Marriage Rights

[StiffMittens]

This issue, if anything, should be stripped from the power of the states to mandate what constitutes a marriage, and return it to the Church, where the issue of marriage belongs. They, instead, should issue a fair definition of what a civil union is and decide only over the legal relationship entails between consenting adults. It should not be taken into an even higher government authority such as the federal government... if that is what you meant.

I agree with some of this (but with additional qualification). It is not the state's job to define marriage, but rather to define the legal status of married people. The church may confer its blessing on the union, but that is only a religious ceremony and has nothing whatsoever to do with law. When you get married via a religious rite, you also have to sign legal documents. You are not legally married (no matter what religious ritual you perform) unless you and your spouse (along with two witnesses) sign the marriage certificate.

The state cannot force churches to provide religious blessings on unions it doesn't recognize, but it can (and should) ensure that people bound by civil unions have identical legal rights as those bound by marriage. And when I say the state, I mean that in the more general sense. That is to say, I do think that this should be mandated at the federal level.

I couldn't disagree with you more. It has always been a states issue. Why would it need to be taken to the federal issue?

I think the fourteenth amendment applies:

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Gays and lesbians that are born or naturalized in the US, are citizens. No state then has the right to abridge the privileges or immunities of its citizens. I think of the legal benefits that marriage bestows as a privilege of citizenship. I also think that abridging the legals rights of domestic partners is tantamount to denying them equal protection under the law.

[dewey316]

StiffMittens, if the legal definition of marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, then they are not denying them that right, they are just saying that under the definition, what they are trying to do, does not qualify. So long as what is done, meets the definition, then they cannot deny the right to a citizen.

For example, this is a little out there, but it has merit. If I descide, that I should be able to vote, in Crayon, and the government cannot deny me the right to vote, then if I fill out my ballot in crayon, they can not deny it. That doesn't work, as the government didn't deny my right to vote, I just did not vote in a way that qualify's under the defined outline of the voting process. The same applys here. If you define marriage is defines as one man/one woman. Then so long as any person(S) who meet that defined criteria are US Citizens, then they can not deny them that right. Being denied a right, and trying to redifine a right to include something that it is not defined as, are two entirely different things.

[black elk speaks]

^^^

I would take that to mean that they have the same rights afforded to them under laws that govern the privileges of a civil union. It seems to me that these laws are already in place.

[FabledIntegral]

StiffMittens, if the legal definition of marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, then they are not denying them that right, they are just saying that under the definition, what they are trying to do, does not qualify. So long as what is done, meets the definition, then they cannot deny the right to a citizen.

For example, this is a little out there, but it has merit. If I descide, that I should be able to vote, in Crayon, and the government cannot deny me the right to vote, then if I fill out my ballot in crayon, they can not deny it. That doesn't work, as the government didn't deny my right to vote, I just did not vote in a way that qualify's under the defined outline of the voting process. The same applys here. If you define marriage is defines as one man/one woman. Then so long as any person(S) who meet that defined criteria are US Citizens, then they can not deny them that right. Being denied a right, and trying to redifine a right to include something that it is not defined as, are two entirely different things.

Yet the federal constitution trumps a state's constitution, and thus it can still be found unconstitutional under separate but equal. There is no federal ammendment stating that it's unconstitutional to vote in crayon, yet there is a federal ammendment stating no one shall be discriminated against for their sex, which they are. In this case, if you have two men, the state will deny you saying one of the men need to be removed for a woman. Which is discrimination based on sex.

[StiffMittens]

StiffMittens, if the legal definition of marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, then they are not denying them that right, they are just saying that under the definition, what they are trying to do, does not qualify. So long as what is done, meets the definition, then they cannot deny the right to a citizen.

For example, this is a little out there, but it has merit. If I descide, that I should be able to vote, in Crayon, and the government cannot deny me the right to vote, then if I fill out my ballot in crayon, they can not deny it. That doesn't work, as the government didn't deny my right to vote, I just did not vote in a way that qualify's under the defined outline of the voting process. The same applys here. If you define marriage is defines as one man/one woman. Then so long as any person(S) who meet that defined criteria are US Citizens, then they can not deny them that right. Being denied a right, and trying to redifine a right to include something that it is not defined as, are two entirely different things.

Well, my thinking here is that marriage is a religious idea and civil union is a secular, legal status. When you marry, you undertake two separate activities at the same time. You engage in a religious ritual and you enter into a legal union. So, you (or the church) can define marriage in whatever way you want, but that definition should not apply to the legal union aspect. That is to say: marriages are civil unions but civil unions are not marriages, and I believe that the legal benefits, privileges, and protections that come from any such unions should be identical whether that union was arrived at by purely secular activity (civil unions) or religious ceremony and secular activity (marriage).

That California went ahead and defined marriage is not really the point, in my view. Furthermore, I am suggesting that doing so might have been explicitly unconstitutional. At the very least I believe it is not in alignment with the spirit of the US constitution.

[StiffMittens]

^^^

I would take that to mean that they have the same rights afforded to them under laws that govern the privileges of a civil union. It seems to me that these laws are already in place.

But are civil unions and marriages treated identically under the law? If so, then I have no problem with things as they are. If not, then I say that is not equal protection under the law.

[dewey316]

Yet the federal constitution trumps a state's constitution, and thus it can still be found unconstitutional under separate but equal. There is no federal ammendment stating that it's unconstitutional to vote in crayon, yet there is a federal ammendment stating no one shall be discriminated against for their sex, which they are. In this case, if you have two men, the state will deny you saying one of the men need to be removed for a woman. Which is discrimination based on sex.

I don't know that it qualifies as discrimination under the law. Because the one that would need to be replaced, is still able to get married, so long as he apply for a marriage certificate along with a qualifying member of the opposite sex.

Discrimination based on sex would be to say that, only woman can marry. Period. Men no matter what, need not apply. In that case you would have a discriminating practice. As we have it now, both Men and Woman are able to get marriage certificates, they just have to meet the other qualification as amended to the states constition, that the other party they enter into a marriage with, is of the opposite sex.

Honestly, I am really more playing the devils advocate here, to just get some actualy conversation going, instead of a flame war. I do the same thing when I discuss this in the JF forum. To try to get people to see that the issue is not as clear cut as everyone thinks it is. Discrimination is not always they way I define it, nor the way you define it.

[dewey316]

StiffMittens, if the legal definition of marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, then they are not denying them that right, they are just saying that under the definition, what they are trying to do, does not qualify. So long as what is done, meets the definition, then they cannot deny the right to a citizen.

For example, this is a little out there, but it has merit. If I descide, that I should be able to vote, in Crayon, and the government cannot deny me the right to vote, then if I fill out my ballot in crayon, they can not deny it. That doesn't work, as the government didn't deny my right to vote, I just did not vote in a way that qualify's under the defined outline of the voting process. The same applys here. If you define marriage is defines as one man/one woman. Then so long as any person(S) who meet that defined criteria are US Citizens, then they can not deny them that right. Being denied a right, and trying to redifine a right to include something that it is not defined as, are two entirely different things.

Well, my thinking here is that marriage is a religious idea and civil union is a secular, legal status. When you marry, you undertake two separate activities at the same time. You engage in a religious ritual and you enter into a legal union. So, you (or the church) can define marriage in whatever way you want, but that definition should not apply to the legal union aspect. That is to say: marriages are civil unions but civil unions are not marriages, and I believe that the legal benefits, privileges, and protections that come from any such unions should be identical whether that union was arrived at by purely secular activity (civil unions) or religious ceremony and secular activity (marriage).

But that doesn't seem to be what the discussions are about. . California has had a domestic partnership law on the books since 1999. But there is a huge uproar agains religious people because of the Prop 8 vote, that defines marriage, but leaves all of the DP laws in place.

That California went ahead and defined marriage is not really the point, in my view. Furthermore, I am suggesting that doing so might have been explicitly unconstitutional. At the very least I believe it is not in alignment with the spirit of the US constitution.

The big question is, if they are being denied a right they should have under the spirit of the constitution, or if they are willing opting to not exercise the right, through their lifestyle choice. There are many rights that you have, you do not have to excercise them all. Marriage could very well be one of those that if you choose to live you life a certain way, you choose to not exercise that a particular right.

[FabledIntegral]

Yet the federal constitution trumps a state's constitution, and thus it can still be found unconstitutional under separate but equal. There is no federal ammendment stating that it's unconstitutional to vote in crayon, yet there is a federal ammendment stating no one shall be discriminated against for their sex, which they are. In this case, if you have two men, the state will deny you saying one of the men need to be removed for a woman. Which is discrimination based on sex.

I don't know that it qualifies as discrimination under the law. Because the one that would need to be replaced, is still able to get married, so long as he apply for a marriage certificate along with a qualifying member of the opposite sex.

Discrimination based on sex would be to say that, only woman can marry. Period. Men no matter what, need not apply. In that case you would have a discriminating practice. As we have it now, both Men and Woman are able to get marriage certificates, they just have to meet the other qualification as amended to the states constition, that the other party they enter into a marriage with, is of the opposite sex.

Honestly, I am really more playing the devils advocate here, to just get some actualy conversation going, instead of a flame war. I do the same thing when I discuss this in the JF forum. To try to get people to see that the issue is not as clear cut as everyone thinks it is. Discrimination is not always they way I define it, nor the way you define it.

Not only has separate but equal already be breeched (and I noticed you already mentioned that in a previous post), which was a federal case in Plessy vs Ferguson, it would still apply merely under the discrimination. For example, two men. Man A and man B. If the state says that man A can't get married to man B but could be married to some woman, then then man B is being discriminated against for his sex. Because of his sex, he can't marry man A. That is sex discrimination by the government. And obviously it goes vice versa. Therefore both are being discriminated against.

The point is - as said, whether or not the state government should have gotten involved with marriage licenses is irrelevant. They did - and thus they have to honor separation but equal until they find a fix, NOT ignore the problem until there is a fix. That is the point. Supporters of prop 8 should have been in the streets protesting the state's abuse of power in terms of separation of church and state, not protesting fundamental rights and civil liberties. If they don't want gays to be married in their churches, fine. Go kick the government out of destroying the sanctity of their marriage (not marriage in general).

[StiffMittens]

But that doesn't seem to be what the discussions are about. . California has had a domestic partnership law on the books since 1999. But there is a huge uproar agains religious people because of the Prop 8 vote, that defines marriage, but leaves all of the DP laws in place.

Do those domestic partnership laws guarantee the exact same rights and privileges that marriages receive (tax benefits, access to healthcare coverage, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.)? Is there any significant difference in a couple's ability to obtain status as domestic partners vs. married status? How is a domestic partnership in CA treated at the federal level? Any difference?

[dewey316]

FabledIntegral,

In the case of Plessy v Ferguson, I don't know that it is really ever been truely overturned. The other cases that have used Plessy v Ferguson, and the 14th Ammendment, have usualy been centered around segregation. In for example Brown v Board of education, the argument centered around the notion that seperate was not equal, and that they education was substandard in segregated schools, or put undue hardship on African Americans, that was not put on white people. Unless you could show that under the current laws, there is an unequal status, then I am not sure that any of the current SCOTUS cases actualy apply.

The way things work though, is that the majority is able to ammend state constitutions. Unless there is an appeal, and it is shown that something is unconstitutional, then it is law, and the majoritys voice rules, until it is proven to infringe on a right. The thing is, that unless it can be proven that homosexuality is entirely genetic predispotion, then the segregation rulings may not apply. If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then the arguement could be made that they were not discriminated agains, nor does seperate but equal status apply, instead it is a matter of choosing to opt of excercising a right.

[dewey316]

Do those domestic partnership laws guarantee the exact same rights and privileges that marriages receive (tax benefits, access to healthcare coverage, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.)?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =297-297.5

Read it for yourself.

Is there any significant difference in a couple's ability to obtain status as domestic partners vs. married status? How is a domestic partnership in CA treated at the federal level? Any difference?

I do not think the federal government recognizes DP's, I am not entirely sure on what effects it has. The only potential federal effects it has though, would be income tax, and social security (that I can think of). Don't take my word on it though, I am not an expert on this.

[StiffMittens]

FabledIntegral,

In the case of Plessy v Ferguson, I don't know that it is really ever been truely overturned. The other cases that have used Plessy v Ferguson, and the 14th Ammendment, have usualy been centered around segregation. In for example Brown v Board of education, the argument centered around the notion that seperate was not equal, and that they education was substandard in segregated schools, or put undue hardship on African Americans, that was not put on white people. Unless you could show that under the current laws, there is an unequal status, then I am not sure that any of the current SCOTUS cases actualy apply.

The way things work though, is that the majority is able to ammend state constitutions. Unless there is an appeal, and it is shown that something is unconstitutional, then it is law, and the majoritys voice rules, until it is proven to infringe on a right. The thing is, that unless it can be proven that homosexuality is entirely genetic predispotion, then the segregation rulings may not apply. If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then the arguement could be made that they were not discriminated agains, nor does seperate but equal status apply, instead it is a matter of choosing to opt of excercising a right.

But isn't religious devotion a "lifestyle choice"? Even if no genetic mandate for homosexuality exists, surely discrimination based on sexual orientation is no better than religious discrimination.

[dewey316]

But isn't religious devotion a "lifestyle choice"? Even if no genetic mandate for homosexuality exists, surely discrimination based on sexual orientation is no better than religious discrimination.

Well yes and no. The first ammendment is upheld in most cases so long as they are religion neutral. The same goes would go for these laws. For example, polygamy is still not legal, even though it could be seen as a religious practice. It can be upheld because it is religously neutral. The descrimination based on religion only stands if the law is there to specificly ban one particular religion from their practice (for case law, see Employment Division V Smith).

So, the same could be said for this. So long as the law that defines marriage applys to all people equaly and is gender neutral (IE, if the law allowed for lesbians to marry, but not gay men, it would be illegal), then the 14th ammendment may not apply to it, just as the 1st ammendment did not apply in ED V Smith. The same rules apply to polygamy, the state is not discriminating against one religious group, nor against a anyone who wants to engage in polygamy. They are just saying that a polygamists marriage does not get recognized, because it does not fit the definition of marriage. The same might be true for homosexuals.

EDITED to add. Also see the latest Lawrence v. Texas rulings. Read the courts opinions on it. They are very clear to state, that marriage rights are not included. Justice Kennedy's opinion in particular, along with Justice O'Connor's, are the two to read.

[lgoasklucyl]

We're not arguing about California's vote- we're arguing about the issue across the nation. California having a segregating statue that mildly protects their rights yet still defines them lesser human beings does not cover the rest of the country.

Wait, wait, wait. When was the last time that a wedding that you went to, ended with... and by the power invested in my, by the United States Governement. Marriage is a State issue, not a federal one. Unless you change that, marriage is the domain of the State.

Um... yeah, hence the fact that if one state makes minute changes it's not going to change shit across the country and action needs to be taken state by state. Hence, "does not cover the rest of the country".

Thought I had made myself pretty clear on that one.

[dewey316]

I apalogize lgoasklucyl.

I had read what you wrote in a different context.

[lgoasklucyl]

Do those domestic partnership laws guarantee the exact same rights and privileges that marriages receive (tax benefits, access to healthcare coverage, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.)?

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displ ... =297-297.5

Read it for yourself.

Is there any significant difference in a couple's ability to obtain status as domestic partners vs. married status? How is a domestic partnership in CA treated at the federal level? Any difference?

I do not think the federal government recognizes DP's, I am not entirely sure on what effects it has. The only potential federal effects it has though, would be income tax, and social security (that I can think of). Don't take my word on it though, I am not an expert on this.

"Civil unions create “second-class status” and are not equal to marriage a study out of New Jersey says. A commission was established to study civil unions and it has concluded that even though the intention of civil unions is to give gay and lesbian couples the same rights of marriage, in fact they do not.

The biggest area of inequality was in regards to employment benefits for spouses. Many employers refused to offer same-sex couples the same health insurance benefits as married couples.

Massachusetts is the only state in the United States to allow gay marriage and a study there found that gay couples did not have the same kinds of problems with employers and health insurance.

The New Jersey commission found that people in civil unions were not treated the same way as married couples by government agencies, employers and others. One of the big issues is that people do not understand what civil unions are and how they differ from marriage. "


There are three major differences between marriage and domestic partnerships in California:

1. Marriage is not a second-class status. Studies have shown that marriage and civil unions or domestic partnerships are not equal.

2. You don't have to live in California to get a domestic partnership or to get married. You do not have to live in California to dissolve a domestic partnership, but if you want a California divorce, you have to live there for six months. If you are married in California, you most likely will not be able to get a divorce in your home state.

From Melanie Rowen, NCLR staff attorney: "Also, and this is very important for couples from outside of California to understand, California courts have jurisdiction to dissolve domestic partnerships regardless of where the parties live. But CA courts DO NOT have jurisdiction to dissolve a marriage unless the parties meet the residency requirements for a CA divorce. Under CA law, a judgment of dissolution of marriage may not be entered unless one of the parties to the marriage has been a resident of California for at least six months and of the county in which they are filing for divorce for the three months before they file. This means that couples from other states who come to CA to get married will be unable to obtain a divorce in the event of a later break-up unless either (a) they actually move to CA or (b) their home state decides to recognize CA marriages."

3. From a practical stand point. It is easier to get a domestic partnership than it is to get married in California.

From NCLR: "In order to enter into a marriage, a couple must obtain a marriage license and 'solemnize' it – this requires having a ceremony with one to two official witnesses. Couples can enter a domestic partnership by filling out and mailing in a form, the notarized Declaration of Domestic Partnership. They do not need to obtain a license, have witnesses, or 'solemnize' the partnership with a ceremony."




There you have it. Even if the statue written regarding domestic partnerships states they receive equal benefits to those individuals married, they do not in practice. Employers still do not bestow on them the correct benefits and refuse to extend them because of the fact that they are a 'civil union' and not a marriage. It's discrimination. Just slap a rainbow star of David on them, brand them with a serial number, and push them into the minority class you all so valiantly fight for in your voting. Like it would so negatively affect your lives it what they did was called a marriage or not.

[FabledIntegral]

FabledIntegral,

In the case of Plessy v Ferguson, I don't know that it is really ever been truely overturned. The other cases that have used Plessy v Ferguson, and the 14th Ammendment, have usualy been centered around segregation. In for example Brown v Board of education, the argument centered around the notion that seperate was not equal, and that they education was substandard in segregated schools, or put undue hardship on African Americans, that was not put on white people. Unless you could show that under the current laws, there is an unequal status, then I am not sure that any of the current SCOTUS cases actualy apply.

The way things work though, is that the majority is able to ammend state constitutions. Unless there is an appeal, and it is shown that something is unconstitutional, then it is law, and the majoritys voice rules, until it is proven to infringe on a right. The thing is, that unless it can be proven that homosexuality is entirely genetic predispotion, then the segregation rulings may not apply. If homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, then the arguement could be made that they were not discriminated agains, nor does seperate but equal status apply, instead it is a matter of choosing to opt of excercising a right.

Upon overturning PvF, the notion was that separate was not equal, and never could be the case in any potential scenario. Thus that ruling and the reasoning should still be in effect. It doesn't matter what in particular the overturning was applied to - the ruling set a precedent that should be followed in every possible outcome. This includes gay rights.

[dewey316]

It doesn't matter what in particular the overturning was applied to - the ruling set a precedent that should be followed in every possible outcome. This includes gay rights.

It does though. For it to be discrimination, it has to be a law applied to one particular group, and it has to be something that does not offer them equal protection under the law. In the case of marriage, it is not just gays, it is not just lesbians, it is not just homosexuals, it is not just incest, it is not just polygamy. Marriage is regulated by the state, they are not discriminating against homosexuals. They are regulating a legal status in the interest of the state, and the people of the state. In the case, DE v Smith would seem to apply. In that case, the State regulated a certain drug, in the interest of the state, and the people who lived in it, the regulation although it effected a certain group, was not discrimination beacause the law was neutral. The law against that drug was not in place to discriminate against a certain group of people, but was religious neutral. In the case of marriage, if you can show that marriage laws are not discriminating against any certain group, but equaly apply to all groups, then you could say that it the law could be upheld.

Just something to think about, you have to really look at excisting rulings that might apply, until the SCOTUS hears a case on this, I don't think we know what prior case law is actualy applicable.

--John

[lgoasklucyl]

I apalogize lgoasklucyl.

I had read what you wrote in a different context.

Not a problem at all, and I apologize for the snappy response- rough night. The point was made before that semantics are often mistaken in these discussions and that's clearly what we've stumbled across here.

No hard feelings!

[FabledIntegral]

It doesn't matter what in particular the overturning was applied to - the ruling set a precedent that should be followed in every possible outcome. This includes gay rights.

It does though. For it to be discrimination, it has to be a law applied to one particular group, and it has to be something that does not offer them equal protection under the law. In the case of marriage, it is not just gays, it is not just lesbians, it is not just homosexuals, it is not just incest, it is not just polygamy. Marriage is regulated by the state, they are not discriminating against homosexuals. They are regulating a legal status in the interest of the state, and the people of the state. In the case, DE v Smith would seem to apply. In that case, the State regulated a certain drug, in the interest of the state, and the people who lived in it, the regulation although it effected a certain group, was not discrimination beacause the law was neutral. The law against that drug was not in place to discriminate against a certain group of people, but was religious neutral. In the case of marriage, if you can show that marriage laws are not discriminating against any certain group, but equaly apply to all groups, then you could say that it the law could be upheld.

Just something to think about, you have to really look at excisting rulings that might apply, until the SCOTUS hears a case on this, I don't think we know what prior case law is actualy applicable.

--John

Still disagree - they clearly stated that no matter the circumstance - segregation in terms of separation but equal could never be achieved. Although the specific issue was in terms of race, that's not what's important. What's important is the new precedent founded. I must admit your wording is confusing me, I'm not quite sure what you mean " it has to be a law applied to one particular group, and it has to be something that does not offer them equal protection under the law. In the case of marriage, it is not just gays, it is not just lesbians, it is not just homosexuals, it is not just incest, it is not just polygamy." I didn't understand any of that, although I'd like to point out gays/lesbians/homosexuals all fall under the same category. Polgyny (which polygamy is merely a form of) is a separate case in and of itself, because that's not restricting based on gender/race/sex, it's limiting the quantity; completely different scenario. Incest has biological reasons behind it, although it's considered a universal taboo by societies that don't even know about the biology of it, so I'm not quite sure what reasons I could formulate.

Also fundamental rights are supposed to be protected against the majorities. That was the entire point of separation of church and state - so that the minorities aren't adversely affected for different beliefs from the majority.

[dewey316]

Still disagree - they clearly stated that no matter the circumstance - segregation in terms of separation but equal could never be achieved. Although the specific issue was in terms of race, that's not what's important. What's important is the new precedent founded.

Yes, but the ruling was ruled the way it was, because it unfairly targeted a racial minority. It did not give them equal protection under the law, becuase education was protected under the first ammedment. (Brown V BofE, which I assume you are talking about). I honestly don't have any idea how SCOTUS would rule if they were to consider gay marriage, and if these cases would even be used in arguments.

I must admit your wording is confusing me, I'm not quite sure what you mean...Also fundamental rights are supposed to be protected against the majorities. That was the entire point of separation of church and state - so that the minorities aren't adversely affected for different beliefs from the majority.

I snipped that to save some space.

I was refering to the case of DofE v Smith, and how it might apply to gay rights. I was also specificly using it in response to StiffMittens quote

But isn't religious devotion a "lifestyle choice"? Even if no genetic mandate for homosexuality exists, surely discrimination based on sexual orientation is no better than religious discrimination.

In DofE v Smith, the SCOTUS ruled that even though the outcome of a law might have hindered the free exercise of a religious activity, it did not violate the First Ammendment, because it was not a law targeting a specific group, nor targeting any religious practice.

It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....

The cliff-notes version of the case is this. Two men were fired from their job because of drug use. These men were native americans. The state denied them unemployment because of they were fired for drug use. They claimed the drugs were used in a religious practice, and therefor protected under the first ammendment. SCOTUS ruled otherwise for the reason stated above.

I am thinking this line of thinking may transfer over to marriage rights. The State has a "compelling interest" in the regulation of marriage. Without regulating it somehow, it would be out of control. If by regulating marriage, they have an incidental effect (in this case, same-sex couples cannot be married), it may not be violation of the constitution. If you read the conncurance opinion of O'Connor, in Lawrence v Texas, she says exactly that.

That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.

She specificly says that "preserving the traditional instituion of marriage" is something that the State has a legitimate interest in. If the State has a legitimate or compelling interest in marriage, then I would assume that if in DofE v. Smith, certain things can be ciminalized, even if does have a use in a religious practice. Then the same interest could be transfered to the 14th Ammendment. The courts have upheld that the 14th does apply to protecting the private actions of homosexual individuals, but have so far states that that same protection does not extend to the point of marriage.

--------------------------

I am not sure if I made myself any more clear... I'm trying to just explain one legal position a person can take on this issue. I am not a lawyer, and don't claim to be, I am just reporting back on current cases that would likely be looked at, if there was a SCOTUS hearing the legality of limitations of marriage rights.

--John

[Napoleon Ier]

Incestuous couples have obvious biological ramifications to offspring, homosexual marriages do not. Female-female couples CAN produce their own offspring, and male-male couples can just as well adopt. These partnerships have been EXTENSIVELY studied and it has been determined that there is no developmental difference in children of same-sex couples.

Bestial couples are not allowed to be considered married- there is no legal ramifications there. I don't think his goat is going to be worried about getting medical treatment from his HMO. Also, there's obvious danger in these relationships, and the animal cannot consent. Since the animal cannot willingly consent, the married cannot be legalized.

Grouping same-sex couples with those two types is insulting. It is acceptable. They are human being born with a biological disposition to be attracted to other males. These neurotransmitters lead you to oppress them and take rights away from them every other citizen has? Well, I suppose the next group to lose their rights should be the Albino individuals for the lack of melanin creating cells they were born with.

You're confusing the issue. Consent isn't the keystone of my position here, the crux of the matter is whether we can consider homosexuality normal or not, and since given that there is no moral a priori to differentiate it from any other paraphilia, like necrophilia or autophilia or homosexual incestuous relations or whatever it might be, homosexual couples can only have contracts drawn up between them involving the exercise of rights they already possess not be recognized as a valid family unit.

As for the adoption case, I haven't seen that evidence, and frankly it seems completely improbable to me that you can seriously reject every principle of developmental psychology since Freud in the name of political correctness. No doubt some homosexual couples have replicated a healthy environment, healthier perhaps than certain heterosexual couples, but all that tells me is that heterosexual couples should be more thoroughly vetted.

Now, if you're talking about the specific case in California right now, I can't comment in much depth because I frankly don't have the sufficient details, but its a different issue because the State does grant with marriage a whole lot of stuff I don't think it necessarily should, whence your inequality grievance. That though, is an entirely different kettle of fish to the slightly more abstract and moral argument I'm trying to make, and you'd need to elucidate me on the details before I could properly discuss that case with you.

[Gregrios]

Simply put, possession is 9/10th's of the law.

[PLAYER57832]

^^^

I would take that to mean that they have the same rights afforded to them under laws that govern the privileges of a civil union. It seems to me that these laws are already in place.

Reread your words and you have answered your own question (or pointed out the contradiction in your statement, whichever you prefer).

First, either these are rights and therefore fundamental, protected, but not awarded by the state, or they are priviliages and awarded by the state.

In either case, there is most definitely NOT universal protection. Not every state honors or has a form of civil union for homosexuals. In Florida, homosexuals are specifically forbidden from adopting children, etc. Few states or even cities require companies to afford the same insurance protections to homosexual partners that they afford to heterosexual partners. Even giving the right for your partner to make medical decisions is not set. Among other issues, most people don't carry such documents with them. In an emergency, where such things become most important, a particular hospital may, for whatever reason (because it is a Roman Catholic hospital, for example), decide to question that document. This absolutely DOES happen and is one reason why homosexuals want the title of "marriage".

That said, I repeat what I said many times in the marriage thread. I am not asserting that homosexuality is Christian (I say it is for God, not I, to decide) or that anyone has to agree that homosexuality is the "correct" lifestyle. BUT, I find it ironic that someone as fully adamant about individual rights would deny these individuals the right to live peacefully as they wish, simply because you happen to find their lifestyle distasteful.

Why is it that the same people who will assert you are to sit in church beside a theif, a prostitute ... any number of sinners .. somehow feel this one sin is an exception and not to be forgiven. The only "evidence" is from the old Testament. The same verses that proscribe eating of pork, and many other issues Christ himself stated were unimportant.

Why is it that folks can live beside a pagan or Buddhist with no problem (or little problem) and yet, should that person be homosexual .... suddenly they could care less how neat their lawn, how many taxes they pay, or how much volunteer work they perform, they are not "acceptable" neighbors, simply because of what goes on in private, within their bedroom.