Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

Oohh, so being off-topic is bad. Got it.

Okay, so someone refresh me, then.. WTF does any of this have to do with a Same-Sex Marriage ruling from SCotUS that found sexual orientation does not meet the strict scrutiny test, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, for a compelling government interest in prohibiting their access to the civil institution of marriage under state law?

Bad no. When you start arguing to different things and lose the original meaning of original argument then yea it can be.

Hahah the crazy thing is that my comment was based on someone else's comment about biology ( I think, I have to go back and read). But it is just a damn side comment.

You asking why the court ruled that way or what this little bitching of arm chopping has to do with same marrage? I think it was changed, the topic of the thread, to what is the social wrong doe same sex marrage to biological wrong to same sex marrage. And I think that is were it is now. Hell I usllly just go with the flow of what is being written or talked about at the time.

But like I say if you want to discuss how (hahah) arm amputation relates to the courts aruent for same sex marrag. I think I can take on that challenge. Mmmmm maybe.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'd be happy to talk about "social wrongs" alleged by those who oppose gay marriage (or, as I like to call it, "marriage"), to try to convince those of us who are glad that we no longer prohibit marriage's legal protections to gay couples as if they are second-class citizens.

If you want to discuss biology, I'd be glad, as I am a former biologist and still pretty well-versed in human evolution and genetics, the latter being the specific field in which my fiancee works (I now work at home in my shop, building custom motorcycles, having found I could make more money working half as much, at my favorite hobby, rather than my former career, which gives me time to enjoy some fun online debates). I am also fairly well-versed in Constitutional law at the federal-versus-state level, particularly with regard to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, so I'd be glad to discuss that, too.

The point about self-harm, and the right to bodily decisions, is a side-issue from the gay marriage thing, or rather, it's a tangent. So if you'd like to go back to enumerating the alleged social harms or discussing the biology of the issue, I'd be happy to engage you on that part of the main topic or any of the others I listed here. Can we just drop the whole thing about the amputated arms, please?

(Drop the amputated arms... hehe... I made an accidental joke!)

[Ace]

Hmmm Ok many topics are given. So let try these ones and see what history waits the outcome.

I'd be happy to talk about "social wrongs" alleged by those who oppose gay marriage (or, as I like to call it, "marriage"),

So, even as we speak many of those “alleged social wrongs” are showing their head and stating to push for the same recognition as the gay community. What then? Will you even acknowledge it to be such or refuse to see any connection and just wail to the heavens how it is slippery slope?

They are using the same argument to fix what they consider a social wrong.  Rather than first asking what social wrong was caused to them by the law, which marriage will grant?  Exclusion from privileges is not a social wrong; if it were it would be unethical to prohibit 12 year olds from driving or 10 year olds from drinking.

Some here have said having to pretend to be straight when they were gay was a wrong they had to endure and in the same breath have no problem saying those who do not agree must pretend they agree or should be punished by the law for discrimination, hate speech, and so forth.  If not being allowed to express your honest opinion and person is indeed a harm that was suffered by 10% of the population before, than forcing marriages in states where democratic definitions were put in place and condemning anyone who does not agree with those marriages or does not at minimum pretend to agree with those marriages is equally a harm impacting nearly 50% of the people in the country.  Saying a person may believe what they want but may not exhibit that belief in public is no different than saying one may be as gay as they like so long as they do not appear so in public; you know…being in the closet.

There may be several who want to say turnabout is fair play.  Let them suffer what we have suffered or that someone has to suffer since the sides hold opposing views.  Now if we say let them suffer until they conform and that is right, how may we say they were wrong in doing the same thing before and we are now right for doing it to them?  Were they not just trying to get conformity?  If we one group or another must suffer due to an inability to reconcile the positions should we not say than let us minimize the suffering?  Isn’t 10% suffering in the closet far less than 50%?

to try to convince those of us who are glad that we no longer prohibit marriage's legal protections to gay couples as if they are second-class citizens.

Marriage does not give rights, (“marriage rights” can and are able to be given with will in testaments, power of attorney, co-signing ownership). It gives benefits.

Marriage also does not provide any security or protection at law which was not effectuated by the legal devices already mentioned

Marriage, takes way second-class citizenship? So all people have to do is just get marred to be treated as a first class citizen and with full equally?  People who are not married are now second class citizens?  Of the numerous citizens still treated as second class in both the law and in our society. Is the solution to this marriage?

