The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

SCoates, here is the logical sequence by which your statement has been condemned.

You state that some people may have: ". . . come to the conclusion that homosexuals have strayed and generally be concerned for their spiritual wellfare." So the question is, strayed from what? A further question is, how is their spiritual welfare endangered? A rather obvious conclusion is that those who are concernced with the spiritual welfare of homosexuals are concerned because they consider it abnormal and sinful. Then we're right back to square one, where such attitudes are justifiably condemned as arising from fear or hatred of homosexuals. When someone reads scripture, and says that it teaches them that homosexuality is bad, for whatever good intentions they may have, they are repeating and perpetuating a hateful and homophobic tradition.

When someone reads scripture, and says that it teaches them that homosexuality is bad, for whatever good intentions they may have, they are repeating and perpetuating a hateful and homophobic tradition.

As a result of judicial review, regardless of the original wording and intent, legal codes often become far more reliable sources for tracing the history of institutions than mere encyclopedias--which, after, are intent upon selling themselves.

Debra I really enjoyed the article you posted from the Dept. of Health. It illustrates the view that I have: namely that homosexual marriage in no way devalues or tarnishes heterosexual marriage. Nor do I ascribe to any of the past arguments which try to say that if we allow homosexual marriage we must allow polygamy or incest.

However, I am a reasonable guy, and I think a reasonable compromise is the implementation of civil unions. That way the word "marriage" is reserved for man + woman, yet homosexuals get the legal rights which they deserve. Each side gives up a little, but each side gains a little too. Am I alone in thinking this is a moderate stance?

That aside, this brings me to an important point. How does labeling an opponent of this issue a bigot or a homophobe help the issue?? How does it advance your views? More likely it just puts people on the defensive. By labeling this thread in such a way, it becomes nearly impossible to achieve any kind of consensus. I can no longer change my opinion, because if I do, then I too become a homophobe. This is no way to facilitate an open debate.

You still make a rather large jump from concern to hatred. In real life that probably takes years of indroctrination.

As soon as I find answers to those questions I will alert the media. For now, there are many who do not wait for the answers. They are the loudest, so they make the biggest impression.

It is completely plausible that one might enter into a binding contract with all the appurtenances of marriage, and that said contract would be valid everywhere. I don't believe it has been done, however, and would require the services of one hell of a slick contract lawyer.

I'll remember not to sell the jeep to you, however.

Debra_Law wrote:

When looking at a typical state statute that defines marriage, it cannot be denied that the state discriminates based on the gender of an individual's intended spouse. At one time, state statutes discriminated on the basis of the race of an individual's intended spouse-- and those state statutes were declared unconstitutional because they infringed on the fundamental right to marry.

You are implying, without actually making the case, that gender-based discrimination is as suspect in the eyes of the Supreme Court as race-based discrimination. According to Jay Feinman's Law 101, that is not the case. Feinman, a liberal law professor at Rutgers, sums up the Supreme Court's gender discrimination jurisprudence as not involving one of the "suspect classes" of discrimination that requires a strict scrutiny test. According to him, the Supreme Court requires intermediate scrutiny -- meaning "intermediate" between "being narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest" and "having a rational relation to a legitimate state interest". Of course, Feinman also says that nothing in the constitution says it is supreme law, and you easily debunked that. I am prepared to be debunked again.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court considered this argument rejected it under the most deferential standard applied to state laws: the rational basis test.

The federal Supreme Court is not legally bound by the opinion of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's as to whether the proscription of gay marriage fails the rational basis test. And as you said yourself in an earlier post, the federal constitution sets a floor as to how strictly a test is applied. This suggests that the federal Supreme Court, even if it agrees with the Massachusetts court's interpretation of the Massachusetts constitution, may well be less strict in the tests it requires -- and legitimately so. But the federal Supreme Court may well not agree with the reasoning of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. And for what it's worth, I don't either. I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court has been overbearing in its decision.

I think that if you are arguing in favor of gay marriage because of legal issues, then as far as the government is concerned then you are entitled to the same rights as any other couple. But you have to accept the fact that you will probably never change the minds of bible-thumpers that what you are doing is wrong. It is a point of view that I disagree with strongly, but the fact remains.

Setanta wrote:

The full faith and credit clause does not oblige states to alter or make exceptions to their legal code to accomodate the legal codes of other states.

Thanks -- this makes sense. In this case, the obvious solution seems to be to create a nationally standardized 'civil union' status. By entering this status, the parties can confer to each other all rights and duties that are theirs to confer, but they could not impose any obligations on the rest of society, and they could not reap any benefits that come from the symbolism of marriage. Ideally, the state would get out of the business of defining who is married and who isn't, and would leave this question to social customs and religious institutions.

Would you be fine with that?

Setanta wrote:

As a result of judicial review, regardless of the original wording and intent, legal codes often become far more reliable sources for tracing the history of institutions than mere encyclopedias--which, after, are intent upon selling themselves.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Come to think of it, I have another question about the "full faith and credit" clause. This clause may not cover civil unions specifically, but I assume it covers contracts in general. For example, suppose I live in New York, come to Columbus, buy your car, drive the car home to New York, and don't pay. In this scenario, our contract binds me by the law of New York state, and its courts would enforce that I uphold my part of our contract. Correct? Now, if marriage is no more than a contract, as some here have contended, it should be possible somehow to recreate most of it in the form and the language of an ordinary contract, and have its terms enforced under generic contract law. Why isn't that possible?

But for fun, look at manner in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court reviewed its state marriage laws. The state argued that the marriage laws neither discriminated on the basis of gender nor infringed upon a fundamental right; but the Court said the argument didn't matter because the state marriage laws could not even pass the most deferential rational basis test.

You appear to be laboring under some confusion with respect to tests the United States Supreme Court applies when reviewing the constitutionality of laws.

It is possible for the United States Supreme Court to apply a test that is MORE strict than the rational basis test, but it impossible for the Court to apply a test that is "less strict" than the rational basis test (because no such test exists). Understand?

OMG, Thomas.

INCORRECT. You are confusing a "choice of law" issue with a "full faith and credit clause" issue.

Setanta wrote:

When someone reads scripture, and says that it teaches them that homosexuality is bad, for whatever good intentions they may have, they are repeating and perpetuating a hateful and homophobic tradition.

It leads to that discrimination, but it is not the discrimintation itself. If their intentions are good, then until the point when their intentions are corrupted they have done nothing homophobic. If a belief that something is wrong is enough to deserve that label, then (as someone mentioned earlier) you stance is christianophobic--soley on the grounds that the christian position is wrong.

I fully acknowledge that calling homosexuality a sin has lead to homophobic behaviour, but it is not enough alone.

It leads to that discrimination, but it is not the discrimintation itself.

If their intentions are good, then until the point when their intentions are corrupted they have done nothing homophobic.

If a belief that something is wrong is enough to deserve that label, then (as someone mentioned earlier) you stance is christianophobic--soley on the grounds that the christian position is wrong.

If marriage is no more than a contract, why can't it be reproduced in form of an ordinary contract and enforced through plain vanilla contract law?

Since marriage is legal in every state, every state is obliged by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize marriages validly entered into in other states. But "civil unions" or whatever else they may be called are not recognized in every state, so there would be no requirement for reciprocity among the states.