@Copper Seth,
Copper Seth wrote:After doing quite a bit of research, I've come to you with some valid things I'd like you to address.
You have not extended the courtesy of addressing all the research that I have provided. You have ignored it. Nevertheless, your "research" isn't research at all. Your comments below are nothing more than ill-informed opinions unsupported by any facts or reference to any authority.
Quote:Loving v Virginia can be distinguished in several ways. First of all, it dealt with a heterosexual couple, and the court was only answering the question as to whether marriage (as it was understood at that time) was so fundamental to liberty, and so ingrained in our history, that it was a right. The court looked at historical marriage (man and woman) and said yes. The cases it cites for this position directly state that heterosexual marriage is fundamental to our consitutional concept of liberty.
Your conclusions have no support. The Loving case dealt with MARRIAGE. The individual right to MARRIAGE is a fundamental liberty interest secured by the due process clause. We are not dealing with same sex marriage, opposite sex marriage, interracial marriage, or same race marriage. We are dealing with MARRIAGE. Period. Fundamental rights are not defined in terms of those who are entitled to exercise those rights or in terms of those who are denied those rights.
Historically, blacks and whites were not allowed to marry each other. Despite that history or tradition, the Court held that the choice of whom to marry resides with the individual.
Quote:Secondly, Loving v Virginia considered only consummate marriage. At the time of the ruling, all states had several requirements for valid marriages. One of the common requirements was consummation; or in other words vaginal sex. A couple that had not consummated their marriage was not married, no matter how long they have lived together. The marriage in that situation was void, meaning it never happened. This is not a divorce, but a voided marriage. Under this requirement, known to the Loving court, a homosexual couple could never be married, because they could not together consummate the "marriage." Therefore, Loving's right to marriage does not apply to homosexual marriage.
The Court in Loving never considered whether or not the Loving marriage was "consummated." Any married couple that engages in sexual relations after the marriage has been solemnized has "consummated" their marriage. There are many married homosexual couples in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut that have "consummated" their marriages.
Any marriage may be terminated or annulled (voided) through divorce or annulment proceedings if the plaintiff pleads and proves the statutory grounds. It's not the failure to consummate a marriage that constitutes the grounds--it's the fraud in the inducement. Even a person on his deathbed with no ability whatsoever to engage in sexual relations is allowed to marry.
Quote:Furthermore, the right to marriage is neither universal nor fundamental, meaning it can be abridged, interrupted, and otherwise prohibited.
Marriage is a fundamental right. The State may not deprive any individual or class of individuals from exercising a fundamental right unless the deprivation is NECESSARY (and narrowly tailored) to serve a COMPELLING State interest.
Quote:If marriage was a universal right, then the state could never prevent minors, relatives, or specific otrhers from marrying.
That's like saying if freedom of speech was a fundamental right, then the state could never punish defamation or fighting words. That's silly. Every denial or deprivation of a fundamental right must be necessary to serve a compelling state interest. Each denial or deprivation must be analyzed on its own merits.
Quote:Loving v. Virginia should also not be used in conjuntion with Brown v Board of Education, because this is not an issue of seperate but equal.
You're advocating separate and disparate treatment, and yet you say this is NOT an issue of the "separate but equal" doctrine that was discredited? How can you look at yourself in the mirror with a straight face?
Marriage for heterosexual couples vs. Civil Unions or domestic partnerships for homosexual couples
That's separate and unequal.
Quote:BvB dealt with public education, something given to everyone for very specific reasons.
Education at public expense is not a right. However, when the State provides public education to children (and mandates compulsory attendance under the penalty of law), then the state has a constitutional duty to treat all children alike. In other words, the State cannot establish superior schools and reserve those schools for a "special class" of heterosexual students and establish inferior second-class schools for disfavored homosexual students. That would be unconstitutional discrimination.
Quote:But marriage is not given to everyone. Even the ancillary rights that accompany marriage are reserved for that special class of relationships.
Marriage is a fundamental right. The State may not deprive any individual or class of individuals from exercising a fundamental right unless the deprivation is NECESSARY (and narrowly tailored) to serve a COMPELLING State interest. Although you place yourself and your fiancee in that "special class" of heterosexuals whom you believe are entitled to superior rights, you're not any more special than homosexuals.
Quote:If equality were really your goal, then you should argue for the abolition of marriage all together, because marriage affords rights and privileges to certain people, while excluding single people.
MY GOAL? As a citizen of this country, I don't want other citizens abusing the power and authority of the state to impose their moral or religious beliefs on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws. The government must serve and protect ALL the people--EVERYONE--even disfavored classes of people. Pursuant to the equal protection clause, the constitution guarantees to EVERYONE that our government will treat all persons similarly situated alike. Homosexual couples who desire to marry are similarly situated to the heterosexual couples who desire to marry. Because it is NOT necessary to deprive gay couples of the right to marry to serve any compelling state interest, the discrimination is unconstitutional.
Quote:Even single people living together for decades are excluded from enjoying the marital benefits. So, to say that this is an equality issue is not true, because marriage was never meant to be equal. It is inherently discriminatory against those that do not satisfy its requirements.
Heterosexual couples who cohabitate, however, choose to remain single. They could marry if they choose to do so. The same is not true for homosexual couples who cohabitate. Even if they choose to get married, they are prohibited from doing so. They are denied the right to marry and thus they are unconstitutionally excluded from enjoying marital benefits.
Quote:No matter how you slice it, homosexual couples are biologically, psychologically, socialogically, and just about any other -logically different than heterosexual couples.
That's your unsupported conclusion. Homosexuals are human beings the same as Heterosexuals are human beings. They love, they form relationships, they form families, and they are entitled to be treated as equal and valued members of our society. They breathe air and they bleed if you prick them. But you understand that, don't you:
Copper Seth wrote:We are all people. We all deserve respect and tolerance. And, perhaps even more in this debate, we all deserve the benefit of the doubt. Not everybody is good at expressing their point of view. Not everyone can answer every question put to them. But every person breathes the air we breathe, and bleeds if you prick them. Mercy is not a Christian principle, but a human one. Let us all be human to each other, and sensitive to our fellow species, regardless of race, creed or orientation.
Why don't you follow your own advice? You say that we all deserve respect, but you don't respect the rights of others. If you truly believed what you said, then you wouldn't be participating in the oppression of your fellow man and simultaneously trying to defend your indefensible actions.
