"Gays don't need to Marry Because They Can't Have Unplanned Pregnancies"

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

In a brief filed with the Supreme Court last week, the Obama administration slammed the unusual legal argument now key in the movement against gay marriage: that gay couples cannot become accidentally pregnant and thus do not need access to marriage.

The argument has become the centerpiece of two major cases addressing gay marriage that the Supreme Court will consider at the end of March, Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to California's gay marriage ban, and United States v. Windsor, which seeks to overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

"Only a man and a woman can beget a child together without advance planning, which means that opposite-sex couples have a unique tendency to produce unplanned and unintended offspring," wrote Paul Clement, a prominent attorney representing congressional Republicans in the DOMA case.

Clement added in his brief to the Supreme Court arguing to uphold that law that the government has a legitimate interest in solely recognizing marriages between men and women because it encourages them to form stable family units.

"Because same-sex relationships cannot naturally produce offspring, they do not implicate the State's interest in responsible procreation and childrearing in the same way that opposite-sex relationships do," attorneys who are seeking to uphold Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California in 2008, argued in their brief. The opponents to gay marriage also argue it's possible the public perception of marriage would change if gay couples were allowed to wed, discouraging straight people from marrying.

In the administration's friend of the court brief, the Justice Department took a dim view of the argument.

"Marriage is far more than a societal means of dealing with unintended pregnancies," the Justice Department wrote. The brief also argued that preventing gay couples from marrying would not help or hurt the quest to encourage straight couples to marry when they have children.

The argument for the government's right to ban gay marriage has evolved over the years. When the Supreme Court was first asked to address the issue in the 1970s-when a gay couple sued Minnesota for the right to legally wed-the justices replied that the request did not even raise a federal question worth answering. Those who wanted to prevent gay marriage argued that the federal government was not discriminating against anyone in adhering to a definition of marriage that had prevailed for centuries.

That was by and large enough of a legal argument to win the day every time, until the Massachusetts state Supreme Court became the first court to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003. The court ruled that the government had no legitimate reason to deny the recognition of marriage to its residents based on sexual orientation.

Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/argument-against-gay-marriage-california-hinges-accidental-pregnancies-095158941--election.html?bcmt_s=m#ugccmt-container

Well. That's officially the stupidest argument I've heard against it that didn't involve religion. Quite a feat, considering there are only maybe 3 or 4 I know of.

Thoughts?

I'm willing to bet most unintended pregnancies aren't to married couples.

Edit- Found the stat, the rates among never-married women are almost twice as high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#History

They probably couldn't have picked a worse argument. Most of the benefits and responsibilities of marriage have nothing to do with children, having children has never been a requirement of marriage and marriage is no longer a requirement to legitimate children, infertile couples (assuming they're not gay of course) have no restrictions placed on them from marrying, and under California law registered domestic partners have identical legal parenting rights to married couples.

The other argument in the OP is probably even more stupid, though. Why in holy freaking hell is it my problem if straight couples are so petty that they'd cut their noses off to spite their faces and refuse to get married just because some people they don't like have the option? No one ever says that they'd be discouraged from marrying or feel like their own marriage would be downgraded if gays could marry, of course, but everyone else would apparently.

Are they really saying "Gay people can't be irresponsible enough for marriage."?

Like are they really trying to argue that marriage isn't about love or commitment and is instead some sort of social trap to keep people from abandoning their kids? Then uh, why the fuck are they not allowing gay people to get married? If they want the social stigma to revert towards it being taboo to raise children out of wedlock then they'd do that best by letting everybody marry anybodIES else because then there would be more marriages and less examples of people in stable loving relationships outside of wedlock that weren't bursting into flame.

But I'm pretty sure marriage isn't supposed to be some sort of box trap to trick people who don't know what condoms are, and I'm pretty sure that marriage doesn't really do jack shit to stop people from moving across the country away from their kid and then having sex with whomever they want.

Actually it sort of does the opposite because at least in a divorce hearing you might bring up the possibility of mandatory child support payments.

"I want to make it taboo for people to have relationships out of wedding, so I'm going to make a whole bunch of types of relationships impossible to wed ensuring that people will grow increasingly accustomed to stable unwed relationships!"

Vausch:
Well. That's officially the stupidest argument I've heard against it that didn't involve religion.

See, that's the thing. Up until this point, pretty much all legislation against gay marriage has been for unspoken religious reasons. Of course they could never say it was for "Christian" values, for a while they used the euphemism "family" values but even now everybody knows what they mean. But the laws passed anyway in the most conservative states because there are too many people who care more about getting laws passed the enforce their favorite religion than actually following the constitution.

But now that it's in front of the supreme court, they can't rely on this unwritten rule that "Yes it's for religious reasons, but that's okay because it's our favorite religion." They have to provide objective reasons, because if they give any of those religious reasons then they throw the whole game away for not following the first amendment. And so, surprisingly enough, those objective reasons are total shit. Who'da thunk it, eh?

Revnak:
I'm willing to bet most unintended pregnancies aren't to married couples.

Edit- Found the stat, the rates among never-married women are almost twice as high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#History

Isn't that the point? You accidentally a baby and then you can get married and make it all better.

randomsix:

Revnak:
I'm willing to bet most unintended pregnancies aren't to married couples.

Edit- Found the stat, the rates among never-married women are almost twice as high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#History

Isn't that the point? You accidentally a baby and then you can get married and make it all better.

I think the point was that accidentally-ing a baby while married isn't a big deal.

Revnak:

randomsix:

Revnak:
I'm willing to bet most unintended pregnancies aren't to married couples.

Edit- Found the stat, the rates among never-married women are almost twice as high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#History

Isn't that the point? You accidentally a baby and then you can get married and make it all better.

I think the point was that accidentally-ing a baby while married isn't a big deal.

Yeah, but i have yet to see someone getting married because that way it would be safer to have an unplanned baby...

Lilani:

Vausch:
Well. That's officially the stupidest argument I've heard against it that didn't involve religion.

See, that's the thing. Up until this point, pretty much all legislation against gay marriage has been for unspoken religious reasons. Of course they could never say it was for "Christian" values, for a while they used the euphemism "family" values but even now everybody knows what they mean. But the laws passed anyway in the most conservative states because there are too many people who care more about getting laws passed the enforce their favorite religion than actually following the constitution.

But now that it's in front of the supreme court, they can't rely on this unwritten rule that "Yes it's for religious reasons, but that's okay because it's our favorite religion." They have to provide objective reasons, because if they give any of those religious reasons then they throw the whole game away for not following the first amendment. And so, surprisingly enough, those objective reasons are total shit. Who'da thunk it, eh?

Each one sounds like they're reaching so hard they had to pull their other arm off just to get a little further.

"Non religion" arguments I've heard:

"Gays spread AIDS and it will spread to straight people if they meet a bi-person or experiment". Yeah, tell that to Africa. The only reason that would be is due to unprotected sex because of the lack of pregnancy possibility and being uninformed about the spread of the disease.

"Gay marriage will hurt the economy". Yeah, that was a real one. Problem is it won't, because that would allow for the marriage industry to get a rather hefty boost. It means money for photographers, planners, decorators, vacation areas for the honeymoons, that's quite a lot.

"It will lead to polygamy and bestiality". Never got that one, the religious right should be all about polygamy based on how often it's mentioned in the bible and I've never met somebody that said "So two men can marry now, huh? That camel has been giving me the look all week~".

And now this. Really can't imagine this being taken seriously by any rational judge. Honestly I'm imagining the judge listening to this thinking "Sometimes the comedy of this job makes it all worth it".

cathou:

Revnak:

randomsix:

Isn't that the point? You accidentally a baby and then you can get married and make it all better.

I think the point was that accidentally-ing a baby while married isn't a big deal.

Yeah, but i have yet to see someone getting married because that way it would be safer to have an unplanned baby...

Yet another part of what makes no sense about their argument.

The stupid, it BURNS!

C'mon, we have to be close to making some progress if this is one of the new reasons they are attempting to slander gays with. Maybe they're running out of steam, they might collapse before the end of the decade... or their stupidity leads to a statement so mind bogglingly-dumb any organism with a brain stem dissolves into ashes upon contact with the same air these jerks breathe.

The Rookie Gamer:
Maybe they're running out of steam, they might collapse before the end of the decade...

This is pretty much their death rattle now. When they lose these two cases, that's the end. They'll have no further resource to fight it. And, much like with racism, they might cling to their views despite having no legal or moral grounds to hold them, as time goes on general society will tolerate it less and less.

Wow, that's just stupid. It also is - like many other arguments against gay marriage - applicable to infertile and sterile people, so who cares. This sounds like an ad-hoc attempt at justifying this, not like anything they actually thought about.

Skeleon:
Wow, that's just stupid. It also is - like many other arguments against gay marriage - applicable to infertile and sterile people, so who cares. This sounds like an ad-hoc attempt at justifying this, not like anything they actually thought about.

Honestly it sounds like they had to reach so far up their arse to pull that one out they grabbed their own tongue. I mean if the arguments are getting this weak, why is there even any hesitation from the judges?

Vausch:
I mean if the arguments are getting this weak, why is there even any hesitation from the judges?

Because half of them are Conservative, often including Socially Conservative, I'd wager. I know it's not supposed to be like that, I know it's supposed to be all about the arguments and the constitution, but these judges are very much affected by their ideology (and, yes, that goes in both directions, sure). I mean, haven't you heard Scalia basically adopt the "broccoli"-argument against healthcare reform wholesale from Conservative talking heads? That wasn't a good argument, either, and I doubt he would've given something equivalent on the Progressive side much if any weight.

Skeleon:

Vausch:
I mean if the arguments are getting this weak, why is there even any hesitation from the judges?

Because half of them are Conservative, often including Socially Conservative, I'd wager. I know it's not supposed to be like that, I know it's supposed to be all about the arguments and the constitution, but these judges are very much affected by their ideology (and, yes, that goes in both directions, sure). I mean, haven't you heard Scalia basically adopt the "broccoli"-argument against healthcare reform wholesale from Conservative talking heads? That wasn't a good argument, either, and I doubt he would've given something equaivalent on the Progressive side much if any weight.

Oh yes, I remember that well. Though the argument doesn't quite hold up in our current broccoli system.

image

Eh...I don't see how it's more stupid than the usual arguments.

Revnak:
I'm willing to bet most unintended pregnancies aren't to married couples.

Edit- Found the stat, the rates among never-married women are almost twice as high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#History

What did you think of Woody Allen and Soon Yi? Conservatives argued that marriage warns women like Mia Farrow, if you don't have a marital relationship, everything is up in the air. Don't be surprised if your lover starts kipping your kids.

I think this matters.

From NRO: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/338682/marriage-and-politics I bet most of this matters but what counts to me:

1) I think our society can survive any damage done by the pro-gay marriage movement.
2) It is the compassionate thing to do (make room for gay marriage). It can, in it's own way, be socially constructive.

But we do need to define what we want and think is destructive. Otherwise, you are licensing the elite (Woody Allen, Roman Polanski) to do as they will to our very own daughters. That will be destructive.

Gorfias:

Revnak:
I'm willing to bet most unintended pregnancies aren't to married couples.

Edit- Found the stat, the rates among never-married women are almost twice as high.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy#History

What did you think of Woody Allen and Soon Yi? Conservatives argued that marriage warns women like Mia Farrow, if you don't have a marital relationship, everything is up in the air. Don't be surprised if your lover starts kipping your kids.

I have...three cousins now who have had children out of wedlock, and in all three cases a marital relationship with the father is the absolute last thing they needed. The first cousin had the most shit together: She was 22, had a good job as a radiologist, and ended up pregnant with a guy her parents had warned her about. It was alright, until the baby actually came and the guy turned out to be both emotionally and physically abusive. One day he hit her while he was holding the baby, and when she said don't hit the baby he replied with "You'll hit the ground before he does." Luckily she got away from him. Now she's married to another guy who is nice.

The second one had very little shit together and is only just now getting there. Five years ago when she was 18 she got pregnant, and ever since the father's been in and out of jail and rehab for anger management. Again, abuse was involved, but this time with an added bonus of drugs. For a long time she was doing drugs and didn't have a job, but now her daughter is 5 and in kindergarten, and for the first time she's holding down a job and not chasing after guys who she thinks will support her make her life better. She's single, and she is the happiest and most prosperous she's been since her daughter was born.

The last cousin had her baby the most recently. She's 19, just out of high school, and had a baby with a boy who was about as mature as the average 15 year old. Their entire breakup played out on Facebook, and within two weeks she was with another guy, and over the course of the next six months she was with at least three other guys. Now she's single...I think. I haven't looked at her Facebook page in a while.

