that the same is very nearly true for gays. If we had the "civil union equivalent to marriage", they would have equal rights, except for one thing. Such solutions are met with howls of protest, usually in America using the phrase "separate but equal", and complaints that by calling it something else you are inherently demeaning it, and so nothing short of an absolutely identical institution is acceptable.
Click to expand...
Why should we call it something else?

It's stupid. It really is. People like you keep making these ridiculous arguments, but there's simply no reason to call it a different name. You have to plead for special consideration to suddenly call it anything else than marriage. No matter what, you are still making it clear that this is sort of like marriage, but we can't call it that, so there must be some sort of difference.

The fact that you make it out to be some sort of extremist, "howling" viewpoint is rather telling.
 
Meadmaker said:
If we had the "civil union equivalent to marriage", they would have equal rights, except for one thing. Such solutions are met with howls of protest, usually in America using the phrase "separate but equal", and complaints that by calling it something else you are inherently demeaning it, and so nothing short of an absolutely identical institution is acceptable.
Click to expand...

It not just about demeaning it, it's about the fact when you use the term "civil union" rather than marriage, couples are discriminated against in regard to benefits, such as health insurance and adoption.
 
Lonewulf said:
Why should we call it something else?

It's stupid. It really is. People like you keep making these ridiculous arguments, but there's simply no reason to call it a different name. You have to plead for special consideration to suddenly call it anything else than marriage. No matter what, you are still making it clear that this is sort of like marriage, but we can't call it that, so there must be some sort of difference.

The fact that you make it out to be some sort of extremist, "howling" viewpoint is rather telling.
Click to expand...

*sigh*

I was trying to point out to Earthborn that any solution to the problem of equal rights for couples would have to be a complete and total solution. The reason for this is rooted in some subtleties of American history and jurisprudence. The solutions which have been perfectly adequate in Europe, where I am pretty sure Earthborn lives, would be considered politically unacceptable here.

I’ve debated various facets of the gay marriage debate over the years, and have modified my position greatly. Certain people have been highly influential in shifting my position. None more so than Scot Trypal, but Earthborn has been influential as well. Earthborn consistently brings up points that challenge some of my most basic assumptions. We frequently disagree on those points, but because they are brought up, I find myself constantly examining my own beliefs to see if they are the result of careful thought, or latent prejudice.

I appreciate people who can bring up challenging thoughts on various sides of an issue. It makes the discussion worthwhile. Not everyone succeeds in that fashion.

On the subject of the incest-gay marriage link, despite the fact that I support a right to engage in sado-necro-bestiality, there’s not a whole lot more to be said. For those who feel they haven’t studied the subject sufficiently, I recommend contemplating your own views on what are the limits on government regulation of sexual activity between consenting adults. Then, read Lawrence v. Texas and see how that agrees or disagrees with your view of the law, or what the law ought to be. Consider Skeptic’s, or my, assertions in the light of that decision. Make sure to read Scalia’s dissent, and O’Connor’s partial concurrence. They address the subject of gay marriage directly.

Then, finally, to see where this slippery slope truly leads, google the phrase “conservative judicial activism” and read some news articles about Norm Coleman’s pending appeal in the Minnesota Senate race.

Or, alternatively, you could read an argument like Skeptic’s, and engage in a lot of name calling and derision. That’s fun, too.
 
Once again we get the gang with the usual "I am baffled", "it makes my head hurt", "I don't get it" pseudo-replies. I suppose that's the internet version of "declaring victory and running away".

I wonder: does this work both ways? Suppose someone told you that they're baffled about why women have the right to vote, and to every reply you make they'll claim they don't get it and that your argument makes their head hurt. Does it mean they win the argument, and you must concede that women shouldn't vote?

I'm just asking.
 
Skeptic said:
I wonder: does this work both ways? Suppose someone told you that they're baffled about why women have the right to vote, and to every reply you make they'll claim they don't get it. Does it mean they win the argument, and you must concede that women shouldn't vote?
Click to expand...

Okay, seriously. Is that really the only argument you see throughout this thread?

Talk about willful myopia.

I'll be over here actually reading posts, as opposed to... whatever it is you do.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic said:
I wonder: does this work both ways? Suppose someone told you that they're baffled about why women have the right to vote, and to every reply you make they'll claim they don't get it and that your argument makes their head hurt. Does it mean they win the argument, and you must concede that women shouldn't vote?
Click to expand...
See, here's the problem with your question. If I were in this situation and my first attempt to explain an argument was met with claims of not being understood, I would try a different approach and answer again, even many times if need be.

You only made one attempt to explain why sex is the most relevant element in marriage and that was nearly universally agreed to be a nonsensical analogy. Asking for clarification is not an attempt to declare victory and run away.
 
Skeptic said:
Once again we get the gang with the usual "I am baffled", "it makes my head hurt", "I don't get it" pseudo-replies. I suppose that's the internet version of "declaring victory and running away".
Click to expand...

The thing is you can not really rebut an incoherent argument. Your arguements are often not inteligible enough for those here respond to in an effective maner.
 
Skeptic said:
Once again we get the gang with the usual "I am baffled", "it makes my head hurt", "I don't get it" pseudo-replies.
Click to expand...

You make pseudo-arguments, you get pseudo-replies. Go figure.

I suppose that's the internet version of "declaring victory and running away".
Click to expand...

No, it's the internet version of "I don't understand what you're trying say." It's remarkably similar to the non-internet version.
 
Skeptic said:
I suppose that's the internet version of "declaring victory and running away".
Click to expand...
It's not, but do you know what might be considered "declaring victory and running away"?

First, you'd have to make a really bizarre argument, a bad analogy for example. Then when people question you about your argument, call them names and question their intelligence. Then, and this is important, never revisit or clarify your original argument.

That would be declaring victory and running away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom