Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lincoln

In Texas a sodomy statute was overturned. Se we are told that slope leads to gay marriage.

No we aren't, since the definition of sodomy referred to a criminalized physical act the punishment for which would also be applied to lesbians and heterosexuals. In fact in some states, sodomy included or was extended to include lesbianism. You do some odd things in the United States.


"The State of Texas in this case claims the right
to criminally punish any unmarried adult couple for
engaging in any form of consensual sexual intimacy that
the State happens to disapprove of.

It further claims that there's no constitutional
problem raised by a criminal statute that is directed not
just at conduct, but at a particular group of people, a
law that criminalizes forms of sexual intimacy only for
same-sex couples and not for anyone else in the State who has -- has the right to make a free choice to engage in the identical conduct.

Petitioners are two adults who were arrested in
a private home and criminally convicted simply because
they engaged in one of the forms of sexual intimacy that
is on the banned list in the State of Texas for same-sex
couples.

They bring two constitutional claims to the Court today. First, among the fundamental rights that are implicit in our concept of order of liberty, must be the right of all adult couples, whether same-sex or not, to be free from unwarranted State intrusion into their personal
decisions about their preferred forms of sexual
expression.

Second, there's no legitimate and rational
justification under the Equal Protection Clause for a law
that regulates forms of sexual intimacy that are permitted in the State only for same-sex couples, thereby creating a kind of a second class citizenship to that group of people."

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/02-102.pdf

And as one Justice said:

"All right, so you said -- you said procreation, marriage and children, those are your three justifications. Now from what you recently said, I don't see what it has to do with marriage, since, in fact, marriage has nothing to do with the conduct that either this or other statutes do or don't forbid.

I don't see what it has to do with children, since, in fact, the gay people can certainly adopt children and they do. And I don't see what it has to do with procreation, because that's the same as the children.

All right. So -- so what is the justification for this statute, other than, you know, it's not what they
say on the other side, is this it simply,

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell, the reason why I cannot tell. "

[Aeson]

The US isn't a jurisdiction in relation to marriage since the federal government isn't the one issuing marriage licenses.

Well, if that is the case then the gay marriage amendment won't have any effect, right? You've cleared that right up. The US has no jurisdiction in relation to marriage. (I think you're wrong about this...)

People in Massachusetts are allowed to marry, homosexual or heterosexual. Homosexual couples are not afforded the same rights though, because of DOMA. Massachusetts marriages, as long as they are heterosexual, are protected by the US Constitution under article 9, and that marriage will be recognized by all US states. Because of DOMA though, homosexual couples married in Massachusetts do not have that protection even though they are US citizens as well.

While Massachusetts has the right to issue marriage liscences, they do so under the US jurisdiction. This will become abundantly clear if this amendment passes.

I don't know of any states that, as a jurisdiction, internally allow gay marriages while at the same time not recognizing them. As I say, that's kind of an oxymoron.

"Recognize" and "allow" are seperate things. The US allows Massachusetts to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples. It does not recognize those marriages itself, and DOMA allows other states to not recognize them as well.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Aeson


Well, if that is the case then the gay marriage amendment won't have any effect, right? You've cleared that right up. The US has no jurisdiction in relation to marriage. (I think you're wrong about this...)

People in Massachusetts are allowed to marry, homosexual or heterosexual. Homosexual couples are not afforded the same rights though, because of DOMA. Massachusetts marriages, as long as they are heterosexual, are protected by the US Constitution under article 9, and that marriage will be recognized by all US states. Because of DOMA though, homosexual couples married in Massachusetts do not have that protection even though they are US citizens as well.

While Massachusetts has the right to issue marriage liscences, they do so under the US jurisdiction. This will become abundantly clear if this amendment passes.



"Recognize" and "allow" are seperate things. The US allows Massachusetts to issue marriage liscences to homosexual couples. It does not recognize those marriages itself, and DOMA allows other states to not recognize them as well.

Wha.....? That's exactly my point.

Let's go this way. Question for you: Does the state of Massachusettes, which allows gay marriage, recognize those marriages as such? Note, I'm not talking about the US Federal government, just the state of Massachusettes. Then, will the state of Texas, which does not recognize gay marriages, issue a marriage license to a gay couple?

That's the problem with the DOMA. First, it is the Federal government butting into what is normally a state level issue - marriage (you might want to ask MtG about that one). Second, it's explicitly giving states the ability to not recognize a marriage that is recognized in another state.

Bottom line: in the eyes of the state of Massachusettes, gay marriages are entitled to the same protections as straight marriages. The state of Massuchusettes is NOT saying "ok, you can have your licence, but we're not going to consider you actually married". Whatever the state of New York, or Texas, or Utah or the US Federal Government has to say about this does not change what the state of Massachusettes considers marriage.

As for Article 9 of the US Constitution, can you please point out where marriage is explicitly mentioned? Or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter? Because if you're considering it a "right", then we're back to Lincoln's original point - if marriage is a right, then how can we possibly disallow polygamy, incest, underage marriages, etc?

[MrFun]

I have a question . . . . .

for the European countries that recognize gay marriages, are they now recognizing polygamous marriages?

[Kontiki]

I haven't heard of any jurisdiction that allows gay marriage that also allows polygamy. I know we certainly don't in Ontario.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Note, I'm not talking about the US Federal government, just the state of Massachusettes.

But I am talking about the US Federal government, and to refute my point you would need to as well. Refuting points which were not made is called a red herring. You asked for an example of a state which allows marriage, but doesn't recognize it, and I gave you one. Very simple.

The US government allows homosexual marriages in it's jurisdiction. The US government does not issue the marriage liscences itself. Massachusetts does. If you are still getting stuck on the words "allow" and "recognize", I suggest you look them up in a dictionary to see what they mean. They are not the same thing.

While your assertions that Massachusetts doesn't allow and disallow marriage are correct, they don't apply to anything I've said. Your statements on DOMA I agree with completely.

As for Article 9 of the US Constitution, can you please point out where marriage is explicitly mentioned? Or anywhere else in the Constitution, for that matter? Because if you're considering it a "right", then we're back to Lincoln's original point - if marriage is a right, then how can we possibly disallow polygamy, incest, underage marriages, etc?

Article 9 is used to support that a marriage in one state is observed by other states. It isn't explicitly stated, but that is how it is applied to heterosexual marriage. The US Constitution protects heterosexual marriages in this manner. It doesn't protect homosexual marriages in the same manner.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I haven't heard of any jurisdiction that allows gay marriage that also allows polygamy. I know we certainly don't in Ontario.

So this boogie-man of polygamous marriage might be just a figment of some people's imagination?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by MrFun


So this boogie-man of polygamous marriage might be just a figment of some people's imagination?

Yes and no. My point is simply that if you start thinking of marriage as an absolute right, then you need to consider why you can regulate it at all. I am completely for allowing gay marriage in total equity with heterosexual marriage. I just think that the strength of the arguments for allowing it do not reside in any discussion of "marriage rights". Hell, I'm straight and I don't think that I have a "right" to get married. But I do think it makes sense to allow me to get married, just as I think it makes sense to allow gays to get married.

[MrFun]

Some people would argue that we can include all monogamous marriages between two consenting adults and exclude polygamous partners on the claim that polygamy is based on sexist, unfair exploitation of women (even for those women who choose to submit to such exploitation).

How much of that claim makes sense??

[Solly]

"for the European countries that recognize gay marriages, are they now recognizing polygamous marriages?"

Or American states for that matter?

[MrFun]

Some European countries have been recognizing gay marriages longer than any single state in United States AFAIK.

So I asked that because I wanted to know, if over a longer period of time, if polygamous partners have taken over those European countries or whatever nightmare some people conjure up when they're sleeping at night.

[Solly]

"Some people would argue that we can include all monogamous marriages between two consenting adults and exclude polygamous partners on the claim that polygamy is based on sexist, unfair exploitation of women (even for those women who choose to submit to such exploitation).

How much of that claim makes sense??"

Very little, if we can make the assumption that the two women might be bisexual

[MrFun]

You knew that I was referring to heterosexual, polygamous relationships.

[Solly]

"You knew that I was referring to heterosexual, polygamous relationships"

Why exclude bisexuals from the discussion? It makes it simpler, yes, but then perhaps less applicable to real life situations?

[MrFun]

Ok -- so given that heterosexual, polygamous relationships can be inherently sexist and exploitative then on what principle can polygamous relationships between bisexual/gay partners of the same gender be prohibited?