Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[robvalue]

What difference does marriage make to the amount of children born?

Is a straight couple suddenly going to produce more children when married?

Is a gay couple going to produce less when married?

If you refuse to marry a gay couple will they then split up and marry straight?

No. It's irrelevant, except by personal preference. Again, this is bygone religious conventions of stigmatising bastard children and nothing more, as far as I can see.

Not to mention overpopulation makes trying to create more and more kids a bad thing rather than a good thing, if this was even to do that.

Am I losing my marbles or what? How are the people listening to these arguments in court not cracking up in their face?

Thanks Rythm for the clarification, I thought something was amiss.

[Anima]

Read the post from which your snip was taken.  Very unconvincing and arbitrary.

Legally, very convincing and specific. The respondent is recognizing (as the supreme court does) that no legal definitinon is going to be perfect. I believe someone termed it "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

If the given legal definition encompasses 100% of the intended group while unintentional incorporating some of the others the court has said that an expectation of perfect definition is untenable and would subsequently invalidate every law. Thus, over or under inclusiveness does not constitute invidious discrimination.

Furthermore, the respondents utilize Roe V Wade. A ruling whose benefits may be utilized by women only and not by men. This is called disparate impact. As stated by respondents, in Bray V Alexander the supreme court stated that 100% disparate impact does not constitute in and of itself animus or invidious discrimination.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The 14th Amendment argument is the strongest argument in support of legalizing gay marriage.

It is not a fundamental right,  it is  a legal right. And furthermore, here in America, it isn't even listed in the Bill of Rights; in other words, the ability to marry is not an enumerated right. It could be argued that it should fall under the 10th Amendment, but at that point, its status as "fundamental" would seem to be severely undermined.  Certainly a fundamental right would have an Amendment devoted to it, no?

Your are right.  Currently marriage is not a fundamental right but a legal right.  Historically (and at present) the states have primacy over domestic issues (including marriage) by means of the 10th Amendment.

The petitioners want to compel the states to recognize same sex marriage. The states are responding exactly as you are stipulated.  That they have authority over domestic issues and that marriage is not a fundamental right.  So the petitioners are trying to change that along with the definition of marriage from procreation centric to recognition and dignity/security centric.

Which is as it should be, so that it comports with the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

Simply because a minor can void a contract in a more lax manner than an adult doesn't mean that the minor has the same -- or as you're insinuating, more -- rights as an adult.  Firstly, the ability to more easily void a contract is only one specific privilege; but minors don't have the same rights to privacy or speech that an adult enjoys. Secondly, there must be court approval in most cases of a minor entering into a contract at all -- which fact in itself is a significant derogation of a minor's rights.

Minors do have the same right to privacy and speech that adults enjoy.  I believe what you are making reference to is the diminished right to privacy and speech of minors at school.  In which case you are correct as the Supreme court has held that in order to maintain discipline and order in the education of children they are granted a modified reasonable expectation of privacy where a child should not expect to have privacy (beyond restrooms) and their freedom of speech may not be such as to disrupt school discipline and order.  Otherwise minors have the same fundamental rights as adult person (though the rights are to be exercised on their behalf by an agent under the age of 5).

Yes, and that means that minors do not enjoy the full scope of rights enjoyed by adults. There are many other examples as well, by the way.

But we were discussing if petitioners win their case and marriage is made a fundamental right as well as recognition and dignity/security centric rather than procreation centric.

I would think that the issue of informed consent should alleviate the worries about children wanting to get married to their first-grade crush.

Can a five-year-old marry a three-year-old without parental input?  Can a ten-year-old consent to sex with an adult? Can a twelve-year-old take out a car loan, legally?

1.  No children may not get married at present.  Even as a Fundamental right the child must be at least 5 years of age.
2.  A 10 year old can consent, but the court does not recognize this consent as proper consent.
3.  Yes, a 12 year old can take out a car loan legally if any one were stupid enough to agree to one with them.  (and is actually very common around amish communities in the state of Pennsylvania).

The answer to 3) varies by state.

[FatAndFaithless]

If you say so Anima. We'll just be over here in the future.

[robvalue]

We seem to be talking about the law like it is changed by taking tablets which may have unpreventable side effects.

I'm going to poke my brain out of my ears in a minute. Is there anyone anywhere who is actually requesting there be child marriage, whether or not there is gay marriage? And if not, why is anyone talking about it when you can just allow gay but not child marriage? What harm can possibly come from allowing gay marriage, and what the living fuckball biceps do children have to do with it? Are there people campaigning for child marriage that I don't know about?

Either this argument doesn't make sense, or the law is really badly stupid and needs changing, or I'm so far gone in the head I might as well do to myself what I did to science last week.

[Cato]

Anima,
I heard a slightly different argument. The state interest was specifically characterized by the need to ensure the bond between parents and children. The reason for excluding homosexual couples was based on the unsubstantiated claim that changing the definition of traditional marriage for their inclusion would result in fewer heterosexual couples entering into marriage which would legitimize the exclusion based on the stated state interest.

In my opinion there were no substantive answers when challenged by the extremely high increase in out of wedlock births since 1970 and the evidence from Maine or Massachusetts (can't remember which) that indicated no such decline in heterosexual marriage rates have been noticed in the past ten years. I think I remember the answer to the latter was a hand wave at ten years not being sufficient time for demonstration.

[robvalue]

I think at the bottom of all these objections is the fear that allowing gay marriage is a final admission that gays are "real people" and not an underclass. The twisting and turning to try and pretend this isn't the case by the legal teams involved while fishing around for any loophole or fucked up pseudo argument makes me want to live in a well for 7 years.

What crap, straight people wouldn't marry because gays can? I've never heard such balls. It's their stupid problem if that's the case, on an individual level.

Sorry my arguments aren't very professional today. I'm a bit all over the place Getting too excited again.

[paulpablo]

Indeed you can and it follows by answering these questions regarding procreation:

1. how many people do you need (at minimum) to procreate? 2
2. what genders do those people need to be? Opposite
3. what minimum age do they need to be? Of pubescent age (about 13)
4. what familia relationship? Different (or at minimum not immediate)

Thus, the procreation centric definition would be 2 people, of the opposite gender, that are at least of pubescent age, who are from different families (or at minimum not part of the same immediate family).

But what is that a list of?  Some of them are biological truths, such as the genders need to be opposite, they need to be of an age where they can have children.

But members of the same family can produce offspring but with there being more chance that the offspring will suffer from abnormalities or death.

So with that in mind this list is incomplete.  If you were to go by what you call the procreation centric view of marriage then no one over the age of late 40s should be allowed to be married because at this age the offspring is at a great risk of having down syndrome. 
Also straight people who just can't have children because of sperm or ovary abnormalities should also not be allowed to get married.

[Angrboda]

How did he argue that it passed strict scrutiny?  Was it under a procreation centric rationale?

Yes it was.

He argued the state has a compelling interest in the procreation of children for state population as well as states responsibility to protect those children (both already recognized compelling interest as determined in Roe V. Wade)

He then argued the discrimination was narrowly tailored in that it was directed only at parties wishing to join in the marriage contract which is not obligatory, but willful.

He then argue the discrimination is least intrusive means by the state incentavising the procreation of children through the conveyance of benefits to couples with the potentiality to have children (as supported in Maher V Roe).

Finally, he argued the states interest is served by this discrimination as evidenced over hundreds if not thousands of years and verified by the supreme court in Maher V Roe.

The only problem with this is that the least restrictive means test would not be passed by limiting marriage to two people. Under this rationale there is no reason to oppose polygamy.

[Losty]

Yes it was.

He argued the state has a compelling interest in the procreation of children for state population as well as states responsibility to protect those children (both already recognized compelling interest as determined in Roe V. Wade)

He then argued the discrimination was narrowly tailored in that it was directed only at parties wishing to join in the marriage contract which is not obligatory, but willful.

He then argue the discrimination is least intrusive means by the state incentavising the procreation of children through the conveyance of benefits to couples with the potentiality to have children (as supported in Maher V Roe).

Finally, he argued the states interest is served by this discrimination as evidenced over hundreds if not thousands of years and verified by the supreme court in Maher V Roe.

The only problem with this is that the least restrictive means test would not be passed by limiting marriage to two people.  Under this rationale there is no reason to oppose polygamy.

Why is this a problem? I don't understand