Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

An interesting unintended consequence of the argument that marriage confers dignity is that all who are not married are lacking in dignity in relation to those who are married and it is the laws fault!!!  

Dignity isn't a finite resource that is parceled out whereby if someone receives dignity there is less to go around elsewhere. Single people aren't less dignified in the eyes of the state simply because the state also confers dignity to the married couple's relationship. The problem is that since the state does confer a measure of dignity to the relationship those that are expressly prohibited from participating in the institution are denigrated.

Indeed dignity is not a finite well to be drawn upon.  But I think we can agree that dignity of a person is bestowed according to the specific conduct and reasons for that conduct of persons.  Thus if a person chooses to engage in conduct X which is socially considered dignified they are dignified, whereas person engaging in conduct Y which is not socially considered dignified is not dignified.  Now the person whose conduct in X is greater may be said to be more dignified due to the magnitude effect of greater quality or quantity.  As such the person who minimally engages in X or does not engage in X (while still not engaging in Y) may be said to be less dignified than one who engages in X extensively or minimally.

I think the problem is holding the state in conferring dignity.  The state is expressing an affirmation or refutation of given conduct in accordance with the interest and needs of the state.  As such the state may legislate or encourage undignified conduct which is in the states interest.  This is respondents argument.  That while society may assign dignity to the institution of marriage, the state has no intention in or is not trying to assign dignity in endeavoring to meet state interests.

Argument may than be made that the states affirmation is perceived by the general populace as imparting dignity.  To which two things may be said.  First, such an argument would stand in contradiction to the general observations that while the state permits infanticide (in the form of abortion) and homicide (in the form of execution) dignity does not follow the agent by which infanticide and homicide are carried out.  Thus, state sanction did not convey dignity.  Second, as stated in A Man For All Seasons:

"The world must construe according to its wits; this court must construe according to the law."

[Cato]

Now the person whose conduct in X is greater may be said to be more dignified due to the magnitude effect of greater quality or quantity.  As such the person who minimally engages in X or does not engage in X (while still not engaging in Y) may be said to be less dignified than one who engages in X extensively or minimally.

. The quantity/quality argument doesn't work. I call my adult children on a regular basis because I love them. Your idea would be the same as trying to evaluate which of my adult children I love more or better based on an aggregate of how many minutes I've spent on the phone with each of them.

I think the problem is holding the state in conferring dignity.  The state is expressing an affirmation or refutation of given conduct in accordance with the interest and needs of the state.  As such the state may legislate or encourage undignified conduct which is in the states interest.  This is respondents argument.  That while society may assign dignity to the institution of marriage, the state has no intention in or is not trying to assign dignity in endeavoring to meet state interests.

The Respondent must argue this if the procreative centric state interest is to have any merit. The only problem with this argument is that it flies in the face of what I think a majority of people's ideas are regarding the purpose of marriage. I think there are a substantial number of people that get married for reasons other than the promise of child rearing. People that get married with no intention of procreation don't sit down and say "I know that marriage as recognized by the state is procreative centric, but we can pull a fast one on them and get married regardless of our intent or ability to have children". Nor do they get married because the state dignifies marriage, but it's not beyond reason that many get married because of the legal benefits that attend the dignity of the state recognition of marriage. The benefits expressly denied same sex couples. Hell, I'd wager the Respondents don't truly buy the narrative they're spinning; a hazard of the profession in some cases evidenced by the quote you ended your comments with.

Argument may than be made that the states affirmation is perceived by the general populace as imparting dignity.  To which two things may be said.  First, such an argument would stand in contradiction to the general observations that while the state permits infanticide (in the form of abortion) and homicide (in the form of execution) dignity does not follow the agent by which infanticide and homicide are carried out.  Thus, state sanction did not convey dignity.  

Objection; irrelevant

Seriously though, I have attempted to play fair by limiting the discussion to the legal merits of the case. I feel betrayed with your assertion that abortion is a form of infanticide. You can't support this using well established legal definitions. Sir Thomas would be greatly disappointed.

[Anima]

. The quantity/quality argument doesn't work. I call my adult children on a regular basis because I love them. Your idea would be the same as trying to evaluate which of my adult children I love more or better based on an aggregate of how many minutes I've spent on the phone with each of them.

Ha ha. I like this analogy I would say yes. Since it is the nature of people to minimize or not do what they are averse to doing it is likely that people who contact their children will contact the children they like at a great rate than the ones they do not like and will further spend more time per contact with children they like as opposed to children they do not. To say otherwise is to say that we engage in activity we do not love with the same rate and duration of activity we do not love, such that our love or lack there of is indistinguishable from our actions.

The Respondent must argue this if the procreative centric state interest is to have any merit. The only problem with this argument is that it flies in the face of what I think a majority of people's ideas are regarding the purpose of marriage. I think there are a substantial number of people that get married for reasons other than the promise of child rearing. People that get married with no intention of procreation don't sit down and say "I know that marriage as recognized by the state is procreative centric, but we can pull a fast one on them and get married regardless of our intent or ability to have children". Nor do they get married because the state dignifies marriage, but it's not beyond reason that many get married because of the legal benefits that attend the dignity of the state recognition of marriage. The benefits expressly denied same sex couples. Hell, I'd wager the Respondents don't truly buy the narrative they're spinning; a hazard of the profession in some cases evidenced by the quote you ended your comments with.

Do not forget the state sanctions based on its interest. Not on the parties interest. The state does not care why people want to get married. For love of his money or for love of his person. To get into her pants or to share ones life with her. None of that matters to the state. The state is concerned with its legitimate interest to population and whether the parties meet the conditions outline by the state: 2 persons, of opposite genders, of the state recognize consenting age, who are of sound mind and body to enter into a contract.

Legal benefits are not dignities. Legal benefits are incentives to satisfy state interests whether those interest are dignified or not. Ethics is not morality. If ethical that does not make it moral.

Under rational basis they do not have to truly by the narrative they are spinning. All they have to show is that the discrimination is reasonably (if tenuously) related to a legitimate state interest. Like I said before. The relation does not even have to be something the legislature considered when it made the law. If the court can find any (and I do mean any) reasonable tenuous relationship of the discrimination to the legitimate interest the law passes rational basis scrutiny.

Objection; irrelevant  

Seriously though, I have attempted to play fair by limiting the discussion to the legal merits of the case. I feel betrayed with your assertion that abortion is a form of infanticide. You can't support this using well established legal definitions. Sir Thomas would be greatly disappointed.

Overruled, speaks to the nature of the act

As infanticide is the intentional killing of a child under the age of 12.

[Cato]

As infanticide is the intentional killing of a child under the age of 12.

"The murder or killing of an infant soon after its birth. The fact of the birth distinguishes this act from "foeticide" or "procuring abortion," which terms denote the destruction of the jirlus in the womb. INFANTS' MARRIAGE ACT. The statute 18 & 19 Vict c. 43. By virtue of this act every infant, (if a male, of twenty, or, if a female, of seventeen, years,"

Law Dictionary: What is INFANTICIDE? definition of INFANTICIDE (Black's Law Dictionary)
http://thelawdictionary.org/infanticide/

[Anima]

As infanticide is the intentional killing of a child under the age of 12.

"The murder or killing of an infant soon after its birth. The fact of the birth distinguishes this act from "foeticide" or "procuring abortion," which terms denote the destruction of the jirlus in the womb. INFANTS' MARRIAGE ACT. The statute 18 & 19 Vict c. 43. By virtue of this act every infant, (if a male, of twenty, or, if a female, of seventeen, years,"

Law Dictionary: What is INFANTICIDE? definition of INFANTICIDE (Black's Law Dictionary)
http://thelawdictionary.org/infanticide/

Ha ha. I read this too. So foeticide work better for you?

[Silver]

From same sex marriage to baby killing; yeah, makes perfect sense.

[Anima]

From same sex marriage to baby killing; yeah, makes perfect sense.

Considering that the point of it was to simply say that the state does permit actions which are not exactly dignity bestowing since the state acts according to its interest.

Furthermore, the respondents made an excellent relations between cases which I think would really win over Roberts.

Respondents said:

Roe V Wade (state cannot interfere in personal medical choice) is to Maher V Roe (person may not compel state to pay for personal medical choice. As Lawrence V Texas (state cannot interfere in personal intimacy choice) is to the current case Obergefell V Hodges (person may not compel state to pay for personal intimacy choice).

A brilliant move

[Ace]

I have a question for those who are for same sex. From what I understand your opposite do not wish to grant you such right because of the possibility/assumption that marriage will not only included hetero and same sex but other sexual relationships, i.e. polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality and so on. To say that is ridicules, what legal prof or protection do you have that will prevent the situation from not occuring?


Please keep in mind that court cases are already pending on the issue of polygamy and incest in several states, mind you, that are using the same sex marriage argument to undo prohibited laws. In addition, there is also a push to end statutory rape laws as well as give animals human rights. Even in reading parts of this blog, some of the participants have even stated that they would not mind polygamist or incest relationships to be accepted and any laws disband.

Can it not be said that the push to change and open marriage or elevates alternative relationships to traditional marriage/ acceptable relationships is actually occurring? Thus, calling the anti-same sex marriage, stupid, unrealistic, bigoted and so on, is possibly unjust if what they are saying is actually occurring?

In addition, to say that there are already a law in place to prevent any of the possible unwanted relationships is not a genuine answer, because there were laws against homosexuality also.

[robvalue]

They are all separate issues. If the law doesn't treat them as separate issues, then it should.

If the law does treat them as separate issues, then accepting this in no way means they must or will accept any of the others. That is simply slippery sloping it up.

They allowed mixed race marriage without all this bullshit, although I would guess the same objections were thrown up then by those opposed.

This is my thick headed layman's perspective.

[Anima]

They are all separate issues. If the law doesn't treat them as separate issues, then it should.

If the law does treat them as separate issues, then accepting this in no way means they must or will accept any of the others. That is simply slippery sloping it up.

They allowed mixed race marriage without all this bullshit, although I would guess the same objections were thrown up then by those opposed.

This is my thick headed layman's perspective.

Ace is correct. Remember that laws are intertwined with one another and that legal decisions serve as precedences for other decisions. I never believed the slippery slope argument until I went to law school. But it makes sense if you stop and think about it. Are you willing to accept an arbitrary restriction which could get you out of prison simply because the logic of that argument, while applicable to your situation, is not specifically about your situation?

I said this earlier, but let us say you went to prison for 30 years for doing X and some one else did X-1 and got off scott-free. Are you going to spend the next 30 years in prison thinking to your self, "Well they did X-1 and that is totally different than X." Or are you going to wail to anyone who will listen that "X-1 is approximately X, so you should get off too"? I am willing to bet it will be the latter and not the former.

I have read tons of cases that are simply slippery slope cases. The court said yes or no to X and someone came in and said what about X+1 or X-1. This gets even more complicated when you start to introduce juries in the mix as you can get conflicting results on the same facts because of the difference in jury makeup.