So gay!!!

[moevillini]

in response to a couple of points raised above:

1 - Regarding polygamy (or plural marriage or whatever it's called), if it is legal, would all parties have to agree to each new relationship? In other words, if a man who is married to one woman wishes to marry a second woman, then not only would the second woman have to consent to marry the man, but the two women would have to consent to marry each other. In that sense, those members of the LDS faith who support the concept of plural marriage also support the concept of same sex marriage.

2 - Property rights: There are plenty of other mechanisms besides marriage to set up ownership rights for things such as bank accounts, life insurance policies, real estate, automobiles etc, and for things like that, the idea of a "multiple" relationship is perfectly legal. Three people can be on a bank account, a lease, a mortgage note, etc and or trusts can be set up to include more people or more complicated relationships. There are certainly aspects of ownership that are more automatically determined if two people are married, but marriage is certainly not the only way to establish ownership rights for property.

3 - Children. I do believe that the "state" (society, whatever) has an obligation to protect children. To the extent that a "marriage" identifies to the state that there are two adults responsible for the care and protection of the children in that family, that simplifies the job of the government. If there was no "marriage" and all children had only one official parent, then if that parent died or was incapacitated, it would become the state's responsibility to ensure that the child was being taken care of. So having a mechanism such as marriage makes the state's job a little easier.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I believe it is more important to respect the biological importance of the heterosexual relation and reproductive process. I believe its socially irresponsible to claim these relationships as equals when they clearly were not meant to be by nature. Especially in a world that already disrespect the reprodcutive process.

Can I ask you and I'm serious? Have you ever had a BJ? I'm dead serious.

 

[Hopper]

in response to a couple of points raised above:



3 - Children. I do believe that the "state" (society, whatever) has an obligation to protect children. To the extent that a "marriage" identifies to the state that there are two adults responsible for the care and protection of the children in that family, that simplifies the job of the government. If there was no "marriage" and all children had only one official parent, then if that parent died or was incapacitated, it would become the state's responsibility to ensure that the child was being taken care of. So having a mechanism such as marriage makes the state's job a little easier.

You ask some good questions and make some good points here, Mo. Lemme ax a question about chillinz. As I understand it, in some states (CA for example) a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of any children borne by his wife. In other words, even if some other guy admitted he was the true father, even if you had not had sex with your wife for a year, even if DNA tests proved otherwise, etc. the husband would be responsible for maintaining that child, even if he divorces his current "wife" tomorrow. This seems to be a case where the legal status of "marriage" makes it easy for the State to pin responsibility on *somebody* and (they hope) relieve it from any burden in that respect. Is this a good use of marital status (keeping track, in Game's words) in your opinion? I think it sucks, personally.

 

[Hopper]

Well, I base my opposition to bans on gay marriage on the idea that people should be free to associate with one another in any way they choose, so I would apply the same standard to polygamous marriage.

Aren't people pretty much "free to associate" with others in any way they choose, with or without marriage, Game? I can be married and still cohabitate with 6 women, can't I? I can be as homosexual as I choose. I'm even free to indulge in bestiality, married or not. How does marriage make any one more or less "free" in that regard (associations)?

 

[VINYLONE]

For those Morman's that DO support gay marriage, how do you guys feel about your church offering so much support against it?

 

[Hopper]

Eric, (and others, if interested) it may be worth noting that in the Poe case I discussed above there was a very strong dissent from 4 justices (Harlan in particular). They basically argued that the majority was just trumping up a lame-*** excuse for refusing to get involved in what was, at that time, a sensitive social issue (birth control). Truth be told, the dissent was probably right on that score. I bring it up mainly because I think it represents just another example of a case where "pragmatic concerns" influence the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling. All the legal idealism in the world won't prevent that from happening in some cases, whether it's right or wrong.

I'm not saying they are, or should be, determinative in this case, but the "separation of powers" type of questions raised by some here are worth considering. The voters of California amended their constitution for the specific purpose of "over-ruling" their own Supreme Court. The "will of the people" is therefore an obvious factor in this case.

The "people" can likewise amend the U.S. Constitution. They could, for example, amend it in such a way as to make the production and consumption of alcohol illegal, or to make inter-racial marriages illegal. If they did the latter, no court could claim that it was "unconstitutional" to prohibit interracial marriages. It's all kinda a political "separation of powers" thing in that respect.

 

[moevillini]

You ask some good questions and make some good points here, Mo. Lemme ax a question about chillinz. As I understand it, in some states (CA for example) a man is conclusively presumed to be the father of any children borne by his wife. In other words, even if some other guy admitted he was the true father, even if you had not had sex with your wife for a year, even if DNA tests proved otherwise, etc. the husband would be responsible for maintaining that child, even if he divorces his current "wife" tomorrow. This seems to be a case where the legal status of "marriage" makes it easy for the State to pin responsibility on *somebody* and (they hope) relieve it from any burden in that respect. Is this a good use of marital status (keeping track, in Game's words) in your opinion? I think it sucks, personally.

i honestly don't know much at all about marriage laws, or any other laws for that matter, whether in Calif. or elsewhere. All I can think of at the moment is that it's an imperfect system, and it'd be pretty tough to construct a system that would be deemed "perfect" anyhow. And in the scenario you describe, I guess that's part of what "for better or worse" only that's more on the side of "worse" - marriage is a "faith-based" system as much as it is anything else.

 

[Hopper]

in the scenario you describe, I guess that's part of what "for better or worse" only that's more on the side of "worse"

I agree, Mo, but the "worse" here is caused by State intervention and (to me) irrational legislation, not the inevitable difficulties a couple may encounter in life. It's not really relevant to the topic here, but there's sumthin suspect about the State using the mere status of "married" to impose those kinda "duties" on innocent people, if ya ax me. Your attitude seems to be along the lines of "who cares?" I care, even if you don't. I'm sure there are many others who don't care either though. And, obviously, there are some who DO care and who think such measures are highly desirable.

Part of the point, I guess, is that the State seems to be free, in other circumstances, to arbitrarily impose limitations and duties on those seeking "marriage" status. Why shouldn't it be free to "arbitrarily" say same-sex marriages are forbidden? Who cares?

 

[One Brow]

So I wasn't making "false" claims, as you say, eh?

If your only claim had been that the original defendants did not wish to defend the case, that would seem to be true. However, since you have since assented that the case was vigorously defended, this point now seems moot.

Eric, I fail to follow the leap you make from (1) since I have no "dollar figure," then (2) there ARE NO pragmatic concerns.

A pragmatic concern needs to be based on an actual, not a hypothetical. Otherwise it is not pragmatic.

Man, you fellas need to put your efforts into the Jazz forum. It is slllllloooooowwwwwiinnnnn down over there.

Maybe you did not notice the time of year. It will be slow until pre-season starts.

Well, Eric, we've been down this road before. I take you to be sayin, in effect, that "there is good evidence that homosexuality IS largely biological." Do I understand you correctly there?

No, I don't think the two statements are equivalent. However, we have no mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause the previously quoted biological discrepancies.

Just a question, but if gay marriage is legalized on a national basis, won't then polygamy have to be legalized? Why or why not?

moevillini has mentioned a few issues with that. Whether it is just to legalize polygamy/polyandry/plural marriage, whether it is practical, whether it is politically feasible, and whether it is important are all different questions.

The "people" can likewise amend the U.S. Constitution. They could, for example, amend it in such a way as to make the production and consumption of alcohol illegal, or to make inter-racial marriages illegal. If they did the latter, no court could claim that it was "unconstitutional" to prohibit interracial marriages. It's all kinda a political "separation of powers" thing in that respect.

The Constitution is not allowed to contradict itself, if I recall correctly. So, even a Constitutional amendment like miscegenation laws might be found in conflict of the 14th amendment, unless that were simultaneously repealed.

 

[Hopper]

No, I don't think the two statements are equivalent. However, we have no mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause the previously quoted biological discrepancies.

I agree that the two statements are not equivalent, and didn't mean to imply that I thought you did, Eric. I just figured that's what you were indirectly tryin to say, especially in light of my knowledge of your past statements on the topic. Now I'm very confused about what you're trying to say here, and on what grounds you felt it was necessary to challenge my prior statement. As I recall, Biley, or someone, defined a "homosexual" as one who had been "hardwired at birth" to have homosexual attractions. My only comment on that was that any belief, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, on that topic was largely a matter of choice. You seemed to find my comment objectionable, because you responded as follows:

Since science is not in the business of proof, you could also say that gravitation has not been scientifically proven. That does not make the issue a matter of choice, or say there is good evidence on both sides. There is no good evidence that homosexuality is largely non-biological.

The implication I got from you was that you were claiming that there was substantial evidence which, if viewed objectively, would give person no "choice" but to conclude that homosexuality is largely biological (or some other conclusion DICTATED by the evidence). Did you have some other point in mind?

What is this even referring to?: "we have no mechanism for the behavior of homosexuality to cause the previously quoted biological discrepancies. "

 

[Hopper]

A pragmatic concern needs to be based on an actual, not a hypothetical. Otherwise it is not pragmatic.

Here again, Eric, I really can't find the rationale in your response. It kinda seems like you just want to reject any consideration which you think might lead some to conclude that the District Judge's conclusion should not be immediately, whole-heartedly, and unconditionally embraced and ratified.

If I say: "If you jump off a 10 story buildin, then, most likely, you will bust your head and die," then that statement is "hypothetical," not actual. It's still a "pragmatic" consideration to be assessed before jumpin, aint it?

 

[G-O-A-T]

Either way (i.e., whether or not the limitation is "jurisdictional") it seems to me that the court can, if it chooses, refuse to rule on a matter where there is no "honest and actual antagonistic assertion of rights" to be adjudicated" (actual controversy) even if it the challenging party has standing to litigate a non-moot issue which is "ripe" (under traditional analysis) for adjudication. In other words this in an additional ground for refusing to rule on a case, apart from, and in addition to, the other three.

After skimming through Poe, it seems to me that the majority dismissed the case for lack of injury (standing) and lack of ripeness (no adversaries)... in other words, they were not creating an additional requirement to the case or controversy analysis, they were just saying that this case was more like an advisory opinion than an actual controversy.

There was no injury because there was practically no threat of prosecution. And arguably, the case was not ripe either because there was no one willing to prosecute the plaintiff. Thus, if there is no threat of prosecution, it's like the law never existed... and the plaintiff had no other reason to bring the case other than to question in constitutionality.

Personally, I think the decision came out wrong (Harlan was right) and the majority had ulterior motives to dismiss... but I don't see where they made an additional requirement... lack of an adversary can easily be swallowed up in the ripeness or standing analysis.

I'm not saying that the case or controversy analysis is a rigid application that the supreme court will never adjust... I'm just saying that it didn't happen here.