-single people: are not given the same “dignity and security” that marriage now gives according to the ruling and are not even given the privileges or benefits as marriage couples.
- Cohabitation/or common law (marriage) couples: have lost many of their couples benefits and insurances when same sex marriage became legal.
- Signal parents: whom actual have children are not granted many of the benefits that married couples are when children are in the picture.
- African American, Hispanic, and people of Middle East decent continue to be treated like second class citizens.  They are being killed and imprisoned for no other reason but their skin color and ethnicity.
And for those who are  married and still treated  second class, can it not then be right to reason that marriage is not the answers to equality?  

I am also fairly well-versed in Constitutional law at the federal-versus-state level, particularly with regard to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment,.

Hmm, in all of your studding of the law did you ever see this mythical fundamental right exist for same sex marriage or marriage in general?

What legal precedent was set leading to a fundamental right to same sex marriage?

Did the states bans satisfy rational basis scrutiny as they were required to do?

Is the ruling supported by the substantive fundamental rights test established in Washington v. Glucksberg?

Was the ruling even decided by the equal protection clause?

How knowledgeable are you on the due process clause?

Did you actually read the full ruling?

As stated by Chief Justice John Roberts at the end of his dissent:
“If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision.  Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.  Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.  Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  But do not celebrate the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.”

[TheRocketSurgeon]

So, even as we speak many of those “alleged social wrongs” are showing their head and stating to push for the same recognition as the gay community. What then? Will you even acknowledge it to be such or refuse to see any connection?  What social wrong was caused to them by the law, which marriage will grant?  Exclusion from privileges is not a social wrong; if it were it would be unethical to prohibit 12 year olds from driving or 10 year olds from drinking.

Not the same thing. Exclusion from privileges granted to others of equal standing, on the basis of an arbitrary factor (such as race, religion, gender, etc), certainly is wrong under the law. It's the entire basis of Equal Protection. Minors do not gain access to such rights because they are deemed to be unable to engage in such activities with careful consideration and legal consent, or capable of following the responsibilities that tend to accompany rights. That's what makes them minors prior to the age of majority. That's literally what those terms mean.

Some here have said having to pretend to be straight when they were gay was a wrong they had to endure and in the same breath have no problem saying those who do not agree must pretend they agree or should be punished by the law for discrimination, hate speech, and so forth.  If not being allowed to express your honest opinion and person is indeed a harm that was suffered by 10% of the population before, than forcing marriages in states where democratic definitions were put in place and condemning anyone who does not agree with those marriages or does not at minimum pretend to agree with those marriages is equally a harm impacting nearly 50% of the people in the country.  Saying a person may believe what they want but may not exhibit that belief in public is no different than saying one may be as gay as they like so long as they do not appear so in public; you know…being in the closet.

I hope you do not seriously believe that these two are equivalent things. And no one, repeat NO one, is stopping the free speech of anti-gay religionists. Heck, even the Ku Klux Klan is still allowed to say racist stuff; we've just realized they're a bunch of assholes and starting calling them assholes. It's not just a random metaphor I picked, here. The KKK hates people for factors that are beyond the control of the person. Just because Christians call it "sin" doesn't make it any less a form of bigotry. You don't get to be a bigot and then whine when people get mad at you for trying to express it.

As for "forcing marriages in states", there is already a tradition of doing that, under the Equal Protection Clause. The 1967 case Loving v. Virginia determined that states could not use race as a factor by which to deny the privileges and rights of marriage to couples seeking those legal benefits/protections. All the recent SCotUS case did was apply an almost identical principle to the gender of the couples seeking to marry. States' Rights advocates whined about their power being taken away back in 1967, too, using the same set of arguments...in the same states, for the most part. I cannot see any way in which the anti-gay-marriage crowd are any different from the anti-miscegenation crowd, including the fact that the groups tended to base their opposition to that form of marriage on the Bible.

There may be several who want to say turnabout is fair play.  Let them suffer what we have suffered or that someone has to suffer since the sides hold opposing views.  Now if we say let them suffer until they conform and that is right, how may we say they were wrong in doing the same thing before and we are now right for doing it to them?  Were they not just trying to get conformity?  If we one group or another must suffer due to an inability to reconcile the positions should we not say than let us minimize the suffering?  Isn’t 10% suffering in the closet far less than 50%?

