We do, in a manner of speaking. It's called the court house. You go there, get a license, then it's up to you who officiates the marraige. You can have it done at the court house or you can have done in a church.
gay marriage law rejected in Maine!
- Thread starter libby
- Start date
Okay.
puggymom
Active Member
I know this was not directed to me but sometimes, and not always I know, people make a choice at some time in their lives that lead to not being able to afford certain things.
Some people I feel sorry for and have no problems helping, others not so much.
Nucklesack
New Member
When its an issue they support, Mob Rule
When its an issue they dont, Republic (Democracy is mob rule)
Cowgirl
Well-Known Member
Well close incest..(you can marry second cousins anywhere..and first cousins in some states) as between a brother and sister..or mother and child..is disgusting. Thats not a good argument. I know that ...still though. Harm? well breeding that close..does indeed cause a myriad of health problems for the offspring..but harm from the actual marriage? nothing i can think of other than making acceptable something that is just...shouldnt happen..
For marrying multiple partners..I can see it being done for tax purposes..or some such..but real harm? Not really.
But I have a lot of questions I keep thinking about.....
what about the "traditional" family unit? By allowing these others are we indeed harming this institution? Isnt it the best way? will it become something to be made fun of..a relic..."uncool" ? Is that bad? Should anything go? Is there harm to our culture that we can't forsee? Will allowing what most people see as deviant..to become "ok" what other deviant acts will become ok in the future? where is the line? I really don't know..I think it is a more complex issue than simply looking for who it harms. Perhaps its an issue that cannot be resolved. I honestly don't know.
Honestly, I don't really think the "normal" family unit would chance. There might be a small number of people who would actually marry a close relative, or marry multiple people, but I think the majority of society would stick with "normal" marriages.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
That's why (supposedly) we have a constitution, so that our opinions end where inalienable rights begin.
puggymom
Active Member
Yeah I know but this is how it should be done for ALL marriages/civil unions (again semantics). If you want your union recognized by the state this is how it is done.
This takes churches completely out of the argument so they will not be forced to marry people since unions is no longer done by anyone but that state office.
IF a person wants their union blessed by a church or to have the big wedding that is up to them but it in no way means anything to the state.
OoberBoober
Awwwwooooooooo
So we should not afford protection to certain people just because we don't agree with their decision making?
I corrected you on this a week or two ago. The Catholic Church does not recognize contraception as having any part in a sacramental marriage. Every other Christian denomination as far as I am aware believes it okay, but not the Catholic Church.
puggymom
Active Member
What protections? Something that is offered to every citizen of this country? Of course not.
Something that is only offered to certain people? Yes personal decision making should affect that.
Did you want to start your own thread to debate health care? Or just hijack this one so that I'll put you on ignore and can follow the conversation without your off-topic interruptions?
I did not say they shouldn't get married because of the possibility of divorce. That would negate marriage everywhere. I said, originally...oh forget it, I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
You are being intentionally obtuse because you know you're wrong.
The two who made the child have relinquished custody. The two who intend to raise him/her agree that they want to adopt.
If you cannot see the difference between that and the other scientifically engineered treatments, there is no point in arguing the issue.
Tilted
..
Rather than responding individually to a bunch of posts, I'm just gonna make a post that VERY basically describes some of the legal issues here. Hopefully it provides a little insight that helps to inform the conversation. It is important to know that these are very involved, very nuanced legal issues with many possible permutations and intertwined variables. So, rather than trying to be perfectly and technically accurate (which would be beyond my capability anyway, and would take 20 pages which no one would read), I'm just gonna describe a very basic model and try to paint the general legal landscape. It won't be precisely technically accurate, and it would be easy to point out where it isn't - so I just want to acknowledge that up front - the general idea is what I'm trying to convey here.
First, when it comes to deciding which government policies are acceptable, which are 'Constitutional', the crux of the issue is determining which judicial review standard is to be applied. There are basically three, though they are referred to by different names, and sometimes hybrids of these are applied, and to some extent they overlap:
(1) Strict scrutiny - if this standard is applied, then the law or policy in question must be 'narrowly tailored' to serve a 'compelling' government interest. Furthermore, there can't have been a less intrusive way to pursue that compelling government interest. Strict scrutiny presents a very high legal standard, and it will usually mean that a law is Unconstitutional. Under it, basically there is a presumption that the policy doesn't pass muster, and it is up to the state to demonstrate why it does.
(2) Rational basis review, sometimes called ordinary scrutiny - if this standard is applied, the law or policy in question need only 'reasonably' relate to a 'legitimate' government interest. The standard basically presumes that a policy does past muster, and it is up to the challenger to demonstrate why it doesn't. It presents a very low standard, and usually means that a law is Constitutional.
(3) Intermediate scrutiny, sometimes called heightened scrutiny - this standard is somewhere between the other two. When this standard is applied, the law or policy in question must 'substantially' relate to an 'important' government interest.
Now obviously, some vagueness still remains. But, I think it is fair to say that, if strict scrutiny were to be applied, then most laws that unconditionally prohibit same-sex marriages would fall. I think it is also fair to say that, if ordinary scrutiny were to be applied, those laws would be upheld. So, the question really becomes, how is the level or scrutiny that is to be applied determined?
Well, rational basis review would be the base level that is applied by default. However, there are conditions which have legally been found to dictate higher levels of scrutiny.
If a law impinges a fundamental right, as identified by the Supreme Court, then generally, strict scrutiny is to be applied. For instance, if the government were to make a law that limited the right to free speech, then that law would be subject to strict scrutiny - and the government would have to have a very good reason to have the law, it would have to be narrowly written so that it only restricted activity to the extent that it had to, and there would have to have been no other, less restrictive, way to accomplish the same goal. As such, there are some laws which abridge free speech that are Constitutional, but most such hypothetical laws would not be.
It is important to note that, per the Loving case which Vrai cited earlier, and others that preceded it, the right to marry is considered a fundamental right by the U.S. Supreme Court. The question is, does that just mean heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right, or is homosexual marriage also a fundamental right? As it stands now, I would say it is only the former - and I don't think that is likely to change anytime soon. I believe that for various reasons relating to the standards the high Court has established for determining whether or not something is a fundamental right, which I won't get lost in here.
Now, if a 'right' is protected for this reason - that is to say, because it is a fundamental right, then we refer to that as 'substantive due process' - which follows from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, if someone was using this avenue to seek relief from a court, we might say they are making a substantive due process claim. It would also be possible to make a procedural due process claim, but I don't think that would be as relevant to this conversation, and I'm not going to explore it for now.
Additionally, a law can be subject to a higher scrutiny standard because it classifies people - that is to say, it treats different people differently on the basis of some immutable characteristic. Within the law, we have the concept of 'suspect class' - basis on which people might be classified, and discriminated against. The courts have identified certain suspect classifications, where the use of those classifications within a law, subjects that law to a higher level of scrutiny. This too is not an exact science, as there can be different degrees of suspect classes, and consequently, different implications for which level of scrutiny is applied. Race and religion for instance, are very clear suspect classifications. Laws which discriminate on those basis are generally going to be subject to strict scrutiny, and as such, are going to be Unconstitutional. To some extent, sex is considered a suspect classification, and legal classifications based on it are subjected to higher scrutiny.
As it is, sexual orientation - or as Justice Scalia likes to refer to it, sexual proclivity - has not generally been regarded as a suspect classification. Though, I believe Justice O'Connor almost started to make the argument for treating it as such in her concurring (not majority) opinion in Lawrence v Texas (2003). It should also be noted that, legislatures can define a suspect class should they choose to - or, courts can define a suspect class in contravention with legislative measures.
Basically, regardless of whether or not there is a fundamental right in play, a law can not discriminate for invidious, arbitrary or irrational reasons. When the basis for discrimination is a recognized suspect classification, then the law is generally presumed to discriminate for those reasons (though there are obviously exceptions, and it is still possible that the law is Constitutional). Now, challenges made under this rational are generally referred to as equal protection challenges. They are made pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Very often, challengers make both arguments - that there is a substantive due process violation, and an equal protection violation - that a fundamental right is implicated and that there is discrimination which doesn't comport with legitimate reasons. Just to complete the circle, the Privileges and Immunities Clause is mostly irrelevant - as I've explained at length in other places.
There are also other reasons that a law might be subject to a higher scrutiny standard, but I don't think they are relevant to this conversation.
It is my belief that the more relevant legal issue here is equal protection, at least that is the one that will matter legally in the near term. So, the real question is, is homosexuality a suspect class? As of now, it generally is not. Legislatures can start to it as such (which some may have), or courts can start to consider it as such. As far as the Supreme Court goes, I have little doubt that it will eventually start considering sexual orientation a suspect classification, but I don't think that will happen tomorrow.
First, when it comes to deciding which government policies are acceptable, which are 'Constitutional', the crux of the issue is determining which judicial review standard is to be applied. There are basically three, though they are referred to by different names, and sometimes hybrids of these are applied, and to some extent they overlap:
(1) Strict scrutiny - if this standard is applied, then the law or policy in question must be 'narrowly tailored' to serve a 'compelling' government interest. Furthermore, there can't have been a less intrusive way to pursue that compelling government interest. Strict scrutiny presents a very high legal standard, and it will usually mean that a law is Unconstitutional. Under it, basically there is a presumption that the policy doesn't pass muster, and it is up to the state to demonstrate why it does.
(2) Rational basis review, sometimes called ordinary scrutiny - if this standard is applied, the law or policy in question need only 'reasonably' relate to a 'legitimate' government interest. The standard basically presumes that a policy does past muster, and it is up to the challenger to demonstrate why it doesn't. It presents a very low standard, and usually means that a law is Constitutional.
(3) Intermediate scrutiny, sometimes called heightened scrutiny - this standard is somewhere between the other two. When this standard is applied, the law or policy in question must 'substantially' relate to an 'important' government interest.
