Massachusetts Court rules state cannot ban gay marraige

[Ned]

All I can say, Imran, is that Congress thought it had to power under the FF&C clause to pass the act it did. I think you have the burden to demonstrate by citation to contolling authority that Congress was wrong. Otherwise, you lose the argument because Congress is presumed to be right and those who would declare the Act unconstitutional have a heavy burden of proof.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Berzerker
"Marriage" has not changed to include homosexuals,

My point was that the institution of marriage has changed, in fact it has changed a great deal, so any arguments against gay marriage based on traditional "origins and practices" have no basis.

(...)so why wouldn't homosexuals support re-legalising polygamy?

I think you have failed to appreciate a fundamental difference between gay marriage and polygamy. There is a very big difference between being allowed to exercise a right as much as you wish, and being allowed to exercise it at all. It is a matter of threshold.

In this respect marriage is like voting. The case of those barred from voting has little in common with that of someone arguing for the right to vote multiple times per election.

Homosexuals would at least appear consistent if they supported polygamists when people like Rick Santorum pointed out that we'd have to allow polygamy under the rationale offered by homosexuals...

No inconsistancy if you understand the difference I just explained.

That being said, I do not at all object to a re-examination of the issue of polygamy. However, based on what I understand of its contemporary practice in the US, I have serious concerns over the welfare of the women involved. No problems with a fair hearing, though.

Nope, and I'm indifferent to any alleged changes.
Divorce, no matter what the practice and when, was and is the negation of a marriage contract.

I'm not surprised you are "indifferent" to the fundamental changes in divorce law, as they completely up-end your "origins and practices" argument.

[Berzerker]

Imran -

Forget the dirt, the mere fact that you are from Kansas and go over the border to Nebraska is interstate commerce. It is a commercial activity spaning two states.

I see the "interstate" part of that, but where's the commerce? The reason for the power to regulate interstate commerce was two-fold, to prevent the states from engaging in trade wars - a tax on money sent into the state to purchase goods, and to create an ostensibly neutral arbiter of disputes between people engaging in commerce across state borders so that individuals in different states would not have to seek justice regarding disputes in the other party's state.

It was not so Congress could regulate everything under the sun once a border is crossed. That's why some of the states want Congress to impose taxes on goods sold over the internet or thru the mail across state lines, because those transactions are exempt from state sales taxes ala the interstate commerce clause.

An example of interstate commerce - I send money to LL Bean for a shirt. Not an example of interstate commerce - I drive to a neighboring state and spend money. What's the difference? The exchange of money for goods in the first example crossed state borders, in the second example, the exchange of money for goods occured in the same state. If you want, take a look at the history of the ICC. It wasn't until about 50 years ago that Congress began using it for non-commercial activities, so we have to sincerely ask why it took that long. The anwser is obvious...

Ramo -

They can change the definition of legal words. That's why they're legal words.

Marriage is more than just a legal term, it describes a contract that can be and has been made in the absence of any law. Your argument is no different than claiming the Nazis never stole because stealing is a "legal" term and those in power can define it any way they want. Try that with murder and you negate the holocaust...

Yes, and the state can redefine it. Which it should. What's your point?

The point is, even using your argument, marriage doesn't include homosexual unions.

Damn straight. Gay rights in most of the world are crap. Usually, the state can put people in prison for being gay.

That's a different issue that has nothing to do with re-defining a word that describes an act involving heterosexuals to include homosexuals. Why not re-define "heterosexual" to mean homosexual while we're at it?

Mindseye -

My point was that the institution of marriage has changed, in fact it has changed a great deal, so any arguments against gay marriage based on traditional "origins and practices" have no basis.

The changes have been minor, not great.

I think you have failed to appreciate a fundamental difference between gay marriage and polygamy. There is a very big difference between being allowed to exercise a right as much as you wish, and being allowed to exercise it at all. It is a matter of threshold.

You mean religious freedom means I can only choose one religion in my life and practice it once a day since there are legitimate limits on how often we can exercise a "right"? So people should only be allowed to marry once?

In this respect marriage is like voting. The case of those barred from voting has little in common with that of someone arguing for the right to vote multiple times per election.

No mindseye, it isn't like voting.

No inconsistancy if you understand the difference I just explained.

No, there is inconsistency and alot of dis-assembling to hide the inconsistency. You invented a limitation on how often a right may be exercised and there is no such limitation in the Constitution or in the definition of rights.

I'm not surprised you are "indifferent" to the fundamental changes in divorce law, as they completely up-end your "origins and practices" argument.

How? Divorce is and always has been a negation of a marriage. Where have any of these little changes to divorce law "up-ended" origins and practices, i.e., the negation of a marriage?

[Berzerker]

The irony in this debate is that I support the political party - the Libertarian Party - that supports "gay marriage" and some on the other side supports a party - the Democrat Party - that doesn't. Look at the Democrats running for Prez, maybe only Kucinich supports it. Go figure...

[David Floyd]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It shouldn't be a legal concept, but it should be state-recognized?

Only insofar as the state recognizes any other contract, which is to say, they don't interfere.

[CharlesBHoff]

That being said, I do not at all object to a re-examination of the issue of polygamy. However, based on what I understand of its contemporary practice in the US, I have serious concerns over the welfare of the women involved. No problems with a fair hearing, thou [/QUOTE]

Alittle off topic I than sick and tirely of certain people say polygamy abuse woman. Than woman can be abuse more in a marraige to one man. So many Western get upset when they see than Muslum Woman wear the Hijab an they so round saying that Muslum man make then dress that way. First it the woman own choice to wear the Hijab make of they
own free will. Than Muslum are getting tire of nonmuslum saying we donot allow woman to give option on matter. The Muslum woman is than very important part of the Muslum comminuntry, they where the leader behind most of the Muslum Orgination form in America an they hold top leadership post. The only post than woman have than hard time getting is as Iman, Iman is the lower rank religious scholare in Islam there is one post which rank above Iman
I cannot remember it arabic name which is make up of 50 % woman. Islam DOESNOT support wife abuse or hitting than woman expect under very unusal case like your wife mother die and she try to use than knife to harm hershelf, there is no way to disarm than person with than knife expect by some type of phyical contact.

[Ben Kenobi]

Rufus:

would be sex discrimination.

That's not my point. I agree this would be sex discrimination, but I say that men and women are not interchangeable parts. There are certain situations where it is in the interests of society to discriminate between men and women, and marriage is one of these situations.

Once you commit to giving people rights, that takes absolute precedence over what makes people "comfortable."

Interesting. Where have I argued that upholding marriage will make people more comfortable? That is not my reason whatsoever. I believe that this is the right thing to do, and not politically expedient.

In fact, I see many of the democrats pandering to this issue because it is politically expedient for them to do so. Look at how many of them say, I agree with this, but... etc.

but you rely on arguments that have no empirical basis and are more rooted in ideology than reason.

I argue, that on the whole marriage provides enormous benefits to society in terms of child-rearing and reproduction, more so than any other alternative arrangement. Why does this argument have no empirical basis?

the issue is individual rights under contract law, just as in Loving, and on those terms the case for gay marriage is rock-solid.

Two tacks I will take. Assuming this is the correct interpretation of Loving, was this the intent of the judiciary in Loving and Virginia? If not, then there are clearly problems with the law, in that it allows what the lawmakers did not intend. Hence the need for the constitutional amendment affirming marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Secondly, taking your argument to it's logical consequence, why the requirement for consentual adults? Why not allow arranged marriages between children? Why not allow a man to marry as many women, and for a women to marry as many men as they want?

Would you support both of these consequences? If not, why not?

Finally, I take issue with your intepretation of the analogy between race and gender. Men and women are not interchangeable parts. Hence, the ruling of Loving and Virginia does not come into play.

[Ben Kenobi]

David Floyd:

And just what right does the state have to tell me who I can and can't contract with?

In marriage, you are making a contract with the state as well as with the other person. This is why the state has a role in marriage. You want to do away with civil marriages altogether, and leave it up to the churches? Go right ahead.

but those justifications are just that.

Just what? Correct? I have given numerous non-religious arguments in this thread. Please continue to ignore them.

[Ben Kenobi]

But how can you justify allowing individuals who are both 70 or older to marry given your justification?

Again, I argue for marriage on the whole sample, rather than just for this fringe example. What proportion of marriages happen at this age? Very few. Once again, on the average, marriage is enormously positive.

I also fail to see why you don't have fertility requirement for marriage if the specific issue you previously mentioned is your primary concern.

If through no fault of their own, a couple finds themselves infertile, they should be allowed to marry. We don't see this in the example of gay unions, where perfectly fertile people deny their own fertility. So your requirement would fall under the charge of false analogy. The vast majority of married people who are infertile, cannot help their condition.

While there are economic benefits for a population increase in the US, they are outweighed by the quality of life issues. If increasing the birth rate is your goal, giving huge tax breaks to those who have kids is much more efficient than you idea of restrictions on marriage.

I argue that an increase in population will provide an increase in both the total population and quality of life. So this is a false dichotomy. Given a proper system, an increase in population will not lower the quality of life.

Secondly, your argument from efficiency again assumes that we need to be either/or. Why can't I argue for marriage and for tax breaks for large families?

You need a comprehensive study examining children who were raised in households with a man and a woman in comparision to those raised in households with two parents of the same sex. Without such as study, any assumptions in this area are merely guesses. For all you know, the study might conclude that kids are better off being raised in two parent homosexual households.

Fine. Would you accept the study if I gave you the evidence, or would you dismiss the methodology as 'biased, etc?'

If you would be willing to accept the evidence regardless of the conclusion, than I would be most happy to post the evidence. Otherwise I see no point.

[Ben Kenobi]

I really don't believe that the Bible says anything particularly negative about homosexual relationships.

DD:

I'm not going to jack this thread. Lancer posted a thread asking for biblical quotations condemning homosexuality.

PM me, and I'll give you the thread, and my earlier post.

The bible is very clear, in condemning homosexual relationships as sin.

[chequita guevara]

You are all a bunch of God-damned shrimp eaters and you're going to hell. Hell I tell you. God hates shrimp eaters!

[Ben Kenobi]

after looking at two different dictionaries into the definitions of marriage, matrimony, and spouse, not in a single one of them was it stated that two individual of different sexes were manditory

"When I use a word, It means just what I say it means, neither more nor less."

I'm sure I can find two that say that it does.

[Berzerker]

In marriage, you are making a contract with the state as well as with the other person.

Huh? The state is not a person...

[Ben Kenobi]

think you have failed to appreciate a fundamental difference between gay marriage and polygamy. There is a very big difference between being allowed to exercise a right as much as you wish, and being allowed to exercise it at all. It is a matter of threshold.

In this respect marriage is like voting. The case of those barred from voting has little in common with that of someone arguing for the right to vote multiple times per election.

Thanks for the very able analogy.

In this sense, a gay person would be someone who did not vote, yet wants to have his vote count. No gay man is prevented from marrying the woman of his choice, given her consent.

[Ben Kenobi]

The state recognises the marriage. Otherwise, what you have isn't a marriage according to the legal definition. In this sense, the state has to be part of the contract.