So where I'm coming from, the last thing we need to be telling anybody about marriage is that it's some magic bullet that suddenly makes having an unexpected child better. Yes it can be good with the right people, but it has no more of a guarantee than anything else because it entirely depends upon the people involved. In all three of those cases, marrying the fathers of their children would have made everything worse. It's like telling kids that "You MUST go to college and get a degree, it's the ONLY way you'll EVER get ANYWHERE in life!" Yes a college degree is nice, just as saying you're married is nice, but it's not the only way to go through life and it just isn't for everybody. Just because two people have a baby together doesn't mean they are any more compatible for marriage than if they hadn't had the child.

From NRO: https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/338682/marriage-and-politics I bet most of this matters but what counts to me:

1) I think our society can survive any damage done by the pro-gay marriage movement.
2) It is the compassionate thing to do (make room for gay marriage). It can, in it's own way, be socially constructive.

But we do need to define what we want and think is destructive. Otherwise, you are licensing the elite (Woody Allen, Roman Polanski) to do as they will to our very own daughters. That will be destructive.

Gorfie...please...we've told you a thousand times, stop referencing the National Review. They're about as credible as Move On.org or any other obnoxious liberal media outlet you'd care to name. And if this really is the only thing where you can find opinions that match with yours, just think about that for a moment. Your only being able to agree with the National Review means you're as "out there" as anyone who can only find solace in MoveOn.org, or any others because I'm too tired to think of another liberal media outlet right now. Please, consume this media in moderation. Moderation is always good for your health.

I had to do some reading to figure out this Woody Allen thing, and I'm really confused as to how you think marriage would have made any of this better. They still would have broken up and custody still would have been a problem. And I really don't get what "teh gayz" have to do with it. The divorce rate was sky-high before gay marriage even became a big issue. I really don't think the problem is in how we define marriage, considering things got so bad under this same definition. If anything, there is an argument that can be made that our current definition of marriage is what the problem is. Because if that's going to be your measuring stick for all of this, the current definition has been a resounding failure in recent history.

thaluikhain:
Eh...I don't see how it's more stupid than the usual arguments.

No more stupid, but certainly much more desperate. This is real bottom-of-the-barrel stuff. As another poster put it;

Aris Khandr:
This is pretty much their death rattle now. When they lose these two cases, that's the end. They'll have no further resource to fight it.

Lilani:
I had to do some reading to figure out this Woody Allen thing, and I'm really confused as to how you think marriage would have made any of this better. They still would have broken up and custody still would have been a problem. And I really don't get what "teh gayz" have to do with it. The divorce rate was sky-high before gay marriage even became a big issue. I really don't think the problem is in how we define marriage, considering things got so bad under this same definition. If anything, there is an argument that can be made that our current definition of marriage is what the problem is. Because if that's going to be your measuring stick for all of this, the current definition has been a resounding failure in recent history.

Well, yes, for some of the people arguing against marriage our current definition is a problem. That problem being that it isn't traditional enough - we allow divorce, and the husband does not have the right to rule the home with an iron fist. The kind of argument you're making here are all well and good for other rational people, but are never going to convince some of the more fringe anti-gay elements who see gay marriage as yet another symptom of our "atheistic" society going to hell in a handbasket.

You may measure common sense with a ruler, but other people use a potato.

Did you hear that sound? That was the sound of my brain deflating from the sheer stupidity of this argument. Come on Supreme Court, shut these guys up already.

From the standpoint of the state, marriage is better for people who have children even if the parents are completely toxic to one another- the state doesn't care about their relationship; it's just about the financials. A married couple will combine finances=more money for kid. If a married couple gets divorced, any assets are split in half=more money for kid. If the married couple was married x amount time, wife gets alimony=more money for kid. Even if the father is a deadbeat the money is still owed, it's more than just child support alone, which makes it that much less of the state's problem.

I personally don't care about gay marriage one way or the other, but marriage absolutely is a trap from the state's point of view. Some people did not seem to understand this.

Gorfias:
But we do need to define what we want and think is destructive. Otherwise, you are licensing the elite (Woody Allen, Roman Polanski) to do as they will to our very own daughters. That will be destructive.

Now I've done enough reading to see what you mean by "do to their own daughters," and I'm not so sure if you realize that him being married would not have prevented it. He may have gotten punished for it (though I'm really not sure what the legal precedent is for adoptive parents having sex with non-related adoptive children), but otherwise it definitely would have still happened. I mean them being biological children does nothing to prevent fathers from abusing their daughters, so if you think being married would have somehow prevented it then you're just kidding yourself.

Also...what would you have done? The problem with them wasn't that they did marry, it's that they didn't. Would you have forced them to marry? Yes, that isn't destructive at all. And gays being able to marry wouldn't have changed their situation or decision one bit. It seems to me you're just throwing problems with marriage at the wall and hoping a few of them stick.

So... what about heterosexual couples who aren't capable of giving birth without proper planing? (as in one of them is not fertile and thus they would need help of a third party to get children)

Lilani:

Gorfias:
But we do need to define what we want and think is destructive. Otherwise, you are licensing the elite (Woody Allen, Roman Polanski) to do as they will to our very own daughters. That will be destructive.

Now I've done enough reading to see what you mean by "do to their own daughters," and I'm not so sure if you realize that him being married would not have prevented it.

It might have. I feel like we didn't even try. I do read a number of social pathologies are up since the 1960s, though some argue that the numbers are up because we actually report them now. I understand that possibility without subscribing to it.

Also...what would you have done? The problem with them wasn't that they did marry, it's that they didn't. Would you have forced them to marry? Yes, that isn't destructive at all.

On this very site, we cannot agree that they deserved even the smallest social disdain for carrying on a marital relationship without the marriage itself. I think if society comes to largely agree that this kind of arrangement is more likely harmful than marriage itself, it might... might... in the future help people.

And gays being able to marry wouldn't have changed their situation or decision one bit. It seems to me you're just throwing problems with marriage at the wall and hoping a few of them stick.

If anything, I'm arguing to have the same sort of social imperative for gays to marry for socially constructive reasons, even if they do not have un-planned pregnancies.

If my kid (son or daughter) got into a long term sexual relationship, gay or straight, accidental pregnancy possibility or not, with someone I knew would never marry them or settle down with them, I'd do my share, within reason, to suggest they move on and find the right person for them.

Neither do heterosexuality, even though that are susceptible to accidental pregnancy. That argument may have held weight in the backwards days of... oh wait...

Huh? This seems like one big non-sequitur to me. I guess the anti-gay position is being diminished to the point where they're forced to use the spaghetti bowl. I find this uplifting.

Gorfias:
It might have. I feel like we didn't even try. I do read a number of social pathologies are up since the 1960s, though some argue that the numbers are up because we actually report them now. I understand that possibility without subscribing to it.

On this very site, we cannot agree that they deserved even the smallest social disdain for carrying on a marital relationship without the marriage itself. I think if society comes to largely agree that this kind of arrangement is more likely harmful than marriage itself, it might... might... in the future help people.

I'm getting a lot of mights and maybes from you. For someone who is so convinced gay marriage is "socially destructive," you sure aren't substantiating much here. You seem to be running on very little evidence for such a harsh result. You're willing to let millions of gay couples right now be denied simple benefits like hospital visitation, child custody, and tax-free inheritance if their spouse dies on something even you aren't sure of and can't guarantee? Because let's not forget that's the real discussion here--DOMA.

If anything, I'm arguing to have the same sort of social imperative for gays to marry for socially constructive reasons, even if they do not have un-planned pregnancies.

If my kid (son or daughter) got into a long term sexual relationship, gay or straight, accidental pregnancy possibility or not, with someone I knew would never marry them or settle down with them, I'd do my share, within reason, to suggest they move on and find the right person for them.

Except that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should be allowed marry, and unless you are going to suggest the government should start intervening into long-term relationships that don't get married, this also has nothing to do with any sort of state policies regarding marriage, gay or straight. You seem to be trying to blame the government's role in marriage on something they couldn't have done anything about in the first place, short of forcing people to marry after being together for so long or after they have a baby together.

Lilani:

Gorfias:
It might have. I feel like we didn't even try. I do read a number of social pathologies are up since the 1960s, though some argue that the numbers are up because we actually report them now. I understand that possibility without subscribing to it.

On this very site, we cannot agree that they deserved even the smallest social disdain for carrying on a marital relationship without the marriage itself. I think if society comes to largely agree that this kind of arrangement is more likely harmful than marriage itself, it might... might... in the future help people.

I'm getting a lot of mights and maybes from you.

The older I get the less sure I am of anything.

You're willing to let millions of gay couples right now be denied simple benefits like hospital visitation, child custody, and tax-free inheritance if their spouse dies on something even you aren't sure of and can't guarantee? Because let's not forget that's the real discussion here--DOMA.

To me, the real discussion is, are we a free, self governing nation, or do we let elites decide everything for us and consign ourselves to live like well behaved pets. I write, no. I want my liberty.

And we wont always be right. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-kerry-liberties-idUSBRE91P0HJ20130226

If anything, I'm arguing to have the same sort of social imperative for gays to marry for socially constructive reasons, even if they do not have un-planned pregnancies.

If my kid (son or daughter) got into a long term sexual relationship, gay or straight, accidental pregnancy possibility or not, with someone I knew would never marry them or settle down with them, I'd do my share, within reason, to suggest they move on and find the right person for them.

Except that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should be allowed marry,

I write and have written many times: they should. I think it can be a good, socially constructive and compassionate thing. But understand: I am pro-choice. I abhor Roe v. Wade. We are not just writing of DOMA, but of process. Who decides? Judges, or the people through their elected representatives. I want my representatives to support same sex marriage. I want my Judges to uphold the law.

and unless you are going to suggest the government should start intervening into long-term relationships that don't get married,

I'd like an end to the marriage tax penalty. I want us to stop, at least at the Federal level, subsidies to help keep people un-married. See, "Life of Julia" .. oh boy... I've linked it 100 times and now, it is no longer on top of my searches. Instead, it is all commentary and parodies like this http://thelifeofjulia.com/

Gorfias:
The older I get the less sure I am of anything.

Ah, good. The older my parents get the more sure they are of certain things, and it's giving...mixed results. My dad now accepts that gay people should marry, but in turn he's become slightly more racist and more willing to share these notions since Obama's first term began.

To me, the real discussion is, are we a free, self governing nation, or do we let elites decide everything for us and consign ourselves to live like well behaved pets. I write, no. I want my liberty.

And we wont always be right. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/26/us-usa-kerry-liberties-idUSBRE91P0HJ20130226

I really wish you'd call them "judges" and not "the elite." You sound like a communist who can't bring themself to call capitalists anything but "bourgeois." And trust me, the judges in my area are anything but "elite."

And I want my liberty too, which is why I support the idea of judicial review. I think the idea of politicians being able to vote anything in without being held accountable to the constitution is revolting. I mean, it's there for a reason. But if we don't give the system any teeth then they'll defy it if it suits their needs--as has been demonstrated many times (unless you're going to argue "separate but equal" and Jim Crow laws were constitutional). I know we've been over this a hundred times, but I just really don't get how you can stare such glaring cases of politicians and people defying the constitution for the express purpose of denying people their liberty and marginalizing them and somehow say the system that rectified this can never have a useful purpose.

It seems to me you have a lot of spiteful hatred for this "elite." You know what "elite" I hate? The Koch brothers, for starting the tea party. They put millions upon millions into getting the tea party started, and all it's done is split the Republican party asunder and get a few theocratic laws passed in the deep south to marginalize gay people and women who want abortions. Where are those people's liberty, hm? Where's their justice? That rich family used their money to whip the south into a frenzy and get those laws passed. Hell, some states started reconsidering sodomy laws when the tea party hit its peak.

In any case, I think it would be much more helpful if you came in here and made these sentiments known. If you want to have a discussion about judicial review and don't want to get called out on your opinions of gay marriage then fine, but don't come in here talking about Woody Allen and expect a smooth transition to that point.

I write and have written many times: they should. I think it can be a good, socially constructive and compassionate thing. But understand: I am pro-choice. I abhor Roe v. Wade. We are not just writing of DOMA, but of process. Who decides? Judges, or the people through their elected representatives. I want my representatives to support same sex marriage. I want my Judges to uphold the law.

They are upholding the law, by holding people accountable to what the constitution says.

I'd like an end to the marriage tax penalty. I want us to stop, at least at the Federal level, subsidies to help keep people un-married. See, "Life of Julia" .. oh boy... I've linked it 100 times and now, it is no longer on top of my searches. Instead, it is all commentary and parodies like this http://thelifeofjulia.com/

First of all, tax "penalty?" The way I understood when married couples apply for taxes together it ended up slightly lower because they are filing under one household instead of two.

Second of all, subsidies to "keep people unmarried?" Holy fuck, Gorfie...stop. Just stop. Unless you want to tell me to my face that my cousins should have married their abusive baby daddies, or that my cousin who's life is finally turning around because she's stopped looking for guys who will make her life better, then I would drop this part of the argument here and leave it. Some people have babies out of wedlock. This will happen no matter what the benefits or disadvantages of marriage are. People already rush into marriages too much as it is, that's why the divorce rate is so high. Conservatives are banging on all the time about how people don't respect what marriage is about anymore and just do it on a whim. But here you are, saying that we should encourage more of these irrational marriages, just for the sake of being married. It's sickening. The last people who have unexpected children need to be doing is marrying because they somehow think that will make it better. That's what you want to do when you want to increase the divorce rate. Convincing people that they have to get married just because they have a baby.

Lilani:

Gorfias:
The older I get the less sure I am of anything.

Ah, good. The older my parents get the more sure they are of certain things, and it's giving...mixed results. My dad now accepts that gay people should marry, but in turn he's become slightly more racist and more willing to share these notions since Obama's first term began.

LOL. My in-laws lived with me for half a generation. I had to be careful what my kids over-heard from them.

I really wish you'd call them "judges" and not "the elite." You sound like a communist who can't bring themself to call capitalists anything but "bourgeois." And trust me, the judges in my area are anything but "elite."

Judges I know of have a gauranteed well above average income for life. They have incredible power, well outside one person one vote. They tend to come from the more expensive elite schools. Hard to argue they themselves are not members of an elite.

And I want my liberty too, which is why I support the idea of judicial review.

Judicial review is vital to liberty. There is a huge difference between our elected officials writing a law to establish the first Church of the USA and our Judges saying that is a violation of the constitution, and our judges hallucinating that members of an international terrorist organization are protected by an agreement regarding honorable uniformed soldiers of signatory nations.

It seems to me you have a lot of spiteful hatred for this "elite."

I recognize that average citizens need to be on their guard against them if they are to keep their liberty.

They are upholding the law, by holding people accountable to what the constitution says.

And what does it say? What does it mean? Typically, gay marriages constitutional basis is the 14th Amendment. But there is no way, no way at all, its framers meant to enshrine gay marriage. Even if you are pro-gay marriage (and I am) using the 14th can be done, but it is going to be illegitimate for the same reason Roe is illegitimate. It isn't what the law means. And the judges pretending it is are seen as outlaws.

Are there material differences between gay and straights as far as marriage is concerned? Defenders of DOMA are, in part, arguing that we are trying to control pro-creative activity. This activity (sex) can and does result in unplanned pregnancies. We have marriage to tell partners up front what their legal obligations/rights/priviledges are. A gay couple can universally plan their pregnancy, and so, plan these rights through contract, including inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. Their needs are not the same, so even using liberal interpretation, do not need the same 14th Amendment protections.

You've written several times NOT to link National review. I write, even if you oppose NRO, you should know their arguments. People here are scandalized, calling this argument "stupid" without understanding its logic. You can argue against it. But simply dismissing it as stupid is not an argument and guaranteed to earn contempt from others if that is the extent of your argument. Protect yourself and your opinions. Know the other side and persuade.

I'd like an end to the marriage tax penalty. I want us to stop, at least at the Federal level, subsidies to help keep people un-married. See, "Life of Julia" .. oh boy... I've linked it 100 times and now, it is no longer on top of my searches. Instead, it is all commentary and parodies like this http://thelifeofjulia.com/

First of all, tax "penalty?" The way I understood when married couples apply for taxes together it ended up slightly lower because they are filing under one household instead of two.

No. Under progressive tax rules, two people making $50K a piece pay the $100K rate. This is higher than if they were single, paying a lower rate on $50K apiece. I am reading that they are trying to make some loopholes to undo this anti-marriage result. Dunno how well it works.

Second of all, subsidies to "keep people unmarried?" Holy fuck, Gorfie...stop. Just stop. Unless you want to tell me to my face that my cousins should have married their abusive baby daddies, or that my cousin who's life is finally turning around because she's stopped looking for guys who will make her life better, then I would drop this part of the argument here and leave it. Some people have babies out of wedlock. This will happen no matter what the benefits or disadvantages of marriage are.

This sort of thing was happening a lot less in the 1960s. Your cousins have access to birth control. They have the right to say, "no" to a guy they think would not make a good husband. They have, sadly, the right to even put a baby up for adoption given dire, un-planned events that cannot be accounted for otherwise (including rape).