Now obviously, some vagueness still remains. But, I think it is fair to say that, if strict scrutiny were to be applied, then most laws that unconditionally prohibit same-sex marriages would fall. I think it is also fair to say that, if ordinary scrutiny were to be applied, those laws would be upheld. So, the question really becomes, how is the level or scrutiny that is to be applied determined?
Well, rational basis review would be the base level that is applied by default. However, there are conditions which have legally been found to dictate higher levels of scrutiny.
If a law impinges a fundamental right, as identified by the Supreme Court, then generally, strict scrutiny is to be applied. For instance, if the government were to make a law that limited the right to free speech, then that law would be subject to strict scrutiny - and the government would have to have a very good reason to have the law, it would have to be narrowly written so that it only restricted activity to the extent that it had to, and there would have to have been no other, less restrictive, way to accomplish the same goal. As such, there are some laws which abridge free speech that are Constitutional, but most such hypothetical laws would not be.
It is important to note that, per the Loving case which Vrai cited earlier, and others that preceded it, the right to marry is considered a fundamental right by the U.S. Supreme Court. The question is, does that just mean heterosexual marriage is a fundamental right, or is homosexual marriage also a fundamental right? As it stands now, I would say it is only the former - and I don't think that is likely to change anytime soon. I believe that for various reasons relating to the standards the high Court has established for determining whether or not something is a fundamental right, which I won't get lost in here.
Now, if a 'right' is protected for this reason - that is to say, because it is a fundamental right, then we refer to that as 'substantive due process' - which follows from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, if someone was using this avenue to seek relief from a court, we might say they are making a substantive due process claim. It would also be possible to make a procedural due process claim, but I don't think that would be as relevant to this conversation, and I'm not going to explore it for now.
Additionally, a law can be subject to a higher scrutiny standard because it classifies people - that is to say, it treats different people differently on the basis of some immutable characteristic. Within the law, we have the concept of 'suspect class' - basis on which people might be classified, and discriminated against. The courts have identified certain suspect classifications, where the use of those classifications within a law, subjects that law to a higher level of scrutiny. This too is not an exact science, as there can be different degrees of suspect classes, and consequently, different implications for which level of scrutiny is applied. Race and religion for instance, are very clear suspect classifications. Laws which discriminate on those basis are generally going to be subject to strict scrutiny, and as such, are going to be Unconstitutional. To some extent, sex is considered a suspect classification, and legal classifications based on it are subjected to higher scrutiny.
As it is, sexual orientation - or as Justice Scalia likes to refer to it, sexual proclivity - has not generally been regarded as a suspect classification. Though, I believe Justice O'Connor almost started to make the argument for treating it as such in her concurring (not majority) opinion in Lawrence v Texas (2003). It should also be noted that, legislatures can define a suspect class should they choose to - or, courts can define a suspect class in contravention with legislative measures.
Basically, regardless of whether or not there is a fundamental right in play, a law can not discriminate for invidious, arbitrary or irrational reasons. When the basis for discrimination is a recognized suspect classification, then the law is generally presumed to discriminate for those reasons (though there are obviously exceptions, and it is still possible that the law is Constitutional). Now, challenges made under this rational are generally referred to as equal protection challenges. They are made pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Very often, challengers make both arguments - that there is a substantive due process violation, and an equal protection violation - that a fundamental right is implicated and that there is discrimination which doesn't comport with legitimate reasons. Just to complete the circle, the Privileges and Immunities Clause is mostly irrelevant - as I've explained at length in other places.
There are also other reasons that a law might be subject to a higher scrutiny standard, but I don't think they are relevant to this conversation.
It is my belief that the more relevant legal issue here is equal protection, at least that is the one that will matter legally in the near term. So, the real question is, is homosexuality a suspect class? As of now, it generally is not. Legislatures can start to it as such (which some may have), or courts can start to consider it as such. As far as the Supreme Court goes, I have little doubt that it will eventually start considering sexual orientation a suspect classification, but I don't think that will happen tomorrow.
Cowgirl
Well-Known Member
:shrug:
libertytyranny
Dream Stealer
It's a non-answer...Well close incest..(you can marry second cousins anywhere..and first cousins in some states) as between a brother and sister..or mother and child..is disgusting. Thats not a good argument. I know that ...
For marrying multiple partners..I can see it being done for tax purposes..or some such..but real harm? Not really.
But I have a lot of questions I keep thinking about.....
what about the "traditional" family unit? By allowing these others are we indeed harming this institution? Isnt it the best way? will it become something to be made fun of..a relic..."uncool" ? Is that bad? Should anything go? Is there harm to our culture that we can't forsee? Will allowing what most people see as deviant..to become "ok" what other deviant acts will become ok in the future? where is the line? I really don't know..I think it is a more complex issue than simply looking for who it harms. Perhaps its an issue that cannot be resolved. I honestly don't know.
still..it is in response..
puggymom
Active Member
Honestly I cannot see the difference between that and a person who consents to her eggs being used for someone else to get pregnant so I guess we are at an impasse on this.
Last edited: