In lieu of the non-existent discussion, highlights from yesterday's argument(s): --SOTOMAYOR: “Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?” [Def. Attny] COOPER: “Your Honor, I cannot. I do not have any — anything to offer you in that regard.” --BREYER: "Now, what happens to your argument about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that, in California, too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time.” COOPER: “Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus, refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.” --SCALIA: I’m curious, when -* when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this? [Solicitor General] OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools. SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . . OLSON: It was constitutional when we -*as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -* SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen? OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle. --My favorite, classic Scalia: SCALIA: “Mr. Cooper, let me — let me give you one — one concrete thing. I don't know why you don't mention some concrete things. If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must — you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there's — there's considerable disagreement among — among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a — in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not. Some States do not — do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.” GINSBURG: “California — no, California does.” SCALIA: “I don't think we know the answer to that. Do you know the answer to that, whether it — whether it harms or helps the child?” COOPER: “No, Your Honor. And there's — there's — ” SCALIA: “But that's a possible deleterious effect, isn't it?” COOPER: “Your Honor, it — it is certainly among the — ” GINSBURG: “It wouldn't be in California, Mr. Cooper, because that's not an issue, is it? In California, you can have same-sex couples adopting a child.” COOPER: “That's right, Your Honor. That is true. And — but — but, Your Honor, here's — here's the point — ” SCALIA: “I — it's true, but irrelevant. They're arguing for a nationwide rule which applies to states other than California, that every state must allow marriage by same-sex couples. And so even though states that believe it is harmful — and I take no position on whether it's harmful or not, but it is certainly true that — that there's no scientific answer to that question at this point in time.”
Ignorant statements like this annoy me. How can an idea like this even be entertained? Who cares about "historic traditional" purposes of marriage? Historically we used to burn witches with no evidence whatsoever. Historically, we used to think that a black man marrying a white woman went against traditional marriage. We used to stone people for adultery. We used to torture people who dared even question religion. Are we supposed to look back on history and use it as a measurement for what works today? So just because we used to do it in the past, we should stick with it? That makes no sense in a progressive technological society. In fact, that is the exact opposite of progress. Marriage has ALWAYS been about love. Plenty of couples choose not to have children, so that argument is irrelevant. Should they not be allowed to marry as well? The world is already over populated, I think if anything, more people that are "nontraditional" should be allowed to marry. And this is a court argument? Seriously? There is no reason to assume this is true. None. Plus he backtracks out of this later and claims it's irrelevant. Too funny. Hatred really does run through these people's veins. After all the racism shit we've over come, people still cling to this. They can't take it because homosexuals are the last group left to hate for being different. If that goes away, they'll have nobody to attack, and therefor couldn't carry out the word of god. :lol: Live and let live. Don't live and force others to adopt YOUR way of life. Does a man marrying another man somewhere affect your life? No it doesn't, so please shut the fuck up and let it be. I'd still like to see anyone prove that homosexuals getting married is harmful to anybody. I bet if all of a sudden, it was Christians that were no longer allowed to marry, they'd be the first to speak up about another belief system controlling theirs and how unfair it is depsite the historical accuracy of how religion has held back society for thousands of years and caused violence and bloodshed (something not true of homosexuality). But since it's homosexuals and it goes against their absurd religious fairytales with no evidence or justification, they go right along with it, like the bigots they are.
there are only two arguments against gay marriage: religion or it is yucky. neither are sound legal arguments. all the social fears attempted to use as an excuse can apply to shitty hetero marriages and relationships, so you can't prohibit gay marriage and allow straight marriages that fuck up society just as much. the problem, though, is that those are the same reasons given to ban incestual relationships and marriage -- religion or its yucky. you can't use the genetic issue because marriage isn't about reproduction, as the gay marriage advocates argue, so reproductive concerns are off the table for incestual opposition. beyond that, two same sex relatives have zero reproductive concerns, so there is absolutely zero reproductive arguments against same sex incestual relationships. all that is left is that you either believe that the government can discriminate against whatever types of relationships it chooses to, such as gay marriage or incestual marriage, or you have to oppose the government's interference in any relationship, and believe incestual marriages should be legal as well. and I am talking about two consenting adult incest, not raping children that happen to be relatives.
Its bound to happen here... Either now (less likely with these wimps at the scotus) or when all the current generation of old people die off...
I think people are philosophizing the heck out of something that is really quite practical. I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with passing a federal law to outlaw behavior that violates the Constitution. This big, bad scary gov't tactic is only meant to instill fear of gov't in people. I happen to think gov't is a good thing, when kept in check, of course. The Supreme Court ruling on this issue is a matter of efficiency. I don't want to hear the states' rights argument because it's basically advocating the "right" of people in a state to vote to discriminate against others. No one is asking that homosexuals be allowed to marry in their church if it violates their beliefs. They're simply asking for legal recognition so that they can make medical decisions for their partners, inherit should their partner die intestate, get the same tax, medical and other benefits heterosexual married couples are entitled to. I really don't see the big deal.
Not arguing devil's advocate here, because I strongly support gay marriage, but why are polygamy and polyandry not also acceptable once the definition of marriage is that consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want? Incest is bad because it has real genetic ramifications as well as power issues related to familial ties and generational politics. What makes polygamy and polyandry, non-incestuous and between consenting adults, inherently different than marriage between any two people who choose to get married?
Gay marriage exists to establish the legal relationship between two people of the same sex. Polygamy has existed for centuries as there is one legal wife recognized by society at a time and the other girlfriends can call themselves religious wives, concubines or baby mommas.
Yes, marriage isn't a religious institution. It began as a means to maintain power, gain land, forge alliances, etc. In fact, polygamy was very common even in the bible itself. This concept of one man, one woman is really unique to more modern Western civilizations. It wasn't until the Romans that marriage was even considered a "holy" institution. Once again, it's just another example of the religious right seizing control of something and completely distorting its meaning.
You could make an argument that monogamy was enforced in society to remove competing power bases to the established order as that order become more hierarchical and less tribal. A polygamous family has access to many more resources than a couple. Among other things they have many more adults capable of doing labor to produce resources for the group. While we think of women as only recently liberated into the marketplace to work, in fact women did most of the labor in most households until fairly recently. The economic value of a woman in a farm family was considerable. The economic value of several women in a household must have been much stronger than the value of a single person.
Which is exactly why the SC should strike down DOMA and leave the States ability to regulate legal status in tact.
I don't know where you live but I live in a place where laws are made through compromise based pretty much on community values as long as they don't overstep Federal or State Constitutions. States certainly can regulate contracts and licensing based on law created out of societal values none of which are absolute, all of which are in constant flow. There is absolutely no reason a State couldn't allow consenting adults who are not first cousins, brothers and sisters marry or gays marry and prohibit incest or other forms of marriage that go beyond where society is ready to take them. Women lost the equal rights amendment battle but still won their civil rights.
I believe in a good old traditional marriage and I'm willing to trade two goats for your 12 year old daughter today! :breakdance:
there are no genetic issues to same sex incest, so that isn't a concern. so, what so we do, allow same sex incest but not hetero incest? that is discrimination, which is what is at the heart of the same sex marriage debate, and if you oppose discrimination you have to oppose it in all of its forms. beyond that, as the gay marriage advocates mention, no decision on marriage should be based on reproduction, so that can't be a legal concern. make no mistake, I am not in favor of incesual marriage being legal, just that the logic of the argument for gay marriage applies to it, so it has to be addressed in any honest discourse oft he matter. and you are absolutely correct about polygamy and polyandry.
you are absolutely right, and that is my point. local government, and even the federal government, can discriminate based on the argument of overall social values, so the argument for gay rights isn't an argument of discrimination, otherwise anyone arguing from that position must be opposed to all discrimination, such as discrimination against incest, whether they are first siblings and cousins or not. just because I find it yucky that a brother wants to marry his sister doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.
Maybe it would however I think the economic advantages accruing to a family with many adults in it would outweigh the diminishing returns. You could easily have a moiety system in which half the people in town were in one family and half in another. That's probably why the move towards coupling began. It prevented generational conflict both inside and outside the family structure and it made it easier for the authorities to control individuals.
I think the economic advantages accruing to a family with many adults would quickly be overwhelmed by the economic drain of more than one adult with deep and abiding interests in clothing, shoes, furnishings, stationery, scented candles, flowers and gardening, all with access to credit cards to make it all happen.
