Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[MRT144]

Kids with married mother and father do better in school, are more likely to graduate, etc.

The gender of parents is irrelevant, except if you're a religious bigot, which you are.

Done.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Kids with married mother and father do better in school, are more likely to graduate, etc.

How do they compare with those who have a married mother and mother, or father and father?

[MichaeltheGreat]

How does the federal government resolve the issue of gay couples legally married (and thus, in the absence of DOMA, enjoy the federal benefits of marriage) in one State that move to a different State where their marriage is not recognized?

The federal government recognizes marriage that was legally valid when and where performed - this is consistent in most areas of jurisprudence, where the status of a contract, right, title etc. is determined at the threshhold, and does not change unless a direct intervening act triggers a change.

The more interesting question is whether states would recognize marriages inconsistent with their laws - the most common cognizable case isn't cousins or the like (nobody knows unless you advertise) but age of parental consent. In most states, 16 year olds have been able to marry with parental consent, a few are 17, but three southern states had (at least until the 80s or so, I don't do family law) eligible age with parental consent of 14 in two cases and 13 in one. I think those have been changed.

Traditionally, states have deferred to other states' valid marriages. AFAIK, it is unsettled whether another state's marriage was covered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which was the whole reason for the panic that led to DOMA "One of them God-mocking librul states might let sodomites defile the institution of marriage, so we have to 'defend' it." Congress is given the authority to determine how to administer Full Faith and Credit Clause issues, but that doesn't really reach DOMA, since the fundamental purpose of DOMA is, in effect, to declare that gay marriage is not subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sure you do, because otherwise you're trampling on the rights of people of other or no religion. Freedom of religion is protected for a very good reason.

If a bunch of people want to increase the minimum wage because Jesus said it was a good idea, I am guessing that the Courts won't consider that an establishment clause issue.

Besides one can cobble together a secular reason for cover afterwards if need be. It's still people voting on religious principles.

After all, even though I oppose this position, it is undeniable that denying homosexuals the right to marry is based on religious beliefs. The "secular cover" was added later. But NO ONE is arguing the case from the Establishment Clause perspective.

[Imran Siddiqui]

AFAIK, it is unsettled whether another state's marriage was covered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause

Age of marriage consent case law has unequivocally stated that a state may (and has) deny another state's marriage if goes against the public policy of the state.

[kentonio]

If a bunch of people want to increase the minimum wage because Jesus said it was a good idea, I am guessing that the Courts won't consider that an establishment clause issue.

Besides one can cobble together a secular reason for cover afterwards if need be. It's still people voting on religious principles.

All that matters is that your secular justification stands up to scrutiny and challenge. If it does, then praise Allah all you want.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Snoopy - do you believe that the argument that families in general and particularly for childrearing and having children - that the ideal of a husband and wife in marriage is sufficient secular motivation for the state to restrict marriage to one man and one woman? The state does do better as a whole with fewer broken families.

I don't. You may have a secular argument for policies which promote and make easier such marriages - eliminating the "marriage penalty" in taxes, or other librul soshlist "it takes a village " "family friendly" government policies. It is not at all a basis for restricting marriage - in fact, with your argument that gays can't have kids, then the arguable "childrearing benefits" aren't even applicable.

You could try to show how letting two sodomites marry proximately causes a breakdown in previously stable heterosexual marriages with kids that leads to a fundamental collapse of American civil society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All that matters is that your secular justification stands up to scrutiny and challenge.

Though looking into as well, the Establishment Clause prevents the government from preferring one religion over another. Even if a minimum wage law was backed by people for a religious reason, the argument would have to be made that doing the action prefers one religion over another - considering Establishment Clause jurisprudence only really has been used in financial assistance of Churchs, prayer in public schools, and public religious displays, I am not sure that a moral argument based on religion applying a non-Church connected law would be subject to the Establishment Clause.

[snoopy369]

I don't really need to do that all if I can convince enough people to vote on a certain thing based on religious principles.

What if I believe morality is from God? Wouldn't saying it is moral to do X basically mean the same as God says to do X?

Like I said, splitting hairs.

The hairs I'm splitting are important hairs, though. Freedom of religion and exclusion of the establishment thereof means two things. You are free to believe whatever you want - politically, religiously, etc.; and the laws that govern our nation must be founded on secular principles. There's absolutely nothing wrong with arguing for something you believe because your religion says so; but it's very important to our civil society that your arguments themselves be secular in nature. Of course many people will believe things due to their religious beliefs, and religious will convince people to argue for the things that are important to that religion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's one of the foundational principles of our country - almost every group who came here initially came here because they wanted to live in a society that respected, and even followed, their religious principles.

The point, though, is that the political debate itself must not be religious, because then it is simply a matter of "my religion is better than yours; the government should reflect that." That is very, very much against the principles of this country. We do not make rules because one religion says that's the rule. We make rules because we agree, collectively, that those rules are the right rules. Certainly some of those rules mirror religion - as Ben happily points out, thou shalt not kill and all that. But is "thou shalt not kill" the reason we have laws against murder - because "God" said so? No. We have laws against murder because it is harmful to society, and because even most secular humanists agree it's morally and ethically wrong as well. If your support for anti-murder laws comes from religion, that's fine - but it's not why the law exists.

Thus the civil marriage debate must not consist of "The Bible defines marriage as..." arguments. That is invalid, prima facie. Arguing homosexual marriage is bad for society because a man-man couple cannot raise children as successfully as a man-woman couple is acceptable (incorrect, but acceptable). Arguing that it's morally wrong because it leads people into dangerous behavior that increases the public health costs is acceptable (same). Argue for whatever reasons you wish, including religion, but don't _mention_ religion while doing so. Doing so means you are arguing for a state religion, which is against all that America was founded on.

[kentonio]

I am not sure that a moral argument based on religion applying a non-Church connected law would be subject to the Establishment Clause.

Bingo. Minimum wage has secular reasoning too.

[Ben Kenobi]

The gender of parents is irrelevant, except if you're a religious bigot, which you are.

Well, then you'll have to come with secular evidence confirming this to be the case.

[Ben Kenobi]

the Establishment Clause prevents the government from preferring one religion over another

No, it doesn't the Establishment Clause prevents the establishment of a state church on par with the Church of England.

[snoopy369]

No, Imran is saying the law doesn't itself have religiously relevant results - ie, a higher minimum wage would give Catholics a higher wage increase than Methodists. Establishment clause has not generally been found to judge laws on the reasons they were passed (in general, I don't believe laws are ever judged on the reasons for them existing, unless it is a clue as to the thinking of Congress in understanding how to evaluate a particular clause). I'm not arguing that it is illegal to argue on this behalf, or that it would cause laws to be struck down. I'm arguing it's contrary to American principles.

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't.

Then there's not much point to secular argumentation in the face of faith that Gay marriage is good.

If secular folks wish for engagement on secular lines, then they have to be willing to concede the point on secular lines.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Age of marriage consent case law has unequivocally stated that a state may (and has) deny another state's marriage if goes against the public policy of the state.

When there's a change of residency to get around the actual state of residency requirement, yes, and where required parental and/or judicial consent of minor marriage was not obtained, yes (i.e. runaway marriage). Are you saying in cases where parental and/or judicial consent was duly obtained and the minor was a bona fide resident of the state in which the marriage occurred? Runaway minors and residency issues present different issues, but I don't recall specifically case law where there was a bona fide minor marriage where all legal requirements were met in the state where the marriage occurred, and the marriage was invalidated. Family law makes my eyes glaze over, so I may have missed that.