What is it with you Christians and the martyr complex? No one wants to see you suffer. They just want you to leave people the fuck alone to live their lives without having to hear what YOUR god thinks about it. Seriously, try to picture what it would be like to have to hear what Allah thinks about everything you do! If you want to not practice gay marriage, fine. Marry someone of the opposite gender, and shut the hell up about it. Same as with the Klan, again: they're free to believe they can only marry a white person, that it's immoral to marry a nonwhite person... but the moment they start to tell me that I can't go out with Zoe Saldana, we're gonna have a big, big problem!

Comparing being made to treat gay people as equals under law, with full citizen rights and protections, to being tortured the way they have been simply because you have lost your ability to tell them horrible things without repercussion (in terms of horrible things said back to you in return) is pure jackassery. Sorry, but it is.

to try to convince those of us who are glad that we no longer prohibit marriage's legal protections to gay couples as if they are second-class citizens.

Marriage does not give rights, (“marriage rights” can and are able to be given with will in testaments, power of attorney, co-signing ownership). It gives benefits. Marriage also does not provide any security or protection at law which was not effectuated by the legal devices already mentioned.

This is a lie. This is a lie. This is a lie.

The truth is, in the words of the Supreme Court in the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case, "Separate is not equal". There are soooooo many ways in which the civil partnerships you describe cannot give the protections you suggest, most importantly in areas like visitation and death-rights, in cases where the families are anti-gay, and will make a grieving partner of 30+ years unable to see their dying loved one. It happens all the time, as I know all too well from work I do with HIV/AIDS-related charities.

LYING FOR JESUS IS STILL LYING!

Marriage, takes way second-class citizenship? So all people have to do is just get marred to be treated as a first class citizen and with full equally?  People who are not married are now second class citizens?  Of the numerous citizens still treated as second class in both the law and in our society. Is the solution to this marriage?

---

-single people: are not given the same “dignity and security” that marriage now gives according to the ruling and are not even given the privileges or benefits as marriage couples.

- Cohabitation/or common law (marriage) couples: have lost many of their couples benefits and insurances when same sex marriage became legal.

- Signal parents: whom actual have children are not granted many of the benefits that married couples are when children are in the picture.

- African American, Hispanic, and people of Middle East decent continue to be treated like second class citizens.  They are being killed and imprisoned for no other reason but their skin color and ethnicity.
And for those who are  married and still treated  second class, can it not then be right to reason that marriage is not the answers to equality?  

---

I "hid" your examples because they are irrelevant since two wrongs do not make it okay... I am against anything that treats any group as inferior, or are red herrings (single people are not "excluded" because they have access to marriage protections under law, making it a choice rather than a legal prohibition that treats them differently) and we do not have to fix them all before we can fix any of them.

I will address the one which claims that common law couples/marriages "have lost many of their couples benefits and insurances when same sex marriage became legal". (endquote) I'll put this in bold so you don't miss it: CITATION NEEDED.

I am also fairly well-versed in Constitutional law at the federal-versus-state level, particularly with regard to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment,.

Hmm, in all of your studding of the law did you ever see this mythical fundamental right exist for same sex marriage or marriage in general?
What legal precedent was set leading to a fundamental right to same sex marriage?
Did the states bans satisfy rational basis scrutiny as they were required to do?
Is the ruling supported by the substantive fundamental rights test established in Washington v. Glucksberg?
Was the ruling even decided by the equal protection clause?
How knowledgeable are you on the due process clause?
Did you actually read the full ruling?

As stated by Chief Justice John Roberts at the end of his dissent:
“If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision.  Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal.  Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner.  Celebrate the availability of new benefits.  But do not celebrate the Constitution.  It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.”

I'll try to be brief, here. One of the ironies is that all of the Dissenting Opinions in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges would have served as dissenting opinions in Loving, if you but changed a couple of relevant words. But I'll just answer line-by-line in order:

The question is not of a fundamental right to same-sex marriage, but whether states could exclude people from the rights they set up under marriage on the basis of gender, without violating the 14th's Equal Protection Clause (EPC).

The middle questions are all basically the same thing, so I'll sum up, actually. It's really very simple. There is no rational basis, as the court found, by which states could exclude this group from rights already enjoyed by others. That's the reason I compare it to the Loving case. Roberts' asinine objection basically excludes everything the Court has done since the passage of the 14th amendment, when they began to "referee" federal civil rights protections for all Americans against states whose majorities would use state law to give rights to one group but not to another. No law is decided on the basis of the question "Do I have a right to this thing", as you are implying (with exception of things specified originally in the Bill of Rights), but are decided on the basis of, "If we grant ____ to these people, can we rationally exclude this other group from it?" Anyone who asks a question that does not indicate knowledge of this basic principle of Constitutional law tells me that they do not fully grasp how things work.

But yes, there is precedent for the finding in Obergefell, in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, where the Court found that there was not a "deeply-rooted tradition" in American history (the fundamental question under the Washington case you cited) in prohibiting homosexuals from engaging in consensual sodomy in private. This idea was expanded upon in Obergefell, as I'm sure you noticed when you read the case. You did read the case, right?

Considering I'm currently arguing a case of substantive Due Process rights violations (under state statute-granted Liberty Interest rights and independently under the EPC) before the US Supreme Court, yes, I'm pretty knowledgeable.

So, yes. Of course I read Obergefell.

[Ace]

I'm currently arguing a case of substantive Due Process rights violations (under state statute-granted Liberty Interest rights and independently under the EPC) before the US Supreme Court, . . .

Sorry for the delay, work is work and take much of my time.

Before I full responded to you in depth response, I have a question. You have a case before the US (United States of America) Supreme Court? Supreme Court that is under Chief Justice Judge John Roberts right now?! What is the name of the case and when will it be heard?

Are you a lawyer or the plaintiff in the case?

[Ace]

However, I have not learned anything since being here.  Not to say that anyone is stupid, but comments by many illustrate ignorance to a far greater degree then enlightenment.  In all honesty I thought higher of atheist before coming to this board.  You guys seemed more rational and less pathological beforehand; this site has dispelled that anecdotal notion for me.

Hahaha I understand the feeling. Thinking that I will be talking to some logical and reasonable people, I have never hear so much shit about religion on an atheist board!!! Hell, I have to look at the damn title of this sit to make sure I am in the right place.

The more I read the more I see the various atheists on this board argue entirely based on subjective sentiment (aka your feelings).

Hahaha YES!!! That seems to be the only criteria for their arguments and nothing more.

But alas, in the end, when argued in accordance with the logic your arguments all devolve into how you in particular feel.  Something which neither law, ethics, nor morality could or should ever be predicated on.

 

HA YES

Alas it seems the majority (who comment) here are more concerned with justifying their feelings and are only willing to consider things from their own personal view.

Yes, which is something that I am finding to be very common in this country. No one knows how to have an objective, unbiased discussion that one’s personal experiences or feeling is not present. What  is so amazing is that many one this board lay claim to conform or consider reason, rationality, logic, sciences, or common senses in their way of thinking. Yet, it is these components of rationality, that are used to form an intellectual idea, that demands that  the individuals feelings are to not be present  during the examination, discussing and coming to a critical conclusion. Relational objectivism is to constantly fight to keep clear or free from biases, personal feelings to never be incorporated into rational discussion or research  because it will always taint the conclusion

There was a lot of talk of empathy, but from the comments being made there is neither an ability to empathize or be objective.  What is exhibited instead is self projection under the name of empathy to such a degree that endeavoring to discuss logically about a topic in a non-self projecting manner is met with accusations of self projecting ("it is hard to believe others do not do what you, yourself do in the situation").  So learned something while here...  hardly and unlikely.

HAHAHAHA, don’t forget condescending!!

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I'm currently arguing a case of substantive Due Process rights violations (under state statute-granted Liberty Interest rights and independently under the EPC) before the US Supreme Court, . . .

Sorry for the delay, work is work and take much of my time.

Before I full responded to you in depth response, I have a question. You have a case before the US (United States of America) Supreme Court? Supreme Court that is under Chief Justice Judge John Roberts right now?! What is the name of the case and when will it be heard?

Are you a lawyer or  the plaintiff in the case?

Petitioner. I filed a pro se  case while still incarcerated, including my petition to SCotUS, but I now have an attorney who is handling the case.

The case is set to be heard next month. I don't wish to give out more specifics because I am also (through the attorney) engaged in a civil suit against the county that falsely incarcerated me, and my attorney instructed me not to discuss it before everything is disposed of.

And, yes, under Chief Justice Roberts. And Scalia and Thomas, who worry me a lot more than Roberts does.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Here... I found a graphic that will help with your retort.

[tongueincheek]

[/tongueincheek]