But what we are doing is saying, "Don't worry. High earers will pay greater taxes to pay for programs that will help you socially disenfranchse common males. We'll build bigger prisons for them if they don't get killed first in wars that have nothing to do with us [Kosovo/Libya] and on top of other things, this will make it easier for high earning males to have sex with nice girls without ramifications.". It is a war on average men really. It is socially destructive, unjust and corrosive to freedom.

People already rush into marriages too much as it is, that's why the divorce rate is so high.

This is a huge statement. There is a reasonable argument that women are being subsidized into getting divorces if they are so much as "bored" with marriage. There used to be fault based divorce. Someone had to really violate the marrital contract to find themselves divorced. Now, boredom is enough under no-fault. And divorce rates have subsequently skyrockedted since then.

Interesting thing, in the studies that created the book, "The Case Against Divorce" most of these no fault divorces do NOT lead to greater happiness. Couples calling themselves "unhappy" find, within 5 years, that they are "happy" if they just stick it out.

Conservatives are banging on all the time about how people don't respect what marriage is about anymore and just do it on a whim. But here you are, saying that we should encourage more of these irrational marriages, just for the sake of being married.

There is a lot of irrationality to marriage. And sex. And the things we do that result, against all odds, in families, communities, nations and a future.

It's sickening. The last people who have unexpected children need to be doing is marrying because they somehow think that will make it better.

Err, maybe these are exactly the people we need to warn: "don't have sex with a jerk. If you do, use BC pills, rubber and spermicide just to be on the safe side" Otherwise, you may find yourself married to this person, or in need of outside help that WILL NOT COME FROM THE GOVERNMENT. That is what we used to do, and single motherhood was far, far less prevelent. Government was smaller. People were freer.

Yes, things are better now. I have a 4G telephone. That didn't happen because we subsidize social breakdown.

So, we are discussing:

1) Is heterosexual sex more likely to result in unplanned pregnancy than same sex: I say yes.
2) Can this possibility create a need for differing levels of protection than the results of same sex activity. Again, I write yes.
3) Because of differing levels of need for protection, even if you are pro-gay marriage, means gay marriage must originate from something other than the 14th Amendment of equal protections? Again, I write yes.

And too often at this site, the most articulate argument against this is, "that's stupid." Not a good argument.

Vausch:

"It will lead to polygamy and bestiality". Never got that one, the religious right should be all about polygamy based on how often it's mentioned in the bible and I've never met somebody that said "So two men can marry now, huh? That camel has been giving me the look all week~".

I think the logic there is that if you're going around redefining marriage all willy-nilly, then it's only a matter of time before those happen. It's a stupid argument, especially since it fails to note that we've redefined marriage multiple times throughout history.

I've also heard the one where men will marry each other because they are business partners as a tax dodge. For some reason when I ask why heterosexual business partners don't do the same under the current setup, I just get told that it's "different."

Schadrach:

Vausch:

"It will lead to polygamy and bestiality". Never got that one, the religious right should be all about polygamy based on how often it's mentioned in the bible and I've never met somebody that said "So two men can marry now, huh? That camel has been giving me the look all week~".

I think the logic there is that if you're going around redefining marriage all willy-nilly, then it's only a matter of time before those happen. It's a stupid argument, especially since it fails to note that we've redefined marriage multiple times throughout history.

I've also heard the one where men will marry each other because they are business partners as a tax dodge. For some reason when I ask why heterosexual business partners don't do the same under the current setup, I just get told that it's "different."

Ah, the male stripper argument.
"You can't have a stripper because it's demeaning to women and me!"
-"Why do you get to have a male stripper then?"
"That's different!"

Rule of thumb, people: If you're going to use the "It's different" argument, you have to have reasoning behind it to explain why it's different.

Gorfias:
And what does it say? What does it mean? Typically, gay marriages constitutional basis is the 14th Amendment. But there is no way, no way at all, its framers meant to enshrine gay marriage. Even if you are pro-gay marriage (and I am) using the 14th can be done, but it is going to be illegitimate for the same reason Roe is illegitimate. It isn't what the law means. And the judges pretending it is are seen as outlaws.

The 14th Amendment argument for DOMA is different to the 14th Amendment argument for a universal right to same-sex marriage.

When it comes to DOMA specifically, the couples are not suing for the right to get married, they already are married. They're suing because their state gave their relationship the classification of marriage and DOMA forces the federal government to treat some couples from the same state with their relationships classified as marriages better than other couples with the exact same classification.

How is that not an open and shut equal protection case?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked