Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Yet you appear unable to tell me how that post of mine which you commented on doesn't make sense.

Thomas is doing a wonderful job of that on his own, you closet Constitutional scholar, you.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

The decision was apparently based on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which would actually seem to have no bearing provided that the law itself treats all persons equally.

How did Virginia's anti-miscegenation law treat all persons equally?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Anyway, your argument here is basically an appeal to authority, which is invalid in debate.

In a discussion about constitutional law, an appeal to supreme court precedent is perfectly acceptable, since the supreme court is the final authority on constitutional questions. Or, as Justice Jackson once said about the court, "we're not final because we're right, we're right because we're final."

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

In a discussion about constitutional law, an appeal to supreme court precedent is perfectly acceptable, since the supreme court is the final authority on constitutional questions. Or, as Justice Jackson once said about the court, "we're not final because we're right, we're right because we're final."

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I think Joe did most of the heavy lifting in this round of the argument. (Thanks, Joe!) But in addition to seconding his important point that precedent matters in law, I disagree with your flat-out statement that authority is irrelevant in a discussion. Far from it! Appealing to authority is perfectly okay whenever authority is a reasonable proxy for competence.

Think about it: On the one side of Loving v. Virginia, you have nine jurists, all of excellent standing within their profession. Between the nine of them, they have man-centuries of job experience in constitutional law. Although their politics differ greatly, as do their judicial philosophies, their conclusion is unanimous: Prohibiting interracial marriages is discrimination, and violates the Lovings' constitutional right to equal protection under the law. On the other side of the case, you have a computer programmer who's interested in current affairs. By his own account, he looks at the case "for a minute". "Based on [his] quick scan of the thing", he then concludes that "the reasoning seems to be wrong".

How isn't this a good reason to presume that the Supreme Court got it right and you got it wrong? Not mathematical proof, I admit, but good-enough evidence to establish a presumption? And, to rebut this presumption, shouldn't we demand better arguments from you than a snap judgment from the seat of your pants? As a computer programmer, how much patience would you have if a newbie showed up in the newsgroup comp.lang.c and commented on a statement from Brian Kernighan the way you're now commenting on an important Supreme Court decision?

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
In order for the Constitution (or any law) to protect a practice, it must make some mention of it, whether directly or indirectly.

Okay, let's run with your standard for the moment. How would you apply it to interracial marriage? Do you agree with the Supreme Court about Loving v. Virginia, where it held that the Lovings had a right to marry each other? After all, he was white, she was black, and Virginia had criminalized their marriage in a duly enacted anti-miscegenation law. If you agree with the outcome in this case nevertheless, where in the Constitution do you find the Loving's right to marry?

I just looked at the Loving case for a minute. Although I am against any attempt to limit marriage based on race, I also believe that the logic behind the Supreme Court decision was incorrect, at least based on my quick scan of the thing. The decision was apparently based on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which would actually seem to have no bearing provided that the law itself treats all persons equally. I'm glad that the decision discouraged laws against interracial marriage, but the reasoning seems to be wrong. Anyway, your argument here is basically an appeal to authority, which is invalid in debate. Show me where and how the Constitution protects the right to same sex marriage or oatmeal, and stop telling me about how important people share your view.

The reasoning is perfectly correct, because the law did NOT treat all people equally. You ignore the fact that our legal system defaults to actions being legal unless significant harm can be shown to be the result of an action. You can't arbitrarily make things illegal without showing why they should be. When you do this, you are discriminating against those who CHOOSE to engage in certain, non-harmful behaviors. Your position (and that of other bigots) seems to not give any credit to people's freedom and choices whatsoever.

By your reasoning, you could pass a law saying that nobody named Ted could get married; and it would be legal, because EVERYONE is prohibited from doing something the same way, everyone is equal. Of course that is perfectly silly.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

The decision was apparently based on the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which would actually seem to have no bearing provided that the law itself treats all persons equally.

The law does not treat people equally. That law would prevent white people from marrying black people. It would prevent black people from marrying white people. Could a law (Constitutionally) prevent white people from going into business with black people?

Anti-gay marriage statutes do the same. They prevent some people, but not all people, from marrying men, and they prevent other people from marrying women. Could you make a (valid) law that prevents women from entering into contracts with other women?

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

'.As a result of the ruling, the American people will no longer retain the power to choose their own federal, state and local officials or vote on matters of concern to the public.'

it's about time.

LOL. Seriously, the argument made by Thomas et al on this thread is almost beyond parody.

Not coincidentally, Olson and Boies (no idiots there) carefully avoided it. Instead, their argument is a subtler one, to wit that Prop. 8 and prior court decisions have created 3 classes of people in California, so their only appeal to the 14th is in connection with restoring equality among the 3.This can be done by equating any of the 3 groups' rights with the other 2.

Then, there's finances - no wonder "Perry v. Scharzenegger" isn't being defended by the counsel for the governor: Sacramento is so broke that the idea of charging homosexual couples several thousand dollars in order to marry them, plus the pot tax, may yet raise the $20 billion p.a. deficit in the state budget.

0 Replies

Oh yeah. I meant to update this a few weeks ago. Gays are getting married in DC now.

The sky continues to not fall.
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

It might do TK if it catches on due to the difficulties women involve.

The sky hasn't fallen with crime. Are you suggesting crime is okay.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

That anology of the sky not falling can be used to justify anything. We should be allowed to do anything, after all the sky wont fall.

0 Replies

The point is to those that claim that giving gays this right means that marriage will be destroyed.

T
K
O

3 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The point is to those that claim that giving gays this right means that marriage will be destroyed.

I know it must seem as those against it are denying some sort of human right, but there is no right being denied. Love is not being denied. Legal protection is not being denied. I simply believe the term marriage should apply to a man and a woman with the intent of having children. I see homosexuals claiming that the historical marriage applies to them as a part of their overall struggle against reality. They can have some other term. Isnt that what is done in legal matters, a different term for different situations ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I know it must seem as those against it are denying some sort of human right, but there is no right being denied. Love is not being denied. Legal protection is not being denied. I simply believe the term marriage should apply to a man and a woman with the intent of having children.

So a post-menopausal woman shouldn't be allowed to get married?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

So a post-menopausal woman shouldn't be allowed to get married?

Can you think of a reason why she should ?

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

The point is to those that claim that giving gays this right means that marriage will be destroyed.

the consensus is that marriage is already well on its way to being destroyed, that changing the definition to include gays will do more harm. It has taken two generations to do in marriage so far, change happens very slowly

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I was told by a Registrar in the Family Law Court of Australia, that if a man and a woman live together, even if in seperate rooms of a flat, if they have sex, eat meals together and wash their clothes together they are married and she is entitled to some of his money.

I had a friend who's marriage was on the rocks. Suddenly, she was very nice and 3 yrs later she left. She had been waiting for him to leave the army with his pension so she could claim it. This is prostitution not a marriage. She spent 3 yrs sucking for money..he is a good man and doesnt deserve a foul bitch like that to take him to the cleaners.

If marriage can start so easily why cant it end easily ?

I agree, the law needs to be tightened not loosened. We need an intermediate stage to legally protect both parties no matter what sexes are involved. Enough of this protecting women who are demanding equal rights. Which is it ? Protection or equality ? marriage should be a far more serious matter then it is treated as now. People can get marriage for citizenship, to get the other persons money, for all manor of fraudulent reasons.

If you walk into a public toilet and someone has crapped on the floor do you crap on the floor with the attitude why not make it worse ?

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

What do you think the institution of marriage is for TK?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
The point is to those that claim that giving gays this right means that marriage will be destroyed.

the consensus is that marriage is already well on its way to being destroyed, that changing the definition to include gays will do more harm. It has taken two generations to do in marriage so far, change happens very slowly

This is exactly where your argument falls on it's ass. If gay marriage does more harm, then we should be able to see that in those states that have gay marriage a noticeable difference in the quality of life as a married person.

listen carefully: We don't.

The truth is that gay marriage in no way harms the institution of marriage. It never has or will.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

What do you think the institution of marriage is for TK?

To confirm a committed relationship to the public for life.
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Tweet tweet. You obviously don't understand the institution which I recommend you continue with because if you did understand it you would be unable to maintain your position that homosexual marriage is not corrosive to it.

Quote:

From the Story above,
The Girls that love.
Have learned the Use of Candles;
And since that, by Jove,
And the God of Love,
We have lost the Use of Handles.

Quote:

Religion blushing veils her sacred fires,
And unawares Morality expires.
Nor public Flame, nor private, dares to shine;
Nor human Spark is left, nor glimpse divine!
Lo! thy dread Empire, CHAOS ! is restored;
Light dies before thy uncreating word;
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall,
And universal Darkness buries All.

The latter is from the Dunciad. A dunce being a person who ignores the rust in the girder because the roof is still held aloft by it.

The former was grafitti in the King's Arms at Salisbury in about 1745 and related to a notorious outbreak of lesbianism in the area.

We have liberties won after a long and often bloody struggle. And not won by us. The surest way to lose them is to abuse those liberties and provoke a backlash which sweeps all liberty away.

Your side has stolen one of the English Language's most beautiful and expressive words because it was ashamed of the right word--homosexual. Now you seek to destroy another. And many more will follow as you try to equate the love between opposite sexes with other things.

1 Reply

Gay Marriage Vote Passes in DC City Council

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know